Ac version 3 Observation 1: sq 4

Disad Answers

Dip Cap D.A.

S&T Leadership Solves

S&T Leadership Solves the internals to your disad – makes U.S. diplomacy more effective

Committee on Science and Technology 8 – subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and technology, House of Representatives, 110 Congress (“International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)//RH

Science and technology were closely tied to American diplomacy in the early years after the founding of the United States. In fact, the first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, was also designated the administrator of the Nation's first patent law, and the first efforts to establish a bureau of weights and measures were also associated with the Department of State. By the 1830's, this close relationship between diplomats and scientists seems to have diminished. It was not until World War II that science and technology (S&T) once again began to play a prominent role in the State Department. Nevertheless, the U.S. continued to engage in international science and technology cooperation for other purposes. For example, the first International Polar Year, a coordinated international effort to collect and analyze data about the polar regions, occurred in 1882-83. We are currently in the middle of the third International Polar Year. There are a number of reasons why the United States has and will continue to engage in international science and technology (S&T) cooperation, including: to strengthen U.S. science by providing our own scientists access to the best scientists and research sites around the world; to enable construction of and participation in prohibitively expensive world-class research facilities (either on U.S. soil or foreign sites) by partnering with foreign countries to leverage their funds and scientific talent; to address U.S. interests in global matters, such as non-proliferation, water resources, climate change and infectious diseases, in part by ensuring that foreign and international (e.g., U.N.) decision-makers have access to the best science; to help build technological capacity and address health and resource crises in other countries in order to help maintain U.S. national security and economic interests; and to help build more positive relationships with other countries - what is often called ``science diplomacy.'' This is certainly not an exhaustive list nor the only way to break down the rationale for engaging in international S&T cooperation. One former State Department official prefers the following categories: science for science's sake; science for the decision-maker; science for development; and science for diplomacy. The witnesses for this hearing are likely to provide their own lists of reasons why the Federal Government broadly, or their respective agencies specifically, engage in S&T cooperation. In addition to the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), every federal agency that either does its own research or funds academic research (or in most cases, both) supports international S&T cooperation, including Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Commerce (includes NIST and NOAA), and Health and Human Services (includes NIH) as well as NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the President on matters of science and technology as they relate to international issues, and provides intellectual support to the Department of State and USAID on S&T matters. State and USAID also turn to NSF and the mission agencies for intellectual input on S&T-related issues that fall within those agencies' areas of expertise, such as health, energy or water. The mission agencies, on the other hand, turn to the Department of State for assistance in negotiating formal agreements with other nations.

Politics

Regulations Unpopular

Passing regulations faces a tough debate – solvency take-out

Lin 6 [Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, based at California Polytechnic State University, “Nanotechnology Bound: Evaluating the Case for More Regulation” Nanoethics 31 March 2007, pg. SpringerLink, 105-122]//PP

Moreover, even if stricter laws and regulations are ultimately justified, there are good reasons to think that they cannot be enacted anyway, or at least face stiff resistance with lawmakers and regulatory agencies, particularly in the US. Clarence Davies, the author of the Woodrow Wilson International Center report that sparked today’s stricter-law debate, even admits that: “In the U.S. political system, it has never been easy to pass new laws regulating commercial products. In the current political climate, it is close to impossible” [40]. Changing regulatory policy is likewise a formidable challenge. That is to say, the US legislative and regulatory systems are notorious for being complicated and mired in debate, so barring an urgent need – which many believe has not yet been established for nanomaterials – it does not seem optimistic to think that new laws or stronger regulations can be enacted in the near future, even if needed. But perhaps we can suggest a simpler solution here.

Nano Unpop: Science Fiction

Nanotech is unpopular – resistance to change in congress, dismissed as science fiction

Treder 07 – Executive Director for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (Mike, “Congress and the Singularity”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 3/31/2007, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2007/03/congress_and_th.html)//BD

"Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think" is the title of a report [PDF] published this month by Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Ranking Member of the Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress. The paper, authored by Dr. Joseph Kennedy, Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University, says:¶ Enhanced abilities to understand and manipulate matter at the molecular and atomic levels promise a wave of significant new technologies over the next five decades. Dramatic breakthroughs will occur in diverse areas such as medicine, communications, computing, energy, and robotics. These changes will generate large amounts of wealth and force wrenching changes in existing markets and institutions.¶ And that's just the beginning of a surprisingly stark assessment of nanotechnology's transformative potential. The first section opens with this paragraph:¶ In 1970 Alvin Toffler, noted technologist and futurist, argued that the acceleration of technological and social change was likely to challenge the capacity of both individuals and institutions to understand and to adapt to it. Although the world has changed a great deal since then, few would argue that the pace of change has had the discontinuous effects that Toffler predicted. However, rapid advances in a number of fields, collectively known as nanotechnology, make it possible that Mr. Toffler’s future has merely been delayed. In fact, some futurists now talk about an unspecified date sometime around the middle of this century when, because of the accelerating pace of technology, life will be radically different than at any prior time.¶ Yes, it is "The Singularity" that's being alluded to there. In a later section, the report describes it this way:¶ Every exponential curve eventually reaches a point where the growth rate becomes almost infinite. This point is often called the Singularity. If technology continues to advance at exponential rates, what happens after 2020? Technology is likely to continue, but at this stage some observers forecast a period at which scientific advances aggressively assume their own momentum and accelerate at unprecedented levels, enabling products that today seem like science fiction. Beyond the Singularity, human society is incomparably different from what it is today. Several assumptions seem to drive predictions of a Singularity. The first is that continued material demands and competitive pressures will continue to drive technology forward. Second, at some point artificial intelligence advances to a point where computers enhance and accelerate scientific discovery and technological change. In other words, intelligent machines start to produce discoveries that are too complex for humans. Finally, there is an assumption that solutions to most of today’s problems including material scarcity, human health, and environmental degradation can be solved by technology, if not by us, then by the computers we eventually develop.¶ It is remarkable to find officials at this level of the U.S. government, or any large government, openly discussing dramatic possibilities that most often are dismissed as science fiction. However, the report does caution about making an uncritical assumption that suddenly "everything will change":¶ Looking forward, science is likely to continue outrunning expectations, at least in the medium-term. Although science may advance rapidly, technology and daily life are likely to change at a much slower pace for several reasons. First, it takes time for scientific discoveries to become embedded into new products, especially when the market for those products is uncertain. Second, both individuals and institutions can exhibit a great deal of resistance to change. Because new technology often requires significant organizational change and cost in order to have its full effect, this can delay the social impact of new discoveries. For example, computer technology did not have a noticeable effect on economic productivity until it became widely integrated into business offices and, ultimately, business processes. It took firms over a decade to go from replacing the typewriters in their office pools to rearranging their entire supply chains to take advantage of the Internet

Nano Unpop: Controversy

Nanotech is controversial – empirics prove

Piper 13 – Freelance Journalist (Arthur, “The Big Risk of Small Particles: The Threats and Promise of Nanotechnology”, Risk Management Magazine, 4/9/2013, http://www.rmmagazine.com/2013/04/09/the-big-risk-of-small-particles-the-threats-and-promise-of-nanotechnology/)//BD

“Until risk assessment for nanomaterials is validated and fit-for-purpose detection methods are developed, we do not support the commercial sale of nano-sunscreens,” said Georgia Miller, the author of the report.¶ There have been similar arguments about nanotechnology in other fields. Five years ago, it was nanosilver. In 2008, an alliance of health and environmental campaigners filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against manufacturers of nanosilver products. It argued that the substance, which is used in washing machines, among other things, could increase the toxicity of waterways.¶ Before that, it was carbon nanotubes, which are used in medical equipment, building materials, sporting goods and vehicles but may also have the potential to cause cancer. And in 2003, the U.S. Congress became embroiled in a bitter fight about the definition, uses and risks associated with such technologies. Everywhere it is found, this tiny technology seems to cause trouble.

Nano Unpop: Morality

Nanotech is unpopular in America – religious and moral views

Science Daily 08 – Research article based on research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (“Religion Colors Americans’ Views of Nanotechnology”, Science Daily, 2/17/2008, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215151215.htm)//BD

Is nanotechnology morally acceptable? For a significant percentage of Americans, the answer is no, according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small.¶ 7¶ Addressing scientists Feb. 15, 2008 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, presented new survey results that show religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.¶ "Our data show a much lower percentage of people who agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable in the U.S. than in Europe," says Scheufele, an expert on public opinion and science and technology.¶ Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules. The ability to engineer matter at that scale has the potential to produce a vast array of new technologies that could influence everything from computers to medicine. Already, dozens of products containing nanoscale materials or devices are on the market.¶ In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.¶ In European surveys that posed identical questions about nanotechnology to people in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology. In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.¶ "There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe, in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology," says Scheufele.¶ Why the big difference?¶ The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."¶ The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.¶ He conducted the U.S. survey with Arizona State University (ASU) colleague Elizabeth Corley under the auspices of the National Science Foundation-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU.¶ The moral qualms people of faith express about nanotechnology is not a question of ignorance of the technology, says Scheufele, explaining that survey respondents are well-informed about nanotechnology and its potential benefits.¶ "They still oppose it," he says. "They are rejecting it based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people. They are informed."¶ The new study has critical implications for how experts explain the technology and its applications, Scheufele says. It means the scientific community needs to do a far better job of placing the technology in context and in understanding the attitudes of the American public.¶ The survey was undertaken in the summer of 2007 by the UW-Madison Survey Center and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.¶

Nano Popular: Various

Nanotech is empirically popular – Clinton and Bush administration, war on terrorism, NSF, military projects prove

Keiper 03 – Managing editor of the New Atlantis which is a journal of Science and Technology (Adam, “The Nanotech Revolution”, The New Atlantis, Summer 2003, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-nanotechnology-revolution)//BD

The Politics of Nanotech¶ So far, no nanotech businesses have adopted the Foresight Guidelines — after all, most firms are working on mainstream nanotech, not the riskier kind. Besides, nanotech companies have no motivation to regulate themselves, since it seems unlikely that they will be regulated by government any time soon. But this may change as the politics of nanotechnology begin to take shape.¶ Some agencies in the federal government have been involved in nanotechnology since at least the early 1980s, most notably the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. By 1997, the federal government was annually investing $116 million in nanotech; that figure had doubled by 1999.¶ In 2000, the Clinton Administration pushed for more subsidies for nanotech and the creation of a National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) that would coordinate the nanotech work of six different agencies. President Clinton alluded to nanotechnology in that January’s State of the Union Address, when he spoke of “materials ten times stronger than steel at a fraction of the weight, and — this is unbelievable to me — molecular computers the size of a teardrop with the power of today’s fastest supercomputers.” His administration worked hard to sell the proposal to Congress; as one official from the Clinton White House told Scientific American, “You need to come up with new, exciting, cutting-edge, at-the-frontier things in order to convince the budget- and policy-making apparatus to give you more money.”¶ Congress couldn’t resist, and the NNI was approved with an initial budget of $422 million. President Bush, in the first year of his administration, asked for another hundred million dollars for nanotech, and added another handful of agencies to the NNI. Bush’s budget proposals for FY2003 and FY2004 further boosted the nanotech budget — despite the flagging economy and the war on terrorism. (In fact, some NNI proponents have used the war on terrorism to make the case for increasing nanotech funding; they say nanotech research can help build tools to detect weapons of mass destruction.)¶ Flush with nanotech cash, the National Science Foundation recently started a program to teach high school and elementary school students about nanotechnology, “with introduction to preliminary concepts as early as kindergarten,” according to the Christian Science Monitor. “Business, industry, and higher-education leaders agree, saying early education gives students a jump on a job market many expect to blossom in the future.”¶ Perhaps the most prominent federal entity under the NNI umbrella is the Department of Defense, which in May unveiled its new $50 million Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at M.I.T. The Institute, which treats soldiers as “integrated platform systems” rather than human beings, will bring together M.I.T. scientists, military officers, and researchers from private industry to develop lighter, stronger clothes and equipment for the Army. Some of the projects being suggested include an “exoskeleton” or “dynamic armor,” which could become hard or soft at a soldier’s command, and other clothes that could store energy — like the energy wasted in every footstep — and employ it later to give the soldier superhuman strength. All the technologies being developed at the Institute — like all other nanotech projects publicly acknowledged by the Defense Department — are essentially defensive, not offensive, in nature, so they are unlikely to incite opposition.¶

Nano Popular: No opp

No opposition to Nanotech and plan is popular – Gingrich and NanoBusiness Alliance support

Keiper 03 – Managing editor of the New Atlantis which is a journal of Science and Technology (Adam, “The Nanotech Revolution”, The New Atlantis, Summer 2003, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-nanotechnology-revolution)//BD
At the same time, because the benefits of nanotechnology are still largely uncertain, there is not yet a natural constituency for nanotech legislation — except for the nanotech companies themselves. They are represented by the New York-based NanoBusiness Alliance, a trade group founded in 2001 by F. Mark Modzelewski, who acts as the Alliance’s executive director. Modzelewski, who modeled his group after the Biotechnology Industry Organization, was a low-ranking official in the Clinton Administration — which hasn’t stopped him from making Newt Gingrich, that starry-eyed technophile, the Alliance’s honorary chairman. Gingrich told the Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report that he believes that “those countries that master the process of nanoscale manufacturing and engineering will have a huge job boom over the next twenty years, just like aviation and computing companies in the last forty years, and just as railroad, steam engine and textile companies were decisive in the nineteenth century.”¶ Since the politics of nanotechnology are still immature, there is no prominent opponent of nanotechnology in the nation’s capital or even a unifying rationale for such opposition. The most organized opposition to nanotechnology has come from the ETC Group, a liberal Canadian environmental outfit that has published a series of harshly critical reports on nanotechnology — some of them detailed and provocative. In late July, Greenpeace issued its first report on nanotechnology, with ambiguous conclusions. [Available in PDF here.] A few other environmentalist groups have spoken out against nanotechnology, but there hasn’t yet been any movement comparable to the massive international campaigns against genetically modified foods. It is safe to speculate that these leftist groups will in time coalesce into an anti-nanotech front, using the rhetoric of anti-corporatism and environmental extremism to make their case. They will likely be opposed by the techno-libertarian and patient advocacy groups who presently support human cloning and embryonic stem cell research, and by the mainstream political establishment, at both the national and state levels, which sees nanotech as a way to boost the economy.¶

Nano Popular: Congres, Orgs

Strong support for nanotech – organizations, congressional support, grand challenges

Keiper 03 – Managing editor of the New Atlantis which is a journal of Science and Technology (Adam, “The Nanotech Revolution”, The New Atlantis, Summer 2003, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-nanotechnology-revolution)//BD
If still unformed, however, there is reason to believe that public debate about nanotech is about to take off — with two new nanotech organizations founded in just the past year. The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, run by a social activist and a nanosystems theorist, has been cranking out publications since January. “What we want,” says Chris Phoenix, one of the Center’s founders, “is to see molecular nanotechnology policy developed and implemented with a care appropriate to its powerful and probably transformative nature.” And two Washingtonians — a futurist and an antitrust lawyer — are in the process of launching the Nanotechnology Policy Forum to improve the quality of public discourse about nanotech. They intend to host events every few months, and to stay scrupulously evenhanded: the advisory panel planned for the organization will include both friends and foes of nanotech — as well as present and former congressmen.¶ Congress also seems slightly more attuned to the need for debate about nanotechnology. Plans are afoot in both the House and the Senate to fund studies of the social, economic, and environmental implications of nanotechnology.¶ Also, legislation currently wending its way through Congress would establish “grand challenges” for nanotechnology: long-term objectives akin to President Kennedy’s goal of putting a man on the Moon. [See S. 189 in the Senate, and H.R. 283 in the House.] While it isn’t at all clear at this stage that nanotechnology can capture the imagination of the public like the Moon missions did, there is one obvious goal that would make an excellent “grand challenge” — a goal presently overlooked in all the millions of federal dollars going to nanotech: the assembler breakthrough. And just as the Apollo missions to the Moon were preceded by missions with incremental goals (achieved by the Mercury and Gemini programs), an ambitious nanotechnology project aspiring to make the world’s first assembler could also set intermediate goals, like the creation of a basic nanoscale computer or a nanoscale robotic arm. But the National Nanotechnology Initiative is so focused on developing mainstream nanotech that Drexler’s nanotechnology has found neither a great advocate nor a great critic.¶ The Challenge Ahead

Nano Bipart

Nanotech has bipartisan support – Empirical funding, support from congress and the president

Sargent 08 - Specialist in Science and Technology Policy: Resources, Science, and Industry Division (John, “Nanotechnology and U.S. Competitiveness: Issues and Options”, CRS Report for Congress, 3/15/2008, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34493.pdf)//BD

The federal government has played a central role in catalyzing U.S. R&D efforts. In 2000, President Clinton launched the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the world’s first integrated national effort focused on nanotechnology. The NNI has enjoyed strong, bipartisan support from the executive branch, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Each year, the President has proposed increased funding for federal nanotechnology R&D, and each year Congress has provided additional funding. Since the inception of the NNI, Congress has appropriated a total of $8.4 billion for nanotechnology R&D intended to foster continued U.S. technological leadership and to support the technology’s development, with the long-term goals of: creating high-wage jobs, economic growth, and wealth creation; addressing critical national needs; renewing U.S. manufacturing leadership; and improving health, the environment, and the overall quality of life.

USAID Unpop

USAID links to politics – requires congressional earmarks for projects

Committee for Science and Technology 06 – Committee on science and technology in Foreign Assistance in the Office for Central Europe and Eurasia Developent, Security, and Cooperation Policy and Global Affairs (The Fundamental Role of Science and Technology in International Development, pg31)//BD

Within this myriad of expanding activities. USAID has unique and broad legislative authority for bilateral foreign assistance programs, but its role in carrying out this authority is increasingly determined by congressional earmarks and White House initiatives. As indicated in Table I-5. many of these special programs are based in large measure on S&T. Earmarks and initiatives will undoubtedly continue to play an important role in determining the priorities for USAID and, indeed, in sustaining important programs. For example, earmarks in human reproduction, child health. and population have helped to maintain a balance in the overall health portfolio increasingly focused on HIV/AIDS. Nevertheless. some earmarks may be low-payoff distractions. USAID should ensure that all earmarked programs are subjected to external evaluation. along with other USAID-supported programs. to assess whether they are contributing effectively to foreign assistance objectives. When the special interest programs prove not to be cost-effective or support only narrow and relatively insignificant objectives. the White House and Congress should be informed promptly (see Box l-12). Since S&T are integral components of many foreign assistance activities. consideration of USAID's efforts to draw on the nation`s S&T capabilities in carrying out its programs must begin with consideration of USAID's broader role in foreign assistance. To this end, the committee considered the three models set forth below that could define USAID's role during the next few years. particularly with regard to development assistance, The committee recognized that programs to provide humanitarian assistance. disaster relief. and reconstruction in war-torn regions might require somewhat different models that emphasize greater flexibility and more rapid deployment.

S&T Bipart

Science programs are bipartisan – Science, Space, and Technology committee, lack of budget cuts prove

Jones 13 – Writer for the government divisions division for the American Institute of physics (Richard, “Controversy on House Committee”, American Institute of Physics, 5/2/13, http://www.aip.org/fyi/2013/080.html#)//BD

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has traditionally been known as one of the most bipartisan committees in the House. While there have been disagreements about budgets and policy – such as the 2010 reauthorization of the America COMPETES legislation – the committee has generally been able to separate itself from the atmosphere found in most committee rooms and on the House floor. Recent developments indicate a change in this approach.¶ An early indication occurred last summer when the full House considered the FY 2013 appropriations bill funding the National Science Foundation. Initial remarks from the chairmen and ranking members of the House Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Science Committee reaffirmed the broad and bipartisan nature of congressional support for science. That was largely reaffirmed when the House voted against an amendment to cut the foundation’s budget by $1.2 billion. There was a definite shift when the House voted largely along party lines to eliminate funding for NSF’s Climate Change Education Program and NSF’s Political Science Program. In response, the American Institute of Physics and several of its Member Societies were among those signing a letter sent to the Senate opposing “legislative attempts to micromanage NSF and undermine the merit review process by singling out specific programs for elimination as recently occurred in the House.”

Nano Lobbies Push

Nanotech lobbies are pushing for the plan

Hearst 08 – Newspaper corporation (“Nanotech Firms Lobby Congress”, Arkansas Online, 3/3/2008, http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/mar/03/nanotech-firms-lobby-congress-support/)//BD

WASHINGTON — Roughly two dozen nanotechnology companies and other experts went to Capitol Hill last week to show off their wares and send Congress a message: Nanotechnology is about a whole lot more than computer chips.¶ Supporters of more federal aid for nanotechnology, the science and engineering of products on an extremely small scale, say this is the next industrial frontier. Scientists and entrepreneurs argue that the burgeoning industry needs more federal funding for the United States to stay ahead of global competitors.