1
The Charge to the Panel and the Assessment Process
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 Materials Science and Engineering.
For the FY 2010 assessment, NIST requested that the panel consider the following criteria as part of its assessment:
-
The technical merit of the current laboratory programs relative to current state-of-the-art programs worldwide;
-
The adequacy of the laboratory budget, facilities, equipment, and human resources, as they affect the quality of the laboratory’s technical programs; and
-
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 MSEL staff.4 The panel members were also assigned to four subgroups (division review teams), whose expertise matched that of the work performed in the four divisions in the MSEL: (1) Ceramics, (2) Materials Reliability, (3) Metallurgy, and (4) Polymers. These division review teams individually visited MSEL facilities in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and
|
3 |
The nine NIST laboratories are the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, the Information Technology Laboratory, the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory, the Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory, the NIST Center for Neutron Research, and the Physics Laboratory. |
|
4 |
See http://www.nist.gov/msel/ for more information on Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory programs. Accessed May 1, 2010. |
Boulder, Colorado, for a day to a day and a half, during which time they attended presentations, tours, demonstrations, and interactive sessions with MSEL staff. Subsequently, the entire panel assembled for a day and a half at the NIST facilities in Gaithersburg, Maryland (on March 1-3, 2010), during which it received welcoming remarks from the NIST Director’s representative, an overview presentation by MSEL management, and an interactive session with MSEL 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 MSEL activities. The panel reviewed selected examples of the technological research covered by the MSEL; because of time constraints, it was not possible to review the MSEL programs and projects exhaustively. The examples reviewed by the panel were selected by the MSEL. 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 MSEL work, its perceived relevance to NIST’s own definition of its mission in support of national priorities, and specific elements of the MSEL’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 MSEL activity. The panel applied a largely qualitative rather than a quantitative approach to the assessment, although 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 MSEL exhaustively. Instead, the report identifies key issues. Given the necessarily nonexhaustive nature of the review process, the omission of any particular MSEL program or project should not be interpreted as a negative reflection on the omitted program or project.
