An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Physics Laboratory: Fiscal Year 2010 (2010)

At the request of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Research Council has, since 1959, annually assembled panels of experts from academia, industry, medicine, and other scientific and engineering environments to assess the quality and effectiveness of the NIST measurements and standards laboratories, of which there are now nine,³ as well as the adequacy of the laboratories’ resources. In 2010, NIST requested that five of its laboratories be assessed: the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory, the Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory, the NIST Center for Neutron Research, and the Physics Laboratory. Each of these was assessed by a separate panel of experts; the findings of the respective panels are summarized in separate reports. This report summarizes the findings of the Panel on Physics.

For the FY 2010 assessment, NIST requested that the panel consider the following criteria as part of its assessment:

1. The technical merit of the current laboratory programs relative to current state-of-the-art programs worldwide;

2. The adequacy of the laboratory budget, facilities, equipment, and human resources, as they affect the quality of the laboratory’s technical programs; and

3. The degree to which laboratory programs in measurement science, standards, and services achieve their stated objectives and desired impact.

The context of this technical assessment is the mission of NIST, which is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve the quality of life. The NIST laboratories conduct research to anticipate future metrology and standards needs, to enable new scientific and technological advances, and to improve and refine existing measurement methods and services.

In order to accomplish the assessment, the NRC assembled a panel of 20 volunteers, whose expertise matches that of the work performed by the Physics Laboratory staff.⁴ The panel members were also assigned to six subgroups (division review teams), whose expertise matched that of the work performed in the six divisions in the Physics Laboratory: (1) Atomic Physics, (2) Electron and Optical Physics,

(3) Ionizing Radiation, (4) Optical Technology, (5) Quantum Physics, and (6) Time and Frequency. These division review teams individually visited Physics Laboratory facilities in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and Boulder, Colorado, for 1 day, during which time they attended presentations, tours, demonstrations, and interactive sessions with Physics Laboratory staff. Subsequently, the entire panel assembled for 2 days at the NIST facilities in Gaithersburg, Maryland (on February 25-26, 2010), during which they attended welcoming remarks from the NIST Director’s representative, overview presentations on the Physics Laboratory and its divisions by Physics Laboratory managers, and an interactive session with Physics Laboratory management. The panel also met in a closed session to deliberate on its findings and to define the contents of this assessment report.

The approach of the panel to the assessment relied on the experience, technical knowledge, and expertise of its members, whose backgrounds were carefully matched to the technical areas of Physics Laboratory activities. The panel reviewed selected examples of the technological research covered by the Physics Laboratory; because of time constraints, it was not possible to review the Physics Laboratory programs and projects exhaustively. The examples reviewed by the panel were recommended by the Physics Laboratory in consultation with the NRC and the panel. The panel’s goal was to identify and report salient examples of accomplishments and opportunities for further improvement with respect to the following: the technical merit of the Physics Laboratory work, its perceived relevance to NIST’s own definition of its mission in support of national priorities, and specific elements of the Physics Laboratory’s resource infrastructure that are intended to support the technical work. These examples are intended collectively to portray an overall impression of the laboratory, while preserving useful suggestions specific to projects and programs that the panel examined. The assessment is currently scheduled to be repeated biennially, which will allow, over time, exposure to the broad spectrum of Physics Laboratory activity. While the panel applied a largely qualitative rather than a quantitative approach to the assessment, it is possible that future assessments will be informed by further consideration of various analytical methods that can be applied.

The comments in this report are not intended to address each program within the Physics Laboratory exhaustively. Instead, this report identifies key issues. Given the necessarily nonexhaustive nature of the review process, the omission of any particular Physics Laboratory program or project should not be interpreted as a negative reflection on the omitted program or project.