2.   In addition to the focus in the Nanomanufacturing program on the current CMOS technologies, NIST should work with industry to develop the metrics for benchmarking the new, potential CMOS replacement technologies.

3.   There should be a coupling between NIST and the two DOE-supported centers for photovoltaics (the PV Manufacturing Center [PVMC] under SEMATECH at Albany and the Bay Area Photovoltaics Consortium [BAPVC] run from Stanford University). NIST should add value through technology roadmapping or manufacturing support for this area of renewable energy and manufacturing, a priority for the current administration.

4.   To play an important role with respect to the issue of bankability of new technologies, NIST should consider providing methodologies, databases, reference materials, and modeling so as to provide those in the manufacturing community (especially new entrants) with a way to evaluate their approaches independently and objectively.

5.   In the large CMOS device market, which is dominated by companies with vast resources, NIST should make careful judgments about where it positions itself with respect to device metrology supporting continuation of semiconductor technology advances.

6.   Scientists from the flexible electronics industry at various times have worked in the NIST laboratories, and this should be encouraged and enhanced to ensure value and direct feedback into the NIST Flexible Electronics operations.

7.   Since the structural determination of biologics may constitute a useful measurement tool for assessing the impact of modified variants on Biomanufacturing, future work should focus on developing clear goals that will test the robustness of the approach for specific protein therapeutics.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement