Nanotech Aff

Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Risha, Richie, Neeraja
Index
Index..........................................................................................................................................................................................1
1AC 1/14...................................................................................................................................................................................3
1AC 2/14...................................................................................................................................................................................4
1AC 3/14...................................................................................................................................................................................5
1AC 4/14...................................................................................................................................................................................6
1AC 5/14...................................................................................................................................................................................7
1AC 6/14...................................................................................................................................................................................8
1AC 7/14...................................................................................................................................................................................9
1AC 8/14.................................................................................................................................................................................10
1AC 9/14.................................................................................................................................................................................11
1AC 10/14...............................................................................................................................................................................12
1AC 11/14...............................................................................................................................................................................13
1AC 12/14...............................................................................................................................................................................14
1AC 13/14...............................................................................................................................................................................15
1AC 14/14...............................................................................................................................................................................16
Inherency – Nanotech Leadership Low..................................................................................................................................17
Inherency – Recession Now....................................................................................................................................................18
Inherency – Solar Power Now – World..................................................................................................................................19
Inherency – Solar Power Now - World...................................................................................................................................20
Inherency – Solar Power Now – China...................................................................................................................................21
Inherency – Solar Power Now – India....................................................................................................................................22
Inherency – Solar Power Now - Expensive............................................................................................................................23
Inherency – Solar Nanotech Now...........................................................................................................................................24
Inherency – Solar Tax Credits Now........................................................................................................................................25
Inherency – Solar Tax Credits Now........................................................................................................................................26
Inherency – Need Alt Energy Nano........................................................................................................................................27
Inherency – Need Alt Energy Nano........................................................................................................................................28
Competitiveness – Nanotech Key – Innovation/Jobs..............................................................................................................29
Competitiveness – Nanotech Key...........................................................................................................................................32
Competitiveness – Nanotech Key...........................................................................................................................................33
Competitiveness – Tech Key...................................................................................................................................................34
Competitiveness – US Action Key - Innovation/Spillover.....................................................................................................35
Competitiveness – US Action Key - Innovation/Spillover.....................................................................................................36
Competitiveness – Innovation Happens..................................................................................................................................37
Competitiveness – Alternative Energy Key............................................................................................................................38
Competitiveness – Solar Power Solves...................................................................................................................................45
Competitiveness – A2: Education = Alt Cause.......................................................................................................................46
Leadership – Science Leadership Key to Soft Power.............................................................................................................47
Leadership – No Oil Dependency Key to Soft Power............................................................................................................50
Leadership - Solar Nanotech  Other Nanotech...................................................................................................................52
Leadership - Solar Nanotech  Other Nanotech...................................................................................................................53
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Everything.............................................................................................................................54
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Disease..................................................................................................................................55
1
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Disease..................................................................................................................................56
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Cancer...................................................................................................................................57
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Cancer Ext............................................................................................................................58
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Cancer Ext............................................................................................................................59
Leadership - Nanotech Good: Clean Water 2AC....................................................................................................................60
Leadership - Nanotech Good: Clean Water Ext......................................................................................................................61
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Clean Water Ext..................................................................................................................62
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Poverty..................................................................................................................................63
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Terrorism...............................................................................................................................64
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Military Readiness................................................................................................................65
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Hegemony............................................................................................................................66
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Environment..........................................................................................................................67
Leadership – A2: Nanotech Bad – Government Regulations Solve.......................................................................................68
Leadership - A2: Grey Goo - Impossible................................................................................................................................69
Leadership - A2: Grey Goo – No Self Replication Now........................................................................................................70
Leadership – A2: Grey Goo – Government Regulations Solve..............................................................................................71
Leadership – A2: Grey Goo....................................................................................................................................................72
Solvency – Nanotech Key - Renewables................................................................................................................................74
Solvency – Nanotech Key – Solar Power...............................................................................................................................75
Solvency – Nanotech – Solar Power.......................................................................................................................................76
Solvency – Solar Nanotech – Energy Crisis...........................................................................................................................77
Solvency – Federal Incentives - Innovation............................................................................................................................78
Solvency – Tax Credits - Innovation.......................................................................................................................................79
Solvency – Tax Credits - Innovation.......................................................................................................................................80
Solvency – Tax Credits – Innovation......................................................................................................................................81
Solvency – Tax Credits – Commercialization.........................................................................................................................85
Solvency – Incentives – Semiconductors/Economy...............................................................................................................86
Competitiveness – Incentives  Tech Spillover....................................................................................................................87
***Add-Ons***......................................................................................................................................................................88
Global Warming 2AC – Solar Nano Solves............................................................................................................................89
Solar Power - Global Warming Ext – Solar Power Solves.....................................................................................................90
Solar Power - Global Warming Ext – A2: Other Countries Necessary..................................................................................93
***A2: Neg Arguments***....................................................................................................................................................94
A2: Market Solves...................................................................................................................................................................95
A2: Public Backlash – International Institutions Solve..........................................................................................................96
A2: Plan is Expensive.............................................................................................................................................................97
Politics – Solar Energy Popular..............................................................................................................................................98
Politics – R&D Popular - Congress.........................................................................................................................................99
Politics – Nanotech Popular - Congress................................................................................................................................100
Politics – Nanotech Popular – Companies/Scientists............................................................................................................101
Politics – Tax Credits Unpopular - Congress........................................................................................................................102
Politics – Nanotech – Bush Not Perceived............................................................................................................................103
Solar > Nuclear – 2AC..........................................................................................................................................................104
Solar > Nuclear Ext...............................................................................................................................................................105
2
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 1/14
Contention 1 is The Future

Solar power is inevitable in the status quo – affordability and effectiveness prove
Rob McMonagle, writer at CBC Toronto – Canadian newspaper, 2008, “Solar Revolution,”
http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/solar/mcmonagle.html
The debate over how we power this province has been heating up ever since Queen's Park made an announcement in June to
build new nuclear reactors. Some people are wondering - in the rush to go nuclear - whether Ontario may have overlooked a
more practical solution: solar power. Rob McMonagle believes it's not just practical. It's inevitable. He's executive director of
the Canadian Solar Industries Association. He spoke to Matt Galloway about the new solar technologies and products coming
on the market. Matt Galloway: What's new in terms of technology, in terms of how solar could be practical energy source?
Rob McMonagle: There are all sorts of fascinating technologies starting to be developed, but the great thing happening right
now in Canada is that we're becoming aware of solar's potential. We're about 10, fifteen years behind the rest of the world. But
particularly in Ontario with the support of the government, we're starting to see more and more people looking at solar as a
viable option. MG: Is there new technology in terms of panels that are more efficient batteries that will hold more power? Is
that coming online now?
RM: Well, we're seeing incremental improvements. There are long-term potential innovative products. For example, you're
starting to see solar modules that look like windows, that act like windows, that also produce electricity. There are products
being developed where you can actually paint your solar panels onto the side of your house. You can shingle your roof using
solar panels. Those will all be available in the next 10 or 15 years.
MG: As I suggested in the introduction, you believe that solar power is becoming affordable and practical. But it's also
inevitable, you say, that there's a point at which this is just the way of the future. Why is that so?RM: Well, we're seeing that
around the world with the support of governments. For example in Austria, which has a worse solar resource than in Canada,
one out of every 7 homes has solar. In Spain, it's legislated. All new buildings have to have solar on it. They're expecting
100,000 systems installed next year alone in Spain whereas we only see 20 or 40 a year in Canada.
Nanotechnology development is also inevitable – everyone is funding it now

United Nations Education, Cultural, and Scientific Organization , 2006, “The Ethics and Politics of
Nanotechnology” http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001459/145951e.pdf
Following this initial surge of research money in the US, several other nations have begun funding nanotechnology-related
research in earnest. Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology has contributed some $250 million to
research in various areas of nanotechnology. The UK Royal Society reports that the current level of EU research is about € 1
billion, and that the United Kingdom is currently spending roughly £45 million annually. In addition, China, the Islamic Republic
of Iran, Brazil and Israel have all made clear that national research priorities in science and technology include research into
nanotechnology.
3
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 2/14
And, some solar nanotech is being developed now – more research is necessary
Dr. Pradeep Haldar, professor of nanoengineering at the University at Albany’s College of Nanoscale Science
and engineering, chair of the Clean Energy Alliance – created by the US Department of Energy, 7/13/07, “The
‘Power’ of Nanotechnology”
Meanwhile, the field of alternative energy provides a platform for some of nanotechnology's most exciting contributions.
Today, the renewables industry represents the fastest-growing energy market in the world: global wind generation has
grown threefold over the past five years and the production of photovoltaic solar cells is more than six times greater than
in 2000 - and nanoscale science and engineering are playing an increasingly critical role.
Silicon-based photovoltaic solar cells, for example, currently account for about 95 percent of commercial solar panels
available on the market. Silicon-based cells already utilize nanoscale processes, materials and devices utilized in
semiconductor manufacturing. Moreover, discoveries in nanotechnology have led to what many consider the next
generation of solar technology: ultra-thin amorphous silicon, organic and inorganic solar cells derived from nanocrystals
that convert sunlight into electricity at a fraction of the cost of silicon-based solar cells. They are also more flexible , less
brittle, and can even be painted onto structures, allowing more possibilities for building integrated architectural design,
and helping to ensure that more of our future electricity generation will be derived from the clean energy of the sun.
Greater research investment in these technologies is yielding continually higher sunlight-to-electricity conversion
efficiencies, bringing them closer to full-scale commercialization .
Clearly, the pursuit of cleaner and more efficient ways of generating power is of critical importance to our future. Through
innovation, we can improve the efficiencies of the technologies we have and discover new ways by which we can prosper.
Nanotechnology provides us with the opportunity to attain sustainable development - and to overcome one of the greatest
challenges of our time - by using some of the simplest and smallest means at our disposal.
Nanotech solar power is uniquely key to wide-scale adoption – more government funding is necessary
Sarah E. Douglass, VP Investment Research Publications at Wells Fargo Bank, 2005, “Identifying the opportunities in
Alternative Energy,” http://209.85.165.104/search?
q=cache:NyFG_q_oQZ0J:https://www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/about/csr/alternative_energy_IMT.pdf+
%22nanotechnology%22+AND+%22alternative+energy%22+AND+%22incentive
%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
More wide-scale adoption of solar power is likely to depend on technological breakthroughs that can reduce the cost of both
the PV cells and solar-thermal energy. It also may be contingent on government support. Such support may give manufacturers
and companies that supply solar power sufficient ability to achieve economies of scale, which ultimately reduce costs. For
companies working to achieve technological breakthroughs, the aim is to reduce the cost of producing electricity to 50 cents
per watt. Various companies are working to produce thinner and more effective materials for use in PV cells. The U.S.
Department of Energy believes that it may be possible to break through the 50 percent efficiency level by using new materials
based on nanotechnology (the science of building devices from single
molecules or atoms). Venture capital companies have increased funding in this area over the past few years, and there is a
positive investment environment in both Europe and Japan for these types of companies.
4
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 3/14
Plan: The United States federal government should provide tax credits to companies that develop
nanotechnology-based solar power.
5
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 4/14
Advantage 1 is the Economy

Semi-conductor technology is key
AZoNano ‘5, Online Journal of Nanotechnology
[“U.S. Could Lose Race for Nanotechnology Leadership,” 3/17/05, www.azonano.com/news.asp
%3FnewsID%3D635]
Semiconductor Technology Vital to U.S. Economy Sustaining continuous advances in semiconductor technology is vital to sustaining
improved U.S. economic performance, according to one of the nation's leading economists, Professor Dale Jorgenson. "The mantra of
the 'new economy' -- faster, better, cheaper -- characterizes the speed of technological change and product improvement in
semiconductors, the key enabling technology," said Jorgenson. "Development and deployment of information technology is the
foundation of the American growth resurgence that has occurred since 1995. "The economics of information technology begins
with the precipitous and continuing fall in semiconductor prices," Jorgenson continued. "The rapid price decline has been transmitted
to the prices of a range of products that rely heavily on this technology, like computers and telecommunications equipment."
Jorgenson noted that swiftly falling prices for information technology equipment have provided powerful economic incentives
for rapid diffusion of information technology, which in turn has led to accelerated economic growth and strong increases in
productivity. "The four IT-producing industries -- semiconductors, computers, communications equipment, and software -- are
responsible for a quarter of the growth resurgence, but only 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product," said Jorgenson. "Obviously, the
impact of the IT-producing industries is far out of proportion to their relatively small size." SIA Chairman Steve Appleton called for a
concerted national effort to increase the resources devoted to research and development in the physical sciences. "Our current efforts
are inadequate," said Appleton. "Federal funding for R&D as a percentage of U.S. gross domestic product has been almost cut in half
over the past 20 years. We must return to the investment levels of the mid-1980s in order to compete for leadership ." SIA leaders will
be calling on legislative and executive branch leaders to support increasing research budgets for the physical sciences in the National
Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Defense. Specifically,
the SIA is calling for: * Increases of 7 percent per year in the research budget of the NSF for 10 years, doubling the research budget
over that period; * An appropriation of $20 million to match the semiconductor industry's support for the Focus Center Research
Program, which supports pre-competitive research on microelectronics technology at 30 universities to ensure continued U.S.
leadership throughout the remaining years of the CMOS era; * An increase of $20 million to enhance the nanomanufacturing and
nanometrology research capabilities of NIST; and * An increase in funding for the Math and Science Partnership program of the No
Child Left Behind act. "U.S. leadership in technology is not inevitable," said Appleton. "Leadership in information technology is a
cornerstone of our national strategy for economic growth, an improving standard of living, and national security. The actions we take
today to ensure continued U.S. leadership will determine the quality of life enjoyed by our children and grandchildren," Appleton
concluded.
6
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 5/14
Additionally, energy is the crucible for economic competition – a lack of a strong national alternative
energy policy dooms us
Al Quinlan and : B.S. at Penn state, Masters at University of Massachusetts in Public administration, president of Greenberg
Quinlan Rosner—heads a team of US political analysts and campaign pollsters Mike Bocian: BA in history at Princeton University,
Masters in public policy at Harvard, vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, 8/23/06, “clean energy: key to america’s future
economy,” http://www.greenbergresearch.com/articles/1726/2170_CleanEnergy0806.pdf
A larger and more pressing debate taking place among voters is that more political candidates should take the lead in defining
the major role that new energy, cars and fuel efficiency can play in America’s future economy. The global economy is rapidly
changing, and the public is deeply concerned that America is losing ground to countries throughout the world. Americans are
very anxious and worry about the threats posed by China, India and other rising economic competitors. Most frightening to
people is that the political leadership has failed to develop a forward-looking plan that keeps America strong economically and
in the lead for future generations. Energy can play a huge role within this changing economy and presents, perhaps, the best
opportunity for a truly forward-looking economic agenda that creates American jobs. What we know through our research and
by listening to people is that they find the connection between clean energy and fuel efficiency and tangible economic benefits
(good jobs, opportunities and consumers saving money) a natural fit. We can now say that this agenda is critical to the
country’s economic future, and not simply an acceptable tradeoff for keeping the air, land and water clean. This agenda
means a stronger economy, a promise of future jobs, higher incomes and real financial savings for families. American jobs,
higher incomes, more money in people’s pockets, and the ability to continue to lead the world economy all fit within a new,
lean energy plan. Once we establish the connection, a clean energy agenda becomes much more meaningful in a political
environment shaped by economic and financial uncertainty at both the micro and macro levels. In our recent national survey,
an economic message on American jobs and savings scored near the top of all messages tested. The following is an initial,
general framing of this theme that captures the essence of the argument. America can do anything when we make a
commitment to it. It is time to use America’s technological know-how to reduce dependence on foreign oil and build a stronger
economy by leading the world in the creation of new, clean energy. Clean energy means American jobs now and in the future.
We should stop giving oil companies huge tax subsidies and instead invest in clean, renewable energy. Investing in new
technology and clean energy like solar, wind and biofuels will reinvigorate the American economy and create the jobs of today
and tomorrow. The time has come to increase mileage standards for cars, build more hybrids and make them more affordable
so people can save money, use less gas and cut pollution. This is a moment for America to take the lead – to own its energy
future, create good jobs, and lead the world economy.
7
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 6/14
And, nanotech is the frontier of innovation – necessary for global competitiveness
Aatish Salvi ‘8, Vice president of the NanoBusiness Alliance.
[“A global technology race the U.S. must win,” 2/25, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-salvi-
kimbrell25feb25,0,5524858.story]
A common misconception about nanotech is that it is a single technology. Unlike biotechnology (which focuses on genes and
DNA) or information technology (which focuses on microchips and software), nanotechnology encompasses a collection of
methods and tools for dealing with all matter at the nano scale. It is best thought of as a new approach to building things.
Working at the nano scale allows us to manufacture with unparalleled precision and efficiency . Rather than mining tons of ore
at a great cost to the environment to find a handful of diamonds, nanotechnologists can start with carbon and build a flawless
diamond one atom at a time. Because they are so precise, nanotech processes waste less material, consume less energy and
produce better results. Nanotechnology is the frontier of innovation; given its potential, it is not surprising that it is the focus of
a global scientific race. The prize for winning this race is leadership in the production of renewable energy, clean water, cancer
cures and next-generation computing. The U.S. government took an early lead in 2002 with the 21st Century Research and
Development Act, which pledged $5 billion over four years to become a leader in nano science. That lead has steadily been eroded.
Japan announced an equivalent initiative within months of ours. Since then, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, China,
Taiwan, India and Singapore have stepped up to the plate with significant investments. The 21st Century Research and
Development Act expires this year, and we have not been in a technology race this close since the Apollo project. Given what is
at stake and the degree to which the U.S. relies on innovation to fuel its economy, nanotechnology is a global competition that
America can ill-afford not to win.
Technological innovation is key to the economy

National Science Board, the National Science Board oversees the collection of a very broad set of quantitative
information about U.s. science, engineering and technology, and every 2 years publishes the data and trends in
the Science and Engineering Indicators report. 2008, “Research and Development: Essential Foundation for
U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy”
US industry and the Federal Government are the primary pillars of financial support for the U.S. research and development
(R&D)2 enterprise. The National Science Board (Board) observes with concern the indicators of stagnation, and even decline
in some discipline areas, in support for U.S. R&D, and especially basic research, by these two essential patrons and
participants. A decline in publications by industry authors in peer reviewed journals suggests a de-emphasis by U.S. industry
on expanding the foundations of basic scientific knowledge. More specifically, research contributions by U.s. industry authors
in the physical and biomedical sciences through publications in peer reviewed journals have decreased substantially over the
last decade. In addition, in this century the industry share of support for basic research in universities and colleges, the primary
performers of U.S. basic research, has also been declining. Likewise, Federal Government support for academic R&D3 began
falling in 2005 for the first time in a quarter century, while Federal and industry support for their own basic research has
stagnated over the last several years. These trends are especially alarming in light of the growing importance of knowledge-
based industries in the global economy. The confluence of these indicators raises important questions about implications for the
future of U.S. competitiveness in international markets and for the future existence of highly skilled jobs at home. The net
economic and workforce effects on the Nation and on industry of these negative changes are complex, and the Board finds that
requisite data for an adequate analysis of current conditions and future trends do not presently exist. Nevertheless, the Nation
must be acutely aware of the current trends as future resource allocations for basic research are debated and decided in industry
and by the Federal Government. Global Competition in Science and Technology: A Strong National Response Required.
Innovation is a key to economic competitiveness and the technological breakthroughs that improve our lives. Basic research
fuels technological innovations and is critical in fostering the vitality of the U.S. science and technology enterprise and the
growth of highly-skilled jobs. The scienctific and technological advances that have led to our Nation’s remarkable ability to
create new industries and jobs, improve the standard of living for people, and provide sophisticated technology that ensures our
national security can be traced back to the outcomes of basic research.
8
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 7/14
Economic collapse leads to nuclear war
Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, World Policy
Institute, 1992
Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their
leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them.
But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of
international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of
people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.
9
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 8/14
Advantage 2 is Nanotech Leadership

While the US is still ahead in nanotech research, countries are quickly catching up. Incentives are key to
advancing our nanotech interests.
Jacob Heller and Christine Peterson, No Date, “U.S. Federal Nanotech R&D Funding”, Foresight Nanotech
Institute Policy Issues Brief, <http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html>
The United States federal government leads the world in nanotechnology research and development funding. The National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the federal government’s R&D program that coordinates multiagency efforts in nanotech
science, allocates over $1 billion annually to 14 agencies. Since its inception in 2000 it has been largely regarded a success. Most
recently, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) found that the funding is "very well spent", and
that "the program is well managed".1 However, some fear that the United States is beginning to lose its lead in nanotechnology
research funding, and that the current structure of federal R&D is not optimally designed to promote the most innovative output.
To maintain international leadership in the field of nanotechnology and promote the discovery of beneficial nanotechnology, the
NNI will probably require more funding and a reevaluation of its structure.
The NNI has already made valuable contributions to the development of nanotechnology. With NNI funding, researchers have
been working on gold nanoshells that can target the destruction of malignant cancer cells, low-cost hybrid solar cells, quantum
dots that can open the door to much faster computing, and nanoscale iron particles that can reduce the costs of cleaning up
contaminated groundwater.2 Due largely to this high level of funding, the United States leads the world in nanotech patents,
startups, and papers published.3
However, more can and should be done. The United States is beginning to lose its lead in government-sponsored nanotech R&D
relative to the rest of the world. When adjusted for purchasing-power-parity (a comparison of how much a dollar can buy in
different countries), non-US governments are spending more per-capita on nanotech research and development than the United
States. Using this scale, the United States spent $5.42 per capita in government funding for nanotech R&D in 2004, while South
Korea spent $5.62, Japan, $6.30, and Taiwan, $9.40.4 Other countries are quickly catching up. China spends $611 million annually
(after adjusting for purchasing-power-parity) on nanotech research, nearly 40 percent of U.S. federal funding.5
Instead of expanding government spending on nanotech to meet the challenge, funding increases for the NNI have not even kept
pace with inflation. The proposed budget for FY 2006 was actually lower than FY 2005 funding when adjusted for inflation;6 FY
2007 will likely have a similar decrease in funding.
It has been argued that the private sector, not government, should fund all nanotechnology research and development. 7
There are also other ways to encourage nanotech research and innovation besides directly funding R&D efforts that the federal
government should consider. For example, the federal government could offer prizes for specific innovations, or make
commitments to purchase nanotechnological products if they are produced.
More must be done — in both the amount of funding and the way that nanotech research is financed — for US nanotech-based
industries to stay apace with the rest of the world and quickly grow to maturity.
10
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 9/14
Semiconductor technology is key to US nanotech leadership – it provides the basis for necessary
innovations
AZoNano ‘5, Online Journal of Nanotechnology
[“U.S. Could Lose Race for Nanotechnology Leadership,” 3/17/05, www.azonano.com/news.asp%3FnewsID%3D635]
The coming transition to nano-scale semiconductor devices means that leadership in information technology is up for grabs,
warned the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). At a news conference in Washington, D.C., today chief executives of U.S.
semiconductor makers and a leading economist stressed the importance of continued progress and leadership in semiconductor
technology. The industry is observing the 40th anniversary of Moore's Law -- an observation made in 1965 by industry pioneer
Gordon Moore that the number of components on a computer chip was doubling approximately every 12 months with a commensurate
reduction in costs. Following the vision of Moore's Law, the U.S. semiconductor industry has led the worldwide industry, contributing
key innovations that have helped drive America's economic growth. Speaking at the news conference were Steve Appleton, chief
executive officer of Micron Technology and 2005 chairman of the SIA; Craig Barrett, chief executive officer of Intel Corporation;
Dale Jorgenson, Samuel W. Morris University Professor at Harvard University; and George Scalise, president of the SIA. The industry
executives noted that four decades of continuous advances in microchip technology have led to creation of entirely new industries,
including personal computers, the Internet, and cellular telephones, while enabling major advances in biotechnology, medicine, and
environmental protection. Professor Jorgenson discussed the contributions semiconductors have made to economic growth and
productivity gains during the past decade. SIA called for stepped up support for basic research in the physical sciences to assure
continued U.S. technology leadership. Experts believe current semiconductor technology could run up against physical, technological,
and economic limits around 2020. "U.S. leadership in technology is under assault," said Barrett. "The challenge we face is global in
nature and broader in scope than any we have faced in the past. The initial step in responding to this challenge is that America must
decide to compete. If we don't compete and win, there will be very serious consequences for our standard of living and national
security in the future." Barrett said that industry scientists believe current CMOS scaling to support Moore's Law can remain in effect
for at least another 10 to 15 years. When the smallest features on a chip shrink to less than 10 nanometers -- 10 one-billionths of a
meter -- current chipmaking technology will reach its ultimate limits. To keep Moore's Law alive, the industry will have to leave
Newtonian physics behind and transition to the realm of quantum physics -- the era of nanotechnology. "U.S. leadership in the
nanoelectronics era is not guaranteed," noted Barrett. "It will take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia,
industry, and state and federal governments to ensure that America continues to be the world leader in information technology."
11
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 10/14
Nanotech leadership is critical to winning humanity’s most important arms race
John Robert Marlow, 2004, Interview on the Superswarm Option Nanotechnology Now, February,
http://www.nanotech-now.com/John-Marlow-Superswarm-interview-Feb04.htm
Marlow's 2nd Paradox As stated in the Nano novel, Marlow's Second Paradox is this: "Nanotechnology must never be developed,
because it is too dangerous a thing to exist; nanotechnology must be developed-because it is too a dangerous a thing to exist in the
hands of others." The first rationale-Bill Joy's relinquishment option-will be ignored. The second will drive the race for
nanosuperiority. The first nanopower will, if it plays its cards right, remain unchallenged for the foreseeable future-assuming there
remains a future to foresee. This is so because it will be possible to use the technology itself to prevent all others from deploying it, or
to simply annihilate all others. In the entire history of the human race, there has never been such a prize for the taking, and there likely
never will be again.
We are embarked upon what is quite possibly Mankind's final arms race. Caution may not be a factor, because the losers in the
nanorace will exist only at the whim of the winner, and many will see themselves as having nothing to lose, and the world to gain.
Additionally, semiconductors are key to hegemony

SIA ‘6, Semiconductor Industry Association
[“Innovation Leadership and the Semiconductor Industry,” 1/25/06, http://www.sia-
online.org/downloads/Competitiveness.pdf]
For more than 50 years, leadership in technology has been the foundation of American strategy for economic growth, jobs creation
and national security. The rapid application of technology to create and manufacture innovative products enables American workers to
earn high wages in an increasingly competitive world. While innovation has driven America’s economic strength and security, U.S.
leadership is not our birthright. Leadership in technology requires a commitment to excellence in K-12 education and funding basic
research in our universities combined with immigration laws that allow the best and brightest from around the world to study in our
universities and stay and work after graduation. In addition we must have a business climate that encourages investment and supports
risk-taking. The U.S. semiconductor industry provides the enabling technology for thousands of products and services we use every
day, such as PCs, cell phones and digital cameras. Semiconductors are also essential to the defense systems that ensure our
national security. A vibrant domestic semiconductor industry is critical to U.S. economic strength and homeland security .
Basic research conducted at America’s universities and the chip industry’s significant investments in commercialization have made it
possible for American companies to maintain world leadership with a market share of nearly 50 percent. But, the U.S. share of
leading-edge manufacturing capacity has been eroding rapidly. Other countries are seeking to displace the U.S. as the world’s
technology leader by investing heavily in basic research, offering tax incentives and subsidies to attract investment, and training
highly skilled scientists and engineers. To maintain our world leadership, we must choose to compete!
Hegemony solves nuclear war.

Zalmay Khalizhad, RAND Analyst, "Losing the Moment?”, Washington Quarterly, spring, 1995 p. ln.
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite
future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the
United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more
receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing
cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and
low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and
the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would
therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
12
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 11/14
Contention 2 is Solvency:
Tax credits incentivize nanotech development and production
John F. Sargent 5 – 15 – 08, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division
[“Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness,” http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf]
Indirect Support. In addition to direct funding mechanisms, a variety of indirect approaches might be used by the federal government
if it chose to support additional nanotechnology research and development. The tax code could be used to increase private investment
in nanotechnology companies, or to create incentives for companies to expand and accelerate their research, development, and
production activities. Tax options might include general provisions to induce greater corporate investment, such as the current
research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit; 62 targeted tax provisions that support a particular technology, application, industry,
or sector; consumer tax deductions or credits designed to induce the purchase of targeted technologies and products, such as tax
credits currently provided for the purchase of hybrid and flex-fuel vehicles; or incentives for the formation of capital pools to support
R&D, such as favored tax treatment for research and development limited partnerships (RDLPs). (For additional information, see CRS
Report RL31181, Research and Experimentation Tax Credit: Current Status and Selected Issues for Congress, by Gary Guenther.)
Only the federal government can fund the necessary long-term research
Jacob Heller and Christine Peterson, No Date, “U.S. Federal Nanotech R&D Funding”, Foresight Nanotech
Institute Policy Issues Brief, <http://www.foresight.org/policy/brief1.html>
However, even many libertarians — the group most skeptical of government involvement — take the position that private firms
are unlikely to engage in long-term basic research when those firms will be unable to reap the full benefits of their investment.
This type of basic research may constitute a public goods problem, in which market processes working alone may not function
optimally.8 Foundation funding can make a difference, but is generally focused on specific applications such as the nanoemulsion-
based vaccine delivery system recently funded by the Gates Foundation.
Sustained expansion in federal R&D funding may be critical to the development of US nanotech-based industries. The federal
government can fund long-term and risky research that companies are unwilling and unable to conduct; these types of research
usually have the largest payoff for society in the long-run. Also, at current budget levels, the federal government cannot fund many meritorious
research efforts. The ratio of serious proposals to funded projects is too high; for example, in 2004 the NSF received 48 proposals for funding nanotech research
centers, but could only afford to finance six.9 Even when researchers do receive federal funding, the amounts are usually inadequate to completely and fully
research a subject.10
Investments in nanotech are stagnated without federal funding because of perceptual technical risks
Much of the public dialogue on how the government can advance U.S. strength in nanotechnology has focused on federal technology
funding. Advocates for increased federal support put forth a variety of arguments. Some believe that the federal government should
provide increased funding for “downstream research,” i.e., applied research and development closer to commercial products, including
production prototypes. 52 Those who advocate this position generally assert that many promising research breakthroughs and early
technology developments fail to make it to market. This failure, they argue, results from inadequate funding mechanisms to bring the
technology to a state of maturity in which private corporations and other sources of capital are willing to invest in the technology — or
in the company that holds the technology — to bring it to market. For example, they assert that investor demand for short-term returns
can result in companies being unable to invest in higher-risk, longer-term technology development projects needed to sustain their
viability in the future. Similarly, according to these advocates, venture capitalists and other investors often have exit strategies and/or
seek returns in a timeframe (generally three to five years) inconsistent with the longer-term development horizons of emerging and
enabling technologies. With federal investments, say supporters, technical risk could be reduced to a level that enables promising
research and early-stage technologies to overcome “the valley of death” 53 and reach the marketplace where the nation would be
able to capture their economic and societal benefits.
1AC 12/14
IPR, financing, federal prototypes, safety standards all make federal funding necessary.
13
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Survey of Industry Views on the Federal Role A survey of U.S. nanotechnology business leaders indicated this community was
divided on the desired level of government involvement in the development of nanomanufacturing technologies with 45% wanting
“government to take the lead in R&D and commercialization incentives” and 43% wanting “limited participation.” Another 11% of
respondents said they wanted government to “stay out of it.” Among the most significant barriers to growth identified by U.S.
nanotechnology business leaders in a survey conducted by Small Times magazine and the University of Massachusetts-Lowell were:
intellectual property issues (46%), lack of financing (45%), lack of available prototype facilities (43%), and lack of nanotechnology
safety standards (36%). Ninety-two percent of respondents identified access to unique equipment and facilities as very important, and
91% identified access to processes and tools to reduce time-to-market from R&D as very important. Nearly three of five respondents indicated
that they use or planned tIo use shared- use facilities at local universities, with science and engineering labs (25%), electronic labs (24%), and biotech labs (17%)
topping the list, followed by specific diagnostic equipment (14%) and microfabrication labs (12%). More than three-fourths of the nanotechnology executives surveyed
identified internal R&D as the primary source of expertise for the development of products and processes. Another 9% of executives identified industry associations or
consortiums as their primary source of expertise, while only 7% identified collaboration with universities. Source: “Survey of U.S. Nanotechnology Executives,”
conducted by Small Times Magazine and the Center for Economic and Civic Opinion at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, Fall 2006.
14
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 13/14
Additionally, Grey goo theories are outdated and don’t assume newly developed methods which prevent
the production. Even if Grey Goo was developed, it couldn’t survive.
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 12/14/03, “Grey Goo is a Small Issue” http://www.crnano.org/BD-
Goo.htm
Fear of runaway nanobots, or “grey goo”, is more of a public issue than a scientific problem. Grey goo as a result of out of control
nanotechnology played a starring role in an article titled "The Grey Goo Problem" by Lawrence Osborne in today's New York Times
Magazine. This article and other recent fictional portrayals of grey goo, as well as statements by scientists such as Richard Smalley,
are signs of significant public concern. But although biosphere-eating goo is a gripping story, current molecular manufacturing
proposals contain nothing even similar to grey goo. The idea that nanotechnology manufacturing systems could run amok is based on
outdated information.
The earliest proposals for molecular manufacturing technologies echoed biological systems. Huge numbers of tiny robots called
“assemblers” would self-replicate, then work together to build large products, much like termites building a termite mound. Such
systems appeared to run the risk of going out of control, perhaps even “eating” large portions of the biosphere. Eric Drexler warned in
1986, “We cannot afford certain kinds of accidents with replicating assemblers.”
Since then, however, Drexler and others have developed models for making safer and more efficient machine-like systems that
resemble an assembly line in a factory more than anything biological. These mechanical designs were described in detail in Drexler's
1992 seminal reference work, Nanosystems, which does not even mention free-floating autonomous assemblers.
Replicating assemblers will not be used for manufacturing. Factory designs using integrated nanotechnology will be much more
efficient at building products, and a personal nanofactory is nothing like a grey goo nanobot. A stationary tabletop factory using only
preprocessed chemicals would be both safer and easier to build. Like a drill press or a lathe, such a system could not run wild. Systems
like this are the basis for responsible molecular manufacturing proposals. To evaluate Eric Drexler's technical ideas on the basis of
grey goo is to miss the far more important policy issues created by general-purpose nanoscale manufacturing.
A grey goo robot would face a much harder task than merely replicating itself. It would also have to survive in the environment, move
around, and convert what it finds into raw materials and power. This would require sophisticated chemistry. None of these functions
would be part of a molecular manufacturing system. A grey goo robot would also require a relatively large computer to store and
process the full blueprint of such a complex device. A nanobot or nanomachine missing any part of this functionality could not
function as grey goo.
Development and use of molecular manufacturing will create nothing like grey goo, so it poses no risk of producing grey goo by
accident at any point. However, goo type systems do not appear to be ruled out by the laws of physics, and we can't ignore the
possibility that someone could deliberately combine all the requirements listed above. Drexler's 1986 statement can therefore be
updated: We cannot afford criminally irresponsible misuse of powerful technologies. Having lived with the threat of nuclear weapons
for half a century, we already know that.
Grey goo eventually may become a concern requiring special policy. However, goo would be extremely difficult to design and build,
and its replication would be inefficient. Worse and more imminent dangers may come from non-replicating nano-weaponry. Since
there are numerous greater risks from molecular manufacturing that may happen almost immediately after the technology is
developed, grey goo should not be a primary concern. Focusing on grey goo allows more urgent technology and security issues to
remain unexplored.
15
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
1AC 14/14
Government nanotech allows us to develop adequate defenses to grey goo
Ronald Bailey, Science Correspondent for Reason and former FERC analyst, 12-1-2004. “The smaller the better: the limitless
promise of nanotechnology--and the growing peril of a moratorium.” http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3334354/The-smaller-
the-better-the.html
The second nanotechnology risk that worries ETC Group activists is runaway self-replication. Mooney points to a scenario suggested by Eric Drexler
himself in The Engines of Creation: Self-replicating nanobots get out of control and spread exponentially across the landscape,
destroying everything in their path by converting it into copies of themselves. In this scenario, the biosphere is transformed by
rampaging nanobots into "gray goo." But according to Nobelist Richard Smalley, "Self-replicating nanorobots like those
envisioned by Eric Drexler are simply impossible to make." Mihail Roco likewise dismisses such nanobots as "sci fi," insisting
there is "common agreement among scientists that they cannot exist." So let's suppose Smalley and Roco are wrong, and
such nanobots are possible. How dangerous would self-replicating nanobots be? One of the ironies of the debate over regulation of
nanotechnology is that it was nanotech boosters like Drexler who first worried about such risks. To address potential dangers such as the
uncontrolled self-replication envisioned in his gray goo scenario, Drexler and others founded the Foresight Institute in 1989. Over the years,
Foresight devised a set of guidelines aimed at preventing mishaps like a gray goo breakout. Among other things, the Foresight
guidelines propose that nanotech replicators "must not be capable of replication in a natural, uncontrolled environment." This
could be accomplished, the guidelines suggest, by designing devices so that they have an "absolute dependence on a single artificial fuel source or artificial 'vitamins' that don't exist in any natural environment." So if
some replicators should get away, they would simply run down when they ran out of fuel. Another proposal is that self-replicating nanotech devices be "dependent on broadcast transmissions for replication or in some
cases operation." That would put human operators in complete control of the circumstances under which nanotech devices could replicate. One other sensible proposal is that devices be programmed with termination
"The moratorium is not a new proposal," says Foresight Institute
dates. Like senescent cells in the human body, such devices would stop working and self-destruct when their time was up.
President Christine Peterson. "Eric Drexler considered that idea a long time ago in The Engines of Creation and dismissed it as not a safe option. With a
moratorium, we, the good guys, are going to be sitting on our hands. It's very risky to let the bad [people] guys be the ones
developing the technology. To do arms control on nanotechnology, you'd better have better nanotechnology than the bad
guys." Software entrepreneur Ray Kurzweil is confident that nanotech defenses against uncontrolled replication will be
stronger than the abilities to replicate. Citing our current ability to reduce computer viruses to nuisances, Kurzweil argues that we will be even more
vigilant against a technology that could kill if uncontrolled. Smalley suggests we can learn how to control nanotech by looking at biology. The
natural world is filled with self-replicating systems. In a sense, living things are "green goo." We already successfully defend
ourselves against all kinds of self-replicating organisms that try to kill us , such as cholera, malaria, and typhoid. "What do we do about
biological systems right now?" says Smalley. "I don't see that it's any different from biotechnology. We can make bacteria and viruses that have never existed
before, and we'll handle [nanobots] the same way." Nanotech theorist Robert Freitas has written a study, "Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorons
Nanoreplicators With Public Policy Recommendations" which concludes that all "scenarios examined appear to permit early detection by
vigilant monitoring, thus enabling rapid deployment of effective defensive instrumentalities." Freitas persuasively argues that
dangerous self-replicating nanobots could not emerge from laboratory accidents but would have to be made on purpose using
very sophisticated technologies that would take years to develop.
16
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Nanotech Leadership Low

US falling behind on nanotech
PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS ‘5, [“US Falling Behind Across the Board,”
7/27/05,http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07272005.html]
On Monday, I reported that the US, formerly a superpower until afflicted with "new economy" syndrome, has lost so much
manufacturing capability that it can scarcely produce one submarine every two years and one aircraft carrier every five years. US
manufacturing capability is so reduced and shrinking so fast that the president of the American Shipbuilding Association recently said
that in the next several years "more and more manufacturing of ship components and systems will migrate to China." Not to worry say
free trade economists. Shipbuilding is just one of those old manufacturing things that the nanotech US economy is better off without.
Alas, according to Manufacturing & Technology News (July 8), so much manufacturing capability has already left the US that
American nanotechnology capability is largely limited to pilot-scale, low-volume manufacturing. In testimony before the House
Science Subcommittee on Research, Matthew Nordan of Lux Research, Inc., said that any American nanotech ideas are likely to "be
implemented in manufacturing plants on other shores." Nordan says that in some fields of nanomaterials "the manufacturing train has
already left the station." The US may even be falling behind in generating nanotech ideas. Last year China led the world in nanotech
research, producing 14% more research papers than the US. Even South Korea and Taiwan spend more per capita on nanotech R&D
than the US.
17
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Recession Now

Recession is lingering
ZACH FOX 7 – 18 – 08, Staff Writer @ North [“ECONOMY: Jobs disappear again; recession looms,”
http://www.northcountytimes.com/articles/2008/07/18/business/z418020f2ddb68d218825748a00600e2f.txt]
Other sectors also posted declines, suggesting turmoil in the housing market is starting to affect consumer spending, a major driver of
the economy. For example, retail stores shaved about 2,000 jobs over the last year. "They're not able to take out second loans and use
their house like an ATM," said Kelly Cunningham, an economist with the San Diego Institute for Policy Research, a free-market-
oriented think tank. "And they need to compensate for the higher gas prices by cutting back on spending, because more of their dollars
are going into the tank." With more people out of work, the county unemployment rate leaped to 5.9 percent, up 28 percent from a
year ago and the highest level since July 1996, when the county was recovering from a long recession. It was the largest year-over-
year decline in total jobs since the county started losing jobs in March. The last time San Diego County lost jobs was July 1993. Still,
San Diego County's economy is faring much better than other Southern California counties, especially the Riverside-San Bernardino
metro area, which posted an 8 percent unemployment rate in June. Economists are pointing to real estate as the cause for the county's
pending recession, with home prices down 28 percent from a November 2005 peak, according to the Standard & Poor's Case-Shiller
Home Price Index. Job declines in real estate-related sectors battered by a housing downturn that began in late 2005 were mitigated
by gains in health care and educational services, which combined to add about 3,000 jobs from a year ago. But even growth in
governmental and health care jobs has slowed while the state grapples with a budget deficit. "And local governments rely on property
taxes, and they're in trouble. So it's not just real estate. It's spreading to everything," said Dan Seiver, a finance professor at San Diego
State University As employment numbers continue their descent, more analysts are convinced the county has entered a recession and
think any recovery will take at least a year and will be tepid when it comes.
18
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Solar Power Now – World

Several rich countries are developing solar power
Todd Wenning, 4/21/08, “stocks you wish you’d bought,” http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2008/04/21/stocks-you-
wish-youd-bought.aspx
The solar panel market has other important, demand-side, friends: solar enjoys hearty governmental subsidies in several rich countries,
and widespread political support from anyone looking for symbolic and real ways to reduce carbon emissions. While the rigorous
strategic economics and environmental arguments are still somewhat weak, nevertheless the "global climate change" concern tips the
balance making this decision easy sell to large groups of people. Support extends to some really big business buyers yearning to be
green.
Other countries are developing and starting to use solar power

G24, G24i utilizes the latest breakthrough in material science and nanotechnology creating a new class of advanced solar cells which
are the closest mankind has come to replicating nature’s photosynthesis., “FT: solar power – supply and demand tables start to turn,”
6/30/08, http://www.g24i.com/news,ft-solar-power-supply-and-demand-tables-start-to-turn,112.html
Solar power has usually been thought of as a way of supplying electricity or hot water to a single building. But in several countries,
solar power plants capable of powering thousands of homes are under construction. These include plants in Spain, Portugal, Australia
and the US capable of generating between 20MW and 100MW – enough to power thousands of homes, but still much smaller than a
conventional mid-sized coal-fired power plant of about 500MW. Once built, however, the fuel is free.
19
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Solar Power Now - World
Many other countries investing in and developing solar power technology now
Seeking alpha, Seeking Alpha is the leading provider of stock market opinion and analysis from blogs, money
managers and investment newsletters, and a provider of its own high-value, complementary financial content,
4/22/08, "solar power will be transformational in the next decade," http://seekingalpha.com/article/73251-solar-
power-will-be-transformational-in-the-next-decade
If that prediction turns out to be correct, it will also mean that solar will survive even if incentives are not as robust as I expect
them to be. Of course, if incentives are cut, solar penetration will definitely be slowed down, and solar stocks will be substantially
hurt, but the solar genie will not go back into the bottle now that we are at, or very close to, grid parity. However, I actually expect
collective global incentives to INCREASE over the next few years, rather than stay the same or decrease. Although the US isn't
among them, quite a few countries are aiming for the vast majority of their electricity to be renewably-generated, and several
countries are well on their way (Germany and Spain come to mind). And although federal incentives in the US won't be as good as
those in Europe and elsewhere, the size of our power market is such that even if only ten percent of our electricity is to be PV-
generated, that will mean multi-gigawatts-per-year domestic demand for PV. Keep in mind that quite a few states have very nice
incentives in place and other states are coming onboard, so total incentives in the US (federal and state) may well be sufficient to
generate more total demand for PV than in the very pro-PV countries such as Germany and Spain, which have much smaller
power markets than we do.
20
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Solar Power Now – China

China developing solar power now
Worldwatch institute, Zijun Li, 9/23/05, “solar energy booming in china,” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/41
China has several advantages in solar energy development. According to Xinhua Net, two-thirds of China’s land area receives
more than 2,000 hours of sunlight annually, more than many other regions of similar latitude, including Europe and Japan. This
gives China a potential solar energy reserve equivalent to 1,700 billion tons of coal. And China has become a world leader in
PV cell production: Shangde Solar Energy Power Company, the country’s largest crystal silicon solar cell producer, recently
expanded its operations and expects to boost China’s total production capacity of the technology from 200 to 320 megawatts
by the end of this year. China is also a world leader in solar thermal production and use, accounting for 55 percent of global
solar heating capacity (excluding pool systems)—or 52 million square meters of collectors—by the end of 2003, reports
Worldwatch Institute senior researcher Janet Sawin in Vital Signs 2005. China aims to boost its production capacity of one
specific type of collector, solar heat panels, to 51 million square meters by the end of 2005, which would make it the world
leader in solar heat panel production, according to an official from the National Engineering Research Center for Renewable
Energy.
Several upcoming events, such as the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, Shanghai Expo 2010, and the 2007 World Conference
on Solar Energy, will further stimulate China’s solar energy industry. According to China Daily, solar power and terrestrial
heat will be used at various Olympic venues; for example, 2-3 megawatt solar generators will power the sports facilities. The
Shanghai city government, meanwhile, has drafted a three-year plan to boost municipal use of solar energy by 2007, including
setting up several power generators with a combined capacity of 5,000 kilowatts, undertaking 30 projects that combine urban
construction with solar energy, and installing solar panels at the factories of 20-30 heavy industries. A proposal has also been
approved to install thousands of rooftop solar panels on commercial and residential buildings and educational institutions,
according to Shanghai Daily.
With these and other initiatives, China is playing an important role in providing global solar energy markets with the policy
support and legal protection they need. Worldwatch Institute statistics show that world PV cell production reached an estimated
1,200 megawatts in 2004, while the global market for solar thermal collectors grew some 50 percent between 2001 and 2004.
As China’s solar market emerges, it will be instrumental to moving the world to greater energy efficiency and environmental
sustainability.
China is one of the global leaders in development of solar power – increased US R&D key to maintain
competitiveness.
Shanghai daily, 6/26/08, “China generates solar-power guidelines,” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-
06/26/content_8441329.htm
BEIJING, June 26 -- China is speeding up the development of industry standards to guide solar-power generation, officials
and experts told a conference. The nation is one of the leading manufacturers of photovoltaic cells, which convert sunlight to
electricity, although it exports virtually all the products as solar generation is not economic without subsidies from
governments or local authorities. But forming standards has lagged behind the development of the PV cell manufacturing
sector, said Li Aixian, director of the Sub-Institute of Resource and Environment Standardization of the China National
Institute of Standardization. China has promulgated 15 national standards for the solar water-heating sector, with another six
under development, but there is no related standard yet for solar-power generation, Li said. The only forms of renewable
energy that are competitive in the Chinese mainland without subsidies are solar heaters and hydropower projects. "Now we
have three standards under development for the solar-power generation sector, and a standardization committee will be set up
soon," Li told a three-day workshop hosted by U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology and testing and
certification organization Underwriters Laboratories, which concluded yesterday in Shanghai. The standards for solar
generation will cover sectors such as fundamentals, components and materials, generation systems and technological design, Li
said.
21
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Solar Power Now – India

India is developing solar power due to high petroleum costs.
Avilash Roul, staff writer at ecoworld – provides articles about nature and technology and coexistence of both, 07, “india’s solar
power,” http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=418
With the fluctuating high cost of petroleum, minimizing dependence on importing conventional energy resources, stewardship
to protect the Planet and providing affordable energy to all, countries including India have stepped up their energy path for
harnessing indigenous renewable resources. To tap the infinite energy and transform as well as transmit it to each household,
the Indian government has accelerated promotion of the use of universally available Solar Energy. India due to its geo-physical
location receives solar energy equivalent to nearly 5,000 trillion kWh/year, which is far more than the total energy
consumption of the country today. But India produces a very negligible amount of solar energy - a mere 0.2 percent compared
to other energy resources. Power generation from solar thermal energy is still in the experimental stages in India. Up till now,
India's energy base has been more on conventional energy like coal and oil. However, India has now attained 7th place
worldwide in Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Cell production and 9th place in Solar Thermal Systems. Grid-interactive renewable
power installed capacity as on 31.10.2006 aggregated 9,013 MW corresponding to around 7 percent of the total power installed
capacity which equates to over 2 percent of total electricity.
22
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Solar Power Now - Expensive

Status quo solar power is too expensive
Sarah E. Douglass, VP Investment Research Publications at Wells Fargo Bank, 2005, “Identifying the opportunities in
Alternative Energy,” http://209.85.165.104/search?
q=cache:NyFG_q_oQZ0J:https://www.wellsfargo.com/downloads/pdf/about/csr/alternative_energy_IMT.pdf+
%22nanotechnology%22+AND+%22alternative+energy%22+AND+%22incentive
%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Solar energy is, perhaps, the first energy source that comes to mind when most people think of renewable sources of energy, but
— unlike wind — solar power is still a long way from being mainstream. In fact, it accounts for less than 1 percent of the world’s
energy. 19 There are two main ways to harness the power of the sun to generate electricity: photovoltaic (PV), where sunlight is
directly converted into electricity via solar cells, and solar-thermal power. PV is a proven technology that is most appropriate for
small-scale applications to provide heat and power to individual houses and businesses. Sunlight falls on a layer of
semiconductors, which jostles electrons. This, in turn, creates an electrical current that can be used as a source for heat. Solar PV
cells are already cost effective for powering houses and businesses in some regions. As with wind power, technological
developments have reduced costs considerably over the last few years. Unlike wind power, however, large-scale electricity
production using solar energy costs about 22 cents per kilowatt-hour, significantly more expensive than its fossil fuel competitors
and nuclear energy.
23
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Solar Nanotech Now

Solar nanotech is being developed now
Suzanne McElligott, Gasification News, August 2007, “EPRI Study Shows a ‘Full Technology Portfolio’ Can
Reduce Cost of CO2 Controls” http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/nanotechnology-and-meeting-our-
002791.php
Longer term, some of nanotechnology’s most exciting and valuable contributions in the energy sector are likely to be seen in
the renewable, alternative energy sector, however, Halwar asserts
“Today, the renewables industry represents the fastest-growing energy market in the world: global wind generation has grown
threefold over the past five years and the production of photovoltaic solar cells is more than six times greater than in 2000 - and
nanoscale science and engineering are playing an increasingly critical role,” he states in a media release.
Nanoscale processes, materials and devices are already part of the process through which silicon-based photovoltaic solar cells
– which make up some 95 percent of the market today - produce electricity. They are also the focus of research and
development of a new generation of solar power technology that includes ultra-thin amorphous silicon, organic and inorganic
solar cells derived from nanocrystals that can convert sunlight into electricity at a fraction of the cost of silicon solar cells.
These solar nanocells are so small and pliable that they can be painted on to physical structures so that the walls of a building
may one day soon be able to generate electricity.
24
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Solar Tax Credits Now

Solar power tax credits already exist – plan simply extends them to solar nanotech
CSM, Mark Clayton – staff writer, 1/22/08, “Wind, Solar Tax Credits to Expire,”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0122/p03s05-usec.html
BOSTON - With a big new solar power plant in the Nevada desert and thousands of wind turbines sprouting nationwide, US
renewable energy seems poised for a boom as long as federal tax credits don't suddenly evaporate.
After years of start-and-stop growth, wind-and solar- power industries soared in 2007, thanks to three consecutive years of tax
credits that provided a critical lift for both sectors. But whether the fledgling industries can fly without tax credits, due to
expire at the end of this year, is a question being debated on Capitol Hill this week. As demand grows for a stimulus package
for the faltering US economy, green-energy advocates argue that wind and solar – both left out of the new energy law passed
last month – should be part of the package. "The wind and solar investment project decisions made in this quarter will be
halted without these critical tax credits," says Anna Aurilio, federal legislative director for US Public Interest Research Group
in Washington. "It would be a tragedy to bypass industries that are going to meet US energy needs and create jobs." The 2005
energy bill provided exactly the kind of multiyear support the wind industry says it needs. The impact has been dramatic.
Nearly one-third of all US power capacity added last year – about 5,244 megawatts – was in wind. Overall wind-generating
capacity soared 45 percent last year, adding the clean-energy equivalent of 10 large coal-fired power plants, the American
Wind Energy Association (AWEA) reported last week.
25
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Solar Tax Credits Now

Because of the energy crisis, alternative energy development is inevitable
Travis Bradford, Travis Bradford is President and Founder of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development, a
nonprofit organization in Cambridge, Massachusetts, focused on using the power of the business and financial sectors to deploy
cost-effective and sustainable technologies, 2006, Solar revolution: The Economic Transformation of the Global Energy Industry,
pg 1, http://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&id=7K0qMtpobrQC&dq=Solar+Revolution+travis+bradford&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=eDD6EB1DB0&sig
=xGXbb5XKX2DJ2xKff2M3LcpJwJ0&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPR7,M1
This is a book about the future of energy. Even without a deep analysis of the energy industry, most people fundamentally
understand that our current energy system is ultimately unsustainable and that renewable energy (including solar energy) will
be an inevitable part of our common future. Global economic, environmental, and social pressures are driving our species and
our economies to change how we harness vital energy, and these pressures will intesigy as we approach the middle of the
twnty-first century and expand to an estimated population of ten billion inhabitants on the planet. Many of the greatest hurdles
we will face in the next fifty years will be a direct result of how we currently and eventually decide to procure the energy
necessary to sustain our lives and our standard of living. Human-induced climate change, resource wars over energy supplies,
and cucles of deforestation, famine, and poverty that result from our insatiable appetite for energy are not new problems.
Humans have tese problems have accelerated in scale and potential repercussions to global proportions. Inevitable, the thrests
that our relationship to energy creates will be mitigated when motivation and opportunity collide. This could happen whem
businesses and government compensate for the risks and costs of our current energy system with effective foresight and
coordinated planning or, alternatively, when we are forced to change in response to a 1970’s-style energy crisis. Whatever the
catalyst, the industrialized and developing nations of the world will eventually address these isseus by using energy more
efficiently and by developing and deploying local, sustainable renewable energy sources.
26
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Need Alt Energy Nano

Currently we are falling behind in nanotech innovation. US development of alternative energy
nanotech now is key to innovation in all sectors – empirics on our side.
Anita Goel, MD, PhD, is the president and scientific director of Nanobiosym Labs and president and CEO of
Nanobiosym Diagnostics, the commercial arm of Nanobiosym that is developing next-generation diagnostic
capabilities, 4/28/08, “Harnessing Nanotechnology to Drive the New Global Economy”
<http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2008/04/28/harnessing-nanotechnology-to-drive-the-new-global-
economy/>
Nanotechnology to me is the ability to probe and control matter and systems on increasingly finer scales, at the nanoscale and
smaller. This is important because it gives us a new level of control over matter. Nanotechnology is a platform science which
combines several traditional fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine. The applications that stem from these
capabilities likewise cut across several different sectors from medicine and energy to the environment and materials science.
For example, the ability to control the assembly and arrangement of atoms and molecules in a nanomaterial could give it the
durability of steel and the weight of plastic. Nanotechnology provides a platform for innovation across conventional boundaries
of science, technology, and commerce. Furthermore, by its intrinsic multidisciplinary nature, it fosters collaboration across
conventional political and economic boundaries. Nanobiosym was founded as an idea lab and research institute to innovate at
the convergence of physics, medicine, and nanotechnology. Nanobiosym, and its commercial partner Nanobiosym Diagnostics,
have been privately developing Gene-RADAR, a portable nanotechnology-enabled platform that can rapidly and accurately
detect genetic fingerprints from any biological organism. The company’s vision is to give patients worldwide real-time access
to their own diagnostic information via low-cost handheld devices. Nanobiosym has been the direct beneficiary of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. We have received multiple rounds of competitive funding grants as some of our technology
platforms transitioned from the pure R&D stage to the more applied or prototyping stage. Without the resources that the
Initiative brought to bear—not only funding, but also coordination and a sense of national priority—Nanobiosym would not be
where it is today. As the Subcommittee considers how best to update and improve the Initiative, I hope that our experience as
an emerging nanotechnology company (in moving across the gamut from science and technology innovation, to proof of
concept development and developing commercial products for global markets) will help identify what has worked well and
what could be improved to encourage other companies like us. A Roadmap for Harnessing Nanotechnology to Drive the
New Global Economy The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act focused primarily on basic research.
This led to dynamic growth in America’s nanotechnology research infrastructure primarily in academic settings, and sowed the
seeds of nanotechnology commercialization throughout the country. Today, five years later, we are beginning to see the results
of this initial investment, as nanotechnology-enabled products start to enter the marketplace across the spectrum of industry
sectors, from water purification to materials engineering to healthcare. The growth of the next five years could be exponential.
The United States has a historic opportunity to drive nanotechnology to maximize its impact on global challenges, including
health, environment, energy, and even building the new global economy. The reauthorization of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative should focus on four new areas in addition to basic research: Bridging the Gap Between Nanotechnology Research
and Commercialization America’s competitiveness in the global market is being tested in the field of nanotechnology, where
Russia, China, Japan, the European Union, and other nations are making major investments in translating basic research into
marketable nanotechnology products. Often, foreign governments are pursuing a strategy of letting American researchers do
the basic science, then using their resources to commercialize that research and gain the economic benefit. Having invested in
the early days of nanotechnology research and innovation, we should not miss the opportunity to fully commercialize our own
research. Programs such as Small Business Innovation Research, Small Business Technology Transfer, and the new
Technology Innovation Program are vital mechanisms for bringing technology out of the lab and into the marketplace. They
provide needed resources and expertise to emerging small businesses. They bridge the “valley of death” that lies between basic
research funding and late-stage commercial funding—a valley that would otherwise swallow many more promising companies.
Programs like SBIR have enabled companies like ours to stay focused on more disruptive innovations even when they are not
the lowest hanging fruit in terms of revenue generation. In practice, such programs keep American innovation at the cutting
edge as we continue to meet real-time market needs. Rapid commercialization is important, but goal-oriented research also will
help accelerate the path to market for nanotech
27
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Inherency – Need Alt Energy Nano

companies. Many emerging countries are focusing on this strategy to leapfrog themselves into significant roles in the global
economy. For example, countries like Taiwan have determined that, although they may not be able to challenge the United
States across the board, they can compete effectively if they concentrate their resources. By conducting goal-oriented research
in a key area such as electronics or display technologies, they can achieve a strong position in those markets. We can do the
same thing. Already, we have had tremendous success with goal-oriented research in cancer treatment and other health-related
areas. Identifying and pursuing other key goals, such as nanomedicine, energy, electronics, or water purification, will help
ensure that we are getting the most for our research money. As someone who practically embodies the concept of
“multidisciplinary research,” I would encourage the Subcommittee to see to it that goal-oriented research centers cross
traditional scientific and agency boundaries. The National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy should be
working together; NIST should be working with EPA; and so forth. I have seen the beginnings of such multidisciplinary
research under the current National Nanotechnology Initiative, and the results are indeed encouraging. I see this in my own
company every day, and I know it works. I caution the Committee, however, not to get trapped by lesser goals while losing
sight of the bigger picture. It is one thing to make products based on nanotechnology research; it is another to build a
nanotechnology economy. The goal-oriented nanotech research of competing economies is understandable given their
resources. But it is one thing to be simply the supplier of a bumper, or a headlight, or a mechanical part for an automobile; it is
another thing to build an economy based on the mobility the automobile enabled, which spawned multiple new industries and
employed millions. So it could be with nanotechnology. It will be this understanding of the nano-based economy that will
differentiate us from our competitors and allow us to make the best decisions about where to invest our resources. This
understanding will also enable us to take a fresh approach to American leadership in the new global economy. 3. The Broader
Impact of Nanotechnology on Environmental, Health, Safety and other Global Challenges With nanotechnology products
entering the commercial market, it is important that we know how nanoparticles behave in the body and in the environment.
Just as important is the need to communicate with consumers so that they understand the efforts that are underway to determine
and address any risks that may exist. The last thing that any nanotechnology company wants is for a lack of safety data to scare
consumers into staying away. The field has learned the lessons of the genetically modified food debacle. That said, however,
amid the concern about potential negative environmental, health, and safety impacts, it is easy to forget that nanotechnology
can be much more of an environmental, health, and safety solution than a problem. For example, Nanobiosym’s products will
improve health both here and in the developing world by rapidly diagnosing infectious disease. Soon, we plan to expand into
water and food testing. Many other nanotechnology companies are making similar contributions to environmental, health, and
safety issues. From fuel cells to LED lights, from cancer treatments to antibacterial surfaces, and from strong composite
materials to aircraft metal fatigue sensors, nanotechnology products are beginning to clean up the environment, cure people and
keep them healthy, and save lives by preventing accidents. These trends will only accelerate as nanotechnology becomes more
widespread. 4. Bringing Emerging Technologies into Emerging Global Markets I envision that the new global economy will
take shape as the economies of major nations become more interdependent and intertwined via science, technology, and
commerce. Nanotechnology by its very multidisciplinary and international nature is thus likely to play a major role in driving
the new global economy. Nanotechnology will spur American entrepreneurs to think and act even more globally. As
Americans, we should take a bold step towards global leadership in the nanotechnology revolution by engaging other players
around the world and also by embracing global challenges (such as the energy crisis, global health, and the environment) as our
own, including those of the developing world. Together we should focus on using our best scientific and technological tools to
solve real-world problems. The very nature of the way innovation and commercialization is proceeding in nanotech enables us
to reach out to a global market. For example our product, because of its portability and small size, has a large potential in the
developing world. Similar to the cell phone industry which has made a disruptive impact on telecommunications in emerging
markets, there are six billion people on Earth and everybody gets infected at some point in their life. If we can make our
products cheap enough we can improve global healthcare as well as cater to the needs of a growing multibillion-dollar market.
Conclusion Building on the success of the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s first five years, the United States has a historic
opportunity to drive nanotechnology to maximize its impact on global challenges. The economic and humanitarian benefits of
driving this nanotechnology revolution will be tremendous, and the reauthorization of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
will go a long way towards putting America at the forefront of this global revolution.
28
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – Nanotech Key – Innovation/Jobs

Nanotech is key to US competitiveness – innovation and jobs
Tanwin Chang, PhD,Research Fellow,Science and Engineering Workforce Project (SEWP), National Bureau of
Economic Research, No Date, “Nanotechnology: Recommendations for Regional Policymakers”
<http://www.mtpc.org/institute/research/nano_report_04/rec.pdf>
Will nanotechnology be the driver of the next economic boom? No one can be sure. What is certain is that many metropolitan
regions across the country (and the world) are preparing for the era of good times brought from tiny things. The Massachusetts
Nanotechnology Initiative is one of more than fifteen statewide or regional initiatives in the United States designed to promote
nanoscale science and technology. At the national level, the President's 2005 Budget request provides for nearly $1 billion in
funding for the multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Even so, the U.S.does not dominate spending on
nanotechnology, and it has been matched or outspent by countries in Europe and Asia in what some characterize as an R&D
‘dogfight’. Lacking a crystal ball to see the future implications of this global investment and competition in nanotechnology, I
look back to former technological revolutions for lessons learned that might aid policymakers shepherd in the age of
nanotechnology. What analogies to the past are relevant? Biotech is sometimes referred to as the nanotech of the nineties. The
analogy to biotechnology highlights the issues surrounding interdisciplinary research, a universally recognized characteristic
of nanotechnological efforts. Comparisons to other historical precedents are also useful. Drawing an analogy to the assembly
line illustrates that many of the benefits of nanotechnology will not be obvious to the ordinary consumer, since they will be
hidden away in manufacturing processes. Likening nanotechnology to electricity suggests that it will create pervasive and long-
lasting adjustments to the economy as the many facets of nanotechnology compound and interact, but that will take decades
to effectuate. Each antecedent from history is distinct and underscores a separate aspect of nanotechnology. However, all
technological changes affect the workforce in one way or another. The first set of workers that nanotechnology has already
affected are scientists and engineers— highly educated experts with the knowledge, skills, and brainpower to do research and
development, whether basic or applied. National and local policies regarding funding of education and research, stipends and
scholarships, and immigration and visas greatly affect the development of this work force. Jobs and Productivity The economic
impact of a new technology can be analyzed in terms of two effects: (1) the creation of new products and services, and (2) the
reduction of the cost of existing products and services. The invention of the daguerreotype in the mid 1800s represented the
introduction of a new product that lead directly to the inception of the pho- tography industry. In contrast, Henry Ford's
improvement of the assembly line resulted in the latter effect, that is, it reduced the cost of automobiles (an item already
enjoyed by the wealthy) by boosting the productivity of the workers manufacturing them. In practice, the two effects—novel
products vs.cost reduction—represent two ends of a continuous spectrum. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish whether a new
product or service is truly novel or instead the result of extreme improvements in efficiency. For instance, when the commer-
cial electric refrigerator appeared, was it a novel product or merely an icebox that obviated the need for ice delivery? Further, a
new technology may impact the economy in multiple ways that appear on both ends of the spectrum. On which end will
nanotechnology be more heavily weighted? At this juncture it appears that nano will reduce the costs of producing existing
products to a greater extent than creating new products. One thing is certain. Nanotechnology will not create a single ‘nanoin-
dustry.’ Instead, the technology will become integral to many industries—a general-purpose array of technologies that affects
everything, analogous to electricity. Electricity enabled the modern economy and continues to sustain it. Just to name a few
highlights: the electric telegraph revolutionized communications prior to the Civil War, electric machine tools greatly
increased productivity in factories after World War I, and all consumer-grade computers use electricity to process information.
Nanotechnology is likely to diffuse to some areas where electrification has not been important: (a) combustion engine
automobiles, and (b) chemical based pharmaceuticals. ‘Nano’is an umbrella term that embodies a collection of technologies,
i.e., carbon nanotubes, molecular electronics, designer proteins, etc. In this sense, nanotechnology is comparable to information
technology (IT). IT is a convergence of many separate technologies—personal computers, packet switching technology, fiber
optic telecommunications—that allow us to effectively handle information as a commodity. For nanotechnology, the NNI
states that its distinctive feature is that it binds together ultrasmall “devices and systems that have novel properties and
functions because of their small and/or intermediate size.” The power to boost productivity lies in this emergence of novel
properties at the nanoscale. Manufacturing processes tend to be complex recipes of many ingredients and steps.
Nanotechnology will provide a greatly expanded palette of new materials and techniques. Nanoengineers will find a multitude
of opportunities to use
29
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

this palette of emergent properties to streamline, and perhaps revolutionize, existing manufacturing practices in nearly all
sectors of the economy. Although nanotechnology can be expected to increase manufacturing efficiency, we shouldn't expect
overnight gains in our pocket- books. The economy took a long time to adjust to electricity and is still adjusting to Information
Technology (IT). Just a decade ago, Nobel laureate Robert Solow said,“We see computers everywhere but in the productivity
statistics.” Now we see IT in the productivity statistics. Given the historical precedents, nano is unlikely to affect the pro-
ductivity statistics for another decade at the minimum. Introduction of a new cost-reducing technology requires investment in
R&D, capital goods, and new labor skills. During this period, the highly skilled science and engineering (S&E) workforce is
called upon to build and integrate the new technology into relevant industries. This is a boom time for jobs for the science and
engineering workforce. In addition, there is need for supporting labor services, which will create job opportunities for other
workers. Even the most high- tech industry hires many persons in sales, clerical and office work, and employs blue collar
workers and service workers of different types. But as the technology matures, two competing processes begin to affect jobs.
The technology (i) reduces the number of workers needed to produce a given level of output, and (ii) lowers the cost of
products, which increases demand for goods and expands jobs. For the past 50 years in the United States the displacement
effect has dominated the expansion effect in industries so that employment tends to fall in sectors that benefit most from
technological advance. The share of employment in services, where technological change is modest, has grown most rapidly.
The share of employment in agriculture, where productivity advance has been extremely rapid, has declined for decades. Given
the dominance of the displacement effect over the expansion effect, if nanotechnology raises U.S.manufacturing output, it is
likely to do so without creating many new jobs in manufacturing. Due to the cost-reducing effect of nano, we should not think
of nano as a job creating technology but rather as a productivity enhancing technology that permeates the economy.
Nanotechnology will create some new jobs, but that will not be its main contribution to job growth. Its main contribution will
be manufacturing efficiencies that improve real wages and living standards. These gains will in turn generate additional
consumer demand for all sorts of products and thus contribute to the growth of employment. Still, nanotechnology will
undoubtedly produce some novel products and the areas of the country which attract that production are likely to enjoy
exceptional growth of labor demand and employment. This suggests that regional policy makers should pay special attention to
identifying those nanoscience advances that are most likely to engender brand new industries and to seek ways to give firms
incentives to think about new products as well as processes. In addition, the potential future profits from nanotechnology will
be spent and invested somewhere. The agglomeration of economic activity, where- by firms tend to buy products from other
firms more in the cities and states where they are located, remains significant despite globalization. Regional policy-makers
should encourage local firms to pay special attention to delivering services and goods to new nano-tech enterprises. The more
quickly an area connects the new sector to the rest of the local economy, the more likely it will capture the gains from servicing
the sector. Harvard University Professor George Whitesides has opined that nanotechnology will make memory storage
devices so cheap as to be nearly free. What kind of investments will be needed to make products that take advantage of all
that new nano- enabled capacity? How might firms in the region use those devices for producing or changing their own goods?
What sectors or product lines are most likely to see the development of new products, which will be more job creating than will
using the technology to reduce the costs of existing products? Policy makers should constantly revisit this question as the
nanotechnology economy unfolds. There is potentially a great payoff from being the first to link nanotechnological advances
to traditional production, from providing goods and services to firms specializing in nanotechnology, as well as from cap-
turing early production of any truly new products. Education and Training Every new science or technology initiative requires
its own supply of scientific workers, who must come from colleges and universities, foreign countries, or shift from other
science-engineering activities. Successful R&D efforts rely on teamwork and communication. A com- plicating factor for the
nanotechnology effort is the interdisciplinary (or multi-disciplinary) nature of the work, which requires communication across
technical and scientific fields. But each of the sciences and engineering represent distinct ways of seeing the natural world,
with different jargon, culture, and analytical tools. Nanotechnology workers must possess sufficient understanding of more
than one discipline to promote efficient communication. Where can nanotechnology firms find this type of highly skilled
workforce? The area that provides such a work force is likely to attract these firms more readily than other areas. Presently
there are few formal nanotechnology degree programs in the United States, with no baccalaureate programs, and only a handful
of associates or graduate degrees. Worldwide, the sum total of formal nano-programs (called nanoscience, nanotechnology, or
nanoengineering) numbers around a score. In the next 1 to 5 years, there will not be a great number of recent graduates
holding ‘nano’degrees to join the workforce. At the same time, there is no huge demand
30
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

for workers identified specifically as nanotechnologists. Economists Paula Stephan and Grant Black of Georgia State
University found that the number of distinct nano-related positions advertised in the journal Science grew from 37 positions in
2001 to 41 positions in 2002. For comparison, during the bioinformatics hiring bottleneck in the mid- 90s, position
announcements in Science doubled over the course of a year. But activity in nanotechnology is growing. From 2000 to 2001,
government funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative grew by 28 percent to $600 million, and in the previous year
government funding grew by 74%. Between $100 million and $500 million of dollars was invested in nanotechnology start-
up companies in 2002, according to several financial news organizations. Many large manufacturing companies have begun
significant nanotechnology efforts in the past few years. This growth in activity requires a corresponding growth in human
resources performing nano-related work. Where is this supply coming from? Universities have set up nano-institutes, supported
by the federal government. For example, the NSF has awarded funds for six Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology
Centers (NSETs), which have been established at Columbia University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Northwestern
University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Rice University. Other nano-institutes include MIT's Institute for Soldier
Nanotechnologies and the California Nanosystems Institute. The hallmark mission of these centers-of- excellence is to bring
together faculty members of different disciplines under a single organization to foster interdisciplinary research and
collaboration in nanotechnology. Often, these researchers will retain a desk at their ‘home’department. It is common for a
nano-institute to have representatives from ten or more home departments. Typically, the institute managers choose scientists
and engineers who have already demonstrated the ability to work outside the traditional departmental structure. In the near
term, industry will draw from graduate students and post- docs affiliated with the principal investigators of the nano-institutes.
This population of workers will typically hold degrees in a traditional discipline, such as chemical engineering, solid state
physics, or bio- chemistry. But they will have the advantage of immersion in an environment where interdisciplinary thinking
and communication is fos- tered and perhaps even routine. As nanotechnology activity grows, industry demand may create the
so-called ‘seed-corn’problem in some of these centers. During the bottleneck of the bioinformatics hiring frenzy, there were
complaints that the high salaries offered by firms was luring faculty away from universities and thereby reducing the capability
for new student training. Descriptively put, the field was said to be eating its seed corn. Due to the potential for nanotech-
nology to permeate many industries, the relevance of skilled nanotechnology workers and new innovations may last for
generations. Policy makers must insure that the long-term supply of talent and ideas is not sacrificed to satisfy short-term
demand. In this respect, the centers-of-excellence have an important secondary mission: educational outreach. The NSF funded
NSETs are mandated to have formal educational outreach programs that come in various forms such as K-12 learning packets,
museum collaborations, Research for Teachers internships, and Research for Undergraduates. Additionally, a new NSF
program with a focus towards graduate and teacher training was recently announced for the FY 2004 NNI that will include
Centers for Learning and Teaching (NCLT), each funded at $3 million per year for five years. An important educational
mission for nanotechnology centers-of- excellence has been largely unrecognized: retraining professionals. In the U.S., many
scientifically trained graduates have left scientific fields in favor of positions in finance, management or other non-science
related jobs. The NSF reported that in 1999 more than 50 percent of employed natural and life sciences and engineering degree
holders worked in non-scientific jobs. Further, the post-doc position in traditional science fields is becoming an ‘academic
purgatory’rather than a stepping stone to professorship because the number of tenure track positions in academe are not
growing to match the production of PhDs. The result is that many students have become disillusioned with the sciences as a
career option. This supply of disenchanted students could be reenergized by the promise of nanotechnology. With the proper
cross-disciplinary training, they could be prepared to meet the extra demand from nano-firms. Stephan has advised that before
we commit to creating large new numbers of PhDs with nano special- ties, we should work successfully to transition the
current supply. Thus retraining centers are important to meet the initial peak in nanotechnology demand. Retraining centers
are also important for the long term health of the nano-based economy. Nano is a collection of distinct technologies that will
interact, evolve and grow—perhaps for generations. In this scenario, a particular product or process will first garner investment
capital (anti-cancer nanoprobes, for example) followed several years later by another nanotech related innovation (say
molecular electronics).
31
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – Nanotech Key

The US must act now or it will fall behind in nanotech research – the lack of funding is destroying our
ability to compete globally because of the wide variety of nanotech applications
Edward Welsch, Medill News Service, 6/29/05, “U.S. needs bigger effort in nanotech, Congress told”
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BCD7EF8BB-F843-43D4-A97C-
C0126B111012%7D&dist=rss&siteid=mktw
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - The United States is at risk of falling behind other countries in nanotechnology research,
according to researchers testifying Wednesday at a House subcommittee. Nanotechnology, which involves the manipulation of
atoms and molecules to create new products and processes, needs more funding and more scientists to keep up, the panelists said.
Floyd Kvamme, co-chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Policy and a partner emeritus in
venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, told the subcommittee that while the United States is still the leader in
nanotechnology research and development, "other countries are aggressively chasing U.S. leadership." While the U.S. spends
more than any other country - $3.3 billion out of the $8.6 billion world total - it is exceeded by many Asian countries on a per
capita basis, according to New York nanotech analysis firm Lux Research Inc. Per capita investment in South Korea is $5.62; in
Japan, $6.30; and in Taiwan, $9.40. The U.S. spends $5.42 per capita. Asian countries are also piggy-backing on U.S. research by
ignoring patent laws, said Matthew Nordan, vice president of research at Lux. Rep. Michael Sodrel, R-Ind., asked how the U.S.
can maintain any technological breakthroughs when other countries, such as China, show little respect for intellectual property
laws. The panelists suggested various means of getting other countries to play by the rules, from appealing to the World Trade
Organization to blocking the sale of products of stolen U.S. technology. Nordan told the lawmakers that protectionist methods
alone would be ineffective. "It's a question of staying one step ahead," he said. "The way that the U.S. can maintain its
dominance ... is to have an unrelenting, relentless flow of new ideas that take time [to implement] and keep the U.S. three, four,
five years ahead." The Brain Drain Problem A significant barrier to maintaining an edge in innovation is the scientific brain drain
to other countries, the panelists said. Nordan cited Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley's prediction that by 2010 90 percent of the
world's physical scientists in 2010 will be from Asian countries and 50 percent will be working in Asian countries. Kvamme said
that while many scientists are trained at U.S. universities, fewer are choosing to stay in the United States after they get advanced
degrees. The United States must find a way to reward people for sticking with difficult scientific fields instead of pursuing more
lucrative and easier paths, he said. More Funding, More Vision Nanotechnology has helped to create synthetic bone replacement
material that helps bones heal faster. It is also being used to create a substitute for the ordinary light bulb that uses one-tenth the
energy. And it is helping to create membranes that can remove contaminants in water. Those are a few applications of technologies
that have the potential to be used in fuel cells, video displays, computer chips, clothing and tools, as well as in agriculture,
medicine, defense and engineering. However, many of the gee-whiz applications of nanotechnology are a decade or more away,
and getting funding for the concept stage of the science is harder than for developing a marketable nanotech product. New venture
capital funding has remained "relatively flat," with between 30 and 40 venture-backed nanotech startups per year, said Sean
Murdock, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance. Venture capital funding has actually declined 48 percent from $385
million in 2002 to $200 million in 2004, according to Lux Research. "Since the private sector is not willing to take the risk, the
government must bridge the gap," Murdock testified. Nordan compared research into nanotech to government-funded research into
information networks decades ago. No one knew then that that research would pay off many times over with the Internet, he said.
Nordan predicted that nanotechnology will affect nearly every type of manufactured good over the next 10 years, and will be
incorporated in 15 percent of the world's products, worth $2.6 trillion. Committee chairman Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., would review
the panelists' testimony and determine whether there was a need for further legislation, said spokesman Joseph Pouliot. End of
Story Edward Welsch is a reporter for Medill News Service in Washington.
32
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – Nanotech Key

Nanotech maintains US competitiveness
Howard Keith Lucas ‘8, Nerac Analyst [“Small Can Be Large,” http://www.nerac.com/medical-
device/jun2008_review/nanotechnology/]
In the meantime, nanotechnology could be the key to the United States maintaining its competitive edge in the global market. That is
why U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, of Tennessee, a keynote speaker at the conference, is pushing Congress to step up and help the private
industry meet the technological challenges of a highly competitive global environment. Citing the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments he is guiding through the U.S. House of Representatives, he says the bill will help the United States take advantage of
nanotechnology’s potential through increased support for commercialization as well as advancing the public’s understanding of the
environmental, health and safety impacts. Also speaking at the event was Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship and also chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and
Innovation. Sen. Kerry emphasized the important role that small businesses play in ensuring U.S. technological leadership. His belief
in the transformational potential of entrepreneurship has led him to champion the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
program and the reauthorization of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research & Development Act in the Senate. “These keynotes
illustrated the importance of a positive policy climate and the federal government’s role in maintaining America’s leadership in
nanoscience,” says Sean Murdock, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance. “We’re lucky and proud to count these two
leaders as nanotech proponents.”
33
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – Tech Key

Technological leadership is necessary to maintain our competitiveness – more R&D is key
Moya K. Mason ‘8, Professional freelance research consultant, editor, and writer [“The Process of Creation: Where Are We
Going?: Scenario Planning, Science and Technology, National Research and Societal Considerations,”
http://www.moyak.com/researcher/resume/papers/scenario_planning.html]
We have little control over driving forces, and the only way we can leverage them is to recognize them for what they are, understand
their effects, and contribute to creating new driving forces if we do not like the ones we find. In addition, it is very important to
identify and understand the underlying forces, so that there is a framework in which to relate the deeper, more fundamental forces
acting behind the scenes. The opportunities lie in understanding the arc of change and moving in that direction. As Joseph Bordogna,
Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the National Science Foundation put it, The future is never easy to see. But the
chances of having good vision are much better if you understand the larger context in which you work -- the sector, the society, and
even the time in history; the moment in civilization. Learning to read the larger context gives you a path for imagining the future.
Peter Drucker put it best when he said, "I never predict. I just look out the window and see what is visible, but not yet seen." Scientific
discoveries are key drivers of economic growth, driving and fueling the economy. Leading economists have identified technological
progress as the single most important determining factor in sustained economic growth. While some technologies can be anticipated,
especially those that are improvements or new uses of old technologies, there is such rapid change in fundamentally new areas that it
is hard to fully understand the implications. Examples are the human genome project, the explosive changes taking place in
information technology, the growth of nanotechnology, and biotechnology, which has the potential to transform areas as different as
farming and computer technology. Howard Rheingold of The Virtual Community fame sees continuing miniaturization and progress
toward nanotechnology and self-replicating technologies that threaten the future of humanity as we know it see as the most innovative
or consequential scientific areas of the next decade. He also see the availability of desktop bioengineering tools in coming years
bringing the threat of human-created plagues as we are about to reap the consequences of unregulated and unthoughtful technology
development, with no way of telling what damage the backlash will do. Lee Rybeck Lynd, Associate Professor of Biology, Thayer
School of Engineering, Dartmouth College considers biotechnology, particularly directed toward commodity applications; agriculture,
including innovation-driven progress; resource and environmental systems analysis; communication; and health-care to be the most
innovative or consequential fields/sub-fields of Science and Technology to watch. Science, technology and industry are in a period of
change, reflecting the ongoing move to a knowledge-based economy that is global in its scope. Rapid technological progress, resulting
from a productive scientific community and more efficient business practices, the growing role of information and communications
technologies, and the globalization of economy and society are some of the key forces driving this transformation. And although the
links between science and socio-economic progress are complex, future scenario work offers promise as a means to help ensure that
science, engineering and technology contribute to national objectives, by identifying priority areas in research and development. By
looking forward to possible future developments and their implications for research, we can obtain valuable alternative perspectives
on our present activities. National research facilities and services, regulatory frameworks, and the extension of physical structures such
as telecommunications networks should be top on the list of governmental priorities to enable the creation of a better tomorrow and
provide an infrastructure for innovation. Quality, quantity and diversity of scientific output is clearly a national goal for any country to
work towards as is a scientifically and technologically competent workforce for the 21st century, and the development of a
sophisticated technology policy. By uncovering and studying the underlying forces and directions that experts and visionaries expect
will be significant, can help to provide some insight into the future, and more importantly, assist us in creating one that we would like
to live in.
34
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – US Action Key - Innovation/Spillover

Because of geographic boundaries, US alternative energy nanotech action is key to innovation
Dr. John Marburger, Director of Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President to
the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, 3/29/06, United States Senate,
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:-7eAwJVGcGcJ:www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/Marburger
%2520testimony%2520FINAL%2520Senate%2520Commerce3-29-06.pdf+U.S.
+National+Nanotechnology+Initiative+spillover+economy+innovation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&clie
nt=firefox-a
The location of innovation also matters in that spillovers, at least to some degree, tend to spread from a geographical locus. For
example, flows of knowledge to U.S. innovators are more likely to come first from the United States than from abroad.
Globalized information flows reduce the impact of the distance factor, but it remains significant in explaining technology
diffusion and spillover effects. The comparative advantage of the high-cost countries of North America and Western Europe is
increasingly based on knowledge-driven innovative activity. Thus, the location of knowledge-based activity matters for
innovation and ultimately comparative advantage.
The inventions and innovations of the future that will be advanced in terms of quality, quantity and timeliness by ACI are in
the areas of nano-, bio-, and information-technology and manufacturing, solar, nuclear and hydrogen energy, new materials
and processes. Specific innovation-enabling potential outcomes of ACI basic research include: world-leading capability and
capacity in nanofabrication and nano-manufacturing – a determinant industry of the future necessary next generation
investigation tools to study materials at the nanoscale world-leading high-end computing capacity (petascale) and capability
(design) and advanced networking as fast as possible to address grand challenges overcoming technical barriers for quantum
information processing new technologies for hydrogen, nuclear and solar energy through novel new basic research approaches
in materials science. addressing gaps and needs in cyber security to lead the world in information, knowledge and intellectual
property protection and control basic research on sensor and detection capabilities (e.g. for Improvised Explosive Devices)
which can also lead to world-leading automation and control technologies solving fundamental technical problems in the
application of biometrics develop manufacturing standards for unprecedented technologies for the supply chain improving
building standards in high-risk areas (e.g. hurricane and earthquake-prone regions) responding to international standards
challenges which affect U.S. competitiveness.
35
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – US Action Key - Innovation/Spillover

US nanotech development would spread throughout the world
Richard M. Russell Associate Director And Deputy Director for Technology Office of Science and Technology
Policy Nanotech, 5/8/06, “Nanotechnology: Engine of Innovation & Competitiveness”
While that paradigm still holds true, some significant changes have occurred. Today, research results and other types of
information are electronically accessible from virtually anywhere on earth as soon as they are made public. Everyone is
familiar with the fact that news now instantly moves around the world through outlets ranging from online news services to
bloggers. So too, the connectivity among scientists has accelerated progress and, in areas that are pre-competitive, has the
potential to reduce the duplication of effort. Almost instant global communication has had a democratizing effect on
technological discovery and is helping advance nanotechnology worldwide.
36
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – Innovation Happens

3 reasons why innovation spillovers happen – knowledge sharing, market benefits, and interrelated tech
Dr. John Marburger, Director of Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President to
the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, 3/29/06, United States Senate,
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:-7eAwJVGcGcJ:www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/Marburger
%2520testimony%2520FINAL%2520Senate%2520Commerce3-29-06.pdf+U.S.
+National+Nanotechnology+Initiative+spillover+economy+innovation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&clie
nt=firefox-a
Innovation spillovers flow through at least three distinct channels. First, “knowledge spillovers” occur because knowledge
created by one firm cannot typically be contained within that firm, and thereby creates value for other firms and other firms’
customers. Second, “market spillovers” occur when an innovation creates benefits for consumers and non-innovating firms that
are not fully captured by the innovating firm due to competition and other market forces. Third, because the profitability of a
set of interrelated and interdependent technologies may depend on achieving a critical mass of success, each firm pursuing one
or more of these related technologies creates economic benefits or “network spillovers” for other firms and their customers.
Technical standards often have an important role to play in the context of markets with significant network effects.
37
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – Alternative Energy Key

Government funding of alternative energy is key to spillover into all sectors of technology and the world
economy
Clive Crook, senior editor of The Atlantic and a columnist for National Journal, 7/19/05, “The New Economy
Will Be All About Energy” http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507u/nj_crook_2005-07-19
The single most powerful incentive for innovation in energy, of course, is the price of oil—and that too, thanks to OPEC and
the pressure of global demand, is pushing the same way. For environmental reasons, the bosses of many energy-producing and
energy-consuming industries are convinced that new restrictions on carbon emissions are coming anyway. So the commercial
reward for innovation in alternative energy and conservation could be enormous.
One could go further—as Clinton typically did—and argue that global warming and expensive oil are not setbacks for the
United States so much as wonderful opportunities. Bizarrely, when you recall that he sees global warming as so grave a danger,
he compared innovation in energy to the leap forward in information technology of the 1980s and 1990s. The energy economy,
he argued, is the next big thing. It could be as good for living standards and the creation of new high-wage jobs as the IT-led
economic expansion that began toward the end of the 20th century.
In any event, it might take less than one would think to push America and the rest of the world much faster down the
alternative-energy path. The meeting at Aspen also heard from Amory Lovins, whom Clinton lauded. Lovins, the head of the
Rocky Mountain Institute, has long advocated alternative energy and energy conservation. Earlier predictions of his about
rising energy efficiency, dismissed at the time, have come true. His view is that the economy is poised to make huge new
economic, environmental, and geopolitical savings over the next 20 to 30 years—through better conservation and switches to
new fuels, such as hydrogen and biofuels.
Lovins argues that a relatively light-handed new energy policy might be enough to show business where things are going. By
consistently advocating a new energy economy, and backing that up with relatively modest interventions here and there, the
government, he believes, could unlock faster innovation and a far more rapid turnover of the installed stock of old-energy
capital. If Lovins is right, America's dependence on oil will shrink much faster than people think. With a gentle push, it could
shrink even faster than that, and it would be good if it did.
38
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Without reducing our oil dependence there is no way to prevent economic collapse
Seeking Alpha, economy news, 7/20/08, “Does Al Gore Finally Get It?” <
http://seekingalpha.com/article/85852-does-al-gore-finally-get-it>
However, in some ways, Al Gore has done a disservice to his own cause by warning about the consequences of global warming
instead of the realities of worldwide oil production versus demand. As I have said for years now, the biggest, most imminent
threat to the US economy and indeed to worldwide civilization as a whole, will be the inability of worldwide oil production to
meet worldwide oil demand while our economies is still oil based.
Global warming or climate change, however one chooses to refer to the "phenomenon", IS real and IS happening. However, it
will not pose a serious threat to our economy or our lives for another couple of decades. Oil, on the other hand, has the
potential to wreck havoc on our economy, our way of life, and our entire civilization by 2015 if we continue to do nothing.
That is only 7 years away.
We're seeing the very real effects already today - but people want to erroneously blame it on speculators, "big oil", politicians ,
etc. Very few, for whatever reason, want to believe in peak oil (even though it has happened in reservoir after reservoir all over
the world), or the fact that just maybe the US isn't entitled to cheap and convenient oil for the next 200 years. Being 4% of the
world's population and using 25% of the world's oil production (importing 65% of that) leaves the US the most exposed and the
most threatened by the realities of worldwide oil production and demand. This as billions of Chinese and Indians are trading in
bicycles for gasoline (oil) powered automobiles. Still, we ignore the facts and continue merrily on our way.
Meanwhile, oil is at $130/barrel, gasoline at $4/gallon, the S&P is on the skids (returning nearly 0% over the last 10 years), the
US trade deficit balloons as we send $750 billion dollars (and rising...) every year to foreign oil producers, inflation is raging
(but the Fed can't raise rates), and of course as a result, the US dollar is down 50% since Bush took office. Still, our "leaders"
cannot or will not see the wisdom of enacting a comprehensive energy policy to regain control of our economy, our financial
future, and our national security.
39
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

Investing in alternative energy key to US economy and leadership – now is key.
What has changed is the urgency of the situation and the scope of opportunity posed by the economic benefits of investing in
clean energy and efficiency measures. And that is the purpose of this memo: to point to a broader debate over American jobs,
our future economy and our role in the world. Energy clearly has power as a separate issue, but it can play a much bigger role
in a broader and more powerful agenda. Clean energy can be a big part of the debate over how America advances
economically, in both micro and macro terms: how we develop good American jobs, how America leads the world
technologically and economically, and how we help Americans save money
and maintain their standard of living. We as a party and as candidates have a huge opportunity that should not be missed—one
that addresses not only core economic insecurities of Americans, but defines us as a forward looking, prescient party. Our
argument is not based on a single poll or set of focus groups, but instead listening to people in dozens of focus groups and polls
who are very worried about the future of this country and their place in that future. This memo aims to pull together their
concerns, along with their support for the development of clean energy into a broader economic debate that is central to
people’s lives now and in the years to come.
40
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

Investing in alternative energy key to saving economy – creates jobs. Empirically proven.
Investing in new, clean energy that creates jobs. Invest in new, clean sources of energy that will make us more secure,
strengthen our economy by creating good jobs, and protect our air, water and land. Frankly, people view these new sources of
energy as the present and the future, and readily accept the notion that investment here provides economic benefits. In addition,
we should realize that oil is viewed as producing economic benefits in a few specific regions, while wind, solar, and biofuels
present an opportunity for any region. We have seen this economic argument work everywhere -- states in the Midwest, Mid-
Atlantic, Southwest, and South.
41
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

Future of America’s economy depends on ability to develop and use alternative energy
Fox, 7/19/08, “transcript: president bush’s radio address,” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386621,00.html
In the short term, America's economy will continue to depend on oil, but in the long term our economic future depends on promoting
alternative energy technologies. So my Administration has worked to expand the use of alternative fuels and raise fuel efficiency
standards. We're investing in new advanced batteries, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen fuel cells. We're working to expand the use of
clean, safe nuclear power, solar and wind power, and clean coal technology. With these steps, we're enhancing America's energy
security.
42
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

Investing in alternative energy will revive economy – creates jobs.
The Boston Globe, 11/26/06, “Defense dollars better spend elsewhere,” http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?
_m=9246582b7326684c4879e097466177c4&wchp=dGLbVlW-zSkVk&_md5=0f70db09c57680c366690fe13383b42c, LEXIS
I read the article "Into an antiwar state, defense dollars flow" (Globe NorthWest, Nov. 19) with interest. Although we seem to reap
benefits from the flow of these dollars in terms of jobs, if that tax money were spent on the needs of our communities and our citizens
(housing, healthcare, transportation, education, alternative energy), we would have a healthier economy with more jobs created. A
small number of companies and individuals are reaping huge profits from the arms industry, while use of the products (cluster bombs)
kills women and children. Perhaps the reason people are against war is because we recognize this terrible reality and want things to be
different
43
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

Technological advances lead to more advances – alternative energy developments are uniquely key to the
economy
Vernon W. Ruttan, Regents Professor Emeritus, Department of Applied Economics and the Department of
Economics, University of Minnesota, April 2008, “GENERAL PURPOSE TECHNOLOGY,
REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY, AND TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY” Staff Paper P08-3
Thus, in the case of the turbojet, insight derived from aeronautics in the1920s created a presumption among a few aircraft engineers
that over the longer term, fundamental constraints would be encountered in the performance of the piston-propeller system of aircraft
propulsion. Another example was the realization by Marvin Kelly, director of research at Bell Telephone Laboratories, that the heat
generated by vacuum tubes would become a constraint on the development of rapid telephone switching technology. A more
contemporary example is the realization, because of the impact of carbon dioxide emission on global temperature, that efficient
alternatives to carbon based fuels must be found if economic growth is to be sustained (Ruttan 2001: 515-521; National Research
Council and National Academy of Engineering 2004; Pacala and Socolow 2004). It is not necessary that the insight that gives rise to a
presumption of anomaly be derived from science. Advances in engineering, agronomic or medical knowledge may also give rise to
presumptive anomaly. 10 When a radically new technology is initially envisaged it will almost certainly be judged to be less efficient
than the system it is designed to replace. Furthermore, a radical new general purpose technology will generally, over time, do much
more than perform existing functions more efficiently. As emphasized in the previous section it will also give rise to the proliferation
and further evolution of new application technologies—it will “fertilize” technical and institutional innovation. Thus, the electronic
digital computer and the transistor gave rise to the evolution of entirely new communication technologies. This process was in turn
reinforced by the further evolution of computer and microprocessor technology.
44
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – Solar Power Solves

Solar power helps economy – creates job and stimulates growth – Nevada proves
Sarah Lozanova, author for greenoptions.com, 7/3/08, “Solar Energy Creating Economic Boom for Nevada”
Solar projects totaling more than 10,000 MW have land requests from the Bureau of Land Management in Southern Nevada. If
constructed, these solar plants would bring over $40 billion of investment to Nevada. Power plants benefit the economy in the
short-term by creating large quantities of construction jobs. In the long-term, they create plant operations jobs, tax revenue,
raise property values, and generate income through land leases. A recent example is Acciona’s Nevada Solar One, located in
Boulder City, NV. As the third largest solar concentrated plant in the world, its maximum output is 75 MW of electricity. It
generates enough power for 15,000 homes annually and had a cost of $260 million. Operating since June, 2007, there are 300
acres of solar fields. The plant will produce peak power, with nearly zero carbon emissions and created approximately 28
operations related jobs.
45
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – A2: Education = Alt Cause
Nanotechnology development provides the necessary framework for education

Margaret Lovell, writer for Innovation: America’s journal of technology commercialization, October/November
2007, “Three Rs and an N: Schooling Nano Innovators”
http://www.sandia.gov/NINE/documents/innovation.pdf
NINE brings together government lab and industry scientists, students and faculty to do research in leading-edge technical areas.
NINE partners provide students—high school through grad school—team research experiences generally unavailable in
traditional academic environments. In addition to showing students how science is done in professional settings, NINE also
http://www.innovation-america.org/index.php?articleID=306 (1 of 3)11/5/2007 12:31:35 PM exposes students to the non-
technical aspects of nano-engineering, including business, legal, political and social issues through courses, seminars and
mentoring. Those social issues, for example, reducing greenhouse gases, are key to attracting today’s students. According to
Justine Johannes, a Sandia manager and co-director of NINE, “Important social issues can pull the next generation into
engineering and the sciences. Their ability to make an impact on those issues can keep them engaged.” Regan Stinnett, Sandia’s
NINE manager, likens this nanotechnology era to the moon program in the 1960s. “Nanotechnology, like the early space program,
brings excitement to students. And like the early moon shots, the multidisciplinary aspects of nano call on a variety of academic
disciplines, including electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, material science. The challenge for universities will be how to
provide the breadth of learning that the new technology needs without sacrificing the depth of the academic disciplines. It’s
possible that NINE can provide some of that scientific breadth, as well as the societal aspects, and help create innovative leaders
who understand all the different disciplines, all the varying points of view.”
46
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Science Leadership Key to Soft Power

US science leadership is key to our soft power
Jeff Miotke, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Space, and Health, 4/2/08, Before the Subcommittee
on Research, Science Education, House Committee on Science and Technology United States House of
Representatives, http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/102995.htm
Bilateral S&T Cooperation Agreements

Science and science-based approaches make tangible improvements in people’s lives. Strategically applied, S&T outreach
serves as a powerful tool to reach important segments of civil society. Sound science is a critical foundation for sound policy
making and ensures that the international community develops reliable international benchmarks. Science is global in nature –
international cooperation is essential if we are to find solutions to global issues like climate change and combating emerging
infectious diseases. International scientific cooperation promotes good will, strengthens political relationships, helps foster
democracy and civil society, and advances the frontiers of knowledge for the benefit of all.
The Bureau of Oceans, Environment, and Science (OES) in DOS pursues such efforts through the establishment of bilateral
and multilateral S&T cooperation agreements. There are now over forty of these framework agreements in place, or in various
stages of negotiation, in every region of the world – from Asia and Africa, to Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America.
These agreements:
· Strengthen bilateral, regional, and global cooperation
Advance broader U.S. foreign policy goals
Provide for protection and allocation of intellectual property rights and benefit sharing
Encourage public and private engagement
Foster science-based decision-making
Facilitate the exchange of scientific results and access for researchers
Address taxation issues
And respond to the complex set of issues associated with economic development, security, and regional stability
These bilateral agreements have significant indirect benefits including contributing to solutions and initiatives that encourage
sustainable economic growth, promoting good will, strengthening political relationships, helping foster democracy and civil
society, supporting the role of women in science and society, promoting science education for youth, and advancing the
frontiers of knowledge for the benefit of all.
The agreements are instrumental in advancing our diplomatic relationships with key countries. They bring leading U.S.
government scientists together with foreign counterparts and policymakers to discuss the important role of cooperative
scientific endeavors in advancing, for example, our understanding of key elements of the climate system. Through our bilateral
relationship with Russia, to cite one such project, we have advanced the state of research on the impacts of climate change in
the Arctic – a key system in which we are working to address important gaps in knowledge. In bringing senior officials
together to discuss areas of common concern, the bilateral partnerships have helped to demonstrate how much we have in
common and have thereby advanced our diplomatic relationships and helped us achieve our objectives.
Promotion of International Cooperation
The International Space Station Agreement and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) projects are
multilateral projects the Department supports that have the promise of broadening knowledge, strengthening capabilities, and
extending benefits to the United States and our international partners. Disseminating knowledge on the use of remote sensing
capabilities in developing countries and negotiation of nanotechnology standards for emerging products and services in
member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are included in the wide range of
subjects supported by DOS.
OES is finalizing S&T cooperation agreements with Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan that will enable an increase in the scope of
S&T cooperation in the region. Funding, and how we successfully leverage the ability of those countries to finance science
exchange, will largely determine the pace of activities in terms of new programs.
U.S. S&T capability remains one of the most admired aspects of American society around the world, and this is particularly
true in predominantly Muslim countries. Public opinion polling indicates that people view American science and technology
more favorably than American products, our education system, or even our freedom and democracy. Young people under thirty
find American S&T particularly appealing.
47
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

Secretary Rice recognizes the promise S&T offers both to advance American national interests and to promote the freedom and
dignity of others. S&T empowers everyone to raise themselves up by developing their own human and intellectual capacity.
This empowerment gives hope – a natural enemy of extremism.
In July 2005, Secretary Rice approved a strategic initiative, put forward by Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global
Affairs Paula Dobriansky, to increase U.S. outreach to countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. The goal of
this strategy is to enhance our relationships and to foster development in those countries by engaging more fully with their
science and technology communities, reaching out to women and youth, and increasing collaborative S&T activities and
exchanges. In approving this strategy, the Secretary recognized the promise of science and technology to both advance
American national interests and promote the freedom and dignity of others. Science and science education can play an
important role in fostering dialogue, increasing innovation, and addressing poverty.
The public and private sectors in the United States are respected for sharing S&T advances and best business practices with the
world. The American way of doing business and our earnest efforts to apply honest, best practices in business and institutional
partnerships reinforces our attraction to the Islamic World. Our public and private sector S&T communities are perceived as
reliable, non-controversial, and beneficial to Islamic society.
Technology business accelerators provide entrepreneurs with reliable partners, provide financial means to create market-ready
products from prototypes, assist in developing business plans, and attract venture capital interest. The guiding principles of
technology business accelerators make them especially attractive to countries that want a sense of ownership of the program
rather than just being beneficiaries of traditional foreign assistance programs. OES is advocating introduction of business
technology accelerators that can provide the United States and cooperating countries with opportunities to create partnerships
that build S&T-based private sectors and strengthen public institutional ties.
OES is currently working with Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya on the development of technology
business accelerators and hopes to expand this program to partner countries in other parts of the world. Elsewhere, OES has on-
going dialogues with South Africa and Vietnam regarding accelerators and has raised the subject in meetings with the OECD
and APEC. Since the promotion of technological entrepreneurship is of great interest to many partner countries, discussions on
accelerators are frequently associated with recently signed bilateral agreements on S&T cooperation.
Business focuses aggressively on market drivers for selecting technologies that can be developed into business opportunities. It
applies proven processes and practices to speed up growth of technology-based enterprises that are regionally focused and
globally competitive from the outset. Business strives to overcome traditional barriers to success including lack of access to
capital and to markets firstly by attracting investment and secondly by using innovative proactive marketing and business
development processes in key markets. Finally, U.S. and local business partners assertively infuse the appropriate know-how to
ensure their success by transferring their knowledge and advocating its adoption.
U.S. and host country business partnerships are desirable as a means of sustaining S&T programs because they are guided by
the following principles:
They are host country-owned and backed by U.S. public and private partners.
They are business initiatives.
They involve stakeholders from both the governmental and private sectors.
They are guided by both technology policy and business development components, frequently have links to bilateral S&T
agreements, and have goals that aim to strengthen the underlying legal, regulatory and policy framework supporting S&T
business sector development.
They offer opportunities for stakeholders to commercialize research undertaken at local universities and government agencies.
They create long term independence through extensive knowledge transfer and local capacity building and infrastructure for
S&T business creation and growth.
One case in point that illustrates how S&T cooperation is integrated into our diplomatic activities in the Middle East is in the
case of Egypt. A wide array of joint United States-Egyptian S&T research activities that have occurred have been funded under
our bilateral S&T agreement. In addition to the more tangible and pragmatic S&T benefits observed, both countries have
benefited from the cultural understanding and goodwill these relationships foster. The agreement continues to play a significant
role in a very important bilateral relationship for the United States. Egypt plays a key role in helping to ensure a stable Middle
East.
Establishing Priorities for S&T International Cooperation
48
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Our outreach program to the Muslim world is indicative of the Department’s broad interest in seeing S&T being used as a way
to build bridges, promote development, and enhance U.S. scientific progress and capacity. Each year the DOS reviews its
priority objectives with each of the regional bureaus to ensure that science and technology is advancing American national and
foreign policy interests and promoting the freedom and dignity of others. This is followed up with detailed discussions at the
bureau leadership level. Input from our missions abroad is factored into these deliberations, through the review of mission-
specific strategic planning documents.
Conclusion
S&T is universally perceived as apolitical. This inherent characteristic makes S&T an excellent means for engaging societies,
such as those in the Middle East, where the United States has become progressively more unpopular. While there has been no
definitive study on the topic of what makes science diplomacy effective, we have learned through years of engagement that
some of the key elements are:
finding areas that break new ground, sometimes in a neglected area of science or development
finding areas that are educationally and developmentally transformative, that are highly motivational for the participants
finding areas that address core developmental issues of poverty and human development
finding areas that promote sustainable uses of natural resources
finding programs that stimulate job creation and private sector investment
finding collaborative projects that bear tangible results
The appeal of American science and technology creates a more favorable atmosphere in which to explain other American
policies and interests. S&T allows the United States to engage in mutually beneficial dialogue with foreign nations, and creates
a foundation for international exchange of ideas, scientists, data, and students. Science education provides opportunities for
upward mobility for youth worldwide. S&T empowers individuals, in America and around the world, to find dignified,
independent solutions to pressing social, economic, and environmental problems.
We are proud of the work we are doing to strengthen our S&T ties with other nations. Nonetheless, there is a lot more that
could be done to further harness the soft power of S&T. Last month, the Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on
Transformational Diplomacy recommended that the DOS “expand its investment in Science, Engineering, and Technology
expertise, presence, and global engagement. This includes expanding the Department’s engagement in global science,
engineering, and technology networks through exchanges, assistance, and joint research activities addressing key issues.” I
look forward to hearing from the Committee how we might work together to broaden our international cooperation on science
and technology.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
49
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – No Oil Dependency Key to Soft Power

Oil dependency kills our soft power
Thomas D. Kraemer, Strategic Studies Institute, May 2006, “ADDICTED TO OIL: STRATEGIC
IMPLICATIONS OF AMERICAN OIL POLICY” http://209.85.215.104/search?
q=cache:xZwGTdz78MAJ:www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/0605kraemer.pdf+Policies+to+Incease+us+Oil+Production:
+Likely+to+Fail,+Damage+the+Economy,+and+Damage+the+Environment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=62&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The war of ideas, however, has produced a growing gap between much of the world’s perception of the United States and
America’s self-perception as being the purveyor of freedom. While America sees its actions as being in the global interest, the
world views America’s interests as self-serving. Unless this “perception gap” is eliminated, America will have a difficult time
winning this war of ideas. In 2002, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that 79 percent of U.S. citizens believe it is good
that “American ideas and customs are spreading around the world,” and more than 70 percent think that U.S. foreign policy
“takes the interests of other states into account.” Unfortunately, this rosy view of U.S. power is not shared overseas, where,
according to the survey, overwhelming majorities say that the United States considers the interests of others “not much” or “not
at all.” 19 A January 2005 BBC survey of 21 countries found only five—India, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, and
South Korea—where a majority of people had “positive” attitudes toward the United States. 20 Although the U.S. global
standing has rebounded slightly since the invasion of Iraq, Pew reported in June 2005 that majorities in all 15 countries it
surveyed “favor another country challenging America’s global military supremacy,” and that support for the U.S.-led “war on
terror” is declining on every continent. 21 The U.S. image is especially bleak in the Arab world. Although Arab populations
view U.S. popular culture, U.S. science and technology, and the American people somewhat favorably, a 2004 Zogby
International poll found that fewer than 10 percent of those surveyed in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and
the United Arab Emirates approved of U.S. policy. Indeed, when asked to indicate their “first thought” about the United States,
the most common response was “unfair foreign policy.” 22 If the United States is a force for good—as the country’s leaders
proclaim and its citizens overwhelmingly believe—why do even its allies have concerns about its foreign policy? The short
answer is that they distrust American motives. In a 2004 Pew survey, majorities in six of the nine countries surveyed did not
believe that the U.S.-led war on terrorism was a sincere effort to reduce international terrorism. Even in Russia and Great
Britain, where there was strong support for the fight against terrorism, many people were skeptical of U.S. motives. 23 When
people who expressed doubts about U.S. sincerity in the terrorism effort were asked about other possible reasons for the war on
terrorism, oil was mentioned most often as a U.S. motive for the policy. Majorities in seven of the nine nations surveyed
believed that controlling Middle Eastern oil supplies was an important reason why the United States is conducting the war on
terrorism. 25 He later explained, “The terrorists who attacked our country on September 11, 2001, were not protesting our
policies. They were protesting our existence.” 26 The Pentagon’s National Defense Strategy, issued in March 2005, states:
“Our leading position in the world will continue to breed unease, a degree of resentment, and resistance.” 27 There is a grain of
truth in this argument, but foreign opposition to the United States is mostly a reaction to specific U.S. policies. The United
States has been the sole great power for nearly 15 years, but its international standing remained fairly high through the late
1990s. Although some foreign leaders expressed concerns about the power imbalance, most nations—their people and their
governments looked favorably on the United States and welcomed Washington’s global leadership. Attributing the current
unpopularity of the United States solely to its power or values cannot explain the sharp decline in its image that has occurred
since 2003, or especially the intense antipathy toward President Bush. According to the 2002 Pew survey, “Antipathy toward
the United States is shaped more by what it does in the international arena than by what it stands for politically and
economically.” 29 Similarly, a 2004 study by the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board concluded that “Muslims do not ‘hate our
freedom,’ but rather they hate our policies.” 30 And the State Department’s Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy concluded in
2003 that “Arabs and Muslims . . . support our values but believe that our policies do not live up to them.” 31 Disagreement
with U.S. foreign policy does not mean the policy is wrong, but it does mean U.S. actions come with a price. America’s war on
terror requires action, but our addiction to oil only serves to contaminate our true objectives when acting in the Middle East.
For half a century, the United States made Persian Gulf oil a primary security interest, boldly allying with these Muslim states
to defend them from the godless Soviets. Our defense was a small price to pay for the uninterrupted flow of oil. Today, as the
world’s lone superpower, America is seen as a threat to Muslim sovereignty. Middle Eastern states see America’s great need
for their oil, but they see no clear-cut policy on how the United States intends to fill this need. Our “dirty little secret” of oil
dependency only serves to build mistrust and distain. When battling a war of ideas in this region, these are not the foundations
on which to fight this battle.
50
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership - Solar Nanotech  Other Nanotech

Nanotech development in one area spurs development of other types of nanotech
Small Times, 11/27/02, “Nanotech development off to a slow start; could spur industry development”
<http://www.smalltimes.com/articles/article_display.cfm?
Section=ARCHI&C=Finan&ARTICLE_ID=268374&p=109
In a move that could ultimately spur small tech investment, the first-ever mutual fund of publicly traded small tech companies
was launched this month. It got off to a slow start, but industry experts think it has great promise and the timing is right.
As for the first day of trading, "It was quite sluggish," said Thiemo Lang. "People are hesitant because they don't know
nanotechnology sufficiently well."
Lang, a portfolio manager, is a member of the team that created and manages the fund, called Activest Lux NanoTech. In
addition to investor wariness about nanotechnology, Lang attributed the fund's lethargic launch to the overall investment
climate. "Everybody is skeptical and risk averse."
The fund is available to investors in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Luxembourg but not in the United States. It is
composed of approximately 70 percent U.S., 16 percent European and 14 percent Asian stocks. Transactions take place in
Luxembourg.
The fund began trading Nov. 4 after a one-month subscription period. By the middle of the first of week of trading, it had
raised approximately $5.3 million, which includes shares bought during the subscription period as well as investments from
Activest's parent HypoVereinsbank.
To overcome initial investor apprehension, Lang is reaching out to educated professionals. "I think this is really our target
group now." He added that engineers, scientists, physicians and other high tech professionals are less likely to be intimidated
by the technology.
Courting investors who aren't afraid of the technology worked for Harris & Harris Group Inc., a publicly traded venture capital
company based in New York. This past summer, Harris & Harris raised about $6 million in a rights offering and announced
that it would invest exclusively in nanotechnology, microsystems and MEMS companies.
Chief Executive Charles Harris credits the success of the offering (90 percent subscribed) largely to attractive pricing and to
the fact that company insiders set an example by subscribing their own rights. However, he also noted that his company's
shareholders were already attuned to investing in cutting-edge technologies. "We had always done early stage venture capital,"
Harris said. "It wasn't as if we went from the grocery business or oil well drilling business."
Activest lacks such previously committed investors. Lang said the fund must therefore prove itself. "If you can show over the
next six months or so that the performance of the fund is OK, that it's behaving nicely, then I think more interest will come."
The launch of an official marketing campaign will wait until a track record has been established.
Despite the nanotech label, the fund includes investments in companies that work at both the micro and nanoscale and is
intended to include a range of different types of companies. "We made quite a balanced distribution between different sectors
and also different market caps," Lang said.
What portfolio companies have in common is that nanotechnology, in the opinion of fund managers, could help their bottom
line. Among the fund's top holdings are such household names among technology investors as Agere Systems Inc. and Agilent
Technologies Inc., as well as small tech tool makers like Veeco Instruments Inc.
Just as notable are those not included: BASF, for example. "We think that, even if you are producing these basic nanoresources
or nanomaterials, we want to see a bit more," Lang said. "We want to see that these companies are committed to developing
nanodevices out of it." Lang's aversion to raw nanomaterials is reflected in the fact that the category accounts for a mere 1
percent of the fund.
He'll also pass on Hewlett-Packard Co., although for an entirely different reason. "They are doing some interesting stuff in
nanoelectronics, but the structural problems in the computer sector are so overwhelming."
As for the overall investment climate, Lang said he thinks current circumstances can ultimately help. "The people, the
investors, they are still very cautious. Most of them are too pro-cyclical." The silver lining to the current cloud: "In many
stocks we have fine value. If the economy picks up these might be very decent entry points."
Tim Harper, chief executive of Madrid, Spain-based nanotechnology consultancy CMP Cientifica, concurred. "Given the
current market conditions and company valuations, there may not be a better time to invest in a fund like Activest's product,"
he said via e-mail. "Nanotech is the only bright spot in an otherwise moribund market."
Harper said the fund, if successful, could spark creation of similar products, a development that would "affect the stock price of
nanotechnology companies and will be positive for the sector in general."
51
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership - Solar Nanotech  Other Nanotech

The nature of nanotechnology allows one type to spillover to all types of technology
Azonano, nanotech news website, 6/24/08, June 24th, 2008 http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=6647
"The natural synergy of scientific and technological problems of electronics, photonics and renewable energy based on commonly
used materials, such as semiconductors, ceramics and organic polymers will stimulate cross-disciplinary exchanges of ideas and
potential solutions," said Dr. Mascher. "Technology and business leaders will be able to accelerate the transfer of ideas from 'lab to
fab' and to use the meeting as a convenient way to review new developments and innovations."
52
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Everything

Nanotech is key to everything
Task Force on Science, Technology, and Innovation, UN Millenium Project, 12/17/05, “Innovation: applying
knowledge in development” http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/Science-part2.pdf
Nanotechnology may have a significant impact on all areas of human endeavor. According to Richard Smalley, a nanotechnology
pioneer who was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1996 for his discovery of fullerenes, “the impact of nanotechnology on
health, wealth, and the standard of living for people will be at least the equivalent of the combined influences of
microelectronics, medical imaging, computer-aided engineering, and man-made polymers in this century” (Smalley 1999).
Nanotechnology is likely to be particularly important in the developing world, because it involves little labor, land, or
maintenance; it is highly productive and inexpensive; and it requires only modest amounts of materials and energy.
Nanotechnology products will be extremely productive, as energy producers, as materials collectors, and as manufacturing
equipment. Nanotechnology can contribute new tools with which to address sustainable development problems, and it can
strengthen the technologies already available and make them more efficient. It will coexist with rather than replace established
technologies. Its impact will be felt in multiple ways, depending on how other technologies converge and align themselves around
it.
53
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Disease

Nanotech is key preventing the spread and mutations of diseases
Promoting health Applications of nanotechnologies addressing health in developing countries are especially promising, particularly
for diagnostic tools, drug and vaccine delivery, surgical devices, and prosthetics. Nanotechnology can enable rapid, accurate, timely,
and affordable methods of diagnosis and prevention, which can allow more effective treatment with existing drugs. It can help detect
pathogens, such as mycobacteria and HIV. Nanotechnology-based solutions in developing countries will depend on cost, supply, and
ease of use, especially where a wide range of screening can occur with relatively inexpensive sensors in local clinics using diagnostic
kits. Microfluidic devices (lab-on-a-chip), carbon nanotube-based biosensor arrays, fluorescent semiconductor nanoparticles, magnetic
nanoparticles, and quantum dots offer significant diagnostic advantages over conventional fluorescent dyes. Dendrimers, in
conjunction with antibodies, have been designed to detect HIV and cancer. Atomic wires and nanobelts can be used to detect cancer,
since these nanomaterials are capable of revealing specific malignant agents through changes in their electronic transport
characteristics. Nanotechnology can also be applied to synthesize and target the delivery of drugs. It provides encapsulation systems
that can protect drugs while slowly delivering and releasing them. This capability can be very valuable in countries without adequate
drug storage capabilities and distribution networks. Long- term delivery obviates the need for patients to take pills daily at well-
defined times. Polymers for the slow release of drugs can be especially useful for drug regimens that are long and complex, such as
those used to treat tuberculosis. Nanotechnology can also reduce transportation costs and even required dos- ages by improving the
shelf-life, thermo-stability and resistance to changes in humidity of existing medications. A more specific and selective delivery of
drugs and vaccines can be obtained by the use of nanocapsules, liposomes, dendrimers, and buckyballs. Other areas of bio-
nanotechnology that are being actively researched include regenerative medicine and nanoscale surgery. Nanoceramics can be used to
produce more durable medical prosthetics.
54
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Disease

New nanotech breakthroughs create potential bio-sensors used for early detection of infectious diseases
AZoNano ‘5, Online Journal of Nanotechnology [“Advance Nanotech Finances Nanotechnology Device to
Detect Infectious Disease,” 10/5/05, http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1498]
Advance Nanotech has announced financing for BiMAT, a new technology that may aid in the early detection of Avian Influenza
(Bird Flu) in humans and animals. One of the key applications for Advance Nanotech's BiMAT technology will be to enable first
responders - medics, EMTs and doctors - to instantly analyze microscopic amounts biological material for specific diseases on site.
BiMAT technology will eliminate the need to send samples to specialized laboratories, speeding treatment and reducing problems of
handling, storage, mislabeling and treatment delay. "There is a critical need for inexpensive biosensors capable of determining the
concentration of different analytes using very small volumes of blood or other biological material in critical care environments, such
as ambulances, field hospitals, emergency rooms, and intensive care units," said Dr. Michael Helmus, senior vice president,
biopharma, for Advance Nanotech. "The BiMAT technology is accurate and easy to use; it can be deployed in the field to aid in the
detection of a variety of infectious diseases in animals and people. We expect this technology will enable the development of
biosensors that can be used for the surveillance of emerging diseases such as avian influenza in remote locations allowing rapid
response and containment of these diseases."
Nanomachines are feasible – future use will eliminate all diseases

Watch Tower ‘7, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania [“Will Science Cure the World?”
January, http://jehovantodistajat.fi/e/200701/article_02.htm]
Nanomedicine Nanomedicine is the application of nanotechnology to the medical field. In turn, nanotechnology is the science of
manipulating and creating microscopic objects. The unit of measure used in this technology is called the nanometer, which is one
billionth of a meter.* To put such a measurement in perspective, the page you are reading now is about 100,000 nanometers thick,
and a human hair about 80,000. A red blood cell is about 2,500 nanometers in diameter. A bacterium is about 1,000 nanometers long,
and a virus about 100 nanometers. Your DNA measures about 2.5 nanometers in diameter. Proponents of this technology believe
that in the near future, scientists will be able to build tiny devices designed to perform medical procedures inside the human body.
Often referred to as nanomachines, these little robots will carry microscopic computers programmed with very specific instructions.
Amazingly, these fairly complex machines will be built with components no bigger than 100 nanometers. That is 25 times smaller
than the diameter of a red blood cell! Because they are so small, it is hoped that nanodevices will someday be able to travel through
tiny capillaries and deliver oxygen to anemic tissues, remove obstructions from blood vessels and plaque from brain cells, and even
hunt down and destroy viruses, bacteria, and other infectious agents. Nanomachines may also be used to deliver drugs directly to
specifically targeted cells. Scientists predict that cancer detection will improve dramatically with the aid of nanomedicine. Dr.
Samuel Wickline, a professor of medicine, physics, and biomedical engineering, said: “The possibilities are enormous for finding very
small cancers far earlier than ever before and treating them with powerful drugs at the tumor site alone, while at the same time
reducing any harmful side effects.” Although this may sound like futuristic fantasy, nanomedicine is very real in the minds of some
scientists. Leading researchers in this field expect that within the next decade, nanotechnology will be in use in repairing and
rearranging the molecular structure of living cells. One proponent claims: “Nanomedicine will eliminate virtually all common
diseases of the 20th century, virtually all medical pain and suffering, and allow the extension of human capabilities.” Even now
some scientists are reporting good success in the use of nanomedicine on laboratory animals.
55
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Cancer

A. Nanotech can cure cancer without harmful effects of chemo or radiation
BBC, 8/2/05, “Nanotechnology kills cancer cells,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4734507.stm
Nanotechnology has been harnessed to kill cancer cells without harming healthy tissue.
The technique works by inserting microscopic synthetic rods called carbon nanotubules into cancer cells. When the rods are exposed
to near-infra red light from a laser they heat up, killing the cell, while cells without rods are left unscathed. Details of the Stanford
University work are published by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Researcher Dr Hongjie Dai said: "One of the longstanding problems in medicine is how to cure cancer without harming normal body
tissue. "Standard chemotherapy destroys cancer cells and normal cells alike. "That's why patients often lose their hair and suffer
numerous other side effects. "For us, the Holy Grail would be finding a way to selectively kill cancer cells and not damage healthy
ones."
B. More than 500,000 people in US die of cancer yearly

NYT, Denise Grady – staff writer, 1/18/07, “second drop in cancer deaths could point to a trend, researchers say,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/health/18cancer.html
From 2003 to 2004, cancer deaths fell by 3,014, considerably more than the previous year’s decline, 369. (These are the latest
years for which figures are available.) Although the drop is notable, it still pales in comparison with the number of cancer
deaths, 553,888 in 2004. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease.
56
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Cancer Ext

Nanotech can cure cancer without harming healthy cells. – R&D key
NIH, National Institutes of health, 11/7/01, “Nanotechnology and Cancer,” http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/400388.html
Nanotechnology may also be useful for developing ways to eradicate cancer cells without harming healthy, neighboring cells.
Scientists hope to use nanotechnology to create therapeutic agents that target specific cells and deliver the toxin in a controlled,
time-release manner. Researchers aim eventually to create single agents that are able to both detect cancer and deliver treatment. The
ultimate goal of this research is nanoparticles that will circulate through the body, detect cancer-associated molecular changes, assist with
imaging, release a therapeutic agent, and then monitor the effectiveness of the intervention. What nanotechnology tools are being developed
for cancer treatment? Research is being done on a number of nanoparticles that will facilitate drug delivery. One such molecule
with potential to link treatment with detection and diagnosis is known as a dendrimer. A useful feature of dendrimers is their
branching shape, which gives them vast amounts of surface area to which scientists can attach therapeutic agents or other
biologically active molecules. A single dendrimer can carry a molecule that recognizes cancer cells, a therapeutic agent to kill those cells,
and a molecule that recognizes the signals of cell death. Researchers hope to manipulate dendrimers to release their contents only in the
presence of certain trigger molecules associated with cancer. Following drug release, the dendrimers may also report back whether they are
successfully killing their targets. Nanoshells, another recent invention, are miniscule beads coated with gold. By manipulating the
thickness of the layers making up the nanoshells, scientists can design these beads to absorb specific wavelengths of light. The
most useful nanoshells are those that absorb near-infrared light, which can easily penetrate several centimeters of human tissue.
The absorption of light by the nanoshells creates an intense heat that is lethal to cells. Researchers can already link nanoshells
to antibodies that recognize cancer cells. Scientists envision letting these nanoshells seek out their cancerous targets, then
applying near-infrared light. In laboratory cultures, the heat generated by the light-absorbing nanoshells has successfully killed
tumor cells while leaving neighboring cells intact.
Nanotech has potential to detect and cure cancer in early stages – R&D key.
NIH, National Institutes of health, 11/7/01, “Nanotechnology and Cancer,” http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/400388.html
How can nanotechnology be used in cancer detection and diagnosis? Detection of cancer at an early stage is a critical step in
improving cancer treatment. Currently, detection and diagnosis of cancer usually depend on changes in cells and tissues that
are detected by a doctor's physical exam or imaging expertise. Instead, scientists would like to make it possible to detect cancer
when the earliest molecular changes are present, long before a physical exam or imaging technology is effective. To do this,
they need a new set of tools. Nanotechnology is uniquely promising as an early detection tool for several reasons: To
successfully detect cancer at its earliest stages, scientists must be able to detect molecular changes even when they occur only
in a small percentage of cells. This means the necessary tools must be extremely sensitive. The potential for nanostructures to
enter and analyze single cells suggests they could meet this need. Many nanotechnology tools will make it possible for
clinicians to run tests without physically altering the cells or tissue they take from a patient. This is important because the
samples clinicians use to screen for cancer are often in limited supply. Scientists would like to perform tests without altering cells, so
they can be used again if further tests are needed. Reductions in the size of tools means that many tests can be run on a single small device.
This will make screening faster and more cost-efficient. What specific nanotechnology tools are being developed for early detection?
The cantilevel is one tool with potential to aid in cancer diagnosis . Nanoscale cantilevers - tiny bars anchored at one end - can be
engineered to bind to molecules associated with cancer. They may bind to altered DNA sequences or proteins that are present
in certain types of cancer. When the cancer-associated molecules bind to the cantilevers, changes in surface tension cause the
cantilevers to bend. By monitoring whether or not the cantilevers are bent, scientists can tell whether the cancer molecules are
present. Scientists hope this bending will be evident even when the altered molecules are present in very low concentrations.
This will be useful in detecting early molecular events in the development of cancer. Other technologies will focus on improved
methods of reading the genetic code on single strands of DNA to detect errors that may contribute to cancer. Scientists believe nanopores,
tiny holes that allow DNA to pass through one strand at a time, will make DNA sequencing more efficient. As DNA passes through a
nanopore, scientists can monitor the shape and electrical properties of each base on the strand. Because these properties are unique for each of
the four bases that make up the genetic code, scientists can use the passage of DNA through a nanopore to decipher the encoded information,
including errors in the code known to be associated with cancer.
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Cancer Ext
Nanotechnology can cure cancer
57
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
CNN, 6/23/05, “Nanotech delivers cancer treatment,” http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/21/cancer.nanotech/

(CNN) -- Scientists using nanotechnology have devised a way of delivering cancer drugs that could make them up to 10 times
more effective in combating the killer disease. By attaching a chemotherapeutic drug to manmade nanoparticles, the team of
researchers at the University of Michigan were able to smuggle it inside cancerous cells, delaying the growth of tumors in mice
by up to 30 days -- the equivalent of three years in a human. Professor of biologic nanotechnology James Baker, who led the
research, said that the treatment might eventually turn cancer into a chronic but treatable condition. The study, which is
published in the current edition of the Cancer Research journal, is one of the first successful therapeutic uses of
nanotechnology on living animals. "This is the first study to demonstrate a nanoparticle-targeted drug actually leaving the
bloodstream, being concentrated in cancer cells, and having a biological effect on the animal's tumor," said Baker. "We're very
optimistic that nanotechnology can markedly improve cancer therapy."
58
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership - Nanotech Good: Clean Water 2AC

A. Nanotechnology key to ensuring access to clean water.
Danfoss, Danfoss and BankInvest, together with an American company, are to develop biological membranes for the purification of
water. The company Danfoss AquaZ A/S will further develop a new and patented type of membrane technology, which transforms
both salt water and brackish water into clean drinking water, among other applications., 7/19/ 06, “nanotechnology will ensure clean
water for the world,” http://www.danfoss.com/NewsAndEvents/Archive/Corporate+News/2006.htm?ArticleID=B5BA9FD4-D734-
46EC-B4C3-4257AEFFA8DF
Fresh drinking water is probably the most scarce resource in the world. Less than one per cent of the world’s drinking water
can be used directly by people. On the basis of nanotechnology, Professor Carlo Montamagno, Cincinnati University,
developed a membrane prototype which controls the purification of water using proteins. This is basic research, meaning that the results
have been patented. MT Technologies, whose sole shareholders are Professor Carlo Montamagno and his business partner Steven Tozzi, owns the intellectual
rights of the breakthrough technology, together with the newly-established company Danfoss AquaZ A/S. With a shareholding of 51%, the Danfoss Group is
the majority shareholder in the company. BankInvest via the venture foundation P/S BI New Energy Solutions (25.5%) and MT Technologies (23.5%) are the
remaining owners of Danfoss AquaZ A/S. On a global scale, the membrane market is worth more than 10 billion DKK, and the new company expects to have
complete clarification of the new technology’s sustainability within the first year. A commercial product is expected to be ready in two to three years’ time.
The breakthrough technology is based on the selective transfer of water molecules which is characteristic of the protein
Aquaporin – a protein existing in live cells. The Aquaporin protein regulates the influx and outflow of water molecules from
cells and has been ”programmed” by nature to let only water that is 100% clean in and out of the cells. It is this efficient ”sluice
mechanism” that the Danfoss AquaZ A/S aims to encapsulate and utilise in an industrial context. Jørgen Steen-Pedersen will become the President of Danfoss
AquaZ A/S and he will be based close to Cincinnati University in the USA, among other places, in the preliminary stage of the development activities.
Subsequently, the main part of the research activities will be relocated from the USA to Alsion in Sønderborg, Denmark, where development of the
commercial product will be finished.
B. Dirty water kills more than 3 million a year—outweighs war, terrorism and WMD’s combined.
Jessica Berman, Science and Medicine writer, 3/17/05, “WHO: Waterborne Disease is World's Leading Killer”
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-03/2005-03-17-voa34.cfm?CFID=93767752&CFTOKEN=55192494
The World Health Organization says that every year more than 3.4 million people die as a result of water related diseases,
making it the leading cause of disease and death around the world. Most of the victims are young children, the vast majority of
whom die of illnesses caused by organisms that thrive in water sources contaminated by raw sewage. VOA's Jessica Berman
has more on the story. A report published recently in the medical journal The Lancet concluded that poor water sanitation and a
lack of safe drinking water take a greater human toll than war, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction combined.
According to an assessment commissioned by the United Nations, 4,000 children die each day as a result of diseases caused by ingestion of filthy water. The
report says four of every 10 people in the world, particularly those in Africa and Asia, do not have clean water to drink.
C. Epidemics cause extinction

Corey S Powell, news editor and executive web editor at Discover Magazine. Worked at NASA – helped build and test gamma-ray
telescopes, worked on board of editors at Scientific American. October 2000, “Twenty ways the world could end suddenly,”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_10_21/ai_65368918/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
If Earth doesn't do us in, our fellow organisms might be up to the task. Germs and people have always coexisted, but
occasionally the balance gets out of whack. The Black Plague killed one European in four during the 14th century; influenza
took at least 20 million lives between 1918 and 1919; the AIDS epidemic has produced a similar death toll and is still going
strong. From 1980 to 1992, reports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mortality from infectious disease in the United States rose 58 percent .
Old diseases such as cholera and measles have developed new resistance to antibiotics. Intensive agriculture and land
development is bringing humans closer to animal pathogens. International travel means diseases can spread faster than ever.
Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert who recently left the Minnesota Department of Health, described the situation
as "like trying to swim against the current of a raging river." The grimmest possibility would be the emergence of a strain that
spreads so fast we are caught off guard or that resists all chemical means of control, perhaps as a result of our stirring of the
ecological pot. About 12,000 years ago, a sudden wave of mammal extinctions swept through the Americas . Ross MacPhee of
the American Museum of Natural History argues the culprit was extremely virulent disease, which humans helped transport as
they migrated into the New World.
Leadership - Nanotech Good: Clean Water Ext
Nanotechnology is more effective way to clean water.
59
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Frost & Sullivan, a global growth consulting company that partners with clients to support the development of innovative growth
strategies. For more than 40 years, the company has leveraged its comprehensive market expertise to offer industry research and
market strategies, provide growth consulting and corporate training, and support clients to help grow their businesses, December
2006, “Impact of nanotechnology in water and wastewater treatment,” http://www.mindbranch.com/Impact-Nanotechnology-Water-
R1-5570/
The quality of water that is obtained after the adoption of nanotechnology is well within the requirements of agencies such as
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It has been determined that these nano-based filters are able to achieve 99.95 percent
efficiency, when compared to conventional technologies. As a result, the water or effluent that is obtained after the treatment could be
reused for various domestic and industrial applications. Nanotechnology even removes protozoan cysts, oocysts, and helminth ova
and in some cases bacteria and viruses from the water. "Nanotechnology also provides more effective alternatives to the treatment of
contaminants such as mercury, arsenic, and perchlorate," explains the analyst. "As the impact of these contaminants on humans is
gradually realized, it has become increasingly essential to monitor them at trace levels, which is impossible with conventional
treatment methods."
Nanotech can provide clean water more efficiently than current purification methods.
Space daily, Charles Q. Choi – writer at space daily which brings the space industry professional daily news from the frontier, with
contract, bid, launch and on-orbit satellite news, 3/18/05“water, water everywhere nano,” http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nanotech-
05zb.html
Nanotechnology could lead to advanced water-filtering membranes "that can purify even the worst of wastewater,"
Modzelewski added, noting that KX Industries in Orange, Conn., has developed an anti-bacterial and anti-viral filter "that you
can pure raw sewage into, and come out with clear water on the other end." The key lies in how nanotechnology - science and
engineering on the scale of molecules - can make pores tiny enough to filter out the smallest of organism. "You can have new
polymer materials that can self-assemble into artificial membranes and be cheaper, more effective," Yaniv said. At the same
time, nano-engineered membrane pores can be far straighter than conventional filters using natural ingredients such as zeolite,
where the pores are very crooked. This means water actually can flow through faster.
60
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Clean Water Ext

Nanotech is key to cleaning water
Improving water and sanitation. More than 2 million children die each year from water-related diseases, such as diarrhea, cholera,
typhoid, and schistosomiasis, which result from a lack of adequate water and sanitation services. Arsenic, fluoride, and nitrates
threaten water supplies in many regions. In some cities in the developing world, only 10 percent of sewage is treated. Conventional
bacterial and viral filters trap pathogens inside granular carbon or porous ceramic or polymer materials. These filters are often
difficult to clean and must be changed frequently. Nanomembranes and nanoclays are cheap, easily transportable, and clean- able
systems that can purify, detoxify, and desalinate water. Filters made of carbon nanotubes have been developed by researchers at
Banaras Hindu Uni- versity in Varanasi, India, in collaboration with researchers at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in the United
States. Nanosensors for the detection of contaminants and pathogens can improve health, maintain a safe food and water supply, and
allow for the use of otherwise unusable water sources. Nano- electrocatalysts for anodic decomposition of organic pollutants and for
the removal of salts and heavy metals from liquids will permit the use of heavily polluted and heavily salinated water for drinking,
sanitation, and irrigation. Other applications of nanotechnology for water recycling and remediation include the use of zeolites and
nanoporous polymers to purify water and absorb toxic metals; attapulgite clays to remove heavy metals, oils, organic pollutants, and
bacteria from water; engineered membrane technology with biochemi- cal modifications to purify and filter water; magnetic
nanoparticles to adsorb metals and organic compounds; and titanium dioxide and iron nanoparticles to catalytically degrade pollutants.
By-products of remediation, such as toxic metal ions, can be transformed into useful inorganic nanomaterials.
61
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Poverty

Nanotech solves poverty
Cost-effective agricultural applications of nanotechnology could decrease malnutrition, and childhood mortality, in part by increasing
soil fertility and crop productivity. Crop health can be monitored using nanosensor arrays. Nanosensors can raise the efficiency of
crop monitoring activities. Sensors applied to the skin of livestock or sprayed on crops can help detect the presence of pathogens.
Nanoporous materials such as zeolites, which can form well- controlled stable suspensions with absorbed or adsorbed substances, can
be employed for the slow release and efficient dosage of fertilizers for plants and of nutrients and drugs for livestock.
62
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Terrorism

Nano developments provide surveillance systems that solve terror
NanoTechWire ‘5 [“Nanotechnology breakthrough by Imperial College will help the war against terrorism,”
8/26/05, http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2254]
Ingenia Technology Limited today launches an exciting breakthrough proprietary technology, developed by Imperial College London
and Durham University - the Laser Surface Authentication system (LSA). The LSA system recognises the inherent 'fingerprint' within
all materials such as paper, plastic, metal and ceramics. The LSA system is a whole new approach to security and could prove
valuable in the war against terrorism through its ability to make secure the authenticity of passports, ID cards and other documents
such as birth certificates. This technological breakthrough has been masterminded by Professor Russell Cowburn, Professor of
Nanotechnology in the Department of Physics at Imperial College London. Every paper, plastic, metal and ceramic surface is
microscopically different and has its own 'fingerprint'. Professor Cowburn's LSA system uses a laser to read this naturally occurring
'fingerprint'. The accuracy of measurement is often greater than that of DNA with a reliability of at least one million trillion. The
inherent 'fingerprint' is impossible to replicate and can be easily read using a low-cost portable laser scanner. This applies to almost all
paper and plastic documents, including passports, credit cards and product packaging. As well as the security implications, the
technology can be applied to commercial applications, particularly packaging. For example, in the case of pharmaceuticals, up to 10%
of all pharmaceuticals are counterfeits either containing little or no active ingredients. They can be easily identified with this new
technology. Inspection agencies and customs controls could use the technology to confirm the identity of imported goods and
prevent counterfeit. This could potentially save millions through the avoidance of fraud and reduce the flow of funds to would-be
terrorists. The nearest comparisons to this technology are: barcodes, holograms and watermarks. The main difference is that these
products are overt, and therefore more liable to abuse, whereas Professor Cowburn's is covert (invisible to the naked eye). Also
Professor Cowburn's technology is resistant to damage and cannot be copied. The LSA system has been brought to market by
Ingenia Technology Limited, a London-based company which deploys nanoscience to create secure systems. "Our findings open the
way to a new and much simpler approach to authentication and tracking. This is a system so secure that not even the inventors would
be able to crack it since there is no known manufacturing process for copying surface imperfections at the necessary level of precision.
"This system can be a powerful weapon against fraud, terrorism and identity theft," said Professor Cowburn.
63
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Military Readiness

Nanotech developments have high military applications – giving us a massive competitive advantage in
all sectors of combat
James Jay Carafano ‘7, Ph.D., Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and
Senior Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
Studies at The Heritage Foundation [“Nanotechnology and National Security: Small Changes, Big Impact,” 9/21/07,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2071.cfm]
Military Applications. All branches of the U.S. military are currently conducting nanotechnology research, including the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Office of Naval Research (ONR), Army Research Office (ARO), and Air Force
Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). The Air Force is heavily involved in research of composite materials.[7] Among other
projects, the Navy Research Laboratory's Institute for Nanoscience has studied quantum dots for application in nanophotonics and
identifying biological materials.[8] In May 2003, the Army and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology opened the Institute for
Soldier Nanotechnologies, a joint research collaboration to develop technologies to protect soldiers better .[9] Nanotechnology has
numerous military applications. The most obvious are in materials science. Carbon nanotubes and diamond films and fibers have
higher strength-to-weight ratios than steel, which allows for lighter and stronger armor and parts for vehicles, equipment, and aircraft.
Such upgraded military Humvees would better protect soldiers from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and small-arms fire. In
another application, adding nickel nanostrands (ropes of material no wider than a few molecules), which can conduct electricity, could
make aircraft more resistant to lightning strikes. The nickel strands also have magnetic properties that may prove useful in filters and
energy storage devices.[10] The U.S. Army is actively pursuing nanotechnology for use in soldiers' uniforms, equipment, and armor.
As part of the planned Objective Force Warrior Soldier Ensemble, the Army hopes to create a uniform that provides flexible armor
protection for soldiers' limbs through the use of shear thickening liquids that solidify when force is applied to them . This would
greatly reduce the weight that a soldier must carry. (Current body armor weighs around 25 pounds.) Other features of the planned
uniform include medical sensors, medical treatment capabilities, communications, and individual environmental control for the soldier
and integrated thermal, chemical, and biological sensing systems woven into the garment's fabric.[11] Nanotechnology would allow
for more precise control of fuel combustion and detonation of explosives. Explosives and propellants could be constructed atom by
atom to optimal particle sizes and ratios of ingredients so that the materials approach their theoretical limits of energy release. This
would lead to smaller, more powerful rockets, propellants, warheads, bombs, and other explosive devices. For slower release of
energy, nanotechnology would allow for more powerful batteries, fuel cells, photovoltaic panels, and perhaps even more exotic
methods of generating electrical power. Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology recently developed piezoelectric fibers,
which someday may be used in fabrics that generate their own electricity, completely eliminating the need for batteries.[12] In
electronics, nanotechnology would allow the creation of ever-smaller computers and sensors, leading to integrated packages that could
sense, discriminate, decide, report information, and provide control input to other devices . For example, tires that sense the surface
over which they are traveling could automatically adjust tire pressure to maintain optimal traction. Smart sensors could be used in
single-chip chemical and biological agent laboratories that would be smaller, faster, and more accurate than current testing methods.
They could also be attached to miniature disposable sensor platforms, allowing monitoring of a large battlespace at minimal cost,
effort, and danger to soldiers. In the more distant future, combining nanocomputers, sensors, and nanomechanical architectures into
one system would make possible autonomously targeted and guided projectiles, such as bullets and rockets. Nanotechnology could
also improve communications and information processing, whether on the battlefield or with the Oval Office, through microscopic
computers, switches, lasers, mirrors, detectors, and other optical and electrical devices. The laws of physics and optics change
fundamentally at the near-atomic level. Instead of being masked by the manipulation of particles on the surface, materials can be
changed at the optical electronic level. Materials that display one optical or electronic property at the macro level may display a
different property at the nanometer level. Remarkable mechanisms become possible, such as negatively refractive optics that bend
light at angles and in directions otherwise impossible.[13] Such devices could lead to the development of lenses that focus almost
instantaneously and light-bending camouflage that changes as the solider or vehicle moves. One theoretical and exotic use of
nanophotonic materials would be fiberoptic waveguides that actually strengthen the light beams passing through them. These could be
used for long-distance, strategic-level communications systems or high-power narrow-beam lasers. With nanophotonics, optical
computing, data storage, and signal processing become possible. If the Defense Department is to remain a leader in exploiting
nanotechnology, the Pentagon must ensure that it adequately understands how nanotechnology could be exploited for U.S. security
and competitive advantage.
64
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good – Hegemony
Renewable energy nanotech is key to US hegemony

NBA ‘7, NanoBusiness Alliance [“Nanotechnology Commercialization: Barriers and Solutions,”
http://www.nanobusiness.org/commercialization.php]
The implications of nanotechnology are significant, particularly for homeland security. Nanomaterials have the potential to save the
military billions of dollars by providing wear resistant coatings and protective armors. More importantly however, breakthroughs in
many of the areas impacted by nanotechnology will provide significant political and military leverage to the entity that develops them.
The ability to cheaply produce renewable energy on a massive scale will put a political faction in the position to suddenly
destabilize the petroleum economy or greatly increase industrial throughput for military applications. The next generation of
super-computers will be able to crack high-security codes with greater ease, better process intelligence data and advance the rate of
military research. Access to these computers by potential terrorists would set us back on our global war on terror. In addition, as the
number of nanotech products in U.S. households increases, the country or countries that control the manufacturing and benefit from
the commercialization of nanotech products will have significant influence over U.S. access to them and thus on the U.S. quality of
life.
65
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – Nanotech Good - Environment

Nanotech is key to preventing environmental collapse
Improving environmental management Many developing countries rely on fossil fuels for most of their energy. Waste products
resulting from the use of these fuels have a deleterious effect on both human health and the environment. Almost 800,000 deaths are
caused by urban air pollution every year, nearly two-thirds of them in developing countries. Nanocatalysts can reduce air pollution,
especially from waste products of nonrenewable energy sources, decreasing the dependence of developing countries on these sources
and preventing health and environmental problems. Metal oxide nanocatalysts, especially TiO 2 nanoparticles in self-cleaning coat-
ings, can be used to photocatalyze air pollutants and reduce fossil fuel emissions. Intense research is being conducted on nanodevices
that can absorb and separate toxic gases and on nanosensors that can be used to detect toxic materials and leaks. Nanobiotechnology,
the convergence of nanotechnology and biotechnology, can be harnessed to enrich biodiversity. Researchers at Chiang Mai Uni-
versity, in Thailand, are using nanotechnology to develop a strain of rice that has shorter stems and that is not sensitive to sunlight,
thereby reducing vulnerability to wind damage and decreasing storage related costs. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s Nanopore Project is developing a device that can sequence single molecules of nucleic acid at a rate of 1 million
bases per second by using nanopore technology. The device will allow for faster sequencing of the DNA of all living organisms,
creating a database of information underlying the biodiversity of the planet and enabling sensible ecosystem management.
Nanotechnology should be used responsibly to avoid compromising environmental integrity. Desirable properties of nanomaterials,
such as high surface reactivity and the ability to cross cell membranes, could potentially have negative consequences if these
technologies were used inappropriately. Mea- sures must be taken to ensure that nanomaterials are contained and disposed of
appropriately. This calls for careful research into the potential hazards of nanotechnology and for the design of appropriate regulatory
systems to man- age the benefits and risks of this new technology.
66
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – A2: Nanotech Bad – Government Regulations Solve

Government regulations prevent any bad nanotech from being developed
To date, there have been a handful of studies about these risks. Several recent reports (listed at the end of this document) go into
greater detail on the current state of research. There are two concerns: the hazardousness of nanoparticles and the exposure risk.
The first concerns the biological and chemical effects of nanoparticles on human bodies or natural ecosystems; the second
concerns the issue of leakage, spillage, circulation, and concentration of nanoparticles that would cause a hazard to bodies or
ecosystems. Defined as ‘nanoparticles’ there are only a couple of novel substances that might conceivably be in wide circulation in
the near future. The most obvious are carbon-based nanostructures such as buckyballs, single-walled and multi-walled carbon
nanotubes. Other substances such as titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, or gold nanoparticles are also likely to be (or already are) in use
in diverse settings. It is best to distinguish between three types of nanoparticles: ‘engineered’ nanoparticles (such as buckyballs
and gold nanoshells), ‘incidental’ nanoparticles (such as those found in welding fumes, cooking and diesel exhaust), and ‘naturally
occurring’ nanoparticles (salt spray from the ocean, or forest-fire combustion). Only ‘engineered’ nanoparticles constitute an
entirely new class of particles and, to date, buckyballs are the only engineered nanoparticles that have been seriously studied,
whereas ‘incidental’ nanoparticles (often referred to as ‘ultrafine particulate matter’) such as auto exhaust have clearly been more
exten- sively studied. The handful of studies on the toxic- ity of fullerenes so far suggest that they are indeed hazardous–but also
that they can be engineered to be less so, in particular by conjugating other chemicals to the surface of buckyballs, thus changing
their chemical properties. 18 Such findings suggest that the proper question for regulators and policy makers to ask of
nanotechnology is not ‘Is it safe?’ but ‘How can we make nanotechnology safer?’ International cooperation and coordination can
play a role in setting minimum ethical norms for the creation and testing of such substances: Scientists should be expected not only
to announce the discovery or creation of such nanoparticles, but the requirements necessary to make them safe, or safer than other
materials that achieve the same purposes. Both the EU and the US possess established regulatory systems through which hazard
and exposure risks of nanotechnology might be assessed. The European Commission has already published a preliminary report on
the potential process by which these risks can be dealt with. In addition, the new Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of
Chemicals (REACH) regulation in the EU will have far-reaching effects on the chemical industry with unknown consequences for
manufacturers of nanoparticles. 19 The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the Food and Drug Administration, the
Occupa- tional Safety and Health Administration, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health have also begun to
inquire into the need to change existing processes to accommodate nanotechnology. In particular, the US EPA is evaluating its
first ‘pre-manufacturing notice’ from a company seeking regulatory approval for carbon nanotubes. In addition to the regulatory
mandates of these agencies, several are also funding intramural and/or extra- mural research projects targeted at understanding
hazard and exposure risks posed by engineered nanomaterials.
67
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership - A2: Grey Goo - Impossible

Even the person who first introduced the idea of grey good admits that it is not feasible
IOP Electronic Journal, 7/6/04, “Nanotechnology pioneer slays “grey goo” myths”
http://www.iop.org/EJ/news/-topic=763/journal/0957-4484
Eric Drexler, known as the father of nanotechnology, today (Wednesday, 9th June 2004) publishes a paper that admits that self-
replicating machines are not vital for large-scale molecular manufacture, and that nanotechnology-based fabrication can be
thoroughly non-biological and inherently safe. Talk of runaway self-replicating machines, or “grey goo”, which he first cautioned
against in his book Engines of Creation in 1986, has spurred fears that have long hampered rational public debate about
nanotechnology. Writing in the Institute of Physics journal Nanotechnology, Drexler slays the myth that molecular manufacture
must use dangerous self-replicating machines.
“Runaway replicators, while theoretically possible according to the laws of physics, cannot be built with today’s nanotechnology
toolset,” says Dr. Drexler, founder of the Foresight Institute, in California, and Senior Research Fellow of the Molecular
Engineering Research Institute (MERI). He continued: “Self-replicating machines aren't necessary for molecular nanotechnology,
and aren’t part of current development plans.”
Science fiction writers focused on this idea, and ‘grey goo’ became closely associated with nanotechnology, spreading a serious
misconception about molecular manufacturing systems and diverting attention from more pressing concerns. This new paper
shows why that focus is wrong.
The authors explain why self-replication, contrary to previous understanding, is unnecessary for building an efficient and effective
molecular manufacturing system. Instead of building lots of tiny, complex, free-floating robots to manufacture products, it will be
more practical to use simple robot-arms in larger factories, like today’s assembly lines. A robot-arm pulled from a factory would
be as inert as a light bulb pulled from its socket. And the factory as a whole would be no more mobile than a desktop printer,
besides requiring a supply of purified raw materials to build anything. Even the process of developing the factories would not
make anything remotely like a runaway replicator - the early machines would be tools, unable to operate by themselves.
68
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership - A2: Grey Goo – No Self Replication Now

Grey goo isn’t possible – no self replication now
Two recent discussions surrounding nanotechnology have received a lot of attention when it comes to ethical or social implications
and risks: the so-called ‘grey- goo’ scenario, and the concerns about ‘post-human- ism’. The grey-goo scenario is based on the fear
that nanotechnological devices will either be programmed to self-replicate, or that they will ‘evolve’ into devices capable of self-
replicating, and that should they pro- ceed to do so, they may destroy the natural world. Currently there are no nanotechnological
objects capable of self-replication (unless one includes objects such as DNA and viruses under the definition of nanotechnology,
which muddies the discussion further).
69
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – A2: Grey Goo – Government Regulations Solve

Government trade regulations prevent any risk of bad nanotech being developed or spreading
Jason Wejnert, lawyer at Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione, associate at the Intellectual Property Group, 2004,
“Regulatory Mechanisms for Molecular Nanotechnology”
Without an international convention to control the proliferation of MNT, nations can regulate the development of MNT within their
own borders more effectively. The United States can control the development of technology in three different ways: regulation of
interstate commerce, regulation of exports, and regulation of medical and consumer products. Also, the federal government plays an
enormously influential role in technology development by deciding what areas to fund and what restrictions and incentives are tied to
that funding. Though not often used for the regulation of technological matters, Congress has the authority to regulate interstate
commerce. 78 This broad power has ebbed and flowed based on judicial review, but it has recently been interpreted to allow the
regulation of channels of commerce, instrumentalities of commerce, and regulation of activities bearing a substantial relationship to
interstate commerce. 79 After Lopez, the standards for regulating activities that are not specifically “commerce” are stricter and no
longer construed to reach everything that could be connected with commerce, as earlier Supreme Court jurisprudence allowed. 80
Still, Congress has recently approached “non economic” subjects like human cloning with the 2001 Human Cloning Prohibition Act.
81 This act attem pts to prohibit any human cloning activities that result in interstate commerce, seeking a ban on a technology that is
at a very early stage of development, but is controversial enough to motivate the House to act. Though the Act has been criticized for
its vagueness in defining a human embryo for the purposes of research, the mechanisms provided by the Act could be a model for
structuring a regulation of MNT within U.S. jurisdiction by restraining unauthorized experimentation and research and development
on potentially equally controversial technology. The efficacy of the Congressional response to human cloning will need to be
evaluated if the resolution passes and is held to be constitutional—First Amendment challenges claiming a right to free speech through
scientific research are likely. Nonetheless, it provides a national mechanism for at least theoretically controlling MNT distribution.
Article I of the Constitution also provides for Congressional power over commerce with foreign nations and thus co ntrol over exports
from within the United States. 82 Most relevant to control of sensitive technology export is the International Trade in Arms
Regulations (IT AR) Act. 83 Congress delegated to the President the power to control the import and export of certain defense items
under the Arms Control Export Act (ACEA). 84 The ACEA authorizes the President to create a list, the United States Munitions List,
of items subject to export and import restrictions. 85 Included in this list, among items like tanks, missiles, and armaments, are
encrypting devices, software, and source code. 86 This last category caused significant controversy, as well as providing a mechanism
for the control of the proliferation of MNT beyond the United States. Under ITAR, the Secretary of State determines whether an item
is within the scope of the Munitions List. If the Department of State determined the item to be within the scope of the Munitions List,
that item cannot be exported without a license. If an item is on the Munitions List, that means that exporters and manufacturers of that
item must register with the government as arms dealers or manufacturers. 87 That encryption devices and software are considered to
be within the ambit of the Munitions List and subject to ITAR restrictions was justified on the basis that encryption products could be
used by enemy forces or terrorists to conceal information that could not be accessed by the U.S. military or National Security Agency.
88 The United States has promulgated further restrictions on supercomputers to designated nations like China, Syria, and Libya, which
is consistent with its determinations on encryption devices. Therefore, placing MNT technology on the Munitions List would be
reasonable because of the potentially catastrophic misuse of the technology by enemy states. This mechanism might be more effective
in accomplishing control of MNT than regulation of interstate commerce because it serves the interests of the United States more to
prohibit the export of MNT than to suppress its development completely. An export control regime coupled with a national
incentive program would allow the development of MNT while preventing its international distribution , much as encryption
technology developed within the United States.
70
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Leadership – A2: Grey Goo

Federal incentives are key to spurring innovation in nanotech as well as stopping bad nanotech from
being developed – empirics are on our side
Jason Wejnert, lawyer at Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione, associate at the Intellectual Property Group, 2004,
“Regulatory Mechanisms for Molecular Nanotechnology”
Given this enormous gap in the potential that Drexler imagines and the promising steps in 2002, perhaps scientists should focus more
on encouraging development of MNT rather than proscribing development limits a priori. Nonetheless, with an eye on managed
control of the technology, there are current mechanisms that could be adapted for promoting MNT while limiting its dangerous
potentials. Some of these pathways include economic incentives such as patent-like grants and development prizes; governmental
controls like research partnerships and nationalization; and mandatory controls like disabler technologies, “defense shields,” and blueprint “escrow”
plans. Under the U.S. federal system, Congress has the power to grant patent rights to inventions for “limited times.” 113 The general purposes of the
patent system are to encourage the development of technology by rewarding inventors with exclusive rights for a limited period of time, currently 20
years under U.S. law. Patent systems worldwide generally provide a quid pro quo exchange of exclusive rights for an enabling disclosure of how to
make and use the invention that the patent application describes . Another interesting economic incentive for MNT development, either
outside of or as an added inducement to patent grants, would be the encouragement of national competitions and prizes for MNT
application development. Richard Feynman spoke of using prizes in his now-famous talk, “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom,”
delivered to the American Physical Society in 1959. 127 He imagined $1,000 prizes for creating micron-scale motors and machines
and successively larger prizes for larger accomp lishments. 128 Analogous to this initial nanotechnology “dare” is Carl Zubrin’s
promotion of a Mars expeditionary mission, in which he calls for establishment of a “Mars prize” sponsored by the government to
spur innovation and accomplishment of certain key goals in a manned mission to Mars. 129 Zubrin emphasized the economy and
ingenuity of asking private entrepreneurs to develop technology when there own money is at stake, spurred on by the monetary as well
as marketing incentives of accomplishing the objectives. 130 As Zubrin noted, Charles Limburgh set off to cross the Atlantic
encouraged by a government-sponsored prize to do so. Explorers in the past set sail for unknown lands on the promise of state-sanctioned
prizes and grants. Zubrin proposed successive stages of development to reaching M ars, in increasing complexity and increasing value of the prize.
Fundamental steps to landing a private manned mission to Mars include placing an imaging mission in Mars orbit, a robotic landeron Mars, and a
long-term life support system in space, all with certain strict conditions . Though costly to attain, these accomplished challenges would be met
with equally impressive prizes, on the order of $500 million to $1 billion. Another advantage of sponsoring such prizes is that desired
protocols and standards can be imposed as a condition for winning. The government could specify that later stages of MNT
development must conform to the Foresight Guidelines or variations thereof. A similar nanotechnology challenge pro gram could be
created to spur private development of key MNT steps. For example, some fundamental steps to creating self-replicating nanosystems would be
Brownian assembly of med ium-scale materials, mechanosynthetic assembly of small building blocks, first generation solution-based systems, and
creation of complex diamond-like materials in an inert environment. 131 More advanced challenges would be to create simple manipulators and
sorting and ordering molecules. 132 Notice that even these more advanced stages are still decades away from self-replicating super-
machines that threaten to churn the world into grey goo. Yet they represent Drexler’s basic vision for MN T development as an optimistic
scenario. By providing generous prizes for meeting these steps, a mature MNT might be accomplishable in the private sector without enormous
government funding. Engineering companies like IBM, Xerox, or perhaps biotechnology companies like Monsanto or chemical companies like Dow
Chemicals will have the funding to pursue such a competition , though if the history of innovative technology is any guide, early MNT
applications will come from spin-off ventures from these corporate giants. 133
The risk involved with some of these technologies is just too great, in the eyes of many technology critics, to believe that private companies will
undertake the burden alone, without some assurance of government assistance and risk-sharing. 134 Others disagree; they point to the excessive
waste generated in the development process of “government darlings” and point out that the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry
(MITI) has not been very impressive in picking and assisting “key” technologies. 135 Nonetheless , much as in space exploration, if a mature
MNT is desired within a reasonable time, then government assistance and direction will be required to coordinate the diverse fields
that will contribute to MNT. 136 In addition, a cooperative private-government venture will have the advantage of built-in government
oversight and management of nascent risks in the technology, rather than overseeing the technology after it has been released to the
general scientific and public com munity.
.Private-government cooperative ventures are increasingly promoted for complex, uncertain, and capital-intensive technology
development. In such fields as alternative fuels, nuclear power, low-emission vehicles, aerospace, and biotechnology, government
funding and incentives like access to exclusive development rights have made dramatic advances in otherwise unapproachable
technologies.
71
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solvency – Nanotech Key - Renewables

Nanotech is key to effective and cheap renewable energy
Developing renewable energy sources Harnessing renewable energy sources through cleaner, more affordable, and more reliable
technologies can prevent the dependency of developing countries on fossil fuels and avert potential energy crises and environmental
degradation brought about by the depletion of oil and coal. Improved access to clean energy could play a role in improving health (by
reducing indoor air pollution, for example) and increase the efficiency of agricultural production. Applications of nanotechnology
such as solar cells, fuels cells, and novel hydrogen storage systems based on nanostructured materials promise to deliver clean energy
solutions. Nanophotovoltaic devices, such as those based on quantum dots or ultrathin films of semiconducting polymers, can
significantly reduce the costs associated with conventional solar cells. Carbon nanotubes can be used in composite film coatings for
flexible solar cells. A major expense associated with hydrogen as a source of energy is its generation from water, a process that
requires energy. Photo- and thermo-chemical nanocatalysts can be used to generate hydrogen from water at low costs. Elec- tricity can
also be cheaply produced using green technology from artificial systems that incorporates energy transduction proteins into an
engineered matrix. Organic light-emitting devices based on semiconducting nanospheres can be developed to improve rural lighting.
Carbon nanotubes used in hydrogen storage systems can provide lightweight materials for pressure tanks and liquid hydrogen
vessels. Carbon nanotubes could provide strong, flexible conduits for electricity distribution networks. Ideally, all of these applications
will be robust and easily maintained and serviced.
72
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solvency – Nanotech Key – Solar Power

Only renewable energy formed from nanotech can solve the energy crisis
In the energy sector, given rising global populations and power-hungry economies in Asia, the world will require, as a conservative
estimate, approximately 900 MBOE (million barrels of oil per day), corresponding to 60 terawatts of energy daily – more than four
times as much as we use today. As a comparison, 175,000 terawatts of solar energy hit the earth daily. Capturing 0.3% of this would
solve the energy crisis. Nanotechnology is the only technology which promises an order of magnitude reduction in cost and increase in
efficiency of solar cells. It is involved in the materials for making solar cells, the power lines that would carry the generated energy
and the hydrogen fuel cells that would store the energy.
73
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solvency – Nanotech – Solar Power

Nanotech can generate solar power and produce electricity
Michael Sinkula ‘5, [“The Nano Investor,” October, Issue 1, http://www.usnano.biz/The%20Nano%20Investor
%20Vol.1%20Iss.1.pdf]
Our reliance on fossil fuels has become an increasingly troubling issue for most. World demand for oil and gasoline has increased at a
time when not only are supplies being threatened by geopolitical forces, but concerns are growing that production of fossil fuels will
peak in the next decade or so. Nanotechnology offers new ways to increase the efficiency of fossil fuels as well as provide better
alternatives to them. The National Science Foundation predicts that nanotechnology will help reduce the world power consumption by
10%. One of the rising product technologies in energy is photovoltaics, a technology that harnesses solar energy and converts it into
electrical current. Fuel cells are also being impacted by nanotechnology, and portable versions of these products will be on the shelves
within three to five years. But the nearest term opportunities for nanotechnology in energy will be in the catalyst business œ replacing
current expensive catalysts like platinum.
74
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solvency – Solar Nanotech – Energy Crisis

Solar nanotech is key to solving the energy crisis – more research and funding is necessary
Nanotechwire, 10/5/05, “Nanotechnology Deemed Best Long-Term Energy Alternative”
http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=2394
Breakthroughs in nanotechnology could open up the possibility of moving beyond the United States’s current alternatives for
energy supply by introducing technologies that are more efficient, inexpensive, and environmentally sound, according to a new
science policy study by Rice University.
The report, based on input from 50 leading U.S. scientists who gathered at Rice in May 2003, found that key contributions can
be made in energy security and supply through fundamental research on nanoscience solutions to energy technologies. The
group of experts concluded that a major nanoscience and energy research program should be aimed at long-term breakthrough
possibilities in cleaner sources of energy, particularly solar energy. Such a program also should provide vital science backup to
current technologies in the short term, including technologies for storing and transmitting electricity.
The study findings were announced as Congress and the Bush administration began another round of efforts to pass national
energy legislation. “The 2003 energy bill effort was an amalgamation of giveaways to special-interest groups,” says Amy
Myers Jaffe, the Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy and
associate director of the Rice Energy Program and the Shell Center for Sustainability. “What is needed is a more focused
debate that puts regional or parochial short-term interests aside and emphasizes our long-term national interests. The outlook is
dire. We need real solutions.”
The participating scientists agreed that nanotechnology could revolutionize electricity grid technology by providing
transmission lines built from carbon nanotubes that could conduct electricity across great distances without loss. A
breakthrough in electricity transmission technology would facilitate not only distributed electricity but also render
commercially viable the transmission of electricity from distant sources of energy, such as solar and wind collector farms
located in desert geography or closed-loop clean coal FutureGen sequestration power plants built near geologic formations.
Improvements in electricity transmission also would permit the transportation of electricity by wire from power stations built
near stranded natural gas reserves in remote regions. Howard Schmidt, executive director of the Carbon Nanotechnology
Laboratory at Rice, believes that development of carbon nanotube wire is possible within five years given adequate research
and development funding.
“Energy is unique in its ability to give us answers to most other problems,” says Nobel laureate Richard Smalley. “And it is
uniquely something we can do something about.” Smalley, University Professor and the Gene and Norman Hackerman
Professor of Chemistry and professor of physics, notes that the Bush administration’s initiatives on energy technology are
laudable, but the level of financial commitment is not large enough to achieve needed breakthroughs.
The meeting was hosted by the Baker Institute, Rice’s Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, the Environmental and
Energy Systems Institute, and the Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship as part of an ongoing program on energy
and nanotechnology that is aimed at reinvigorating public interest in the physical sciences by showcasing potentially
revolutionary breakthroughs in the energy technology area and highlighting how science can have direct bearing on people’s
lives.
75
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solvency – Federal Incentives - Innovation
Federal incentives are key to fostering innovation

Richard M. Russell Associate Director And Deputy Director for Technology Office of Science and Technology
Policy Nanotech, 5/8/06, “Nanotechnology: Engine of Innovation & Competitiveness”
Sustained scientific advancement and innovation depend on: Federal investment in cutting-edge, merit-reviewed basic research
o Favorable environment for private sector R&D o Education system that equips Americans with a strong foundation in
technical subjects o Universities that provide world-class education and research opportunities o Immigration policies that
attract the best and brightest o Business environment that encourages entrepreneurship and protects intellectual property.
76
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solvency – Tax Credits - Innovation

Tax credits are critical to investor confidence without which innovation is impossible
Time, 7/20/08, “The Global Credit Crisis” http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1824865,00.html
So, why isn't the government doing more to scale up renewable power? Blame our political system, which Al Gore recently
described as "sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness." Case in point: the federal tax credits for renewable energy,
which are set to expire at the end of the year. Passed as part of the 2005 energy bill, the credits encourage businesses to invest
in alternative energy. Utilities that produce wind power earn 2 cents for every kilowatt generated over the first 10 years of a
project's operation. For solar energy, tax credits can be worth up to 30% of the cost of a project. These credits are modest —
especially compared to the billions of dollars in subsidies lavished on the fossil fuel industry — but they've helped renewable
power explode over the last several years, with wind energy growing at 45% last year and solar just slightly less.
If the renewable credits do expire (Congress, jammed in a partisan gridlock, refuses to renew them), they'll save taxpayers a
little money — maybe $1 billion, or less than half a week of the Iraq war. But the cost to the economy — not to mention the
fight against climate change — will be far greater. Navigant Consulting, an international firm that studies the energy industry,
estimates that the expiration of the renewable tax credit would result in approximately $19 billion in lost investment, and
119,000 lost job opportunities in the U.S. That's because renewables, while getting cheaper all the time, still cost more than
fossil fuels. Subsidies can help bridge the gap as renewable technology improves — but that will happen only if businesses can
produce solar or wind power at scale, which will happen only if investors can be assured that the tax credits won't suddenly
disappear, says Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. (Hear Resch talk about the renewable tax
credits on this week's Greencast.)
The potential loss of these credits has already impacted development. Acciona, a large Spanish renewable company that
launched a major concentrated solar power plant outside Vegas this year, says similar projects will be impossible in the future
without an extension of the tax credit. Abengoa, another Spanish company (European companies have dominated this space,
largely because their governments provide significantly more generous subsidies to renewables), is planning to build the
world's largest solar plant in Arizona, but the CEO of its solar arm told me recently that the project could fall apart if the credit
doesn't come through.
If we're serious about reducing carbon emissions, we'll need a much larger renewable energy sector than the one we have —
and that will mean bipartisan government action, in the form of carbon caps and subsidies that dwarf the miniscule tax credits
now available. Our government's inability to cooperate and fund an invaluable energy program that costs less than a $1 billion
a year is simply unreasonable — no matter what you think about global warming.
77
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solvency – Tax Credits - Innovation

Tax credits are vital to draw business investment in US nanotech – now is key
Wireless News ‘7 [“N.C. Experts Predict Economic Boom from Nanotechnology,” 3/18, l/n]
"This is where nanotechnology comes into play. The successful companies will be those that can commercialize innovations that
merge biotechnology, infotechnology, cognitive intelligence and nanotechnology," he said. Jon Obermeyer, PTEN's president, cited
collaboration among venture capital firms, experienced management talent and universities as the foundation to a successful
nanotechnology cluster. "It takes all these entities to bring about commercialization, which leads to economic development and
translates into jobs." One such company that has been successful in commercializing technologies is nCoat, Inc., the holding company
of High Performance Coatings, manufacturer of protective coatings (surface treatment materials) with nano-scale particulates and
chemical reactions that provide heat, corrosion and abrasion protection in multiple industries such as automotive (i.e. benefits such as
greater horsepower and engine torque and longer lasting valve springs). The company currently employs 70 in its eastern Guilford
County facility. "The key to dominance in the future nanotech economy is to commercialize products now and get the jobs on
the ground ahead of competing states and international economies," said Paul Clayson, chairman and CEO of nCoat, Inc.
"Governments can accelerate the rate of immediate commercialization by aggressively promoting rapid and easy technology transfer
from its research institutions now rather than getting caught in a never finished syndrome. Every nanotech research institution needs a
salesperson seeking daily to transfer nanotech IP to existing businesses or recruiting idle entrepreneurs to take the ideas forward."
"States with investment tax credits or other economic incentives for new or emerging nanotech companies will draw business
incubation, especially when they have undervalued assets like North Carolina. Government leaders can help by providing superior
government services support from local and state public resources, and helping to facilitate both private capital formation and
incubation management team resources. If commercialization is relegated to later stages of this explosive economic cycle, states will
find their intellectual property and their jobs exported to states where commercialization and training of nanotech knowledge workers
were the early stage focus. The bedrock locations of nanotech jobs and products will be defined in the next five years . After that,
those who win now will only gain additional traction. North Carolina does not have 30 years to conquer this Goliath." Tom Roberg,
CEO of LaamScience, Inc., a company developing a nano-coating that kills and inactivates a number of viruses and bacteria, agrees.
"Almost all experts agree that nanotechnology will be the industry of the 21st century. But to make that happen, we need to have some
real applications for this most extraordinary technology. Investors are interested in technology, but they are more interested in
participating in successful companies," Roberg said. "State support is vital to help early stage companies get off the ground. There
seems to be plenty of equity capital available for established companies, but little for new companies relying on technology transferred
out of our university systems." Nanotechnology is a fast-moving industry and opportunities must be created for innovators to bring
their products to market, said Dr. Reyad Sawafta, CEO of the N.C. Nanotech Accelerator, QuarTek Corp. and DentalSafe. In the past
six months Sawafta has announced two milestones for his nascent Piedmont Triad nanotechnology companies -- a partnership with
NanoTech Labs to focus on technology to make more efficient batteries and the securing of initial funding to launch several
innovations for dentists.
78
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solvency – Tax Credits – Innovation

Innovators lack investment and competitors are developing – tax credits are key to be competitive
NBA ‘7, NanoBusiness Alliance
[“Nanotechnology Commercialization: Barriers and Solutions,”
Nanotechnology has the potential to create revolutionary change across multiple, key areas of human endeavor from Energy to
Homeland Security to Electronics. Over the next decade, the countries that demonstrate the highest level of innovation and capture the
most value from nanotech progress will exert a significant level of influence on the global geopolitical landscape. For us to maintain
our quality of life and our global leadership position, the U.S. must play, not just to participate in, but to win the international
nanotechnology race. The U.S. currently leads the world in this race but a number of challenges threaten our leadership position: *
Slow growth of seed-stage capital for innovators. The pace of seed stage investment lags significantly behind the pace of new
discovery, preventing innovators from obtaining the capital to transform ideas to applications. * Increasing investments in
nanotechnology by foreign competitors. Foreign governments are investing an increasing amount in nanotech and are directly
supporting businesses competing with American innovators. American companies must bear R&D risks that are being subsidized for
these competitors. To win, legislators must: * Level the playing field for American business investment in R&D. Co-sponsor the
Research Competitiveness Act of 2007 (S. 41), which creates a tax incentive for investors in innovative small businesses, encourages
the development of research parks, and makes the R&D tax credit permanent. This legislation will help entrepreneurs attract seed-
stage capital, while boosting our rate of nanotech innovation by guaranteeing the tax credit in future years. * Maintain commitment
to federal funding of nanotech research. Re-authorize “The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act” and
continue growth in funding.
79
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

Foreign competitors are challenging US nano-dominance – tax credits are necessary to level the playing
field and retain US superiority
To win the nanotechnology race, while it is important have the best research and intellectual property, it is not sufficient. This is
evidenced by the micro-electronics industry where U.S. research and development fueled massive manufacturing booms in Asia,
providing foreign nations with the prosperity and know-how to take the lead in innovation. To prevent this, the U.S. must lead in the
manufacturing and commercialization of nanotech products. This will allow the U.S. economy to benefit from the revenue generated
by the export and sale of nanotech products and also from the high-quality jobs created by manufacturing. In addition, it will allow the
U.S. to maintain its lead on innovation and intellectual property development. To achieve this position of leadership in innovation,
commercialization and manufacturing, we recommend that legislators: * Help small businesses by providing access to early-stage
capital for innovation, attracting foreign investment and creating a level playing-field for investment in R&D. The lack of early-stage
venture capital growth is acting as a bottleneck for nanotech innovation and is limiting nanotechnology’s growth and impact. As we
see from the data presented below, the amount of capital deployed to support the creation of new businesses has been in decline over
the past three years. These companies drive the translation of nanoscience to nanotechnology and without them our ability to realize
the commercial benefits (job creation and economic growth) of this new technology is likely to become constrained. In addition, the
direct support of R&D in nanotechnology that foreign companies enjoy from their governments threatens the ability of American
companies to compete on a level playing field. Bill S. 41, “The Research Competitiveness Act of 2007” is part of Sen. Max Baucus’
(D-Mont.) larger competitiveness initiative and addresses both these issues. Senator Baucus introduced the bill on the first day of the
110th Congress as an updated version of a similar bill he introduced in the 109th Congress. The bill is currently being marked up by
the Senate Finance Committee. The key elements of this bill are: * Improve the existing R&D Tax Credit * Allow tax-exempt
bond authority for state and local governments working to establish or improve research parks. * Create an Investment Tax Credit
to help start-up companies access capital. The R&D Tax Credit is a proven measure that levels the playing field for business
spending in R&D. Because fundamental R&D can be high risk, it constitutes a significant expenditure for high-tech businesses.
Competitors, especially in Asia, are subsidized by their governments to carry out this research. The R&D Tax Credit helps to level the
playing field by supporting businesses that invest in research and development. This credit’s success is proven by the fact that it has
been renewed 11 times since its inception. S.41 modifies improves this credit in a few key ways: * Makes it permanent rather than
renewable. * Bases it on research spending not gross receipts, thus helping companies with fluctuating sales or new, non-research
ventures. * Increases the percentage of contract research spending qualifying for the credit. * Makes permanent the credit for
basic research and allows for all basic research expenses to count under the regular research credit. The development of research
parks will attract global resources and help companies share the burdens of innovation. By clustering companies, research parks
become magnets for foreign investment dollars and human capital. The success of this model has been proven in states like New York,
where a nanotech research park in Albany attracted over $300 million in investment by Japanese Tokyo Electron Ltd. Companies co-
located at the parks can exchange ideas and collaborate. Small businesses can also share the capital costs of expensive high-tech
research equipment. The Investment Tax Credit will motivate the creation of seed-stage capital. The Investment Tax Credit provides a
5% tax credit each year for 5 years. The credit goes to investors that invest in focused funds (“a qualified equity investment” in a
“qualified research entity”) provided that these focused funds have as their central mission and activity, providing investment capital
for small businesses that are involved in commercializing research. It thus creates an incentive for the formation of funds focused on
high-tech small-business investment and thus stimulates the availability of seed-stage capital for scientists and entrepreneurs looking
to commercialize cutting-edge research. The act provides for $4 billion over 5 years for this mission. Over time, Bills S. 41 will result
in an overall increase in tax revenues. By increasing the number of new start-up high technology companies and increasing the
likelihood of success for existing companies, America will have more businesses that are profitable and successful. The tax revenues
from these successful businesses will more than compensate for the investment made by the tax credit. * Maintain overall levels of
federal funding for nanotech research. Re-authorize the “21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act” at existing
levels of funding. The nanotech R&D act is the primary reason for America’s leadership in nanotechnology. It’s effectiveness at
promoting fundamental research in the field o nanotech has been proven by the U.S. dominance in patents in papers. This fundamental
research has in turn given rise to the companies that constitute the American nanotechnology industry. However, this act also spurred
foreign competitors to join the race. Some of these competitors, notably Korea, Japan and China, are fast closing on America’s lead.
To maintain American Competitiveness in nanotech and not fall behind, we must re-authorize this act and maintain our current levels
of federal investment in this technology.
80
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

Tax credits retain US R&D – key to maintain competitiveness
SIA ‘6, Semiconductor Industry Association [“Keeping Semiconductor Leadership in the U.S.,” January,
http://www.sia-online.org/downloads/Issue_Semiconductor_Leadership.pdf]
Issue: American chipmakers do the majority of their high wage, high value added work here in the U.S., yet they face a serious
challenge as foreign governments around the world work to attract semiconductor research and manufacturing investments. When
foreign government policies are contrary to the WTO rules, the U.S. should seek their elimination. However many foreign initiatives,
including research consortiums, workforce education programs, tax holidays, and tax incentives for individuals, are not necessarily
inconsistent with WTO rules. Federal and state policy makers have a vital role to play in meeting this challenge by insuring that the
U.S. remains an attractive location for chip manufacturing. While overseas markets are larger and overseas labor is cheaper, because
semiconductors are easily transported and because semiconductor production is capital intensive, the U.S. can compete in chip
manufacturing. Government policies --- both here and abroad – are often the determining factor in plant locations decisions. By some
estimates, there is a $1 billion 10-year cost difference between building and operating a fab in Asia versus the U.S., mostly due to
taxes and incentives. As a result, two thirds of the world’s new 300 mm fabs will be built in Asia. Importance: Semiconductors are the
enabling technology of the information age, and chip technology advances have created new industries such as the internet, driven
increased productivity in our economy, and enhanced national and homeland security. It is vital for that the U.S. maintain leadership
in this critical field. Given the high cost and rapid technological obsolescence of a modern chip fabrication facility, the close proximity
between a company’s research facility and its leading edge manufacturing facility becomes increasingly important to avoid any
technology transfer delays. If leading edge manufacturing moves offshore because foreign governments have created more attractive
investment environments, over time R&D facilities for manufacturing processes are likely to follow. SIA Position/Action: America’s
federal and state governments need a coordinated strategy to keep high technology manufacturing in the U.S. This strategy should
include: • Investments in University and National Lab Research. As semiconductors become ever denser, faster, and cheaper, they
approach the physical limits that will prevent further progress with current chip making technologies. To allow semiconductor
advances to continue to drive the economic productivity growth of recent years, and to improve the competitiveness of chip
manufacturers working in close proximity to major R&D centers, the SIA urges Congress to appropriate $20 million to DOD in FY
2007 to match industry funding for the 33 universities working under the Focus Center Research Program (FCRP). SIA also urges
Congress to increase NSF funding by 7 percent for FY2007, and to support the Administration’s proposals for substantial increases for
advances in nano-manufacturing at NIST. Workforce/Education/Immigration Policy. America must have the most talented workforce
in the world to maintain its leadership in semiconductors. SIA fully supports No Child Left Behind (NCLB)’s focus on high standards,
greater accountability, and enhanced teacher quality, and urges Congress to increase appropriations for the NCLB’s Math and Science
Partnership program. SIA appreciates the recent 20,000 H-1b cap exemption for masters and PhD graduates from U.S. universities,
and encourages Congress to pass longer term reforms to facilitate the transition to green cards along the lines of the reforms passed by
the Senate last year. Competitive Federal Tax Policies. The Federal government can correct many of its misguided policies that
discourage investment in the U.S. The Federal government should enhance and make permanent the R&D tax credit, allow
accelerated depreciation or expensing of semiconductor manufacturing and other high tech equipment, consider rate reductions and
alternatives to current rules on taxing foreign source income.
81
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solvency – Tax Credits – Commercialization

Tax credits maintain US leadership in nanotech commercialization
Scott E. Rickert ‘6, Chief Executive of Nanofilm, IndustryWeek.com [“TAKING THE NANOPULSE,” April,
http://www.nanofilmtechnology.com/news/pdf/Leadership%20in%20N%E2%80%A6otechnology.pdf]
Nanotechnology is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, key to virtually every area of manufacturing in the years ahead. It’s estimated that
nanotech will become integral in 15% of global manufacturing output in the next 10 years alone, reaching a total of $2.6 trillion by
2014. The highest-leverage opportunities are in energy, electronics and health care, which dovetail with the Bush Administration’s
goals for U.S. energy independence and breakthroughs in the quality and cost of health care. Moreover, the countries that win the
innovation race and capture the most value from nanotech progress will see the results in the overall health of their economy. The
good news is that the United States currently leads the world in nanotechnology. The not-so-good news: we’re going to be
challenged to retain it. And our global competitors are gaining fast. Japan, South Korea, Germany and Taiwan lead the pack, and
Israel and Singapore are showing growing strength in several industries. Let’s take a look at some statistics. Today, American funding
of nanotechnology innovation and commercialization is matched or exceeded by Asian competitors when measured on a per capita
basis and relative to GDP. As a group, they aren’t yet surpassing the U.S. in total number of patents, but they are beginning to nose us
out in some specific applications, including some areas of electronics. Our foreign competitors have another advantage. In both Asia
and Europe, there are substantial incentives for those who support nanotech commercialization . Funding supports corporations
working on joint development projects with academic or government enterprises. This approach helps guide efforts to real-world
products that meet real-world needs. So what are the nanotech community’s recommendations to policymakers for maintaining
competitive strength? At the top of the list of is what I consider to be a key driver for success in a free economy: incentives for
investors. In this case, the suggestion is for an R&D tax incentive for those who buy stock in U.S. nanotechnology companies. The
proposal provides the best checks and balances of the market. Good ideas can attract investors, providing enough of a front- end
benefit for the investors to be patient with commercialization lead times. At the same time, the hard reality of market forces may prove
to be the wisest judge of the best and most promising efforts and companies. It usually is. Early support of this approach is already
evident in Washington. Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts has drafted legislation on a tax credit. With the powerhouse of MIT
and other nanotechnology giants in his state, it’s no wonder he’s among the first to see the potential. Let’s hope others – on both sides
of the aisle – see the advantage.
82
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solvency – Incentives – Semiconductors/Economy

Federal incentives maintain competitiveness with global nanotech players – key to economic success
Charles W. Wessner ‘4, Ph.D., Program Director, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, Policy and Global Affairs,
National Research Council, The National Academies [“OFFSETS: A STRATEGIC TOOL,” Before The Armed Services Committee
U.S. House of Representatives, 7/08/04]
It is also important to recognize that the challenge to the U.S. aerospace industry is not an isolated phenomenon. In the time remaining
I would like to raise the challenges facing the U.S. semiconductor industry. They are not facing offsets requirements. Instead they face
requirements for direct investment for manufacturing and increasingly for the location of R&D facilities in their overseas markets. As
you know, the semiconductor industry is one of the most vibrant and productive U.S. industries. It is, of course, a supplier of critical
components to the U.S. defense industrial base. This leading U.S. industry also faces challenges which will affect its U.S.
manufacturing, its workforce, and its supplier base. Semiconductors are pervasive and an important source of productivity in the
modern economy. As the NRC’s report Securing the Future notes, their rapid technological evolution—characterized by continuously
increasing productivity and contemporaneously decreasing cost—are a source of growth throughout the economy, both in emerging
industries and in more traditional industrial sectors.10 A significant element of the strong performance of the U.S. economy in the last
decades rooted in the investment and subsequent application of information technologies, which are ultimately driven by advances
in semiconductor technology.11 Semiconductors also play a crucial role in ensuring our national security by allowing for advances
in the capabilities of new devices and new applications for national defense. The pervasive impact of the microelectronics sector on
the nation’s well-being—through improved communications, advances in health care, and better national security technologies—
underscores the importance of the United States’ role as the world’s preeminent semiconductor producer. The U.S. semiconductor
industry is today, the largest value-added industry in manufacturing—larger than the Iron and Steel and the Motor Vehicles industries
combined. And the electronics industry, based on semiconductors, is the largest US manufacturing industry.12 As of August 2001, the
semiconductor industry employed some 284 thousand high skilled workers in the United States. The NRC report, Securing the Future
also highlighted the promotional policies of governments in every country in which the semiconductor industry has emerged. As
Thomas Howell notes in his paper, Competing Programs; Government Support for Microelectronics’ “In a growing number of newly
industrializing countries promoting an indigenous capability in microelectronics—Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, China, and Malaysia—
government policies emphasize the acquisition and diffusion of advanced semiconductor technology from the industrialized countries
rather than [by] pursuit of leading-edge R&D.” Countries such as Germany, France, and Belgium—yes, Belgium—also have major
programs to support semiconductor industry R&D and investment. There is only one outlier, and that is the United States, where at the
Federal level, we have no major cooperative R&D program, despite the success of SEMATECH. With respect to semiconductors, a
series of steps can be taken. The goal is not to restrict the industry with regard to its use of technologies or its investments overseas.
That is likely to be counterproductive. What we can do is partner with industry to develop the technologies, encourage cutting-edge
research, produce the students for the next generation, and provide incentives for investment in the United States. These
incentives should seek to counterbalance the substantial subsidies of other countries while improving the business climate here
in the U.S. Positive-sum environmental regulations and depreciation allowances attuned to industry investment cycles (i.e.,
depreciation over three, not five, years), major grants for new research facilities, and incentives for students and foreign talent, where
required, can all help to retain and grow a vibrant U.S. industry. As a concrete example, the recent Academy report on challenges
facing the U.S. semiconductor industry recommended more support for the cooperative, university-based Focus Center Research
Program. The financing for this program is relatively limited; the potential benefits are large, and the program already has a positive
track record. Reinforcing this type of successful government-industry partnership is key. Enhanced investments in nanotechnologies
are another key step. It is important for the U.S. economy to build capacity in nanotechnologies, but commercialization is also
essential. Programs such as SBIR and ATP, to encourage their commercialization, are key ingredients for a successful U.S. policy to
anchor this tremendously promising technology in the U.S. economy. Support for research is not enough. Support for early-stage
commercialization is also required. A Broader View of the Challenge In closing, let me just underscore the need for a broader view
of the challenges facing the U.S. semiconductor and aerospace industries. In my view, government policies that support the sectors as
a whole and provide sustained attention are the best means to maintain employment, encourage innovation, and ensure the future of
these leading U.S. industries and a robust U.S. defense base. We have acted together to create and retain industries in the recent past,
and with your help we can do so again.
83
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Competitiveness – Incentives  Tech Spillover

Incentivizing specific applications of technology leads to pervasive use across a wide range of sectors
Vernon W. Ruttan, Regents Professor Emeritus, Department of Applied Economics and the Department of
Economics, University of Minnesota, April 2008, “GENERAL PURPOSE TECHNOLOGY,
REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY, AND TECHNOLOGICAL MATURITY” Staff Paper P08-3
In a series of seminal papers Bresnahan and Trajtenberg addressed the problem of how to establish “a link between the economic
incentives for developing specific technologies and the process of growth” (1995: 84). They suggested that at any point in time a
limited number of general purpose technologies, characterized by pervasive use across a wide range of sectors, account for a relatively
large share of productivity growth. “As a GPT evolves and advances it spreads throughout the economy, bringing about and fostering
generalized productivity gains” (1995: 84). Electric power and information technology have been regarded as the prototypic general
purpose technologies (Jovanovic and Rosseau 2005).
84
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
***Add-Ons***
85
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Global Warming 2AC – Solar Nano Solves

A. Solar nanotech is uniquely critical to slowing global warming
Argonne national laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy’s largest research center, 3/6/07, Argonne national
laboratory’s online blog, “Solar Energy can help mitigate global warming,” http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/solar-energy-
can-help-mitigate-global-warming-12727.html
Solar energy has the power to reduce greenhouse gases and provide increased energy efficiency, says a scientist at the U.S.
Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, in a report (view it online) published in the March issue of Physics
Today. Last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations released a report
confirming global warming is upon us and attributing the growing threat to the man-made burning of fossil fuels. Opportunities
to increase solar energy conversion as an alternative to fossil fuels are addressed in the Physics Today article, co-authored by
George Crabtree, senior scientist and director of Argonne's Materials Science Division, and Nathan Lewis, professor of
Chemistry at Caltech and director of its Molecular Materials Research Center. Currently, between 80 percent and 85 percent of
our energy comes from fossil fuels. However, fossil fuel resources are of finite extent and are distributed unevenly beneath
Earth's surface. When fossil fuel is turned into useful energy through combustion, it often produces environmental pollutants
that are harmful to human health and greenhouse gases that threaten the global climate. In contrast, solar resources are widely
available e. “Sunlight is not only the most plentiful energy resource on earth, it is also one of the most versatile, converting
readily to electricity, fuel and heat,” said Crabtree. “The challenge is to raise its conversion efficiency by factors of five or ten.
That requires understanding the fundamental conversion phenomena at the nanoscale. We are just scratching the surface of this
rich research field.”
B. Impact
86
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solar Power - Global Warming Ext – Solar Power Solves

Solar energy key to stopping global warming
Vote Solar, initiative that pushes the transition to solar power, 3/29/08, “Why Solar”
http://www.votesolar.org/whysolar.html
WHY SOLAR? Clean the Air, Fight Global Warming. Global warming is the greatest environmental threat facing the planet
today. The evidence is in and the debate about whether it is happening is over. As just one piece of evidence, Frank Nutter,
President of the Reinsurance Association of America, recently was quoted saying that because of the high property losses due
to extreme weather during the past two decades, climate change "could bankrupt the industry.(Source: Northwest Council on
Climate Change) So how do we fight this problem? The single largest contributor to global warming is pollution from energy
generation. We cannot reverse global warming without a transition to renewable energy. (Source: EPA) Everyone agrees that
renewable energy could clean the air, stave off global warming, and help eliminate our nation's dependence on fossil fuels from
overseas. Is it just a dream? Not anymore. Not when we can find ways to make renewable energy pay for itself. Invest in
Energy Independence, Increase Energy Security. Investing in solar power increases our nation's energy independence and
energy security. California's energy crisis was just the latest in a long cycle of price fluctuations. The energy market will
always be volatile, particularly since the fossil fuels that power it come from abroad and will eventually dry up completely.
Ultimately, the best way for cities to reduce their vulnerability to unstable energy markets is to produce more of their own
electricity sustainably with substantial investments in solar and other renewable sources. Moreover, renewables offer a smart
way to create a diverse energy portfolio. Limited sources of energy make consumers more vulnerable to unpredictable price
fluctuations. Just as a smart investor invests in a diverse range of stocks, it is prudent for cities to have an energy portfolio that
includes a range of generation technologies.
87
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Switch to solar energy key to stopping global warming

US Department of Energy, department in the government that focuses on energy efficiency and renewable energy, 7/14/08,
“Solar Energy Technologies Program,” http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/global_warming.html
A by-product of burning fossil fuels is carbon dioxide, perhaps the greatest contributor to global warming. This warming trend
is evident in continuing changes in local and regional climates all over the world. PV systems do not cause emissions of carbon
dioxide or other greenhouse gases, so using PV energy helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus mitigate global
warming. Recognizing the potential threat of global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization and the United
Nations Environment Programme established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC
assesses a growing body of peer-reviewed and published scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to
understanding the risk of human-induced climate change. Visit the IPCC Web site for more information on global warming.
The United States also produces periodic "Climate Action Reports" as part of its commitment as one of the parties to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate C
88
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS

Solar power solves global warming
Environment Maine, federation of state-based citizen funded environmental advocacy organization, 5/8/08, “Large-scale solar
power plants could power nation, combat global warming and create thousands of jobs,”
http://www.environmentmaine.org/newsroom/energy/energy-program-news/large-scale-solar-power-plants-could-power-nation-
combat-global-warming-and-create-thousands-of-jobs
The report concludes that with leadership at the state and federal level and the right policies, that, putting 80 gigawatts, enough
to power 25 million homes, of concentrating solar power in place by 2030 is within reach. This would have the potential to
generate between 75,000 and 140,000 permanent jobs and cut global warming pollution from U.S. electric power plants by at
least 6.6 percent by the year 2030. Electricity generation accounts for more than a third of America's emissions of global
warming pollution, and approximately 20 percent of Maine’s global warming pollution. “Concentrating solar power can make
a large contribution toward reducing global warming pollution in the United States, and do so quickly and at a reasonable
cost,” said Davis. “This is just one more example of proven technology we already have that can solve our energy and climate
woes.”
89
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solar Power - Global Warming Ext – A2: Other Countries Necessary

China is shifting to solar power now – only US action is key
Business Week, 4/11/07, “China Aims to Clean Up in Solar Power” <
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2007/gb20070411_628994.htm>
China is home to some of the most polluted cities on the planet and likely will overtake the U.S. as the biggest emitter of
greenhouse gases by the end of the decade. Yet while China's "dirty dragon" image is well-deserved, Beijing officials are also
deadly serious about investing in solar power capacity at home and eventually becoming a dominant player in this rapidly-
emerging, clean energy technology. Consider that some 1,100 solar panels are being installed over the curved roof of Beijing's
National Indoor Stadium, ahead of the 2008 Summer Olympics. In October, SunTech Power (STP), based in the old industrial
city of Wuxi in Jiangsu Province will begin installing a 130 kilowatt solar energy system in the main venue of the games—
Bird's Nest Stadium. Beijing has also been installing solar powered streetlights throughout the Olympic Village as well as in
less urbanized areas of the Chinese capital's suburbs.
This isn't just environmental posturing, but a serious and sustained push to diversify China's energy mix, local officials
contend. Beijing has pledged to install three megawatts of solar power for the 2008 Olympics. However, "If you add up all the
solar energy investment in the Olympic Village, National Indoor Stadium, Bird's Nest, and rural villages, it is entirely possible
that Beijing could have six megawatts by 2008," says Zhu Wei Gang, a vice-president with Beijing Corona Science &
Technology, the company which is installing the solar panels in the National Indoor Stadium.
90
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
***A2: Neg Arguments***
91
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
A2: Market Solves

Small businesses alone lack resources to bring nanotechnology to the market
John f. Sargent Specialist in Science and Technology Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division 5/15/ 08, , CRS Report for
Congress, “Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness: Issues and Options,” http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
Small businesses may lack the resources needed to bring their nanotechnology innovations to market. Federal programs, such
as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and the Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) program, support leading-edge nanotechnology research by small innovative firms. Federally funded
university research can produce small start-up ventures. These small businesses may develop commercially valuable
technology, and even successfully develop new nanotechnology materials, tools, processes, or products, but lack the capital,
infrastructure, or sales and distribution channels to effectively bring such advances to market.
92
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
A2: Public Backlash – International Institutions Solve

International institutions solve public backlash
International institutions such as UNESCO can serve as effective mediators or facilitators of this dialogue between the public and
scientists. If nanotechnology research is to be socially directed towards solving the problems that are most urgent for the largest
number of people, then there is a need for people and institutions who can connect scientists, funders and entrepreneurs in search of
problems with local experts and experts in areas other than nanotechnology (for instance, in environmental remediation or in the
areas of water and/or energy policy in developing nations)
93
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
A2: Plan is Expensive

Nanotech makes solar energy cheap.
John f. Sargent Specialist in Science and Technology Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division 5/15/ 08, , CRS Report for
Congress, “Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness: Issues and Options,” http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106153.pdf
WASHINGTON, DC Scientists are working to produce cheap, sustainable solar energy by imitating nature. nanotechnology
researchers like California Institute of Technology professor Nate Lewis are exploring nanoscale materials that mimic the
architecture of grass and photosynthesis to capture and store the suns energy.
A new podcast looks at how Dr. Lewis and his CalTech research team are trying to imbed tiny nanoparticles into simple,
inexpensive everyday products like house paint and roof tiles to revolutionize the way solar energy is produced. More energy
from the sun hits the earth in an hour than all the energy consumed by human beings on our planet in an entire year. So, if we
are going to find an efficient, environmentally-friendly substitute for fossil fuels, it makes sense to exploit the sun, says Dr.
Lewis. nanotechnology offers us a way, in principle, to make very cheap materials like the paint you buy at Home Depot act as
solar cells and batteries. Ordinary-looking, nano-enabled house paint, roofs or shingles could replace today’s black, glasslike
photovoltaic cells which are usually composed of crystalline silicon and are unwieldy, unsightly and very expensive to
manufacture. In addition to homes, this innovative technology someday could power cell phones, laptops and even
automobiles.
94
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Politics – Solar Energy Popular

Solar Energy is immensely popular with everyone
But here's something all Americans — except maybe Exxon shareholders — should be able to agree on, regardless of where they fall
on the green spectrum: more renewable power would be a good thing. Greens support alternative energy, like wind or solar, because it
helps de-carbonize our energy supply and reduce pollution. Skeptics support it because with rocketing fossil fuel prices — and the
U.S.'s increasing dependence on oil imported from less-than-friendly regimes — renewables can offer homegrown, politically safe
price relief. It's a win-win in a world that seems ever more zero-sum.
95
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Politics – R&D Popular - Congress

R&D funding is bipartisan
AAAS 4 – 25 – 08, American Association for the Advancement of Science
[“Innovation,” http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/top%20issues/innovation_index.shtml]
Bills to encourage innovation and boost U.S. competitiveness, which have engendered broad bipartisan support for several years,
moved in both chambers of Congress in recent weeks. On April 24, the House of Representatives passed “10,000 Teachers, 10 Million
Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act” (H.R. 362) promoting science education and “Sowing the Seeds through Science and
Engineering Research Act” (H.R. 363) that would award research grants to young investigators. Across the Capitol, the Senate passed
the “America COMPETES Act” (S. 761), which would increase funding for research and education programs at a number of agencies
that contribute to nondefense research and development (R&D).
***Note – “America COMPETES Act” included provisions for funding nanotech R&D***
96
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Politics – Nanotech Popular - Congress

Congress passed NNI with overwhelming bipartisanship
Adrienne Selko 6 – 9 – 08, Editor @ IndustryWeek [“Alliance Commends House Passage of Nanotechnology Bill,”
http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=16491]
NanoBusiness says bill will help U.S. maintain its lead in the global nanotechnology race.
June 9, 2008 -- NanoBusiness Alliance Executive Chairman Sean Murdock on June 5 commended the House of
Representatives for passing the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 5940). The
bill, which reauthorizes and updates the successful federal interagency nanotechnology research and
development program, passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan margin. "We are pleased that Congress
continues to recognize the importance of nanotechnology," said Murdock. "It is imperative that the United
States maintain its lead in the global nanotechnology race, and this bill will help make that happen."
97
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Politics – Nanotech Popular – Companies/Scientists

Nano companies and scientists push for federal aid to innovation and R&D
Jennifer A. Dlouhy 3 – 3 – 08, Hearst Newspapers [“Nanotech companies pushing Congress to spring for research,” San Francisco
Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/03/BUM3VAVPV.DTL&type=tech]
Roughly two dozen nanotechnology companies and other experts came to Capitol Hill last week to show off their wares and send
Congress a message: Nanotechnology is about a whole lot more than computer chips. Supporters of more federal aid for
nanotechnology - the science and engineering of products on an extremely small scale - say this is the next industrial frontier.
Scientists and entrepreneurs argue that the burgeoning industry needs more federal funding for the United States to stay ahead of
global competitors.
98
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Politics – Tax Credits Unpopular - Congress

Fiscal concerns make tax credits unpopular in Congress
If the renewable credits do expire (Congress, jammed in a partisan gridlock, refuses to renew them), they'll save taxpayers a little
money — maybe $1 billion, or less than half a week of the Iraq war. But the cost to the economy — not to mention the fight against
climate change — will be far greater. Navigant Consulting, an international firm that studies the energy industry, estimates that the
expiration of the renewable tax credit would result in approximately $19 billion in lost investment, and 119,000 lost job opportunities
in the U.S. That's because renewables, while getting cheaper all the time, still cost more than fossil fuels. Subsidies can help bridge the
gap as renewable technology improves — but that will happen only if businesses can produce solar or wind power at scale, which will
happen only if investors can be assured that the tax credits won't suddenly disappear, says Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy
Industries Association. (Hear Resch talk about the renewable tax credits on this week's Greencast.)
This year, Congress has repeatedly found itself stalemated over the renewal of renewable credits. Supporters of the credits haven't
been able to overcome opposition by Republican senators, the White House and a handful of fiscally conservative Democrats, who
won't vote for the credits unless they're paid for as they go. Supporters have tried paying for the credits by rescinding tax breaks for oil
companies; they've also tried raising the funds by eliminating tax loopholes that benefit hedge fund managers. Even though oil
executives and hedge fund managers are perhaps the most widely hated two groups in America, neither plan has worked.
99
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Politics – Nanotech – Bush Not Perceived

Senators Allen and Wooden would be perceived to push the plan
George Allen, Republican US Senator from Virginia, 2007, “The Economic Promise of Nanotechnology,”
Issues in Science and Technology, http://www.issues.org/21.4/allen.html
As a U.S. senator, I have championed several initiatives over the past several years to nurture U.S. leadership in innovation. Perhaps
none was more exciting than sponsoring the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research & Development Act, which was signed into law
by President Bush on December 3, 2003. Together with my hardworking friend and colleague, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), we
were successful in launching the National Nanotechnology Program, which became the single largest federally funded, multiagency
scientific research initiative since the space program in the 1960s, securing $3.63 billion over four years
100
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solar > Nuclear – 2AC

A. Nuclear power can’t do anything to stop global warming – only solar power can – prefer our evidence,
it’s comparative.
Bo Varga, Managing director at the silicon valley nano ventures, 3/14/07, “Nano Solar News: Global Warming & 2015 Cost
Trends,” http://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=038
My focus is on nano & clean technology conferences, commercialization of nano technology in solar applications, companies,
fundings, solar power policy issues, and other areas of interest to the solar power community. The focus for this column is the cost
structure of solar photovoltaic & what can be "reasonably" projected over the next few years. I believe that solar is a more realistic
solution to global warming than carbon sequestration and other "magic" technologies. All quotations and sources are referenced. All
opinions are the opinions of the columnist & not of Nanotechnology-Now. The fundamental driver for solar PV & solar thermal is the
efficiency & cost of conversion of sunlight to electricity or to heat. The competition is either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Nuclear
has three basic problems with no solutions in sight: (i) the nuclear industry only exists because the promoters do not have to pay for
the billions to trillions of dollars of damage that will be caused from a large scale accident - check out the Price Anderson act which
limits damage claims in the US to $500 million - the nuclear industry is basically uninsurable because the upside of a major accident is
incalculable by actuarial tables, despite all the "media fog" put out by nuclear advocates(ii)the nuclear fuel cycle enables the
production of nuclear weapons - see North Korea, Iran, etc.(iii) nobody wants a nuclear reactor and especially the long term waste
products in their back yard. Fossil fuels all depend on the "carbon subsidy" for current pricing - current coal, oil, gas prices depend on
not having to pay for the destruction of the global environment upon which all life (including humans) depends by the mechanism of
global warming. We need to get a grip on greenhouse gases before the industrialization of Brazil, China, India, Russia gets anywhere
close to US, Japanese, or Western European levels.
B. Impact
101
Nanotech Aff
DDI 2008 SS
Solar > Nuclear Ext
Solar power is safer and more efficient than nuclear power.

Forbes, publishes reports on IT advances, july 06, “Nanotech Report,”
http://www.qsinano.com/pdf/ForbesWolfe_NanotechReport_July2006.pdf
For all of these great potential solutions, there's a catch. Every one of these technologies requires an initial input of energy—energy to
manufacture catalysts or membranes in the first place, energy to power a hydrogen generator. If that energy comes from a fossil fuel
burning power plant, the problem has not been solved. The ultimate goal for greenies is to have a clean power source at every step.
The options? Nuclear or solar power. Nuclear power hasn't been ruled out, but it comes with a batch of big concerns, the main one
being that it would make it much harder to regulate the development of nuclear weapons. The ideal power source, then, is the sun, but
to harvest it on a mass scale today's solar cells need to increase in efficiency and decrease in cost.
102

Nanotech Aff

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nanotech Aff

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nanotech Aff

Contention 1 is The Future

Nanotechnology development is also inevitable – everyone is funding it now

Advantage 1 is the Economy

Technological innovation is key to the economy

Advantage 2 is Nanotech Leadership

Additionally, semiconductors are key to hegemony

Hegemony solves nuclear war.

Inherency – Nanotech Leadership Low

Inherency – Recession Now

Inherency – Solar Power Now – World

Other countries are developing and starting to use solar power

Inherency – Solar Power Now - World

Inherency – Solar Power Now – China

Inherency – Solar Power Now – India

Inherency – Solar Power Now - Expensive

Inherency – Solar Nanotech Now

Inherency – Solar Tax Credits Now

Inherency – Solar Tax Credits Now

Inherency – Need Alt Energy Nano

Inherency – Need Alt Energy Nano

Competitiveness – Nanotech Key – Innovation/Jobs

Competitiveness – Nanotech Key – Innovation/Jobs

Competitiveness – Nanotech Key – Innovation/Jobs

Competitiveness – Nanotech Key

Competitiveness – Nanotech Key

Competitiveness – Tech Key

Competitiveness – US Action Key - Innovation/Spillover

Competitiveness – US Action Key - Innovation/Spillover

Competitiveness – Innovation Happens

Competitiveness – Alternative Energy Key

Competitiveness – Alternative Energy Key

Competitiveness – Alternative Energy Key

Competitiveness – Alternative Energy Key

Competitiveness – Alternative Energy Key

Competitiveness – Alternative Energy Key

Competitiveness – Alternative Energy Key

Competitiveness – Solar Power Solves

Competitiveness – A2: Education = Alt Cause

Nanotechnology development provides the necessary framework for education

Leadership – Science Leadership Key to Soft Power

Bilateral S&T Cooperation Agreements

Leadership – Science Leadership Key to Soft Power

Leadership – No Oil Dependency Key to Soft Power

Leadership - Solar Nanotech  Other Nanotech

Leadership - Solar Nanotech  Other Nanotech

Leadership – Nanotech Good - Everything

Leadership – Nanotech Good - Disease

Leadership – Nanotech Good - Disease

Nanomachines are feasible – future use will eliminate all diseases

Leadership – Nanotech Good – Cancer

B. More than 500,000 people in US die of cancer yearly

Leadership – Nanotech Good – Cancer Ext

Nanotechnology can cure cancer

CNN, 6/23/05, “Nanotech delivers cancer treatment,” http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/21/cancer.nanotech/

Leadership - Nanotech Good: Clean Water 2AC

C. Epidemics cause extinction

Leadership – Nanotech Good – Clean Water Ext

Leadership – Nanotech Good - Poverty

Leadership – Nanotech Good - Terrorism

Leadership – Nanotech Good – Military Readiness

Leadership – Nanotech Good – Hegemony

Renewable energy nanotech is key to US hegemony

Leadership – Nanotech Good - Environment

A2: Neg Arguments