[November 21, 2005] U.S. SENATOR TED STEVENS (R-AK) HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE Tweet (Political Transcript Wire) U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE NOVEMBER 18, 2005 SPEAKERS: U.S. SENATOR TED STEVENS (R-AK) CHAIRMAN U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ) U.S. SENATOR CONRAD BURNS (R-MT) U.S. SENATOR TRENT LOTT (R-MS) U.S. SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-TX) U.S. SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE (R-ME) U.S. SENATOR GORDON SMITH (R-OR) U.S. SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN (R-NV) U.S. SENATOR GEORGE ALLEN (R-VA) U.S. SENATOR JOHN E. SUNUNU (R-NH) U.S. SENATOR JIM DEMINT (R-SC) U.S. SENATOR DAVID VITTER (R-LA) U.S. SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE (D-HI) CO-CHAIRMAN U.S. SENATOR JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV (D-WV) U.S. SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (D-MA) U.S. SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN (D-ND) U.S. SENATOR BARBARA BOXER (D-CA) U.S. SENATOR BILL NELSON (D-FL) U.S. SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA) U.S. SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG (D-NJ) U.S. SENATOR BEN NELSON (D-NE) U.S. SENATOR MARK PRYOR (D-AR) WITNESSES: PETER AGRE, VICE CHANCELLOR FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, PROFESSOR OF CELL BIOLOGY AND PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE, DUKE UNIVERSITY ERIC CORNELL, SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, COMMERCE DEPARTMENT AND THE JOINT INSTITUTE FOR LABORATORY ASTROPHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO JAMES HEATH, ELIZABETH GILLOON PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SAMUEL TING, THOMAS DUDLEY CABOT PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY [*] STEVENS: My apologies. It's a strange morning over there on the floor. And I'm hopeful that some of our colleagues will join us for the information of our guests and witnesses. We've had a little confrontation on the conference report on the Patriot Act, and also on being able to get the continued resolution passed, which must be passed today and get to the president today. He happens to be overseas, so it's a very interesting problem. But let me thank you all for coming. Through the years, we've been amazed by the results of our nation's scientific research. And because of these advancements, the United States has been able to capture and maintain its leadership position in science and technology. Our history clearly demonstrates our reliance on science. It will undoubtedly serve as the basis for our future growth and success. I'm really pleased to be able to discuss research, technology innovation, and education as the pillars of success for the 21st century with these distinguished gentlemen who are at the table. Dr. Peter Agre, vice chancellor for science and technology, professor of cell biology, professor of medicine, at Duke University. Dr. Agre received the 2003 Noble Prize in Chemistry for his work for his discoveries concerning channels in cell membranes. Dr. Eric Cornell, senior scientist, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Dr. Cornell received the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics for his research leading to the landmark 1995 creation of the Bose- Einstein condensate and early studies of its properties. Dr. James R. Heath, Elizabeth Gilloon Professor of Chemistry of California Institute of Technology was named by Scientific American as one of its "Top 50 Visionaries" for his research on fabricating, assembling and utilizing nano-computers. Dr. Samuel C.C. Ting, Thomas Dudley Cabot Professor of Physics at MIT. Dr. Ting received in 1976 the Nobel Prize in physics for his discovery of the charmed quark, one of nature's basic building blocks. I do thank you for coming. I regret that this is the day it's happened, when we have so much going on out there that is so controversial. And we were in last night -- left the floor last night at midnight. So I don't know how soon my colleagues will join us. I do know, however, that you are on national television, and you're not only speaking to us, but you're speaking to the country. So I appreciate you coming to testify today. I would hope that your comments will lead us to be actionary rather than reactionary in the fields that you represent. And I not only look forward to your testimony, but I look forward to Jim Heath joining me to fish here in Alaska again soon, and you're all invited sometime. So let me turn first to you, Dr. Agre, AGRE: Good morning, Senator Stevens, staff members, and guests. It's a pleasure to be here to discuss the future of science. And although I have notes, and these are distributed, I'd like to make my comments informal. I have no crystal ball... STEVENS: Whatever you all want to print in the record we'll print. I'd be delighted to have you make the comments that you wish, just to hear and understand, and the audience out there to understand too, Doctor. AGRE: Yes, sir. Thank you. My laboratory was recognized for the discovery of how water is organized in biology. Water is often described as the "solvent of life." Our bodies are about 70 percent water. This is shared by all life forms. Without water there is no life. The organized distribution of water is something that goes on all of the time. We never think about it. While we're sitting here, our brains are being coated with spinal fluid and our eyes are being filled with aqueous humor. Water is being released into tears, sweat, saliva and bile. Our kidneys are concentrating urine. The trees outside are taking up water from the ground. It may be surprising at this late date in science that the discovery of how water is moved in biological tissues is a very recent discovery. This emerged from a discovery made in our laboratory 14 years ago. It deals with a family of proteins which we've termed the aquaporins. These are the water-channel proteins that cause water to enter cells and leave cells. The discovery itself was a sheer serendipitous observation. We were pursuing another project, but it has now led to potential clinical advances. These aquaporins are involved in many important disease states. Aquaporin-0 defects cause cataracts. Aquaporin-1 and aquaporin-2 are how our kidneys can concentrate. And I think anybody who had a venti latte at Starbucks at the station this morning by the end of this hearing is going to feel a sensation of fullness in his bladder. That's aquaporin-2 at work. Aquaporin-3 is important for the integrity of our skin. Beauty products are now being marketed because of the induction of this protein. Aquaporin-4 in the brain is very important. Oftentimes, individuals sustaining a stroke or a brain tumor die of the brain edema mediated by aquaporin-4. Aquaporin-5 is important in the secretion of sweat, tears, saliva, protecting us from corneal abrasions, corneal injuries, dental caries and heat prostration. Aquaporin-7 and aquaporin-9 are involved in the defense against starvation and also lead to obesity. Aquaporins in plants can be manipulated to increase drought tolerance. So these are all discoveries that have flown from a very simple serendipitous observation in a small laboratory. Now I'd like to comment. You've invited us to share our perspectives, and I thought an important perspective on how I got into science is my background. I'm a regular American citizen. I grew up out in Minnesota. My mother and dad were the offspring of Norwegian farmers who settled in South Dakota. They did one thing very special with my five brothers and sisters and I: They read to us every night from the Bible, from the great books, from popular scientific texts. Also, my siblings and I all went to public schools out in Minnesota. And we were very, very fond of our teachers. They played important roles in the community. They were highly respected in the community. And they made what was otherwise boring textbook information quite interesting by bringing it to our lives. On the playground during the 100-yard dash, we would then go back to the classroom to calculate our speed. We'd be taken on nature walks, taught optics -- how we can create heat from light. Of course, as kids, we would sometimes misuse this information, using the magnifying glasses to incinerate ants, or the little electrical circuits to shock each other. But hey, we were kids, and that's science. My own career pathway towards science was indirect. I did not choose to become a scientist because of scientific excitement per se, but because I wanted to be a medical doctor. And as a medical student at Johns Hopkins, I was pursuing a research project in a basic science laboratory to uncover the basis of infectious diarrhea in the New World -- the Turistas -- not a very attractive disease topic, but one that's of great clinical significance. And while working in this lab, I had the opportunity to work alongside really exciting scientists who'd come from all over the world. We had Israelis and a Palestinian, we had Chinese and a Filipino, we had an anti-Francoist Spaniard with a debonair cosmopolitan Italian. And everybody worked together and became the best of friends. We've maintained these collegialities ever since. Now, that was a U.S. taxpayer-funded research laboratory. There was no drug development or private money involved whatsoever. I would like to touch briefly on a few issues related to U.S. science. First, I'd like to mention that I think the prominence which U.S. science has had for a long time is not guaranteed in the future. My own laboratory has been free to collaborate with scientists within the U.S., but we've oftentimes gone outside of the U.S. in order to collaborate with the scientists with the best state-of-the-art technologies. We've solved the localization of the aquaporin proteins and tissues working together with scientists in Norway and Denmark. We've solved the atomic structure of the molecule working together with scientists in Switzerland and Japan. And we did this, again, only because they were the best in the world. Now, the U.S. government funding for science has been generous. It also comes with a fair degree of freedom. When an individual makes a discovery, he or she can then focus on that discovery, explore it further even though it doesn't conform to the original plan. This is not possible in many pharmaceutical companies, where business plans dictate what individuals can do. I fear that restrictions on the freedom to explore new and unexpected discoveries may dampen the quality of science in the United States. I also fear that the funding for science at this time of the huge budget deficit is in jeopardy. And I'd just like to say that the reductions in funding may be cyclical, and we could look maybe 36 months from now that we'll recover. When young scientists are coming through their training, they can't wait. Oftentimes, they have families to support. They need to get funded and get going. And the young scientists under age 40 are the sources of our best and freshest ideas. I think this is particularly true for scientists trained in clinical medicine, who often will spend up to 10 years getting clinical training in addition to the science. They're at a point in their careers where they must either get funded or they'll be forced into strictly clinical activities, where they will make no basic discoveries. And these are the discoveries that come quickly to the patient's bedside. Another issue I'd like to just introduce is the dependence of the U.S. on non-U.S. scientists. Much of the outstanding research in the United States for the last decades has been done by scientists who've come here from overseas. These individuals don't just work in laboratories in, kind of, low-brow positions. They oftentimes rise to the very top of American bioscience. Elias Zerhouni came here from Algeria and is now the director of the National Institutes of Health. My boss, Victor Dzau, born in Shanghai, is now the chancellor for the Duke University Health System. Chi Van Dang, who came from Vietnam, is the vice dean for research at Johns Hopkins. Federo Contracostas (ph), with whom I worked as a student, came here from Colombia, South America, and became the vice president of Parke-Davis Pharmaceuticals. The entry of non-U.S. scientists is now declining, and there are multiple reasons -- visa restrictions and the like. There is also, I fear, a factor that is not widely recognized in the United States, and that is how the United States on occasion -- rare occasions, like other countries in the world -- mistreats scientists. In the news just recently was again a reanalysis of the case of Wen Ho Lee. A Taiwanese-born computer scientist suspected of spying for the People's Republic of China was held in solitary confinement for one year, shackled hand-to-foot and threatened repeatedly with execution if he did not confess. An independent review of the charges resulted in the dropping of the charges. This occurred during Janet Reno's tenure as attorney general of the United States. Most recently, Thomas Butler, a very well-known infectious- disease expert, was arrested from his laboratory in Texas Tech University when plague bacillus samples disappeared from his lab. When the FBI investigated suspecting bioterrorism, they found no evidence of this, but he was hounded and charged with 69 federal felony charges. Eventually cleared of all serious issues related to bioterrorism but convicted on some minor issues related to the budget use in Africa, he's now in prison in Texas. The word of what these individuals face, I think, is widely recognized. The colleagues of these individuals outside of the U.S., I think, are concerned with the atmosphere and the attitudes towards American scientists. I'd like to touch just briefly on a couple of more issues. I think the visibility of scientists in U.S. society is something I worry about. Our founding fathers included scientists -- Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush. Even during my childhood, we were able to see scientists on the network, on the wonderful Disney show. And I think probably some people here in the audience that are my age may remember these shows. Wernher von Braun talked to the children about rocketry. Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg discussed the chemical chain reaction with a demonstration so vibrant anybody who saw that show will never forget it. He had a mouse trap with a ping-pong ball -- the trap goes off, the ball flies. Then he took the cameras into a room where the floor was covered with mouse traps and ping-pong balls. He threw a ball over his shoulder. Suddenly two balls were in the air, four balls in the air, and within seconds the entire room was a cloud of ping-pong balls and mouse traps flying. The visibility, I think, is very important to raise the awareness of the American public towards the values of science. And some of the trends that we see now in the popular media are very concerning. Four hundred years after the time of Galileo, 20 percent of Americans still believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. I'm told that half of Americans believe cavemen and dinosaurs coexisted -- apparently because they saw it on the Flintstones. Our schoolchildren consistently are behind children from East Asia and often behind the schoolchildren from Eastern Europe. I think this has something to do with the general anti-intellectual climate in the United States and the failure of more than half of American citizens to read a single book in a given year. So I'd like to close with just a few final words. Louis Pasteur said that "Chance favors the prepared mind." Having been raised in the post-Sputnik era myself, I feel fortunate to have benefited from a high-quality public school education and subsequently as a researcher funded entirely by the U.S. taxpayer. There are a few words that I'll read from the end of the banquet speech that I gave in Stockholm two years ago. I say: "Our single greatest defense against scientific ignorance is education, and early in the life of every scientist, the child's first interest was sparked by a teacher." Then I enjoined the audience to "Join me in applauding the individuals that foster the scientific competence of our society and are the heroes behind past, present, and future Nobel Prizes -- the men and women who teach science to children in our schools." Thank you. STEVENS: Thank you, Doctor. I just wish more of my colleagues were here to hear that. Dr. Cornell? CORNELL: Chairman Stevens and members of the committee, allow me briefly to introduce myself. My name is Eric Cornell. I work for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, in the Department of Commerce. In 1992, I set out at NIST to make the world's coldest gas. I won't use the Committee's time to ramble on about my favorite topic, which is the physics of the ultra-cold. Suffice it to say that when you chill a gas down to within a millionth of a degree of absolute zero, the atoms in the gas all merge together to form one super-atom, which is called a Bose-Einstein condensate, a new state of matter. And it was for this achievement that I shared in winning the 2001 Nobel Prize. What has Bose-Einstein condensation been good for? One example is that it is being used in an effort to develop a new generation of sensitive accelerometers to be used for remote sensing and for navigation by dead reckoning, as they do in nuclear submarines. In the long run, Bose-Einstein condensation is likely to be more important because of its role as a scientific building block -- as a tool to help us understand and tame quantum mechanics. There are many examples of how taming quantum mechanics may make a big difference to our country in the coming couple of decades. We'll probably hear a little bit about nanotechnology from Dr. Heath, but I'll tell you about one idea called quantum computing. Quantum computing is one of the most amazing concepts, in my opinion, to come out of the 1990s. Inside a computer, there are millions of tiny switches called bits that can be either on or off, one or zero. And these bits are the memory of the computer, and the bits are what a computer uses to make calculations. A quantum computer would have "quantum bits." And the magic of a quantum bit is that, unlike a conventional bit, it can be simultaneously both on and off, both one and zero. It's a little spooky how that happens, and I'm not going to get into the math. The power of this possibility comes in when you start stringing many quantum bits together. If you had 60 ordinary computer bits all in a row -- 60 ones and zeros -- you could represent any number between one and about a quadrillion. With 60 quantum bits in a row, with each bit being both on and off at the same time, you can simultaneously represent every number between one and a quadrillion. Why would you want to do that? A computational problem which is extremely important to our national security and our economy is this problem of breaking very, very large numbers up into their prime factors. Prime factors are at the heart of modern cryptography systems and modern cryptography makes possible secure military and diplomatic communications. And it is also secure electronic transactions that are at the heart of our banking and finance systems. If this system of cryptography is threatened, it could cripple our economy in days or hours. So here's where the quantum computing comes in. Suppose you're a cryptographer and you want to know -- for code-breaking reasons -- the two numbers that multiply together to make up some very large number near 1 quadrillion. You want to know its prime factors. One way you could do that is to take every number from one to a quadrillion, and try to divide it into your huge number. And the ones that go in evenly -- those are the prime factors. But even for a very, very fast computer -- a modern supercomputer -- it takes a long time to do 1 quadrillion divisions. That's why codes are secure. But imagine instead that you had a quantum computer, and you had quantum bits. What you do is you take your 60 quantum bits, which simultaneously represent every number between one and 1 quadrillion. And you use your quantum computer to divide your quantum number into this huge number you are trying to factor. In a single computational process, you can find out which of those quadrillion numbers divide in evenly. And so you can find the prime factors of your huge number maybe billions of times faster than you might be able to with a conventional computer, even a really fast one. The implications for secure communications and secure economic transactions are profound. In biotechnology, quantum computing could find applications to really tough computing problems, like solving the problem of protein folding in order to design a new generation of pharmaceuticals. None of this is going to happen next week. We have no working quantum computer now, and don't count on there being one even in fiscal year 2007. The scientific and technical challenges associated with constructing quantum bits and stringing them together into an integrated quantum computer are immense. But I really think we need to try. And why is it important that the U.S. conduct this and related research into quantum mechanics? As with any really cool problem, human nature dictates that there will always be curious people trying to come up with a solution. And quantum physics is no different. Teams from around the globe are laying the foundation for quantum computing now. If the U.S. heads for the sidelines, then we will watch others make profound discoveries that will ultimately improve the competitiveness of their industries and their quality of life. I wish I could tell you what will be the big new industry of 2020. And with respect, Senator, if I knew what would be the big new industry of 2020, instead of testifying here, I'd be starting my own venture-capital firm. I don't know what it's going to be. No one knows what's going to be the big new industrial idea of 2020, and that is why scientific research and discovery is so important. Without knowing for sure what the next big thing will be, we can remain cautiously optimistic that the next big thing, whatever it is, will be an American thing. We can be optimistic because over the last 50 years, as the American economy has benefited from many cycles of technology that emerges and subsides, one thing that hasn't changed has been America's lead in science and technology. But we have to be cautious, because while our lead in science has remained in place for 50 years, the next 50 years are no sure thing. I think we should try and protect our lead. And I thank you, Senator, for allowing me to testify before you today. And I'll be happy to take questions later on. STEVENS: Thank you. We've been joined by Senator Hutchison. Do you have any comments to make, Kay? HUTCHISON: Let me say thank you. Thank you for holding this hearing. I am chairman of the Space and Science Subcommittee of this committee. And I have been very concerned that we are not doing enough in our basic education -- K-12 -- to assure that we have prepared great minds for our universities to go into science and engineering and also be the leaders in this field in the future. We are, I think, wise to take a very careful look at our situation and not think that because we're America, we will always be the best -- because there are many other countries that are now putting more investments into education, into research. And I have been very active in promoting research in my state with members of our national academies of science, engineering and the Institute of Medicine. So I welcome this. I intend, in my subcommittee, to start looking at the National Science Foundation and what they are doing, and how we can make sure that they have the resources they need to go forward in the future and not only prepare our students, but direct the research that must be done for us to stay in the forefront. And I think what we have done with NIH -- doubling the research capabilities of NIH -- was a good thing that Congress did. And I think we need to start looking at the National Science Foundation for a real upgrade in their resources that we give them. So I thank you for coming and testifying. I intend to look at the record -- I was a little late -- but I intend to look at your statements and welcome hearing from you and learning everything that you can tell us about what we can do to prepare our students and maintain our superiority in research in our institutions of higher education. Thank you. STEVENS: Thank you. It's nice to see you here. Our next witness is Dr. James Heath from the California Institute of Technology... HEATH: Senator Stevens... STEVENS: ...And in Alaska just recently. HEATH: And a fisherman, that's right, at least as of now. Senator Stevens and Senator Hutchison, it's a pleasure to be here today to give you my thoughts on the future of science with some perspectives from my own research. For nearly a century now, the U.S. has been in the lead in developing science and technology. And we've done that by choosing hard problems, funding fundamental science at a level that lets it develop and nurture to build a foundation for technologies, and then by getting out of the way and letting free enterprise take over when the time is right. A case in point is the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which has received significant support over the past several years from Congress. The NNI took a fledgling but very promising field and provided the resources to develop the foundation of that field. That investment will definitely pay off, and nanotech is now impacting industries ranging from information technology to health care. That impact will dramatically increase over the next several years, and I believe the U.S. will be in the lead in most areas, largely because of the NNI initiative. It takes time -- I can tell you from my own research. One of the early discoveries in nanotech was something I did in my thesis work, the discovery of C60 and the Fullerenes, which then led to things like carbon nanotubes, which led to things like nanowires, et cetera. And if you look now, it's just very early-stage commercial ventures that are beginning to come out of that. And that's about a 20-year timeline. Even with all of our resources and technology infrastructure, it's hard to beat that timeline. As I look into the future, there are a number of major scientific challenges that are looming. But I believe at the head of that list is energy. And this is because energy consumption is the only consumable that directly tracks standard of living. The global energy consumption at the moment is in excess of 200 million barrels of oil per day, and that demand will likely double by 2050. Where is that energy going to come from? I don't think we have a solution to fossil fuels, and so we'll have to look at alternative energy sources. My mentor, the late Nobel laureate Rick Smalley, called this the terawatt problem. One terawatt equals 15 million barrels of oil, and what Rick meant was that any pathway that we take has to yield large energy dividends to be worthwhile. I personally believe that solar energy is the only viable long- term solution. For example, 175,000 terawatts of solar energy impinge upon the Earth every day. And we need to collect about 0.03 percent of that to solve the problem by 2050. However, there's obviously many other pathways in the other alternative energy sources. But regardless of which pathway or pathways we take, the fundamental scientific challenges behind collecting, storing and distributing energy are pretty tough. Scientifically speaking, there's no low apples on this tree. Even if Congress decided to act now, U.S. scientists and engineers are going to have their work cut out for them if they're going to solve this problem in time. A second closely related challenge that we face involves getting our children engaged in science. And I'm going to echo my colleagues and Senator Hutchison's comments here. The World War II and Sputnik generations of American scientists largely developed the foundation of many of the things that are in our U.S. economy today, such as our biomedical industry, chemical industries and information technologies. The nanotech and biotech revolutions, which are happening now, are largely being developed on the shoulders of people that come here to get their Ph.D.s for graduate school. As my colleague, and a well-known nanotechnology researcher at Hewlett-Packard, Stan Williams, states, everybody in his lab over 40 years old is American-born; everybody under 40 is Asian-born. China in particular has constructed several state-of-the-art universities, and they're continuing to do so. And they are currently producing many more scientists and engineers than we are. Asian countries in general are increasingly able to attract back their scientists and engineers by providing them with attractive laboratories, attractive resources and exciting opportunities. In addition, the need of the Asian countries to meet the terawatt challenge has become increasingly acute, and necessity is the mother of invention. If the U.S. is to maintain its competitive advantages as we move towards solving the technical problems of the 21st century, we have to take bold steps now to solve the underlying scientific and engineering challenges. And we also have to take steps to encouraging our children to take part in this future by becoming, basically, the developers of the future and taking fields in science and engineering. Thank you. STEVENS: Thank you very much, Dr. Heath. Last witness is Professor Samuel C.C. Ting of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Ting? TING: (OFF-MIKE) Good morning, Senator Stevens and Senator Hutchison. I'm Samuel Ting from MIT. I was born in Michigan and graduated from the University of Michigan. I've been doing experimental physics all my life and have always led large international collaborations in accelerator laboratories in the United States and Europe, on the space shuttle and in the future on the space station. When I first started, I worked in Hamburg, Germany, and then I returned to the United States and then worked in Hamburg again. And then for 20 years I worked in the largest accelerator in the world, the 16-mile circumference Large Electron-Positron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland. In the last 10 years, I've been working closely with Johnson Space Center on the space shuttle and in future on the space station. When I first started, my group had 10 physicists. Now, there are 600. When I first started doing experiments, the experiments cost $100,000. In the last experiment, they are now $1 billion, involving 16 countries. What I would like to call to your attention is the importance of fundamental science on the International Space Station, a subject often not mentioned in the United States. Let me present in a very simple way. In space, there are two types of cosmic rays. One type has no charge -- light rays. Light rays have been studied by satellites. The Hubble Telescope is an example. Over the last 40 years, four Nobel Prizes have been given for study of light rays. But beside light rays, there are particles that carry a charge. No matter how large an accelerator you make, you can never make higher energy than the cosmos. So study of the cosmos will probe the foundations of modern physics. So for 10 years, I've led an experiment to put a mechanized device like the ones for building accelerators on the space station. The space station, because of its size and power, is the only way to do such experiments. (UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE) Why is the space station the only place... TING: Because it supports large weight and high power. Because it provides enormous amounts of electric power, and because it can stand the weight. So working with me, there are 16 countries on this experiment. I think Senator Hutchison will be pleased to know they are in the United States at Johnson Space Center, MIT, Yale, and then nearly all the countries in Europe, in Russia, in China, in Taiwan and Korea. In total there are 16 countries, 500 physicists. In 10 years, a total of about $1.2 billion has been spent, mostly from European countries. And perhaps because of this, this experiment is seldom known in the United States, and most of the cost is borne by the Europeans. To do such experiments, you develop enormous amounts of new technology for exploration. A superconductor magnet is one which provides a way to protect astronauts on the way to Mars and to the moon. A precision silicon detector is one, and these types of detectors provide unheard-of resolution to identify particles. And these are mostly done through a national effort in Switzerland and Italy. So the experiment from the 16 countries is completed after spending $1.2 billion, and now is being assembled in Europe. What is the physics? One of the physics is to search for the universe made out of antimatter. What is antimatter? You know there is an electron, and if you go to a hospital you have a PET scan, called positron tomography. The positron is the antimatter of the electron. If the universe has come from a big bang, before the big bang it is a vacuum. So right at the beginning of the big bang, if there is matter there must be antimatter to balance it off. Now the universe is 15 billion years old, and so we ask a simple question: Where is the universe made out of antimatter? If it came from a big bang, there must be a universe made out of antimatter. The physics of antimatter probes the foundations of modern physics and it is the main research topic for the next generation of accelerators worldwide. So the space station -- many people discuss the space station. Very few people in the United States discuss how important it is for the space station to address the fundamental issues of science. Because no matter how much money is spent on Earth, you're never going to build a larger accelerator than what you could do on the space station. I have two things I would like to call to your attention. The first is the importance of U.S. participation in international collaboration. My last two experiments each cost more than $1 billion. For their size and cost, a modern physics experiment for accelerators and space make it mandatory to seek international collaboration. Rather than competing, it's much more efficient to collaborate together toward a common goal. My second observation is the importance of the U.S. maintaining its international commitment. The cancellation of a project located in Waxahachie -- the Superconducting Super Collider -- had a devastating effect on the U.S. science community, shifting the focus of particle physics research to Europe and Japan. By the end of the decade, more than half of the U.S. high-energy physicists will be working in Europe and Japan unless we make an effort to build the next accelerator in the United States. Another thing which is also ignored is the potential breakthrough in science by the next generation of space experiments that's managed by Johnson Space Center. The JDEM, GLAST and AMS must not become the victims of expediency. These experiments are international collaborations led by United States physicists with major foreign support. It is important NASA be strongly supported to honor its international commitment and to maintain its credibility. But most important, the space station is a visible symbol of American commitment to science and to international collaboration and it is a vital part of our national legacy of exploration and excellence. And I thank you for your attention. STEVENS: It's staggering, really. I have in mind taking your speech and repeating it on the floor of the Senate one of these days, Dr. Ting, I'm really grateful to you for coming. This week we've had a visit from the group that was working with Norman Augustine, who used to be the head of Lockheed Martin and is on the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. And they have brought to us a report now that's being distributed to every member of the Congress. I don't know if you're familiar with it. It's called "Rising Above the Gathering Storm." It is a very important, I think, presentation, and calls upon Congress to respond to the same points that you are making here, only yours are more of a scientific approach. This is an approach for basic inspiration to do something about the underlying problem of the education of our people. It points out, for instance, that we are in a very difficult situation with regard to our educational process -- because, for instance, in 2004, China graduated 500,000 engineers, India 200,000, and America 70,000. And it has a whole series of presentations to us about the necessity to rekindle the support of the federal government for basic education for scientists. Of course, you go beyond that, and that is basic support for scientists once they're trained. And I think that cause needs to be very highly articulated also. The difficulty that we have is that we seem to be losing our willingness to support the educational process as we have in the past. And I think we will have to reassess our current approach to education if we're going to meet the challenge that they have given us. They've had two key challenges to us to deal with: beginning a new approach to education from kindergarten to the 12th grade, and then beyond that, the concept of higher education to respond to our needs for the future. I don't know if you all have seen this report. If you haven't, we'll be glad to get it for you. But I'm very impressed with your presentation here. Can you tell us, where do you get your financing for the research you're doing now? Dr. Agre? AGRE: Our laboratory was entirely funded by the American taxpayer in the form of NIH grants. As a student, I was able to stay in the laboratory after graduation, delaying my internship support from the U.S. taxpayer in the form of an NIH training grant. And for most of my colleagues, the support is entirely from the U.S. taxpayers. That includes most of the salaries of the individuals. STEVENS: Dr. Cornell? CORNELL: The support in my lab comes mainly from the National Institute of Standards and Technology and from the National Science Foundation and a small amount of seed money from a private citizen in the state of Colorado. STEVENS: Dr. Heath? HEATH: I direct a cancer center that is aimed at translating nanotechnologies to clinical applications, and that's funded by the NCI. And I also get a significant amount of funding from the DOD and about 10 percent from private enterprise. STEVENS: And Dr. Ting? TING: I'm quite expensive. (LAUGHTER) Throughout my career, I've been supported by the United States Department of Energy, by MIT and also by Johnson Space Center. But the vast majority of my support comes from Europe -- from Germany, from Switzerland, from France, from Italy and from Russia. My experiment was the largest overseas investment from Russia, from China, from Taiwan and from many, many countries. Even though the foreign countries provide the vast majority of the support, because these experiments were proposed by me and executed by me, they are known as U.S. experiments. STEVENS: This report shows the cost of one chemist or one engineer in the United States as compared to other countries. A company can hire for one chemist here, five chemists in China -- or 11 engineers in India for one engineer in the U.S. One of our problems is the level of our lifestyle and the level of our cost base. What's your answer to that? How can we compete if that is the case, when the foreign people are turning out so many more engineers and scientists than we are? In effect, Dr. Ting, you're getting, as they would say, a bigger bang for the buck over there, aren't you? We have a problem of cost here at home in competing as well as the education of our people. Am I right? TING: Yes. Senator, I can answer in the following way why this field of high-energy physics, which used to be totally dominated by the United States now is dominated by Europe and Japan. It is because the research discoveries from this field often make quantum jumps in technology. A hundred years ago, high-energy physics was the discovery of the electron. In the 1920s, it was the atom. In the '40s, it was nuclear. And this, even though a dark hand (ph) with fundamental research now has completely changed our lives. And it is because of that that countries like Germany, like Japan and like Switzerland invest so much in this field. I think that's the way I can address this to you, sir. CORNELL: Senator? STEVENS: Yes, sir, Dr. Cornell? CORNELL: Could I address that question? I think it's important to look historically. We used to do a lot of injection plastic molding here. Now it's done in the Philippines. And it's true that your basic unit of chemist is going to be cheaper in India than it is going to be here. I think the strategy we should adopt as a country has been what we've always done, which is to define the cutting edge to be ours. And we continue to have that, although in terms of raw chemist per dollar, it's cheaper in India. In terms of raw internationally leading chemists per dollar, we remain almost really the place to go, the place where Indians and Chinese and so on come if they want to get research education in the very, very highest end. It's still here in the United States. And that, I think, is where we preserve our lead, sort of, in the high- quality niche market of science, if you like. STEVENS: We also have figures from this study about the number of foreign students that are in our own universities. The majority of them are from foreign countries and are returning to their countries now. In the past, there was an incentive to stay here. Now, there seems to be an incentive for them to get their education here and go back to their countries or other countries where there are centers of research such as Dr. Ting has outlined. What would be your suggestions on how to deal with that, as far as Congress is concerned? CORNELL: The international students who come here and then choose to remain represent a vast influx injection of human capital into the United States. It's a marvelous resource, and we should do what we can to hold on to these people. And in particular, I think we should make sure that they feel welcome here -- avoid getting them tangled in, for instance, INS red tape unnecessarily. STEVENS: They should all come and go fishing with us. Jim knows I go from the esoteric to the sublime and talk about why we're sending all our money overseas for oil and natural gas and not having the development money that comes from those two by developing our own resources. We currently send out of our country more of our own gross national product for energy than any other nation in the world. And as a consequence, our money goes over there, we have to sell our goods cheaper, we have to export our scientists. We don't have the economic base we used to have because we refuse to develop energy here at home. Jim and I are going to have that conversation again this summer, I hope. But sometime we have to find a way to deal with it. Senator Hutchison? HUTCHISON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As chairman of the NASA part of our committee, I can tell you that I am fighting so hard to keep the space station and make it a vehicle for scientific research. Today, right now, Michael Griffin tells me that the only research that they can afford to do in the NASA budget is directly related to living in space and the effects of space life on the body. That's basically what he's saying. Now, we're in the process of passing a new authorization bill for NASA. And in that bill, we have introduced the concept of putting a national laboratory designation on the space station. The reason I did that is because I am trying to get money from other sources to assure that we don't eat our seed corn. You have made, Dr. Ting, the best speech I have ever heard on this subject, and I'm going to send it to Michael Griffin. And Michael Griffin agrees with us, let me say. But what Michael Griffin is trying to do is save our space exploration project, the whole NASA program. And he is trying to put the shrinking dollars that he is getting into the areas that we must have. So I'm not critical of him. But I am looking for creativity to assure that we don't shrink the space station and the scientific part of the NASA operation to the point that we might as well throw it away, because if we're going to do it halfway, we will do nothing. So I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. First, do you think the concept of a national laboratory designation -- where we can get both private money and university money in addition to NASA money -- is a viable alternative for saving the space station for real scientific research? Let me just finish and ask you to answer that, and then I have another line of questioning if the chairman will indulge. TING: Thank you, Senator. I've worked for many years with NASA. It is a good organization, and I had a very good experience working with them. Exploration, of course, is very important. Like you said, once you spend close to $100 billion to build a space station, if you don't use its potential to make fundamental discoveries in science, just like you said, it's a total waste. And so, to have a national laboratory is extremely important. I only want to submit to you -- I know Europeans and Asians are very, very interested in working on the space station. So you may want to take this into consideration maybe to invite the Europeans, our allies from Europe, to work -- even the French want to work on this space station. It's a fact that is seldom brought up in the United States. What is the fundamental science and physical science you can do? It's because you have left the atmosphere and you have the highest energy particles, and you can never produce an accelerator underground to create the conditions of cosmos. It's a unique fact. Thank you, Senator. HUTCHISON: Dr. Ting, let me just ask you or anyone on the panel. Do you have any other creative ideas about ways that we could promote that science research on the space station in the shrinking budget environment in which we find ourselves? Other than, of course, increasing the money and making it a priority, which is what we will try to do in my national lab proposal? But is there anything else that you would suggest? TING: If you'll allow me Senator, money of course is important. But to make it known, scientists from Europe and scientists from Asia, once they made a proposal to carry out an experiment on the space station, and they're not under the sweat, suddenly their experiment will be canceled. The major difference between being in this field between Europe and the United States is the following. In Europe, once a satellite project is approved, it's normally carried to the end. In the United States, the accelerators, i.e., space projects -- often halfway through, they are canceled. The cancellation of SSC, of ISABELLE, which I mentioned, make the Europeans somewhat hesitating how to commit themselves to this. HUTCHISON: First of all, I so appreciate what you said about -- rather than competing, that really America should be into collaboration, for one thing, because science budgets are limited, probably, everywhere. And we can do better if we cooperate. It is my view that America will stay on top. We are on top. We can stay on top if we collaborate. I think if we go down into the "we're only competitive" trenches, that we will start losing. And I appreciate the point that you made about that. And I think that we have to be the leader and act like the leader and continue to move forward with collaboration. We will grow from that, as well as others growing with us. So I appreciate that. And I think it is appropriate as we talk about the space station and how we make sure that it is worthwhile. Let me move to one other point, and then there are others here who want to speak, I'm sure. Talking about the Superconducting Super Collider, I thought it was the biggest mistake Congress ever made. I never, ever thought the Congress would really go through with something that had started and was actually halfway there. And I think it wasn't even penny-wise, much less pound-foolish. But you have said that you think we could still build the next generation of accelerator if we make that commitment. But you've also said that we have more energy sources in space for that type of experiment than you could ever reproduce in the ground. So could we use the International Space Station as our accelerator substitute, since we did lose the SSC, and can we have the same kinds of discoveries and information from that in lieu of going for the next accelerator? TING: Senator, you ask some very penetrating questions. In space, you produce the highest-energy accelerator, but intensity is low. And so you need a very large detector. Underground, you can choose an electron and a positron and let them collide. You make more of a selection, and so you do a different type of physics. The United States Department of Energy has an intensive study to do the next-generation linear collider. It's 100 miles long, electrons and positrons collide. And the cost of this, I don't know how to say it, but it's almost the same as the space station. I think it is just too important -- this type of collider. Now there's a huge international competition whether it's going to be in Japan, whether it's going to be in Geneva or whether it's going to be in Hamburg. And I think for the United States, it is very important it is to be located in the United States. HUTCHISON: Mr. Chairman, could I just finish with one last question? And that is: What would be the timetable that we would have to set in place for America to compete for the next generation of supercollider? And also, when is it necessary to go beyond what is in Geneva? TING: The Y (ph) in Geneva was found operating in 10 years. And the next generation collider, because of the technology, you have to develop enormous amounts of new technology. On the order of 10 years, I would think. To address your first question, Senator, about the space station: Nobody has measured accurately what is in space with charged particles -- high-energy ones. And space stations will provide the first accurate measurements to probe what is out there. And that is why it's so fascinating to so many Europeans and Asians working on this. And even though the experiment I present to you -- the cost is $1.2 billion -- mostly comes from Europe, but because it's done on the space station, will still be viewed as an American experiment. HUTCHISON: Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STEVENS: (OFF-MIKE) SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen, for your contribution this morning. A number of us were recently privileged to go to a dinner in which U.S. competitiveness in the world was the subject of table conversation. One of the points made to us is that our immigration laws, frankly, make it difficult to recruit the best and brightest from around the world. And then at the conclusion of the education, those who still do make it through the maze of laws appropriate to our current law are forced back home right away. The suggestion was made to us that part of our outreach to the world ought to have a focus on science and math, where we are beginning to lag behind other countries in terms of education and accomplishment. Is it your experience in academia that if we changed those laws to allow gifted people in science and math to come here, and then instead of requiring their return upon graduation, made it a path to citizenship, much more possible, even expedited -- that that would help us to stem the current loss we are suffering in the scientific community? Any of you can answer. HEATH: America in terms of science is still the land of opportunity. It's still the only place where -- and the one reason why we do OK, even though we have a terrible K-12, is that -- at any stage, someone can recover and decide they're going to become a scientist. And people from outside the country can come here and take an assistant professor job and set up their own lab at an age that is far younger than what happens in most Asian and European countries. And so we have a very attractive palette that we can use to attract these folks. In fact, if you look at most of the technology that's being developed now, I would argue that it's exactly those scientists that have come from overseas and come here and taken advantage of the opportunity that we have that are making those things happen. And we're beginning to see that reversed, because it's harder for people to come in. It's harder for people to stay. But if you made it easier, the benefit would be tremendous. SMITH: Would holding out expedited citizenship be an extra attraction? HEATH: Oh, absolutely. SMITH: Any of you have a comment? AGRE: I'd just like to agree with Dr. Heath, and expand a little bit. I think when excellent scientists train in the United States and do return to their countries, it's not always a loss. We have a U.S.- trained individual -- we have a friend for the rest of their career, that individual -- a friend of the United States in Japan and China and Germany. So I think to have a revolving door would be good. And I think the biggest problem with the decline and the entry of young scientists now is the recent problems after 9/11, when we had scientists who would come here and would have to go back and have a visa recertified and wait two months for an interview in a hotel or Tokyo or someplace. So I think it has been better in the past, but I think providing citizenship would be an excellent way of attracting wonderful people to the United States. And they're a very hardworking group. CORNELL: I'd just like to echo that. I think that's a terrific idea. (UNKNOWN): And if we did that, in your experience, could you put a percentage on how many would stay if they were permitted? Half of them? If there's the revolving door... (CROSSTALK) CORNELL: At least. SMITH: I agree with the revolving door, but on the other hand, if we're a melting pot, if we can make them Americans, and they bring all the gray matter into our country, do we start reversing the curve and heading up again? CORNELL: Yes. I'd say, again, half or more. I've seen a trained German guy -- citizenship didn't work out. It made me cry to think that he wanted to stay here, he would have been a boon to our economy. And this is exactly the kind of person we'd like to have as future Americans. HEATH: Just echoing that a little bit, I myself must get three or four postdoctoral applications a day from overseas. And so we have a great filter. We can pick out the really singular people to come here, and if half of them stay, that's a big boon. SMITH: Well, Mr. Chairman, as our congressional focus turns to immigration in the new year, I really think this ought to be a component of the new immigration laws that this committee ought to lead on and insist upon being included. Because I think that America has benefited from every race, every ethnicity from around the globe, and we ought to leave that door open to the best and brightest from all over the world for our future's sake. Thank you. (OFF-MIKE) I think what Dr. Ting is telling us is that we ought to find a way to attract the best and the brightest to our country and to insist on it still being a United States experiment. And that's what it is, because Dr. Ting heads it. There is the basic problem of financing, which is one that I'm too familiar with, having spent more than eight years as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The amount of funds available for discretionary spending is declining every year. And I don't know any way to make science an entitlement. You know, we have entitlements which automatically come out of the Treasury. Others are discretionary money. The competition for those funds increases drastically each year. But I again want to thank you very much. I again apologize for the time frame. We thought this would be the nicest day because we would be in a quiet session and have everybody just waiting for the continued resolution to come over. And we would be pleased to have a chance to listen to you gentlemen tell us about the role of your institutions and your background in meeting some of these basic problems we face. But I do intend to put your statements in the Congressional Record. And I also intend to ask you, Dr. Ting, if you'd give me a printout of that. I've never done it before, but I think I'll give your statement on the floor in full. You can't take these PowerPoints on the floor, but I can take printed charts to emphasize your points. TING: It would be an honor for me to do so. STEVENS: Very interesting. And Dr. Heath, gentlemen, I thank you very much for the suggestion that you could put together a group to come in and really give a reason to be more interested in what you're doing. And I appreciate very much your efforts. Dr. Agre, Dr. Cornell, Dr. Ting, we're grateful to you for taking the time. We'll see what we can do to fund some initiatives that might bring you back to help support those initiatives, and I'll keep in touch with you about it. BURNS: Can I ask a question? STEVENS: You certainly may. I didn't know whether you just came to listen, or talk. BURNS: Well, we all just get through life taking up space. I chaired Science and Technology in NASA on this committee. And it was very enlightening to me of what's going on in our world, and your contribution, and when Senator Smith mentioned the attraction this country has to people who want to do research and development work, and also to come and to learn and then go back home. I'll go back a little bit on my background -- I'm no tower of mental strength, I will tell you that. My father was a small farmer in the state of Missouri. And he was born in 1906 and died in 1992 at the age of 86. But he was convinced that he had lived the greatest span of years of the planet. Even though he was a small farmer, he said, "I have witnessed -- we have gone from a horseback to the moon in my span of years." And we had the technology, and we all got to watch it happen in the conclusion of when we walked on the moon. That's always had a lasting impression on me as just how great a free society can be when you allow the freedom to experiment, to probe the unknown, and the gain of knowledge. We operate around here with a single-bitted ax, and whenever we let those who have great talent do R&D here and then force them to go home, we are only using one bit of the ax, because it cuts both ways. If they decide they want to go home and do their work, that's a wonderful thing. We have a friend there, and his work continues, and we continue to be a society that gains from that. If they choose to stay here and do their work, we are doubly blessed by this talent. And I am like Senator Smith that we should look very seriously on how we look upon this community when we start doing our work that goes way beyond -- I know we were, the Supercollider, I was here when that all started. Dr. Ting probably remembers that, and very supportive of the idea. And we had a place in Montana for you all to come and work also assigned for that. When it didn't happen, I was very sad about that. But I, like the chairman here, appreciate you spending some time with this committee. And I'm sorry I didn't make it up until just a little while ago, because I have a very deep interest in this, because I more or less deal with our research and how do we feed and clothe all the people that inhabit this Earth. And we in America have a great ability to produce. And even when it filters down to my little Montana State University, where we do a lot of work in those lines, what you do gives us the platform of which we can really take that science, that work, and make it and apply it to everyday life for all of us. And all of us gain from that work. And that's the way I make that link. I think Montana State probably ranged in the top schools of attractions of grants and money. We do in R&D, and most of it has to do with how we feed and clothe ourselves -- the production of food and fiber. So I just want to thank you for coming up and sharing your thoughts with us. We need to do more of this. We don't do enough on the street, so to speak, but I'm kind of an on-the-street kind of a guy. I started out in a cattle camp a long time ago, making $135 a month and sleeping on the ground. We gathered cattle late one year and it snowed on us. And you roll out in the morning out of that bedroll and shake the snow off and put that old hat back on and climb back in the saddle for another day's ride. And all at once that romance of cowboy left me. And so I just want to express my appreciation here this morning, sharing your thoughts, and the material that you leave. And I thank you for your work, because you've given us a real platform, a real launching pad, with which we take what you do and apply it to the benefit of everybody who lives on the planet. Thank you very much. STEVENS: Thank you all very much. We have a vote going on right now, so we're going to have to recess. And I hoped the other senators might come before we're through, but with this vote started, that will not be the case. I do want to make a personal invitation to you -- unless we're off the record here -- but again, I do thank you again for coming in, for your testimony, and all of your statements will be printed in the record in full, and I look forward to getting a copy from Dr. Ting. Thank you all very much. END [ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]