>> PRESENTATION OF "HERE & NOW"
IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY THE
ANIMAL DENTISTRY AND ORAL
SURGERY SPECIALISTS OF MILWAUKEE
AND OSHKOSH, A VETERINARY TEAM
WORKING WITH PET OWNERS AND
FAMILY VETERINARIANS THROUGHOUT
WISCONSIN, PROVIDING CARE FOR
ORAL DISEASE AND DENTAL PROBLEMS
OF SMALL COMPANION ANIMALS.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR "HERE &
NOW" IS PROVIDED BY THE LE
PHILLIPS FAMILY FOUNDATION.
>> I'M ART HACKETT SITTING IN
TONIGHT FOR FREDERICA FREYBERG.
TONIGHT ON "HERE & NOW," THE
DIRECTOR OF THE STATE'S
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD
JOINS US TO EXPLAIN A
TOPSY-TURVY WEEK.
LATER, WE'LL HEAR ABOUT WHY A
SPECIFIC NEW KIND OF RESEARCH IN
THE STATE SHOULD BE REGULATED
BUT FOR THE TIME BEING IS NOT.
AND SOCIAL SECURITY TURNS 75
YEARS OLD THIS WEEK.
IT WAS BORN AT THE UW-MADISON.
BUT, FIRST, IN AN OUT OF COURT
SETTLEMENT THIS WEEK, THE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD
SAID IT WILL NOT ENFORCE A
PORTION OF THE BOARD'S
REGULATION ON POLITICAL ADS.
THAT PORTION RELATES TO
DISCLOSURE OR IN THIS CASE NOT
REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF WHO
PAYS FOR AN AD AS LONG AS THE AD
DOESN'T CALL FOR THE DIRECT
SUPPORT OF A SPECIFIC CANDIDATE.
SOME SEE THIS AS A VICTORY FOR
FREE SPEECH.
OTHERS SEE IT AS A VICTORY FOR
SPECIAL INTERESTS WHO WANT TO
CONTROL AND CONFUSE THE
ELECTORATE.
THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL
THIS IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE
G.A.B., KEVIN KENNEDY.
THANKS FOR JOINING US.
>> HELLO, ART.
>> THIS WAS A CASE THAT WAS
FILED LAST WEEK.
THEN THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT ON
TUESDAY.
WHY DID YOU SETTLE SO QUICKLY?
>> THIS IS REALLY A PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED
TO THE COURT.
OUR JOB IS AT THE DIRECTION OF
THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE THE
PUBLIC WITH INFORMATION ABOUT
CAMPAIGN SPEECH.
AND IN WORKING WITH OUR COUNSEL,
THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE LOOKED
AT HOW CAN WE STILL BE ABLE TO
REGULATE AS MUCH CAMPAIGN SPEECH
AS POSSIBLE.
AND IN OUR RULE WE LAID OUT A
VERY BRIGHT LINE AND IT'S BEEN
SEVERAL YEARS GATHERING
INFORMATION FROM THOSE IN THE
PROCESS, ON WHAT ACTIVITY BASED
ON THE COURT DECISION COULD BE
REGULATED.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID MAYBE
THAT LINE WAS TOO BRIGHT AND
THAT WE SHOULD RESTRICT OUR
ACTIONS TO SIMPLY WHAT THE COURT
DOES AND APPLY IT ON A
CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
SO OUR AGREEMENT WAS TO REMOVE
THE LANGUAGE IN THE RULE, BUT TO
SIMPLY FOLLOW THE COURT
DECISIONS ON A CASE-BY-CASE
BASIS AS WE GOT COMPLAINTS OR
PEOPLE SOUGHT OPINIONS FROM US.
>> IN TALKING TO PEOPLE INVOLVED
WITH THIS, I SEE TWO REACTIONS.
PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BLOCK THE
RULE IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH
ARE DECLARING A HUGE VICTORY AND
SAY THE G.A.B. FOLDED ITS HAND,
RAN FOR THE DOOR.
ON THE OTHER HAND, JAY HECK OF
COMMON CAUSE SAYS THIS IS NOT A
BIG DEAL, THE G.A.B. CAN REQUIRE
DISCLOSURE IN SOME CASES, BUT IT
WILL HAVE TO DO IT ON A
CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.
WHICH OF THOSE TWO SIDES IS
CORRECT IN YOUR OPINION?
>> I THINK JAY HECK IS CLOSER TO
BEING CORRECT ON THAT.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS GIVEN US
MUCH MORE LATITUDE TO APPLY THE
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVES TO GIVE
CITIZENS INFORMATION ABOUT WHO'S
TRYING TO INFLUENCE VOTING.
THE GOAL OF THAT RULE WAS SIMPLY
TO DO THAT.
WE WANTED IN DESIGNING THIS TO
GIVE PEOPLE AS MUCH NOTICE AS
POSSIBLE AND I THINK THE CONCERN
WAS KEEP IT APPLIED ON A
CASE-BY-CASE BASIS WAS REALLY
THE ADVICE WE GOT FROM OUR
ATTORNEYS.
>> JAY HECK POINTED OUT THIS WAS
SUPPOSED TO TAKE EFFECT 30 DAYS
PRIOR TO THE ELECTION AND HE
SAID THAT WAS TOMORROW.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> 30 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION
IS ACTUALLY, YES, TOMORROW,
SATURDAY.
>> SO AS OF TOMORROW, IF THERE
IS AN AD ON THE AIR PAID FOR BY
ONE OF THESE GROUPS OR ANOTHER
ONE AND SOMEBODY SAYS, HEY, I
THINK THAT'S -- REQUIRES
DISCLOSURE, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
>> THEY FILE A COMPLAINT WITH
OUR OFFICE SAYING WE BELIEVE
THIS IS A CAMPAIGN AD THAT'S
SUBJECT TO REGULATION OF THE
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
WE LOOK TO SEE, DOES IT LOOK
LIKE A CAMPAIGN AD, SOUND LIKE A
CAMPAIGN AD, DOES IT MEET THE
CRITERIA THAT THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT HAS ESTABLISHED.
YOU KNOW, CLEARLY IT HAS TO BE
SOMETHING THAT IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO
ONLY ONE THING, THAT IS TO
APPEALING TO A VOTE FOR OR
AGAINST A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE.
>> LAST WEEK WE HAD MIKE MCCABE
FROM THE WISCONSIN DEMOCRACY
CAMPAIGN ON, AND HE WAS
REBUTTING THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS
IS A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH.
AND I WANT TO PLAY THAT CLIP FOR
YOU RIGHT NOW.
>> WELL, IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T
LIMIT SPEECH BECAUSE THERE'S
NOTHING IN THE RULE THAT STOPS
ANYBODY FROM COMMUNICATING THEIR
MESSAGE.
IT DOESN'T LIMIT MESSAGES OR
RESTRICT MESSAGES AT ALL.
IT SIMPLY REQUIRES DISCLOSURE OF
WHO THESE GROUPS ARE AND WHERE
THEY GET THEIR MONEY AND HOW
MUCH THEY'RE SPENDING TO
INFLUENCE A REHREBGS ELECTION.
THE SUPREME COURT RULED
CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS CAN
SPEND WHATEVER THEY LIKE, BUT
THEY CAN'T DO IT SECRETLY.
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEND, BUT
THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO
DISCLOSE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS RULE DOES, IS
IT WORKS ON THE PART OF THE
PACKAGE THAT'S THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO DISCLOSE.
>> NOW, I SUSPECT THAT THE
MINUTE YOU SAY, YEAH, THIS AD IS
AN ISSUE AD, AN AD THAT WE CAN
REGULATE, YOU GOT TO DISCLOSE,
THE GROUPS ARE GOING TO COME
RIGHT BACK AND SAY YOU'RE
INTERFERING WITH OUR FREE
SPEECH.
WHAT HAPPENS THEN?
>> FIRST OF ALL, IF IT'S AN
ISSUE AD, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE
REGULATING IT.
>> I SHOULDN'T HAVE USED THAT
WORD.
>> IF IT'S A CAMPAIGN AD AND
WE'RE GOING TO APPLY THE
CRITERIA, ONE IS WHEN DOES THE
AD RUN, WHO IS SPEAKING, WHAT
ARE THEY SAYING IN THE AD.
THAT'S WHAT THE COURT ASKED,
AUTHORIZED US TO DO AND THE
LEGISLATURE SAID GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD AND THE
ELECTIONS BOARD, YOU NEED TO SET
UP A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS
CAPTURING INFORMATION ON WHO'S
SPENDING MONEY TO INFLUENCE
ELECTIONS WHEN IT'S OVER A
CERTAIN THRESHOLD.
SO, AGAIN, AS MIKE MCCABE SAID,
WE ARE SIMPLY REQUIRING
DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN-RELATED
SPEECH.
WE ARE NOT REACHING OUT TO
ISSUE-RELATED SPEECH.
AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAS NOT
BEEN FOOD BY THIS IN THE PAST.
THE ADS THEY'VE SEEN RUN CLOSE
TO AN ELECTION, THEY LOOKED AND
SAID THIS LOOKS LIKE AN AD,
SOUNDS LIKE AN AD, WHY DON'T WE
KNOW MORE INFORMATION ABOUT IT.
THE COURT HAS SAID YOU CAN
GATHER THAT INFORMATION.
THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO.
>> SINCE THE DISCLOSURE MAY BE
REQUIRED FOR SOME ADS, DO YOU
SEE ANY SIGNS THAT GROUPS ARE
SCALING BACK THEIR SPENDING ON
THESE?
BECAUSE OF THAT POSSIBILITY?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
AGAIN, WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF -- WE AREN'T IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE CAMPAIGN
SEASON YET.
THE PRIMARY WON'T HAVE AS MANY
ADS AS YOU'LL SEE AFTER THE
PRIMARY, AFTER SEPTEMBER 14.
BUT WE'RE EXPECTING A LOT OF
ACTIVITY.
BUT WE'LL KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT
WHO'S MAKING THOSE EXPENDITURES.
>> WE HEARD LAST WEEK, A
QUESTION ABOUT WHY THE LIMIT WAS
SET SO LOW, 25 BUCKS.
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, WISCONSIN'S
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION WAS
SOMETHING THAT FOLLOWED
WATERGATE, WHEN WE HAD LOADS OF
CASH IN SUITCASES BEING USED TO
INFLUENCE FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
IN WISCONSIN, SAID THAT'S NOT
GOING TO HAPPEN HERE.
WE SET OUR THRESHOLD AT $25 FOR
DISCLOSURE, GIVING THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION ABOUT THE MONEY
THAT'S GOING TO BE SPENT TO
INFLUENCE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.
THAT IS A NUMBER THAT PROBABLY
NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT 35 YEARS
LATER, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE
NOW.
AND, AGAIN, IT'S ONLY WHAT
TRIGGERS THE REGISTRATION AND
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
AND IT ONLY RELATES TO THAT
POLITICAL SPEECH.
>> KEVIN KENNEDY FROM THE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD,
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
>> THANK YOU.
>> NOW TO PUBLIC POLICY OF A
DIFFERENT SORT.
75 YEARS AGO TOMORROW, ROOSEVELT
SIGNED THE SKOERBL SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
INTO LAW.
HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD AN ACT TO
SIGN IF IT WERE NOT FOR SCHOLARS
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
WHO DESIGNED THE PUBLIC PENSION
PROGRAM.
HERE TO TALK ABOUT WISCONSIN'S
ROLE IN THE START OF SOCIAL
SECURITY AND THE STRESSES ON THE
PROGRAM TODAY IS ANOTHER
WISCONSIN SCHOLAR, PAMELA HERD
OF THE LA FOLLETTE SCHOOL OF
PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
THANKS FOR JOINING US TONIGHT.
HOW DID IT HAPPEN THAT UW GOT
INVOLVED IN THIS?
>> WELL, THE KEY CONTRIBUTOR WAS
MR. WHEUTTY, A GRADUATE STAOBT
AT WISCONSIN.
HE BECAME A FACULTY MEMBER AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN AND
IN BETWEEN HE SERVED BOTH WITH
THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN
WISCONSIN AND THEN ALSO THEN HE
SERVED FOR PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT.
SO BASICALLY HE STARTED OUT BY
HELPING DESIGN UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE IN THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN, WHICH BECAME THE
MODEL FOR THE FEDERAL
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM,
AND THEN HE WENT ON TO SERVE FOR
ROOSEVELT, FOR FDR, AND IT
BASICALLY HELPED WRITE THE
LEGISLATION FOR THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT.
HE WAS BASICALLY ONE OF THE KEY
DESIGNERS.
>> MOVING ON TO OUR SITUATION
TODAY, 75 YEARS LATER, THERE'S A
CONSENSUS THAT SOCIAL SECURITY
IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE CHANGED
SOMEHOW IF IT'S GOING TO SURVIVE
IN THE LONG RUN.
DID THE CREATORS OF THE PROGRAM
REALIZE THAT IT WAS GOING TO
FACE SOME BIG DEMOGRAPHIC
CHALLENGES IN THE FUTURE?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT EVERY
TURNING POINT, YOU KNOW -- SO,
FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN TODAY, THE
REPORTS THAT YOU SEE FROM THE
SOCIAL SECURITY TRUSTEES THAT
TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PROGRAM'S
FISCAL HEALTH WILL BE LIKE IN 75
YEARS, WE'RE ALL GUESSING.
WE'RE DOING THE BEST THAT WE CAN
MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT
FUTURE TRENDS WILL LOOK LIKE
THAT WILL IMPACT THE FISCAL
HEALTH OF THE PROGRAM, SO
TRENDS, EVERYTHING FROM A
POPULATION THAT'S GETTING OLDER
TO WHAT THE ECONOMY WILL LOOK
LIKE TO ACTUALLY WHAT FERTILITY
RATES WILL LOOK LIKE BECAUSE
THAT ALSO HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON
THE HEALTH OF THE PROGRAM.
>> BASED UPON WHAT YOU KNOW
RIGHT NOW, HOW HARD IS IT GOING
TO BE TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY?
>> WELL, THERE'S TWO ANSWERS TO
THAT QUESTION.
THERE'S A POLITICAL HOW HARD AND
THAT MAY BE CHALLENGEING.
BUT THERE'S SORT OF A PRAGMATIC
HOW HARD QUESTION.
AND IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE SIMPLE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF VERY SIMPLE
SOLUTIONS THAT CAN BE EMPLOYED
TO FIX THE CURRENT FISCAL
PROBLEMS WITH SOCIAL SECURITY
AND THEY BASICALLY INVOLVE
EITHER RAISING TAXES SLIGHTLY OR
CUTTING BENEFITS SLIGHTLY.
SOME MIX OF THOSE TWO,
BASICALLY.
BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE VERY
LARGE CHANGES.
THEY'RE BASICALLY THE KINDS OF
CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO
THE PROGRAM IN FACT SIMILAR TO
CHANGES THAT WERE MADE IN THE
EARLY 1980s THAT EXPANDED THE
AGE OF ELIGIBILITY A LITTLE BIT
OLDER, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO RELATIVELY SMALL CHANGES THAT
COULD FIX THE LONG-TERM FISCAL
PROBLEMS.
>> IS THERE ANY ONE THING ABOUT
THE PROGRAM THAT'S BROKEN AT
THIS POINT?
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
TO KEEP IN MIND ACTUALLY I'M
GOING TO EMPHASIZE THE POSITIVE
OF THE PROGRAM, SO WHEN -- IN
THE EARLY 1960s, BEFORE THE
PROGRAM HAD REALLY STARTED TO
GROW TO THE SIZE OF THE PROGRAM
TODAY, POVERTY RATES AMONG THE
ELDERLY WERE AROUND 50%, 60%.
TODAY THEY HOVER UNDER 10%.
AND THAT'S LARGELY BECAUSE OF
SOCIAL SECURITY.
NOT ONLY THAT, THE PROGRAM IS
ENORMOUSLY POPULAR WITH THE
PUBLIC.
SO I'LL GIVE YOU TWO STATISTICS.
CONSISTENTLY ACROSS TIME SINCE
ABOUT THE 1950s, BETWEEN 80%
AND 90% OF THE PUBLIC HAVE
SUPPORTED THE SPENDING LEVELS ON
SOCIAL SECURITY.
NOT ONLY THAT, EVEN TODAY THERE
WAS A RECENT NEW YORK TIMES CBS
NEWS POLL THAT DEMONSTRATED THAT
62% OF TEA PARTIERS SUPPORTED
THE AMOUNT OF SPENDING ON SOCIAL
SECURITY.
THIS IS AN ENORMOUSLY POPULAR
PROGRAM, EVEN WITH FOLKS WHO
AREN'T BIG FANS OF GOVERNMENT.
>> READING SOME OF THE COMMENTS
ON ARTICLES, THOUGH, YOU HEAR
PEOPLE WHO SPEAK OF THE
DESIGNERS OF SOCIAL SECURITY AS
BEING ON A LEVEL WITH BERNARD
MADOFF, THE PONZI SCHEME
DESIGNER, PERPETRATING A FRAUD
ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THEY REALLY, REALLY HATE THIS.
>> AGAIN, I'D SORT OF LIKE TO
EMPHASIZE THAT'S A PRETTY SMALL
MINORITY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT 80%, 90% APPROVAL RATINGS
IN THE PUBLIC.
IT'S A PRETTY SMALL GROUP OF
PEOPLE THAT FEEL THAT WAY.
SOCIAL INSURANCE SCHEMES, THE
DESIGN OF SOCIAL SECURITY IS
CALLED A BEVERAGE SCHEME, WHAT
WAS DONE IN GERMANY AT THE TIME.
AND IT HAS ACTUALLY WORKED VERY
EFFECTIVELY OVER TIME.
NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T
NEED TO MAKE SOME SMALL CHANGES
NOW.
BUT I THINK IT'S A GROSS
STATEMENT OF EXAGGERATION TO
PAUL IT A PONZI SCHEME.
>> PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS APPOINTED
A COMMISSION TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THIS AND MEDICARE.
DO YOU SEE THAT AS ACTUALLY
PRODUCING A SUGGESTION, WHETHER
CONGRESS CHOOSES TO IMPLEMENT IT
OR NOT IS ANOTHER MATTER, BUT AT
LEAST COMING UP WITH A VALID
PROPOSAL?
>> I THINK THAT IT'S -- I THINK
IT'S VERY GOOD THAT HE DID A
COMMISSION.
I DO THINK THEY'RE GOING TO COME
UP WITH SOME PROPOSALS.
MY CONCERN, I WOULD SAY, IS
LUMPING SOCIAL SECURITY AND
MEDICARE TOGETHER.
THESE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS WITH VERY DIFFERENT
ISSUES.
SOCIAL SECURITY'S PROBLEMS ARE
RELATIVELY CONFINED AND PRETTY
EASILY FIXABLE.
MEDICARE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING ARE
AT THE OVERALL PROBLEMS WITH OUR
HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS.
SO MUCH, MUCH TOUGHER.
AND SO TO MERGE THEM ONTO THE
SAME TALKING POINT IS REALLY
QUITE PROBLEMATIC.
>> PAM HERD, THANKS FOR JOINING
US.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO SOME
STATE CAPITOL NEWS IN A MOMENT,
BUT FIRST A QUICK ITEM ALSO IN
THE NEWS THIS WEEK.
PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNED A
WISCONSIN DISASTER DECLARATION
ON WEDNESDAY.
THE DECLARATION ORDERS FEDERAL
AID TO SUPPLEMENT STATE AND
LOCAL MONEY USED TO REPAIR
DAMAGES FROM LAST MONTH'S FLASH
FLOODING.
THE ORDER LEAVES OPEN THE
PROSPECT OF ADDITIONAL FEDERAL
MONEY DOWN THE ROAD IF REQUESTED
BY THE STATE.
NOW TO THE STATE CAPITOL, WHERE
ONE LAWMAKER IS CONCERNED THERE
MAY BE BIG PROBLEMS AHEAD FOR
SMALL TECHNOLOGY, SPECIFICALLY
NANOTECHNOLOGY.
THE STUDY OF VERY SMALL THINGS.
REPRESENTATIVE TERESE BERCEAU
HAS SPEARHEADED A NEW
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ON THE
FUTURE REGULATION OF THE
SCIENCE.
IN A MOMENT WE'LL TALK WITH ONE
OF THE MEMBERS OF THAT COUNCIL.
BUT FIRST WHAT THE HECK IS
NANOTECHNOLOGY?
IT'S A QUESTION IN WISCONSIN'S
ANDY SOTH ASKED IN A REPORT HE
FILED WHEN THE iPOD NANO FIRST
APPEARED ON THE MARKET.
>> YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN ADS FOR
THE iPOD THAT KIND OF LOOK
LIKE THIS.
THOUGH IT'S PEOPLE WHO CAST A
BETTER SILHOUETTE.
AND CAN DANCE.
AND SURELY YOU'VE HEARD OF THE
iPOD NANO, SO MAYBE YOU THINK
THIS IS WHAT NANOTECHNOLOGY IS
ALL ABOUT.
>> THE UNANIMOUS OWE iPOD IS
MISNAMED BECAUSE THEY'RE
CAPITALIZING ON THE CASH CACHE OF
NANO.
>> ITS POTENTIAL IS GREATER THAN
THIS UNDER-FED MUSIC BOX.
>> NANOTECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN
PREDICTED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
TO BE THE NEXT INDUSTRIAL
REVOLUTION.
>> SOME PREDICT THE IMPACT WILL
BE LIKE THAT OF COMPUTERS OR THE
AUTOMOBILE.
BUT NANOTECHNOLOGY ISN'T A
SINGLE PRODUCT SO MUCH AS A NEW
WAY TO MAKE PRODUCTS, BY
MANIPULATING MOLECULES.
PLASTICS.
>> IF YOU LOOK AROUND, YOU SEE
PLASTICS IN PRACTICALLY
EVERYTHING.
THE SAME THING WILL BE TRUE FOR
NANO.
>> PRETTY IMPRESSIVE FOR
SOMETHING YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE.
YOU NEED TO GET DOWN TO THE
NANOTECH SCALE.
THE WORD NANO COMES FROM THE
GREEK FOR DWARF.
BUT THIS GUY IS A KOE HUGE IN
NANOTERMS.
>> A BILLION NANO METERS WOULD
FIT FROM HERE TO THERE.
HOW SMALL IS THAT?
YOU'VE HEARD WATER CALLED H2O.
IT'S MADE OF MOLECULE ATOMS.
IMAGINE THESE ARE HYDROGEN
ATOMS.
LINE UP TEN OF THEM AND YOU HAVE
ABOUT ONE NANO METER.
>> IF WE CAN GET DOWN TO THAT
SCALE, WE CAN ACCESS NEW
PROPERTIES AND NEW BEHAVIORS OF
MATERIALS THAT WE WOULD NOT
NORMALLY SEE AT THE MACROSCALE.
>> BY WORKING WITH MATERIALS AT
THEIR MOLECULAR LEVEL,
SCIENTISTS CAN COOK UP NEW
MATERIALS WITH SPECIAL
PROPERTIES, LIKE MY PANTS.
MADE WITH NANOTECHS.
>> THAT IS A TEXTILE THAT'S BEEN
TREATED WITH NANO FIBERS ON ITS
SURFACE.
WHAT THESE FIBERS DO IS THEY
PREVENT OIL AND WATER FROM EVER
ACTUALLY TOUCHING THE FABRIC
ITSELF.
>> BUT HOW DO SCIENTISTS WORK AT
THE NANO SCALE?
YOU NEED A MICROSCOPE.
PROBABLY ONE MORE POWERFUL THAN
THIS.
BUT EVEN THE MOST POWERFUL
OPTICAL MICROSCOPE ISN'T STRONG
ENOUGH TO SEE NANO-SIZED
OBJECTS.
THIS ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPE.
AS THIS SIMULATION DEMONSTRATES,
IT HAS A PROBE THAT RUNS ACROSS
THE SURFACE TO CREATE AN IMAGE.
IT'S LIKE THE OLD RECORD PLAYER.
THE NEEDLE MOVES ALONG GROOVES
AND RECREATES THE RECORDED
SOUND.
THIS SCANNING ELECTRON
MICROSCOPE BOMBARDS NANOMATERIAL
WITH ELECTRONS TO CREATE IMAGES.
IT'S THE BEST WAY TO MEET
NANO BUCKY.
THIS ILLUSTRATES HIS SIZE.
HE COULD DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A
PIN.
THERE'S ROOM FOR ABOUT 9,000
HERE.
HE'S TOO SMALL TO WEAR ON A
T-SHIRT.
BUT HE DEMONSTRATES UW
SCIENTISTS' ABILITY TO CREATE
NANO MATERIAL WITH PRECISION.
>> BUCKY BADGER BUT NOW MADE OUT
OF CARBON UNANIMOUS NANO FIBERS.
>> WE HAVE INDIVIDUAL CARBON
FIBERS THAT ARE EXTREMELY SMALL.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THESE ARE
OF SUCH GREAT INTEREST IS THAT
THESE CARBON-BASED MATERIALS IN
THIS FORM HAVE VERY HIGH SURFACE
AREA, SO THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL
AREA ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE
FIBERS IS VERY LARGE.
>> THAT LARGE SURFACE AREA IN A
SMALL SPACE CREATES A VERY
EFFICIENT PLACE FOR CHEMICAL
REACTIONS TO OCCUR.
REACTIONS THAT CAN HELP DETECT
DANGEROUS CHEMICALS IN THE AIR.
>> NOW, WITH SEPTEMBER 11,
THERE'S THIS TREMENDOUS INTEREST
IN TRYING TO DEVELOP VERY SMALL,
VERY PORTABLE KINDS OF
BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL SENSORS.
>> EMERGENCY I'M A IMAGINE I'M A MOLECULE
ATTACHED TO THIS FIBER.
I'LL BOND WITH HAZARDOUS
MATERIAL IN THE AIR.
IF YOU'RE RUNNING AN ELECTRICAL
CHARGE THROUGH THESE FIBERS, IT
WILL CREATE RESISTANCE TELLING
YOU A HAZARD HAS BEEN DETECTED.
ANOTHER NANO-SIZED MATERIAL IS
CALLED QUANTUM DOTS.
PERHAPS A BETTER ANALOGY IS A
TOOTSY POP.
IMAGINE THE CENTER IS A MOLECULE
OF A CHEMICAL THAT GROWS IN THE
RIGHT CONDITIONS.
BUT CANDY COATING, A PROTECTIVE
LAYER, THEN WRAP IT ALL WITH
MOLECULES THAT ATTACH TO CANCER
CELLS.
>> THERE WILL BE MANY, MANY
MILLIONS OF THESE QUANTUM DOTS
IN HERE.
>> THEY COULD BE INJECTED IN
YOUR BODY WHERE THEY WOULD SEEK
OUT CANCER CELLS.
THE LIGHTS SHOW WHERE THE CANCER
IS.
THE IDEA OF CHEMICALS IN YOUR
BODY MAY BE UNAPPEARAPPETIZING, SO
THANK GOODNESS FOR THE
PROTECTIVE COATING.
WHILE THIS SOUNDS DANGEROUS, THE
GREATER RISK MAY NOT BE TO
INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS, BUT TO THE
ENVIRONMENT.
>> EVERY NEW TECHNOLOGY HAS
RISKS.
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE
TOXICITY IMPACT OF THESE
MATERIALS BEFORE WE RELEASE THEM
INTO OUR WORLD.
>> SO NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
WILL CONTINUE HERE AT THE UW AND
AROUND THE WORLD.
IT CLEARLY HAS GREAT POTENTIAL.
BUT IT MAY BE SOME TIME BEFORE
IT HAS US DANCING FOR JOY.
>> ANDY SOTH REPORTING.
WE'RE JOINING NOW BY ONE OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE NOONAN OWE
TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, DR. JAMES
HAMILTON, WHO'S A PROFESSOR AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF
WISCONSIN-PLATTEVILLE AND HE'S
ALSO THE OWNER OF TWO NANOTECH
BUSINESSES.
I'VE READ ABOUT NANOTECHNOLOGY,
BUT I STILL HAVE -- THE THING I
HAVE TROUBLE COMPREHENDING IS
WHY THE SIZE OF SOMETHING ALTERS
WHAT IT IS IN SUCH A GREAT
DEGREE.
>> IT'S REALLY A QUESTION OF
SURFACE AREA.
SO IF YOU TAKE A BEER CAN AND
GRIND IT -P UP, IT HAS SUCH A HIGH
SURFACE AREA THAT WHEN YOU
SPRINKLE IT IN THE AIR, IT
BURSTS INTO FLAME.
NANOCARBON CAN BE 1,000 TIMES
MORE CONDUCTIVE THAN COPPER AND
STRONGER THAN STEEL.
SO IT'S REALLY A QUESTION OF
HAVING REALLY HIGH SURFACE AREA
AND THEN BEING ABLE TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF THESE OTHER
PROPERTIES LIKE CONDUCTIVITY AND
THINGS.
>> IT'S KIND OF LIKE GRAIN DUST.
YOU TAKE A BUSHEL OF CORN AND
THROW IT UP IN THE AIR, TOSS A
MATCH AT IT AND NOTHING HAPPENS.
DO THAT WITH GREEN DUST, IT
EXPLODES.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
FOR THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE THE
TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT AND
CONTROL THINGS AT THIS VERY
SMALL SCALE, 100,000 TIMES
SMALLER THAN A HAIR.
>> IN ADDITION TO TAOEFRPING,
YOU'RE --TEACHING, YOU'RE IN THE
NANOTECHNOLOGY BUSINESS.
WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT ABOUT
WHETHER THIS IS READY FOR
REGULATION YET?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT ONE HAS TO
BE CAREFUL AND YOU HAVE TO
PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN
AND OF THE WORLD BY HAVING
INTELLIGENT DECISIONS ABOUT WE
DON'T WANT TO FIND OUT DOWN THE
ROAD THAT THERE'S SOMETHING
WRONG, SAY LIKE WITH ASBESTOS OR
ACID RAIN OR SOMETHING.
I MEAN, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
THAT AN OPEN PIT MINE WOULD
CONCENTRATERESULT IN CONCENTRATED ACIDS.
YOU HAVE TO BE INTELLIGENT ABOUT
THIS SO NO ONE GETS HURT.
>> HAVE THERE BEEN ANY EXAMPLES
YET OF A UNANIMOUS KWROE A -- NANOTECHNOLOGY THAT
HAS CAUSED AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC
CONCERN?
>> WELL, THAT'S NOT MY FIELD OF
EXPERTISE ABOUT THE REGULATORY
ISSUES AND THINGS, SO I WOULD
HAVE TO SAY I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T THINK SO.
AND -- BUT IT'S BETTER NOT TO BE
CAUGHT BY SURPRISE, LIKE WE WERE
WITH ASBESTOS AFTER USING IT FOR
SO MANY YEARS.
MOST THINGS ARE GOING TO BE
HARMLESS, BUT YOU NEED TO BE
CAREFUL.
>> I MEAN, YOU USE ASBESTOS AS
AN EXAMPLE AND THAT IS A CASE
WHERE AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S
THE SHAPE OF THE ASBESTOS FIBERS
THAT MAKES THEM HAZARDOUS.
IT'S NOT THE -- THERE ARE SOME
TYPES OF ASBESTOS THAT DON'T
CAUSE SERIOUS PROBLEMS.
THERE'S SOME THAT CAUSE A BIG
PROBLEM.
>> RIGHT, AND YOU JUST HAVE TO
INVESTIGATE IT.
YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BENEFITS
TO SOCIETY, THE JOBS IT'S GOING
TO CREATE, THE BENEFITS IT'S
GOING TO CREATE.
NANOTECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO
ENABLE MANY ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES
FROM BETTER SOLAR CELLS TO
ACTUALLY MAKING VIABLE FUEL
CELLS THAT ACTUALLY FUNCTION AND
THEN ALSO STRONG COMPOSITE
MATERIALS THAT ARE BETTER AND
LIGHTER AND STRONGER FOR WIND
TURBINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THAT
AGAINST THE BENEFITS OF JUST NOT
DOING IT.
IN GENERAL, MOST OF IT'S GOING
TO BE HARMLESS.
>> I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER
EXAMPLE, NUCLEAR ENERGY.
THAT'S SOMETHING WHERE WHEN THAT
TECHNOLOGY WAS FIRST BEING
PROPOSED, THE PEOPLE WHO DID IT,
THE SCIENTISTS, THEY KNEW THIS
COULD POTENTIALLY BE VERY, VERY
DANGEROUS AND STOP THEM FROM
RESEARCHING IT, BUT THEY
REALIZED THAT YOU HAD TO BE
REALLY CAREFUL.
IS THAT A COMPARABLE EXAMPLE?
I MEAN, DO YOU LOOK AT SOME OF
THE THINGS YOU SEE OUT THERE AND
SAY, WHOA, THIS IS KIND OF
SCARY?
>> NO.
I DON'T.
AND, I MEAN, THOSE ARE TWO VERY
HOT BUSH BUTTON ISSUES, NUCLEAR
ENERGY AND ASBESTOS.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY A FAIR
COMPARISON.
AND I HOPE SOCIETY HAS EVOLVED
BEYOND THE POINT WHERE WE WOULD
LET THINGS GET OUT OF CONTROL,
WHICH IS WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO
BE INTELLIGENT AT THE BEGINNING
ABOUT THINGS.
NANOTECHNOLOGY FOR THE FIRST
TIME IS A VERY INTERDISCIPLINARY
THING WHERE YOU HAVE
SOCIOLOGISTS AND ETHICISTS AND
OTHERS INVOLVED WITH SCIENTISTS
DOING THE WORK.
>> YOU TALKED ABOUT
ENERGY-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS,
MATERIAL SCIENCE, COMPOSITES AND
SO ON.
WHAT PART OF NANOTECHNOLOGY ARE
YOUR PRODUCTS INVOLVED IN?
>> WE'VE MADE SOME VERY
FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERIES THAT
ENABLE ROOM TEMPERATURE LIQUID
PROCESSING OF THESE MATERIALS
INSTEAD OF SEMICONDUCTOR TYPE
PROCESSING SO THAT IT'S VERY
INEXPENSIVE AND VERY SIMPLE.
AND ALSO ELIMINATES A LOT OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS.
>> AND THE APPLICATIONS OF THOSE
WOULD BE WHAT?
>> THE THINGS THAT I SAID
BEFORE, EVERYTHING FROM MEDICINE
TO CELLULAR SCAFFOLDING AND THEN
SOLAR CELLS AND COMPOSITE
MATERIALS.
VERY, VERY BROAD TYPE POLG.
>> DR. JIM HAMILTON, THANKS FOR
JOINING US.
>> THANKS.
IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.
>> BEFORE WE LEAVE YOU, A QUICK
ANNOUNCEMENT.
PRIMARY ELECTION DAY IS ONLY A
MONTH AWAY.
TUNE INTO A SPECIAL ONE-HOUR
PRIMARY E EDITION OF "HERE &
NOW" ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10.
THE PROGRAM WILL BE SIMULCAST ON
WISCONSIN PUBLIC RADIO.
IT WILL FEATURE INTERVIEWS WITH
CANDIDATES AND SPECIAL REPORTS
ON THE ISSUES PERTINENT TO
PRIMARY ELECTION DAY.
THAT'S SEPTEMBER 10 ON "HERE &
NOW."
I'M ART HACKETT.
HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.
CAPTIONS PRODUCED BY
RIVERSIDE CAPTIONING COMPANY
WWW.CLOSED-CAPTIONING.COM
>> PRESENTATION OF "HERE & NOW"
IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART BY THE
ANIMAL DENTISTRY AND ORAL
SURGERY SPECIALISTS OF MILWAUKEE
AND OSHKOSH, A VETERINARY TEAM
WORKING WITH PET OWNERS AND
FAMILY VETERINARIANS THROUGHOUT
WISCONSIN, PROVIDING CARE FOR
ORAL DISEASE AND DENTAL PROBLEMS
OF SMALL COMPANION ANIMALS.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR "HERE &
NOW" IS PROVIDED BY THE LE
PHILLIPS FAMILY FOUNDATION.