2003-2004 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8 Nanotechnology INTRODUCTION Charge to Review Team and Review Process The Nanotechnology Review Team, assembled at the request of the ARL Director, met in May 2004 at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to conduct a crosscutting technical assessment of programs within the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) relating to ongoing efforts in the field of nanotechnology. That was the first year that such a review had been conducted. The review covered activities from multiple ARL directorates, primarily the Weapons and Materials Research Directorate (WMRD) and the Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate (SEDD). The review- ers focused on the overall quality of the efforts and on the integration of those efforts both among themselves and with other ARL objectives. The review included 18 separate presentations covering approximately 30 individual projects, a poster session and laboratory tour, and a significant dialogue between the reviewers and presenters. The eight review members, drawn from existing panels of the Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board, represented a composite of academic and industrial expertise. What Is Nanotechnology and Why Is It Relevant to the Army Research Laboratory? Unlike most other technological areas, nanotechnology is new, both in terms of ARL experience and in terms of being a recognized engineering and scientific discipline. Consequently, for this report a usable definition, taken from the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI’s) Web site (http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html), defines nanotechnology as having three required components: 45 

46 2003–2004 ASSESSMENT OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY 1. Research and technology development at the atomic, molecular or macromolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately 1 - 100 nanometer range. 2. Creating and using structures, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size. 3. Ability to control or manipulate on the atomic scale. The consensus working definition presented by ARL is as follows: “Nanotechnology is seeing proper- ties that you do not see in bulk.” ARL’s rationale for involvement in such technologies was explained to the Review Team as being derived from the following statement of the Army’s vision: “The Army must provide combat command- ers with agile, versatile, and strategically responsive forces, completely integrated and synchronized as members of the joint interagency team and with the Army’s coalition partners.” An additional element of its rationale is that ARL needs to invest in opportunity-driven research that leads to revolutionary change, focusing in particular on technology innovations that provide smaller, smarter, lower power, and lighter support for fighting forces. Nanotechnology, by contributing to reductions in the size of devices and/or by providing new material characteristics, is deemed by ARL to have the potential for such revolutionary change. Nanotechnology Within the Army Research Laboratory Nanotechnology within ARL is currently not a program per se, but a rubric applied to a set of projects across multiple directorates, primarily SEDD and WMRD. Nanotechnology does not currently have a designated technical or program lead or any formal organized leadership team. There are, however, two relatively new institutes with direct relevance to nanotechnology formed under Army and ARL auspices: • The Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) was formed in 2002 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the express purpose of “using advanced nanotechnology research to dramatically improve the survival of the soldier of the future” (http://web.mit.edu/isn/). • The Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies (ICB) was formed in 2003 as a consortium of academic and university partners to “provide the Army with core competencies and expertise in the area of biologically-derived and biologically-inspired materials, sensors, and information processing expected to impact applications in precision strike, signature management, chemi- cal/biological, and particulate environmental protection, and counter-terrorism capabilities” (http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=5170). The review presentations included brief overviews of both of these institutes, but no representatives from either was present, nor was there any presentation of details of projects or their results. The approximately 30 identifiably separate projects that were presented for review are being per- formed or led directly by ARL staff. They fall into one or more of four nanotechnology areas: 1. Nano devices and sensors. These artifacts are constructed from nano-size materials and can be assembled into larger subsystems to perform certain specific functions, especially involving either computation or sensing. Of the approximately 30 projects, 8 focus on nanotechnology. 2. Nano materials. These materials are designed to leverage molecular-level properties in order to achieve specific higher-level material properties. Projects in this area are of two types: those 

NANOTECHNOLOGY 47 close to classical materials sciences or metallurgy, and those representing new ways of thinking about materials. Of the approximately 30 projects, 8 focus on nanomaterials. 3. Bio-nanotechnology. Such artifacts and materials have their origins in biomolecular structures. Of the approximately 30 projects, 2 focus on bio-nanotechnology. 4. Computational nanoscience. Computational nanoscience uses advanced modeling and high- performance computational techniques in support of nanotechnology research. Of the approxi- mately 30 projects, 5 have this as a focus. A few areas of nanotechnology, such as quantum computing, do not fall into any of the four categoriza- tions above and are not posited at this time as being of key relevance to ARL’s mission. In terms of technical expertise, the ARL in-house researchers interviewed by the Review Team constituted a healthy mix of new employees fresh out of graduate school and more senior personnel. In the latter case, there was a significant mix of researchers who had stayed within their base discipline and those who had “crossed over” to a new nano area. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES Most Significant Advances The following list summarizes some specific project results that the Review Team concluded are particularly significant, either to the Army and ARL’s mission or to advanced science in general. These results are mentioned here because they reflect advances reported in the reviewed presentations, regard- less of how well they fit within the definition of nanotechnology provided above. • Demonstrated improved infrared sensor devices using quantum wells, • Higher-power infrared lasers using quantum wells with world-record efficiency and power, • Nano-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) instrumentation that allows structures at the molecu- lar scale to be observed and properties to be measured, • Demonstrated single-molecule switch with memory characteristics, • Development of nano-size magnetic particles that can be embedded in adhesives, and • Development of nanocrystalline tungsten to replace depleted uranium. Opportunities In general, nanotechnology offers the Army at least two major opportunities. First, with a good systems focus, nanotechnology can potentially provide revolutionary advances in capabilities in support of the soldier in the field with respect to the following: what the soldier wears and carries, how it interacts with the battlefield environment, direct interactions with a networked battlefield, and reduction in the logistical tail. Second, nanotechnology can change the way that such systems are fabricated, from a top-down system integration to a bottom-up self-assembly of material by design. Challenges In a nascent and wide-open field such as nanotechnology, it is clearly difficult to decide what is both good science and relevant science. Answering questions in these areas represents the core of the chal- lenges facing ARL as it moves forward in nanotechnology. In general, as indicated above, the material 

48 2003–2004 ASSESSMENT OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY presented to the Review Team was in itself not a nanotechnology program so much as a series of disconnected projects. Some of these, although quite good technically, did not really fit within the scope of nanotechnology as defined by the NNI (see above) and conventional scientific usage. In particular, the challenges facing ARL in this area include the following: • Developing the key themes that would help identify areas of most impact for ARL nanotechnology work. As a side effect, the development of these themes will help ARL to crystallize its defini- tion of nanotechnology and to clearly identify those projects that are nanotechnology in the most broadly understood sense, as opposed to those that are most properly advanced materials science (not nanotechnology, but still clearly in ARL’s interest to pursue). • Integrating a sufficient systems engineering approach into the individual projects so that a bridge or roadmap to gains in warfighter needs can be rationally drawn. Such integration would help to identify nanotechnology areas of most relevance to the ARL mission and those key metrics that over time will show progress toward deployable technologies. • Deciding on an appropriate structure for a nanotechnology program. This structure could be developed from the current relatively disconnected set of projects, perhaps through a steering group, to a Collaborative Technology Alliance such as is done now by ARL for other technolo- gies. • Developing an appropriate mechanism to engage with the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies and the Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies. The purpose of this mechanism would be to ensure transfer of results and a continued focus by these institutes on problems of relevance to Army missions. • Fostering the right level of collaboration between ARL projects and with the outside world. This effort would avoid either duplication of work being done by bigger extramural groups or missing areas that are of unique relevance to the Army. • Ensuring that the more established ARL researchers who are moving into the nano arena from more traditional disciplines can function at a productive level. Sabbaticals, nanotechnology “boot camps,” and sponsorship of visiting scholars to work in the departments of these research- ers may be appropriate. • Enhancing collaboration between theory, modeling, and experimental verification to leverage the unique and often world-class ARL infrastructure and thereby accelerate the transition time from new concept to potential deployment. • In the devices area, ensuring that the silicon roadmap for the next 15 years is well understood, including the dark corners where significant problems lie. Such an understanding can help ARL to avoid projects that do not materially advance beyond characteristics projected in the silicon roadmap. Perhaps more importantly, for those nanotechnology device technologies that do offer advantages, it will be important to understand a technology’s true potential and especially what is needed for it to grow from a demonstrated device to a full system. Such an understanding may require specific and unique ARL work—in the context of soldier systems—on elucidating key environmental effects, new fault models, new potentials for redundancies, and ways to connect with classical systems. Many of these latter questions are not being addressed by the current nanotechnology community, but they will be essential for turning the technologies into robust opportunities. • In the materials group, determining how to avoid upsetting currently highly successful classical efforts while providing key intellectual and modeling infrastructure to support increasingly molecular-level focus. 

NANOTECHNOLOGY 49 • In the computational modeling area, ensuring that nanotechnology researchers are aware of and have access to the most appropriate externally available modeling tools, thereby freeing ARL computational scientists to work in those areas using capabilities currently unavailable to them. This challenge includes in particular identifying existing software tools, especially public domain tools, that may carry over directly to problems of ARL interest. The goal is to avoid duplicating existing modeling capabilities and instead to work toward enhancing such capabili- ties in support of new research. Making such enhancements available to the greater research community through re-release via common public domain licensing should thus be considered an additional measure of research effectiveness. • Developing an appropriate level of in-house domain expertise to handle the bio-nanotechnology area, especially in sensors areas that are unique to Army applications. • Integrating fuel cell work with larger Army and commercial projects and ensuring its rel- evance. This challenge includes, in particular, reviewing the goals of the ARL research in terms of what is needed in the field, and comparing the end optimizations developed at ARL with other approaches developed elsewhere in the Army and in the commercial arena. CONTRIBUTIONS TO ARMY NEEDS AND THE BROADER COMMUNITY Contributions to Army Needs It is clear that nanotechnology has the capability to contribute to the Army’s needs, both in the near future and in the longer run. Examples of such contributions to date include the following: • The development of approaches to design additives that affect the molecular surface of resins to aid in materials with decontamination and/or sensing capabilities. • Faster curing of induction-processed adhesives using nanomagnetic particles in the adhesives. Such capabilities would both decrease the downtime of equipment in the field and increase the productivity of limited numbers of maintenance personnel. • The demonstration of improved infrared imaging sensors with increased resolution and re- duced blooming for night-vision applications. • The defeat of shoulder-launched missiles by focusing high-power infrared lasers on them. Such threats are of continuing and perhaps growing significance, as recent events at the Baghdad airport demonstrated. They may become of growing importance at domestic airports as terror- ists attempt to use such weapons against commercial air traffic. • The development of nanocrystalline tungsten to replace depleted uranium in penetrating shells. • A handheld protein microarray capable of detecting up to four biological agents in a water sample on one test ticket. (For additional information, see http://www.rdecom.army.mil/ rdemagazine/200402/index.html). • An Agentase Nerve Agent Sensor. This sensor is a polymer embedded with an enzyme that changes color in the presence of sarin nerve gas; this sensor has been transferred to a new company. Contributions to the Broader Community Given the early state of nanotechnology development, it is not surprising that both the nanotechnology community as a whole and the specific ARL community are still formative in nature. 

50 2003–2004 ASSESSMENT OF THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY Consequently, it is a bit more difficult to judge overall contributions to the broader community than for many other areas of technology. However, the review did touch on three metrics that are of relevance: written records, academic interactions, and technology transfer. While information on papers and presentations was not made available for all of the projects included in presentations to the Review Team, it is clear that such external review and exposure are important to the ARL technical community, and are an integral part of many projects. Further, given the relatively short time that some of the more energetic ARL researchers have been at ARL, it is not surprising that the key publications cited for many of the projects predate the researchers’ employment at ARL. It is also clear that academic partners are equally important to the ARL nanotechnology effort, but with somewhat bimodal levels of interaction. For the 30 reviewed projects, 12 of them identified a total of more than 33 distinct academic partners and the rest had none. In many cases, the interaction seemed to be that of a typical grantor-grantee relationship. In several others, however, especially if the physical distances between ARL and the institutions were short, the interactions seemed extraordinarily active, with the sharing of laboratory and experimentation occurring on an almost daily basis, even when there was no formal contract vehicle. Given the world-class state of much of ARL’s facilities, the Review Team encourages such interaction. In terms of technology transfer, there were signs of significant activities. Several of the projects have reported patent applications and significant activities under Cooperative Research and Develop- ment Agreements. About half a dozen start-up companies and spin-offs were also identified, although this was not uniform across the projects. In addition, on February 3, 2004, ARL and the Maryland Technology Development Corporation co-hosted a showcase, “Providing a Competitive Advantage Through Innovative Nanotechnology,” geared toward small businesses and entrepreneurs. It should be repeated at regular intervals. (For additional information, see www.rdecom.army.mil/rdemagazine/ 200403/part_arl_showcase.html.) RELEVANCE OF CROSSCUTTING ISSUES All three of the crosscutting issues (modeling and simulation, information assurance and security, and interdirectorate activities) identified in Chapter 1 of this report find relevance within ARL’s nanotechnology activities. The strongest relevance is with the issue of coupling modeling on ARL’s high-performance computing facilities with experiments. Having models with strong experimental veri- fication is at the core of making ARL’s work in nanotechnology not only relevant but also truly valuable and unique. ARL’s robust laboratory facilities enhance this potential capability, and a conscious effort to promote such coupling should be encouraged. ARL’s nanotechnology arena does not at this time have information security issues in the sense applied to the other program areas. However, there are interesting and unique future issues that are worth ARL consideration. For example, when future soldiers are literally wrapped in nanotechnology systems, security issues will include protecting them against outside influence and ensuring that such systems cannot easily be used by hostile forces. Previous chapters of this report have addressed the relevance of crosscutting issues to specific ARL directorates. Nanotechnology is, of course, a crosscutting area. The Review Team characterizes nanotechnology generally, and within ARL, as currently heavy on science and weak on applications and demonstrable milestones. The Review Team and the Board judge this state of affairs to be appropriate at this time but likely to change.