 |
Oct. 5, 2004 – Although nobody predicts a MEMS sequel to the nanotechnology bill signed into law last year, some small-tech leaders say it is the right time for micro to raise its profile in Washington.
Nanotech’s bigger, older cousin has real revenues coming from major players like Texas Instruments, Analog Devices and Bosch. The industry also has a history of financial and moral support from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
 |
Yet the MEMS industry largely finds itself in the public shadow of nano, a broader and potentially more disruptive technology, said Roger Howe, an engineering professor at University of California, Berkeley, and director of the Berkeley Sensor and Actuator Center.
“We need to manage our MEMS brand,” said Howe, who pressed his case last week at METRIC, a two-day annual meeting of the MEMS Industry Group (MIG) held in Pittsburgh.
“Nano people did a better job lobbying this field. … We need to have that person to reside inside the Beltway.”
Howe said the MEMS industry’s representation in Washington largely has been “volunteer lobbyists,” such as national laboratory or academic leaders who serve posts on a rotating basis, such as DARPA’s program manager for microsystems. While that has helped keep funding flowing for specific projects, it has not brought larger awareness or recognition for microscale solutions among lawmakers.
That could lead to money for major research and development centers and job creation in the legislators’ home districts — both of which have benefited the nano side.
For example, Howe said, MEMS-based sensors might be a research theme for a proposed facility funded by the Department of Homeland Security. A D.C.-based advocate could clearly and effectively communicate the role MEMS could play in such a proposal.
Contrast that with nano, whose trade group has retained the Washington office of law and governmental relations firm Preston Gates & Ellis. One NanoBusiness Alliance official credits the practice for clinching December’s enactment of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which authorized $3.7 billion in federal support for nanotech.
“A lot can be done in Washington,” said Mark Modzelewski, the alliance’s former executive director who now serves on its board and leads its governmental efforts. “Tens of millions of extra dollars could go in the field … mainly because you can point to such areas as homeland defense and electronics.”
While NanoBusiness’s stated mission is to advance both nanotech and microsystems, the latter hasn’t been on its agenda in part because of MIG’s existence, Modzelewski said. Also, the alliance’s expertise has been more in bottom-up manufacturing, as opposed to MEMS’ top-down approaches.
The time is right for MEMS, he said, because nanoscale solutions are going to need real, rugged and reliable platforms, and many experts point to integrated microsystems as the vehicle: “(MEMS) people can come in and seem like the voice of reason, saying ‘This is the bridge (to nanotechnology),'” he said.
Modzelewski said Preston Gates likely would keep fees reasonable for an emerging association like the MEMS Industry Group, as it has for the NanoBusiness Alliance. The reward comes on the back end: Preston Gates now has eight nanotech clients.
Ellen McDevitt, MIG’s managing director, said her group should be doing everything it can to boost awareness as well as commercialization, and governmental relations is part of its charter. She said MIG has held lobbying workshops, and she anticipates future trips to Washington to expand those efforts.
“We want to preach the benefits of the technology, and make sure the lawmakers know of our needs and our benefit,” she said. “But in no way do I want to preach that the MEMS industry needs government funding. “There’s still a lot of ground MEMS can gain in D.C.
There should be local people devoted to keeping the awareness of MEMS. It’s definitely something we have to work on because that is indicative of a mature industry. That’s what we want to be.”
Modzelewski said the real advantage of being covered on Capitol Hill is in knowing that a message is reaching an influential audience.
“There’s the whole educational component — they know to care. … You make a congressman or senator think of their own idea, so to speak,” he said. “It’s not about protecting the industry, but protecting the industry’s issues.”
Howe, a technical adviser to Ardesta LLC, Small Times Media’s parent company, finds comfort knowing that nanotechnology should need MEMS as the former moves from breakthroughs to businesses. But before nano’s political grip slips, the MEMS veteran isn’t above grabbing on when appropriate. He’s on the executive committee of the new National Science Foundation-funded Center for Integrated Nanomechanical Systems, an $11.9-million contract led by Berkeley and involving several other university, government and industrial labs.
In Pittsburgh last week, Howe wondered aloud to more than 100 leaders whether the MEMS industry ought to take the advice of Case Western Reserve University Professor Mehran Mehregany and call itself “Big Nano.”
“I’m a nano guy now,” Howe said. “But am I complete convert to nano? No.”