Synthesis and Characterization of Advanced Materials (1984)

The group that reviewed these large facilities had detailed knowledge of the status of scanning transmission electron microscopy, synchrotron radiation facilities, high-intensity neutron sources, and the national submicrometer research facility. All the funding is from federal sources—the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). These large facilities have a great deal of experience and success in providing access and service for a large number of users and have developed suitable procedures for this purpose. These include the review of proposals by an outside committee.

All facilities provide users with technical assistance, although there are no formal courses on the use of a given facility. Lack of understanding of the capabilities of a facility often limits its use. Brief courses for potential outside users are the solution to this problem, and we strongly recommend the institution of such courses.

The national submicrometer research facility at Cornell University provides for research and education in technologies important to the electronic and computer industries. There are other important technologies that are not adequately supported by academic research and education centers, for example, photography and heterogeneous catalysis. University centers similar to the

submicrometer facility could play important roles in maintaining preeminence in many areas of science and technology that employ advanced materials, and we recommend that the establishment of such centers be given careful consideration.

Until recently there was a serious problem, particularly at the synchrotron radiation facility at Stanford, but also at other DOE laboratories, with DOE patent, technical information, and indemnity policies. These policies infringed on proprietary technologies; consequently, industrial scientists were not using DOE facilities when proprietary technologies were involved, even though in many cases such use would have been of great help. Apparently this problem has been adequately resolved by a change in DOE policies, and the use of DOE facilities by industrial groups is increasing rapidly. This, then, is an example of a problem that was resolved reasonably quickly once it was recognized.

Many of the comments and recommendations that apply to instrumentation in the $50,000 to $250,000 range are also appropriate here.

Such equipment includes:

• Surface analysis equipment—single- or multiple-use equipment for LEED and ion scattering

• Fourier-transform infrared spectrometers

• Computer-controlled laser Raman spectrometers

• High-resolution gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer combinations

• Transmission electron microscopes

• Low-temperature facilities (for ⁴He liquefaction, ³He/⁴He dilution refrigeration, and the like)

• Computerized single-crystal diffractometers, rotating anode x-ray sources, and low-temperature diffraction equipment

• Ion-implantation equipment

The predominant sources for the funding of such equipment are the NSF and DOE. Obtaining funds, even matching funds, from nonfederal sources is becoming increasingly difficult.

Frequently, a full-time technician is needed for efficient operation of this type of equipment, especially when the equipment is shared among several users. Funds for the employment and training of such technicians are difficult to obtain as part of the equipment request. Maintenance is a major need, but it is rarely budgeted or anticipated.

Although most prototype equipment in this range was developed in the United States, the commercial versions are often available only from foreign suppliers. For example, most transmission electron microscopes are purchased from Japan or Europe; the same is true of x-ray diffraction equipment. This is situation is undesirable, for replacement parts are often difficult to obtain and maintenance problems are aggravated. It is also undesirable from the viewpoint of the U.S. balance of payments. In addition, the lack of domestic suppliers of high-technology instrumentation precludes the close interaction between the user and the manufacturer that is needed to produce state-of-the-art instrumentation and its associated technology. Many potential users in industry and at universities are not aware of the equipment available at a given institution or are not familiar with the capabilities or operation of the equipment. Dissemination of lists of available equipment and facilities to the solid-state science community and the initiation of short training courses for potential users of state-of-the-art instrumentation would thus be particularly useful.

There are no simple mechanisms by which equipment purchased with federal funds can be used by the industrial community. Yet technological advances depend on the application of state-of-the-art instrumentation in industry. Although industrial scientists would usually be willing to buy time to use such instrumentation, they are frequently unwilling or unable to make the commitment to purchase the expensive instruments and employ the specialists necessary for their operation.

Federal agencies that provide funds for the types of equipment discussed in this section should be encouraged to disseminate to the solid-state science community lists of available equipment and facilities including (a) equipment characteristics, (b) probable availability, (c) persons to contact, and (d) charges for use and support.

Research centers where equipment is located should initiate short courses and training programs for potential users. Funds should be provided to support visiting scientists so that they can learn how the instrumentation operates.

The reasons for the poor state of U.S. scientific equipment manufacturing should be investigated. This situation is particularly surprising because many of the prototype instruments were developed by U.S. scientists. A closer interplay of science and technology, leading to the commercialization of new instrumentation for materials characterization, would be highly beneficial.

The part-time use of federally purchased equipment by industrial and other outside scientists should be encouraged. Procedures should be provided to charge equipment time to outside users to aid their part-time access to modern federally funded scientific instruments at universities and national laboratories.

The services of technicians and other support personnel who may be necessary for efficient utilization and maintenance of instruments, especially shared instruments, should be included, whenever possible, in the normal operating procedures and costs.

Many of these special problems and recommendations for dealing with them are also relevant to instrumentation and facilities costing more than $250,000.

Such equipment includes:

• Spectrometers

• NMR and ESR equipment

• X-ray diffraction systems

• Mass spectrometers

• Mössbauer systems

• Mechanical testing devices

• Thermoanalytical equipment

The primary sources of funding for new equipment in this range are the NSF and DOE. Some funding is available through the Department of Defense (DOD) agencies [Office of Naval Research (ONR), Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), Army Research Office (ARO), and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)]. The recently announced DOD-University Research Instrumentation Program is particularly noteworthy. In addition, funding is sometimes available through state agencies. University equipment funds are generally limited.

Useful equipment can also be found on federal government excess property lists. Another source for equipment that has served its original purpose but is still usable is private industry. Unfortunately, equipment obtained from these two classes of sources is frequently outmoded and is almost never up to the state of the art. In addition, such equipment is increasingly available for use at national laboratories.

Although a great deal of good science is carried out with the aid of older, used equipment, almost all such equipment that is available is from 10 to 15 years behind the state of the art. A great deal of this equipment was acquired in the late 1950s and early 1960s, during the period of expansion of most universities. Much of it is now poorly maintained and deteriorating. Frequently, funds are not available for service contracts or other forms of maintenance. Requests for new models of this “conventional” equipment often are denied because of (a) lack of glamor, (b) the notion that a university should renew its own equipment, and (c) the view that limited equipment funds should be reserved for purchase of new types of instruments.

The panel proposes the following steps:

A coordinated systematic program or set of programs should be initiated to support the upgrading of existing equipment and the purchase of new equipment.

Provision should be made for maintenance of instruments and other equipment. For example, funds for the purchase or fabrication of new instruments and equipment could require that additional fund be set aside to cover the cost of their maintenance and could also be accompanied by funds to maintain and upgrade already existing equipment.

Small equipment requests should be supported in such ways as to encourage collaboration within departments, among departments at a given institution and among departments at neighboring institutions.

Means should be devised to facilitate access to small equipment at larger institutions and centers. Distribution within the solid-state science community of a list of such equipment would be a useful first step.

The major sources of funds for equipment and facilities for materials synthesis and characterization are the NSF Division of Materials Research and the DOE Office of Basic Energy Sciences.

Excluding the major facilities, there were about $20.5 million available for equipment from NSF and $16.3 million from DOE during fiscal year 1981. Of particular significance is the Regional Instrumentation Facilities Program of NSF; this program promises to have a major beneficial impact on equipment needs in selected areas of chemistry, physics, and materials science. The DOE Office of Basic Energy Sciences supports major facilities at the national laboratories. The new synchrotron light source at Brookhaven National Laboratory, the various high-energy electron microscope facilities under construction, and the intense pulsed neutron sources at Argonne National Laboratory and under construction at Los Alamos National Laboratory will all have significant impacts on materials characterization in the near future.

The NSF supports major materials synthesis and characterization facilities through the Materials Research Laboratories and various research centers located at universities. The most recent of these facilities is the National Research and Resource Facility for Submicron Structures at Cornell University.

Another particularly significant program is the new DOD-University Research Instrumentation Program. This program began in fiscal year 1983 and is budgeted at $30 million per year for 5 years. It is estimated that approximately 20 percent of these funds will be spent on instrumentation for advanced materials research.