laboratory director. Unlike the presentations given on the topics of Smart Manufacturing and Next-Generation Materials, the overall area report on Nanomanufacturing did not adequately convey the area’s self-assessment of strength and weakness in the field or a focus direction. For example, there did not seem to be a consensus in the area as to which of the following descriptions best fits the objectives of the activities in the Nanomanufacturing area:
• Making small features on large objects,
• Making nanosized objects,
• Making nanoscale objects to obtain special properties,
• Incorporating nanoscale objects in larger objects, and
• Using nanotechnology to manufacture other things.
In his overview presentation, the Director of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) indicated that this area is trying to do work related to all of the above definitions of nanomanufacturing. Since resources, time, and funds must be limited in any scenario, it would be preferable for NIST to make clear choices about which aspects of nanomanufacturing best fit the NIST mission. Note that this selection process must also include what not to do.
Similarly, there was a lack of clarity about the formal or informal organization of Nanomanufacturing-related activities within NIST. Some possible ways of looking at such structure range from a minimalist to an expansionist viewpoint. Nanomanufacturing could thus be viewed in various ways:
1. One possible view would have Nanomanufacturing existing in the five mission-specific laboratories. The work of these laboratories extends by natural progression down the relevant length scales. As problems of scale are encountered, they are solved in the laboratory setting, sometimes with the involvement of the CNST in a role as an enabler.
2. A second possible view of NIST’s Nanomanufacturing organization would expand on the first viewpoint by adding two crosscutting program organizations—the Nanocomposite Manufacturing program and the Nano Environmental, Health and Safety (Nano-EHS) program. These crosscutting programs address two specific issues and are National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Nanomanufacturing Signature Initiatives.
3. A third possible view would extend the Nanomanufacturing effort to include selected programs from the mission-specific laboratories. These selected programs would expand the Nanomanufacturing portfolio.
4. A fourth view, and the most expansive, would include all of the NIST programs that contain elements involving nanofabrication techniques. In this view there is a “shared vision” of what nanomanufacturing means, and common crosscutting problems and issues would be drawn out for special attention.
Adopting a particular organizational view has significant consequences for programmatic review. If the most minimalist (first) view were adopted, the Nanomanufacturing effort would not need to be reviewed at all; rather, a detailed review of the CNST would suffice. If the second view were adopted, the merit of the Nanomanufacturing effort would be based entirely on the review of the two crosscutting NNI programs. If the third view were adopted, the portfolio of the Nanomanufacturing effort would increase, but it would be essential to understand how the