ATTACHMENT 2
INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKING OF US MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH

Panel on International Benchmarking of US Materials Science and Engineering Research

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy



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 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields ATTACHMENT 2 INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKING OF US MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH Panel on International Benchmarking of US Materials Science and Engineering Research Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields International Benchmarking of US Materials Science and Engineering Research Panel Members ARDEN L. BEMENT, Jr. (Chair), Purdue University, School of Materials and Electrical Engineering, West Lafayette, IN PETER R. BRIDENBAUGH, Executive Vice President, Automotive, Alcoa Technical Center, Alcoa Center, PA LEROY L. CHANG, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong DANIEL S. CHEMLA, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA UMA CHOWDHRY, Business Planning and Technology Director, DuPont Specialty Chemicals, Wilmington, DE ANTHONY G. EVANS, Gordon McKay Professor of Materials Engineering, Harvard University, Physics Department, Cambridge, MA PAUL HAGENMULLER, Professor, Université de Bordeaux I, Laboratorie de Chimie du Solide du CNRS, France JAMES W. MITCHELL, Director, Materials, Reliability and Ecology Research, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ DONALD R. PAUL, Melvin H. Gertz Regents Chair in Chemical Engineering, Director, Center for Polymer Research, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX BUDDY D. RATNER, University of Washington, Center for Engineered Biomaterials-UWEB, Seattle, WA KATHLEEN C. TAYLOR, Head, Physics and Physical Chemistry Department, General Motors Corporation, GM Research and Development Center, Warren, MI ROBERT M. WHITE, Professor & Head, Department of Electrical & Computer Eng., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA MASAHARU YAMAGUCHI, Professor, Kyoto University, Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Japan Project Staff DEBORAH D. STINE, Study Director PATRICK P. SEVCIK, Research Associate KATE KELLY, Editor

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields Materials Science and Engineering Benchmarking Guidance Group MILDRED S. DRESSELHAUS (Chair), Institute Professor of Electrical Engineering and Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA L. E. (SKIP) SCRIVEN, Regent's Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN WILLIAM F. BRINKMAN, Vice President, Physical Sciences Research, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ GABOR A. SOMORJAI, Professor of Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA ROBERT A. LAUDISE, Adjunct Chemical Director, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ JAMES C. WILLIAMS, General Manager, Engineering Materials Technology Laboratories, GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, OH ALBERT NARATH, President, Energy and Environment Sector, Lockheed-Martin Corporation, Albuquerque, NM

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields PREFACE In 1993, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine issued the report Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era. In that report, COSEPUP suggested that the United States adopt the principle of being among the world leaders in all major fields of science so that it can quickly apply and extend advances in science wherever they occur. In addition, the report recommended that the United States maintain clear leadership in fields that are tied to national objectives, that capture the imagination of society, or that have multiplicative effect on other scientific advances. These recommendations were reiterated in another Academy report, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, by a committee chaired by Frank Press. To measure international leadership, the reports recommended the establishment of independent panels that would conduct comparative international assessments of scientific accomplishments of particular research fields. COSEPUP indicated that these panels should consist of researchers who work in the specific fields under review (both from the United States and abroad), people who work in closely related fields, and research users who follow the fields closely. To test the feasibility of that recommendation, COSEPUP is conducting experimental evaluations of three fields: mathematics, materials science, engineering, and immunology. The panel for each field has been asked to address the following three questions:

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields What is the position of the United States in research in the field relative to that in other regions or countries? What key factors influence relative US performance in the field? On the basis of current trends in the United States and abroad, what will be the relative US position in the near term and the longer term? Panels were asked to develop findings and conclusions, not recommendations. This document provides the second of these assessments—that of the field of materials science and engineering. The panel found that it is critical that the United States lead the world in materials science and engineering innovations; however, the United States is not the leader in the field as a whole. Rather, it is among the world leaders in all subfields of materials science and engineering research and is the leader in some fields. The panel found that the key to the nation's leadership is the flexibility of the materials science and engineering research enterprise, its innovation system, and its intellectual diversity. But, the ability of the United States to capitalize on its leadership opportunities could be curtailed because of shifting federal and industry priorities, a potential reduction in access to foreign talent, and deteriorating facilities of natural materials characterization. Of particular concern is the lack of adequate funding to modernize major research facilities in the United States when facilities here are much older than in other countries. Once all the assessments are completed, COSEPUP will discuss the feasibility and utility of the benchmarking process and make whatever recommendations it deems necessary. The committee thanks the panel for its hard work. We would also like to acknowledge those who made presentations at the panel meeting: Steven Wax, Asst. Director for Materials and Processing, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency John J. Rush, NIST Center for Neutron Research, National Institutes of Science and Technology Andrew J. Lovinger, Program Director, Polymers and NSF-wide Coordinator, Advanced Materials & Processing, National Science Foundation This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and COSEPUP in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institu-

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields tional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: John Armor, Principal Research Associate and Group Head/catalysis, Corporate Science Center, Air Products and Chemicals Dan Drucker, Graduate Research Professor of Engineering Sciences, Emeritus, University of Florida Merton Flemings, Toyota Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lambert Ben Freund, Henry Ledyard Goddard University Professor, Division of Engineering, Brown University Elsa Garmire, Dean, Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College William G. Howard, Independent Consultant, Scottsdale, AZ Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Richard A. Auhll Professor and Dean of Engineering, University of California-Santa Barbara William Nix, Lee Osterson Professor of Engineering and Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University William Spencer, CEO and Chairman, SEMATECH Matthew Tirrell, Professor and Head, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science and Director, Biomedical Engineering Institute, University of Minnesota Jerry Woodall, Charles William Harrison Distinguished Professor of Microelectronics, Purdue University While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and COSEPUP. Finally, the project was aided by the invaluable help of COSEPUP professional staff—Deborah D. Stine, study director, and Patrick P. Sevcik, research associate. Phillip A. Griffiths Chair Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields CONTENTS     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   139     1 BACKGROUND   141     2 INTRODUCTION   143     2.1 How Important Is It for the United States to Lead in Materials Science and Engineering?   143     2.2 What Is Materials Science and Engineering?   145     2.3 What Key Factors Characterize the Field?   145     2.4 What Is the International Nature of Materials Science and Engineering?   149     2.5 What Are Some Caveats?   150     2.6 Panel Charge and Rationale   151     3 DETERMINANTS OF SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP   152     3.1 National Imperatives   153     3.2 Innovation   154     3.2.1 Pluralism   154     3.2.2 Partnerships   154     3.2.3 Regulation   155     3.2.4 Professional Societies   156     3.3 Major Facilities   157     3.3.1 Neutron Scattering Facilities   159     3.3.2 Synchrotron Sources   159     3.3.3 Nanofabrication   161     3.3.4 Computing   162     3.3.5 Smaller Scale Facilities   164

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields     3.4 Centers   166     3.5 Human Resources   167     3.6 Funding   171     4 BENCHMARKING RESULTS   178     4.1 Approach   178     4.2 Assessment of Current Leadership   179     4.2.1 Biomaterials   180     4.2.2 Ceramics   180     4.2.3 Composites   182     4.2.4 Magnetic Materials   183     4.2.5 Metals   186     4.2.6 Electronic and Optical–Photonic Materials   187     4.2.7 Superconducting Materials   189     4.2.8 Polymers   191     4.2.9 Catalysts   192     5 PROJECTION OF LEADERSHIP DETERMINANTS   194     5.1 Overview   194     5.2 Recruitment of Talented Researchers   195     5.3 Funding   199     5.4 Infrastructure   199     5.5 Cooperative Government-Industrial-Academic Research   202     6 LIKELY FUTURE POSITIONS   204     6.1 Introduction   204     6.2 Biomaterials   204     6.3 Ceramics   205     6.4 Composites   205     6.5 Magnetic Materials   205     6.6 Metals   205     6.7 Electronic and Optical–Photonic Materials   206     6.8 Superconducting Materials   207     6.9 Polymers   208     6.10 Catalysts   208     7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS   210     7.1 The United States Is Among the World's Leaders in All Subfields, and It Is the Leader in Some.   210     7.2 The Flexibility of the Enterprise Is as Much a Key Indicator of Leadership as Is the Amount of Funding.   211     7.3 The Innovation System Is a Major Determinant to US Leadership.   211

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields     7.4 The United States Enjoys Strength Through Intellectual and Human Diversity.   211     7.5 Shifting Federal and Industry Funding Priorities, a Potential Reduction in Access to Foreign Talent, and Deteriorating Materials Research Facilities Could Curtail US Ability to Capitalize on Leadership Opportunities.   212     8 REFERENCES   213     APPENDIX A: PANEL AND STAFF BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION   215     APPENDIX B: BENCHMARKING RESULTS TABLES   222     APPENDIX C: HOT TOPICS LIST   244 Figures, Tables, and Boxes Figure 2.1:   Inter-Relationships Among Materials Categories   148 Figure 3.1:   Materials Science and Engineering PhDs Awarded, 1986-1995   167 Figure 3.2:   Employment Status of PhD Materials Scientists, 1985   171 Figure 3.3:   Metallurgical-Materials Engineering Graduate Students in All Institutions, by Race-Ethnicity and Citizenship, 1993   173 Figure 3.4:   All Engineering Graduate Students in All Institutions, by Race-Ethnicity and Citizenship, 1993   173 Figure 3.5:   All Science Graduate Students in All Institutions, by Race-Ethnicity and Citizenship, 1993   174 Figure 3.6:   Federal R&D Budget by Materials Class, in Millions of US Dollars   174 Figure 3.7:   National Science Foundation Division of Materials Research Budget, 1990-1998, in Millions of US Dollars   176 Figure 3.8:   National Science Foundation Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Average Annualized Award Size, Competitive Research Grants, 1992-1996, in Thousands of US Dollars   176 Figure 3.9:   National Science Foundation Division of Materials Research, Permanent Equipment Budget, 1990-1996, in Millions of US Dollars   177 Figure 4.1:   Papers Submitted and Accepted for Magnetism and Magnetic Materials Annual Conferences, 1989-1996   185 Figure 5.1:   Scientists and Engineers Admitted to the US on Permanent Visas by Labor Certification, 1990-1994   196 Figure 5.2:   Foreign Citizen Graduate Enrollment in US Science and Engineering Universities, 1983-1993   197

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields   Current Position Likely Future Position   Sub-Subfield 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments   Forefront   Among world leaders   Behind world leaders Gaining/Extending   Maintaining   Losing   Physical properties (other than magnetic)   •           •     Strong leadership at US universities. Development of fluxoid imaging technologies   •         •       Strong capabilities at US universities, industry, and national laboratories. Leading capabilities in Europe. Thin-film deposition processes   •             •   US leads; Japan could overtake. Epitaxial, patterning techniques •           •       US leads in surface, interface science.

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields Relative Position of Subfield: Polymers   Current Position Likely Future Position   Sub-Subfield 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments   Forefront   Among world leaders   Behind world leaders Gaining/Extending   Maintaining   Losing   1. Controlled polymerization   •           •     US leads in most areas; other countries have important programs, especially in (a) and (b) (a) Metallocene polymerization of olefins                       (b) Living free radical polymerization                       (c) Atom transfer radical polymerization                       (d) Dendrimer polymerization                       (e) Biologic synthesis                       (f) Supercritical CO2 as a polymerization medium                       2. Multicomponent systems   •           •     US has strong position; many other countries investing heavily. (a) Blends or alloys                       (b) Block, graft copolymers                       (c) Nanocomposites                       (d) Macrocomposites                       (e) Thin-film laminates                       (f) Interfaces                      

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields   Current Position Likely Future Position   Sub-Subfield 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments   Forefront   Among world leaders   Behind world leaders Gaining/Extending   Maintaining   Losing   3. Biomedical polymers •           •       US is preeminent. (a) Implants                       (b) Drug delivery                       4. Electronic-Photonic   •         •         (a) Conducting polymers                       (b) Polymers for display devices                       (c) Resist materials                       (d) Electroluminescent                       5. Separation media   •         •       US position strong; Europe, Asia have strong efforts in membranes. (a) Membranes                       (b) Molecular recognition                       (c) Barrier materials                       (d) Modified atmosphere packaging                       (e) Coatings                       6. Theory, modeling   •           •     US is very strong; strong efforts also in Europe. (a) Molecular simulation                       (b) Monte Carlo techniques                       (c) Conformation                       (d) Scaling theory                      

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields   Current Position Likely Future Position   Sub-Subfield 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments   Forefront   Among world leaders   Behind world leaders Gaining/Extending   Maintaining   Losing   7. Processing     •         •     Very strong efforts in Germany (a) Rheology                       (b) Flow instability                       (c) Computer modeling                       (d) New processes                      

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields Relative Position of Subfield: Catalysts   Current Position Likely Future Position   Sub-Subfield 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments   Forefront   Among world leaders   Behind world leaders Gaining/Extending   Maintaining   Losing   Catalysis     •           •   Shape-selective catalysis, metallocene catalysis for polymerization, and application of catalysts for emissions control (automobile) economically critical in US. Selective oxidation       •         •   Selective oxidation is a growing area; applications from small to heavy chemical synthesis (30–40 million tons annually). Industry leaders in US and Europe. Solid acid-base catalysis     •             • Industrial activity highly competitive, secretive, largely focused in US. Environmental catalysis     •             • Environmental progress requires highly sophisticated industrial work. Advances made concert with applications. Strong capabilities in US, Europe, Japan.

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields   Current Position Likely Future Position   Sub-Subfield 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Comments   Forefront   Among world leaders   Behind world leaders Gaining/Extending   Maintaining   Losing   Catalyst characterization     •         •     This area has benefited from advances in atomic resolution microscopy, necessarily equipment dependent. Utility of work depends on strong links to applications. Combinatorial catalysis •             •     Still in its infancy; US is strong. Asymmetric catalysis       •         •   Highly specialized field of great importance limited-quantity manufacturing of products (significantly below the commodity level)— pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals. Industry leaders in US, Europe, Japan.

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields APPENDIX C HOT TOPICS LIST Biomaterials Tissue engineering Molecular architecture Protein analogs Biomimetics Contemporary diagnostic systems Advanced controlled-release systems Bone materials Ceramics Sol-gel-derived materials Self-assembled materials Integrated micromagnetics Multilayer ferrite processing Three-dimensional nanoporous silicates Microwave dielectrics Electrophoretic preparation of thin films MEMS heat engines Single-crystal high-authority ferroelectrics AIN/Diamond heat dissipation for power electronics Films and coatings (thermal barrier coatings, diamondlike carbon, hydroxyapetite) Carbon Nanotubes Composites Polymer matrix composites Large integrated structures Ambient temperature curing (electron beams)

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields Design and testing protocols Ceramic matrix composites Oxide composites Nonoxide composites and fibers Metal matrix composites Particle-reinforced alloys Continuous fiber Magnetic Materials Micromagnetics of thin films Interlayer magnetic coupling Giant magnetoresistance (spin valves) Spin-dependent tunneling Magnetic nanostructures Colossal magnetoresistance Metals High-temperature structural intermetallics Amorphous (bulk), quasicrystalline, and nanostructured materials (high-strength materials) Theory and modeling of atomic bonding, crystal structure interfaces, phase diagrams, phase transformations, and properties Giant Magnetoresistance and related materials Hydrogen-absorbing materials applications for batteries and hydrogen storage Advanced processing of materials to net shape (metallic alloys) Quantitative understanding and modeling of plastic deformation (polycrystalline materials) Quantitative understanding of structure evolution and plastic deformation of polycrystalline metallic alloys Integrated of models of structure evolution, plastic deformation, composition, and processing (concurrent product–process design) Integrated of dimensional scales from atomic clusters to test coupons to final products Net shape, or novel processing of metallic alloys Next generation of high temperature alloys Surface treatments to enhance structural performance Electronic and Optical–Photonic Materials Deep ultraviolet and electron lithography Systems-on-a-chip Copper metalization and other interconnects Sub-micron plasma processing Semiconductor equipment Holographic storage materials Organic transistors, organic lasers, and LEDs

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields Photonic band-gap materials Blue-green lasers (gallium nitride materials) Semiconductor processing Interconnects Magnetic storage Widegap lasers and display Nanomaterials Semiconductor Equipment Wireless Fibers Superconducting Materials High-temperature superconductors High-temperature superconductor synthesis Processing of highly textured, dense bulk forms for wire and energy storage Magnetic phase diagrams and properties Statistical mechanical modeling of transport and critical phenomena Experimental measurement of flux transport mechanisms Modeling of optical and electronic properties Physical properties (other than magnetic) Development of fluxoid imaging technology Thin-film deposition processes Epitaxial and patterning techniques Polymers Controlled polymerization Metallocene polymerization of olefins Living free-radical polymerization Atom transfer radical polymerization Dendrimer polymerization Biologic synthesis Supercritical CO2 as a polymerization medium Multicomponent systems Blends or alloys Block and graft copolymers Nanocomposites Macrocomposites Thin-film laminates Interfaces Biomedical polymers Implants Drug delivery Electronic–Photonic Conducting polymers Polymers for display devices

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields Resist materials Electroluminescent Separation media Membranes Molecular recognition Barrier materials Modified-atmosphere packaging Coatings Theory and modeling Molecular simulation Monte Carlo techniques Conformations Scaling theory Processing Rheology Flow instabilities Computer modeling New processes Catalysts Selective oxidation Solid acid–base catalysis Environmental catalysis Catalyst characterization Combinatorial catalysis Asymmetric catalysts

OCR for page 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields This page in the original is blank.