Droitcour, J.

Larson, E.

Persons, Timothy

Vance, W.

English

TATuP – Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis

TA-METHODENTechnikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014  Seite 95TA-METHODENU.S. Technology Assessment: Forum on Nanomanufacturingby Timothy M. Persons, Judith A. Droitcour, Eric M. Larson, and Walter K. Vance, U.S. Government Accountability Office1The recent U.S. technology assessment of nano-manufacturing used an expert-stakeholder fo-rum as its central data source. This forum-based technology assessment (TA forum) was con-ducted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in response to a request from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technolo-gy, U.S. House of Representatives. Its purpose was to address the emergence of nanomanufac-turing, its future, and its implications for U.S. competitiveness, the environment, and human health – and to inform congressional policy-makers and others.The TA forum’s methodology included four main phases:1. prior to the forum, developing forward-look-ing nanomanufacturing industry profiles based primarily on interviews with experts;2. organizing and conducting the forum – that is, inviting 26 experts, external to GAO, and GAO’s Chief Scientist and Chief Economist to participate in the forum; developing the fo-rum agenda; sharing the industry profiles with forum participants (pre-forum); facilitating forum discussions; and transcribing results;3. after the forum, involving participants in de-veloping the main TA forum report (GAO 2014a), which GAO used as the basis for both a summary booklet (GAO 2014b) and con-gressional testimony (GAO 2014c); and4. distributing results to policymakers, interest-ed professionals and stakeholders, and the general public.2GAO’s TA forum on nanomanufacturing most closely resembles the expert-stakeholder partic-ipatory TA, which van Eijndhoven and van Est (2002, p. 211) define as a TA in which “experts or stakeholders become actively involved within the TA process”. They contrast this type of TA to both (1) the “classical TA” in which “only the researcher or expert is involved” and which produces a report “intended to provide […] neu-tral, factual input to decision-making” and (2) the “public participatory TA” in which citizens are given a role and a voice. As explained below, many of the experts who participated in the fo-rum were also stakeholders.1 Brief ResultsForum participants viewed nanomanufacturing as an emerging set of developments that will become a global megatrend – a technological revolution that is now in its formative phases but is expected to burgeon in the years ahead, bringing new opportunities, “disruptive inno-vation”,3 job creation, and diverse societal ben-efits. Forum participants and other experts said that the United States likely leads in nanotech-nology R&D today and in some areas of nano-manufacturing (for example, nanotherapeutic drug development and the design of semicon-ductor devices). However, they cautioned that the United States faces global-scale competi-tion and is struggling to compete in some in-dustry areas. Specific challenges to U.S. com-petitiveness in nanomanufacturing identified at the forum included: (1) a key U.S. funding/in-vestment gap in the middle stages of the manu-facturing-innovation process (see fig. 1) – a gap that in other countries, experts said, is generally not as significant or is being addressed; (2) the lack of a U.S. vision for a nanomanufacturing capability; (3) extensive prior U.S. offshoring in certain industries or U.S. loss of an industry,4 either of which (offshoring or loss) can make it difficult to establish new, widespread U.S. nanomanufacturing in affected industries; and (4) threats to U.S. intellectual property. A re-lated topic concerns lack of international stan-dards sufficient to effectively and efficiently conduct commerce or address environmental, health, and safety (EHS) issues.TA-METHODENSeite 96 Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 Forum participants suggested three approaches to enhancing U.S. nanomanufacturing competi-tiveness by indirectly or directly addressing the U.S. funding/investment gap and other issues:•	 strengthening U.S. innovation by updating current innovation-related policies and pro-grams,•	 promoting U.S. innovation in manufacturing through public-private partnerships, and•	 designing a strategy for attaining a holistic vi-sion for U.S. nanomanufacturing.For each approach bulleted above, participants delineated proposed actions and a supporting ra-tionale. They voiced diverse views about the rel-ative utility of each approach (see GAO 2014a, p. 42–54). However, the three approaches might also be seen as complementary.Varied forum participants also suggested (1) developing international nanomanufacturing standards for commerce, (2) maintaining U.S. support for basic nanotechnology R&D, and (3) developing a revitalized, integrative, and collab-orative approach to EHS issues.2 GAO Technology Assessment Method (TA Forum)Since 2002, GAO has conducted Comptroller General Forums on a wide variety of policy is-sues facing the nation. Experts, who in many cases are also stakeholders, are invited to ex-press and exchange views within a structured agenda. Forum discussions are recorded and transcribed, and GAO subsequently publishes a report describing them. Par-ticipants are listed in the re-port of the forum, but specific views are not attributed to any individual. GAO’s forum on nanomanufacturing followed this general model. Addition-ally, the nanomanufacturing technology assessment (TA forum) involved four key methodological elements or phases, as described below. • Developing four industry profiles prior to the TA forum: GAO designed a pre-forum reading package that featured four forward-looking, expert-based industry profiles to establish a common “grounding” for forum discussions and support the framework of the forum agenda.5 The profiled nanomanufacturing in-dustry areas include: (1) semiconductors, (2) advanced batteries for vehicles, (3) nano-en-hanced concrete, and (4) nanotherapeutics in medicine (see GAO 2014a, p. 79–98). Each profile was designed to cover the topics that framed the forum agenda. • Organizing and conducting the TA forum: The forum agenda (GAO 2014a, p. 68–71) was designed to (1) cover key topics, (2) elicit and share each expert’s views and knowledge (through brief presentations or commentary), and (3) encourage interdisciplinary dialogue (through general discussion sessions). GAO selected forum participants with the assis-tance of the National Academies.6 In select-ing participants, the goals were to (1) include expertise relevant to key topics; (2) include a range of perspectives and, to the extent pos-sible, a balance of views in potentially con-troversial areas such as innovation policy and environmental issues; and (3) represent academia, industry, government, and oth-er sources, such as nonpartisan think tanks. More generally, we recognized that partici-pants were selected because they were on the cutting edge of nanomanufacturing issues and would, in many cases, be in positions to ben-efit from government support of nanotechnol-Fig. 1: Funding/Investment Gap in the U.S. Manufacturing-Inno-vation ProcessSource: GAO adapted from Executive Office of the President 2012, p. 21TA-METHODENTechnikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014  Seite 97ogy or nanomanufacturing. That is, many fo-rum participants were both experts and stake-holders. GAO therefore highlighted this fact in reporting on the forum.7 • Developing reports of the TA forum – and involving forum participants: GAO staffers initially drafted a summary based on tran-scribed forum discussions, participants’ slide presentations at the forum, and information developed for the four industry profiles. We then asked all forum participants to review and comment on the draft summary; 23 of the 26 external forum participants replied.8 Most said that overall, the draft summary captured forum messages. However, many added to their forum remarks or suggested bibliograph-ic references; we incorporated their sugges-tions, as appropriate. GAO officials and two external experts, who were not forum partici-pants and with whom GAO had not previous-ly communicated about the forum, reviewed the final draft.9 Two subsequent GAO publi-cations were developed from the main report: (1) a printed summary booklet (GAO 2014b) and (2) congressional testimony by GAO’s Chief Scientist (GAO 2014c). • Disseminating TA forum results to three key groups: GAO and its staff have communi-cated TA forum results to three key groups – congressional policymakers, experts and stakeholders, and the general public. Dis-semination to congressional policymakers included delivering the main report (GAO 2014a) to congressional requesters, subse-quently emailing the report to other relevant congressional committees, and testifying at a congressional hearing (GAO 2014c); the booklet summarizing the TA forum (GAO 2014b) was also made available at that hear-ing. Dissemination to experts and stakehold-ers was achieved, first, by emailing the main report to forum participants, other experts/stakeholders whom GAO consulted, authors cited in the main report, and relevant organi-zations (such as the NanoBusiness Commer-cialization Alliance); second, by presenting findings at professional meetings (for ex-ample, Armes 2014; Persons 2014a; Persons 2014b; Persons 2014c; Persons 2014d; Per-sons 2014e; Persons 2014f); third, by writ-ing an invited online editorial for Scientific American (Persons 2014g); fourth, by dis-tributing the booklet at presentations;10 and fifth, by preparing this invited article. Dis-semination to the general public has, thus far, included making the nanomanufacturing TA forum reports available on the GAO website, presenting a brief synopsis of this work in the GAO WatchBlog,11 and describing results on a local TV program. We are currently devel-oping further dissemination strategies. • Finally, the dissemination described above is being extended by others in online blogs or other communications – for example, Bergeson 2014, Caprio 2014, Johnson 2014, McDermott 2014, Nanotechnologies Indus-tries Association 2014, The Economist 2014, and Tyrrell 2014.Notes1) The statements in this article are those of the au-thors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Government Accountability Office.2) Writing in a foresight context, Saritas et al. (2013) emphasize involving or disseminating results to multiple groups, such as policymakers, experts and stakeholders, and the general public.3) “Disruptive innovation” refers to a new technol-ogy that creates a new market (and a new value chain or “value network”) and that ultimately, and often unexpectedly, overtakes an existing technology (see Christensen/Raynor 2003). For example, innovations such as the Ford Model T automobile production line have been described as creating new markets, displacing earlier tech-nologies, and in some cases, creating jobs.4) One example of U.S. loss of an industry would be lithium-ion batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles. As background, the underlying research on lithium-ion batteries was first conducted in the United States; however, smaller lithium-ion batteries for consumer electronics have long been manufactured in Asia (rather than the United States), and Asian firms appear to have a com-petitive advantage in the manufacturing process – which is similar for small and large batteries. However, one expert said that if, in future, new kinds of vehicle batteries require different manu-TA-METHODENSeite 98 Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014 facturing processes, the current Asian advantage could become less significant.5) Altogether, GAO consulted 37 diverse experts in addition to those selected as forum participants (GAO 2014a, p. 75–78). Many of these experts were also stakeholders; that is, many of them were in a position to benefit from government support of nanotechnology or nanomanufactur-ing. Therefore, when we sent forum participants the industry profiles, we included a caveat about other experts’ possible stakeholder status.6) Specifically, the National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.; for more information about this organization see http://www.nas.edu.7) Additionally, to increase our understanding of forum participants’ potential conflicts of inter-est, we asked all forum participants to complete and sign a form, in advance of the forum, dis-closing their perspectives and interests. A com-plete list of forum participants is presented in GAO (2014a, app. II).8) GAO’s Chief Scientist and Chief Economist, both of whom participated in the forum, also contribut-ed to reporting on the forum.9) Additionally, GAO staffers traced the accuracy of all statements in the final draft back to the forum transcript, communications with forum participants, pre-forum interviews with experts, and so forth.10) GAO staffers distributed the summary booklet (GAO 2014b) at a presentation at “the WorldFuture 2014” conference (see Persons 2014f) and plan to do so at future conferences and presentations.11) GAO created the WatchBlog in January 2014 to highlight existing GAO work in a conversational tone appropriate for the general public; it is avail-able on the public GAO.gov website.ReferencesArmes, M., 2014: Comptroller General Forum on Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health. Slide presentation at the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Committee on Nanotechnology of Concrete, American Concrete Convention, Reno, NV, March 25, 2014Bergeson, L., 2014: Lynn L. Bergeson Participates in Congressionally-Requested Forum on Nanoman-ufacturing, Which is Summarized in New GAO Report. Nano and Other Emerging Chemical Tech-nologies Blog. Washington, D.C.; http://nanotech.lawbc.com/2014/02/articles/united-states/federal/lynn-l-bergeson-participates-in-congressionallyre-quested-forum-on-nanomanufacturing-which-is-sum-marized-in-new-gao-report/ (download 8.7.14)Caprio, V., 2014: NanoBCA Recommends GAO Report on Nanomanufacturing. Evolving Innova-tions. Blog by Vincent Caprio, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Commercialization Association, and Chief Operating Officer, Water Innovations Alli-ance; http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobca-recom-mends-gao-report-on-nanomanufacturing (download 8.7.14)Christensen, C.; Raynor, M., 2003: The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing CorporationExecutive Office of the President, 2012: Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive Ad-vantage in Advanced Manufacturing. Washington, D.C.; http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_amp_steering_committee_re-port_final_july_17_2012.pdf (government archive; download 29.9.14)GAO – U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014a: Nanomanufacturing: Emergency and Implica-tions for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health. Washington, D.C. (GAO-14-181SP); http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660591.pdf (govern-ment archive; download 29.9.14)GAO – U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014b: A Capsule Version of Nanomanufacturing and U.S. Competitiveness: Challenges and Opportunities. Washington, D.C. (GAO-14-406SP); http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663298.pdf (government archive; download 29.9.14)GAO – U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2014c: Nanomanufacturing and U.S. Competitiveness: Chal-lenges and Opportunities. Statement of Timothy M. Persons, Chief Scientist. Testimony Before the Sub-committee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Repre-sentatives. Washington, D.C. (GAO-14-618T); http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663319.pdf (government archive; download 29.9.14)Johnson, D., 2014: What is the Status of U.S. Nano-manufacturing? IEEE Spectrum. Internet blog. New York; http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/at-work/innovation/what-is-the-status-of-us-nanomanufactur-ing#.U88gco_Ftwk.email (download 23.8.14)TA-METHODENTechnikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 23. Jg., Heft 3, November 2014  Seite 99McDermott, R., 2014: Funding and Workforce could Hinder U.S. Nanomanufacturing, GAO panel says. FierceGovernment. Auburndale, MA; http://www.fiercegovernment.com/story/funding-and-work-force-could-hinder-us-nanomanufacturing-gao-pan-el-says/2014-02-10 (download 8.7.14)Nanotechnology Industries Association, 2014: US GAO publishes Report on its 2013 Nanomanufac-turing Forum. News & Alerts. Brussels; http://www.nanotechia.org/news/news-articles/us-gao-publish-es-report-its-2013-nanomanfacturing-forum (down-load 8.7.14)Persons, T., 2014a: Comptroller General Forum on Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health. Slide presentation at the Transportation Re-search Board (TRB) Nanotechnology Task Force at the TRB Annual Meeting, January 14, 2014, Wash-ington, D.C.Persons, T., 2014b: Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Envi-ronment, and Human Health. Slide presentation at the 2014 Foresight Technical Conference, February 7–9, 2014, Palo Alto, CAPersons, T., 2014c: Keynote Speaker on Nanomanu-facturing in the United States at a Round Table at the Churchill Club, Palo Alto, CA, February 10, 2014Persons, T., 2014d: Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Envi-ronment, and Human Health. Keynote slide presenta-tion at the 2014 Southeast Region Chemistry Depart-ment Chairs Conference, April 18, 2014, Winston-Sa-lem, NCPersons, T., 2014e: Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the En-vironment, and Human Health. Slide presentation at the 2014 European Parliamentary Technology Assess-ment Director’s Meeting, April 29, 2014, Alesund, NorwayPersons, T., 2014f: Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the En-vironment, and Human Health. Slide presentation at “WorldFuture 2014”, the annual meeting of the World Future Society, Orlando, FL, July 11–13, 2014Persons, T., 2014g: Does the American Innovation System Need a Reboot? In: Scientific American February 7, 2014; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-american-innovation-sys-tem-need-a-reboot/ (download 20.6.14)Saritas, O.; Pace. L.; Stalpers, S., 2013: Stakeholder Participation and Dialogue in Foresight. In: Borch, K.; Dingli, S.; Jorgensen, M. (eds.): Participation and Interaction in Foresight: Dialogue, Dissemination, and Visions. Cheltenham, p. 35–69The Economist, 2014: Nanomanufacturing in Ameri-ca: Small but Imperfectly Formed. February 7, 2014; http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/02/nanomanufacturing-america (download 20.6.14)Tyrrell, J., 2014: Missing Middle in Nanomanufactur-ing Hits the Headlines. TMR+ The companion blog to the journal Translational Materials Research. Bristol, UK; http://tmrplus.iop.org/tag/nanomanufacturing/ (download 8.7.14)van Eijndhoven, J.; van Est, R., 2002: The Choice of Participatory Technology Assessment Methods. In: Joss, S.; Bellucci, S. (eds.): Participatory Technolo-gy Assessment: European Perspectives. London, p. 209–234ContactTimothy M. PersonsU.S. Government Accountability Office441 G Street NWWashington, DC 20548, USAEmail: personst@gao.gov« »

U.S. Technology Assessment: Forum on Nanomanufacturing

https://www.tatup.de/index.php/tatup/article/download/529/924

U.S. Technology Assessment: Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

TATuP – Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis