Materials in a New Era: Proceedings of the 1999 Solid State Sciences Committee Forum (1999)

Arthur Bienenstock

Associate Director for Science, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Arthur Bienenstock provided a perspective on the Clinton administration 's science policy and fiscal year 2000 science and technology budget submission, with particular emphasis on new initiatives and opportunities in the materials sciences. He reiterated the administration's commitment to the federal role in science, quoting from the 1997 Office of Science and Technology Policy report, Science and Technology Shaping the 21st Century, “The Administration is unequivocally committed to maintaining leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge.”

The President and Vice President invoke two overarching themes in articulating their broad support for science:

• The fact that technology and the underlying science are responsible for over one-half of productivity increases over the past 50 years; and

• The importance of the interdependencies of the sciences (e.g., the dependence of the biomedical sciences on advances in natural science, mathematics, and engineering).

This support is seen in the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget submission, which shows substantial increases for scientific research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Included in these increases is $366 million for an Information Technology Initiative, $214 million for construction of the Spallation Neutron Source, and $50 million for an Interagency Education Research Initiative.

The Information Technology Initiative increases federal investments in fundamental information technology research, advanced computing for science and engineering, and research in the social and economic implications of the information revolution. Support is also provided for the education and training of the U.S. information technology work force. This initiative is led by NSF with significant involvement by the Department of Defense, DOE, and NASA.

Bienenstock reviewed progress toward implementing the goal of S. 1305, authorization legislation that calls for a doubling of the federal investment in science over the next 12 years. The NIH R& D budget increased significantly in fiscal year 1999 and is on a path toward achieving this goal in less than 12 years. The non-NIH civilian R&D budgets have not experienced such growth and have been essentially flat in recent years. One of the outstanding challenges is how to place federal investment in R&D on a growth curve within the current budget caps.

To demonstrate the interdependence of the sciences, Bienenstock reviewed the development of x-ray research leading to the modern computerized axial tomography (CAT) scan. X-rays were discovered in 1896, and their importance for diagnostic and therapeutic radiology was almost immediately recognized. X-ray crystallography was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, and many related Nobel prizes have followed, particularly in protein crystallography. Why, then, did it take so long to develop the CAT scan? Although the concept was understood, the CAT scan could not be realized until parallel advances in computers, detectors, and image processing were achieved. These advances required investments in solid state physics and engineering, materials science, and mathematics and computer science. The CAT scan is not an x-ray advance. It is the result of a broad integration of science across several disciplines—an integration that could not have been achieved without broad leadership “across the frontiers of science.”

Bienenstock closed his presentation by stressing the importance of the federal role in supporting a broad range of research. The importance of recognizing the interdependence of research is clearly apparent in condensedmatter and materials physics, where advances often occur at interfaces with biology, chemistry, atomic physics, materials science, and the engineering disciplines. Bienenstock encouraged the condensed-matter and materials physics community to advocate support for a broad range of research. He also urged the community to become engaged in the emerging dialog concerning post-Social Security federal budget priorities. Competing priorities include broad tax cuts and investments in the future such as research and education. The R&D community has a large stake in the outcome.

Marvin Cassman

Director, National Institute of General Medical Sciences

National Institutes of Health

The interplay between the biological sciences and solid state sciences is clearly manifest in the rapid acceleration of the number of crystal structures of proteins that are being determined. Over the course of 10 years, 1987-97, for example, the number of protein crystallographic structures that have been deposited in the Protein Data Base has increased from tens to thousands. This rapid increase in the number of structures has been made possible, in part, by the improvements in x-ray synchrotron sources. Over this period, the x-ray brightness has increased by orders of magnitude—from first-generation sources, like the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory, to second-generation sources, like the National Synchrotron Light Source at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, to third-generation sources, like the Advanced Photon Source (APS) at the Argonne National Laboratory. At present, within a 90-minute experiment at the Advanced Photon Source, sufficient data can be collected to determine a structure. The rate-limiting step in a structural determination is the ability to produce a high-quality crystal. Although x-ray brightness is a key element in the massive increase in the number of crystal structures determined, the need and desire to know the spatial distribution of chemical entities as well as the realization that distribution underpins the functionality of the protein have also been of critical importance to this growth.

This coupling of the need from the biological community with the advances in the x-ray sources, constructed primarily for solid state science research using traditional funding sources like the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), has provided a synergy that is virtually unparalleled. The excitement over such advances comes at a cost. It is very apparent that biologists are becoming increasingly heavy users at the synchrotron sources, which draw their operational costs from the physics and materials sciences at the DOE and the NSF.

This raises an important question as to how funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the primary funding agency of biological research, can be introduced effectively and efficiently into the picture. The recent report of the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee on Department of Energy Synchrotron Radiation Sources (the Birgeneau/Shen Report) clearly states the desirability of restricting the operation of the sources to only one funding agency. Using multiple funding agencies to operate a single source would lead, in the opinion of the report, to duplication of effort, unnecessary complication of operations, and inefficiency. Yet, the dilemma stands as to the partitioning between different agencies of funding for these sources, for supporting staff scientists, and for instrumentation.

A study that was recently released from the Office of Science and Technology Policy addresses this issue. The working group that produced the report consisted of representatives from the NIH, DOE, the NSF, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Some of the more important findings of this study are discussed below.

How can this rapid expansion in protein crystallography be supported? It is clear that existing facilities are being stretched to their limit in terms of the staff scientists. It is inconceivable that current staff levels can support increased demand. Consequently, enhancing the number of the staff and the number of staff capable of interfacing with the biological community is imperative. In particular, it should be possible for a biologist, totally unfamiliar with diffraction methods, to determine the crystal structure of a newly isolated protein without having to spend years in developing an effort in crystallography. Along with this, improved access procedures to existing sources need to be established. Procedures need to be set in place where nonspecialists can perform experiments at the sources and walk away with a crystal structure in a easy and straightforward manner.

Although many advances have been made in the sources, advances in experimentation require parallel advances in the supporting equipment. This includes advances in the detectors, the diffractometers, and the ancillary equipment. If the efficiency in detecting diffracted x-rays does not keep pace with the advances made to the source, then what has been gained? Similarly, if the limiting step in data accumulation rests with the

diffractometer, be this in the movement of stepping motors or in its alignment, then are the enhancements in the flux being used effectively? Consequently, there is a continued need to support R&D efforts for improvements to instrumentation.

With the large growth in biological activity in the United States and worldwide, the importance of the quantitative determination of protein crystal structure, and the demand that is being placed on current facilities, the expansion of existing crystallographic capabilities is critical to the further growth of the field. One needs only view the Advanced Photon Source, where there is a large percentage of remaining sectors in the ring dedicated to protein crystallography, to get a feeling for the demand. Even with the APS, crystallographic facilities at the different light sources across the country need to be increased. If current trends persist, even large increases may not be sufficient to satisfy the demand.

Martha Krebs

Director, Office of Science

U.S. Department of Energy

The Department of Energy (DOE) is the second largest source of federal support for basic and applied research with a total budget of $4.4 billion and is the largest provider of R&D facilities. The DOE is the top supporter of the physical sciences including materials R &D. The DOE share of materials research rose from 35 percent of total federal support in 1998 to 42 percent in 1999 with a total budget of $780.9 million.

Nondefense basic research is managed by DOE's Office of Science (SC), which accomplishes its mission primarily through support of multiprogram laboratories and research facilities and also through support of university research at a level of $478 million per year and industry at $126 million per year. Apart from a dramatic decrease of funding for major facilities in the period 1994-97, SC's research budget has roughly tracked the cost of living over the last decade. Facilities funding is at a historic high in the fiscal year 2000 budget request, which includes provisions for the Spallation Neutron Source.

In addition to the operation of major research facilities, the Materials Science Division supports a balanced portfolio of materials research including:

• Structure and dynamics of solids, liquids and surfaces;

• Electronic structure;

• Surfaces and interfaces;

• Synthesis and processing science;

• Predictive theory, simulation, and modeling;

• Structural characterization at the angstrom level; and

• Mechanical and physical behavior of materials.

It is difficult to enhance base support for research without a distinguishable national initiative. This political reality is particularly important for materials because there is no intuitively apparent credible national problem that requires a major initiative in materials research. DOE has played a major role in national initiatives regarding global climate change, the human genome project, and the new Scientific Simulation Initiative.

SC captures its research under four themes that reflect its basic research, energy, environmental, and facilities missions:

1. Exploring energy and matter;

2. Fueling the future;

3. Protecting our living planet; and

4. Using extraordinary tools for extraordinary science.

Given the high cost of construction and operation of national facilities, facilities initiatives necessarily stress the base research efforts. Nevertheless, these facilities have historically prevented erosion of the base research and have served as the basis for revitalization of DOE's mission as national priorities evolve.

Hans Mark

Director of Defense Research and Engineering

U.S. Department of Defense

That the possession of superior technology leads to victory in war has been a basic axiom ever since people started to fight wars and then to write history. What has not always been clear is the connection between this superior technology and basic knowledge that is the result of fundamental scientific research. This relationship was not fully recognized in Europe until the beginning of the 15th century. Perhaps the leading figure in establishing this all-important connection was Prince Henry of Portugal, who was the first to apply basic scientific knowledge to the technology of seafaring. In 1420, Henry established what today would be called a multidisciplinary, mission-oriented research center near Sagres in southern Portugal. There, he collected mathematicians, astronomers, and geographers who provided basic knowledge to navigators, sea captains, shipwrights, coopers, sailmakers, and other craftsmen. It was this work that made the rapid exploration of the world possible in the following century [1].

The contributions of French scientists have been especially important in the development of new knowledge through basic research, with a subsequent application to the enhancement of military strength. Napoleon Bonaparte, as an artillery officer, knew firsthand the valuable contribution of technology toward victory. What was more important, he cultivated friendships with the very best scientists of the day, including Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier and Pierre Simon Laplace. Bonaparte also left a legacy that has had far-reaching consequences —a system of military education that resulted in the creation of a generation of distinguished scientists and mathematicians. Probably the most eminent early product of this system was Augustin Louis Cauchy.

France also led in the introduction of aeronautical technology to warfare. The Montgolfier Brothers invented the hot air balloon in the last years of the 18th century. At the battle of Fleurs in Maubeuge in 1794, the French used balloons for surveillance of the battlefield for the first time. Their employment proved decisive in this engagement, and since then air power has become a major factor in war [2].

During a recent meeting with the Defense Science Board, which is a senior advisory committee to the Secretary of Defense on basic research and technology, I outlined the following four areas in which I thought that more research was needed.

In the past decade, a number of complex molecular structures have been discovered that were not anticipated. There is, for example, the molecule containing 60 carbon atoms in a spherical structure called the “bucky ball.” The discoverers of this molecule and others of this kind were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996 [3]. Perhaps even more important than the bucky balls are nanotubes, long tubular structures of carbon atoms that have cage-like walls formed when two-dimensional sheets of carbon atoms (called graphene) are rolled into a tube. The tubes have diameters that range from 1 to 10 nm and can be either conductors or semiconductors, depending on that diameter. These structures may provide the way out of the quantum limits on silicon devices and allow components of one to two orders of magnitude smaller than present limits. This would have obvious military applications in guidance of small arms munitions, unmanned microaircraft, microspacecraft, and microsensors [4].

About a century ago, the distinguished French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré was the first to identify evidence of chaotic behavior in deterministic systems. He examined the proof given by Laplace of the stability of the solar system and found that it was not rigorous because Laplace had used a Fourier series that was

only conditionally convergent. Poincaré went further and showed that even though the solar system was governed by deterministic equations, these sometimes had solutions that exhibited chaotic behavior [5]. Later, it was established that this is a general property of nonlinear systems, and we are just beginning to understand chaotic behavior. It is hoped that complete understanding will allow development of a theory with both descriptive and predictive power [6]. Because all systems are ultimately non-linear, an understanding of this behavior will likely have the broadest possible application. In terms of military applications, these will probably range from improving weather predictions to guiding tactical decisions on the battlefield.

Almost all advanced weapons systems depend on computers to guide and control them. These computers are in turn controlled by operating systems that depend on the construction of appropriate “software. ” Problems in developing software for these computers have in recent years been responsible to a large extent for the delays and cost growths experienced in the development of advanced weapons. The question is whether new techniques for creating software could be developed to alleviate these problems. Developments are being studied today that might make it possible for large computers to partially program themselves in an evolutionary or Darwinian manner. It is possible that these techniques could lead to automation in the area of computer programming, just as the manufacturing of hard goods has been automated by the application of computer-controlled robots. Once again, the achievement of practical results of importance to the military will depend on fundamental research in this area [7]. The hope is that by automating software development, some of the costly problems that have been encountered in many complex weapons programs can be reduced or eliminated.

The computer revolution was generated by the application of quantum mechanics to solid state physics. Almost all of the applications that resulted from the detailed understanding of the solid state resulted in new devices that involved low electrical power levels. This situation has now changed; we are entering an era in which new understandings of high-temperature plasmas and nonlinear materials that can handle very-high power densities have opened up new vistas. This is the new knowledge that we are attempting to apply in the development of electromagnetic guns. There is every reason to believe, in my opinion, that such weapons will come into existence in the first decade or two of the next century and that they may have decisive military effects [8]. New high-energy laser weapons, both airborne and space based, require a detailed understanding of the behavior of high-density plasma flowing in supersonic jets. In addition, optical systems that can handle very-high intensity light beams and still retain extremely accurate dimensional tolerances are necessary. Weapons of this kind are now under development and will, I believe, also be decisive in future conflicts.

The modern research university, which evolved in Europe during the 19th century, is today the most effective institution for the creation of new knowledge. In the United States, the Department of Defense sponsors basic research in many universities. This work is supported by a system of grants and contracts that has been in place for almost half a century, with the research subject to normal academic review to assure quality. The classic example of work of this kind was the discovery of fission in 1938 by two German professors, Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, working at the University of Berlin [9]. Seven short years later, this discovery led to the nuclear weapon used at Hiroshima that brought about the end of the Second World War. That this development was achieved in such a short time was due in large part to a number of American professors including J. Robert Oppenheimer and Ernest O. Lawrence of the University of California, Berkeley, who initiated fundamental research in nuclear physics during the 1930s.

Another good example of a decisive military development was radar, a British invention shared with U.S. scientists in 1940. A group of U.S. scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology furthered the development of radar such that small and robust units could be placed on ships and airplanes. This proved to be decisive in many naval and air engagements during the Second World War.

Following the end of the war, U.S. research uni-

versities were encouraged by the Department of Defense to establish research institutes in order to concentrate resources and focus the research on topics that are most likely to be of interest to the military. Examples of these institutions include the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University sponsored by the Navy, the Lincoln Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sponsored by the Air Force, and the Institute for Advanced Technology at the University of Texas at Austin sponsored by the Army. These research institutes are able to draw on the very best scientific talent in some of the most outstanding research universities in the United States. In addition, many of the brightest young people are drawn into scientific research that could affect our military posture.

The results that have been obtained in such institutions have had far-reaching consequences. Radar, lasers, solid state electronic devices, novel optical fire control systems, and various other technologies of this kind would not exist were it not for the work done at many U.S. universities. Thus, the system of university-based research that has been developed has been proven effective. It is a most important component that helps to ensure the national security of the United States.

It is essential that the U.S. military continues to receive the best possible scientific advice. The Department of Defense will continue to support basic research and will encourage the Defense Research Board to concentrate on such issues in the future.

[1] C. Raymond Beazley , Prince Henry the Navigator , G.P. Putnam and Sons , New York, N.Y. , 1911 .

[2] Hans Mark , “Warfare in Space,” America Plans for Space , National Defense University Press , Washington, D.C. , June 1986 , pp. 13-32 .

[3] The 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Robert F. Curl, Jr., Sir Harold W. Kroto, and Richard E. Smalley for their discovery of fullerenes.

[4] M. Meyyappan and Jie Han , “Buckytubes in a Nanoworld,” Prototyping Technology International , December 1998 .

[5] Jules Henri Poincaré , Les Méthodes Nouvelles de la Mécanique Céleste , Gauthier-Villiers , Paris , 1892-99 .

[6] Henri D.I. Abarbanel , Analysis of Observed Chaotic Data , Springer-Verlag Inc. , New York, N.Y. , 1996 .

[7] Stephanie Forrest , “Genetic Algorithms,” ACM Computing Surveys , Vol. 28, No. 1 , March 1996 , pp. 77-80 .

[8] Harry D. Fair , “Electromagnetic Launch: A Review of the U.S. National Program,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics , Vol. 33, No. 1 , January 1997 .

[9] Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman , “Concerning the Existence of Alkaline Earth Metals Resulting from the Neutron Irradiation of Uranium,” Naturwissenschaften , Vol. 27, No. 11 , 1939 .

Raymond G. Kammer

Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Technology Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

The primary mission of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is to promote U.S. economic growth by working with industry to develop and apply measurements, standards and technology, and related scientific research areas. We do this through the Measurement and Standards Laboratories (MSLs, performing internal R&D), our Advanced Technology Program (ATP, which supports cost-shared work on high-risk technologies), the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (a series of local resources to support technology application in small manufacturers), and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program. The MSL programs in areas relevant to condensed-matter and materials physics (CMMP) are funded at an annual level of $100 million out of a total budget of $285 million, while ATP awards in these areas have pro-

vided R&D funding of more than $200 million out of $1,390 million since the beginning of the program. Thus, NIST has a large investment in the area of CMMP, reflecting the central role that materials research plays in the future of the modern high-technology economy.

CMMP-related research at NIST is performed in virtually all areas of the MSLs, including the Physics, Chemical Science and Technology, Materials Science and Engineering, Building and Fire Research, and Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratories. The research projects are quite varied, covering a wide range of materials and dimensions, with an increasing emphasis on soft materials and materials-by-design efforts. Several NIST scientists have recently been recognized for their work in this area, including William Phillips who in 1997 was awarded a share of the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on laser cooling of atoms (work instrumental in the production of Bose-Einstein condensation); John Cahn, who this year was awarded the National Medal of Science for his seminal work on quasi crystals and spinodal decomposition; and Charles Han who this year was awarded the High Polymer Prize of the American Physical Society. Some examples of NIST internal research will help to convey this breadth.

The NIST Polymers Division is the oldest and likely the best polymer research center in the federal government. The scientists of this division conduct a broad range of research in polymers, including measurements of the properties of polymer blends, which are the key to high-performance plastics with tailored properties. As one example, they study mixing, isotropic structure formation, and the effects of shear fields on phase equilibria in real time, using neutron, x-ray, and light-scattering and microscopy techniques. The information obtained is critical in understanding the industrial processing of these important materials. NIST researchers are also heavily involved in semiconductor metrology—an increasingly important activity as device size is decreased. In addition to producing Standard Reference Materials, we are developing atomic-scale measurements in which electrical measurements are conducted on test structures made in single crystal silicon, which are then referenced to atomic layers. This will allow development of extremely well-calibrated line width measurements, directly traceable to NIST standards. As a final example of an area of in-house research, NIST researchers are heavily involved in magnetic effects, especially at the nanometer scale. As magnetic storage density is pushed ever higher, the ability to perform such measurements will become increasingly important. For example, NIST has recently constructed a low-temperature (2 K) scanning tunneling microscope with both high magnetic field capability and in situ molecular epitaxy capability for metals and semiconductors. This instrument will allow autonomous atom-by-atom assembly of nanostructures for research use. On a larger scale, NIST also has a special role in materials for civil infrastructure, including concrete. For example, we have a strong competence in computational materials science of concrete and provide about 20 analytical software programs for concrete on a Web site that is visited by over 1,000 users per month. Among the computational models is one that is used to calculate the rate of migration of salt used on bridges to the reinforcing steel in the concrete.

In addition to this in-house work, the ATP, since its inception, has supported a number of important materials projects in industries (often with university participation). This support has always come with approximately equal contributions from the participants. With support from ATP, Non-Volatile Electronics, Inc., has developed and demonstrated giant magnetoresistance computer memory cells, which will form the basis for nonvolatile computer memories. Motorola and others are helping to commercialize this application. Texas Instruments has worked with Nanopore, Inc., a small New Mexico company, to incorporate xerogel insulation into an integrated chip and used that along with copper wires to develop a new microchip fabrication technology with very exciting possibilities. In yet another project supported by ATP, Aastrom Biosciences, Inc., of Ann Arbor, Michigan, has developed a desktop-sized bioreactor that grows stem cells rapidly, thus markedly reducing the number of stem cells that must be extracted (painfully) from the donors. This device is now in clinical trials and promises to cut costs as well as reduce donor pain.

NIST also provides a number of research tools for researchers and operates them as national facilities. The NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) is the best and most cost-effective neutron facility in this country, serving more than one-half the total number of neutron users. In 1998, the facility had more than 1,500 participants (over 800 of whom actually came to NIST) from 50 companies, 90 universities, and 30 other government laboratories and agencies. CMMP-related measurements performed at the NCNR include the structures of superconductors and colossal magnetoresistance materials, the structures of lipid bilayers and chemical films, motions of molecules and mac-

romolecules in catalysts and solutions, Standard Reference Material certification of zeolites and aerospace alloys, and phase transitions in polymer and magnetic thin films. NIST intends to continue to improve and operate the NCNR for at least the next 25 years to meet critical national measurement needs. NCNR scientists will also help in the development of the instrumentation at the new Spallation Neutron Source now being designed and constructed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

For the future, NIST research will continue in many of the areas highlighted in the report on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics that this forum of the Solid State Sciences Committee has introduced. We foresee a growing industrial use of and interest in soft materials, including biomaterials, for applications from medicine to computation. Another clear trend for the future is the move to the nanometer scale in many different areas of technology. Magnetic phenomena will continue to grow in importance. To ensure that the necessary measurement capabilities and standards are available when they are needed, we must remain at the forefront of research in all of these areas. Many of these new opportunities will require the best possible research facilities, both large and small, and NIST will continue to develop, build, and operate those where we have a special role. In planning our future, the insights contained in this report will inform and guide our choices.

Robert A. Eisenstein

Assistant Director, Mathematical and Physical Sciences

National Science Foundation

Cautioning that many changes are currently being considered and are under way, Eisenstein listed the Directorates and Research Offices at the National Science Foundation (NSF). These include Biology; Computer and Information Science and Engineering; Education and Human Resources; Engineering; Geosciences; Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences; and the Office of Polar Programs. There are currently three NSF-wide budget themes: Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence, Life and Earth's Environment, and Education of the Future.

The Division of Materials Research (DMR), which funds a large portion of solid state science and materials research, is one of the divisions in MPS; the others are Astronomical Sciences, Chemistry, Mathematical Sciences, and Physics. MPS also contains an Office of Multidisciplinary Activities, which has been quite successful in promoting and dealing with cross-disciplinary research. The MPS $792 million request for fiscal year 1999 is the largest within NSF, with Education second at $683 million. NSF's responsibility in educational matters is large and growing. In an effort to better justify and explain its mission to the public, MPS has formulated a “portfolio” that includes Fundamental Mathematics, Origins of the Universe, the Quantum Realm, Molecular Connections, and Discovering Science, the last focused on education. Research within MPS spans an enormous range of length scales, from 10⁻²⁸ cm during the “big bang” through protons, atoms, viruses, and astronomical systems to the universe at 10²⁸ cm. A particularly important aspect of this, described by Moore's Law, is the exponentially increasing density of information storage with time and the concommitant reduction of length scales associated with current technologies. We are rapidly approaching fundamental limits set by quantum mechanics. This very exciting science has clear relevance to technology. So, what's the problem?

The NSF budget has doubled within the past decade, between 1988 and 1998. In contrast, the budget for MPS has increased only by 60 percent. Put differently, the share of the NSF budget devoted to mathematical and physical sciences plus materials research in engineering decreased from 29.1 percent in 1986 to 21.9 percent in 1998. Clearly, MPS has not kept up with the rest of the Foundation. Where has all the money gone? It has gone to engineering, biology, education, and computer science. It is essential that we show that MPS research has a direct impact on these fields. Eisenstein quoted Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus of the Rockerfeller University, who wrote in 1987 in Advancing Materials Research, “Perhaps what is most significant about materials research throughout its history is that . . . it tended to be a major limit-

ing factor in determining the rate at which civilization could advance. ”

Eisenstein called attention to the National Science Foundation Web site, http://www.nsf.gov/, which conrains extensive and detailed information about the NSF. He then quickly summarized some of it. Materials research at NSF is funded as follows: 63 percent through DMR, 14 percent each through other divisions within MPS and in the Engineering Directorate, and 9 percent elsewhere in the Foundation. The $300 million devoted to materials research is approximately 10 percent of the total NSF budget, $230 million of it awarded through the Directorate of MPS. Within DMR, 48 percent, or roughly one-half the budget goes to research projects, 31 percent to centers, and the remaining 21 percent to instrumentation and facilities. Eisenstein provided additional detailed information on the allocation of funds during fiscal year 1998 among subunits of DMR—namely, the various disciplinary subprograms, the Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs), the Science and Technology Centers, the national facilities, and the Instrumentation for Materials Research Program. He also provided a list of MRSECs as well as the winners of the most recent competition. Information was also provided regarding DMR partnerships with industry and business, other agencies, government, international projects, and professional societies. The Division of Materials Research supports a sizable number of people, ranging from senior scientists to undergraduate students, as well as teachers at the precollege level and students in educational outreach programs. DMR is involved in educational issues throughout its activities at all levels, including K-12. These activities range from those in the MRSECs to those in science and education modules.

Regarding the future, Eisenstein quoted Antoine de Saint-Exupery, “As for the future your task is not to foresee it but to enable it. ” He listed a number of interesting topical workshops that have been held, as well as international materials workshops involving participation in various combinations by U.S., Canadian, Mexican, European, Pan American, Asia-Pacific, and African representatives. Various facilities are under discussion; a major new facility, the Spallation Neutron Source, is currently under construction.

Neal Lane was quoted, “It is necessary to involve materials scientists in a new role, undoubtedly an awkward one for many of them, that might be called the ‘civic scientist.' This role is one in which science shares in defining our future.” Eisenstein closed with the following message, “Materials research has been and will continue to be an essential part of the MPS and NSF scientific and engineering enterprise. ”