- 21ST CENTURY BIOLOGY

[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

21ST CENTURY BIOLOGY

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

JUNE 29, 2010

__________

Serial No. 111-103

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-601 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
______

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PETE OLSON, Texas
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN GARAMENDI, California
VACANCY
------

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education

HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
VACANCY
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Subcommittee Staff Director
MARCY GALLO Democratic Professional Staff Member
BESS CAUGHRAN Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
MOLLY O'ROURKE Research Assistant

C O N T E N T S

June 29, 2010

Page
Witness List..................................................... 2

Hearing Charter.................................................. 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Minority Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 11

Witnesses:

Dr. Keith Yamamoto, Chair, National Academy of Sciences' Board on
Life Sciences, and Professor, Cellular and Molecular
Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Biography.................................................... 18

Dr. James Collins, Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural
History and the Environment, Department of Ecology, Evolution
and Environmental Science, Arizona State University
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Biography.................................................... 28

Dr. Reinhard Laubenbacher, Professor, Virginia Bioinformatics
Institute, Department of Mathematics, Virginia Tech
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 30
Biography.................................................... 41

Dr. Joshua N. Leonard, Assistant Professor, Department of
Chemical and Biological Engineering, Northwestern University
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Biography.................................................... 49

Dr. Karl Sanford, Vice President, Technology Development,
Genencor
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
Biography.................................................... 55

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Keith Yamamoto, Chair, National Academy of Sciences' Board on
Life Sciences, and Professor, Cellular and Molecular
Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco.......... 64

Dr. Karl Sanford, Vice President, Technology Development,
Genencor....................................................... 66

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Statement of Dr. James Sullivan, Vice President for
Pharmaceutical Discovery, Abbott Laboratories.................. 70

21ST CENTURY BIOLOGY

----------

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2010

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
Committee on Science and Technology
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:07 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel
Lipinski [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

hearing charter

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

june 29, 2010
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building

1. Purpose:

The purpose of the hearing is to examine the future of the
biological sciences, including research occurring at the intersection
of the physical sciences, engineering, and biological sciences, and to
examine the potential these emerging fields of interdisciplinary
research hold for addressing grand challenges in energy, the
environment, agriculture, materials, and manufacturing.

2. Witnesses:

Dr. Keith Yamamoto, Chair, National Academy of
Sciences, Board on Life Sciences and Professor, Cellular and
Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco

Dr. James Collins, Virginia M. Ullman Professor of
Natural History and the Environment, Department of Ecology,
Evolution, & Environmental Science, Arizona State University

Dr. Reinhard Laubenbacher, Professor, Virginia
Bioinformatics Institute and Department of Mathematics,
Virginia Tech

Dr. Joshua N. Leonard, Assistant Professor,
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Northwestern
University

Dr. Karl Sanford, Vice President, Technology
Development, Genencor

3. Overarching Questions:

What is the future of research in the biological
sciences? What potential does research at the intersection of
the biological sciences, physical sciences, and engineering
hold for addressing grand research challenges in energy, the
environment, agriculture, materials, and manufacturing? What
new technologies and methodologies, including computational
tools, are enabling advances in biological research? Are there
promising research opportunities that are not being adequately
addressed?

What is the nature of the interactions and
collaborations between physical scientists, engineers, and
biological scientists? How might these disparate research
communities be better integrated? Is the National Science
Foundation playing an effective role in fostering research at
the intersection of the physical sciences, engineering, and the
biological sciences? Is research in the biological sciences,
including research at the intersection of the biological
sciences, the physical sciences, and engineering being
effectively coordinated across the Federal agencies? If not,
what changes are needed?

How are advances in the biological sciences affecting
the biotechnology industry? What are the research needs of the
biotechnology sector and are they being adequately addressed?
Are science and engineering students being adequately trained
by colleges and universities to be successful in the
biotechnology industry? Is the National Science Foundation
playing an effective role in fostering university-industry
collaborations?

4. Background:

Research in the biological sciences is the largest area of research
supported by the Federal Government, representing 27 percent of Federal
research obligations in 2007. Currently over 20 Federal agencies
support biological sciences research ranging from bioterrorism-related
research at the Department of Homeland Security to stream ecology at
the National Science Foundation. Over the last 30 years there have been
rapid advances in DNA sequencing technologies, the real-time imaging of
cells and organisms, and computational power. These technical advances,
among others, have enabled significant accomplishments in biological
research, including the sequencing of the human genome in 2003 and more
recently, the creation of a synthesized genome by the J. Craig Venter
Institute \1\. Many believe biological research is on the verge of a
revolution, moving from a field that has focused primarily on
``identifying parts'' (i.e. plant species, cells, genes, and proteins)
and defining complex systems to one that can design, manipulate, and
predict the function of biological systems at all levels of
organization from the individual cell to an entire ecosystem. Many
experts predict that just as the 20th century was the golden era for
physics the 21st century will be the ``age of biology'', and advances
and discoveries in the biological sciences will transform society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/science.1190719v1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A deeper understanding of biological systems and the ability to
address biology-based societal problems such as the production of a
sufficient amount food to sustain the growing human population or the
generation of clean energy are increasingly being tackled through
interdisciplinary research. The trend toward interdisciplinary
research, specifically, research at the intersection of the biological
sciences, engineering, mathematics, and the physical sciences has been
termed the ``new biology'' \2\. Within the ``new biology'' three areas
are emerging as foundational fields: computational biology, systems
biology, and synthetic biology. Computational biology is the use of
mathematical tools and techniques in the examination of biological
processes and systems; for example the use of math to describe and
understand heart physiology. Systems biology is the study and
predictive modeling of biological processes through a holistic
examination of the dynamic interaction of the individual components of
a system; for example the study of an organism, viewed as an integrated
and interacting network of genes, proteins and biochemical reactions.
Synthetic biology is an emerging field that applies the principles of
engineering to the basic components of biology. The aim of synthetic
biology is to make predictable and easy to use genetically-engineered
cells, organisms, or biologically-inspired systems for industrial
applications like the production of biofuels or therapeutic
applications to treat disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record-id=12764
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of issues need to be considered as these new trends in
biological sciences research develop. Specifically, the type of
education and training necessary for undergraduate and graduate
students to work effectively across traditional disciplines, the
effectiveness of Federal support for interdisciplinary research and
education, and the increasing need for interagency coordination of
biological sciences research.

The Role of NSF in Biological Sciences Research
The Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) at the National
Science Foundation supports 68 percent of the non-medical, basic
biological sciences research performed at academic institutions,
including plant biology, environmental biology and biodiversity
research. The fiscal year 2011 budget request for BIO is $767.8
million, an increase of 7.5 percent over fiscal year 2010 (see table
below). BIO is separated into 5 divisions and supports research to
advance understanding of the underlying principles and mechanisms
governing life. Research supported by BIO ranges from the examination
of the structure and dynamics of biological molecules to more complex
systems and scales, including organisms, communities, ecosystems, and
the global biosphere.

The Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB) supports
research to understand the dynamics and complexity of living systems at
the molecular, biochemical and cellular levels. Projects funded through
MCB often focus on the regulation of genes and genomes, properties of
biomolecules, and the structure of subcellular systems. Activities
supported by MCB are increasingly interdisciplinary with the use of
tools and technologies developed in the physical sciences, mathematics,
and engineering becoming routine.
The Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS) supports a
systems-level approach to the understanding of plants, animals, and
microorganism; this holistic approach includes the study of an
organism's development, function, behavior, and evolution. The Plant
Genome Research Program (PGRP), which is part of the National Plant
Genome Initiative, is supported through IOS. The PGRP, with a budget
request of $105.4 million in fiscal year 2011, supports basic research
to improve crop production, and to identify and develop new sources for
bio-based fuels and materials.
The Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) supports fundamental
research on the origins, functions, relationships, interactions, and
evolutionary history of populations, species, communities, and
ecosystems. Research on the complexity and dynamics of ecosystems and
evolution are essential to improving our ability to understand and
mitigate environmental change.
The Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI) supports a variety
of activities from the development of instruments, software, and
databases to the improvement and maintenance of biological research
collections and field stations to the transformation of undergraduate
biology education. DBI provides the infrastructure, including the human
capital, necessary for contemporary research in biology. DBI oversees
BIO's participation in cross-cutting programs at NSF including, the
Graduate Research Fellowships program, the Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program (described in detail
later) and the Major Research Instrumentation program.
Developing programs and priority areas often start in the Emerging
Frontiers (EF) Division and then are integrated into BIO's core
programs. EF supports novel partnerships across disciplines and enables
the development of new conceptual frameworks. Additionally, EF develops
and implements new forms of merit review and mechanisms to support
high-risk, high-reward research.
In addition to the research and education activities supported by
BIO, the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) was included in
NSF's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Major Research Equipment
and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. NEON, a continental-scale
research platform for discovering and understanding the impacts of
climate change, land-use change, and invasive species on ecosystems, is
the first biological sciences related project funded through the MREFC
process.

The Role of NSF in Interdisciplinary Education and Training
NSF supports interdisciplinary education primarily through the
IGERT program. Since 1998 the IGERT program has made 215 awards to over
100 universities and has provided funding for nearly 5,000 doctoral-
level graduate students. IGERT awards average $3.0 million over five
years with the major portion of the funds being used for graduate
student stipends and training expenses. While each IGERT award is
unique, the overall goal of the program is to develop scientists and
engineers who will pursue careers in research and education from a
strong interdisciplinary background and catalyze a cultural change in
graduate education, for students, faculty, and institutions, by
establishing innovative models that transcend traditional disciplinary
boundaries. For example, there are currently 15 IGERT awards in the
area of bioinformatics all seeking to create professionals who can
translate scientific problems in biology into mathematics and
computations.
NSF also supports a number of research centers that are
interdisciplinary in nature and undergraduate and graduate students
working in the context of those research centers are exposed to
interdisciplinary research, education, and training. For example,
through the Centers for Analysis and Synthesis Program, the iPlant
Center led by the University of Arizona integrates biologists, computer
scientists, and engineers to address grand challenges in the plant
sciences, and through the Engineering Research Centers program, the
Center for Biorenewable Chemicals led by Iowa State University seeks to
transform the chemical industry by integrating biologists and chemists
to produce sustainable biochemicals. However, centers are not required
to be interdisciplinary and the degree of formal graduate and
undergraduate education programs associated with the centers varies.

Interagency Biological Sciences Research Programs
The National Plant Genome Initiative (NGPI) was established in 1998
and includes the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department
of Energy (DOE), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and NSF.
According the initiative's strategic plan \3\, the goal of the
initiative is translate basic research and understanding of
economically important plants and plant processes, including a deeper
understanding of the structures and functions of plant genomes into the
enhanced management of agriculture, natural resources, and the
environment to meet societal needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/stakeholder/pdfs/
pl-iwg-plant-genome
-yearPlan.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which began as a
presidential initiative in 1989 and includes 13 Federal agencies, was
formally established by Congress through the Global Change Research Act
of 1990 (P.L. 101-606). The USGCRP coordinates and integrates Federal
research on global climate change. While the USGCRP extends beyond
biological sciences research one of the program's strategic goals is to
``understand the sensitivity and adaptability of different natural and
managed ecosystems and human systems to climate and related global
changes.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2008/CCSP-RRP-
FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a smaller scale, NSF and NIH are jointly funding grants in
mathematical biology and the ecology of infectious diseases.
Specifically, NSF and NIH sponsor a collaborative research program in
computational neuroscience that could lead to significant advances in
the understanding of nervous system function and the underlying
mechanisms of nervous system disorders such as Alzheimer's disease.

5. Questions for Witnesses:

Dr. Keith Yamamoto

Please summarize the findings and recommendations of
the National Research Council's report, A New Biology for the
21st Century.

Are there promising research opportunities at the
intersection of the biological sciences, the physical sciences,
and engineering that are not being adequately addressed? Are
Federal agencies, in particularly NSF, playing an effective
role in fostering research at this intersection? If not, what
recommendations would you offer?

Is research in the biological sciences, including
research at the intersection of the biological sciences, the
physical sciences, and engineering being effectively
coordinated across the Federal agencies? If not, what changes
are needed?

What changes, if any, are needed in the education and
training of undergraduate and graduate students to enable them
to work effectively across the boundaries of the physical
sciences, engineering, and the biological sciences without
compromising core disciplinary depth and understanding?
Specifically, what recommendations or changes, if any, would
you offer regarding the portfolio of education and training
programs supported by NSF?

Dr. James Collins

In your opinion, what is the future of research in
the biological sciences and what potential does research at the
intersection of the biological sciences, the physical sciences,
and engineering hold for addressing grand challenges in the
environment? What tools and methodologies need to be developed
and what are the most promising research opportunities?

As the most recent Assistant Director for Biological
Sciences at the National Science Foundation,

How is NSF fostering research at the intersection of
the biological sciences, the physical sciences, and
engineering? What recommendations, if any, would you
offer regarding NSF's current portfolio of programs
supporting research at this intersection?

What education and training programs at NSF provide
undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdocs
with the skills necessary to work at the intersection
of the biological sciences, the physical sciences, and
engineering? What recommendations, if any, would you
offer regarding NSF's education and training programs?

How is NSF fostering university-industry research
collaborations in the biological sciences? What
recommendations, if any, would you offer regarding
NSF's university-industry programs?

Dr. Reinhard Laubenbacher

In your opinion, what is the future of research in
the biological sciences and what role does research at the
intersection of biology and mathematics hold for addressing
grand challenges in energy, the environment, agriculture,
materials, and manufacturing? What computational tools still
need to be developed? Are there promising research
opportunities that are not being adequately addressed? Is the
National Science Foundation playing an effective role in
fostering research at the intersection of the physical
sciences, engineering, and the biological sciences? If not,
what recommendations would you offer?

What is the nature of the interactions and
collaborations between mathematicians and biological scientists
at the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute (VBI)? How is VBI
facilitating these interdisciplinary collaborations and what
lessons can we learn from VBI? Is research at the intersection
of the biological sciences, the physical sciences, and
engineering being effectively coordinated across the Federal
agencies? If not, what changes are needed?

Dr. Joshua N. Leonard

In your opinion, what role does research at the
intersection of biology and engineering hold for addressing
grand challenges in energy, the environment, agriculture,
materials, and manufacturing? Specifically, describe the
emerging field of synthetic biology, including the work of your
research group and your involvement in the recent NSF sponsored
``sandpit'' and National Academies Keck Futures Initiative on
synthetic biology. Is the National Science Foundation playing
an effective role in fostering research in synthetic biology?
If not, what recommendations would you offer?

What changes, if any, are needed in the education and
training of undergraduate and graduate students to enable them
to work effectively across the boundaries of the physical
sciences, engineering, and the biological sciences without
compromising core disciplinary depth and understanding?
Specifically, describe the ongoing efforts of Northwestern
University and the Department of Chemical and Biological
Engineering to improve interdisciplinary graduate education.
What recommendations or changes, if any, would you offer
regarding the portfolio of education and training programs
supported by NSF?

Dr. Karl Sanford

Please provide a brief overview of Genencor,
including a description of the development of new products and
processes in the areas of bioenergy and biomaterials.

In your opinion, what is the future of research in
the biological sciences? How are research advances in the
biological sciences driving industrial biotechnology? Does the
current range of federally supported research adequately
address the needs of the biotechnology industry? If not, what
are the research gaps?

Are science and engineering students being adequately
trained by colleges and universities to be successful in the
biotechnology industry? If not, what kind of education and
training is needed and at what levels of education?

What is the nature of Genencor's partnerships with
U.S. universities, including Genencor's involvement in the
Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center at the University
of California-Berkeley? Are the Federal agencies, including the
National Science Foundation playing, an effective role in
fostering university-industry collaboration? Are these research
partnerships effective in the transfer of knowledge and
technology from U.S. universities to industry? If not, are
there best practices, training, or policies that should be put
in place to facilitate the commercialization of federally
funded research in the biological sciences?
Chairman Lipinski. The hearing will now come to order.
Good afternoon, and welcome to today's Research and Science
Education Subcommittee hearing on 21st century biology.
There are an increasing number of reports showing how cheap
DNA sequencing and computing power, together with our growing
ability to control molecules at the smallest scales, are
driving us toward a revolution in biology. Some believe that if
we can combine vastly increased amounts of data with increased
collaborations between biologists, computer scientists,
mathematicians and engineers, we might be able to understand,
manipulate, predict or even design the most complex system
there is: a living organism.
Although biology was not my favorite subject in high
school--although that may be because it was first semester
freshman year and we had to dissect the fetal pig, and I can
still remember the smell of the formaldehyde--the new, 21st
century biology has me much more interested. I was trained as a
mechanical engineer, and when I hear people talking about cells
as a systems design problem, I understand the important role of
engineers and physicists working in biology, and how ``new
biology'' may be able to deliver on promises to solve critical
problems in fields like energy, the environment, manufacturing
and agriculture.
This afternoon we are going to take a closer look at the
promise of 21st century biology by exploring research happening
at the intersection of the biological sciences, the physical
sciences, engineering and mathematics, and its potential to
address real-world problems. We will also look at how these
potential advances can be translated into technologies that
benefit society, and what we need to do to train researchers
who can thrive in an area that doesn't fit into any one
department.
For example, research at the intersection of biology and
engineering, known as synthetic biology, which we will learn
more about today from Dr. Leonard, could lead to the
development of bacteria that could help clean up the oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico, produce cellulosic biofuels, or even
lead to an organism that can detect and destroy cancer cells.
The current market for synthetic biology-based products is
estimated at $600 million and it is expected to grow to over
$3.5 billion within the next decade. This trend highlights the
importance of today's hearing: the need to link research
outcomes to American companies and American jobs.
As a former university professor, I have seen firsthand the
difficulty of overcoming cultural and institutional barriers
between academic departments and schools. Even within a single
discipline like political science, researchers often stay
safely within their subspecialties. But the potential successes
that can be realized by having interdisciplinary teams working
on biological problems mean that we need to ensure these
collaborations continue to grow.
I am interested in hearing recommendations from today's
witnesses about how the National Science Foundation can foster
interdisciplinary research and how it can improve education and
training for students who want to work at the intersection of
the biological sciences, engineering, and the physical
sciences. Finally, I would like to hear the panel's thoughts on
the need to increase research coordination and collaboration in
the biological sciences across the Federal agencies.
I thank the witnesses for being here this afternoon and
look forward to their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Daniel Lipinski
Good afternoon and welcome to today's Research and Science
Education Subcommittee hearing on 21st century biology. There are an
increasing number of reports showing how cheap DNA sequencing and
computing power, together with our growing ability to control molecules
at the smallest scales are driving us toward a revolution in biology.
Some believe that if we can combine vastly increased amounts of data
with increased collaborations between biologists, computer scientists,
mathematicians, and engineers, we might be able to understand,
manipulate, predict, or even design the most complex system there is--a
living organism.
Although biology was not my favorite subject in high school--
although that may be because it was first semester freshman year and we
had to dissect the fetal pig--the new, 21st century biology has me much
more interested. I was trained as a mechanical engineer, and when I
hear people talking about cells as a systems design problem, I
understand the important role of engineers and physicists working in
biology, and how ``New Biology'' may be able to deliver on promises to
solve critical problems in fields like energy, the environment,
manufacturing, and agriculture.
This afternoon we're going to take a closer look at the promise of
21st century biology by exploring research happening at the
intersection of the biological sciences, the physical sciences,
engineering, and mathematics, and its potential to address real-world
problems. We'll also look at how these potential advances can be
translated into technologies that benefit society, and what we need to
do to train researchers who can thrive in an area that doesn't fit into
any one department.
For example, research at the intersection of biology and
engineering, known as synthetic biology, which we will learn more about
today from Dr. Leonard, could lead to the development of bacteria that
could help clean up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, produce
cellulosic biofuels, or even lead to an organism that can detect and
destroy cancer cells. The current market for synthetic biology-based
products is estimated at $600 million dollars and it is expected to
grow to over $3.5 billion within the next decade. This trend highlights
the importance of today's hearing the need to link research outcomes to
American companies and American jobs.
As a former university professor, I've seen firsthand the
difficulty of overcoming cultural and institutional barriers between
academic departments and schools. Even within a single discipline like
political science researchers often stay safely within their
subspecialties. But the potential successes that can be realized by
having interdisciplinary teams working on biological problems mean that
we need to ensure these collaborations continue to grow. I'm interested
in hearing recommendations from today's witnesses about how the
National Science Foundation can foster interdisciplinary research and
how it can improve education and training for students who want to work
at the intersection of the biological sciences, engineering, and the
physical sciences. Finally, I'd like to hear the panel's thoughts on
the need to increase research coordination and collaboration in the
biological sciences across the Federal agencies.
I thank the witnesses for being here this afternoon and look
forward to their testimony.

Chairman Lipinski. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ehlers for
his opening statement.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for having
this hearing. This is a very important topic, and frankly a
very difficult topic, and I will get into some details of that
in just a moment. Let me also mention that I have, as often
happens here, something else going on simultaneously, so I may
be dashing in and out, but I will always be in earshot of what
is going on here so I will keep track.
The collaborations between the biological sciences,
physical sciences and engineering are becoming much more common
at our major research institutions. Young investigators have
discovered that to remain on the cutting edge of their
research, they need to be partnering with various departments
to solve challenges that are much larger than a single
discipline. This type of research arrangement will inevitably
benefit students by preparing them for today's workforce much
more than an education bound by a single discipline. At the
same time, we need to ensure that our graduate students do not
become overly broad instead of gaining a great level of
expertise in a disciplinary area.
I can emphasize from some personal observations the
difficulty of doing first-class, high-quality research in two
different fields. I have a friend who has a Nobel Prize, not in
biology, but decided some years ago that the future was in
biology and related fields and so transferred over, and even
though he earned a Nobel Prize in one area of science, he has
never, to the best of my knowledge, contributed significantly
to the area that he entered into involving biological sciences.
So I think it is very important for us to respect that fact,
particularly as we discuss funding for the future, and it is
not at all clear that funding decisions up to this point at the
various funding institutions in fact show recognition of that
and how difficult it is, particularly for the older
researchers, to switch from one field to another or try to
combine two fields. I think this is clearly a case where we
have to make certain that the young scientists coming along
are, early on, recognized and given grants so that they can
grow equally in both fields at the same time instead of first
mastering one and then attempting to master another. So I think
that is probably the most important thing we can learn here in
this committee, and that relates to the funding and how to fund
appropriately to ensure that the good scientists do have the
money they need to accomplish success in two, maybe even three
fields simultaneously.
As this committee determines how to foster new models for
science and engineering research, today's witnesses will
provide valuable insights on both conducting research in the
new biology and integrating with other disciplines. I certainly
look forward to hearing about this topic from our witnesses. I
thank you for putting together a good panel, Mr. Chairman, and
I am sure we can learn a lot about the issues that I raised a
moment ago from this distinguished panel we have before us
today.
With that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Thank you, Chairman Lipinski. I am pleased that the Committee is
holding this important hearing today.
Collaborations between the biological sciences, physical sciences
and engineering are becoming much more common at our major research
institutions. Young investigators have discovered that to remain on the
cutting edge of their research they need to be partnering with various
departments to solve challenges that are much larger than a single
discipline. This type of research arrangement will inevitably benefit
students by preparing them for today's workforce much more than an
education bound by a single discipline. At the same time, we need to
ensure that our graduate students do not become overly broad instead of
gaining some level of expertise in a disciplinary area.
As this Committee determines how to foster new models for science
and engineering research, today's witnesses will provide valuable
insights on both conducting research in the ``new biology'' and
integrating it with other disciplines.
I look forward to hearing about this topic from our witnesses.

Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers, and I know this
is a very busy time. I actually have two other hearings going
on with subcommittees I am on, so hopefully if you do have to
go, we will----
Mr. Ehlers. I will be in and out, so----
Chairman Lipinski. We will carry on without you.
I wanted to point out an article in the New York Times
yesterday that calls attention to why we are holding this
hearing today. The issue of new biology, or 21st century
biology--obviously our witnesses all understand it very well.
The general public certainly does not have that great of an
understanding of what all this means. I can't say that I have--
certainly I don't come close to what our witnesses know, the
knowledge that they have. But this article in the New York
Times provides an example of some of the exciting research that
is happening at the intersection of biology and material
sciences. An interdisciplinary team is converting methane to
ethylene using genetically engineered viruses. Now, ethylene is
used widely in industrial products and processes such as
manufacturing of solvents, but the process of producing
ethylene hasn't changed since the 19th century. The work of
this group is a significant step toward a more sustainable and
less expensive process, so clearly there are many things going
on right now in the new biology that will allow us to make
great advances, and it is one of the reasons why we are holding
this hearing here today.
So at this point, if there are Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point of the record.
So right now I want to start by introducing our witnesses.
First we have Dr. Keith Yamamoto, who is Chair of the National
Academy of Sciences' Board on Life Sciences as well as
Professor of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology at the
University of California, San Francisco. Dr. James Collins is
the Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural History and the
Environment in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and
Environmental Science at Arizona State University. Dr. Reinhard
Laubenbacher is Professor in both the Virginia Bioinformatics
Institute and the Department of Mathematics at Virginia Tech.
Dr. Joshua N. Leonard is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at
Northwestern University. And Dr. Karl Sanford is the Vice
President for Technology Development at Genencor.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have five
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
be included in the record for the hearing. When you have all
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have five minutes to question the panel.
So we will start here with Dr. Yamamoto.

STATEMENT OF KEITH YAMAMOTO, CHAIR, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES' BOARD ON LIFE SCIENCES, AND PROFESSOR, CELLULAR AND
MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO

Dr. Yamamoto. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Lipinski
and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Keith Yamamoto, a
Researcher, Professor, Executive Vice Dean of the School of
Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and
Chairman of the Board on Life Sciences of the National Research
Council. Thank you for the invitation to discuss with you today
this report, the report from that board on the National
Research Council called ``A New Biology for the 21st Century.''
The report was sponsored by the NSF [National Science
Foundation], the NIH [National Institutes of Health], the
Department of Energy, and was co-chaired by MIT professor and
Nobel laureate Phillip Sharp and Dupont Senior Vice President
Thomas Connelly. I also served as a member on that study
committee.
To begin to describe the New Biology report, allow me to
weave an imaginary scenario of research and science education
for you in the biology 101 classroom of a college or university
in your district. So here is the professor. I am good at this
part. ``In this course, we are going to dig into the
fundamental principles of biology, and you will see that there
are exciting mysteries waiting to be solved and within your
reach. You will also learn that more than ever before,
deepening our basic knowledge could help solve major societal
problems. For example, discoveries in biology could allow us to
breed new food crops that thrive under terrible growth
conditions and give each region of the United States a thriving
biofuel industry with transportation fuels produced from
locally and sustainably grown biomass. To achieve this, you
will need to team up with your classmates in physics,
chemistry, engineering, math, and computer science to crack the
deepest secrets of how living organisms obtain energy, grow,
resist stress, combat disease and dispose of waste. Getting
there will require a focused effort to apply that understanding
to invent new technologies, and of course, getting there will
require your curiosity and excitement about biological
discovery and its potential for profound social impact.''
The New Biology committee proposed that this scenario
become reality, that our current biological research
enterprise, that remarkable discovery engine spread across more
than 20 Federal agencies, be augmented with a small number of
ten-year challenges that are urgent and inspiring but
unreachable without a coordinated approach that aligns the
separate strengths of multiple agencies.
Why this approach and why now? Because many of the pieces
are in place to make it work. The unity of biology means that
knowledge gained about one genome, one cell, organism,
ecosystem is useful in understanding many others. Physical
scientists, mathematicians and engineers are already entering
this field and contributing unique approaches to biological
puzzles. Scientists are exploiting the benefits of the Human
Genome Project, new information and imaging technologies and
whole new fields such as synthetic biology. Nevertheless, the
committee found that we are missing critical synergies and
leveraging opportunities because the new biology is currently
poorly recognized, inadequately supported and delivering only a
fraction of its potential.
The committee recommended that the United States can better
capitalize on emerging knowledge in the life sciences by
coordinating efforts toward urgent societal challenges in four
broad areas: food, energy, the environment and health.
Why go after these huge sweeping issues? First, because we
are in crisis mode with each. We must find ways to provide food
and energy to a growing population without destroying our
ecosystems. We must reduce the burden of chronic disease in our
society and of malnutrition and infectious disease in the
developing world. Second, because big goals like putting a man
on the moon or sequencing the human genome can inspire both
scientists and the public. Big goals can focus the imagination,
creating the technological breakthroughs essential for
achieving those goals. Finally, big goals provide
accountability, a commitment to concrete measurable results in
return for sustained investments. The committee called for
visionary scientists and engineers from the various focus areas
to meet to identify some big goals, some great challenges.
In March, New Biology committee members briefed Department
of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Department of Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack and Howard Hughes Medical Institute
President Robert Tjian, who then agreed to sponsor an early
June workshop to generate challenge ideas that could provoke
quantum leaps toward sustainable production of food and
biofuels. The workshop brought together 30 extraordinary
scientists and engineers who converged on a common overall
goal: to sharply increase productivity in agriculture and
biofuel production while simultaneously making both of those
sectors carbon neutral.
Clearly, neither USDA [United States Department of
Agriculture] nor DOE [Department of Energy] alone can achieve
this goal. Rather, a coordinated effort will be required, a
National New Biology Initiative that harnesses the capabilities
of these and other agencies: NSF to stimulate necessary
advances in fundamental knowledge of plants and ecosystems,
NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration], NOAA
[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], USGS [U.S.
Geological Survey] and NIST [National Institute of Standards
and Technology] to work with DOE's AmeriFlux program and NSF's
NEON [National Ecological Observatory Network] program to
develop the ability to monitor carbon flows, NIH to contribute
its expertise in genomics, basic cellular, molecular and
microbial biology and bioengineering.
Finally, to return to the college classroom scenario that
opened my testimony, a new biology initiative would demand
reassessment of biology education. The committee strongly
endorsed three major recommendations from the 2003 NRC report,
``Bio 2010.'' First, ensure that biology students are well
grounded in math, physical sciences and engineering; second,
offer interdisciplinary independent lab research experience as
early as possible; and third, provide faculty development time
to embrace the integration of biology with the physical
sciences, math and engineering, and to revise courses
accordingly.
The New Biology Initiative adds a new layer to the
traditional strategies, marshalling basic science purposefully
toward solving urgent societal dilemmas, focusing teams of
researchers, technologies and foundational sciences across
agency boundaries. The initiative is a daring maneuver with
great potential benefits: a more productive life sciences
community, a better educated citizenry, a broad range of new
bio-based industries, and most importantly, a science-based
strategy to produce food and biofuels sustainably, monitor and
restore ecosystems and improve human health.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Yamamoto follows:]

Prepared Statement of Keith R. Yamamoto

Good afternoon, Chairman Lipinski and Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the invitation to present a statement before you today. I
am Keith R. Yamamoto, Professor of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology
and Executive Vice Dean of the School of Medicine at the University of
California, San Francisco, and Chairman of the Board on Life Sciences
of the National Research Council. The National Research Council is the
operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, chartered by Congress in
1863 to advise the government on matters of science and technology. In
2008, the Board on Life Sciences established the Committee on A New
Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the
Coming Biology Revolution, whose report I am very pleased to discuss
with you today. The report ``A New Biology for the 21st Century,''
which was released in August 2009, was sponsored by the National
Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the
Department of Energy. The study committee was co-chaired by MIT
Professor and Nobel Laureate Philip Sharp and Dupont Senior Vice
President and Chief Innovation Officer Thomas Connelly. I also served
as a member of the study committee.
To begin to describe the New Biology report, allow me to weave for
you an imaginary scenario, a scenario of research and science
education, in the classroom or lecture hall of the introductory biology
course this September in a college or university in your district.
Listen in with me to the professor:

``Thirty years from now, farmers in the United States and
around the world could be producing sufficient food locally to
nourish people in their regions, with no net increase in arable
land and fresh water use, and a decrease in use of fertilizer,
pesticides and fossil fuels. Furthermore, each region of the
United States could have a thriving and sustainable biofuel
industry, with liquid transportation fuels produced from
locally grown biomass. Importantly, these advances in food and
biofuel production could be carbon neutral, in other words,
releasing no more greenhouse gases than they consume. And
carbon flows into and out of the environment could be monitored
by sensors that also assess ecosystem health, and provide
immediate warning and simple restitution of environmental
stress.

How will we achieve this? We must find ways to quickly and
safely breed new and different food crops to achieve maximum
production under any growing condition. We must find ways to
adapt biomass crops to capture solar energy efficiently and
convert it into easily processed biomolecules. We must find
ways to detect early signs of stress to our ecosystems, and
ways to restore them when they've been damaged. These are all
challenges that demand aggressive and substantial advances in
our knowledge and understanding of biology. Getting there will
demand your best efforts should you become a biologist. But
getting there will also require that some of your classmates
who become physicists, chemists, engineers, mathematicians and
computer scientists apply their skills to biological problems.
It will take all of you, working together, to crack the deepest
secrets of how living organisms obtain energy, grow, interact,
resist stress, combat disease, reproduce, and dispose of waste.
And it will take all of you to apply that understanding, and
invent the technologies to advance our knowledge and achieve
these goals.

The United States has determined that it must and will lead
the world in achieving carbon neutral and sustainable
agriculture and biofuel production. A national New Biology
effort has been undertaken jointly by the National Science
Foundation, the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Interior
and Education, the National Institutes of Health, and many
other partners both public and private. The scope and scale of
this challenge are such that no individual, no university, no
company, no Federal agency could possibly solve it alone. Today
you begin the process of learning how biology--the New
Biology--can enable the United States to meet these
challenges.''

The Committee on a New Biology for the 21st Century recommended
that just such an imaginary scenario become reality--perhaps not by
this September, but very soon. The scientists and engineers on the
committee agreed that biology is at an inflection point - poised on the
brink of major advances that could address urgent societal problems.
Importantly, these problems demand bold action--they cannot be solved
by a `business as usual' approach. The United States has invested
wisely to make us the world leader in life science discovery by
promoting and supporting the curiosity and creativity of individual
scientists. It is crucial that this investment continues and expands.
But in addition, the committee recommended that now is the time to
recognize some profound challenges, and to address those challenges by
undertaking a bold experiment--to augment current life sciences
research, which is spread across more than 20 Federal agencies, with a
small number of ten-year challenges that are urgent and inspiring, but
unreachable without a coordinated approach that draws from and aligns
the separate strengths of multiple agencies.
Why did the committee decide that a new approach is needed? For two
reasons: first, the science is ready. And second, it is clear that we
are missing important synergies and opportunities to leverage advances
being made across the life sciences.
The report details five reasons why biology is ready to take on
major challenges:

First, the fundamental unity of biology has never
been clearer or more applicable. Knowledge gained about one
genome, cell, organism, or ecosystem is useful in understanding
many others. The same technologies that allow us to survey
human genomes for disease-associated genes also power high-
throughput approaches to screening millions of plant seeds for
desired genetic characteristics. It no longer makes sense to
talk about biomedical research as if it is unrelated to biofuel
or agricultural research; advances made in any of these areas
are directly applicable in the others and all rely on the same
foundational technologies and sciences.

Second, new players are entering the field, bringing
new skills and ideas. Physicists, chemists, mathematicians and
engineers are increasingly attracted to the field of biology
because of the fascinating questions it poses--questions that
they can uniquely contribute to answering.

Third, a strong foundation has already been built.
Life science research has been amazingly productive for the
last fifty years. The effort to construct the ``parts list''
for living systems has been a tremendously exciting
intellectual adventure in its own right, and has had
revolutionary outcomes in agriculture, health and industry.

Fourth, past investments are paying big dividends.
The Human Genome Project and subsequent advances in other high-
throughput approaches and computational analysis have
dramatically increased the productivity of life sciences
researchers no matter what organism they study. Being able to
collect and analyze comprehensive data sets allows researchers
to study biological phenomena at the level of systems. The
explosion of unanticipated benefits of the Human Genome Project
demonstrates how biology can benefit from large-scale
interdisciplinary efforts.

Finally, new tools and emerging sciences are
expanding what is possible. In addition to high-throughput
approaches, information and imaging technologies have
dramatically expanded the kinds of questions biologists can ask
and answer. Systems, computational and synthetic biology are
contributing to advances across the field of biology, from
biomedicine to bioremediation.

The report gives many examples of advances that have been made
possible by interdisciplinary teams integrating past discoveries and
new technologies to produce major advances. The committee called this
new approach the `New Biology' and examples of the new approach are
already emerging in many universities. But the committee's discussions
with scientists and supporting agencies made it clear that the New
Biology is as yet poorly recognized, inadequately supported, and--
critically--delivering only a fraction of its potential.
The committee concluded that the United States has an unprecedented
opportunity to capitalize on the new capabilities emerging in the life
sciences by mounting a multi-agency initiative to marshal resources and
provide coordination to empower and enable the academic, public, and
private sectors to address major societal challenges.

Why major challenges?

First, because the problems are urgent. We must find ways to
provide food and energy to a growing population without destruction of
our ecosystems; we must find solutions to the increasing burden of
chronic disease in our society, and to malnutrition and infectious
disease in the developing world.
Secondly, because big goals--like putting a man on the moon, or
sequencing the human genome--can inspire both scientists and the
public. Big goals can attract the efforts of scientists and engineers
who currently may not see how they could contribute their expertise to
solving these urgent problems. Big goals can focus the imagination,
creating the technological breakthroughs essential for achieving the
goals. Finally, big goals provide explicit accountability: in
enunciating a major challenge, the New Biologists and the public sector
make a compact--a commitment to a sustained investment that will
produce concrete, measurable results.
In the report, the committee described four broad areas of urgent
need--food, energy, the environment, and health--and gave examples of
the kinds of challenges that the New Biology could take on. In the area
of food, for example, the committee suggested that the New Biology
might develop ways to quickly, inexpensively, and safely adapt any crop
plant to any growing condition. Success could enable local production
of sufficient food, even on land that is considered non-arable today.
But the committee avoided prescribing specific projects or action
plans. Instead, they called for visionary scientists and engineers from
each area to identify great challenges for the New Biology that seem
impossible now, but within reach if attacked in a coordinated way. A
recent workshop demonstrated that the scientific community is more than
up to the task.
The starting point was a March 16th meeting, where Department of
Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack and HHMI President Robert Tjian agreed after a briefing from
members of the New Biology committee to sponsor a workshop to generate
challenge ideas at the scope and scale envisioned in the report.
Secretaries Chu and Vilsack, and President Tjian all recognized the
interconnections among their missions--human health depends on
achieving sustainable production of food and energy in the face of
multiple environmental stressors, including climate change. Clearly,
none of these challenges can be addressed in isolation, but equally
clearly, all four challenges are critically dependent on rapid advances
in biological understanding and application.
The resulting June 3-4 workshop sought to develop broad ideas and
project areas that could provoke quantum leaps of progress toward
sustainable production of both food and biofuels. (Subsequent workshops
will focus on other combinations of the four areas of need identified
by the committee.) The workshop brought together an extraordinary group
of scientists and engineers that spanned the scales, from molecules to
ecosystems, and spectrum, from viruses to microbes to plants to
animals, of modern biology. Each participant arrived at the workshop
armed with a transformative idea to be presented in a three-minute talk
during the first session. After hearing these short talks, the group
broke into small subgroups to separately mold this collection of thirty
bold ideas into a few decadal challenges, map out strategies for
reaching them, and identify knowledge and technology gaps.
Upon reconvening, the subgroups swiftly converged on a common
overall goal: to sharply increase productivity in agriculture and
biofuel production while simultaneously making both of these sectors
carbon neutral. All agreed that reaching this goal would require major
advances in our fundamental understanding of plants and microbial
communities, substantial investment in computational theory and
infrastructure, and development of a quantitative and biologically-
informed system for measuring the flow of carbon and other greenhouse
gas constituents. It became very clear that not only could neither USDA
nor DOE achieve this goal alone, but that a coordinated effort would be
required--a National New Biology Initiative that harnesses the
capabilities of these and other agencies: NSF to stimulate necessary
advances in fundamental knowledge of plants and ecosystems; NASA, NOAA,
USGS and NIST to work with DOE's Ameriflux program and NSF's NEON
program to develop the ability to monitor carbon flows; NIH to
contribute its expertise in genomics, basic cellular, molecular and
microbial biology, and bioengineering.
I would be remiss if I failed to return to the vision that opened
my testimony--college students being challenged from the first day of
class to consider how life science research is relevant, indeed
essential, to the solution of serious societal problems. A New Biology
Initiative would give students interested in real-world problems an
incentive to learn fundamental principles of science, mathematics and
engineering, and to acquire an integrated view of those disciplines.
At the same time, the Initiative would provide the opportunity to
establish and evaluate new educational and training opportunities. Many
reports have appeared that recommend ways to improve science education
in the United States; few of the recommendations have been implemented.
To promote and enable the New Biology Initiative, the committee
strongly endorsed three major recommendations from the 2003 NRC report,
Bio2010: First, design curricula to ensure that biology students are
well grounded in mathematics, physical and chemical sciences, and
engineering; conversely, biological concepts and examples should
included in all science courses. Second, laboratory courses should be
interdisciplinary, and independent research experience should be
offered as early as possible. Finally, development time should be
provided to enable faculty to appreciate fully the integration of
biology with the physical sciences, math and engineering, and to revise
their courses accordingly.
The New Biology committee issued a call to devote a modest portion
of the life sciences research enterprise to empowering this new
approach--to adding a new layer to the traditional strategies, a New
Biology Initiative that marshals basic science purposefully toward
solving urgent societal dilemmas, that focuses teams of researchers,
technologies and foundational sciences required for the task and
coordinates efforts across agency boundaries to ensure that gaps are
filled, problems addressed, and resources brought to bear at the right
time. Close interaction between these problem-oriented efforts and the
more decentralized basic research enterprise will be critical--and
mutually beneficial--as the traditional approaches will make relevant
unanticipated discoveries, and advances that benefit all researchers
will spin out from problem-based projects. A New Biology Initiative to
address major challenges would represent a daring addition to the
nation's research portfolio, with remarkable and far-reaching potential
benefits: a more productive life sciences research community; a
citizenry better informed about the logic and potential impact of
biological research; a broad range of new bio-based industries; and,
most importantly, a science-based strategy to produce food and biofuels
sustainably, monitor and restore ecosystems, and improve human health.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer your
questions or address your comments. Thank you again for the opportunity
to discuss this important matter with you.

Biography for Keith R. Yamamoto

Dr. Keith Yamamoto, Ph.D., is Professor of Cellular and Molecular
Pharmacology and Executive Vice Dean of the School of Medicine at the
University of California, San Francisco. He has been a member of the
UCSF faculty since 1976, serving as Director of the PIBS Graduate
Program in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (1988-2003), Vice Chair
of the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics (1985-1994), Chair of
the Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology (1994-2003), and
Vice Dean for Research, School of Medicine (2002-2003). Dr. Yamamoto's
research is focused on signaling and transcriptional regulation by
intracellular receptors, which mediate the actions of several classes
of essential hormones and cellular signals; he uses both mechanistic
and systems approaches to pursue these problems in pure molecules,
cells and whole organisms. Dr. Yamamoto was a founding editor of
Molecular Biology of the Cell, and serves on numerous editorial boards
and scientific advisory boards, and national committees focused on
public and scientific policy, public understanding and support of
biological research, and science education; he chairs the Coalition for
the Life Sciences (formerly the Joint Steering Committee for Public
Policy) and for the National Academy of Sciences, he chairs the Board
on Life Sciences. Dr. Yamamoto has long been involved in the process of
peer review and the policies that govern it at the National Institutes
of Health, serving as Chair of the Molecular Biology Study Section,
member of the NIH Director's Working Group on the Division of Research
Grants, Chair of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Center for
Scientific Review (CSR), member of the NIH Director's Peer Review
Oversight Group, member of the CSR Panel on Scientific Boundaries for
Review, member of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director, Co-Chair
of the Working Group to Enhance NIH Peer Review, and Co-Chair of the
Review Committee for the Transformational R01 Award. Dr. Yamamoto was
elected as a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in
1988, the National Academy of Sciences in 1989, the Institute of
Medicine in 2003, and as a fellow of the American Association for the
Advancement of Sciences in 2002.

Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Yamamoto.
Dr. Collins.

STATEMENT OF JAMES COLLINS, VIRGINIA M. ULLMAN PROFESSOR OF
NATURAL HISTORY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY,
EVOLUTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. Collins. Thank you very much, Chairman Lipinski,
Ranking Member Ehlers and Committee members. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on 21st century
biology. It is a topic of vital importance to sustaining
America's leadership in science and technology.
The biological sciences will flourish in the 21st century
by sustaining strength in its core disciplines while
simultaneously supporting research at the intersection of the
natural, physical and social sciences as well as engineering.
Interdisciplinary methods cut across disciplines to combine, in
powerful ways, basic research with solving real-world problems.
Biology itself emerged as an interdisciplinary science late
in the 19th century when researchers studying physiology,
natural history, anatomy and other sciences argued for uniting
them as the new discipline of biology focused on the study of
life. Some late 19th and early 20th century life scientists
also conceived of their research more within the realm of
engineering. They thought that their studies should be focused
on controlling life. They envisioned manipulating, transforming
and even replicating living systems in order to understand
nature and also to help solve human problems. It is a 19th
century perspective reminiscent of modern synthetic biology.
Throughout the 20th century, the two great themes of
understanding and controlling life wove together even as
biology divided itself into the basic subdisciplines of
genetics, cell biology, ecology and evolution.
Two things stand out as we look to biology's 21st century
future. First, more and more research questions require
reintegrating biology subdisciplines, and the fields are making
progress in carrying out that integration. The second thing we
see is the biological sciences as a growing source of
inspiration for and collaboration with engineering and the
physical and social sciences. Computational biology, systems
biology and sustainability science are products of this merger.
However, even as we imagine biology's role in addressing
today's challenges, we cannot forget that these will change
over time. This means that U.S. institutions that fund and
conduct research must be innovative and adaptable. Reinforcing
this need is the fact that many of the challenges ahead will
not be solved by business as usual. Innovation must be the
hallmark of research and education if ``A New Biology,''
envisioned in the recent NRC report, is to be realized.
Creating and sustaining an innovation ecosystem in the life
sciences means that all of the pieces must function as a
system, which generally means lowering the barriers that block
the ready flow of knowledge and ideas between, for example,
academic departments, funding agencies, or the public and
private sector.
As we look at the history of science, it is also clear that
the process of discovery changes. In an obvious sense, new
tools and methods are developed and that remains true today.
But modern research also joins individuals into larger and
larger teams. New methods like crowdsourcing and prediction
markets are linking experts across the globe, effectively
lowering those barriers I mentioned earlier. Funding agencies
can also use these innovative methods to help fund the very
best research, and NSF, for example, is already using some of
these methods.
In a rapidly changing world, the process of discovery
itself is also changing, and our students must learn how to
keep up. Modern biology curricula should expose students to
this sort of thinking and more. Because today's students are
tomorrow's problem solvers, we must integrate research and
education to prepare the next generation to address 21st
century challenges.
I urge this subcommittee and Congress to support innovative
agency efforts to catalyze transformative research and
education at levels that sustain reasonable success rates;
disciplinary and interdisciplinary programs that drive the
ready exchange of knowledge and ideas; efforts to advance
curriculum reform in biology; and establishing appropriate
metrics to judge programs.
The Subcommittee asked me to comment on university and
industry collaborations and coordination across U.S. Federal
agencies. These topics are related. Knowledge creation and use
along with the best ideas to identify and fund research and
education should not start or stop at the borders of one
organization. In the best cases, the relationship between a
university and an industry partner, or either of these with a
Federal funding agency, should be a two-way process of learning
best practices from each other. Coordination across Federal
agencies builds coalitions and lowers barriers while leveraging
the innovative ideas of several institutions. At its best, this
really creates an open-source environment for innovation.
One last thought. In the NRC's ``A New Biology'' report, we
see the central themes of biology's origins--understanding
life, controlling life, and a call for broad engagement with
other disciplines--recast in new forms around contemporary
problems. Modern science, engineering and technology are full
of breathtaking discoveries. It would be wrong, however, to
conclude that scientists and engineers can solve all the
problems of food, health, energy and the environment. Social
scientists call questions in these areas `wicked problems' for
a reason. They are full of complex interdependent parts, and
solving one aspect of a problem often reveals or even creates
other problems. Simply put, so-called `wicked problems' will
not yield to only scientific or technological fixes. America's
best researchers and their students must engage in a process of
discovery that transforms the way in which research is
conducted and students are educated. If the changes needed are
to occur at a sufficiently fundamental level, it will also mean
transforming our research institutions.
I have envisioned a future for biology that has three
elements: first, sustaining disciplines while blurring their
boundaries; second, innovation as a central feature of life
science research and education; and third, building coalitions
among institutions. In combination, these three elements are a
vision for how the life sciences will play a key role in
addressing the great intellectual and social challenges of the
21st century. At the same time, we will sustain America's
leadership in science, engineering and technology innovation
during the years ahead.
Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the
opportunity to testify on this very important subject. I will
be pleased to answer any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Collins follows:]

Prepared Statement of James P. Collins

Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and committee members: I
am James P. Collins, Virginia M. Ullman Professor in the School of Life
Sciences at Arizona State University (ASU). I am also an Affiliated
Scholar in the Consortium for Science and Policy Outcomes at ASU. Prior
to returning to Arizona State University, I served in the Federal
Government during the George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama
Administrations as Assistant Director for Biological Sciences at the
National Science Foundation (NSF) from October 2005 to October 2009. I
am currently a consultant at NSF.
The biological sciences will flourish in the 21st century by
sustaining strength in its core disciplines while simultaneously
supporting research at the intersection of the natural, physical, and
social sciences as well as engineering. Research at these disciplinary
edges holds great promise for addressing problems in energy, the
environment, agriculture, materials, and manufacturing.
Interdisciplinary methods cut across disciplines to combine in powerful
ways basic research with solving real world problems. Because today's
students are tomorrow's problem solvers we must also integrate research
and education to prepare the next generation to address 21st century
challenges. But the problems confronting us are complex and will not be
solved by business as usual: innovation must be a hallmark of both
research and education in 21st Century Biology.

Sustaining disciplines while blurring their boundaries

Biology itself emerged as an interdisciplinary science late in the
19th century. At that time researchers from diverse areas such as
physiology, natural history, and anatomy realized their research had a
common theme and argued for uniting these largely separate areas of
scholarship into the new discipline of biology focused on the study of
life: How did life originate? Why are there so many species? How does
heredity influence development of individuals? What organizes living
systems from the complexity of a cell to the complexity of a forest?
Some late 19th and early 20th century life scientists also
conceived of their research more within the realm of engineering. As
the historian of science Dr. Philip Pauly argued, they thought that
their research should be focused on controlling life. They envisioned
manipulating, transforming, and even replicating living systems, in
order to understand nature and also to help solve human problems.
``Nature was raw material to be transformed by the power of the
biologist'' wrote Dr. Pauly (Pauly, P.J. 1987. Controlling Life.
Jacques Loeb and the engineering ideal in biology. Oxford University
Press, Oxford). Straight from the first decade of the 20th century this
is a perspective that we can easily imagine finding in a 21st century
discussion of synthetic biology or nanotechnology.
Throughout the 20th century the two great themes of understanding
and controlling life wove together even as biology itself divided into
sub-disciplines such as genetics, cell biology, ecology, and evolution.
Discoveries such as the molecular structure of DNA advanced our basic
understanding of genetics, and this knowledge was then applied through
biotechnology to control living organisms such as genetically modified
crops. Discoveries in embryology led to fertility treatments, while
discoveries in ecology led to improved environmental quality. Yet until
recently, the subdisciplines have not worked together as effectively as
they might.
Two things stand out as we look to biology's 21st century future:

First, more and more research questions require
reintegrating biology's sub-disciplines, and the fields are
making progress in carrying out that integration.

For example, systems biology seeks a deep quantitative
understanding of the emergent properties of complex biological
systems--properties such as resilience, adaptability and
sustainability--through the dynamic interaction of components that may
include multiple molecular, cellular, organismal, population,
community, and ecosystem functions (after A New Biology. 2009. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC: p. 61).

The second thing we see is the biological sciences as
a growing source of inspiration for and collaboration with
engineering and the physical and social sciences.

A recent National Research Council report, Inspired by Biology:
from molecules to materials to machines (2008. National Academies
Press, Washington, DC), calls for three research strategies: biomimicry
or learning how a living system's mechanistic principles achieve a
function and then replicating that function in a synthetic material;
bioinspiration where a task achieved by a living system inspires making
a synthetic system; and bioderivation which involves hybridizing a
biological and artificial material. Developing these biologically
inspired materials advances basic science, improves U.S.
competitiveness, and addresses national challenges in materials and
manufacturing. This sort of visionary research at disciplinary edges is
transforming and selectively dissolving the boundaries of the life and
physical sciences as well as engineering.
Biology in the 21st century is rapidly changing before our eyes as
life scientists engage in innovative ways with many other areas of
scholarship. Today's biologists conduct research in areas that did not
exist as recently as ten or even five years ago: computational biology,
systems biology, and sustainability science are examples. These
interdisciplinary fields are emerging as a result of new questions, new
tools such as sensors, new methods such as computational thinking, and
new ways of conducting research especially in large group
collaborations supported by new cyberinfrastructure.
At the Subcommittee's request I'll comment on the environmental
sciences, which offer many promising research opportunities.
Interdisciplinary research is advancing our basic understanding of
challenges such as global change and global loss of biodiversity and
suggesting ways in which we might mitigate these changes. NSF-supported
sensing systems in the Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER) and
in the proposed National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) are
designed to gather enormous quantities of data continuously. These
networks of sensors, computers, and people promise to transform how we
test basic ecological theory and apply the results to environmental
problem solving. Molecular methods are accelerating the description of
new species, including the discovery of novel microbes that add to our
basic understanding of the biosphere while serving as ``bio-inspiring''
sources of novel energy technologies. At NSF the new Dimensions of
Biodiversity initiative is supporting just this sort of grand challenge
research in which new knowledge is developed.
As this research matures, researchers will need new tools such as
sensors that run on small, very long life power sources. New methods
must include fast, highly accurate molecular techniques for identifying
species and efficient computer algorithms for analyzing, visualizing,
and storing large quantities of data. Students entering these fields
must be skilled in quantitative and computational methods, understand
how to draw on multiple disciplines to address problems, and learn to
do science in nationally and globally connected communities.
We must remember, however, that even as we envision biology as a
way to address today's problems we cannot forget that today's ``grand
challenges'' eventually will change. Our research institutions must
remain agile and capable of responding to new and evolving problems
that we cannot yet imagine. Part of the agility and capability needed
must come from supporting researchers conducting basic research that
generates new knowledge. In addition, the agility and capability needed
must come from educating students and ourselves in innovative ways.
Failing to do both of these things would cause the U.S. to lose out in
two ways: first, we would not have the basic knowledge needed to
respond to a future challenge and second, in the near term we fail to
sustain ourselves as science and technology leaders. Research agencies
and universities must be innovative and adaptable if ``a new biology''
envisioned in the recent NRC report by the same name is to be realized.

Innovation as a central feature of life science research and education

When I testified before this Subcommittee in October 2009, I
observed that NSF was first and foremost an innovation agency with a
long history of success in supporting research with far-reaching
impacts on the U.S. economy and the well-being of all Americans
(Investing in high-risk, high-reward research; available at: http://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=111-house-hearings&docid
=f:52484.pdf).
In particular I argued that, ``The challenge for agencies like NSF
that fund research done by other organizations is to create and sustain
a culture of innovation in which the flow of information among its
members creates an institutional culture and framework that stimulates,
reinforces, and rewards creativity, and pervades the agency and guides
its decision-making process.'' That remains true today for NSF, and in
general creating and sustaining an innovation ecosystem is a wider
challenge for our funding agencies, America's universities, and
industry.
At the heart of this ecosystem is what we can call the process of
discovery, which begins with an idea that is tested and developed by
one or a few individuals. Increasingly, however, the testing is done by
large groups that may or may not be in one place. Networks of computers
unite investigators in problem solving efforts using what is called
``the wisdom of the crowd.'' It is an approach that can be very
effective in bringing together widely separated experts for solving
problems rapidly. Crowd sourcing models, prediction markets, and prizes
are modern components of the process of discovery (Collins, J.P.,
Investing in high-risk, high-reward research).
Innovation is not just an idea, but it is a process that links a
few to many individuals. In a rapidly changing world the process of
discovery itself is also changing rapidly, and our students must learn
how to keep up. Modern biology curricula should expose students to this
sort of thinking and more. Learning is the creative process by which
new knowledge is discovered; learning is not memorization of facts as
an end in itself. Too often students imagine biology as the latter,
perhaps because it is commonly taught that way, but no characterization
of the biological sciences could be further from the truth.
One innovative reform effort in biology curricula is called Vision
and Change in Undergraduate Biology which is a joint effort of NSF and
the American Association for the Advancement of Science or AAAS (http:/
/visionandchange.org/). A second international effort focused on
undergraduate curricula in general is emerging from an international
consortium at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin/Institute for Advanced
Study (Appendix I). Both are opportunities for the U.S. to assume a
leadership role in shaping student learning and problem solving in the
21st century.
But as the saying goes, a vision (or idea) without resources is a
mirage. Funding is needed for developing innovative ideas and here is
where researchers/entrepreneurs turn to public and private sources for
help.
NSF is one choice for U.S. researchers and educators. The
Directorate for Biological Sciences advances transformative science by
building on fundamental disciplinary strengths and also by encouraging
high risk/high reward research. The directorate is experimenting with
new methods of review such as crowd sourcing and prediction markets to
support transformative science and learning at the interface of biology
and many other disciplines. Experimenting with innovative methods for
finding the best ideas to fund in research and education must be a
central feature of NSF and other Federal agencies.
Especially as budgets tighten it is easy for any institution to be
satisfied with sustaining what it does well. But the magnitude of some
of the challenges and the need to respond quickly means that business
as usual is not good enough. Agencies like NSF should be bold and adopt
policies that foster innovation as they seek to fund high risk, high
reward research--and education.
A central value at NSF is the integration of research and
education. In response to a question from the Subcommittee I'll note
that the NSF supports a wide range of programs from undergraduate REUs
(Research Experiences for Undergraduates), to graduate IGERTs
(Integrated Graduate Research and Training), and postdoctoral
fellowships.
As contributors to the U.S. scientific enterprise students also
need an understanding of the historical, philosophical, and ethical
context within which research questions are asked and answered.
Students must understand that knowledge is not a static set of facts
but is always evolving within a historical and cultural context. We
must instill in students an interest in and a healthy respect for the
societal implications of their research because the best of them will
make discoveries that will have huge implications for society.
The radical transformations enabled by modern technologies for
generating and disseminating knowledge quickly and widely can be a
great help in enabling the basic discoveries needed for understanding
life and addressing real world problems. Much of the future will be
about networks of investigators and networks of institutions.

Building coalitions among institutions

The Subcommittee asked me to comment on university-industry
collaborations and coordination across U.S. Federal agencies. These
topics are related: knowledge creation and use along with the best
ideas to identify and fund research and education should not start or
stop at the borders of one organization.
University-industry partnerships are increasingly a feature of the
modern educational landscape. NSF funds major Science and Technology
Centers that connect universities and colleges to private sector
technology development. At the Subcommittee's request I have appended
to this testimony examples of NSF activities at the intersection of
federally funded basic research, the private sector, and universities
(Appendix II).
In the best cases the relationship between a university and
industry partner, or either of these with a Federal funding agency,
should be a two-way process of learning. For example, the process of
discovering marketable ideas within industry can be very innovative. In
my last discussion with the Subcommittee I described how ``The recent
Netflix million-dollar prize competition is a compelling example of the
successful use of crowd sourcing for technological discovery while also
contributing to a culture of innovation.'' A recent New York Times
(June 27, 2010: B1-B8) report described ``proof-of-concept centers'' to
bridge university researchers studying basic problems to the business
world. The report noted that ``Rather than offering seed money to
businesses that already have a product and a staff, as incubators
usually do, the universities are harvesting great ideas and then trying
to find investors and businesspeople interested in developing them
further and exploring their commercial viability.'' Universities are
acting as very early risk takers to help bridge the so-called ``valley
of death'' separating people with ideas from people willing to invest
in them.
As NSF fosters university-industry collaborations in biology the
Foundation can learn best practices from this process. Institutions
should be open to using great ideas wherever they are found.
Coordination across Federal agencies is another way to build
coalitions while also serving as a way to leverage the innovative ideas
of several institutions. For example, the National Institute for
Mathematical and Biological Synthesis is jointly supported by NSF's
Directorate for Biological Sciences, Directorate for Mathematics and
Physical Sciences, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and
Department of Homeland Security. Two Nanotechnology Centers are
supported by NSF's Directorate for Biological Sciences and the
Environmental Protection Agency. The Plant Genome Research Program
(PGRP) is an excellent example of coordination across Federal agencies.
NSF, USDA, Department of Energy, National Institutes of Heath, and the
U.S. Agency for International Development collaborate to support PGRP,
which is an exceptionally effective National Science and Technology
Council collaboration for fostering basic plant research and its
translation to agriculture.
Institutional coalitions are not the answer to every challenge, but
in selected cases they can be very effective ways to leverage resources
and facilitate innovation.

Modern problem solving requires more than science and technology

In the U.S. National Research Council's New Biology report we see
the central themes of biology's origins--understanding life,
controlling life and a call for broad engagement with other
disciplines--recast in new forms around contemporary problems. Modern
science, engineering, and technology are full of breathtaking
discoveries. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that scientists
and engineers can solve all of the problems of food, health, energy,
and the environment. Social scientists call questions in these areas
``wicked problems'' for a reason: they are full of complex,
interdependent parts and solving one aspect of a problem often reveals
or even creates other problems. Simply put, so-called wicked problems
will not yield to only scientific or technological fixes.
America's best researchers and their students must engage in a
process of discovery that transforms the way in which research is
conducted and students are educated. If the changes needed are to occur
at a sufficiently fundamental level it will also mean transforming our
research institutions. Solving problems must not be limited by
disciplinary or institutional borders. Global change and the global
loss of biodiversity are part of a litany of important and pressing
problems. Challenges such as these have the quality that the longer we
delay addressing them the worse they become. The process of discovering
solutions must include students as partners with our senior
researchers. Because they are young, students have great energy to
invest in realizing a future in which they have the greatest stake as
planetary stewards. Agility and adaptability, which are available in
great quantities in young people, will be indispensable qualities for
problem solvers in a rapidly changing world.
I have envisioned a future for biology that has three elements:
sustaining disciplines while blurring their boundaries; innovation as a
central feature of life science research and education; and building
coalitions among institutions. In combination these three elements are
a vision for understanding how the life sciences will play a key role
in addressing the great intellectual and social challenges of the 21st
century. At the same time, we will sustain America's leadership in
science, engineering, and technology innovation during the years ahead.
Once again Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for giving me the
opportunity to testify on this very important subject. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you have.
Appendix I. Principles for Rethinking Undergraduate Curricula for the
21st Century: A Manifesto (From: Principles of curricular reform
developed by a Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin/Institute for Advanced
Study 2009-2010 working group and revised at the Workshop on ``The
University of the 21st Century,'' Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin/
Institute for Advanced Study, June 5-6, 2010.)

The current crisis of the university is intellectual. It is a
crisis of purpose, focus and content, rooted in fundamental confusion
about all three. As a consequence, curricula are largely separate from
research, subjects are taught in disciplinary isolation, knowledge is
conflated with information and is more often than not presented as
static rather than dynamic. Furthermore, universities are largely
reactive rather than providing clear forward-looking visions and
critical perspectives. The crisis is all the more visible today, as the
pace of social, intellectual and technological change inside and
outside the universities is increasingly out of step. While
universities worldwide are undergoing many, often radical, structural
transformations, ranging from the Bologna Process in Europe and the
Exzellenzinitiative in Germany to the rapid expansion of universities
in India and China, the accelerating decline of public investments in
universities in the United States and elsewhere and an ever growing
demand for university access everywhere, much less attention has been
paid to university curricula. But for the university as a community of
scholars and students, that is its central function and the key to its
internal renewal. Universities are embedded in multiple institutional,
economic, financial, political, and research networks. All of these
generate pressures and constraints as well as opportunities. The
curriculum, however, is the core domain of the university itself.
Here we present a set of eleven overlapping principles designed to
inform an international dialogue and to guide an experimental process
of redesigning university undergraduate curricula worldwide. There can
be no standard formula for implementation of these principles given the
huge diversity of institutional structures and cultural differences
amongst universities but these principles, we believe, provide the
foundational concepts for what needs to be done.

1. As a central guideline teach disciplines rigorously in
introductory courses together with a set of parallel seminars
devoted to complex real life problems that transcend
disciplinary boundaries.

2. Teach knowledge in its social, cultural and political
contexts. Teach not just the factual subject matter, but
highlight the challenges, open questions and uncertainties of
each discipline.

3. Create awareness of the great problems humanity is facing
(hunger, poverty, public health, sustainability, climate
change, water resources, security, etc.) and show that no
single discipline can adequately address any of them.

4. Use these challenges to demonstrate and rigorously practice
interdisciplinarity avoiding the dangers of interdisciplinary
dilettantism.

5. Treat knowledge historically and examine critically how it
is generated, acquired, and used. Emphasize that different
cultures have their own traditions and different ways of
knowing. Do not treat knowledge as static and embedded in a
fixed canon.

6. Provide all students with a fundamental understanding of
the basics of the natural and the social sciences, and the
humanities. Emphasize and illustrate the connections between
these traditions of knowledge.

7. Engage with the world's complexity and messiness. This
applies to the sciences as much as to the social political and
cultural dimensions of the world. This will contribute to the
education of concerned citizens.

8. Emphasize a broad and inclusive evolutionary mode of
thinking in all areas of the curriculum.

9. Familiarize students with non-linear phenomena in all areas
of knowledge.

10. Fuse theory and analytic rigor with practice and the
application of knowledge to real-world problems.

11. Rethink the implications of modern communication and
information technologies for education and the architecture of
the university.

Curricular changes of this magnitude and significance both require
and produce changes in the structural arrangements and institutional
profiles of universities. This is true for matters of governance,
leadership, and finance as well as for systems of institutional
rewards, assessment, and incentives; it is bound to have implications
for the recruitment and evaluation of both professors and students as
well as for the allocation of resources and the institutional practice
of accountability. The experimental process of curriculum reform we
hope to stimulate by offering these guiding principles will thus
require the collaboration of scholars and educators willing to
transform their scholarly and educational practices and of
administrators willing to support experimentation and to provide the
necessary structural conditions for it to succeed.
These principles are the conclusion of deliberations by a working
group of scholars that met at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin during
the academic year 2009/10. Participants represented diverse disciplines
(from the natural and social sciences and the humanities), geographical
origins (Europe, North America, and India) as well as career stages
(from former university presidents to students). They invite their
colleagues around the world to join in this effort of re-thinking and
re-shaping teaching and learning for the university of the future.
Appendix II: Examples of NSF activities at the intersection of
federally funded basic research and the private sector and
universities. (from Collins, J.P. 2009. Investing in high-risk, high-
reward research. available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getdoc.cgi?dbname=111-house-hearings&docid=
f:52484.pdf).

NSF-funded Centers are designed from the outset with built-in
flexibility so that investigators can pursue innovative ideas within
the context of a defined program of research. Examples are legion, and
include the Mosaic web browser developed at NSF's National Center for
Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois. NSF's
creation of two Centers for the Environmental Implications of
Nanotechnology (CEIN) in 2008 exemplify innovative networks that are
connected to other research organizations, industry, and government
agencies to strengthen our nation's commitment to understanding the
potential environmental hazards of nanomaterials and to provide basic
information leading to the safe environmentally responsible design of
future nanomaterials.
The Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC)
program develops long-term partnerships among industry, academe, and
government. Each I/UCRC contributes to the Nation's research
infrastructure, enhances the intellectual capacity of the STEM
workforce by integrating research with education, and encourages and
fosters international cooperation and collaborative projects. For
example, the NSF Industry/University Collaborative Research Center (I/
UCRC) known as the Berkeley Sensor and Actuator Center conducts
industry-relevant, interdisciplinary research on micro- and nano-scale
sensors, moving mechanical elements, microfluidics, materials, and
processes that take advantage of progress made in integrated-circuit,
bio, and polymer technologies. This I/UCRC has developed and
demonstrated a handheld device that allows verified diagnostic assays
for several infectious diseases currently presenting significant
threats to public health, including dengue, malaria, and HIV. The
device uses a dramatically simplified testing protocol that makes it
suitable for use by moderately-trained personnel in a point-of-care or
home setting. The center has also created many spin-off ventures
including companies in the areas of wireless sensor networks for
intelligent buildings; MEMS mirror arrays for adaptive optics; and
optical flow sensors for industrial, commercial, and medical
applications.
The objective of the NSF Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
program is to increase the incentive and opportunity for small firms to
undertake cutting-edge research that would have a high potential
economic payoff if successful. For example, in 1985, Andrew Viterbi and
six colleagues formed ``QUALity COMMunications.'' In 1987-1988 NSF SBIR
provided $265,000 (Phase I 8660104 and Phase II 8801254) for single
chip implementation of the Viterbi decoder algorithm. Qualcomm
introduced CDMA (code division multiple access) which replaced TDMA
(time division multiple access) as a cellular communications standard
in 1989. This advance led to high-speed data transmission via wireless
and satellite. Now the $78B company holds more than 10,100 U.S.
patents, licensed to more than 165 companies. Another example--Machine
Intelligence Corp. was supported by SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards to
develop desktop computer software that could alphabetize words, a feat
that previously had been accomplished only on supercomputers. When
Machine Intelligence went bankrupt, principal investigator Gary Hendrix
founded Symantec and continued the project. The line of research
resulted in the first personal computer software that understood
English, marketed as ``Q&A Software.'' Q&A quickly became an extremely
successful commercial product and remains a widespread commercial
application of natural language processing. Symantec research supported
by NSF SBIR eventually led to six other commercial products and
contributed to 20 others. Now, Symantec is a leading anti-virus and PC-
utilities Software Company valued at $12B with more than 17500
employees worldwide.
NSF launched the Integrative Graduate Education and Traineeship
Program (IGERT) in 1997 to encourage innovative models for graduate
education at colleges and universities across the Nation that would
catalyze a cultural change in graduate education--for students, faculty
and institutions. IGERT was designed to challenge narrow disciplinary
structures, to facilitate greater diversity in student participation
and preparation, and to contribute to the development of a diverse,
globally-engaged science and engineering workforce. The result has been
a cadre of imaginative and creative young researchers. For example, an
NSF-funded IGERT award to the Scripps Institute of Oceanography (NSF
#0333444) supported a doctoral student who successfully modeled the
extinction of the Caribbean monk seal and demonstrated the magnitude of
the impact of over-fishing on Caribbean coral reefs. This research
developed improved ecological models, which may influence environmental
policy and ultimately lead to the preservation of species and
ecosystems for future generations.

Biography for James P. Collins

Dr. James Collins received his B.S. from Manhattan College in 1969
and his Ph.D. from The University of Michigan in 1975. He then moved to
Arizona State University where he is currently Virginia M. Ullman
Professor of Natural History and the Environment in the School of Life
Sciences. From 1989 to 2002 he was Chairman of the Zoology, then
Biology Department. At the National Science Foundation (NSF) Dr.
Collins was Director of the Population Biology and Physiological
Ecology program from 1985 to 1986. He joined NSF's senior management in
2005 serving as Assistant Director for Biological Sciences from 2005 to
2009. NSF is the U.S. government's only agency dedicated to supporting
basic research and education in all fields of science and engineering
at all levels. Collins oversaw a research and education portfolio that
spanned molecular and cellular biosciences to global change as well as
biological infrastructure. He coordinated collaborations between NSF
and other Federal agencies though the President's National Science and
Technology Council where he chaired the Biotechnology Subcommittee and
co-chaired the Interagency Working Group on Plant Genomics. He was also
NSF's liaison to NIH.
Dr. Collins's research has centered on the causes of intraspecific
variation. Amphibians are model organisms for field and laboratory
studies of the ecological and evolutionary forces shaping this
variation and its affect on population dynamics. A recent research
focus is host-pathogen biology as a driver of population dynamics and
even species extinctions. The role of pathogens in the global decline
of amphibians is the model system for this research.
The intellectual and institutional factors that have shaped
Ecology's development as a science are also a focus of Dr. Collins's
research, as is the emerging research area of ecological ethics.
Federal, state, and private institutions have supported his research.
Dr. Collins teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in ecology,
evolutionary biology, statistics, introductory biology, evolutionary
ecology, and professional values in science; he has directed 33
graduate students to completion of doctoral or Masters degrees. Collins
was founding director of ASU's Undergraduate Biology Enrichment
Program, and served as co-director of ASU's Undergraduate Mentoring in
Environmental Biology and Minority Access to Research Careers programs.
Honors include the Pettingill Lecture in Natural History at The
University of Michigan Biological Station; the Thomas Hall Lecture at
Washington University, St. Louis; Distinguished Lecturer in Life
Science, Penn State University, and serving as Kaeser Visiting Scholar
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. ASU's College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences awarded him its Distinguished Faculty Award. He is a
Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a
Fellow of the Association for Women in Science, and President Elect of
the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS).
Dr. Collins has served on the editorial board of Ecology and
Ecological Monographs as well as Evolution. He is the author of over
100 peer reviewed papers and book chapters, co-editor of three special
journal issues, and co-author with Dr. Martha Crump of Extinction in
Our Times. Global Amphibian Decline (Oxford University Press, 2009).

Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Collins.
Dr. Laubenbacher.

STATEMENT OF REINHARD LAUBENBACHER, PROFESSOR, VIRGINIA
BIOINFORMATICS INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, VIRGINIA
TECH

Dr. Laubenbacher. Good afternoon, Chairman Lipinski,
Ranking Member Ehlers and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the invitation to testify today on 21st century biology. My
name is Reinhard Laubenbacher and I am a Professor at the
Virginia Bioinformatics Institute at Virginia Tech. I am also
the Vice President for Science Policy for the Society for
Industrial and Applied Mathematics, an organization with
approximately 13,000 members who work in academia, government
and industry. While our members come from many different
disciplines, we have a common interest in applying mathematics
and computational science toward solving real-world problems. I
will speak to three areas in my testimony today: first,
research to address grand challenges; second, fostering
interdisciplinary collaborations and cross-agency coordination;
and third, workforce development, education and training.
The first area I want to discuss is research to address the
grand challenges. A central finding of the National Research
Council report is that new information, technologies and
sciences will be essential to achieving the new biology for the
21st century and meeting challenges in health, food, energy and
environment. Two examples of how mathematics can contribute to
the new biology are, first, through modeling. The ability to
describe the essence of complex biological systems with
mathematical equations will allow researchers to test their
understanding of a system and make predictions about how whole
organisms and ecosystems behave. And secondly, through ways to
deal with data. Mathematics provides techniques to access,
analyze, visualize and understand the ever-growing amounts of
data generated in the life sciences, be it DNA sequence data or
satellite surveillance data. My written testimony goes into
more detail on specific research areas in mathematics that
should be supported as part of the new biology. To support this
research, an array of complementary Federal programs will be
needed from those that focus on building expertise, or enabling
research networks in a single topic area, often at a single
agency, to application-driven programs that cross agencies.
The second area I want to address is fostering
interdisciplinary collaborations and cross-agency coordination.
The Virginia Bioinformatics Institute where I work is part of
Virginia Tech's response to the challenge of fostering
interdisciplinary research on its campus. I am a mathematician
by training, and at the Institute, my office neighbors are a
statistical geneticist on one side and a biochemist on the
other side. From our experience, it is clear to me that
locating researchers with different areas of expertise under
one roof can serve as an important accelerator of
interdisciplinary research. Co-location allows researchers to
develop a common culture and allows multiple disciplines to
merge and organically develop together. The Federal Government
should support this type of collaboration with programs that
allow for co-location of disciplines by enabling new biological
and new mathematical and computational research to be carried
out within the same project. This way, the computational
scientists developing algorithms, the engineers developing new
technologies, and the biologists asking questions about the
fundamental principles of life can advance the science in
tandem. So this sort of interdisciplinary activity, the Federal
programs that pool agency resources to allow the funding of
larger-scale projects, are needed.
The third and final area that I want to discuss is
workforce training at several levels. In graduate education,
both departmental and interdisciplinary Ph.D. programs can be
very effective in preparing students to conduct new biology
research, with the key issues being an integration of
curricula, the need for a balance between diversity and depth
and training, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, and the
opportunity to develop a common culture across disciplines.
Federal support for efforts to align graduate education with
these goals is needed, as creating and maintaining such
programs requires a major investment of time and resources.
At the undergraduate level, the two most important elements
for preparing students to work in the areas of new biology are,
again, an integrated curriculum and research experiences. Close
partnerships between teaching and research institutions can
help in both areas. In addition, improved opportunities for
faculty professional development, such as workshops that bring
together faculty from diverse disciplines, will be critical.
Finally, realizing the potential of the new biology will
depend on future generations of scientists still to be
nurtured. At Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, we conduct
outreach programs that involve hundreds of children every year.
I have seen the excitement on the face of a nine-year-old who
in a lecture hall with 400 other children stands up and asks an
insightful question after listening to a scientist talk about
nanotechnology--a nine-year-old. Experiences such as this
convince me that science in this country has a bright future.
However, to get there, we all must engage in a joint effort to
inspire and mentor the children who are the future of science.
Again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify
today. I have provided additional detail and recommendations in
my written testimony and I am happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Laubenbacher follows:]

Prepared Statement of Reinhard Laubenbacher

My name is Reinhard Laubenbacher and I am a professor at the
Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, where I lead the Applied Discrete
Mathematics Group and am the Director for Education and Outreach. I am
also a professor of mathematics at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University and an adjunct professor in the Cancer Biology
Department at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
Since 2009 I have served as Vice President for Science Policy for
the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). SIAM is a
community of approximately 13,000 applied and computational
mathematicians, computer scientists, numerical analysts, engineers,
statisticians, and mathematics educators who work in academia,
government, and industry. While SIAM members come from many different
disciplines, we have a common interest in applying mathematics in
partnership with computational science towards solving real-world
problems.
In my invitation to testify on the New Biology, the Subcommittee
raised questions in three areas, and I have organized my testimony
accordingly into three sections:

Research to Address Grand Challenges and Areas of
Scientific Opportunity

Interdisciplinary Collaborations--Culture and Cross-
Agency Coordination

Workforce--Education and Training

In each of these sections, I offer observations from my experiences
at the interface of mathematics and biology and specific comments and
recommendations about National Science Foundation (NSF) programs.
Specifically, the testimony highlights

ways in which mathematical and computational research
will contribute to New Biology research to tackle societal
challenges in food, energy, the environment, and health;

mechanisms for support of research at the interface
between mathematical and life sciences, and examples of
successful programs in this area;

lessons learned on the integration of cultures to
enable interdisciplinary research; and

recommendations for ways to enhance graduate and
undergraduate education to prepare students to conduct research
in the New Biology.

I note that many of the descriptions of research opportunities and
the recommendations in this testimony reflect discussion within SIAM on
the opportunities interface between the mathematical and computational
sciences and the life sciences, as reflected in a white paper SIAM has
produced in this area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The SIAM white paper on ``Mathematics: An Enabling Technology
for the New Biology'' is available online at http://www.siam.org/about/
science/pdf/math-bioloev.pdf.

RESEARCH TO ADDRESS GRAND CHALLENGES, AREAS OF SCIENTIFIC OPPORTUNITY

First Set of Questions from the Committee. In your opinion, what is
the future of research in the biological sciences and what role does
research at the intersection of biology and mathematics hold for
addressing grand challenges in energy, the environment, agriculture,
materials, and manufacturing? What computational tools still need to be
developed? Are there promising research opportunities that are not
being adequately addressed? Is the National Science Foundation playing
an effective role in fostering research at the intersection of the
physical sciences, engineering, and the biological sciences? If not,
what recommendations would you offer?
The 2009 National Research Council report ``A New Biology for the
21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology
Revolution'' \2\ proposes a national initiative to promote the New
Biology that focuses on problem-centric, interdisciplinary research in
the life sciences to solve societal challenges in Health, Food, Energy,
and Environment. A central finding of the report is that new
information technologies and sciences will be essential to achieving
the New Biology and meeting these challenges. Biology has become a
highly technology driven, fast moving science. New technologies
typically produce new data types and larger volumes of data, and allow
that data to be generated more cheaply. At the same time, the
expertise, tools, and time needed to analyze that data, to turn it from
numbers into knowledge and understanding, is becoming more complex and
more expensive. For example, while the cost of sequencing a person's
genome is moving toward the $100 level, the cost of extracting
information from the sequence that is meaningful for that person's
health is likely in the $1 million range. So the real bottleneck in
biology is already shifting toward data analysis. Breakthroughs in
mathematics, statistics, and the computational sciences will be
necessary to assure that data analysis can keep up with data
generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Research Council, A New Biology for the 21st Century:
Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution (2009),
http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Biology-21st/12764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each challenge area, the report outlines how biology can
contribute directly and which research and technological needs must be
met in order to do so. In each area, new approaches to information
analysis, data, and modeling will be needed to advance our
understanding of the natural world, as biology develops as a predictive
science.
Food: In order to help ensure a sustainable and responsibly grown
food supply, particularly in light of the changing global climate, one
of the challenges is to understand and quantify how plants grow and
interact with their environment. This involves characterizing the
relationship between the genotype and phenotype of organisms, a
fundamental problem in biology. At the genome level biology is
essentially digital, and genetic sequence information is translated
into dazzlingly complex interacting networks of genes, proteins, and
metabolites, making up cellular function. Cells organize into tissues,
which, in turn form the whole plant.
Functioning of the cellular networks is directly influenced by
features of the environment the plant finds itself in, such as climate,
resource availability, and microbial communities.
Environment: In order to sustain ecosystem functions in the face of
rapid change, we need to be able to monitor multiple heterogeneous
variables spanning a range of temporal and spatial scales. The vast
amount of data so collected needs to be integrated and used to
construct unifying mathematical models that help guide environmental
policy, and have the predictive capability to assess consequences of
informed intervention. Here too, the models need to integrate
interconnected networks and systems of complex systems at vastly
different scales, all affected by a common environment.
Energy: In order to expand sustainable alternatives to fossil
fuels, new approaches beyond ethanol derived from corn must be
developed. Microbial biocatalysis, for example, is a promising
direction. In order to make it a reality, solving the genotype-
phenotype problem will lead to the capability to engineer microbes from
standard DNA modules that perform a specified metabolic function.
Another promising approach is to engineer plants with molecular
networks that produce more leaves and fruit without using additional
fertilizer, thereby increasing energy production through
photosynthesis. With predictive models of the intertwined gene,
protein, and metabolic networks, it becomes feasible to engineer and
optimize the organism for efficient biofuel production.
Health: To make a transformational contribution to human health,
solution of the genotype-phenotype problem will contribute to
integrating genomics information with complex genetic, protein, and
metabolic networks, on up to the tissue and organism levels, all of
which react to the external environment. In fact, environmental
influences are known to play a very important role in several important
diseases, such as cancer and neurological disorders.
The importance of developing better modeling, computational,
statistical, and analytical tools to enable a better understanding of
biological systems and detailed discussion of the potential impact and
key problems are also described in the 2005 National Research Council
report ``Mathematics and 21st Century Biology.'' \3\ We are approaching
a time when gathering the data necessary to truly begin to comprehend
complex life as a whole system will be possible. This will be done
through consolidating the ever-increasing amounts and types of
available information at an ever-increasing level of completeness and
granularity. The development of mathematical and computational tools to
use this information in sophisticated models should be a priority. To
date, exploiting modeling in biology has led to progress on
understanding small pieces of large complex systems. But for the
biological sciences to bring their full potential to bear on solving
the most challenging problems humankind faces in the 21st century, we
must now turn our attention to the comprehension of whole systems, and
the mathematical and computational sciences are a key enabling
technology in this quest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Mathematics and 21st Century Biology (2005) is available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record-id=11315.

Common Themes from Challenges in New Biology Report

Three common themes emerge from the challenges described in the
report.

1. All four challenges require the construction and analysis
of predictive mathematical models of large, nonlinear dynamic
networks that span several spatial and temporal scales.
Understanding and manipulating these systems will require
large, multi-scale, nonlinear, and hybrid models. Existing
simulation and analysis tools for such models are in their
infancy, or nonexistent in some cases. For instance, an
increasingly popular modeling paradigm for complex networks in
fields ranging from molecular biology to ecology is agent-based
modeling, which captures the important feature of many complex
systems that global behavior emerges from local interactions.
Very few analysis tools exist for such models. For many
applications it is desirable to use models to predict how
interventions on one level will impact biological systems on
other levels, such as in the development of therapeutics. This
process requires control approaches, but for the systems at the
heart of the New Biology challenge areas, it is sometimes
difficult or impossible to apply existing control theoretic
approaches.

2. In all problem areas high performance computation will play
a crucial role, from simulating complex multi-scale models to
analyzing sequence data, e.g., multiple sequence alignment.
This will require new breakthroughs in algorithm development,
since we cannot expect significant increases in clock speed due
to silicon technology. Performance improvements in computation
will come from more cores on a chip. This means significant
changes in algorithms to take advantage of parallelism on the
chip as well as parallelism between computational nodes
comprised of multiple chips. In order to achieve high rates of
performance, algorithms that minimize data movement, possibly
at the expense of doing additional computations, will be the
most efficient. Algorithm developers will need to take these
facts into account as they develop multi-scale, multi-physics
algorithms.

It is also important to mention that the speedup in
scientific computation achieved over the last four or five
decades owes more to the development of new numerical
algorithms than to hardware improvements. Several reports have
documented the ways in which the contribution of algorithms has
surpassed the improvements due to better technology (Moore's
Law),\4\ but the impact from both has been critical. Together,
hardware and mathematical improvements account for an increase
in the speed at which we are able to perform the calculations
to model important systems, such as in numerical weather
prediction, by a factor of roughly 10,000,000 in the period
between the 1960s and the 1990s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, for example, Figure 5, page 53 of Computational Science:
Ensuring America's Competitiveness, a 2005 report to the President of
the United States from the President's Information Technology Advisory
Committee (PITAC). See also Figure 13, page 32 of the DOE Office of
Science report A science-based case for large-scale simulation, 2003.

3. In all four challenge areas we face ever-growing data
volumes, from DNA sequence data to satellite surveillance data.
As an example, the amount of DNA sequence data stored in
GenBank, a data repository maintained by the NIH, has grown by
a factor of 100,000 over the past 25 years. Currently, there
are over 150 million genetic sequences stored in this publicly-
available database. Genetic data like this, and the many other
types of data generated by the application of new imaging tools
and other technologies to biological systems, need to be stored
in databases that are easily accessible, organized, and
searchable, requiring increasingly sophisticated and scalable
data mining algorithms. In addition, the data from
heterogeneous sources need to be integrated, within databases
as well as within models. Once accessible in databases, the
typically high dimensional data sets need to be analyzed using
statistical methods. In order to meet these challenges, new
tools from multivariate statistics and discrete mathematics are
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
needed, in particular graph theory and combinatorics.

Biology to Inform Mathematical Research

As happened with physics in the last century, we can expect that an
increasingly strong feedback loop will develop between biology and the
computational disciplines that now serve as tools, such as mathematics,
statistics, computer science, and engineering. For instance, the
National Science Foundation is already capitalizing on this feedback
with its program ``Quantum and Biologically Inspired Computing.'' We
mention here two more examples.
It is well appreciated that the human immune system has important
lessons to teach us about computer security. But the immune system is
also a vast distributed information-processing network that adapts to
ever-changing tasks. Once we understand its design principles well
enough to build mathematical models capturing its key capabilities we
will be able to transfer these principles to engineered networks. The
immune system's complexity and the multiple spatial and temporal scales
involved offer several mathematical and computational challenges that
can only be overcome by fundamental breakthroughs in these fields.
As another example, it is observed frequently by experimentalists
that after engineering an organism with a gene deletion, even an
apparently essential one, its phenotype remains unchanged. That is, the
organism is robust to many such changes and can remodel its molecular
networks after a change in its genome to maintain function. The
underlying fundamental problem of understanding the genotype-phenotype
relationship is mirrored by the analogous mathematical problem, namely
understanding the relationship between the structure of a dynamical
system and its resulting dynamics. This problem is still largely
unsolved and poorly understood. Biological insights about the sources
of this robustness in organisms can help generate hypotheses about
solutions to the corresponding mathematical problem in dynamical
systems. In turn, these solutions can be applied to better understand
and control other complex systems such as the power grid and computer
networks.

Recommendations--Research Areas

This analysis makes clear that mathematics is indeed an important
enabling technology for the New Biology. We recommend that any funding
programs related to the New Biology initiative provide support for
mathematical research related to the problems identified above in the
following areas:

1. Complex networks, both in the graph-theoretic sense and in
the dynamical systems sense.

2. Multi-scale modeling and simulation, including
computational science research to enable new approaches.

3. Systems of partial differential equations.

4. Algorithms for high performance computation.

5. Algorithms for new multi-core computer architectures.

6. Multivariate statistics.

7. Dynamical systems.

8. Hybrid models.

9. Control theory.

10. Combinatorics and graph theory.

11. Data mining algorithms.

12. New methodologies for modeling complex stochastic
biological systems.

13. Quantification of model uncertainty.

In addition to research in these areas, it is becoming increasingly
clear that there is much untapped potential in mathematical fields that
are not traditionally considered as applied. Good examples are recent
applications of algebraic geometry to biological problems and the use
of methods from algebraic topology for high dimensional data analysis.
(Within SIAM, recognition of these emerging opportunities has led to
the establishment of a new SIAM Activity Group in Algebraic Geometry.)

Recommendations--Research Support Mechanisms, Examples of Successful
Programs

To support the research areas outlined above, programs at
individual agencies and interagency initiatives will be needed.
Specifically, an array of complementary approaches will be needed--from
those that focus on building expertise in a single topic area, often at
a single agency, to application-driven programs that combine mission
agency's user communities and discipline-organized research programs.
Agencies likely to have relevant expertise, communities, programs, and
missions include: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), and others.
The National Science Foundation has been a leader in the
development of models for stimulating and funding interdisciplinary
research in general and as it relates to biology in particular. There
are several existing programs that effectively support research at the
interface of the life sciences on the one hand and mathematics, the
computational sciences, and statistics on the other. These programs
could be expanded or used as models for the establishment of new
programs at NSF or other agencies.
One particular inter-agency program has been very successful and
enormously valuable to research at the interface of mathematics and
biology. The Joint DMS/NIGMS Initiative to Support Research in the Area
of Mathematical Biology is a collaborative program between NSF and NIH,
originally established in 2001 and is now in its second five-year
cycle. (A recent meeting of investigators supported by the program over
the course of its existence, organized jointly by NSF and NIH,
showcased some of the projects that have been funded and demonstrated
the truly innovative nature of the program.) The key characteristic of
this program is that it is one of the very few existing programs at any
of the Federal funding agencies that allows for new biological AND new
mathematical research to be conducted at the same time within the same
project proposal. (While the program has been very successful, an
ongoing concern is that award sizes are too small to tackle larger-
scale ambitious projects.)
This dual approach is critically important because, for many of the
new technologies being developed to generate biological data (such as
next-generation sequencing or in vivo imaging), we still lack the
mathematical and statistical tools needed to analyze and interpret
these data so that they can be used to increase our understanding of
biological systems and provide input for the construction of predictive
models. To fully and efficiently tap the expertise of all the different
kinds of researchers in this equation--e.g. the mathematicians
developing data analysis algorithms, the engineers developing imaging
technologies, and the life scientists defining the questions about
biological system functioning--the Federal Government should be looking
for ways to support the development of all elements of a research
problem (the tools, models, and experiments) in tandem. (I will discuss
this point more in the section below on the Virginia Bioinformatics
Institute and effective environments for interdisciplinary research).
In a related, but broader area, NIH and NSF announced a new program
this spring, New Biomedical Frontiers at the Interface of the Life and
Physical Sciences. While no projects have been selected and funded yet
by this new program, the emphasis in the solicitation on supporting
efforts that involve multiple investigators who represent the physical,
computational or engineering and life or behavioral sciences is to be
lauded.
Other examples of exemplary NSF programs include:

Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI) is an
NSF-wide initiative established in 2007 and designed to fund
projects that use innovation in computational thinking to make
advances in any discipline supported by the agency. (At NSF,
computational thinking is defined as encompassing computational
concepts, methods, models, algorithms, and tools.) This program
encourages researchers to think boldly about challenges in
data, complexity, and collaboration across multiple disciplines
without being constrained by disciplinary cultures and
programs.

Frontiers in Integrative Biological Research, a
program, phased out in 2008, was designed to support integrated
teams of researchers from different scientific fields, focused
on biological problems that transcend traditional disciplinary
boundaries.

Algorithms for Threat Detection, a joint program
between the NSF Division of Mathematical Sciences and the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency in DOD, is intended to support
the development of the next generation of mathematical and
statistical algorithms and methodologies in sensor systems for
the detection of chemical and biological materials.

Mechanisms should be available to support a variety of sizes of
research projects, from individual investigators to center-scale
collaborations. Examples of multi-agency and single-agency center-scale
initiatives in this area include:

The National Institute for Mathematical and
Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS), jointly supported by the NSF
Biological Sciences Directorate and DMS, together with USDA and
DHS.

NSF DMS supports the Mathematical Biosciences
Institute (MBI) at the Ohio State University.

Both institutes focus on research at the interface between the
mathematical and computational sciences and biology and foster
interactions between mathematical scientists and bioscientists.
Thus, NSF has developed and tested successful models to foster
interdisciplinary research at the interface of biology and computation,
both within the agency and in collaboration with other Federal funding
agencies. These can serve as models for the broader cross agency
funding structure advocated by the New Biology report.
In addition to programs that support research activities, Federal
agencies should focus on raising awareness in the biological and
mathematical communities about science at the interface and
facilitating cross-disciplinary collaborations, as creating research
teams and partnerships across disciplines takes more time and
conversation than building teams of people who are within a discipline
and share a common culture (this point is discussed in more depth later
in my testimony). In addition, outreach within each community about
interesting results in one discipline that may potentially be relevant
to problems in the other discipline could have a significant impact
(i.e. the discovery of applications of algebraic geometry to biological
problems mentioned above). Such unexpected linkages can bring very high
returns, and their development should be systematically fostered and
supported.
To accomplish the above goals, programs that support network
creation, workshops, travel, and summer programs, would be useful.
``Sabbatical'' cross-disciplinary opportunities for researchers, post-
doctoral students, and graduate students also might be effective in
creating a new community of researchers more alert to and equipped to
conduct interdisciplinary research.
An example of a Federal effort focused on enabling the creation and
sustaining of connections between researchers with common interests is
the NSF Research Coordination Networks program, which in 2010 is
expanding to include a special track supporting networks of researchers
focused on problems at the interface of the biological and mathematical
or physical sciences.

INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIONS--CULTURE AND CROSS-AGENCY COORDINATION

Second Set of Questions from the Committee: What is the nature of
the interactions and collaborations between mathematicians and
biological scientists at the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute (VBI)?
How is VBI facilitating these interdisciplinary collaborations and what
lessons can we learn from VBI? Is research at the intersection of the
biological sciences, the physical sciences, and engineering being
effectively coordinated across the Federal agencies? If not, what
changes are needed?
Much of the scientific research in biology and related disciplines
happens at universities. By and large, the nature of the interactions
among scientists from different disciplines is constrained by existing
academic administrative structures, which generally do not encourage
interdisciplinary research. This has been well documented in the 2004
National Research Council report ``Facilitating Interdisciplinary
Research,'' \5\ which also puts forward solutions to this part of the
problem. Many universities are addressing the issue of
interdisciplinary research by creating research centers that are more
flexible administratively and are sometimes organized in a problem-
centric rather than discipline-centric way. Some of these centers are
``virtual,'' in the sense that the researchers all have primary
appointments in academic departments, with some shared research
infrastructure. Other centers have dedicated buildings that provide
primary laboratory space. The institute I work in is part of Virginia
Tech's response to the challenge of fostering interdisciplinary
research on its campus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (2004) is available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record-id=11153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Virginia Bioinformatics Institute (VBI) was established on the
campus of Virginia Tech in 2000 and is focused on research at the
interface of the experimental and computational sciences. The institute
currently has a staff of approximately 230, including approximately 150
scientific personnel and a dedicated 130,000 square foot. building,
completed in 2004, with in-house computational and data generation
cores. Researchers at VBI are engaged in a wide range of
interdisciplinary research projects that bring together diverse
disciplines such as mathematics, computer science, biology, plant
pathology, biochemistry, systems biology, statistics, economics,
medicine, and synthetic biology.
My own research is focused on systems biology, in particular the
development of mathematical algorithms related to the modeling of
molecular networks. My research group has worked on applications to
understanding gene regulatory networks, infectious diseases, and, more
recently, cancer. During my eight years at VBI I have collaborated with
experimental biologists, biochemists, and computer scientists, both at
VBI and elsewhere. Based on my experience, the single most important
factor for making VBI an excellent environment for interdisciplinary
research is the fact that a wide range of disciplines are brought
together under one physical roof. I am trained as a mathematician and
most of my research group consists of mathematicians. But a statistical
geneticist occupies the office on one side of me, and my neighbor on
the other side is a biochemist. Similarly, my Ph.D. students might
share office space with experimental biologists or computer scientists.
The two most important benefits of such an arrangement are that,
firstly, it becomes very easy to share information. Even in this age of
instant electronic access to information and video chats with
colleagues around the world nothing can replace a face-to-face
conversation or chance encounter at the proverbial water cooler.
Secondly, sharing physical space on a daily basis allows for the
merging of different scientific cultures. In my opinion, the most
important and difficult challenge in fostering interdisciplinary
research is the creation of a common culture and a common language,
even at the most basic level. In a mathematician or a physicist, the
word ``vector'' might elicit the image of an arrow depicting the
direction and velocity of a moving object, whereas in a biologist the
same word might bring to mind the image of a disease-carrying mosquito
or a rat.
A common obstacle in applying quantitative data analysis methods
effectively in life sciences research is that biological experiments
are often designed without the involvement of a modeler or
bioinformatician or statistician. Once the data from these experiments
are generated, often at considerable cost, they sometimes turn out to
be unsuitable for the desired data analysis or modeling method. It is
important, therefore, to assemble the entire team for a project ahead
of time, so that everybody can contribute to all phases of the project.
The laboratory of one of my collaborators, for instance, is just across
the hall from me and I can easily provide input, suggestions, and
answers to questions, as I visit frequently. In fact, computational
modeling and analysis will become an increasingly important component
of the experiments themselves and their design. An integrated
environment such as VBI makes the transition to ``computer aided
design'' of experiments easier. It also facilitates biologists' input
into the subsequent generation of biological hypotheses through
computational methods.
A thorny problem in creating an interdisciplinary environment, one
that we have struggled with for a long time, is performance evaluation.
In a scientifically more homogeneous academic department it is easier
to evaluate the quality of someone's research, since colleagues are
more familiar with the different scientific journals in the field and
their quality. A common and problematic practice is to replace this
domain knowledge with metrics such as the impact factor of a journal.
It is well known that it is possible for a journal to influence its
impact factor in ways that do not reflect its actual scientific
importance. Also, cultural factors in different scientific communities
affect this metric. For instance, while Science and Nature, two of the
very best journals in the physical and life sciences, have very high
impact factors, the top rated mathematics journals, such as Annals of
Mathematics, have impact factors that are an order of magnitude
smaller. So the impact factor of journals can be only one of several
measures to be used. Extramural funding through grants and contracts is
another factor that is commonly taken into consideration in academic
institutions. Preparing grant applications for interdisciplinary
research tends to take considerably more time and effort than single
investigator grants, and budgets typically need to be larger. Since
there are fewer funding programs available for interdisciplinary
research than for research within a single discipline, success rates
tend to be lower. It is important to provide incentives for scientists
to nonetheless embrace interdisciplinary research.
At VBI we are continually working to refine our evaluation process
that takes these and other factors into account. For instance, the
institute also wants to encourage its scientists to engage in
entrepreneurial activities to ensure that their scientific discoveries
translate into tangible products that benefit society. So
entrepreneurial activity is another criterion in our evaluation
process.
The most important lesson I can draw from VBI's experience is that
integration of different areas of expertise into one physical and
administrative structure that is problem centric rather than discipline
centric can serve as an important accelerator of interdisciplinary
research. While this is common practice in industry, it is less so in
academe. But it resonates well with the central theme of integration in
the New Biology report.
I frequently serve on grant review panels for several agencies,
including the NSF, NIH, the postdoctoral program for Federal research
laboratories run by the National Academy of Sciences, and a variety of
foreign funding agencies. Panels I have served on have focused on a
wide range of disciplines, including mathematics, biology, engineering,
computer science, oncology, and several interdisciplinary panels. In
addition to these agencies, the Office of Science within the Department
of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture also support research
at the interface of biology and the computational sciences. In my
experience as a reviewer, I have come to realize, that such research
takes place in a large variety of settings, including academic
departments such as biology, computational biology, biochemistry,
physics, bio- and biomedical engineering, electrical engineering,
systems engineering, computer science, mathematics, to name the most
common ones, as well as a variety of academic and nonacademic research
centers, medical schools, government laboratories, and companies. My
experience shows me that the scientific community is already mobilizing
on a broad scale to meet the challenges outlined in the New Biology
report.
While this diversity of computational biology research is a very
encouraging sign, it also represents a challenge to funding agencies
that need to tailor programs to the different communities. I have
described earlier some examples of funding programs that cross
disciplines within agencies or span across agencies. The agencies are
tapping into a broad and partly overlapping pool of reviewers. It
happens to me frequently, that I meet somebody at an NSF review panel,
who I had met a few months before at an NIH study section, for
instance. And program officers from different funding agencies
communicate with each other regularly, in my experience. However, there
are still many opportunities for the agencies to coordinate programs,
and a particular need is to pool resources for funding larger-scale
projects. We now have some good case studies we can draw on of programs
that create synergy between agencies' expertise, such as the DMS/NIGMS
program I mentioned earlier, and can, as discussed in the previous
section, be a model for larger-scale cross-agency activities.

Lessons Learned about Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Cross-Agency
Coordination

From our experience at VBI, it is clear to me that
integration of different areas of expertise into one physical
and administrative structure that is problem centric rather
than discipline centric can serve as an important accelerator
of interdisciplinary research. The value of colocation is at
least two-fold: (1) It allows researchers to develop a common
culture and learn each other's language; and (2) It allows
multiple disciplines to contribute to the development of
hypotheses, the methods for making predictions, and the design
of experiments from the beginning of a project.

One of the major challenges facing interdisciplinary
research is that of performance evaluation. One growing problem
is how those in a discipline can assess the quality of research
of someone publishing outside that field. Another problem is
the greater time for preparing proposals to support large
interdisciplinary teams and the lower success rate for such
large grants.

Finally, from my experience with multiple Federal
agencies as a grantee and a reviewer, I am pleased to report
that I see good individual collaborations among these
agencies--the program officers communicate regularly with each
other, the expertise of reviewers are tapped and shared across
agencies, and a number of joint programs have been established
(as highlighted in the previous section). However, there are
still many opportunities for the agencies to coordinate
programs, and a particular need is ways to pool agency
resources to allow the funding of larger-scale projects.

WORKFORCE--EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Third Set of Questions from the Committee: What changes, if any,
are needed in the education and training of undergraduate and graduate
students to enable them to work effectively across the boundaries of
the physical sciences, engineering, and the biological sciences without
compromising core disciplinary depth and understanding? Specifically,
what recommendations or changes, if any, would you offer regarding the
portfolio of education and training programs supported by NSF?
As Director of the VBI Education and Outreach Program I devote part
of my time to education and training in computational biology from the
K-12 to postgraduate levels, in formal and informal settings. The
program has four full-time staff members, in addition to myself,
including one at the Ph.D. level.

Graduate Education

I will first address education at the graduate level. As the New
Biology report states: ``Certain institutions have recognized these
limitations of traditional departments for establishing the New
Biology, and have responded not by eliminating departmental structures,
but rather by supplementing or overlaying them with interdisciplinary
programs or institutes that have both research and educational
objectives. Virginia Tech is one of those institutions. In 2003, we
created a Ph.D. program with the name ``Genetics, Bioinformatics, and
Computational Biology (GBCB)'' that was designed to train students at
the interface of experiment and computation in the life sciences. The
program is administered by the Graduate School and draws on faculty
from several departments and institutes, including VBI. While the
program was one of a handful at the time, there are now a number of
such Ph.D. programs at other institutions in the U.S. and worldwide.
The structure of the program is fairly typical, with each student
choosing a major area of expertise, such as computer science or one of
the life sciences, together with topics from other minor areas of
expertise, and a dissertation research project that involves more than
one area. In designing the program, we tried to strike a balance
between the need for diversity and depth of training. Other programs
may strike this balance in more or less different ways, with varying
administrative structures. Our graduates are sought after in both
academic institutions and industry and have no difficulties finding
attractive employment opportunities.
Most of the research in my group is such that it typically requires
fairly deep training in mathematics, so that most of my Ph.D. students
are enrolled in the mathematics Ph.D. program. (In fact, I have had
excellent experiences also with postdoctoral mathematicians with no
prior background in biology, who have acquired significant biology
skills in a short period of time and have made important research
contributions.) In order to learn the requisite biology they take
courses designed for the GBCB program and, in effect, their course of
study could qualify for the GBCB program as well. Most departmental
Ph.D. programs are flexible enough to allow students such a diverse
plan of study. So both departmental and interdisciplinary Ph.D.
programs can be very effective in training students for New Biology
research. An important prerequisite for the success of departmental
programs in this endeavor is, again, integration. In addition to
integration of curricula, students need to have an opportunity to
develop a common culture with other disciplines.
While Virginia Tech has had great success with the GBCB program and
other interdisciplinary graduate programs, creating and maintaining
such programs is a major investment of time and resources on the part
of the institution and its faculty. To date, the NSF Integrative
Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program (IGERT) program has
played an important role in creating integrated graduate programs
across the scientific spectrum at universities across the U.S. For
example, Virginia Tech currently has four IGERT awards, and their
cumulative effect is beginning to transform the institution.
To educate the future scientists who will be critical in realizing
the New Biology, universities will have to transform graduate education
in many areas, some interdisciplinary, some not. While the IGERT
program is excellent at supporting the creation of programs at newly
established interdisciplinary boundaries, academic institutions and
departments will also have to revisit existing disciplinary programs
and established interdisciplinary areas (e.g. the intersection of
biology and mathematics). Support from NSF for these efforts--such as
for the design of the structure and curricula associated with such
programs, faculty development and training, and the development,
coordination, and execution of related activities such as internships,
laboratory rotations, fieldwork, and seminars--would enable
universities to create integrated, flexible programs, as described
above, that will prepare the next generation of researchers for the New
Biology and other emerging opportunities. The graduate experiences
developed by this sort of Federal program will benefit multiple
disciplines and application areas, and hence such a program may be
appropriate for cross-agency partnerships and collaborations.

Undergraduate Education

At the undergraduate level the two most important factors, in my
experience, for New Biology training, are an integrated curriculum and
research experiences. In order to create an integrated curriculum there
is a tremendous need for faculty professional development, especially
at the many undergraduate institutions. For instance, a few weeks ago I
lectured at a week-long workshop for college faculty, entitled
``Mathematical Biology: Beyond Calculus,'' which was supported by the
Mathematical Association of America and was held at Sweet Briar College
in Virginia. The participants came from undergraduate teaching
institutions around the country, and some came in teams of two: a
biologist and a mathematician. The goal was to develop integrated
teaching modules that faculty could use in both mathematics and biology
classes, and to plan curricula for integrated courses. In my opinion,
many more workshops of this type across all the disciplines
contributing to the New Biology are needed to allow faculty to develop
and teach courses that will interest students in this area and prepare
them for interdisciplinary graduate study and research.
Beyond such professional development workshops, teaching
institutions could benefit additionally from close partnerships with
research institutions that incorporate professional development,
expertise in curriculum development, and research opportunities for
faculty and students. This will enable faculty at these institutions to
keep their curriculum up to date, both within and across disciplines,
and will allow them to train their students in ways that make them
competitive for cutting edge graduate programs. For instance, we are
working with three minority-serving undergraduate institutions to set
up such partnerships. For the second summer now we are hosting their
faculty at VBI where they engage in research and professional
development, and we are hosting their students for research
experiences. I have found this to be an effective way to help
undergraduate institutions keep pace with scientific developments and
training needs. It is not clear to me whether there are any funding
programs that are particularly targeted at or well-suited to support
such partnerships.
The NSF has established the program Interdisciplinary Training for
Undergraduates in Biological and Mathematical Sciences, that addresses
curriculum integration and research experiences. The program is very
successful, in my opinion, and should be expanded. It can also serve as
a model for similar programs involving other New Biology disciplines.
And its scope could be modified to include partnerships of the kind
mentioned above.
Genuine research experiences play a tremendously important role in
getting undergraduate students interested in the sciences and in
preparing them for graduate programs. The NSF's Research Experiences
for Undergraduates (REU) program has played an important role in
attracting students to science and engineering careers and in preparing
them to begin research earlier in their training. For admission to many
of the best Ph.D. programs an REU or similar experience has become an
important criterion. As I am talking to you here, we have over 30
undergraduates from all over the country at VBI who are doing research
with our scientists during the summer, including students from half a
dozen states with Representatives on this committee. The students are
supported by grants from NSF and NIH. In addition, we have a dozen
undergraduates from foreign countries at the institute for the summer.
I can see every day what a powerful effect this experience has on the
students, and e-mails and letters from past participants make clear
that such programs have a lasting impact on them and their career
choices.

Recommendations--Graduate and Undergraduate Education

In graduate education, both departmental and interdisciplinary
Ph.D. programs can be very effective in preparing students to conduct
research in the New Biology, with the key issues being an integration
of curricula, the flexibility to strike a balance between the need for
diversity and depth of training, and the opportunity to develop a
common culture across disciplines. Creating and maintaining graduate
programs with these characteristics is a major investment of time and
resources on the part of institutions and faculty. Federal support for
university efforts to transform graduate education would greatly help
prepare the next generation of researchers for the New Biology and
other emerging opportunities.
At the undergraduate level the two most important elements for
preparing students to work in the areas of the New Biology are an
integrated curriculum and research experiences. In order to create an
integrated curriculum there is a tremendous need for faculty
professional development, especially at the many predominantly
undergraduate institutions in the U.S. This could be enabled by
programs that support professional development workshops that, for
example, bring together faculty from mathematics and biology. In
addition, teaching institutions could benefit from close partnerships
with research institutions, in which the partnerships provide
professional development, expertise in curriculum development, and
research opportunities for faculty and students. The NSF programs
Interdisciplinary Training for Undergraduates in Biological and
Mathematical Sciences and Research Experiences for Undergraduates have
been successful in supporting enhancements in undergraduate education
and improving access to critical research experiences, and these
programs should be expanded.

Researchers of the Future--K-12 Education and the Perception of
Mathematics and Science

Realizing the potential of the New Biology is a long-term effort.
It will depend strongly on the generations that are now in the K-12
educational system, their parents who influence their career choices,
and their teachers who prepare them for those careers. There is a
tremendous need for teacher training and for providing children with
opportunities to experience practitioners of science, engineering,
technology, and mathematics (STEM) as what they are: explorers of
fascinating mysteries on the most important frontiers of knowledge.
Without changing the image of the STEM disciplines in the minds of the
public and our children, we will not succeed in reversing the trend of
ever smaller numbers of students choosing STEM careers.
During the last year we hosted over 5000 K-12 students at VBI and
we are carrying out programs that involve hundreds of children, their
parents, and teachers, in partnership with other organizations, such as
Virginia 4H. In my experience, engagement with science and technology
at this level can have a huge payoff in the future. Seeing the
excitement and genuine interest on the face of a 9-year-old who, in a
lecture hall with 400 other children, stands up and asks an insightful
question after listening to a scientist talk about nanotechnology
convinces me that the number of students electing to study STEM in
higher education can be increased, if all stakeholders work together to
affect the needed cultural change. There are wonderful examples of such
efforts. The U.S. Science Festival later this year will be a signature
event for shining the public spotlight on science, and VBI will do its
share in our booth to showcase New Biology research. And there are many
other smaller events and programs of this type taking place across the
country. But given the size of the challenge and the large potential
benefit to the U.S. economy and well being, a national effort may be
required to affect the needed cultural change. An example of such a
larger-scale program is the 2007-2008 ``Year of Mathematics,'' a
massive effort by the German mathematical community to help the public
experience mathematics. (The program was funded through a public-
private partnership with approximately 11 million Euros.)

CONCLUSION

Enabling and exploiting the intersection between the life sciences
and the mathematical and information sciences will have great benefits
for society, in health, food, energy, and the environment, as noted in
the New Biology report. This alone is a reason for the U.S. to explore
and invest in this area. However, like in many other fields, such as
information technology, medicine, and security, the work in New Biology
also has the potential for significant economic benefit to the Nation
that makes the discoveries and is first to turn them into products and
services. The U.S. is not the only nation to see the potential of this
area,\6\ and the investments of other countries in their research and
education infrastructures to produce 21st century innovations lend
urgency to our efforts to improve our own research and training
capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For a discussion of international efforts, see the WTEC
International Assessment of Research and Development in Simulation-
Based Engineering and Science, which includes a chapter on Life
Sciences and Medicine, available at http://www.wtec.orc/sbes/SBES-
GlobalFinalReport-BW.pdf.

Biography for Reinhard Laubenbacher
Dr. Reinhard Laubenbacher is a professor at the Virginia
Bioinformatics Institute, where he leads the Applied Discrete
Mathematics Group and is the Director for Education and Outreach. He is
also a professor of mathematics at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University and an adjunct professor in the Cancer Biology
Department at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. He holds a
Ph.D. in mathematics from Northwestern University.
Since 2009 he has served as Vice President for Science Policy for
the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). SIAM is a
community of approximately 13,000 applied and computational
mathematicians, computer scientists, numerical analysts, engineers,
statisticians, and mathematics educators who work in academia,
government, and industry.
Dr. Laubenbacher's research focuses on the development of cutting
edge mathematical tools to allow for a comprehensive understanding of
biological systems. Specifically, his group develops mathematical
algorithms related to the modeling of molecular networks with
applications to yeast, infectious diseases, and cancer. Dr.
Laubenbacher's research has been supported by grants from the National
Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the
Department of Defense. He has authored or coauthored over 80
publications and co-authored or edited 5 books. His work as an educator
has also been supported by grants from the National Science Foundation.

Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Laubenbacher.
Dr. Leonard.

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA N. LEONARD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT
OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

Dr. Leonard. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity
to discuss these important issues related to the transformative
shifts now occurring in research and education at the interface
of biology, engineering and the physical sciences.
I am an Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biological
Engineering at Northwestern University and my expertise and
research interests center on engineering biological systems for
applications in biotechnology and medicine using synthetic
biology, a field that I will describe today. I am honored to be
here today and speak with you and this subcommittee about these
topics.
Over the last three decades, molecular biology has
revolutionized our ability to explore the living world, and we
now stand at another transformative moment in the biological
sciences. Through technological advances, it is possible to
collect a wealth of biological data, and we now need new
conceptual, computational and experimental tools to transform
this information into useful understanding and practical
applications. Already, it is clear that by developing these
capabilities, we may use the richness of biology to meet
pressing needs in areas including energy, through the sustained
production of advanced biofuels; in the environment, including
cleanup, remediation and ecosystem management; in agriculture,
including crops that withstand harsh conditions or changing
environmental conditions; materials, including the production
of industrially useful materials, like polymers from renewable
biomass instead of from petroleum; in manufacturing, by
carrying out chemical synthesis inside microorganisms to
transform cheap biological feedstocks into high-value products
like pharmaceuticals; and in health, by harnessing our own
biology to treat cancer, to generate vaccines on demand and to
extend the quality of life.
At the leading edge of these efforts is synthetic biology,
a nascent technical discipline whose central goal is to
transform biology into a system that can be engineered as we
engineer mechanical and electrical systems today. Synthetic
biology seeks a new paradigm of biology by design in which one
can conceive a desired biological function, design a biological
system to perform this function, build the system and have it
work as predicted. We are still some distance from realizing
this goal, but synthetic biology provides a framework for
proceeding. In this model, basic biological parts such as genes
are constructed and characterized such that they can be
interconnected and assembled into novel configurations to
generate new functions, which are designed with the assistance
of computational tools and rigorous quantitative methods.
As in all areas of applied science, construction and
understanding are connected. First, we build to learn how to
design. Understanding the principles of aeronautics did not
directly provide the Wright Brothers with the ability to
achieve controlled flight. This was achieved only through an
ongoing cycle of design, construction, testing and refinement,
and the same is true for engineering biological systems. We
also build to understand. Sometimes understanding comes through
failure. For example, through unsuccessful attempts to engineer
bacterium to perform a simple task--for example, turning a gene
on and off in a regular fashion--we learned that cells do not
function as well-oiled machines, but rather, their inner
workings proceed through bursts of activity. In these ways,
synthetic biology is intrinsically part of the new biology of
the 21st century as described by the National Research Council.
Synthetic biology is not a change within biology, engineering
or the physical sciences, but rather it is an effort that must
span traditional disciplinary boundaries and integrate these
strengths. Work in synthetic biology also spans the funding and
oversight priorities of our Federal agencies.
At this stage, the basic challenges, technologies and
frontiers are largely independent of whether the eventual
application is in energy, health or the environment. For
example, my research group works to engineer cell-based devices
and networks, approaches that have applications in both
biotechnology and medicine. Interagency cooperation is
therefore required to make the best use of our collective
capabilities and resources.
The NSF has supported early synthetic biology efforts
through the multi-institutional center SynBERC [Synthetic
Biology Engineering Research Center]. Now, we must also develop
interdisciplinary centers throughout our research
infrastructure to build a national synthetic biology community
that is integrated with other facets of 21st century biology.
Given the early state of synthetic biology and its vast
potential for benefiting society, investing in high-risk, high-
reward projects should form a major part of our national
strategy. In 2008, the NSF conducted such an experiment, along
with partners in the United Kingdom, by running a sandpit event
that brought together a multinational group of researchers to
foster innovation in synthetic biology and develop competitive
projects targeted at grand challenges. For example, our team is
building a technology inspired by the evolution of bacterial
ecosystems that could transform our ability to construct
complex functions in bacteria, such as the challenging
biochemical synthesis of the anticancer drug Taxol.
The National Academy's Keck Futures Initiative also held a
synthetic biology conference in 2009, using interdisciplinary
teams to develop field-wide perspectives on major scientific
and ethical issues. These findings also generated several
innovative projects. For example, our team is developing a
technology to enable engineered symbiotic bacteria which might
patrol the colon for signs of cancer, for example, to
communicate this information to their hosts.
Finally, addressing challenges in 21st biology requires
training a new generation of students prepared to integrate
diverse areas of expertise. At the graduate level in
particular, we need to engage a broad pool of students and move
towards models in which training is an interdepartmental
effort, a strategy that we are developing and implementing at
Northwestern. Nationwide, our students are already eager to
apply their capabilities to meet today's pressing challenges.
With the United States' adaptable and entrepreneurial cultures
in both research institutions and the private sector, we are
positioned to continue to lead this revolution in biology and
biotechnology. By fostering a national synthetic biology
community and investing in high-risk, high-reward research, we
can capitalize upon our capabilities to realize the benefits of
biology by design.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to share
my perspective on this important topic, and I would be happy to
address any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Leonard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joshua N. Leonard

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss these
important issues related to the transformative shifts now occurring in
research and education at the interface of biology, engineering, and
the physical sciences. I am an Assistant Professor of Chemical and
Biological Engineering in the McCormick School of Engineering and
Applied Science and member of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer
Center at Northwestern University, in Evanston, Illinois. My expertise
and research interests center on engineering biological systems for
applications in biotechnology and health through ``synthetic biology'',
a nascent technical discipline that holds immense promise for helping
to meet our most pressing societal needs. I am honored to be here today
and to speak with you and the members of this subcommittee about these
topics.

Why are new approaches for engineering and understanding biological
systems needed?

Over the last three decades, molecular biology has revolutionized
our ability to investigate and utilize the diversity of the living
world in unprecedented ways. We now stand at another transformative
moment in the biological sciences. Technological advances such as high-
throughput DNA sequencing have made it possible to collect massive
amounts of biological data, and what is needed now are new conceptual,
computational, and experimental tools to transform this wealth of
information into useful understanding and practical applications.
Already, is clear that by developing these capabilities, the
versatility of biology may be harnessed to meet our most pressing
societal needs, including:

Energy--through the sustainable and affordable
production of advanced biofuels

The Environment--including cleanup and remediation as
well as ecosystem management

Agriculture--including the production of food crops
that grow in water and resource-poor areas and can tolerate
changing climactic conditions

Materials--both by taking inspiration from natural
innovations, like spider's silk whose strength exceeds that of
steel, and by producing substances that are outside the
existing realm of biology, such as industrially-useful
polymers, from renewable feedstocks like sugar or biomass

Manufacturing--for example, by carrying out
customized and complex chemical synthesis reactions inside
microscopic yeast or bacteria to transform cheap biological
feedstocks to high value specialty products

Health--for example, to harness our own biology to
treat cancer, to generate vaccines on demand, to resolve
chronic infections and autoimmune disease, and to extend
quality of life to meet the needs of our changing population
demographics

Our research infrastructure is already making headway towards these
goals, with notable and early successes in biotechnology (e.g., the
production of specialty products in microorganisms) and energy
(especially in the realm of biofuels). This is a transformative moment
in both the basic and applied biological sciences, and the steps we
take to act on this opportunity will guide our ability to lead the
development of this central technological and scientific capacity
through the 21st century.

How will ``synthetic biology'' help to achieve these goals?

At the leading edge of these efforts is a nascent technical and
scientific discipline called synthetic biology. The central goal of
this field is to transform biology into a system that can be engineered
just as we design and engineer mechanical and electronic systems today.
In this way, synthetic biology seeks to enable a new paradigm of
biology by design, which can be summarized as follows:

Conceive a given desired biological function

Design an engineered biological system to perform
this function

Build the system

The system works as predicted

We are still some way from realizing this ambitious goal, but
synthetic biology provides a framework for addressing each of these
steps. A central part of this concept is constructing and
characterizing basic biological parts (such as a genes that encode
enzymes or other proteins), which can be interconnected and assembled
into novel configurations. Also important is the use of computational
tools and rigorous quantitative methods to help design a configuration
that will perform a given function. New technological advances are also
required to provide reliable, affordable, and accessible assembly of
large biological components (especially large pieces of DNA that may
compose many genes, or other DNA-based ``parts ''). Together, this is
more than a technological advance; it is a conceptual shift. Synthetic
biology will enable us to move from what does exist, to what can exist.
Synthetic biology is also intrinsically linked to fundamental
biological sciences, including systems and computational biology, and
as such, it is a central component of the New Biology described in the
recent report on this topic from the National Research Council. As in
all areas of applied science, construction and understanding are
connected through these general approaches:

Build to learn how to design. We know that
understanding the principles of aeronautics did not directly
provide the Wright Brothers with the ability to achieve
controlled flight. This was achieved only through the ongoing
cycle of designing, constructing, testing, and refining the
design. The same is proving true for engineering biological
systems to performed in desirable and predictable ways.

Build to understand. Since its inception, synthetic
biology has provided new biological understanding through
failure. For example, through unsuccessful attempts to
genetically engineer a bacterium to perform a simple task (for
example, turning a gene on, off, and then back on in a regular
fashion), we learned that cells do not function as stable and
well-oiled machines, but rather their inner workings proceed
through bursts of activity mixed with stretches of inactivity.
Thus, attempting to engineer biology reveals new fundamental
biological insights, perhaps especially when it fails.

What types of research infrastructure and support are required?

Synthetic biology, like other areas of 21St century biology,
requires an inherently interdisciplinary approach. It is not just a
change within biology, engineering, or the physical sciences, but
rather it is an effort that must continue to span traditional
disciplinary boundaries. Consequently, this field is not a replacement
for existing core competencies--it is a new meeting place.
The fundamental work required to develop synthetic biology
capabilities spans the funding and oversight priorities of our Federal
agencies. At this stage, the basic challenges, technologies, and
frontiers are largely independent of whether the eventual application
is in energy, health, or the environment. For example, my group works
to engineer multicellular networks and build cellular devices,
approaches that have applications in both biotechnology and medicine.
Various component disciplines (including biology, engineering, physics,
chemistry, computer science, and medicine) are already involved in
these efforts, but what are needed are mechanisms for supporting the
integration of these diverse strengths. Thus, interagency cooperation
is required to maximize the progress that can be achieved.
The NSF is taking early action to support the development of
synthetic biology. SynBERC (the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research
Center) is an NSF Engineering Research Center, which serves as a multi-
institutional home for foundational research in this field. The NSF is
also supporting the new International Open Facility Advancing
Biotechnology (Biofab) project, which will work to scale up the
manufacturing and dissemination of technologies developed through
SynBERC. These models established a foundation for synthetic biology
research and have helped to coordinate activities between member
institutions. To continue the development of this field and capitalize
upon diverse types of core competencies, we must also develop
interdisciplinary centers throughout our research infrastructure to
build a national synthetic biology community, which must be closely
integrated with other facets of 21st century biology.
Building this community may be achieved through establishing
regional centers, or in other cases an institution-level organization
may be successful. In any implementation, it is essential that the
program be sufficiently flexible to allow for innovative models that
can integrate different institutional cultures and organizational
structures. Furthermore, a key goal of this program should be to foster
the growth of this nascent field, rather than to merely reinforce
existing efforts, so a substantial component of any support should go
towards activities that build new interactions. Particularly effective
approaches may include pilot projects, multi-year graduate student and
postdoctoral training fellowships tied to interdisciplinary advising,
and activities that promote communication and dissemination such as
seminars, local scientific meetings, and internet-based media.
Given the rapidly expanding scope of synthetic biology as a
discipline, as well as its potential for transformative contributions
to society, it is essential that we invest in high-risk, high-reward
projects. In November 2008, The NSF conducted an experiment in this
area by running a so-called ``Sandpit'' event dedicated to fostering
innovation and identifying new directions in the field of synthetic
biology.\1\ This event was run in conjunction with the U.K.'s
counterpart organization--the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council (EPSRC). I had the opportunity to attend this
competitive event that brought together 15 researchers from the U.S.
and 15 from the U.K. The EPSRC has run a number of such events since
2004, but this was the first event to be held in the U.S. or by the
NSF. The aim was to address basic questions, identify challenges and
opportunities, and create novel research directions that wouldn't be
supported through existing mechanisms, and moreover, wouldn't be
proposed without this unique opportunity for collaborative
interactions. By design, the resulting projects were targeted at grand
challenges that both drive basic scientific capabilities and could
enable transformative applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Profiled in ``Digging for fresh ideas in the sandpit'' (2009)
Science. Vol. 324. no. 5931, pp. 1128-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide an example of the projects that were generated through
this event, my group, along with Jay Keasling at the University of
California, Berkeley and four other collaborators across the U.K., is
developing a technology that could transform the way we engineer
microorganisms for biotechnology. Existing approaches to engineering a
microbe to carry out a useful function, for example to synthesize a
valuable small molecule through modifying the organism's metabolism,
require substantial investments of resources, time, and labor. Much of
the difficulty arises from the extensive work required to tweak and
optimize the system. In this project, we are building a new engineering
technology inspired by a set of natural mechanisms by which communities
of bacteria modify and optimize their own biology. This capability
should eventually enable researchers to carry out the optimization of
engineered biological functions with great savings in time, resources,
and labor. Other projects addressed similarly ambitious and potentially
transformative challenges.
This Sandpit was an experiment and perhaps a model for driving
innovation in other nascent areas of research. Importantly, the NSF has
also followed this event with calls to develop networks for
coordinating research efforts in this area. This emphasis on driving
high-impact, high-reward research while developing our collective
capacity to carry out work in synthetic biology reflect two effective
strategies for leveraging and enhancing our existing research
infrastructure.
The NSF/EPSRC sandpit also dovetails with other national-level
efforts including the National Academies Keck Futures Initiative's
conference on ``Synthetic Biology: Building on Nature's Inspiration'',
which was held in November 2009.\2\ This conference invited some 150
researchers to work in interdisciplinary teams to address some of the
major questions facing the field. This process was structured to assess
and develop field-wide perspectives on major scientific and ethical
topics related to synthetic biology. The resulting findings were
disseminated to the public in several forms, including a series of
summaries written by graduate students in science journalism, one of
whom was part of each interdisciplinary team.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.keckfutures.org/conferences/synthetic-biology.html
(accessed June 25, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comparison to the Sandpit event, the emphasis of the NAKFI
conference was more on community and field development than on directly
driving innovation at the meeting. However, NAKFI also recognizes the
need to foster high-risk, high-impact research in synthetic biology
and, accordingly, supported 13 pilot projects developed by attendees
after the completion of the meeting. Most of these projects targeted
problems identified as major challenges and opportunities at the event.
For example, my group and our collaborators are working on a
project to address the need for new systems for engineering
communication between cells. Specifically, we are seeking to develop a
synthetic molecular communication system that can send information
between bacteria and human cells. This is a fundamental technical
challenge, and it could also eventually result in applications. As a
hypothetical example, one could engineer a symbiotic bacteria
``probiotic'' to patrol within the colon for pathogenic microbes or
signs of emerging colon cancer and respond by directing the immune
system to respond appropriately.
Continued investment to foster the growth of a national synthetic
biology community and provide mechanisms to drive high-risk, high-
reward research as an essential part of our national research strategy
will enable the development of this new scientific enterprise and
catalyze the development of transformative technologies and
applications in areas including energy, agriculture, the environment,
materials, and health.

What educational strategies will prepare students and trainees to
pursue these challenges?

Addressing challenges in synthetic biology, and 21st century
biology more generally, requires training a new generation of
undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows who will be
uniquely prepared to integrate diverse areas of expertise. Working
effectively on interdisciplinary teams requires the development of a
common language. Combining rigorous quantitative methods with open-
ended biological design challenges requires balanced development of
both analytical and creative capacities--we need to train whole-brain
thinkers.
At the graduate level, we must move beyond current models in which
training in synthetic biology often occurs as an outgrowth of training
within a single existing department. To engage a broad pool of students
and develop the interdisciplinary capacities they require, we must move
towards models in which training occurs as part of a broader
interdepartmental effort. An especially important mechanism for
promoting these changes would be to provide faculty with support to
develop and teach new courses designed for this new training model.
This might be particularly important to implement in institutions where
there currently exist barriers to interdisciplinary training and co-
advising across departmental boundaries. For such reasons, it is
imperative that efforts to promote interdisciplinary training be
flexible enough to allow for innovative models that can thrive within
different institutional cultures and organizational structures.
As an example of what such a model might entail, I can describe how
we are approaching these challenges at Northwestern University. Our
highly interdisciplinary biological sciences Ph.D. program is an
excellent model for how graduate education may support 21st century
biology. It is a life sciences training program that includes a high
concentration of training faculty drawn from engineering, chemistry,
and the physical and quantitative sciences. Students benefit from broad
interdisciplinary training that challenges them to become fluent in the
languages of multiple disciplines, and to bridge those disciplines in
order to carry out cutting-edge innovative research projects that move
life sciences research in exciting new directions.
We are currently implementing a new innovation in which graduate
biology education is structured around thematic clusters designed to
balance depth in certain competencies with flexibility to cross
disciplinary boundaries. Over the past year, I have led an effort,
along with Prof. Michael Jewett and other colleagues, to create an
interdepartmental organization for integrating systems and synthetic
biology efforts across the university. This organization will include
training activities including boot camps, to build basic competencies
and facilitate the development of a common language, ongoing research
interactions, and new course offerings. Our goal is that such training
activities will eventually be integrated into the graduate education of
students with primary homes in biology, engineering, and physical and
quantitative science departments. Training a new generation of
scientists and engineers that can fluidly cross traditional
disciplinary boundaries is critical to achieving the goals of a new
biology for the 21st century.
Interdisciplinary training in synthetic biology at the
undergraduate level is already an active area, driven in large part
through the International Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM)
experience originally developed at MIT.\3\ Each year over the summer,
teams of undergraduates work on synthetic biology projects of their own
design, which culminate in gathering to share their results and
experiences at a ``Jamboree'' held at MIT in Cambridge, MA. By 2009,
only the fifth year of this event, participation had swelled to include
112 teams from 26 countries, comprising over 1000 participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Smolke, Christina D. ``Building outside of the box: iGEM and
the BioBricks Foundation'' (2009) Nature Biotechnology. Vol. 27. no.
12, pp. 1099-1102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An examination of student-selected project topics suggests that the
enthusiasm for iGEM is partly explained by the fact that it builds upon
the existing desire of our students to apply their capabilities to
solving real problems and meeting pressing societal needs. Recurrent
themes include global health, environmental stewardship, and community-
based technology development. Importantly, iGEM also requires that
teams consider and discuss possible secondary uses of any technologies
they may develop. By facing these security and ethical issues head-on
in a tangible context, this experience should help these students to
carry these considerations forward, to their careers in industry and
academia, and as informed members of society. Perhaps most importantly,
this competition promotes innovation, creativity, and self-reliance,
all of which translate to fostering an entrepreneurial spirit.
Ongoing challenges in undergraduate education are to incorporate
interdisciplinary training, and perhaps some elements of an iGEM-like
experience, into existing discipline-based undergraduate curricula. One
option is to create interdisciplinary courses that supplement, or serve
as electives, within multiple existing undergraduate programs. For
example, an undergraduate synthetic biology elective may bring together
engineers, biologists, and computer scientists to work in teams to
tackle problems that involve both computational modeling and wet
laboratory experiments and insights. I have personally implemented such
a model of team-based ``cooperative learning'' using synthetic biology
in my teaching of a core chemical engineering course. Although this
course focuses on strategies for predicting and controlling the
dynamics of chemical processes, I regularly use examples drawn from the
context of biology to build an appreciation for the general
applicability of these methods. The course culminates in a team-based
project in which students apply process dynamics and control principles
to understand and ultimately redesign engineered synthetic biological
systems. This shift in context helps students to develop their
abilities to apply their core competencies to new challenges and
unfamiliar disciplines. Similar strategies may be incorporated
throughout the various core disciplines that contribute to 21ST century
biology, since developing student capacities to work on
interdisciplinary challenges will benefit them in any career they
eventually pursue.

How will synthetic biology serve the United States' national interests?

Synthetic biology taps into a vast potential to grow the industries
that will lead 215t century economies and meet societal needs in
energy, biotechnology, high-value manufacturing, environmental
technologies and services, and health. Our international partners and
competitors in Europe and elsewhere are also investing heavily in this
sector. However, the U.S. already possesses the essential ingredients
required to build a competitive advantage and lead the growth of this
sector. Our adaptable and entrepreneurial culture, in both the private
sector and in our academic research institutions, positions the U.S. to
continue to lead this next revolution in biological technology. Through
capitalizing upon our intellectual resources and rededicating ourselves
to training the next generation of biologists, engineers, and
scientists to take on these challenges, we can realize the benefits of
achieving biology by design.

Summary

We stand at a transformative moment in the biological sciences,
where we can collect massive amounts of biological data, and what is
needed now are new conceptual, computational, and experimental tools to
transform this information into useful understanding and practical
applications.
Developing these capabilities will allow us harness this knowledge
to meet pressing societal needs in energy (e.g., renewable fuels), the
environment (e.g., cleanup and ecosystem management), agriculture
(e.g., climactically robust food crops), materials (e.g., to achieve
special properties and utilize renewable feedstocks), manufacturing
(e.g., microbial factories), and health (e.g., advanced vaccines and
biological therapies).
At the leading edge of these efforts is a nascent technical and
scientific discipline called synthetic biology, the central goal of
which is to transform biology into a system that can be engineered.
Synthetic biology seeks to enable a new paradigm of biology by design:

Conceive a given desired biological function

Design an engineered biological system to perform
this function

Build the system

The system works as predicted

Synthetic biology is intrinsically linked to the fundamental
biological sciences as part of the New Biology of the 21st century. It
is not a change within biology, engineering, or the physical sciences,
but rather it is an effort that must span traditional disciplinary
boundaries. Mechanisms for supporting the integration of these diverse
strengths are needed.
The fundamental work required to develop synthetic biology
capabilities spans the funding and oversight priorities of our Federal
agencies. Thus, interagency cooperation is also required to maximize
the progress that can be achieved.
NSF has supported early synthetic biology efforts through projects
such as SynBERC. Now, we must also develop interdisciplinary centers
throughout our research infrastructure and build a national synthetic
biology community that is integrated with other facets of New Biology.
Given the early but rapidly expanding scope of synthetic biology as
a discipline, as well as its potential for transformative contributions
to society, it is essential that we invest in high-risk, high reward
projects as a major portion of our national research investment
strategy.
Addressing challenges in synthetic biology, and 21st century
biology more generally, requires training a new generation of
undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral trainees who will
be uniquely prepared to integrate diverse areas of expertise.
The U.S. is positioned to continue to lead this next revolution in
biological technology and fundamental science, and through capitalizing
upon our public and private sector capabilities, we can realize the
benefits of achieving biology by design.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to share my
perspective on this important topic, and I will be happy to address any
questions you may have.

Biography for Joshua N. Leonard

Joshua N. Leonard, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Chemical and
Biological Engineering in the McCormick School of Engineering and
Applied Science and is a member of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive
Cancer Center at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL. Leonard's
research interests center on using engineering principles to build
synthetic multicellular networks for applications in biotechnology and
medicine. Ongoing projects in his research group include developing
programmable cellular devices, with applications in cancer
immunotherapy and regenerative medicine, and developing foundational
synthetic biology technologies for engineering complex functions in
microbial systems.
Leonard received a B.S. in chemical engineering from Stanford
University in 2000, and a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the
University of California, Berkeley in 2006. For his doctoral thesis,
Leonard employed computational and experimental approaches to develop
novel gene therapies for treating HIV infections in such a way that the
therapy suppresses the emergence of treatment-resistant viruses.
Leonard and collaborators also patented a technology for enhancing the
production of certain gene therapy vehicles. While at Berkeley, Leonard
also studied entrepreneurship in biotechnology at the Haas School of
Business and received a certificate in the Management of Technology in
2005. From 2006-2008, Leonard trained in immunology as a postdoctoral
fellow at the National Cancer Institute, Experimental Immunology
Branch, at the National Institutes of Health intramural campus in
Bethesda, MD. While at the NIH, Leonard led a project that elucidated a
central mechanism by which the immune system recognizes viral
infections and initiates an appropriate antiviral response. This
knowledge led to the development of a family of novel and targeted
vaccine adjuvants that should be useful in vaccines against viruses and
cancer. In 2008, he was recruited to his current position as an
Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering at
Northwestern University. In addition to leading his research group and
teaching, Leonard serves as faculty mentor for Northwestern's
international Genetically Engineered Machines (iGEM) team, which will
participate in this undergraduate synthetic biology experience for the
first time this year.

Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Leonard.
Dr. Sanford.

STATEMENT OF KARL SANFORD, VICE PRESIDENT, TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT, GENENCOR

Dr. Sanford. Good afternoon. My name is Karl Sanford. I am
Vice President of Technology Development for Genencor, and I am
honored to present this testimony to your Committee.
Genencor, a division of Danisco, is a leader in industrial
biotechnology innovation and manufacturing on a global scale.
We have multiple manufacturing, R&D and sales locations
throughout the world with a central location in Palo Alto,
California, and offices and manufacturing plants in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, Beloit, Wisconsin, and Rochester, New York. Our
goal is to push the boundaries of what is achievable in the
realm of biotechnology and accelerate development of the bio-
based economy.
This opportunity for my testimony comes at an exciting time
for Genencor. Recently, we have made some exciting new advances
in making isoprene from renewable feedstocks that promises to
help our Nation increase its technological competitiveness and
decrease its dependency on imported foreign oil, while also
protecting the environment.
Genencor started in 1982 as a spin-out company from
pharmaceutical biotechnology pioneer Genentech, with an
aspiration of bringing to industrial and everyday customers the
benefits of recombinant DNA technology to new product features
and manufacturing efficiencies. Over the past 28 years, we have
roughly doubled our revenues every five years such that our
business now approaches $1 billion annually. Our manufacturing
processes are based on the conversion of biorenewable
feedstocks, like corn and soy, into bioproducts like enzymes,
using efficient, large-scale fermentation processes. Every day,
you eat, use or wear something made with Genencor enzymes.
Collaboration is a key for success. The rate of improvement
in the seminal technologies of DNA synthesis, DNA sequencing
and synthetic biology is continuing to provide accelerating
innovation opportunities. No single enterprise can go it alone,
and hence the need for developing effective networks that
connect the players. As an example, we are an industrial member
of SynBERC, the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center,
which is an NSF-funded multi-institution research effort
establishing a foundation for the emerging field of synthetic
biology. SynBERC's vision is to catalyze biology as an
engineering discipline by developing foundational understanding
and technologies, to allow researchers to design and build
standardized, integrated biological systems to accomplish many
particular tasks. In essence, SynBERC is making biology easier
to engineer. It is also engaged in training students who can
leverage the investments and training as they go forward into
industry. Powerful new technologies such as synthetic biology
must also include governance and oversight to fully understand
any potential unintended consequences. Hence, centers such as
SynBERC also provide initiatives in which ethics and biosafety
approaches are purposely incorporated into synthetic biology
research and development. The collaborative human practices
model within the NSF-funded SynBERC project was the first
initiative in which social scientists were explicitly
integrated into a synthetic biology research program.
Increasing the science and technology acumen of our society
and engaging young minds in science and engineering are key
success factors for improving our innovation potential and
social receptivity for technology-based solutions. Science
Bound, Iowa State University's premier pre-college program,
prepares and empowers Iowan ethnic minority students to earn
college degrees and pursue careers in science. In its 20th
year, SCIENCE BOUND has worked with more than 800 middle and
high school students and offered college scholarships to 200
program graduates. The program asks 12- and 13-year-olds to
make a five-year commitment. Working in tandem with expert
teachers, students can emerge academically equipped as well as
socially and culturally empowered to earn a college degree in
science or engineering. We need to further support and expand
this concept of making science fun and exciting and the
learning process friendly enough to encourage commitment to a
career in technology.
Biotechnology and technology in general are played on an
international stage. U.S. centricity is insufficient in
providing the education and training necessary to be among the
best, brightest and most successful. Language skills, cultural
perceptivity and global perspective are requirements for
biotechnology players of the future. International awareness is
an area for improvement in U.S. education and training.
The President's Innovation and Technology Advisory
Committee, PITAC, has identified a technological congruence
that is called the ``Golden Triangle''. Each side of the Golden
Triangle represents one of the three areas of research that
together are transforming the technology landscape today:
information technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology. Each
of these research fields has the potential to enable a wealth
of innovative advances in medicine, energy production, national
security, agriculture, manufacturing, and sustainable
environments--advances that in turn help to create jobs and
increase the Nation's gross domestic product.
In combination, these fields have an even greater potential
to transform society. It is this interplay of technologies,
along with the ever more demanding societal needs, which
creates grand challenges. Industrial biotechnology is one of
the tributary themes to this Golden Triangle. Continued
investment in research, education, business and legal
developments is necessary to achieve our collective aspiration
of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their needs.
Interdisciplinary collaborations that work the Golden Triangle
in different patterns of innovation may offer routes to
success, provided the membership, results and ownership
outcomes are based on transparency, trust and data-based
decision making.
Mr. Baird. [Presiding] Dr. Sanford, I am going to ask you
to conclude as quickly as you can.
Dr. Sanford. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to
present these views and welcome any questions and comments.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sanford follows:]

Prepared Statement of Karl J. Sanford

Introduction

Good afternoon--My name is Karl Sanford. I am Vice President of
Technology Development for Genencor, and I am honored to present this
testimony to your Committee.
This opportunity for my testimony comes at an exciting time for
Genencor. Recently, we have made some exciting new advances in making
isoprene from renewable feedstocks that promises to help our Nation
increase its technological competitiveness and decrease its dependency
on imported foreign oil while also protecting the environment.

Genencor Background: A Pioneer in Industrial Biotechnology

Genencor, a division of Danisco A/S, is a leader in industrial
biotechnology innovation and manufacturing on a global scale. We have
multiple manufacturing, R&D and sales locations throughout the world
with a central location in Palo Alto, California and offices and
manufacturing plants in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Beloit, Wisconsin and
Rochester, New York. Our goal is to push the boundaries of what is
achievable in the realm of biotechnology and accelerate development of
the bio-based economy.
Genencor started in 1982 as a spin-out company from pharmaceutical
biotechnology pioneer, Genentech, with an aspiration of bringing to
industrial and everyday customers the benefits of recombinant DNA
technology through new product features and manufacturing efficiencies.
Over the past 28 years we have roughly doubled our revenues every five
years such that our business now approaches about one billion dollars
annually. Our manufacturing processes are based on the conversion of
bio-renewable feedstocks like corn and soy into enzymes using efficient
large scale fermentation processes. Every day you eat, use or wear
something made with Genencor enzymes. We discover, produce and market
enzymes to large industrial manufacturers. Our products touch people's
lives in many ways--getting dirty clothes cleaner while using less
energy and water doing it; getting clothes to feel better, softer,
nicer to wear with dramatic reductions to water, energy usage and
backed by the first textile industry LCA; improving the nutritional
efficiency of livestock while reducing environmental impact by using
less chemicals; improving quality, nutrition and safety of human foods;
converting biomass into sugars, a critical step in the production of
cellulosic ethanol, other advanced biofuels and biochemicals; creating
a suite of enzymes for biorefiners who convert grain into higher value
products such as sweeteners and bioethanol; developing microbial cell
factories that convert sugars to biochemicals, such as the
BioIsoprene^TM product we are developing with The Goodyear
Rubber and Tire Company. Our manufacturing processes include innovative
processes to convert bio-renewable feedstocks like corn into enzymes
using efficient large-scale fermentation processes.

Networks and Partnerships make a Difference

Partnerships play an important role in getting the right products
to the right customer segments in a timely manner. We have teamed with
the Departments of Energy, Commerce and Defense, and some of the
largest consumer, food product and chemical companies in the world. For
example, we partnered with DuPont in the mid 1990s to design and
develop the bioprocess for making BioPDO^TM monomer from
corn. That project took almost ten years before the first commercial
sale was realized in 2006. We teamed with DuPont again in 2008 to form
the joint venture company, Dupont Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC
(DDCE), to commercialize the technology for conversion of biomass to
ethanol. DC. aims to be the world's leading cellulosic ethanol company
and a key player in facilitating global energy independence and
sustainable fuel supply. At present, we are working with The Goodyear
Rubber and Tire Company to commercialize a bioprocess for making
isoprene, a key ingredient for synthetic rubber, from renewable
feedstocks. Our technology allows for the bio-based production of
isoprene and represents a significant move away from the use of and
reliance on petroleum-derived isoprene. A concept tire made with our
BioIsoprene^TM product was on display at the United Nations
Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (the COP 15 meeting) in
December, 2009.

Sustainability is Good Business

Genencor has made sustainability a centerpiece of its business
strategy. The goal of sustainable development is to meet the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs. This means that we pursue the long-term viability and
progress of our business while taking responsibility for improving the
environmental, economic, and social conditions resulting from our work.
Examples of our commitment and leadership in business practice include
winning the 2003 Presidential Green Chemistry Award for the microbial
production of 1,3-propanediol along with DuPont and in 2009 winning the
national Sustainable Energy Award from the American Institute of
Chemical Engineers (AIChE) for our Accellerase family of enzymes for
cellulosic ethanol. The AIChE Sustainable Energy Award recognizes the
critical impact of chemistry and biochemistry innovations in developing
sustainable energy solutions. In addition, we recently introduced our
PrimaGreen EcoWhite product, which is a unique and first-to-market
enzyme. This enzyme powers the system that will be sold by Huntsman
Textile under the name Gentle Power Bleach^TM. This novel
bio-bleaching technology significantly reduces energy and water
consumption in wet textile processing, while improving fabric quality.
Our commitment to sustainable and environmentally responsive innovative
solutions is also demonstrated by our work on biologically based
methods for producing isoprene. Our BioIsoprene^TM research
and development collaborator, The Goodyear Rubber and Tire Company, won
the Environmental Achievement of the Year Award in 2010 for the concept
tire made with our BioIsoprene^TM product--a breakthrough
alternative to petrochemically produced tires.

Collaboration boosts Innovation

Genencor is a leader in industrial biotechnology and a participant
along with university, business and government laboratories in further
developing the underlying technologies that propel this platform of
innovation forward. Collaboration is a key theme for success. The rate
of improvement in the seminal technologies of DNA synthesis, DNA
sequencing and synthetic biology is continuing to provide accelerating
innovation opportunities. No single enterprise can to go it alone and
hence the need for developing effective networks that connect the
players. As an example, we are industrial members of SynBERC, The
Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center, which is an NSF funded
multi-institution research effort establishing a foundation for the
emerging field of synthetic biology. SynBERC's vision is to catalyze
biology as an engineering discipline by developing the foundational
understanding and technologies to allow researchers to design and build
standardized, integrated biological systems to accomplish many
particular tasks. In essence, SynBERC is making biology easier to
engineer. It is also engaged in training students who can leverage the
investments and training as they go forward into industry. Powerful new
technologies such as synthetic biology must also include governance and
oversight to fully understand any potential unintended consequences.
Hence, centers such as SynBERC also provide initiatives in which ethics
and biosafety approaches are purposely incorporated into synthetic
biology research and development. The collaborative Human Practices
model within the NSF-funded SynBERC project was the first initiative in
which social scientists were explicitly integrated into a synthetic
biology research program. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars also provides new opportunities for collaboration emerging
between scientists and social scientists working on synthetic biology.

Making Biotechnology Interesting Enough to Learn About

Increasing the science and technology acumen of our society and
engaging young minds in science and engineering are key success factors
for improving our innovation potential and social receptivity for
technology based solutions. Science Bound, Iowa State University's
premier pre-college program, prepares and empowers Iowan ethnic
minority students to earn college degrees and pursue careers in
science. In its 20th year, Science Bound has worked with more than 800
middle and high school student and offered college scholarships to 200
program graduates. The program asks 12 and 13 year olds to make a five-
year commitment. Working in tandem with expert teachers, students can
emerge academically equipped as well as socially and culturally
empowered to earn a college degree in science or engineering. We need
to further support and expand this concept of making science fun and
exciting and a learning process friendly enough to encourage commitment
to a career in technology. To this end, we have a very active summer
intern program that brings undergraduate and graduate level college
students to Genencor to work on a variety of biotechnology projects
over the summer months. In addition, we have representatives engaged
with various community and local industry boards to help educate and
foster public awareness and policy. We are also active members in
industry groups such as the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO),
Europabio and BayBio, an association serving the life science industry
in Northern California.

International Awareness

Biotechnology and technology in general are played on an
international stage. U.S. centricity is insufficient in providing the
education and training necessary to be among the best, brightest and
most successful. Language skills, cultural perceptivity and a global
perspective are requirements for biotechnology players of the future.
International awareness is an area for improvement in U.S. education
and training.

The Golden Triangle

The President's Innovation and Technology Advisory Committee
(PITAC), has identified a technological congruence that is called the
``Golden Triangle.'' Each side of the Golden Triangle represents one of
three areas of research that together are transforming the technology
landscape today: ``information technology, biotechnology, and
nanotechnology. Information technology (IT) encompasses all
technologies used to create, exchange, store, mine, analyze, and
evaluate data in multiple forms. Biotechnology uses the basic
components of life (such as cells and DNA) to create new products and
new manufacturing methods. Nanotechnology is the science of
manipulating and characterizing matter at the atomic and molecular
levels. Each of these research fields has the potential to enable a
wealth of innovative advances in medicine, energy production, national
security, agriculture, manufacturing, and sustainable environments--
advances that can in turn help to create jobs, increase the nation's
gross domestic product (GDP), and enhance quality of life.'' In
combination, these fields have an even greater potential to transform
society. It is this interplay of technologies along with ever more
demanding societal needs, which creates grand challenges. Industrial
biotechnology is one of the tributary themes to this Golden Triangle.
Continued investment in research, education, business and legal
developments is necessary to achieve our collective aspiration of
meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their needs. Interdisciplinary
collaborations that work the Golden Triangle in different patterns of
innovation may offer routes to success provided the membership, results
and ownership to outcomes are based on transparency, trust and data-
based decision making.
A recent study by the National Research Council, ``A New Biology
for the 21st Century'', recommends the integration of the many sub-
disciplines of biology, and the integration into biology of physicists,
chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. The most
effective leveraging of investments would come from a coordinated,
interagency effort to encourage an integrated approach to biological
research focused on key problem solving areas. This study provides a
roadmap to `21st Century Biology'.

Fostering University--Industry Collaboration

The Bayh-Dole Act provides the process through which technology
transfer from university laboratories to industry happens. University
patents and start-up companies based on these intellectual assets have
provided a significant boost to U.S. economic growth over several
decades. There is opportunity to do more and a process to assess
current barriers and potential new incentives should be undertaken.
Examples are the following: current procedures do not allow companies
that fund work in universities to own the IP; legal processes are
cumbersome and the opportunity exists to slim-line these processes so
that investments are largely for the technology development not the
legal negotiation.
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to present these views
and welcome any questions or comments.

Biography for Karl J. Sanford
In reference to the invitation from Chairman Lipinski to testify
before the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education on June 29,
2010 with respect to 21st Century Biology, I (Karl J. Sanford) provide
the following biographical information. I am currently Vice President
of Technology Development at Genencor, a Division of Danisco and have a
substantial track record of success as an industry leader in
establishing the industrial biotechnology industry as we know it today.
Specific examples of my track record pertinent today's testimony
are the following: 1) member of founding management team for Genencor
International which has grown from nothing to over $800 M in industrial
product sales 2) 25 years of continuous technology and research
activities in bringing many industrial enzymes to the market place
addressing customer needs in detergent, grain processing, textile
manufacturing, animal feed and human nutrition, biomass hydrolysis,
bio-bleaching, silicon biotechnology and metabolic pathway engineering/
synthetic biology. 3) leader in developing productive collaborations
which include ADM/amino acid processes, Eastman Chemical/ascorbic acid
continuous bio-catalysis, DuPont/BioPDO pathway engineering, Dow
Corning/Silicon Biotechnology development and The Goodyear Rubber and
Tire Co/BioIsoprene synthetic biology development. The commercial
contribution in terms of annual product sales that derive from these
and other related activities in the biotechnology sector exceed $3
billion USD. 4) Advisor to various government led initiatives that were
seminal in laying the foundation for the current industrial
biotechnology and biofuels sectors. Highlights include: a) Compact
signing for the Plant/Crop-Based Renewables at the Commodity Classic,
Long Beach, CA., February, 1998 b) Plant/Crop-Based Renewables 2020
Vision and Road Map. c) Congressional testimony to House Committee on
Science Subcommittee on Technology on Industrial Biotechnology National
Competitiveness, February 1998 d) Testimony to Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Hearing on The New Petroleum: S.
935, the National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999 May 27,
1999 on importance of industrial biotechnology and bioenergy e) Thought
leader and participant for Global Energy Technology Strategy Program
(GTSP) in generating Applications of Biotechnology to the Mitigation of
Greenhouse Warming, 2003.
I believe that my record demonstrates a substantial contribution to
the industrial biotechnology sector. Genencor has established itself as
a world leader in this sector which includes enzymes for corn
bioethanol processing, enzymes for biomass hydrolysis, total solution
for cellulosic ethanol production through our joint venture with
DuPont, the DC. Company, and production of hydrocarbon biofuels from
our BioIsoprene^TM platform. I believe this combination of
pioneer and thought leadership in anticipating what the technology and
customer needs could be and the persistence and tenacity to design and
build the products and processes to meet them distinguishes my record.

Mr. Baird. Great. Thank you, Dr. Sanford. I apologize for
the interruption. Those beeps or noises you heard are a call to
a vote. We have about 15 minutes. We are Pavlovian here. We
begin to salivate when we hear those.
Thank you to all the witnesses for the testimony. Dr.
Lipinski departed so that he can vote and then come back, and
our goal will be to try to keep the hearing going rather than
have a prolonged interruption while we go and congratulate
sports teams and name post offices.
I want to thank the witnesses, believe it or not, for their
expertise and their input. I will recognize myself for five
minutes, followed by Dr. Ehlers.
I am intrigued by this concept and excited by it. As I get
it, basically the idea is that we are going to--the new biology
refers to the integration, sort of cross-disciplinary
integration of lots of other fields--physics, chemistry,
computational technologies, engineering--and the report
suggests that one of the ways we develop this cross-
disciplinary new biology is to apply it to kind of `grand
challenges,' and that all makes good sense to me. So my
question is, NRC makes this report. Distinguished folks like
you folks seem to be behind it. The biological section of NSF
already receives a lot of money, a $767 million request for the
next year. What is going to happen? Do you think--and maybe Dr.
Collins, this is appropriate to ask you. Dr. Laubenbacher, you
seem to be working in an area where, actually, you are applying
this, as many of you do. But what happens to NSF now? Do they
look at this NRC report and say, by golly, these folks are
right, let us start focusing our research funding on this, or
do they keep in the same kind of channels they may have been
in?
Dr. Collins. Congressman, NSF played a role, actually, in
calling for the report. We were one of the agencies that were
involved in it, and in fact, we have already started to marshal
resources. I shouldn't say ``we'' since I am no longer with
NSF. But the Foundation has already started to marshal
resources along these lines--some of the things I referred to,
actually, in terms of these new ways to look at
interdisciplinarity. NSF has hired program officers jointly
between directorates, for example. The sandpit process that Dr.
Leonard referred to was one that we called for.
Mr. Baird. Give us a 15-second summary of a sandpit other
than children playing in sand. With five-year-olds, my mind
goes there.
Dr. Collins. So the sandpit is in fact the sandbox but it
is out of the United Kingdom. That is where we got it. So your
image is exactly the right image. We posted a question in
synthetic biology: give us your best ideas. A hundred and
seventy two-page applications came in, front page, what is your
idea, back page, a series of questions prepared by an
industrial psychologist--how well do you play in groups, for
example, interest in interdisciplinarity. A committee chose 30
of those individuals and they were all brought here, just
outside Washington, D.C., for a week, put together with program
offices for real-time review of their questions, and groups
were put together and matched within that week-long period. And
at the end of it, we got five to eight exciting proposals, some
funded by the United Kingdom, some funded by the NSF.
Mr. Baird. So get some really bright people who work well
together, get them together and set them loose?
Dr. Collins. Set them loose.
Mr. Baird. Neat.
Dr. Collins. And it was a really creative way, the sandpit,
sandbox, however you want to think about it. And we picked this
edgy, innovative area with emerging stuff that is rough, that
is right at the edges, and synthetic biology was the first
place that we went to, for all the reasons that are in the
report.
Mr. Baird. Got you. So NSF is already working on this. As
they are selecting their new person to replace your position,
that person presumably will be savvy to this integrated issue.
The other directors of other NSF programs are also on board?
Dr. Collins. They are, so when we decided to do this area
of synthetic biology in the sandpit, engineering came on board
very quickly, and then as the other directorates heard about
it, all of a sudden we had the social sciences in, we had
education and human resources, math and physical sciences. At
the end of the day, all the groups had a piece of it.
Mr. Baird. Great. How will this affect grant applications
and then how does it affect your training? You know, when I
used to chair at a psychology department, I had this fun idea
that we would just put all these disciplines and faculty
members in a hat and we would draw another discipline out, so I
might draw nursing faculty or chemistry faculty or PE and all
kinds of neat things would come. All the other faculty freaked
out. They said oh, we can't do that. It seemed to me pretty
exciting. But how is it affecting your educational enterprise
in preparing the students who will feed this new biology
effort?
Dr. Collins. So look, I think the real challenge is to get
students to be comfortable going into that sort of arena.
Faculty members, as I suggested in here, have to get much more
comfortable with lowering the barriers, much the way they are
often lowered in industry where folks can move around much more
easily.
Mr. Baird. Any others wish to comment on that? I have only
got about 40 seconds left, so Dr. Laubenbacher?
Dr. Laubenbacher. Yes. I think in terms of training, it
reminds me a little bit of the 1990s when we introduced
calculators into teaching calculus. It is difficult to teach an
old dog new tricks, as they say, and the students were far
ahead of the professors at that time, and I think similar
things will happen here, that students, as they grow up, if
they are provided with the right environment, they will be way
ahead in terms of interdisciplinary thinking.
Mr. Baird. Thank you.
I am going to recognize--thanks to all your answers. I have
to be brief, so I recognize Dr. Ehlers for five minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Your questions were so brilliant, Dr. Baird,
that they leave me wordless, so if you wish to pursue yours any
further, go ahead. I just want to say I found this very
enlightening, and I have got to wrap my mind around it a bit
more. But I really--what you are doing is wonderful and it is
what I would love to do if I could return to science today. It
is just so exciting to hear this again. It brings back the
memories of how exciting science was when I first encountered
it, and I would love to join you.
Mr. Baird. I do have a follow-up, and both Dr. Ehlers and I
are going to retire. Maybe, Vern, we should go back in and both
of us sign up and take this coursework if our aging brains
could--but, see, they will come up with a device that will
allow our aging brains to comprehend what they are doing.
Mr. Ehlers. Speak for yourself.
Mr. Baird. Oh, okay. Sorry.
On a more serious note, though, so I am very intrigued by
this issue of how we train people for this, because it is
already a pretty challenging thing to get a Ph.D. in biology.
Now you have got to somehow be able to interface with physics,
chemistry. I mean, there is already a certain base level of
awareness, et cetera, but are we going to need a longer amount
of time in the training process, or is there just a new way of
sort of wrapping one's head around the multidisciplinary
approach? And I open that to everybody but Dr. Yamamoto and
maybe Dr. Sanford, you can talk about how you are doing this in
your applied realm.
Dr. Yamamoto. Well, let me begin and say that I am hopeful
that not only will we not require more time for the training,
but we will require less. The training periods in biology have
gotten to be very extended to the point that investigators
don't really begin their independent work until in their 40s
and may have passed or at least lost some of the kind of age in
which they are doing their boldest thinking and their boldest
research. So hopefully the amount of time can come down. So the
question then, of course, is a very good one, and that is, how
can this happen? And I would say that there are two ways to
think about this. One is that we need increasingly to be
thinking about working in teams, that increasingly we will have
scientific endeavors that are carried out by groups of people
who don't share the same expertise but have enough familiarity
that they know the kinds of tools that are needed, the kinds of
experiments that need to be done, even though they themselves
may not know how to do them.
Mr. Baird. So it seems to me that needs to--not to pat
myself on the back, but that model I had of working at a very
early undergraduate age where you are just really used to
saying, okay, so I am a social science major, but this semester
I am taking a course with physics students--that needs to
happen very, very early on, so it is integrated into who you
are.
Dr. Yamamoto. Your model is exactly right, and so that in
the teaching of biology we need to be integrating some of these
physical principles that weren't really needed before. We have
passed through an era in which biology was mostly descriptive.
We were trying to identify all the characters, see what they
look like in the microscope, for example, and we have now
advanced to a point where we really need to understand in a
quantitative way how these things interact. And we are moving
on to being able to require the physical principles,
mathematical manipulations to be able to understand what these
things are. And students can comprehend that and understand it
early on and be able to integrate that learning. So it will be
teams, and a broader education from the outset, exactly as you
said.
Mr. Baird. I have got to run and vote, as probably does Dr.
Ehlers. Dr. Lipinski will resume the Chair. I apologize, I
won't be here to hear the answer. Any quick comment before I
go?
Dr. Sanford. Yes, I would emphasize the word ``teams,''
building interdisciplinary teams where the team has a
composition of the expertise required to solve the problem and
the problem is very important to help focus the attention of
the team members on working together.
Mr. Baird. Thank you.
Chairman Lipinski. The Chair will now recognize himself. I
will have the opportunity now to ask my questions and conclude
the hearing. I ran out there to vote to make sure that we could
have this time to conclude the hearing rather than have you sit
here probably waiting 45 minutes at least for us to finish with
our votes and give the opportunity for those members to ask
questions.
A couple things that I wanted to ask, and I will keep
watching. As soon as this vote ends, I am going to have to run
out of here quickly, finish up here, dismiss you and run out.
But a couple questions. First, a broad question, mainly for Dr.
Sanford and Dr. Leonard but for anyone else who has any--wants
to offer any views on this. How does the U.S. position in
synthetic biology compare to other nations? If we have an edge,
what are our primary obstacles to keeping that edge? Dr.
Sanford, why don't you start?
Dr. Sanford. Yes. My view is that the United States is
number one in the world in terms of leading this thrust around
synthetic biology, even defining the term and integrating the
disciplines that are required to make synthetic biology work.
Having said that, I think there is broad participation around
the world, and frankly there is much more eagerness that I see
on the part of students and numbers of students in other parts
of the world, that I think the United States needs to really
make the science and engineering, math and technology a number
one agenda for bringing students into this field versus
transaction specialists.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Leonard?
Dr. Leonard. I guess I can comment on an aspect that is
related to sort of the previous question as well, which has to
do with the undergraduate synthetic biology competition called
iGEM [international Genetically Engineered Machine], so this is
an international competition, and over the five years that it
has been around it has seen increasing international
participation. And the teams that participate from outside of
the United States are strong in taking the top prize several
years now going so there is a groundswell outside the United
States as well in interest in this area. So I would just second
Dr. Sanford's comment--that in my experience, it is still a
hotbed of activity and probably the majority of the driving
laboratories are currently in the United States, although there
is potential for competition and growth all over the world.
Chairman Lipinski. Do any other witnesses have any comments
on this?
Dr. Collins. Well, I think in terms of sustaining our edge,
it really does go to the comments that were made by all of us,
and that is, whatever can be done to facilitate the open
sharing of knowledge between different groups, whether it is
within departments in terms of universities or across our
Federal funding agencies, this openness is really going to be
important as far as powering something like synthetic biology
where you do need the basic biological information reinforced
by physicists, by engineers, mathematicians. And it is that
culture, that environment of innovation that--however we can
continue fostering that is going to be central to keeping the
edge in terms of synthetic biology.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Yamamoto.
Dr. Yamamoto. The New Biology report would suggest that by
enunciating these major challenge areas, that it will generate
the technologies that we need to be able to answer the
questions, and this was really the case when the decision was
made to put a man on the moon, the decision was made to
sequence the human genome. In neither of those cases, at the
time that the challenges were enunciated, were the technologies
available to actually achieve the goals, and it was by
enunciating the challenge and capturing the imagination of
scientists about the ways that they could contribute to these
challenges that those technologies became generated. And the
impact of being able to achieve those challenges has been
immeasurable.
There is an article in Nature magazine today about the
impact of sequencing the human genome that goes well beyond
being able to simply know the order of the nucleotides and the
genome, and so that is a long way of saying that I think that
the capacity for the United States to maintain a lead in
synthetic biology and these other areas could actually hinge on
the decision by our government, or by ourselves, to enunciate
these kinds of challenges, capture the imagination of
scientists as well as the public at large, in ways that they
can contribute. And that will certainly include this new,
exciting field of synthetic biology that really has a place, as
we heard, in each of these areas.
Chairman Lipinski. Following up a little bit on that, if a
new biology research initiative were created by the Federal
Government, what should be done to ensure that the private
sector is actively engaged and that the resulting research
discoveries are translated to the marketplace? Whoever wants to
start. Dr. Sanford?
Dr. Sanford. One of the very important elements of working
with universities, from a Genencor standpoint, is access and a
window into new technologies. And I would use SynBERC as an
example of such a consortium of not only universities, but
companies that can participate and exchange ideas and learn
together, also offer students training in the companies where
we use internships, for instance, in the summer to host some of
the SynBERC students, and this is a great way to get dialog and
the exchange of information of developers of the technology and
the users of the technology. Second, I think we have an
opportunity to make the legal system a little bit more
responsive and easier to negotiate in terms of licensing
technologies from the universities into companies.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Yamamoto, do you want to add
something?
Dr. Yamamoto. I think that one of the other key elements of
the New Biology report was the whole notion of cooperation
between agencies that are supporting life sciences research,
and we have entered an exciting--one of the ways to think about
the exciting area of biology that we have now entered is that
we have in place kind of--we have all the cards on the table.
You can play a different card game when you know that all the
cards are on the table, and that is really where we are now,
and having reached that, we can enunciate challenges that go
from the most fundamental sort of question to the capacity to
apply them. And I think the role that the government could play
in being able to contribute to this is to be able to make funds
available that will bring together these sectors. So one of the
things that the New Biology report talks about in particular is
different agencies within the Federal Government, over 20 of
them, as you know, that are supporting life sciences research,
being motivated by funding to be able to be working together--
funds available, for example, only for projects that require
the expertise of two or more Federal agencies. Exactly the same
sort of scheme could be used for bringing together the public
and private sector, and putting together exciting new decadal-
level challenge ideas that can be accomplished only through
application of fundamental research that takes place within
academia, and its development and application in the private
sector.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Collins.
Dr. Collins. In my written testimony, I alluded to an
article in Sunday's New York Times on these proof-of-concept
centers that are being tried at a variety of universities now
that have to do with funding ideas very early in the stream, as
far as getting them transferred into technology. Our funding
agencies could play a role there. That is a policy decision as
far as the government is concerned--where Federal money should
be used in crossing this so-called `valley of death' between an
idea and getting it into technology. But there is also a place,
as far as basic research organizations like the NSF is
concerned, for funding individuals who want to study this
entire process of moving from idea into technology. Upstream,
how do you get it started, and downstream, what are the
conditions under which it is successful or not successful, and
what can we learn from both of those sorts of things? So it
seems to me there are a variety of places where this could be
thought through, both in terms of injecting funds, but also
studying the process itself and how it works.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Laubenbacher.
Dr. Laubenbacher. I think synthetic biology is a real
poster child for the kind of research that the National
Academies' report advocates, and I think everything that the
members of this witness panel have talked about apply to it,
and in particular as Dr. Leonard mentioned, the iGEM
competition is an incredibly good tool to get students excited.
We have one of those. We field a team at our institute, and it
has been terrific to watch.
In terms of making sure that the fruits of basic research
get turned into products that actually help society, I think
that, again, synthetic biology in other areas--for example, I
am a bit familiar with research done by pharmaceutical
companies. As basic research becomes very important, I think
there will be more opportunities for research collaborations
between companies and academics that do not involve IP issues,
and intellectual property is, in many cases, the stumbling
block between successful--for successful collaborations.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you.
One very quick, and if I can get an answer quickly from Dr.
Sanford and maybe you want to follow up in a written form, how
well do you think the current regulatory guidelines apply to
synthetic genomics? Do we need a different set of guidelines
for synthetic genomics relative to natural genomics?
Dr. Sanford. Yes, I do. I think that is true. We do need
additional guidelines with regard to synthetic biology. One
example is that in the regulatory terminology there is no such
thing as a chassis. What is used as a host strain would be
another terminology. So when a synthetic biology company brings
forward to their regulatory experts terminologies that they are
not familiar with and that really don't have a track record,
probably at the very least, the regulatory trail is now
complicated and lengthened. So I think there is an opportunity
here to get ahead of the wave, so to speak, and do some
definitions and some exchange of information with regulatory
experts to get advice on how to do this without undue problems.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you for being quick there.
Anything else you want to add, I would appreciate a follow-up
in writing if there is anything else you want to add to that
answer. But I want to thank all the witnesses today for their
testimony. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional statements from the Members and for answers to any
follow-up questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses. It
was a very good hearing and we had--despite all the
competition, we had a good turnout of Members and I expect
there will be some follow-up questions to this, and with that,
the witnesses are excused and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Appendix 1:

----------

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Responses by Dr. Keith Yamamoto, Chair, National Academy of Sciences'
Board on Life Sciences, and Professor, Cellular and Molecular
Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco

Questions submitted by Representative Brian P. Bilbray

Q1. Assuming a national Electronic Medical Records (EMR)
infrastructure is eventually developed, what are the existing
impediments to the future utilization of EMR data for research?

A1. We are very far from a national EMR, but it is an important and
worthy goal that could have enormous impact for both health and
research. A range of potential impediments to utilization of EMR data
for research would need to be recognized and addressed:

a. Privacy/Security. Robust, broad-based but stratified
consenting for collection, archiving, accessing different
categories of information, tissues, etc. coupled with assurance
of appropriate protection of information.

b. Access. Standardization of identifiers for medical care
purposes; mechanisms for removal of identifiers for many
research purposes; firewall separation of different categories
of information for access by different stakeholders and
interested parties: the individual subject of record, emergency
medical personnel, clinical caretakers (primary and
subspecialists), insurers, researchers.

c. Standardization. Information fields; nomenclature;
preservation, fixation, storage, recovery and distribution
protocols for tissues/fluids/images/molecules

d. Scope. Range of information and materials to be included;
ongoing updating of information and materials for longitudinal
analysis.

e. Integration. Systems and network computational
methodologies for organization and analysis of multiple classes
of information--pathophysiological, epidemiological,
behavioral, histological/imaging, molecular.

Q2. Unfortunately, the capacity to quickly generate enormous amounts
of data has grown far more rapidly than our investments in mid-level
cyber-infrastructure--e.g. high-performance computers, mass storage,
and database development and support. Are there opportunities to
promote increased efficiency regarding our investments in cyber-
infrastructure, especially as the capacity to generate data continues
to soar?

A2. The two largest barriers to efficient utilization of research data,
databases and material repositories are lack of standards and enforced
access/sharing of information/materials at appropriate times/levels.
The Federal Government, via the power of funding, could potentially
address both problems, but setting of missions, standards and funding
are currently fragmented (e.g., life sciences research is supported by
>20 Federal agencies with separate budgets, overlapping but commonly
competing missions) across agencies that often themselves host multiple
noninteractive information systems. If project funding was made
conditional, dependent upon agreements to share information and
materials, and to provide information access through a common data
platform, these barriers could be significantly ameliorated.

Q3. How do you envision the ``new biology'' approach achieving a
reasonable balance between funding fundamental basic science and
applied research?

A3. President Obama has established clearly the rationale for sustained
commitment of public support of basic science: ``An investigation . . .
might not pay off for a year, or a decade, or at all. And when it does,
the rewards are . . . enjoyed by those who bore its costs, but also by
those who did not. That's why the private sector under-invests in basic
science--and why the public sector must invest in this kind of
research.'' Hence, while the opportunities for translation and
application of fundamental discoveries clearly deserve attention and
require focus, Federal funding must also maintain a central focus on
basic research; the NIH, for example, has long maintained a ratio of
approximately 60:25:15 for basic:translational:clinical research. The
New Biology report describes three strategies to help ensure that the
funding balance effectively promotes and achieves applications of
fundamental discoveries:

a. Enunciate and adopt decadal challenges to inspire and focus
efforts extending from discovery to application on urgent
societal needs in the areas of health, energy, food and the
environment.

b. Better recognize the unity of biology, and thus the
potential for basic science advances or applications in one
area to contribute to others, by developing programs that
facilitate and drive cooperative research programs across two
or more agencies that address questions not otherwise
accessible by a single agency.

c. Establish new models for public-private research ventures
that reduce barriers in the continuum from basic discovery in
academia to development and application in industry.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Karl Sanford, Vice President, Technology Development,
Genencor

Questions submitted by Chairman Daniel Lipinski

Q1. How well do you think the current regulatory guidelines apply to
synthetic genomics? Do we need a different set of guidelines for
synthetic genomics relative to natural genomics?

A1. At the conclusion of the oral testimonies of the invited witnesses
at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education on 21st
Century Biology, on June 29, 2010, Subcommittee Chairman Daniel
Lipinski (D-IL) invited additional input regarding regulatory
implications on this subject matter. Specifically, Mr. Lipinski asked
how the current regulatory guidelines apply to synthetic genomics, and
whether we need a different set of guidelines for synthetic genomics
relative to natural genomics. We respectfully submit this additional
perspective.
The new biology for the 21st century builds upon the existing
regulatory framework that has provided for the safe and effective
development, manufacture and use of many bio-products that are in
commerce today across the health, food, agricultural and industrial
sectors. We anticipate continued rapid advancement in this field due to
many factors; the ongoing development of DNA synthesis and sequencing
technologies, more efficient molecular and microbiology methods and
continued integration of nano- and information technologies. In
addition, synthetic biology will catalyze the transformation of biology
to an engineering discipline through design and construction of
standardized, integrated biological parts, components and systems
broadening the potential for private sector applications. All of these
advances will shorten product development times and accelerate the pace
of innovation, improving economic outcomes for the private sector
thereby improving our nation's ability to compete in the global economy
based on a `faster, better and cheaper' model.
As Synthetic Biology is an emerging field, it is still too early to
know precisely what will be required to ensure that the science is
conducted in a safe and ethical manner and that any products resulting
from it are also safe. However, past models offer insight into how we
should move forward in a collaborative, productive manner to ensure our
dual goals of safety and continued innovation. To guide the regulatory
process of 21st Century Biology, we submit three major points for
consideration:

The Golden Triangle of information technology,
biotechnology and nanotechnology, described by the President's
Innovation and Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) can be
used as a guide to identify agencies and individuals who
understand the science behind innovations as well as its
ramifications with regard to safety and ethics.

Government can also utilize the model of study and
policy formation that was carried out for biotechnology in the
early 1980s by the FDA, USDA, OSHA and EPA. The proposed
policies published by the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology,
FR 51 (123): 23302-23393, June 26, 1986, allowed industry and
interested persons to comment and resulted in the final
biotechnology regulatory policies and rules which proved vital
in helping guide the science and industry forward.

In addition, the NIH Guidelines for Research
Involving Recombinant DNA molecules, instituted to assure safe
use of rDNA technology in research, may need to be modified to
include the new concepts of synthetic biology. (Please see:
http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/guidelines-02/
NIH-Guidelines-Apr
-02.htm) Also, EPA's TSCA biotechnology regulation
is based on the concept that intergeneric microorganisms are
new. It is therefore a specific regulation which will also need
revision to include the concepts of synthetic biology. (Please
see: http://www.epa.gov/biotech-rule/index.htm)

Due to the above described existing framework, we do not recommend
the formation of a new agency or regulation at this time, but strongly
suggest that key individuals from the existing agencies are involved in
the process of identifying risks and safeguards in order to arrive at
well-informed decisions on modifications of existing guidelines.
In summary, given the number of unknowns and the many facets of New
Biology, close collaboration between industry, academia and regulators
is required to ensure all decisions made are from a well-informed
position, are based on sound science, and with international
coordination (e.g., the EU has ongoing discussions on synthetic
biology: link http://ec.europa.eu/research/biotechnology/ec-us/
workshop-on-standards-in-synthetic-biology-2009-en.cfm) as
this new field of science is emerging quickly in many regions of the
world. This close collaboration will ensure that together we can
explore the science involved, anticipate new technologies or
combinations of technologies, discuss potential outcomes, identify any
new ethical and safety issues that require guidance and begin to craft
any new regulatory modifications that are identified. As the committee
heard during the testimony on June 29th, this new frontier offers many
promising developments for a more sustainable future. We look forward
to working with regulators and our colleagues in academia to ensure
that the appropriate safeguards are in place so synthetic biology can
flourish in the 21st century and bring forth the many promising
advancements it holds to the people of the United States and the world.

Appendix 2:

----------

Additional Material for the Record

Statement of Dr. James Sullivan, Vice President for Pharmaceutical
Discovery, Abbott Laboratories

I am pleased to submit this statement for the record for the
hearing entitled, ``21st Century Biology.'' The purpose of this
statement is to highlight the importance of a new trend of
interdisciplinary research--what we call ``new biology''--and state my
support for the National Research Council's call for a multi agency,
multidisciplinary new biology initiative, so we can more fully explore
the potential of this field.
``New biology'' lies at the intersection of the fields of
biological sciences, engineering, mathematics, and the physical
sciences--and its utility is apparent in the novel tools that are now
available to the biotechnology industry. These ``new biology'' tools
are driving medical innovation in not only the discovery of the
pathways that underlie complex diseases, but also in the creation of
new and better therapies.
As a pharmaceutical scientist at Abbott, I have firsthand knowledge
of the importance of ``new biology.'' I work to create treatments that
address significant medical problems. It is a goal that is easy to
articulate, and vastly more difficult to achieve. Additionally, the way
we meet this goal has evolved over time as our understanding of
biological processes grows.
Over the past century, the pharmaceutical industry has been able to
create breakthrough treatments for some of the world's most devastating
diseases. In the past 40 years alone, for example, new drugs that help
control blood pressure and normalize lipid levels have helped cut in
half the number of deaths from heart disease, and reduce by 70 percent
the incidence of stroke. Scientific discoveries from Abbott's own
laboratories have been key elements in the transformation of HIV
infection from a death sentence to a more manageable chronic disease.
Over the years, as scientists have gained a more comprehensive
understanding of the molecular interactions that underlie biologic
processes, we in the pharmaceutical industry have been focused on
discovering medicines that treat disease by interacting with a single
protein, or target, involved in the disease process. We've developed
complex technologies to help us identify appropriate targets, built
chemical compounds designed to interact with those targets, and then
rapidly screened hundreds of thousands of potential compounds in an
effort to identify likely candidates for further study. We've developed
incredibly detailed computer models to help us better predict the way
these compounds will behave in the body. We have more ways than ever
before to generate data and more experts than ever before to analyze
that data to drive the creation of new drug molecules. The process of
creating new medicines is now the ultimate team sport. It requires
coordinated efforts from experts in multiple disciplines, from
biochemists and pharmacologists, to MDs and engineers.
A current ongoing program at Abbott provides a useful example. We
are one of many companies working to develop more effective treatments
for Hepatitis C infection, a condition that impacts more than 70
million people worldwide. Abbott is developing a compound that blocks
the activity of a key enzyme involved in the replication of the
hepatitis C virus (HCV). The challenge here is that some molecules that
are most effective at blocking this enzyme, (HCV polymerase) can
exhibit a high degree of adverse events. Our task was to design a
molecule that was effective against HCV without causing those adverse
events. We started with thousands of possibilities that needed to be
evaluated. This required the use of high-throughput screening
technologies; nuclear magnetic resonance and x-ray crystallography to
better understand the protein structures we were dealing with; and
sophisticated molecular modeling techniques to design a series of
molecules that blocked the polymerase. But we weren't finished. That
series was then screened using another multi-disciplinary approach that
draws on cellular biology and systems engineering to rapidly eliminate
compounds that may cause cardiac adverse events. This process
represents a multi-year effort that brought us to the point where we
could advance a compound into the clinic (treating patients)--where we
have an industry average 1-in-10 chance of creating a viable medicine
for patients.
And the process is only getting more complex. Diseases like cancer,
schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease have proven difficult to treat
because they involve the interactions of multiple, interdependent
proteins designed to interact with multiple targets, increasing the
complexity of the discovery process exponentially. Without putting the
necessary resources into fields like ``new biology,'' we will not have
the tools or the scientists capable of generating treatments for these
complex, devastating diseases.
At Abbott, our research program has established a strong paradigm
for multidisciplinary research, one that relies on the coordination and
integration of expertise from a variety of fields. But finding
solutions to the increasingly complex problems we face today is beyond
the scope of any single institution's efforts. We need to ensure that
we have an integrated systems approach to biologic science that spans
academia, biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry. This is why,
as a scientist deeply interested in the next generation of medical
research, I believe we need to support the National Research Council's
proposal for a multi agency, multidisciplinary new biology initiative.