5

Planning, Management, and Coordination Framework for the National Nanotechnology Initiative

SIGNATURE INITIATIVES

In the annual report accompanying the 2011 budget, the National Nanotechology Initiative (NNI) announced three signature initiatives for the purpose of developing technology in fields that focused and closely coordinated support of research and development (R&D) between agencies and that could lead to more rapid advancements. Signature initiatives represent collaborations between the Office of Science and Technology Policy and NNI member agencies. The initial signature initiatives involved sustainable nanomanufacturing, solar energy collection and conversion, and nanoelectronics. One of the two additional signature initiatives created in 2012 is tasked with building a nanotechnology knowledge infrastructure, and the other, with developing nanotechnology-based biological and chemical sensors. Table 5.1 shows which agencies contribute to each signature initiative.

Over $300 million, or about one-sixth of the total NNI budget, is proposed in 2013 for the three signature initiatives that were introduced in 2011: $112 million for Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion, $84 million for Sustainable Nanomanufacturing, and $110 million for Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond. Those numbers, shown in Table 5.2, represent a 24 percent increase in signature initiatives investments compared with 2011 actual spending, well above the 4 percent increase for NNI as a whole. When the supplement to the President’s 2013 budget was submitted to Congress on February 13, 2012, and the white papers for the additional two signature initiatives were introduced during May and July, funding levels for the two had yet to be reported.



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



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 67
5 Planning, Management, and Coordination Framework for the National Nanotechnology Initiative Signature Initiatives In the annual report accompanying the 2011 budget, the National Nano­ techology Initiative (NNI) announced three signature initiatives for the purpose of developing technology in fields that focused and closely coordinated support of research and development (R&D) between agencies and that could lead to more rapid advancements. Signature initiatives represent collaborations between the Office of Science and Technology Policy and NNI member agencies. The initial sig- nature initiatives involved sustainable nanomanufacturing, solar energy collection and conversion, and nanoelectronics. One of the two additional signature initiatives created in 2012 is tasked with building a nanotechnology knowledge infrastructure, and the other, with developing nanotechnology-based biological and chemical sen- sors. Table 5.1 shows which agencies contribute to each signature initiative. Over $300 million, or about one-sixth of the total NNI budget, is proposed in 2013 for the three signature initiatives that were introduced in 2011: $112 million for Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion, $84 million for Sustainable Nanomanufacturing, and $110 million for Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond. Those numbers, shown in Table 5.2, represent a 24 percent increase in signature initiatives investments compared with 2011 actual spending, well above the 4 percent increase for NNI as a whole. When the supplement to the President’s 2013 budget was submitted to Congress on February 13, 2012, and the white papers for the additional two signature initiatives were introduced during May and July, funding levels for the two had yet to be reported. 67

OCR for page 67
68 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e TABLE 5.1  Agency Contributions to Signature Initiatives by Thrust Area Contributing Agencies NIFA/USDA USDA/NIFA DOD/DTRA FS/USDA NIOSH IC/DNI OSHA NASA CPSC Signature Initiative and NIST DOD DOE FDA NSF EPA NIH Thrust Area Solar Energy Collection and Conversion Improved photovoltaic solar ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ electricity generation Improved solar thermal- ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ energy generation and conversion Improved solar-to-fuel ✓ ✓ ✓ conversions Sustainable Nanomanufacturing Design of scalable and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ sustainable nanomaterials, devices, and processes Nanomanufacturing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ measurement technologies Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond Exploring new or alternative ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ state variables for computing Merging nanophotonics with ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ nanoelectronics Exploring carbon-based ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ nanoelectronics Exploiting nanoscale ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ processes and phenomena for quantum information science National Nanoelectronics ✓ ✓ ✓ Research and Manufacturing Infrastructure Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology Develop nanoscale materials ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ and engineered nanomaterials to resolve current technical barriers continued

OCR for page 67
Planning, Management, and C o o r d i nat i o n F r a m ewo r k for the NNI 69 TABLE 5.1  Continued Contributing Agencies NIFA/USDA USDA/NIFA DOD/DTRA FS/USDA NIOSH IC/DNI OSHA NASA CPSC Signature Initiative and NIST DOD DOE FDA NSF EPA NIH Thrust Area Assess the impact of ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ engineered nanomaterials across their life cycles on human health, safety, and the environment Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure Enlarge a diversified ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ community of scientists, engineers, and technical staff Build a network that couples ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ experimental basic research, modeling, and applications development Build a cyber-toolbox to ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ enable application of models to nanomaterials design Create a robust digital ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ nanotechnologic data and information infrastructure NOTE: For a list of acronyms see Appendix B. TABLE 5.2  NNI Approximate Funding (millions of dollars) for Three Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives, 2011-2013 Nanotechnology 2011 2012 2013 Signature Initiative Participating Agencies Actual Estimated Proposed Sustainable DOD, DOE, IC/DNI, NASA, NIOSH, NIST, 61 73 84 Nanomanufacturing NSF, USDA/FS Solar Energy Collection DOD, DOE, IC/DNI, NASA, NIST, NSF, 88 89 112 and Conversion USDA/NIFA Nanoelectronics for DOD, DOE, IC/DNI, NASA, NIST, NSF 97 104 110 2020 and Beyond Total 246 266 306 NOTE: For a list of acronyms see Appendix B. SOURCE: The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s 2013 Budget. 2012. National Science and Technology Council. Available at http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_2013_­ udget_supplement.pdf, b accessed 07/011/2012.

OCR for page 67
70 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e Each signature initiative is described in a white paper1 that outlines the ­national need that it is intended to meet, the focus areas identified and prioritized as “thrusts,” the expected outcomes, and the individual agency expertise to be in- volved. The white papers for the five signature initiatives vary widely in the speci- ficity of technical targets, interagency planning, management, and coordination in meeting the scientific and technical targets, milestones, and roles that individual agencies play to meet the goals. For example, the white paper on the Sustainable Nanomanufacturing sig- nature initiatives2 describes a path for “creating manufacturing technologies for economical and sustainable integration of nanoscale building blocks into complex, large-scale systems” and provides metrics for success in terms of the outcomes, milestones, and time frames of specific planned, coordinated, and managed inter- agency endeavors. The growing effectiveness of interagency planning, management, and coordination processes was evident in updates given to the committee, as was the commitment to common long-term goals. Box 5.1 provides a summary of the Sustainable Nanomanufacturing signature initiative. The white paper on the signature initiative on the Nanotechnology Knowl- edge Infrastructure (NKI) proposes long-term interagency collaboration among the disciplines of materials science, chemistry, biology, engineering, and advanced measurement and characterization science. To that end, the white paper indicates that the NKI signature initiative will leverage other federal efforts, such as the Big Data Research and Development Initiative (announced March 29, 2012) and the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI).3 In contrast, whereas the white paper on the signature initiative on Solar ­ nergy, E Collection, and Conversion4 is notable for its clear and quantifiable technical targets 1    NI, N “Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives,” available at http://www.nano.gov/signatureinitia- tives, accessed December 10, 2012. 2    ational Science and Technology Council (NSTC), National Nanotechnology Initiative Signature N Initiative: Sustainable Nanomanufacturing—Creating the Industries of the Future, Final Draft, Com- mittee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, July 2010, available at http://www.nano.gov/ sites/default/files/pub_resource/ nni_siginit_­ustainable_mfr_­ s revised_nov_2011.pdf, accessed December 10, 2012. 3    The Big Data Research and Development Initiative was announced by the Obama administra- tion on March 29, 2012. The administration announced the Materials Genome Initiative on June 24, 2011. More information is available on each at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ microsites/ostp/big_data_press_release_ final_2.pdf and http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ files/microsites/ostp/mgi_fact_sheet_05_14_2012_ final.pdf, respectively; both sites accessed Decem­ ber 17, 2012. 4    STC, “National Nanotechnology Initiative Signature Initiative: Nanotechnology for Solar ­ nergy N E Collection and Conversion,” Final Draft, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on ­ anoscaleN S ­ cience, Engineering, and Technology, July 2010, available at http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/ pub_resource/nnisiginitsolarenergy finaljuly2010.pdf, accessed December 17, 2012.

OCR for page 67
Planning, Management, and C o o r d i nat i o n F r a m ewo r k for the NNI 71 (for example, “single junction silicon devices with improvements such as better band gap engineering at the nanoscale which will reach efficiencies of 28 percent [theoretical max 33 percent, best to date 25 percent]),” it is also notable for its lack of description of interagency planning, management, and collaboration, with the exception of a joint request for proposal (RFP) between the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). The lack of interagency activity was also reflected in the update to the committee in which the Solar signature initiative representative did not know of any interagency collaboration except the aforementioned DOE NSF RFP. Given their strong connection to applications of nanotechnology, the sig- nature initiatives are obvious vehicles for coordinating efforts and collaborating to support research investments with the private sector. For example, the Nano­ electronics ­ esearch Initiative (NRI), a consortium of member companies of the R Semi­ onductor Industry Association (SIA) that contribute funding and other re- c sources in a program of university research. Support for NRI research also comes from NSF and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), as well as from universities and state and local governments.5 NRI partnerships among industry, NIST, and NSF have been highly effective at informing university research and moving results to the private sector. The NRI’s success led to the creation of the signature initiative Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond. For more information on the NRI see Box 5.2. This industry partnership has the opportunity to leverage the full NNI investment related to the Nanoelectronics signature initiative (valued at more than $100 million in 2012) and can provide industry input and perspective to the larger effort that includes DOE, Department of Defense (DOD), the intel- ligence community/Director of National Intelligence (IC/DNI), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in addition to NSF and NIST. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an effective strategy includes the following six characteristics (described in greater detail in Table 5.3): •• Purpose, scope, and methods. •• Problem definition and risk assessment. •• Goals, activities, and performance measures. •• Resources, investments, and risk management. •• Organizational roles and responsibilities. •• Integration and implementation. Table 5.3 shows an assessment of each of the signature initiatives on the basis of the GAO traits and associated white papers produced by the NNI. 5    ee SIA, “Nanoelectronics Research Initiative: A Model Government-Industry Partnership Pro- S moting Basic Research,” SIA Issue Papers, available at http://www.semiconductors.org/resources/ sia_issue_papers/, accessed December 17, 2012.

OCR for page 67
72 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e BOX 5.1 Sustainable Nanomanufacturing Signature Initiative The overarching goal of the Sustainable Nanomanufacturing signature initiative is to “estab­ish manufacturing technologies for economical and sustainable integration of nanoscale l building blocks into complex, large-scale systems.”1 The key requirement of the initiative is the development of manufacturing processes that are • Scalable. • Precise, controllable, and sustainable. • Safe and produce nanotechnology-based products that perform to specifications throughout their life cycle without harm to the environment or human health. During the first year (2011), the initiative was funded at $61million. It is estimated that expenditures will be $73 million in 2012, and $84 million has been proposed for 2013.2 The initiative has two thrust areas: 1. Design of scalable and sustainable nanomaterials, components, devices, and pro- cesses. 2. Nanomanufacturing measurement technologies. The initiative is supported by many federal agencies, whose roles include basic research and applied research (e.g., NSF, USDA, and DOE), metrology (e.g., NIST), manufacturing de- ­ velopment (e.g., NSF and NIST), EHS (e.g., OSHA and NIOSH), and technology transfer and commercialization support (e.g., EPA and DOD). Metrics and timelines have been developed for both thrust areas. Initial focus areas are car- bon nanomaterials (NIST), optical metamaterials (NSF), and cellulosic nanomaterials (USDA). For thrust area 1, success will be realized if within 2 years consortia (academic, industry, and government partners) have been established for the purpose of coordinating research on manufacturing methods; if within 4 years there has been a successful demonstration of pro- cesses that are scalable, sustainable, and safe; and if within 8 years materials and processes that are appropriate for production have been identified and technology transfer or adoption by U.S. manufacturers has occurred. For thrust area 2, the initial focus area is roll-to-roll manufacturing. This thrust will be deemed successful if within 2 years, a consortium focused on metrology roll-to-roll processing has been formed, if within 4 years a real-time in-line measurement system has been demon- The committee’s analysis of the effectiveness of the signature initiatives Sus- tainable Nanomanufacturing and Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond focuses on the following: •• Collaboration with federal and nonfederal partners. •• Defined metrics of success with timelines and outcomes. •• Effective communication, including updates to stakeholders. •• Periodic reviews of the plan and adjustments of plan as necessary.

OCR for page 67
Planning, Management, and C o o r d i nat i o n F r a m ewo r k for the NNI 73 strated, and if within 8 years a benchmarking of measurement systems has taken place with industrial partners to allow technology transfer. To date, the signature initiative is on track to meet its goals. USDA has developed road- maps and awarded $6.7 million for public–private collaborative research at seven universities for cellulosic-­ anomaterials research and has installed a cellulose-nanomaterial pilot plant in n the Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. NIST has held a workshop on carbon-based nanomaterials; there were participants from industry, academe, and govern- ment, and measurement barriers were identified. A cooperative research and development agreement is in place with Applied Nanostructured Solutions to understand the effect of growth conditions on the structure of carbon-based nanomaterials. The NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center for Hierarchical Manufacturing is focused on advancing technologies for roll-to-roll processing. The center also supports the community through coordination of the National Nanomanufacturing Network and roadmap development.3 Interagency coordination is active. The NNCO staff person who supports the signature initiatives facilitates extensive and frequent interactions among the participating agencies. The initiative participants interact regularly in person, via telephone, or via e-mail to share the scientific details of agency programs to identify opportunities to leverage activities and expand interagency collaboration. The signature initiative Sustainable Nanomanufacturing has several participants in common with the Nanomanufacturing, Industry Liaison, and Innovation (NILI) Working Group, and com- munication between the two groups is strong. The co-chairs of NILI take strong personal interest in the initiative’s goals and objectives. An update on the initiative is provided to the co-chairs of NILI, which has been helpful in identifying potential industry and academic partners. NILI has also provided outreach to the nanomanufacturing stakeholders in the industrial community. 1 NSTC, 2010, “Sustainable Nanomanufacturing—Creating the Industries of the Future,” Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, available at http://eprints.internano.org/1849/1/nni_siginit_sustainable_mfr_revised_nov_2011. pdf, accessed December 11, 2012. 2 NNI, “Supplement to the President’s 2012 Budget,” available at http://www.nano.gov/sites/ default/files/ pub_resource/nni_2012_budget_supplement.pdf. 3 J. Alexander Liddle, NIST, “Nanomanufacturing Signature Initiative,” presentation to the committee on July 10, 2012. The Sustainable Nanomanufacturing signature initiative has been exemplary in its collaboration with federal and nonfederal partners and in its interaction with industry and academe. The role of each agency is clearly defined at the project level. This signature initiative is also to be commended for its effective communication with its stakeholders and with the Nanotechnology, Industry Liaison, and Innova- tion (NILI) Working Group. The Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond signature initiative strives to ­advance the field of nanoelectronics by exploring new and revolutionary materials, devices,

OCR for page 67
74 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e BOX 5.2 Nanoelectronics Research Initiative Model of Industry, Government, and University Collaboration One industry that already is designing and manufacturing nanotechnology-based products is the semiconductor industry. The trend known as Moore’s law states that the number of transistors (the ­ evices d that store and manipulate digital information) on a computer chip about the size of a fingernail will double every 18 to 24 months. Scaling has enabled the steady increase in performance and decrease in cost of integrated circuits (ICs) for everything from smart phones to credit card scanners. Cutting-edge ICs made today using silicon complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology have patterned features with a dimension of just 22 nm and require deposition of layers of materials that are only a few atoms, or about 1 nm, thick. Continued improvement in performance and cost, which is vital to the competitiveness of the U.S. semiconductor industry and to technological leadership in support of national security, will require a new technology beyond CMOS. In 2005 a group of semiconductor companies formed a consortium—the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI)—to fund precompetitive university research in partnership with government with the mission to demonstrate the next logic switch. NRI awards research contracts based on competitive solicitation processes and to date has supported research at 57 universities involving more than 250 faculty researchers and 430 students. NRI provides a model for industry collaboration and for public–private partnership. In addition to industry support, NRI research is funded by NIST, NSF, universities, and state/local governments. The collaborative industry investment would not be possible without the substantial NNI investment in nano- electronics, e.g., the NSF program Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law. A key driver for other government agencies at all levels is economic development and the desire to see that the nanoelectronics industry takes hold in the United States or in their jurisdiction. NRI employs a number of metrics with which to gauge success. Of greatest interest to industry mem- bers is progress toward the technical goal of demonstrating a superior logic switch. A set of parameters has been developed to compare the respective performance of each technology under investigation. Results of this benchmarking are used to guide research during the course of the project and to identify the most promising new devices. Other measures of NRI output include number of students supported and career positions following graduation; numbers of and citations to publications and patents/patent applications; and spin-off/start-up companies based on NRI research. An NRI metric that is perhaps unique for such an industry consortium is member company satisfaction with the program, based on annual surveys. NRI is a research initiative, but its outputs eventually may play a role in the economic success of the semiconductor industry and of other industries that utilize semiconductor-powered technolo- gies. One measure is based on sales. The U.S. semiconductor industry accounts for nearly half of the $300 billion world market and is the largest U.S. export over the past 6 years. A study of the economic impact of semiconductors over the past several decades based on data collected by the Department of Commerce concludes that the semiconductor industry grew 25 times faster than the U.S. economy as a whole between 1960 and 2007, and between 2000 and 2007 semiconductors accounted for 15 percent of the growth in sectors as diverse as motor vehicles and communications equipment.1 Such quantitative estimates may not be possible for nanotechnology as a whole without modification of the data that are collected. However, the semiconductor industry can continue to be tracked and used as an example of the economic impact of nanoscale science and engineering. 1 J.D. Samuels, “Semiconductors and U.S. Economic Growth,” draft, 2012, available at http://www. semiconductors.org/clientuploads/directory/DocumentSIA/ecoimpactsemidraft_Samuels.pdf.

OCR for page 67
Planning, Management, and C o o r d i nat i o n F r a m ewo r k for the NNI 75 TABLE 5.3 Strategic Characteristics Addressed by Each Signature Initiative GAO National Strategy Characteristics Solar Nanomanufacturing Nanoelectronics Sensors Knowledge Characteristics of Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed effective strategies Problem definition Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Addressed Goals, activities, Partially Partially Mostly Partially Partially and performance addressed addressed, but addressed; addressed; no addressed measures quantitative additional performance metrics are quantitative goals measures missing could be included Resources, Not Not addressed Slightly Not Partially investments, and addressed addressed addressed addressed risk management Organizational Minimally Addressed at Addressed only Partially Fairly well roles addressed, project level, at at thrust level, addressed addressed only at thrust thrust level, and not project level but only at (agencies level, not at research level mission level, and their project level not project roles level identified) Integration and Not Not addressed Slightly Not Partially implementation addressed addressed addressed addressed systems, and architectures and applying novel nanoscale fabrication processes and concepts to produce them. The initiative includes strong collaboration among indus­trial and academic partners, mainly through participation of NSF and NIST in the NRI. The NRI invests in large centers that coordinate across multiple universi- ties and projects. In addition, input provided to NSF by industry members during the development of solicitations results in research grants that have well-defined metrics of success, timelines, and outcomes. Research is continuously guided via collaboration between university researchers and industrial scientists and engineers. Each project is formally reviewed at least once a year by all NRI partners, which pro- vides comments, including recommended plan adjustments. University researchers prepare periodic reports and share them with industry members. It is outside this committee’s charge (see Box S.2 in the Summary) to determine specific goals and outcomes (definitions of success) and metrics for the individual signature initiatives, or to determine who is going to be assigned what role, what the milestones and timelines are, and how the signature initiative teams should plan, manage, and coordinate to meet their goals. However, the committee believes that it would benefit the NNI if the signature initiative teams considered developing and

OCR for page 67
76 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e implementing formal interagency plans for the signature initiatives and reporting annually on their progress. Finding: Whereas the breadth of nanotechnology research and development under the NNI and the diversity of agency missions and needs make it difficult and impractical for the NSET Subcommittee to manage and coordinate the entire portfolio of activities in support of NNI goals, the signature initiatives offer clear opportunities and pathways for accelerating progress through “close coordination” in defined fields of scientific and technologic importance. More active, explicit, and transparent interagency planning, management, and coordination are needed, including jointly planned and even executed research programs, in order to increase the progress and impact of the signature initiatives. Recommendation 5-1: Each signature initiative team should develop a strate- gic plan. The NSET Subcommittee and the signature initiative teams should expand the associated white papers to include specific goals (outcomes) with quantifiable technical targets where possible, milestones for reaching them, expected outputs and short-term outcomes, and roles and responsibilities of the (two or more) participating agencies, the NSET Subcommittee, and the NNCO. Planned actions and outputs and short-term outcomes to document progress should be reported online and in the annual report. A key initial measure of success for the NNI will be the NSET Subcommittee and the signature initiatives teams’ performance in developing and implementing the strategic plans. The committee observes that the PCAST 2012 report made a similar although less-detailed recommendation in this regard.6 Interagency ManAGEMENT and Coordination Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Working Groups As described in Chapter 3, the NSET Subcommittee has created four working groups—Global Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN), Nanotechnology Environmen- tal and Health Implications (NEHI), Nanotechnology, Industry Liaisons, and 6    ee S President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Report to the President and Congress on the Fourth Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, April 2012, Exec­u­tive Office of the President, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ PCAST_2012_Nanotechnology _FINAL.pdf, accessed November 28, 2012.

OCR for page 67
Planning, Management, and C o o r d i nat i o n F r a m ewo r k for the NNI 77 Inno­ a­ion (NILI), and Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communica- v t tions (NPEC)—to address subjects that could benefit from greater interagency focus and coordination. It is not clear to the present committee how effective those groups are. For example, although NEHI has been quite active, visible, and effec- tive, it appears that other working groups have been, to different degrees, less so. It is difficult to determine what specific needs are identified by each working group, what their priorities are, and what the individual working groups have planned and accomplished. Even information on current membership and participation in the working groups is not completely transparent: the NEHI page lists member organizations in detail, but the NILI page simply states that membership is open to “all federal agencies and their component organizations,” and the NPEC site states that “working group participation is open to all NSET members and/or their designees.” The four existing working groups are described below, as well as two more groups, proposed for consideration by this committee. Global Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN) The GIN working group has as its goals the strengthening of international R&D collaboration, capacity-building, and engagement on regulatory and trade issues. Chaired by the U.S. Department of State, this group also coordinates fed- eral government activities in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Party on Nanotechnology. The “international engagement” website at nano.gov provides more detailed information on various international nanotechnology groups and activities, although it does not link to the GIN working group website. A distinction is made between GIN’s responsibili- ties on the international scale and that of the White House Office of International Regulatory Affairs: The Global Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN) Working Group helps to coordinate interna- tional activities among the various NNI member agencies, while the White House Office of International and Regulatory Affairs . . . promotes international regulatory cooperation in a number of venues, including Regulatory Cooperation Councils with Canada and Mexico and the High Level Regulatory Cooperation ­ orum with the European Union.7 F The 2011 NNI strategic plan indicates that NIST works with the International Organization for Standardization’s Technical Committee 229 and other standards organizations, including the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomateri- 7    NI, “International Engagement,” available at http://www.nano.gov/initiatives/international, ac- N cessed December 12, 2012.

OCR for page 67
84 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e an opportunity to enhance current investment in education and training through greater coordination by establishment of a new working group or refinement of the scope of the existing NPEC working group. In addition, agencies that have a mission to promote workforce development and training, such as the Department of Labor, should be included in this working group. Finding: There appears to be substantial opportunity to revise roles of working groups or to create new working groups in user-facility oversight and coordina- tion and in education and workforce development. The NNI and the global nanotechnology landscape have evolved since the work- ing groups were established; therefore it is both timely and important that the NSET Subcommittee reevaluate and, if appropriate, update the working group portfolio. Recommendation 5-3: The NSET Subcommittee should regularly assess the working groups to ensure that each is serving a useful management and co- ordination role related to the goals and objectives of the NNI strategic plan. Working groups that are no longer useful should be redefined or eliminated, and new working groups should be formed as needed. In particular, the NSET Subcommittee should consider creating new groups in the areas of user facility oversight and coordination and education and workforce development. Recommendation 5-4: Each working group should address specific goals and objectives and should develop and annually update plans for outputs and short-term outcomes that are related to longer-term outcomes. Ties to signa- ture initiatives should be highlighted. The NNI annual report should include working group plans, such as information about the annual objectives, activi- ties, management, and accomplishments. Given the diverse nature of the working group activities that affect the advance- ment of knowledge and the progress of nanotechnology, all working groups should be responsible for identifying and sharing information among agencies and with the broader community through the NNI website. High-Level Interagency Engagement The human resources that the agencies commit in the form of participation in the NSET Subcommittee and working groups are substantial. However, in its 2010 assessment, PCAST expressed concern that the level of the agency participants was such that they were not able to make decisions on behalf of their agencies. PCAST therefore recommended that the President and Congress “require each

OCR for page 67
Planning, Management, and C o o r d i nat i o n F r a m ewo r k for the NNI 85 agency to task senior representatives with decision-making authority to participate in coordination activities of the NNI.”22 The committee appreciates the intent of that recommendation but also sees great value in the corps of expertise and long-term participation of many members of the NSET Subcommittee and the working groups. Finding: High-level agency awareness and engagement are important, but there may be a trade-off between authority in the agencies and the ability to devote time and effort to the many NNI coordinating activities. Recommendation 5-5: To improve engagement by senior NNI participating agency officials and decision makers, the NSET Subcommittee should inform and obtain input from the NSTC Committee on Technology on NNI objectives and plans at least annually. Setting Research Directions: Roadmapping An essential component of coordinating and managing goal-oriented R&D, such as the signature initiatives, is determination of targets and pathways for reach- ing them. Federal agencies that fund basic research often tend to focus on identifying opportunities. For example, DOE held a series of workshops that resulted in a set of reports on basic research needs for various energy technologies.23 Some fields have turned to the National Academies for expert advice on research opportuni- ties, including the decadal survey of research in astronomy and astrophysics, most recently updated in 2010.24 A field of research that has been driven by planning and cooperation in indus­ try is semiconductor technology. That industry is one of the world’s largest (about $300 billion in annual revenue worldwide). Since 2005, products of the U.S. semi- conductor industry have been the largest contributor to U.S. exports.25 That success 22   PCAST, Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the National Nano­ ech­ ology t n Initiative, March 29, 2010, Executive Office of the President, available at http://www.­ hitehouse.gov/ w sites/default/ files/microsites/ostp/pcast-nano-report.pdf, accessed November 15, 2012. 23    or more information, go to U.S. Department of Energy, “News and Resources: Basic Research F Needs,” available at http://science.energy.gov/bes/news-and-resources/reports/basic-research-needs/, accessed December 13, 2012. 24    ational Research Council, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, The N N ­ ational Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010. 25    . Hatano et al., “Doubling Semiconductor Exports Over the Next Five Years—An Economic D Analysis by the Semiconductor Industry Association,” July, Semiconductor Industry Association, San Jose, Calif., 2010, available at http://www.sia-online.org/clientuploads/directory/DocumentSIA/ Export/Doubling_Exports_Paper_0610.pdf, accessed December 13, 2012.

OCR for page 67
86 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e is due, in part, to several approaches to precompetitive collaboration in R&D, includ­ ing public-private partnerships such as SRC and SEMATECH. Those con­ ortia have s been guided and coordinated in their research efforts by the International Technol- ogy Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS). The industry-wide roadmapping effort, which has been fueled by the industry commitment to maintaining the increase in performance/cost ratio, has enabled scaling to ever smaller dimensions, as expressed by Moore’s law, and by the integration of new functionalities. Two decades of history and success of the ITRS26 have inspired the develop- ment of additional roadmaps. There is room for similar activities in other industries enabled by nanotechnology. By building consensus on future technology needs, such roadmaps can foster commercialization and improve efficiency throughout an R&D supply chain. That continues to be true in the semiconductor industry, in which continued scaling of transistor size is enabled by a wide variety of complex, continually developing technologies that must be coordinated at least partially to provide reasonably efficient return on R&D investment. Other industries in which fundamental or platform nanotechnology advances would benefit the entire sec- tor could also create roadmaps to expedite overall progress. As in the case of the ITRS, NNI-agency representatives can be important contributors to such efforts. In addition, the NNI could consider the development of such “technology needs” roadmaps to coordinate interagency efforts toward, for example, the “grand chal- lenges” addressed by signature initiatives. The best practices principles for technology roadmapping that are used in developing each biennial edition of the ITRS are these: •• Focus on identification of technology needs rather than on specific poten- tial solutions. •• Indicate quantitative needs as a function of time out to a “rolling horizon” (such as 10-20 years) to help to identify consistent sets of solutions for each future technology generation. •• Characterize the adequacy of current resources by addressing each future need (for example, green, yellow, and red color codes for “pass”, “border- line,” and “fail”). •• Highlight “grand challenges.” •• Enlist broad participation (by industry, academe, and government) in “technology working groups” to write topical chapters of the roadmap. Include participants in the relevant supply chains. 26    .J. Spencer, L.S. Wilson, and R.R. Doering, “The Semiconductor Technology Roadmap,” Future W Fab International 18, January 12, 2005.

OCR for page 67
Planning, Management, and C o o r d i nat i o n F r a m ewo r k for the NNI 87 •• Hold public conferences to gain additional feedback during updates and rollouts of the roadmap. •• Publish the roadmap on the Internet.27 Fundamentally, a roadmap created by an industry that uses voluntary, open, and transparent processes is a common good that allows every business in the sector to benefit and grow. Overarching benefits of industry-wide roadmapping include the following: •• Providing a guide for research worldwide. •• Synchronizing technology development and timely availability of manu- facturing tools and methods. •• Increasing efficient use of R&D resources. •• Promoting market growth and job creation by reducing unknowns and increasing confidence. As the semiconductor industry approaches the end of scaling complementary metal-oxide semiconductor technology as the primary ITRS driver, it has been evaluating how roadmapping can be used in general to address a broader set of technology needs. The resulting necessary conditions for any industry-wide techni- cal roadmap effort include28 •• A restricted set of performance measures against which progress can be gauged. •• Convergence of opinion among a majority of key players on the progress trends that the figures of merit are expected to follow. •• A potential market of substantial size that induces wide applicability of the roadmap (that is, the roadmap effort must be worth doing). •• Willingness to share information. •• Existence of a community of stakeholders. Although the semiconductor industry sometimes is viewed as uniquely able to form consortia to fund basic research, one can argue that every industry can point to fundamental, platform science, engineering, and technologies for which each participating company would be willing to forgo exclusivity to make progress faster and less expensive through a consortium approach. Moreover, such roadmapping 27    .S. L Wilson, ed., “The International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors,” 2011 Edition, available at http://www.ITRS.net. 28    . Arden et al., eds. “More than Moore,” white paper, available at http://www.itrs.net/ W Links/2010ITRS/IRC-ITRS-MtM-v2%203.pdf, accessed September 25, 2012.

OCR for page 67
88 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e could be especially helpful in realizing progress in the signature initiatives. The challenge at the outset is to form a community of industry participants that are willing to share information. The federal government can encourage industries to take those first steps. The proposed Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortium program (AMTech) is intended to stimulate early-stage technology development based on industry needs by incentivizing industry-led consortia (new or existing) that would support long- term basic and applied research on enabling technologies. AMTech would provide grants to consortia to develop roadmaps of critical long-term industry research needs and to fund facilities, equipment, and research directed at meeting the needs. AMTech is consistent with the recommendations of the PCAST report on ­ dvanced manufacturing released in June 201129 and was “strongly endorsed” by a the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) in February 2012.30 The VCAT report noted that the SRC NRI “stood out” among management models and recommended that AMTech be managed through consortia, led by industry, that include participation by universities and government agencies. Finding: The NSET Subcommittee could consider efforts that encourage indus­ try consortia to plan and fund long-term research, similar to the proposed AMTech program. Recommendation 5-6: The NSET Subcommittee should incentivize groups in nanotechnology-enabled industries to participate in developing roadmaps and in partnering to address long-term research needs. Roadmapping would be especially helpful in realizing progress in the signature initiatives. Building a Nanotechnology Community The vision and structure of the NNI require planning, coordination, and man- agement throughout a complex and diverse set of federal agencies. NNI planning and management at the interagency level have evolved over the years, and a few best practices that make it reasonably strong have been established, but they are not sufficiently widespread. Definitions of success for the NNI are inextricably linked to the management and coordination framework adopted by the NSET Subcommittee of the NNCO 29   See PCAST, Report to the President on Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced Manufacturing, June 2011, Executive Office of the President, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/ files/microsites/ ostp/pcast-advanced-manufacturing-june2011.pdf, accessed September 26, 2012. 30   NIST, NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology: Recommended Design Principles for ­AMTech, February 7, 2012, available at http://www.nist.gov/director/vcat/upload/VCAT-Mfg-­ Summary-Recommendations.pdf, accessed 09/26/2012.

OCR for page 67
Planning, Management, and C o o r d i nat i o n F r a m ewo r k for the NNI 89 Committee on Technology and by the NNCO itself.31 In looking at the practices of specific agencies, the present committee has found that the ones that conduct focused workshops, program reviews, and similar activities are often more effec- tive in informing and helping to coordinate planning and execution among their stakeholders. Fairly high levels of communication and awareness can be found among the following agencies: DOE and its Nanoscale Science Research Centers, NSF and its Nanoscale Science and Engineering Networks, and the Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer, which all exemplify successful practices. However, co- ordination among the remaining NNI agencies is considerably less intensive and less effective. Stakeholders that are not members of such intra-agency communities are often missing out. The NSET Subcommittee and the NNCO can and should do more to involve such stakeholders. The planning, management, and coordination framework needed depends on the complexity of the goal, the agencies and other stakeholders involved, the interconnectedness of planned outcomes, and the duration of the collaboration required to meet the goal. For example, ensuring soundness of federal government investments in nanotechnology by avoiding redundancy in and among agencies requires at least regular information-sharing. If information-sharing is the goal, holding regularly scheduled joint project reviews or workshops might be suf- ficient to ensure appropriate management and coordination. But in the much larger and more challenging context of the NNI, achieving longer-term goals will require much more formal planning and management. For example, ensuring that technologies developed with NNI-based federal funding have a clear pathway to commercialization requires that the barriers to such pathways are identified, that plans are developed to reduce or remove them, and that sufficient management and coordination are in place to execute the prescribed actions. Needs in that regard include interagency approaches to intellectual property policies, development and implementation standards, EHS requirements and public information-sharing, and education and workforce development. The organizational structure of the NNI, depicted in Figure 1.1, provides both opportunities for and obstacles to addressing those challenges. The framework seeks to link agency programs and federal investments to metrics and progress toward the NNI’s long-term desired outcomes. Assessing the effectiveness of the linkage is a major concern of the present report. This chapter describes current processes and recommends changes in the plan- ning, coordination, and management frameworks to enable the NNI to add more value to a whole that exceeds the sum of the parts in the nation’s nanoscale initia- tive. The findings and recommendations in this chapter address the building of a larger, healthier U.S. nanotechnology community in which there is better vertical 31    or F the structure of the NNI, see Figure 1.1.

OCR for page 67
90 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e interaction of the NNCO and the NSET Subcommittee with the higher levels of the government. They also aim for greater coordination in the planning and execution of major efforts such as the signature initiatives; adoption and promulgation of best practices, such as technology roadmapping; enhanced information manage- ment and sharing through a restructured, more interactive website; and enhanced coordination with entities outside the U.S. federal government. Specifically, this section considers the need and opportunity for substantially increased interagency information-sharing and access to information by the wide variety of NNI stakeholders, especially through the NNI website. This chapter also discusses the role of the five signature initiatives and the NSET Sub­ ommittee c working groups in supporting the NNI community and recommends specific a ­ ctions to strengthen interactions between the NSET Subcommittee and the NNI community. Information Management and Communication: Website Clearinghouse The effective acquisition and sharing of information is important for the success of any organization. It is essential in an enterprise as diverse, interdisciplinary, and complex as the NNI. Indeed, there are probably few initiatives in which effective com- munication with such a wide variety of stakeholders is as vital for success as the NNI. Every one of the participating NNI agencies supports and executes mission- oriented communication processes of its own. Some are complex, especially in the larger, more research-oriented agencies. A principal responsibility of the NNCO is communication: taking advantage of and building on agency processes and the information that they represent to ensure enhanced interagency awareness, com- munication, and coordination. The complexity of the NNI stakeholder commu- nities described in Chapter 3 requires a creative approach to the nanotechnology communication challenge. The NNI’s communication could play an even more vital role in encouraging economic activity in nanotechnology by increasing general awareness of emerging technologies, by encouraging students to enter STEM fields related to nanotech- nology in order to develop an educated workforce, and by educating the public on EHS and other effects of nanotechnology. Those activities necessarily cover a wide demographic range—K-12 students, universities, business circles, and the general population. The tools to address communication are varied and need to be appropriate to the intended audience; they may include methods as diverse as workshops, web resources, and even educational games. They will change as new communication technologies emerge and communication norms change. The World Wide Web’s nano.gov is a primary vehicle for meeting that chal- lenge, and it has been successful and valuable in several ways. It provides consider- able information on programs, resources, news, and events. For some purposes,

OCR for page 67
Planning, Management, and C o o r d i nat i o n F r a m ewo r k for the NNI 91 it can be navigated and mined with reasonable ease. For example, it provides introductory material on nanotechnology aimed at the K-12 and more general populations; provides links to NNI reports, workshop announcements, and re- search centers and user facilities; and in some cases provides opportunities for collaboration and funding. However, the committee believes that there are important unmet stakeholder needs and opportunities for the NSET Subcommittee and the NNCO, where the solutions could be addressed through the NNI website. These opportunities fall under two main headings. First, organizing the website to provide portals and paths to guide specific stakeholders—for example, educators, small businesses, local governments, and nongovernment organizations (NGOs)—to resources would im- prove NNI communication substantially. Second, the website could be structured to be highly interactive and easily searchable throughout agency-centric content. For example, the site provides a comprehensive list of, and links to, the many NNI- related user facilities. But a central resource that cuts across all the relevant centers and facilities regardless of hosting agency would enable potential users to identify the instruments, capabilities, and expertise in each facility and center and provide links for accessing them. In the same vein, such an improved website could be the central resource for the project-related data called for in Chapter 4. Such a searchable database would allow all stakeholders to identify projects of interest to them and the participants involved and to the agencies funding the work. It would also aid agency program managers in remaining cognizant of related programs and investments by other agencies and thereby enhance the NNI’s management and coordination capabili- ties. Furthermore, a searchable database would enhance technology transfer and commercialization of nanotechnology R&D. Often industry—particularly small businesses—does not have the appropriate awareness or resources to mine the databases of current R&D projects on agency websites. Organizing the information and having it searchable along stakeholder lines may ease the transition across the “valley of death” for nanotechnologies. The committee therefore offers a twofold recommendation. Recommendation 5-7: The NNI website (nano.gov) should be ­ edesigned and r its content organized to provide portals and guidance directed to the NNI stake- holder communities (industry, facilities, users, educators, mass media, and so on). The information should be appropriately integrated across the participat- ing NNI agencies. An essential ingredient in this redesign should be the incorporation of an easily searchable database of NNI research projects, facilities and centers, associated instru- ments and expertise, and the agencies and program offices providing project funding.

OCR for page 67
92 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e Interaction and Coordination with Entities Outside the U.S. Federal Government As described earlier in this report, a number of groups have an interest in nano- technology and the NNI, and many of them are outside the federal government. The committee believes that the NNI could better achieve its goals of fostering technology transfer and ensuring responsible development of nanotechnology if it engaged nonfederal stakeholders, including international organizations. Stakeholder Workshops Stakeholder workshops are among the most successful and effective contribu- tions of the NNI. The NSET Subcommittee, assisted by the NNCO, has sponsored or endorsed many workshops on virtually all aspects of nanotechnology. Work- shops were organized to help in the planning and preparation of the NNI strategic plans and in executing recommendations made by PCAST and prior National Research Council reviews. Finding: The NNI has spurred a substantial amount of information-sharing among the various participating agencies and other stakeholders that otherwise probably would not have occurred. Much of the information exchange has hap- pened through workshops and publications. The NNCO, in partnership with the NSET Subcommittee, has facilitated many of the activities. The present committee endorses the activities and their continuation. International Initiatives The PCAST 2012 nanotechnology report32 included a brief section on inter- national developments (PCAST 2012). PCAST noted that the United States leads the world in nanotechnology R&D, but that other nations are gaining ground. For example, Russia is investing aggressively. The Russian Nanotech Corporation (RUSNANO) now ranks second worldwide in nanotechnology spending and plans to increase investment.33 Within the European Union (EU), there were plans for major investment in science and technology, including substantial components in nanotechnology. In particular, the EU recently completed the process of selecting flagship initiatives (FIs) as part of the Europe 2020 plan.34 Each FI is expected to represent an invest- 32   PCAST, Report to the President and Congress on the Fourth Assessment of the National Nanotech- nology Initiative, April 2012. 33    bid, p. 13. I 34    or more information on the Europe 2020 plan, see European Commission, “Europe 2020,” F available at http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm, accessed November 16, 2012.

OCR for page 67
Planning, Management, and C o o r d i nat i o n F r a m ewo r k for the NNI 93 ment of 1 billion euros over a program lifetime of 10 years. Among the selected was an FI on graphene. In addition to national and regional programs worldwide, there are many inter- national activities, a number of which are listed on nano.gov. The GIN working group provides a forum for agencies to share information and coordinate such international activities, which include multilateral and bilateral cooperation and participation in international and regional forums and other events. The global nature of informa- tion-sharing in nanotechnology research can be seen in the international government groups, NGOs, and companies that participate in the annual International Nanotech- nology Conference on Communication and Cooperation (for example, INC9 2013 in Berlin35) and in the World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) panel report Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020.36 As part of that com- munity, the NSET Subcommittee tracks progress in foreign nanotechnology R&D and helps to promote the trade and commercial interests of the United States in the development of a global marketplace for nanotechnology products. Recommendation 5-8: The Global Issues in Nanotechnology Working Group should expand activities aimed at development of a healthy global marketplace for nanotechnology, including international efforts on governance, environ- mental health and safety, and standards in the annually updated working group plan called for earlier in this chapter. U.S. Regional, State, and Local Stakeholder Initiatives Since the launch of the NNI, many states have begun programs aimed at sup- porting emerging nanotechnology university programs and businesses with the goal of leveraging federal investments and staking a leadership position as the field grows economically. According to the 2009 NNI workshop report Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology, there are 34 regional initiatives supporting thousands of organizations performing nanotechnology research. One example is in New York, where the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering at the Uni- versity at Albany, State University of New York, has been built with $14 billion in public and private funding, including a substantial amount from the state. Other states have also funded efforts aimed at attracting and promoting the fledgling nanotechnology industry. The NNI has taken steps to reach out to regional, state, and local nanotechnol- ogy efforts through a series of workshops, the most recent in May 2012 in Portland, 35    inth International Nanotechnology Conference on Communication and Cooperation website N at http://www.inc9.de, accessed October 24, 2012. 36    .C. Roco, C.A. Mirkin, and M.C. Hersam, Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs M in 2020—Retrospective and Outlook, 1st Edition, Springer, 2011.

OCR for page 67
94 Triennial Review of the N at i o n a l N a n o t e c h n o l o g y I n i t i at i v e Oregon. These workshops provide a forum at which leaders of regional, state, and local efforts can gather to •• Exchange information and stimulate collaboration between the workshop participants. •• Explore mechanisms for linking the NNI and regional, state, and local initiatives. •• Explore the roles of federal, regional, state, and local entities in nanotech- nology transfer, education and training, and economic development. •• Identify common goals and objectives among the initiatives. •• Identify paths to enhance the effectiveness of the initiatives through col- laboration, information exchange, and resource-sharing. The workshop reports and other resources aimed at assisting regional, state, and local nanotechnology-related efforts can be found on the NNI website at nano. gov/initiatives/commercial/state-local. In addition, following a recommendation by PCAST in its 2012 review of the NNI, the NNCO created a staff position dedicated to engagement with industry and states. Having a single contact for all activities related to those communities should improve the NNI’s ability to provide them support. Role of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office The NNCO plays a critical role in the functioning of the NNI—facilitating information sharing internally and externally and providing administrative and technical support. The NNCO brings considerable value in coordinating the NSET Subcommittee, its working groups, and the signature initiatives. The NNCO also provides essential support and maintenance of the NNI website, which is the gov- ernment’s portal to information about nanotechnology and about activities and services throughout the government. Finding: In light of the findings noted in this report—particularly the need for coordinating signature initiatives, providing centralized cross-initiative information access, and collecting and aggregating data to support ­ etrics— m the responsibilities of the NNCO will probably expand and require additional resources. Recommendation 5-9: The NSET Subcommittee should ensure adequate sup- port for the NNCO to execute its current and future assigned responsibilities.