WTEC International Assessments Duane Shelton June 17, 2009 August 27, 2008

WTEC mission Inform U.S. agencies and research community of science and technology worldwide in critical fields World Technology Evaluation Center, Inc.. This presentation focuses on WTEC’s traditional international S&T monitoring function. NNCO support is only briefly mentioned.

Acknowledgements …and over 400 expert panelists, thousands of foreign hosts

WTEC organization chart 6/11/9 Administration R. D. Shelton, President C. McGee F. Wang A. Schwarzkopf P. Lippel Development M. DeHaemer, EVP (PT) D. Nelson (PT) Y. T. Chien (PT) Operations V. Benokraitis, AVP P. Foland K O’Mara (PT) J. Blair (PT) Advance Contractors Editors Government Services G. Holdridge, VP K. Vest L. Heeter H. Paikoush M. Epstein L. Tolson PIX Pix

NNCO support by WTEC (1 slide) The National Nanotechnology Initiative now $1.4 billion per year) drew on facts from a 1999 WTEC study WTEC has provided research support from the beginning Now it has six staffers at Stafford II (half what the similar NITRD office has down the hall)

Why conduct international assessments?  Guide U. S. R&D investments  Look for good ideas abroad (tech transfer) ‏  Find opportunities for cooperation  Compare U.S. status with that abroad  Justify investment in R&D. Pointing with alarm is an example

Monitoring international S&T is essential Research and science education are rapidly improving abroad—most significantly in China (PRC) Greatly increased investments are producing substantial outputs—we now must learn from abroad Pointing with alarm can be a motivator, e.g. Rising Above the Gathering Storm -> ACI, America COMPETES Act Kostoff has shown that the PRC has already passed the U.S. in scientific papers in physical sciences in Compendex Shelton has shown that China will pass the U.S. to lead the world in scientific papers within ten years in the authoritative Science Citation Index

Chinese research output Each year PRC increases R&D by 19% (US 3%) Shelton model ties this input to scientific paper output This and other indicators in

WTEC past: Over 60 studies since 1989: Most Recent ‏  Catalysis by Nanostructured Materials (NSF, DOE, AFOSR, DTRA) ‏  Simulation-Based Engineering & Science (24 programs at 4 agencies) ‏  Flexible Electronics (NSF, ONR)  WTEC also staffs the Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Inter-Agency working groups, and provides workshops

WTEC future international studies  Nano2  Disability Research  Rapid Vaccine Manufacturing in Asia  Scalable Software for HEC (Workshop)

Impacts: Initiatives  DARPA Flat Panel Displays Initiative  DOD/DOC Electronic Packaging Initiative  NTSC Electronics Manufacturing Initiative  National Nanotechnology Initiative  Benign Manufacturing MUSES Program  Spin Electronics Program Announcement  Tissue Engineering Strategic Plan

WTEC methods – there is a slide on each  Write grant proposals that can pass peer review  Establish a coalition of sponsors who have resources to make it happen  Recruit a great panel from NSF nominations  Conduct the study effectively; NSF participates in decisions—like where to go  Maintain good host relations, so we can return in future studies  Publish an outstanding report

GrantAmountInternational Studies WTEC1 (2001) $3.7 million7 WTEC2 (2004) $5.3 million7 WTEC3 (2007) $3.2 million5 Underway At Loyola there were six such peer-reviewed grants. WTEC is now a 501(c)(3) non-profit research institute. Grants include other tasks, i.e. staffing of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office NSF/WTEC “umbrella” grants

Fund raising Resources make research possible Once a sponsor has picked a technology to analyze, WTEC puts together a coalition of program officers. This phase is not easy; it can take awhile Other agencies share the costs of the study, which leverages everyone’s portion.

Distinguished panelists  NSF Director (Colwell)  Directors of DOE Office of Science (Trivelpiece, Dresselhaus, Brinkman)  Chief of Naval Research (Mooney)  Director of NIGMS (Cassman)  Chief Scientist of the USAF (Feigenbaum)  Vice presidents for research of IBM, Bell Labs, Seagate Technology  Presidents or provosts of UC (Berkeley, San Diego and UC system) and Rensselaer  Over 400 other engineers and scientists

WTEC staff experience in technology watching Geoff Holdridge (28 years: NRC, NSF, WTEC) Duane Shelton (25 years: NSF, House, WTEC) Mike DeHaemer (20 years, USN, ASM Int’l,WTEC)

Time line for a WTEC single-area study

Advance work / Host review Cultivating good relations with hosts is critical Some hosts are resistant, but WTEC is well- known abroad NSF image helps greatly in getting access Scientists want to brag about their work to peers Advance work is expensive, but makes the study tour more effective Hosts review site reports twice

Report editing  Our reports are of academic quality with full citations, etc.  Analytical chapters written by experts Site reports are merely an appendix  They are edited several times  We always have to extract chapters from holdouts  Published in 9 books; we now have Springer series with 4 published  Distribution by paper media pales in comparison to Web downloads

More information  Briefing books for this meeting  Draft Statement of Work  Draft Website for Study  Contacts: Potential sponsors and Panelists  Web site at  Web site at  Shelton at or