U.S. Could Lose Race for Nanotech Leadership, SIA Panel Says

Electronic News ^ | Mar 16, 2005 | Online staff

[Dat Mon]

At a news conference in Washington, D.C., today, U.S. semiconductor industry CEOs and an economist stressed the importance of continued progress and leadership in semiconductor technology since the coming transition to nano-scale semiconductor devices means leadership in IT is up for grabs.

Advertisement Organized by the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), the conference included Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel Corp.; Steve Appleton, CEO of Micron Technology and current chairman of the SIA; Dale Jorgenson, a Samuel W. Morris University professor at Harvard University; and George Scalise, president of the SIA.

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. The panelists noted that four decades of continuous advances in microchip technology have led to creation of entirely new industries, including PCs, the Internet and cellular phones, while enabling major advances in biotechnology, medicine and environmental protection.

SIA called for support of basic research in the physical sciences to be stepped up in order to assure continued U.S. technology leadership. Experts believe current semiconductor technology could run up against physical, technological and economic limits around 2020, the SIA reported.

“U.S. leadership in technology is under assault,” Barrett said in a statement. “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 also said industry scientists believe current CMOS scaling that supports Moore’s Law can remain in effect for at least another 10 to 15 years but when the smallest features on a chip shrink to less than 10nm, 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,” Barrett also said. “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."

Further, the panelists agreed that sustaining continuous advances in semiconductor technology is vital to sustaining improved U.S. economic performance.

“The mantra of the ‘new economy’ is faster, better, cheaper, which characterizes the speed of technological change and product improvement in semiconductors, the key enabling technology,” Harvard’s Jorgenson said.

Development and deployment of information technology is the foundation of the American growth resurgence that has occurred since 1995 and the economics of information technology begins with the precipitous and continuing fall in semiconductor prices, Jorgenson suggested.

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 and 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, he continued.

“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. Obviously, the impact of the IT-producing industries is far out of proportion to their relatively small size,” Jorgenson noted.

At the same time, Appleton called for a concerted national effort to increase the resources devoted to R&D in the physical sciences.

“Our current efforts are inadequate,” Appleton said. “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 also said its leaders are to call 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,” Appleton added. “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.

[Dat Mon]

You said.."We stopped investing 10-15 years ago."

In corporate management training years ago...I was introduced to a concept of "harvest phase"..referring to that final phase of a business division or operation (before selloff or phaseout) whereby the minimal sustaining funds were put into the business...but max profits were drawn out.

Usually, these were businesses that were deemed to be in mature technology areas, well established in the market, with steady sales, but with a forecast for decreasing sales and profits down the road as their products became obsolete.

Honest to God...sometimes I feel as if people have put our tech and manufacturing industries into that same mature 'harvest mode'...just draw down the equity...with no further investments long term.

[razorback-bert]

It dates from the days of Jimmy "rabbit" Carter, he pushed dropping the tax incentive for R & D.

[Dat Mon]

In a thinly veiled shameless ping/plug...you may want to check out an interesting post on Offshoring in China...called Reality Bites.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Dat Mon]

You said..."Engineers should be engineers because they love it. Not because they think it is the road to riches."

This is true. You cant be good at anything if you dont enjoy it...and that wont come just from the money.

The problem is...you want to attract the best and the brightest to science and engineering...not to legal and financial only. After all, you may love electronics, but decide to make it a hobby rather than a profession...many smart people do.

When a kid with limited means is looking at a $100K investment....he (or his parents) want to know that there will a finacial payoff down the road for that investment.

Yeah..some of us got scholarships and / or worked our way through school...back when you could earn enough during the summer to pay for a years tuition (with scholarship too).

Those days are long gone.

Besides, the problem is not so much engineering starting salaries out of school, but the longevity, security, and long term earning potential of the career.

[Avenger]

"Engineers should be engineers because they love it. Not because they think it is the road to riches."


Absolutely agree. I suppose what we need to do is have some way to help find those kids who are especially gifted in math and science and give them the proper tools, education and opportunities. Let's face it, no matter how much education, there just aren't that many Einsteins, Oppenheimers, or Von Neumann's around. The thing is that we need to do our best not to let any of these potential Einstiens slip throught the cracks. 100K Java/C++/Perl programmers aren't going to change the world, but one Einstien could. This is what parents need to be on the lookout for. But how will parents know if they have no knowledge or interest in science themsevles? We need to develop a culture of curiousity, interest and appreciation of science, math and engineering.

[Wonder Warthog]

"There was no "killer app" prior to the Internet that drove the technology. Yet somehow it was driven forward at a high rate of speed. If the horsepower is there, it will get used. There are millions of gamers clamoring for more juice."

Bullshit. The "killer app" that originally started the ball rolling was the spreadsheet. That got Apple off the "hobby horse" and into the business world. Same for Lotus 1-2-3 on the IBM PC. Then the explosion of office apps. There is nothing even remotely equivalent to the breadth of these markets on the horizon today. Gaming is a tiny niche market compared to the above historical situations.

[bobdsmith]

It's the world we need to benefit, not individual countries. They are coming and will be here in maybe as little than a few decades. We must be prepared for they are programmed for nothing less than the extermination of intelligent life.

[Phsstpok]

So, Intel and similar mega rich companies are once again asking for Corporate subsidies from the tax payer? All while they are shipping more production overseas and agreeing to give away patents (paid for by American taxpayers) in order to get into markets like China.

I'm in favor of increasing funding that produces breakthroughs in basic research. Things like DARPA and NASA. Not NSF.

It's like tax payer funded art. It's almost always politically driven, not driven by real need that can produce commercial results. Grant from political bodies like NSF will always go for things like more global warming "proofs" rather than nano-tech basic research. You'll even get the dominant leftist greenies from groups like Union of Concerned Scientists testifying about the danger posed by nano-tech (the "grey goop" theory).

Let Intel, et al, compete for DARPA or NASA funding for things we really need, not just subsidies for their profits. DARPA's Natick bureau is having a hard time getting some major firms to bid on their advance research contracts for nano-tech items related to the "Future Warrior" project. The stated reason is that they don't want to get involved in "war industy." Well, guess what, guys? We don't want to subsidize you if you don't want to help defend us.

[oceanview]

I take it you are not a recent graduate. as we all say at the lunch table, "hang onto your current tech job, because its the last one you'll ever have".

everyone factors in compensation when choosing a job. its not just "enjoyment". I can think of alot of things I enjoy, but since I can't earn a living doing them, I don't consider them as career choices.

[Dat Mon]

You said..."It's like tax payer funded art. It's almost always politically driven, not driven by real need that can produce commercial results. Grant from political bodies like NSF will always go for things like more global warming "proofs" rather than nano-tech basic research."

You raise some excellent points.

Everything is 'complicated' these days...due to the underlying politicalization ...which in turn is driven by the lefts ability to constantly push their agenda, and the conservative / libertarian sometimes lameass attempts to stop them.

[oceanview]

this is exactly why I dream of some kind of major political instability in china that will wipe out all the investments made there by US companies. they are ungrateful SOBs, the executives are filling their pockets with hundreds of millions of dollars in booty from offshoring, and then they turn around and criticize US engineering and want government funding for it.

[Light Speed]

A visit to IT and Nano land would reasonably land one on Israels doorstep.

Much of Intels breakthru tech occured in their R&D and production facilities in Israel.

In some ways....much of what is making biggy coin for Intel is actually old shelf.
Intel hits the speed dial...and someone in Israel puts another past shelved discovery into production when the market looks viable.

Israel has been a suprise in this area,
Her military has some very innovative assets with high open structure* ability for future expansion.
Python 4 and soon to enter service Python 5 air to air missile reveal Rafael/IDF's prowess.
Many,many other systems to margin here as a forwarding point.

I would imagine that Israels IT and Nano R&D are connected with the U.S. Military at some level.

Hopefully...both nations continue to benefit form this relationship.
Instead of these Brainy Jews going to India and all points of the compass to make money.

I would imagine some of them are high security protection realities.

IT and Nano tech is serious stuff.
Its margined that Nano tech can now be inserted into Earth Orbit to castrate a Satlillite after they become infected.
Leave the Nano on the satillite dormant,
Kill it inside of a few minutes at the push of a buttom when its time.
Same for other asset control here on Earth.

Egypt rolls its M1A1'a up to the Israeli border in stagging for an attack.

Israel lets them cross the border,
then turns them off : )
They become a foriegn sale possibility for Israel after the conflict.
maybe sell them back to Egypt : )

anyhoo...hopefully U.S. and Israel can navigate this important science of our times with Primacy success.

[DB]

Spread sheets/word processors did not drive Intel to produce 3.8 GHz processors.

It is the hardware capabilities that opens up new opportunities for software.

Intel isn't waiting for new software that requires more power to pursue higher speed processors. They are going as fast as they can.

[DB]

I didn't consciously choose electronics. I was fascinated with electricity from a very early age. Probably from the point of sticking a penny between the two prongs of my mom's sewing machine plug that was plugged in when I was crawling...

Big wow factor ;-)

So I did it because I loved it. I couldn't imagine doing anything else. Fortunately it started to pay well later in life (I'm 43). Like any job you have to start your own business producing your own products/services to do really well. Otherwise you're just producing wealth for someone else.

[Dat Mon]

You said..."Like any job you have to start your own business producing your own products/services to do really well. Otherwise you're just producing wealth for someone else."

I hear ya.

Ultimately, IMHO you need a niche product...thats high performance ...that you can produce here in the US for select customers who are willing to pay for it.

In theory this protects you to some extent against the danger of intellectual property theft, and the trials of mass production.

[indthkr]

Back in March 2003, Nobel Laureate and Nanotech Scientist
Richard Smalley testified before a government science board
that the U.S. will need a "Sputnik-like event to revive interest in careers in engineering and the physical sciences".

The world didn't move nearly as fast in the 1950's as it
does today. The reaction time between "Sputnik event" and
"Tipping-point / No Recovery" is getting shorter every day.

[Paul Ross]

engineering in the US may have already reached the tipping point. most of the american degree programs would collapse if not for enrollment of foreign nationals.

Pinging.

[Paul Ross]

We, the taxpayers would likely wind up paying for the disaster through the Federal-government's "insurance" program for U.S. companies that out-source.

[Dat Mon]

Thanks for pinging people over to this thread.

This is an issue that needs to be thrust out into the public awareness.

Id say that even on this forum...more people are curious about Michael Jackson than are curious about the future of high tech in this country.

That has to change...and change fast.