|
U.S. SENATOR TED STEVENS (R-AK) HOLDS A HEARING ON THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE
(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 ]
|
INDUSTRIES
Activate Email 
