Mystery. I just want to get that out to you right. If you actually send in the name of the cause and I want you to do that research and internships and he would just send a medium size zero in G. and A little bit in the policy of the US of that is talking about today. He's also going to Georgia Tech campus life where he is a senator both in the Senate and the policy. Also when he's president. Anyway so he's going to talk to us today and thank you David. I did have the good fortune to work with him and so hopefully some of my technical stuff will be on par with David's good training but I'm here today to talk about state level nanotechnology policy initiatives and hopefully some of the implications that I'll be able to draw from the as to apply here for our state in Georgia. So basically starting off I have a research question and this has to do basically how do States choose to develop or nanotechnology research and development portfolios and then basically if we look at the strategies that they use what can we learn from these as we're going forward here in Georgia is because as you may or may not know nanotechnology is a vibrant and growing field and there's obviously a lot of interest in it. So brief overview of my talk going to go through the introduction of a bit of background material go through my methodology lay out some of the states that I decided to go through and investigate some of the results from that. Initially I go into discussion on some of the the models I happen to develop from it and then draw forth the implications that we can for best practices and hopefully give some recommendations for GA. So we have some basic concepts. Hopefully this. I'm used to speaking mostly to social scientists now it's to have some technical people in the room. I can maybe get through some of this a little bit quicker but some of us a policy stuff that comes through right away. It's something called a technology based economic development. This is something to go through a little bit further. This is part of the overarching thing and some of the other basic topics have to nanotechnology nanotechnology how that feeds in the policy and I look at some of the policy factors having to do with how these things interact and how government structures relate to these how they put them into practice and how they make their decisions. OK So technology based economic development is basically a long series of words that broken down have to do very simple concepts. So that it's using something new innovation something newly created to generate new products or new jobs. Hopefully then you could also have new industries or growth within existing industries and hopefully this feeds into a cycle of overall economic growth by continuing to expand the package of resources. Generally accomplished through a specifically in these cases through furthering infrastructure where you build up the capacities at the beginning as well as you know you need to put together the money and research talent start to put together an initial findings you take these findings you start to put them into practice you try to develop strategies to implement them. Into more useful products put them into commercialization. This requires an awful lot of time effort and energy also generally a lot of money seed funding becomes pretty. Porton overall and the hope is you grow our industries and then further you grow out economies as a whole. So nanotechnology pretty simple the way to do this. Taken from the national nanotechnology initiative which basically put together these three little. Components that what he is describing and policies describe nanotechnology needs to fulfill all three of these components. So obviously the intentional manipulation covers our technology part two the second part of our landscape nanotechnology refers to one nanometer up to one hundred nanometers for those that may not be familiar with the size of a nanometer we have it handy graphic from powers of ten. But when we're talking about nanometers we're talking about just above atomic scale. So the idea being is that when you're at this scale the third part condition that needs to be met. Is that the properties exhibited by these materials has to be different than you see in the bulk material in general what you would see everyday objects. So just because you take say. Gold from one meter to one nanometer doesn't make it. Nanotechnology unless the one nanometer of gold exhibit different properties then you see the gold every day such as and also kinds of products. So and then a technology has been coming and coming as since it was a basically a thought experiment in the late fifty's. It took awhile for science to get their hands on it because you have to be able to objectively view and then manipulate things to be able to do scientific experiments. So now the technology really to get to take off until the one nine hundred eighty S. when you have atomic level microscopy so you can actually see what you're doing and observe objective what you're doing make your observations so you can jot scientific principles. So that would scanning tunneling microscope even atomic force microscope you are able to go ahead and start to manipulate. With the one nine hundred ninety S. you see investments in advancement made in basic nanotechnologies starting to see what developments we can come from our national work in look at the sign. And the basic sciences. By the time we hit the two thousand we start to see federal initiatives and then of technology. These are common thing. As we all know here there's the national nanotechnology infrastructure network Georgia Tech an integral part of that is national and a technology initiative as a whole some of these are growing out of the bill older fabrication users network things like this. So the federal government is getting involved actively promoting these technologies putting resources into them to help them grow. As we get to now based on the Woodrow Wilson project on Emerging Nanotechnologies that are well over six hundred identified projects products that are nano enabled that are available in the commercial markets and a handful of them have a clue get on the bottom of the slide here. Things like stain resistant pants to faster microprocessors to you know plastic beer bottles these things feed across all kinds of industries and we have an anti-bacterial make up and so. And as this nanotechnology is growing. There are many many candidates to try to become the emerging center to go ahead and produce all of these new technologies. The idea being it's a very competitive in there trying to find out who exactly went out in the end. And as we know here at Georgia Tech. We're hoping to be one of those players. So nanotechnology policy so that as we take from the science into the to the actual government action. This is basically saying that these are legitimate things that the government will do hoping to enhance nanotechnology research its development hopefully broader bring forth broader innovation creation trying to make something out of nothing which hopefully will spur economic growth and development so that you can take you know powerful players like government science and industry and you try to get the exchange of money. The pilot compiling of resources to get you better and it's a collective action problem which is why government stepping in. When you have people working toward similar goals but in separated space to try to bring them together to accomplish it more efficiently. Some of the policy factors having to do. Obviously if there's a new idea of the possible tension I can out again. Basically through intellectual properties one way if it's your idea. We have like patents it's your idea you like publications it's your idea it's your work. These are things that you can contribute to not only to the scientific literature or to. Industry as a whole but I. Potentially bring back economic benefits. There's a national initiatives as I've mentioned which are bringing forth all these national resources to a state our strategic lead to it was a single identified problem. And what we're going to be looking for going forward here is state growth and we're talking about these high technology high wage jobs. So this is why this becomes kind of an interesting factor to look at from states because as the national policy is spread out states will then have the opportunities to go ahead and post and hands on top of national initiatives or then to space out and separate in between the two specialized clusters outs in between the broad reach of the federal initiatives. So getting a little bit more into the methodology moving forward from my state study. Obviously I could student make sure to do my literature review make sure I got my broad cop concepts. We've tried to cover those so next moving forwards national nanotechnology initiative. So it's the broad federal sweeping policies these are the things that are the main drivers of the vast amount of resources that are framing the course moving forward as to how things will continue in the future then at the next step was to look at states so try to find reputable states that are mentioned in various reports coming from various government sectors both national and state level Governors Association innovation America report did lots of state level studies as to see how their economies were doing how they were looking to expand on these new products and innovations small Times Publications. Very easily or is often regarded as the quintessential sort of source for men's and then I type information and so then after trying to go through and select states had to investigate each state and try to characterize what we saw as these initiatives at the state level. So we're going to start with the national nanotechnology initiative. So these are some of the goals from the end I slightly data to make it more easier to to measure the metrics for my study. So having to do with forming goals building up. What were called upstream research activities downstream research activities as well as translating skills and overall economic growth we're talking about upstream research this is more basic or very lightly applied research this is we have ideas we're trying to find out if these ideas whole hold any water what kind of sort of phenomenon can we observe. Basically it also involves a lot of heavy work for infrastructure you need to be able to have the tools to do this type of manipulation and things of this nature when we're talking about downstream we're talking about late basic more early applied more you supplied you have something specific in mind you have a pretty good grasp on the phenomenon that you're observing you're trying to put it into something specific. Hopefully then that would translate into some sort of broader product that might be. May or may not be commercialized. We're talking about translating skills we're talking about education. We're talking about training new researchers training a workforce we're also talking about general public outreach the idea that nanotechnology is highly sophisticated said not only do the the people to do the research in the work need to know precisely what's going on in this difficult field but also that it's not necessarily easy to pick up from the lay person's perspective and understand what nanotechnology is coming off the street. So hopefully to get some public investment in it. And again progress in overall economic activity hopefully that these innovations are brought to greater growth. Obviously we can do more things we can benefit our society in other societies we can take our scientific knowledge and technological progress and the benefit everybody said now I get to the meat of it. This is the series or selection of states that I decided to go ahead investigate. A week or two of conferencing with my faculty mentors tried to get a breath of states from various sizes and regions and different backgrounds and economic states. Statuses basically that most all of these states of come up in certain reports as I mentioned before as states to work for or for progress in nanotechnology whether. Or not they've had a state initiative at this point as you can see big states that are come up all the time California New York Texas but also some states you might not think about like Virginia or Colorado or Michigan and Illinois come up a lot of times to it and as you can see Georgia is special highlighted because we'll be then taking forward the what I find to see what I can apply here for Georgia. So based on my initial findings I came up with a series of models that I tried to read which I felt best describe the phenomena. I was observing. So we have four models which I'm calling consortium model industry model university model and agency model. And our consortium model the main focus of the activities has to do with awareness and advocacy. So this is basically groups of stakeholders getting together. We're looking at the industry model industry is obviously the main player but their focus at the end goal has to do with research collaboration to try to increase that as well as commercialization activities are trying to promote these as well when we look at our university model the university is obviously the main player the focus is on research collaboration as well as commercialization like the industry model but there is a main component having to do with education and seeing as a university has a goal to educate not only students but also. Hopefully brought then feeding into a workforce and agency model has very much to do with a public entity generally a public corporation that has the ability to go ahead and achieve its goals through its autonomy it's given the authority to make the decisions on how to best achieve its goals that it's given. So we're going to these models more deeply. So our consortium model. This is basically an initial stage model this is basically trying to build up a critical mass in your area or states in this case it's very much a decentralized authority it's a lot of individual players trying to get together these groups of stakeholders oftentimes are looking to encourage collaboration so trying to come back to trying to network their. Also trying to inform the general population about the men and related activities in the area in this case it states and they oftentimes get together to lobby their state governments as well as regional players and they're going to go ahead to get further development to try to expand and then of technology regions they have a resources rather So one of the states Here is Arizona. Arizona as Initiative is the Arizona nanotechnology cluster. So this is a consortium model. The main activities of this consortium has to do with private or the private university partners getting together. The main unique aspect to this model is that every year they organize a conference highlighting all the nano technology advancements in their state. The state efforts to go ahead and support this. Nano technology cluster has to do with. The seventy eight point five million dollars investment in the BY DESIGN Institute at Arizona State. Now it is mostly about biotechnology. There are seven centers in it. Two of which are designated towards nanotechnology one is bio nanotechnology and the other is nano optics. So has it very much ties into gether but it's not specifically nanotechnology but this part of the two centers are noted as being part of the center. Based on the efforts of the nanotechnology cluster also that they helped lobby the state to put on a special sales tax which over. It's six years has raised over one hundred twelve million dollars which goes to bolster the university technology transfer offices to help all the researchers that are doing that technology research and they've also done a lot of lobbying at the federal level for a laboratory expand for start at the federal level for expansion of the national laboratories in their area trying to build up again their infrastructure trying to get up and play another consortium states Michigan. So Michigan had a somewhat short lived since the time I've started my research actually this initiative has sort of died out which is kind of interesting in there but the. Michigan small tech Association is a consumer and falls into the consortium model partner was the Michigan Economic Development Corporation small Times Media small Times media had been centered I had quoted in Michigan. It is since relocated to it has centers now in Texas and Colorado. So unfortunately Michigan part of this has sort of died out at the moment but. Focused mostly on collaboration through advanced manufacturing programs trying to hook out. Researchers to. Companies in the area looking for more research efforts additional state efforts have to do with the twenty first century jobs for which the state is put forward at one hundred million dollars to allocate four more high tech jobs for companies that are looking for grants the Michigan strategic fund. Again it's a large state funding which Michigan hopes to distribute two projects that it feels will help grow the economy overall in emerging technologies as well as they put together the Michigan University's commercialisation initiative to try to link. Not only to grow technology transfer offices but to interconnect them throughout the university system in the state. So once again they're trying to build connections of people together and also the state has put forward a large capital market development initiative trying to get a lot of seed funding for these new products and these expansions and all of the start up companies that are trying to grow out of nanotechnologies. And look at Texas Texas nanotechnology initiative its mostly private partners that has a few University players in their involvement. I felt comfortable enough to call that somewhat public involvement seeing as they get state support. And they've made an effort has to do with leveraging States for strategic funds and these funds include the tax Enterprise Fund an emerging technologies fund five hundred million dollars between the two the initiative is very good at lobbying the state government to go ahead and allocate grants to the projects they feel will best serve the nanotechnology interests. Now some of the money does go to other projects such as biotechnology and other related or information technologies as well but they do a great job at lobbying for their projects one one notable examples the Advanced Materials Research. I know with Symantec they got forty million dollars out of the emerging technologies fund to build up more nanotechnology infrastructure. Virginia. Virginia nanotechnology ition of is run through the center for innovative tech innovation technology. It has a handful of private partners within the state as well its main focus has been at this point workforce development. So their main point is trying to get players together to build up a trained workforce to help grow some of the nanotechnology industry they've already established in the state. So that's our main focus to trying to get players together across the the university system to develop these programs jointly. State efforts include the Joint Commission on technology and science where they put together a more or broader statewide strategy that put together a couple of white papers studying the state issues and how to best move forward. It's also put forward programs for economic development partnerships trying to link up the State University researchers with private firm researchers as well as the innovative technology authority trying to put together broader incentives to go ahead and spur innovative technology growth and helping startups get seed the next model we're going to look at is the industry model. This is what I consider more of a developed model it's also again a decentralized authority distance but it has a lot more physical and infrastructure dedicated to it characterized by a group of industry partners with university and or government involvement and again the point has to do with research as well as commercialization the trying to grow both of these at the same time. So some states will look at first one is California California Gnana Systems Institute. This is one of the first ones we see comes out in two thousand pretty much right on top of the national manager acknowledging that it's established at U.C.L.A. and U.C. Santa Barbara with one hundred million dollars of state funding and then goes ahead. This is my bridge against the invest ment of seven private firms including B.S.F. Intel Sun Microsystems at roughly two hundred fifty million dollars of support. Has focus is a biomedical chemical in advanced manufacture. Things. Seeing as there are centers at youth U.C.L.A. and U.C. Santa Barbara. There's a limited educational component there are a couple of nanotechnology course offerings that go along with this program but it's not quite in your focus it was never part of the policy design it's just an after effect of it being at a state university. Some of the additional state efforts have to do with local initiatives California has been promoting state local initiatives with their state policy they have Grant systems to allow for localized development such as the San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California's regions have been actively playing for the state strategic fund to go ahead and build up their own local clusters trying to specialize in what they do well already. Also on the recent development is the Blue Ribbon Task Force in which the state of California has decided to set aside three hundred million dollars to grow even more biotechnology and nanotechnology within the state. Or the next state in the in our industry models New Jersey this is a nanotechnology consortium a very interesting model. You can see a handful. There are three University players including New Jersey tech and wreckers that put in about two million dollars each. But the main player has happens to be Alcatel Lucent Technologies others a minor component also on the private side from Pfizer. But this the Nano Technology Consortium is actually in an existing Bell Labs facility one that holds claim to six. Six Nobel Prizes and. Six Nobel Prizes. According to two. Plaques and in the lobby. But and they like to boast that they get their Nobel prizes at the same time that they're issuing patents for all the work that they do. Some of the additional state efforts in New Jersey happen to be the support of the projects that actually put forward money for some of the work that's done there. They're very proud. One of the notable parts about this particular use is that New Jersey didn't have to put in the infrastructure they want to have been used in exist existing facility convinced Leeson to go ahead and. I suppose renovate it would be the word but to go ahead and increase the Senate. Technology capacity without having to put the state investment with the promise that they would go ahead and use those facilities for state sponsored projects. And New York. New York loves nanotech So the main player happens to be seeing the Albany although there are a handful of other state state in state universities and a handful out of state universities that happen to be players including Cornell and R.P.I. but the rich have put in. Anyway. And so then there's the private investment. The main player of course happens to be I.B.M. Some people like to call this I.B.M. loves nanotech and love seeing the Albany. But most of the five point eight billion dollars of support has that is not from the state has come from I.B.M. The state has put in state of New York is put in roughly one point zero five billion dollars since two thousand and one. So that's a staggering amount of investment. The These facilities are mostly on all the Sunni Albany's campus there are a couple satellite spots at Cornell University in Simi balance and work also at Clarkson University. And Columbia University and SUNY Albany has a handful of nano specialized degree programs they have actually for offerings of man a specific degrees. They go ahead and they're growing out some of their educational components as a group. As an after effect again from having all of this work done on a college campus they're seeing the benefits to expand expanding the use of these resources that like the interesting point is that they have corporate headquarters right next to laboratories frightened same building as classrooms. So as you're walking from your lab to your class you can go ahead and pass a you know corporate officer of cement TAC and just all happens in the same place. New York is also put together the Empire State Development Corporation to try to help manage some of the overall broader state investments and there's the Centers for advanced technology which is including some biotechnology and in from. Technology such as Symantec. Semiconductor growth in the state. The third model is the university model. Again it's like it's more developed like our industry model. It's also more developed in our consortium. Again it's slightly decentralized there's not generally no physical space in which there are like offices or anything for the projects or sorry for the initiative in general but it's it's has that throughout the system it's a group of universities and generally our laboratories as we'll see mostly federal laboratories. Other doing not only trying to grow research in commercialization. But also trying to include educational components specifically as part of their goals including researchers and workforce development and generally off work. Sorry I have had degree programs specifically as part of their goal of the Illinois Coalition Illinois falls into this this modeled. So we had the three State University is putting in roughly sixty three million dollars of state support including two private universities the University of Chicago Northwestern Northwestern University. So this is an interesting development. As well as three National Laboratories putting in about one hundred forty three million dollars of federal support to go ahead for Nanotechnology related projects and centers. The main focus is in Illinois have to do with the universe bolstering the university technology transfer offices to put together all of the projects to put Africa marshals ation as well as nano nano core specializations through the university system. Some of which have come from the private universities feeding into the university system additional state efforts and I have to deal with the I don't put the number. I think it's three hundred million dollars for the Illinois research and technology parks there are seven centers across the state. These are user facilities where people from the university systems the smaller schools as well as private. Users can go in without having to put in the investment of the infrastructure can go ahead and pay to use the facilities to go ahead and do their own research projects as well as an interesting. Part of Illinois has to do with what's now the Nano Business Alliance which is an outgrowth of Adam works which was actually originally a consortium model sort of initiative that happened in Illinois as Adam works it grew to a regional thing for the Midwest and then got so big it became a national initiative or National Consortium and it changed its name the Nano Business Alliance it has active offices and I think it's a thirteen states. So in the time that the consortium was growing outside of the state the state then back filled in with its own university model. Next for our University of Oregon. It's called the Oregon men of science and micro technologies Institute. They did this quite intentionally because the initials actually spell a. It both an in a what word in a in a Japanese word and I think they both have something to do with serenity. So it was very intentionally done it was quite interesting but they used every public university in the state of Oregon. So there are listed to have about twenty one million dollars of state support through those to build up infrastructure capacities. But have been using mostly the projects. Rather growing their infrastructure been doing a lot of the work out of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory which has put about thirty million dollars of federal support into growing their capacities for researchers to come in and work. The main focuses have to do with building up natural traditional industries within the state trying to put nano enabled techno capacities into these existing products or existing industries. Sorry. As as well as trying to expand the infrastructure. They have an interesting problem because they have a primary and secondary education outreach which they do through the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. So they go into you know I K. through twelve education and they do programs with kids. Throughout the state to try to get them interested not only in science and math and technology but specifically nanotechnology seeing it as a big growth for the state in the future. A lot of the work for the state in studying how everything is going comes to the organ Innovation Council. It's kind of their public in the public corporation that looks at some of their their new emerging technologies has very much to do at this point or in the future is looking to take over the initiatives. But at this point is still just studying a lot of the these issues but there's a lot of emerging technology support there are a couple of very small state funds from Oregon a couple million dollars apiece. The last model I have here is the agency model this is highly developed model as I'll call it. It's a very central authority. It's a nonprofit public entity that has the authority to adapt the policy next to reach its objectives. So it is very much enabled to go ahead and see how things are working throughout the state in the economy and the research fields and try to actively put their hands on it and adjust it to go ahead and get the best results that they can at the time. A couple of states like this first one will be Massachusetts the national or the nanotechnology initiative very much. Having it is run through the John Adams innovation institute has a thirty million dollar. Strategic fund of which it is allowed to go ahead and distribute across the projects. It has three projects the idea is roughly ten million a piece that has green technologies information technologies nanotechnologies. Addition to that have to do with the university or US that will put in about five million dollars to get some of this research facilities. Because part of the initiative. John Adams Innovation Institute actually has better facilities it has a couple of old some a conductor plants that it has retrofitted in the labs. It's go out to. The emerging startups. Sorry start up companies and go ahead and allow them to lease them out so that they have a chance to get access to infrastructure and go ahead and try to build up the corporations. But also as very active like I said allocates from the strategic funds or additional strategic funds that. The state has put forward for regional negatives and research grants from within the state as well as an emerging technology support systems for growth. Once again we're more effort on growing the startups trying to get them more established and get them going in the state. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania initiative for Nanotechnology is a very interesting one to run through the Ben Franklin Technology Partners fifteen million dollars that isn't actually an annual figure as well as all the university partners that they have that work on their not only research but their workforce development programs as well as partnering with private firms. The idea being is Pennsylvania is a very unique case in that since two thousand and one. They've been doing roughly all these activities but and they've been going on independently throughout the state using a lot of federal support and state support independently around in two thousand and six the governor put together what is called the Pennsylvania initiative for Nanotechnology which is basically putting a name to the things that are already going on in front funnels the money through the Ben Franklin technology partner so as opposed to a handful of the public entities within the state. So basically took a well running program and called of the state policy so additional state efforts having to do with the very active at lobbying for private in federal support getting about four and a half million dollars annually through some of these old existing programs that weren't put into that initiative as well as putting together a handful of clustering or regional. Initiatives like the idea foundry of the life sciences greenhouses. For more biotechnologies which feed into the bio nanotechnology programs that they do in their. Advanced Materials. The Small Business Development Centers and Keystone innovation centers trying to lab. Industries and university researchers to get together and decide projects that they want to do and they give them a little bit of support to help them get going before they can start applying for grants because sometimes you start a project and you're in the middle of a grant cycle. So as you may have noticed there were more states that I worked at than fitting my models. So what it what I have left over my remainders I have a map states. These are states that have fit into the space because they have developed strategies but have not yet been implemented. Colorado North Carolina and washed. Inten have put together their state policies they have these wonderful long reports and white papers and they're working on trying to get it they just get it through unfunded they just don't actually have the authority yet Minnesota is this interesting case in that they're trying to get the policy. It's an outgrowth of a former consortium model they're trying to get their policy put through the legislature as opposed to the executive branch. They've tried twice already. They almost got it passed last year. So they're hoping to get that passed so that they can then go ahead and implement that most of them are looking to do more of it just Washington's more working to do like an agency model but Colorado North Carolina are looking to use more University models trying to build out North Carolina having great success with the biotechnology programs in Washington also looking to grow upon their advanced materials and aerospace industries and the states that have no coordinated statewide policy initiatives include Georgia New Mexico Tennessee and Wisconsin and this is not to say that they do not have nanotechnology activity it's just that it has not put in put together any sort of coordinated state policy. So if you take a look at say Tennessee it has a very active private group the Nano Valley alliance I believe it's called and so they do a lot of work but it's hasn't quite reached the state level policy yet but in the coming years they've been talking about developing a strategy similar to other states. So some of the lessons we can try to uncover from here when we're looking at the Golden spec from a national nanotechnology initiative how they fed down to the state level when you're trying to build up research activities from the upstream you want to have. Obviously more infrastructure more places to do your research you want to have lots of people to work with more collaboration you hope to build more results you want to try to have the talent to do the research so there are programs to go ahead and recruit talented researchers to their university centers and you're trying to get more of the applied research trying to get it down the commercialization you want to include industry because obviously it's their needs that are going to be met with the market of products talking about. Getting the technology transfer offices from the universities to help the researchers try to tailor their their new results into something that can be beneficial on a broader scale than maybe their initial intentions and generally allowing regional specialization helps moving forward. In which with if they're slightly less top down mentality it a little bit more freedom at the research level they're allowed to specialize in what they're already good at or what they already have the resources for and that can develop them further in translating skills obviously it's very good to have workforce development programs and then a specific degree programs and obviously trying to reach out to the public. And overall economic activity you sent tend to see the best results when you're already using a technology based industry area. So how we're going to apply some of this to Georgia and we look at George background. It's been so if we take a look at the facility were in the electronics Research Center. This speaks to how George has been pushing for advanced microelectronic since the early eighty's that have advanced research programs across the state in things like agricultural biological material technologies we have some engineering technologies here at Georgia Tech the Georgia Research Alliance is has active programs to go ahead and promote talented researchers through the Eminence Scholars Program. George is also highly positioned in research on emerging technologies according to report by the Southern growth policy board. So obviously George is at a point where it knows its way around emerging technologies so wants to see. So we should see what we can do for nanotechnology. We have seen more recent developments. So in two thousand and three Georgia Tech became part of the N.I.N. So it was officially established as a center as part of the national network. There have been some interim university center set up. Most notably the ones with Georgia Tech and Emory having to do with nanotechnology research in cancer research. Two thousand and six we saw the national nanotechnology manufacturing center open Swainsboro does a lot of materials in as well as military applications as well as two thousand six also the state of Georgia provide. In half for what is being built is our new nanotechnology research center across the street. So and by two thousand and seven an interesting thing is that Georgia has over seven hundred nano patents from seventy assignees sites here within the state that we have things going on actively just as of last year. So just takes pretty high. Some of the people that are filing these patents and you can see some big companies Coca-Cola we see Kimberly Clark Jeep Georgia Tech Research Corporation active players in the state. These are people. Having a large amount of what's being done and then of technology and you go ahead and start looking at the research even further back you see the C.D.C. see Emory see Georgia Tech you see Morehouse you see in Georgia. These are people that are actively looking at the science trying to put together all of the findings for this emerging these emerging technologies. It's happening all right around us Georgia moving forward. It's expanding its infrastructure it's going right across the street or expanding research we have more and more partners we're bringing people into the state to do more research. We're expanding industry in Georgia has three. Well it has three nanotechnology startup companies that have passed the test of lasting more than three years. Apparently a lot of nanotechnology a lot of companies don't make that three year threshold George only has three have made it past that. Pretty big finding this out and we've been a Hansing all existing industry we're trying to put our new technologies into our traditional based industries that we have here in the state. So as we're trying to grow the capacity over all of these are the types of things you would hope to accomplish. So I would say that based on these findings in the near term. We hope to establish some sort of MIT. Nano related association and what I would consider more like my consortium model here in Georgia trying to get the key players together start communicating collaborating that where they can build upon their own their own findings combine Reese resources and further their research. Hopefully you can get more infrastructure developments we have a very nice facility going in across the street. We have been good to have more coordination with our other university centers try to help them build up their infrastructures to help get the butt out. I had the very least have them using our facilities I was working together coordinating our projects. Hopefully we can continue the Georgia Research Alliance bringing in all these fantastic all this fantastic research talent going out and actively finding those that are. Succeeding in that of technology research bringing them here to the university system so we can capture some of their their work. Workforce development programs as we can see. We're starting to develop some new industry. Applications through nanotechnology we don't quite have the developed workforce for some of the things that we're trying to grow in Georgia. So obviously you need a labor force because we're looking at what long term more beyond five years hopefully after you establish yourself you can transition to a more developed model. George seems to at the moment be wanting itself to more of a university model having strong university system a lots of university research going on and a smaller amount of private research going on. Hopefully these new centers you can try to align them with demonstrated need in the areas. Hopefully that would be through either university centers like memories doing that for medical research or might be more industry trying to align with more traditional industries trying to have centers that are built around the needs that they have to try to grow overall. You would also hope to starts Nana specific degree programs were very good at research that we should start to train our researchers as well as bringing in all the talent we should start be developing in ourselves homegrown. And one part the head goes along with that means increasing the stem achievement in our K. through twelve programs here in the state try to build up our math and science capabilities. I put out bring it out long term. And believe that's what I have. Questions. Yes. No. Just. It depends on where oil king at when you look at the industry models specifically it's it's entirely new money. It's just coming in and the idea is leveraging the state investment of us what is considered a small proportion against these large amounts of private support when we take a look at said the Pennsylvania National and they did something I've been working for four years already and they decided to call it a policy they put all the money through the same channel so they can call the state action. So in a case like that specifically and there was no new money in that initiative that was just taking something that already been working and try to take credit for it. From an eminent scholar. I would. Called up. OK For the first part working at the state level. Most of this work was based on the presumption that the action would come at the state level for state policy so that does not necessarily need to be the case and part of the second question which I'll get back to but in the first question having to do with what would be the impediment from the basis of the analysis and the research that I did was looking at how the stakeholders get together in coordination and so the idea being that there is a vast array of research going on in the state and it doesn't have to be within state boundaries to go ahead and collaborate which is great. There's work done at Oak Ridge to. The idea being if the state is working at it they want to make sure that there is an existing structure and a connecting network in which these players get together they collaborate on their research they share their information they build off of each other they continue the growth in this sort of a intentional direction they're building toward something specific which is sometimes hard for researchers to do when they're looking at something that's not necessary. We're going to be put into a product and a lot of times when you see it a government level and I mean that comes down to the fact that the investment of public funds. They're always looking to see what they'll get out of it for the second part having to do more with. Why does it have to be at the state level doesn't you can. There are regional national Just like the Texas nanotechnology initiative started in Texas it's actively seeking players in Oklahoma and I believe it will be easy and it's already reached out to you and you go ahead and you look at the Illinois the earlier consortium which was Adam works got so big into a regional initiative out of work that said why don't we take this everywhere and it became that a business alliance and National Consortium the idea being the state boundaries don't have to be there but if you're looking for state funds coming from the state entity. They're going to run to have some sort of sense of state identity to it because it's the public investment from state tax payers so that is that is their ultimate bottom line. Just thinking OK. So the idea being if if the focus is on commercialization through building up the startup company is that they actively use their technology transfer funds to get these ideas out a lot of times you'll see the researchers have their own start up companies and they'll have state funds to provide seed money for them to take their own ideas. We have a sort of interesting way of Georgia Tech in which we Georgia Tech allows their own researchers here to go ahead and take their ideas if they want to and try to commercialize them and privatized their own results in certain aspects but you know there's not necessarily state funding put forward for that so that could be a way to tie that into Georgia. Also looking at commercialization activities the way they work best is when they align very closely to demonstrated need. From an industrial standpoint. Yes there. ARE GOING TO dollars this year. How would you know this well. Knowing what I do and knowing some of what you do a lot of very good economic return for the state say in Georgia happens to be research here at say Georgia Tech and I think the last time I saw the statistic was for every dollar that the state puts in the Georgia Tech. I think it's fifteen and a half dollars of economic return back to the state. So I'd say that's pretty good bang for your buck. So I think that was one of the reasons why the state was willing to go ahead and put say forty five million dollars into a nanotechnology research center. If I were given up assuming that the minute America's building is open and running already when I get my X. million dollars The next thing I would want to do would be to build. If I had my X. million dollars of state money I would probably give might give it to a smaller regional center somewhere in a different part of the state. Considering that there is some active research going on in other parts and maybe a smaller center someplace else where a bit more accessible for more of a regionalized cluster ization more specialization into the area say with more like the farming area or say the carpet area in Dalton or maybe looking at. Paper. Well Georgia is up and coming. So there's a lot of interest and investment in infrastructure expansion. So we haven't quite Georgia hasn't quite reached a level say of California or New York. But might be creeping up on places like Pennsylvania and Virginia which kind of have the stablish centers already and it's been spending most of the time in say workforce development. So you know you try to reach or arrive in which the infrastructure gets to you reach a level of infrastructure where you can support the activities you're trying to do and then you have to build everything else up to that same level to continue forward on the ones you've got to move on kind of dispersant sort of science and how do you like got to keep everything close to the wavefront you want something break too far forward you're going to you know spread of momentum. That was not part of the big In just about every single policy there's no distinction. They want that they then get most of them tend to under whether they understand it actually or not realize that you need to have both moving at the same. Again like that in this way for an analogy if you have too much of the science but not enough of the application you get you know point to one point one of the other if you have too much of the application but not of the background science. Obviously again you're going to reach a talking point which you can't keep up with yourself. So it's far from and policy perspective they want all of it and they've allowed some of them. You know have enough background that to be able to distinguish the difference between science and technology it's going to talk about very small scale and it's hard to say exactly what was the intention of manipulation versus the scientific phenomenon but from the policy perspective it's not necessarily the key interest. Well. I have not the officer grading grants proposals. I don't know but one day I might work at the N.S.F. and if I do I'll come back and tell you. The sun is going to ask. OK All right. Yes there's a definite You haven't Stephanie stands that I can get you a definitive answer at end of the day. So the infrastructure is quite expensive. There are four very large centers. Putting the two small ones together would be comparable to the large one. We are building across the street so that and that is very heavily. Well and the idea being that like I said a lot of it's as if the infrastructure and they are the I.B.M. being a corporation has very specific goals and I'm doing a lot with them with the chip processing not necessarily broadening it out. Most to much other places. So I think we're working very well that's what really is your way. I said this. I'm going conversation. But let's thank Rick.