National Academies Press: OpenBook

A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (2006)

Chapter: 1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative

« Previous: Summary
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

1
A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative

In the mid-1990s, as better methods for the characterization, processing, and manipulation of matter at the nanoscale were being developed in research programs supported by the science and technology agencies of the federal government, these agencies began holding informal discussions on a common vision for what became known as nanotechnology (see Box 1-1 for a discussion of some definitions of nanotechnology). This interagency dialog culminated in the establishment in 2000 of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)—Box 1-2 details some of the history of the establishment of the initiative.

It is important to note at the outset that the initiative itself does not fund research. The NNI is a coordination mechanism for government agencies that support nanoscale research, such as the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, or that have a stake in the outcomes of nanoscale research, such as the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Justice. Under the broad umbrella of the initiative, each participating agency invests in projects and programs in support of its own mission. The NNI itself also has a mission that can be summarized as expediting the discovery, development, and deployment of nanotechnology in order to achieve responsible and sustainable economic benefits, enhance the quality of life, and promote national security.1 The initiative’s primary coordination mechanism is the National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC’s) Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee.2 Through the operation of the NSET Subcommittee and the other subordinate structures of the NNI, the initiative addresses the general goals of supporting

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

BOX 1-1

What Is Nanotechnology?

Nanotechnology is not simply about small particles, materials, or products. It is not one type of technology with a defined use. Rather, nanotechnology is an enabling technology that promises to contribute at many frontiers of science and technology. For purposes of federal R&D, nanotechnology is defined by the National Nanotechnology Initiative as comprising the following three factors:1

  1. Research and technology development at the atomic, molecular, or macromolecular levels, at a length scale of approximately 1 to 100 nanometers (a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter, too small to be seen with a conventional laboratory microscope);

  2. Creation and use of structures, devices, and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size, at the level of atoms and molecules;

  3. Ability for atomic-scale control or manipulation.

The National Institutes of Health has further clarified the definition of nanotechnology, given that much of biomedical R&D involves work at the level of submicron features.2,3 “Nanomedicine,” for example, refers to highly specific medical intervention at the molecular scale for treating disease or repairing damaged tissues, such as bone, muscle, or nerve. It is at this size scale—about 100 nanometers or less—that biological molecules and structures inside living cells operate.

Research in nanotechnology is based on discoveries in physics and chemistry that have led to essential understanding of the physical and chemical properties of materials at the level of molecules or complexes of molecules, and thus to the ability to manipulate those properties. Researchers have characterized the parts of cells in vivid detail and now know a great deal about how intracellular structures operate, for example, but still have not been able to answer questions basic to understanding how to build “nano” structures or “nano” machines that are compatible with living tissues. In this and other areas of application, nanotechnology as an enabler of significant breakthroughs and benefits is still very much a young and developing endeavor.

  

1See http://nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html, accessed March 2006.

  

2See http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/nanomedicine/index.asp, accessed March 2006.

  

3National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). 2005. Nanobiotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop. Washington, D.C.: NSTC. August.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

BOX 1-2

A Brief History of the National Nanotechnology Initiative

In September 1998, an ongoing interagency dialog on nanotechnology was formalized as the Interagency Working Group on Nanotechnology (IWGN). Established under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the IWGN developed a number of reports on a long-term vision for nanoscale R&D, on international benchmarking of nanotechnology, and on U.S. government investment in nanotechnology research and development (R&D).1,2 In March 1999, IWGN representatives proposed a nanotechnology initiative with a budget of half a billion dollars for fiscal year (FY) 2001.3 In January 2000, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was formally established, and preparations were begun for a coordinated federal investment in nanoscale R&D.

In August 2000, as the NNI got underway, the NSTC established the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee to replace the IWGN. The NSET Subcommittee was tasked to implement the NNI by coordinating with federal agencies and R&D programs. At the time of this writing the NSET Subcommittee comprises representatives of over 20 federal departments and agencies along with officials from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the White House Office of Management and Budget.

In January 2001, the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) was established to provide daily technical and administrative support to the NSET Subcommittee and to assist in multiagency planning and the preparation of budgets and program assessment documents. The NNCO was also tasked with assisting the NSET Subcommittee with the collection and dissemination of information on industry, state, and international nanoscale science and technology research, development, and commercialization activities.4 The NNCO provides technical guidance and administrative support, organizes monthly NSET Subcommittee meetings, conducts workshops, and prepares information and reports, serving as a point of contact and helping to facilitate communication. Currently, these important operational functions are managed by a small group of scientific experts and technical staff.

  

1M.C. Roco, S. Williams, and P. Alivisatos, eds. 2000. Vision for Nanotechnology Research in the Next Decade. Nanotechnology Research Directions, IWGN Workshop Report. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  

2R.W. Siegel, E. Hu, and M.C. Roco, eds. 1999. Nanostructure Science and Technology. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  

3M.C. Roco. 2004. The U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative after 3 years (2001-2003). Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6: 1010.

  

4National Research Council. 2002. Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

the missions of the participating agencies; ensuring continuing leadership by the United States in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology; and contributing to the nation’s economic competitiveness.

CONTEXT FOR CURRENT OPERATION OF THE NNI

Management and Advisory Structure

In December 2003, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act3 (NRDA) was signed into law, putting the NNI on a legislative footing that had been lacking. The legislation established the NNI’s operating structures and also requested that the President establish and designate an advisory panel with a membership qualified to provide advice and information on nanotechnology research, development, demonstrations, education, technology transfer, commercial applications, and societal and ethical concerns.4 Figure 1-1 shows the current organizational structure of the NNI.

The NRDA said that the President, in selecting or designating an advisory panel, might seek and give consideration to recommendations from the Congress, industry, the scientific community (including the National Academy of Sciences, scientific professional societies, and academia), the defense community, state and local governments, regional nanotechnology programs, and other appropriate organizations. According to the NRDA, the responsibilities of the advisory panel were to include assessing the following:

  • Trends and developments in nanotechnology science and engineering;

  • Progress made in implementing the NNI;

  • Need for revision of the NNI;

  • Balance among the components of the NNI, including funding levels for the program component areas;

  • Whether the program component areas, priorities, and technical goals developed by the NSET Subcommittee were helping to maintain U.S. leadership in nanotechnology;

  • Management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the NNI; and

  • Whether societal, ethical, legal, environmental, and workforce concerns were being adequately addressed.

The NRDA also directed the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) to arrange with the National Research Council (NRC) for a triennial review of the NNI—of which this report is the first—and it asked that an NNI

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

FIGURE 1-1 Organization of the NNI. Light shading, supervising organizations; dark shading, implementing organizations; PCAST, TAG, and NRC, organizations evaluating the NNI; dashed lines, lines of information exchange. For definitions of acronyms, see Appendix E. SOURCE: Courtesy of Mihail C. Roco, NSET/NSF.

strategic plan be developed, and then updated on a 3-year cycle, to guide the initiative’s activities. It specified that the strategic plan should describe how the initiative would move R&D results out of the laboratory and into applications for the benefit of society; indicate the initiative’s support for long-term funding for interdisciplinary research and development in nanotechnology; and outline the allocation of funding for interagency nanotechnology projects.

In response to the NRDA, in July 2004 President George W. Bush announced that the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) would serve as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP). PCAST provides broad science and technology policy advice to the President and has the expertise to address a wide range of technical, business, and policy issues. Because of its broad purview, PCAST created a nanotechnology technical advisory group

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

(TAG) of about 50 government and private sector scientists to assist it in the execution of its NNAP duties.

The first PCAST/NNAP report, released on May 18, 2005, reviewed the NNI after 5 years of operation.5 The report focused on answering four questions: Where do we stand? Is this money well spent and the program well managed? Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks? How can we do better? The PCAST/NNAP report made recommendations for strengthening NNI efforts in several areas:

  • Improved technology transfer from the laboratory to the marketplace by communicating and establishing networks with U.S. industry;

  • Increased coordination with and outreach to the states in support of nanotechnology R&D;

  • Establishment of databases to improve the management of research results, publications, and patents resulting from researchers’ use of NNI-supported facilities and instrumentation;

  • Continued support for research on the effects of nanotechnology products to ensure protection of the public and the environment and establishment of regulatory standards and policies based on rational interpretation of science results, and not on perceived fears; and

  • Inclusion in the NNI of the Departments of Education and Labor to improve the nation’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and training systems.

During the course of the present NRC study the Committee to Review the National Nanotechnology Initiative gave considerable thought to the effectiveness of the current NNI management and advisory structures outlined above. The committee’s conclusions, based on its assessment of the overall effectiveness of the NNI in carrying out its coordination mission as described in the following sections, can be found at the end of this chapter in the section titled “Conclusions and Recommendations.”

Federal Support for NNI R&D

Eleven NNI-participating agencies currently report investments in nanotechnology. They are the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), National Institute of Standards and Technology

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

TABLE 1-1 2006 Planned Agency Investments by Program Component Area (in $ millions)

 

Fundamental Nanoscale Phenomena and Processes

Nanomaterials

Nanoscale Devices and Systems

Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards for Nanotechnology

Nanomanufacturing

Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition

Societal Dimensions

NNI Totala

NSF

95

75

54

12

24

24

60

344

DOD

35

83

99

3

2

6

2

230

DOE

48

33

5

11

0

109

1

207

HHS (NIH)

46

17

67

6

0

1

8

144

DOC (NIST)

5

1

2

39

19

8

1

75

NASA

4

17

10

0

1

0

0

32

USDA

1

2

6

0

1

0

1

11

EPA

<0.5

0

<0.5

0

0

0

4

5

HHS (NIOSH)

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

3

DOJ

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

DHS

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

TOTAL

234

228

244

71

47

148

82

1,054

  

aTotals may not add due to rounding.

SOURCE: Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council. 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry. Supplement to the President’s FY 2006 Budget Request. March.

(NIST), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Science Foundation (NSF). In fiscal year (FY) 2005 the total investment made by these 11 agencies was about $1.1 billion—with DOD, DOE, NIH, NIST, and NSF contributing over 95 percent of the total NNI budget.6 The President’s R&D budget request for NNI for FY 2006 was $1.05 billion. For FY 2007 the request is $1.277 billion. Table 1-1 shows the FY 2006 planned agency budgets by program component area.7 The committee notes that there is nanotechnology research being performed by some agencies that is not reported in this total.

The FY 2006 total federal science and technology R&D investment of $134.8 billion is a $2.2 billion or 1.7 percent increase over the FY 2005 amount, but it has been reported that 97 percent of this increase is for DOD weapons development and NASA next-generation space exploration vehicles.8 Funding for all other R&D

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

programs increased marginally and actually fell 2 percent after adjusting for inflation. The total federal research investment (basic and applied), excluding development and R&D facilities, totaled $57.0 billion in FY 2006, an increase of $1.0 billion or 1.8 percent over the FY 2005 amount.

In the FY 2007 budget proposed by President Bush, programs in the physical sciences and engineering received a substantial funding increase as part of the American Competitiveness Initiative.9 The three agencies benefiting the most from this increase are NSF, DOE’s Office of Science, and NIST. The overall federal investment in science and technology R&D would increase to $136.9 billion in FY 2007, but the federal investment in basic and applied research would decline 3.3 percent to $54.8 billion. These numbers imply that the increases for the physical sciences will be more than offset by cuts in other agencies’ research.

NNI ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In reviewing the NNI the committee investigated the various impacts the initiative has had, focusing, in particular, on the impact of NNI coordination—including the impacts on agency programs and priorities. The committee notes that it was clear early on that carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the science being funded by the NNI was beyond the means available to the study. The field of nanotechnology is so broad and involves so many disciplines that assessing the science output attributable to the NNI would be an enormously difficult task. A comprehensive study would require a thorough assessment of research programs across the 11 NNI-participating agencies, involving tremendously diverse fields spanning the physical and biomedical sciences. These difficulties notwithstanding, the committee did make some broad measurements of the value of the scientific endeavor under the NNI in its benchmarking assessment as reported in Chapter 2—for instance, by analyzing data on papers published and patents awarded. A workshop organized by the committee to obtain information on aspects of the science output of the NNI provided some perspectives of leading nanoscale science and technology researchers.10 The strong consensus at that workshop, in the interviews held as part of this study with representatives of private industry, and in other materials submitted to the committee was that NNI-related R&D is world-class and in many instances world-leading, and that it is making invaluable contributions to the advancement of knowledge and innovation in the United States.

Development of an Updated Strategic Plan

The committee believes that coordination of nanoscale R&D programs across the federal government is the main purpose of the NNI, and also that provision of

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

TABLE 1-2 Distribution of Responsibilities Within the National Nanotechnology Initiative

Arm

Primary Office

Responsibilities

Science policy management

Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Science and Technology Council, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Establishment of nanotechnology as a high priority for R&D; budget creation and allocation of funding to agencies; negotiation with Congress

Program management and coordination

Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee and member federal agencies

Coordination and development of strategic plan; provision of mechanisms for interagency communication and coordination

Communication, execution, and reporting

National Nanotechnology Coordination Office

Publication of reports on behalf of the NSET Subcommittee and the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) for use by Congress, academia, industry, and the public; communication and outreach as public point of contact for the NNI

SOURCE: C. Teague, NNCO, presentation to this committee, August 25, 2005.

that coordination and the resultant deliverables are critical measures of the NNI’s impact. In carrying out this review, the committee compiled information on NNI strategic planning and management that have involved broad participation by federal agencies and extensive coordination within each agency. The responsibilities for the management, coordination, and communication functions of the initiative are outlined in Table 1-2. The initiative’s coordination has involved building strong partnerships across the government to leverage investments by government (state, regional, and international), industry (companies, trade associations, and international organizations), and scientific communities (universities, national laboratories, scientific societies, and professional organizations).

Released in December 2004, the updated strategic plan looks 5 to 10 years ahead to outline a vision of the NNI as working for “a future in which the ability to understand and control matter on the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry.”11 The strategic plan describes four goals of the NNI and the strategy by which those goals are to be achieved. The goals are these:

  • Maintain a world-class research and development program aimed at realizing the full potential of nanotechnology.

  • Facilitate transfer of new technologies into products for economic growth, jobs, and other public benefit.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
  • Develop educational resources, a skilled workforce, and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance nanotechnology.

  • Support responsible development of nanotechnology.

The strategic plan also outlines program component areas (PCAs) that were developed as a means to categorize and describe the many different investments in nanotechnology R&D made by the federal agencies that support research (see Table 1-1). The PCAs provide a framework that allows the NSET Subcommittee, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress to be informed of NNI-related activities in a consistent fashion and that facilitates the management of investments in each PCA and the coordination and direction of activities within the participating agencies. The seven PCAs are as follows:

  • Fundamental nanoscale phenomena and processes. Discovery and development of scientific and engineering principles relating to new structures, processes, and mechanisms at the nanoscale;

  • Nanomaterials. Research involving the design and synthesis of nanostructured materials in a controlled and targeted manner;

  • Nanoscale devices and systems. Research that applies science and engineering principles at the nanoscale to create new or improve existing devices and systems;

  • Instrumentation research, metrology, and standards for nanotechnology. R&D involving the development of tools to characterize, measure, synthesize, and design materials, structures, devices, and systems at the nanoscale. R&D involving development of standards for nomenclature, materials, processing, testing, characterizing, and manufacturing;

  • Nanomanufacturing. R&D enabling scaled-up, reliable, cost-effective manufacturing of nanoscale materials, devices, structures, and systems via top-down or bottom-up processes;

  • Major research facilities and instrumentation acquisition. Establishment of user facilities and new development of instrumentation to improve and advance the research infrastructure; and

  • Societal dimensions.12 Research that addresses societal implications of nanotechnology, including risk assessment and communication, occupational health, public health, and the environment.

Having reviewed the 2004 strategic plan, the committee concluded that the articulation of the NNI’s strategic goals and the development of the related PCAs are an important outcome of the NNI that has had a positive impact on the pro-

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

vision of federal support for the fields and disciplines involved in research and development at the nanoscale.

The PCA framework and the multidisciplinary collaboration it fosters have enabled a more coherent approach to achieving the NNI’s goals than would have been possible otherwise. As part of the process of defining the PCAs, each agency assessed how it contributes to the seven areas listed above.13,14 The committee learned that for many of the NNI-participating agencies, the strategic planning process and the identification of the seven PCAs have been important for engaging the interest and securing the support of various units within each agency. For instance, the committee was informed that at NSF, since the quality of NNI-related proposals is high, a proposal reviewed well by one unit but not awarded support owing to a lack of funds is now often shared with other units for consideration in other programs, based on the merit of the work. This approach has become more prevalent because of the knowledge NSF units have gained of programs at other NSF units, in part as a result of NNI-related activities.15

The committee is convinced that the development and implementation of the NNI strategic plan are key to the science impact that the NNI can be expected to have, which according to the general consensus referred to above is thought to be positive, substantive, and significant. In addition, the strategy has led to the NNI contributing to the education of the 21st-century R&D workforce, as well as addressing societal issues such as health effects and environmental impact. Not only has the establishment of a strategic plan for the NNI had a positive impact in itself, but it has also led to several programmatic impacts at the participating agencies and to the establishment of new structures as described below.

Establishment of Working Groups and Other Mechanisms for Coordination, Communication, and Outreach

In pursuit of NNI goals the initiative has been a catalyst for a significant increase in interagency communication and coordination spearheaded primarily by the NSET Subcommittee. The subcommittee meets monthly, and meeting attendance is reported to be excellent, numbering consistently between 40 and 60 people. In addition to the important work done by the NSET Subcommittee is its establishment of four interagency working groups to address specific cross-agency issues in the context of NNI goals and the seven NNI PCAs. They are the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group; the Industry Liaison Working Group; the Nanomanufacturing Working Group; and the Nanotechnology Public Interaction Working Group (see Figure 1-1).

The flexible structure of the working groups and focused discussions by participants help to promote effective interagency communication, coordination,

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

and joint program development and enable the NSET Subcommittee to efficiently address societal issues by giving it ready access to regulatory experts and health professionals in various agencies.

The NEHI Working Group was formed during FY 2005 to facilitate coordination within and between agencies’ environmental, health, and safety research programs relating to nanotechnology. It provides for exchange of information among agencies that support nanotechnology research and those responsible for regulations and guidelines related to nanoproducts (defined as engineered nanoscale materials, nanostructured materials or nanotechnology-based devices, and their byproducts); facilitates the identification, prioritization, and implementation of research and other activities required for responsible R&D on, and utilization and oversight of, nanotechnology, including research methods for life cycle analysis; and promotes communication of information related to research on environmental and health implications of nanotechnology to government agencies and nongovernment parties.

The Industry Liaison Working Group collaborates with representatives of the semiconductor, chemical, aerospace, biotechnology, and automotive industries to establish communication with the NNI-participating agencies, to provide industry with information on NNI’s R&D activities, and to give industry an opportunity to offer suggestions on how the NNI might best support precompetitive R&D that meets industry needs. The Nanomanufacturing Working Group, which involves primarily NSF, DOD, and NIST, coordinates activities related to reliable, scaled-up manufacture of nanoscale materials, components, and products. The Nanotechnology Public Interaction Working Group was established to develop approaches by which the NNI can communicate more effectively with the public.

A separate effort toward broadening outreach involves the Global Issues in Nanotechnology Working Group, led by the State Department, which was established to engage additional federal agencies with international interests, such as the United States Trade Representative and the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce. It is to provide input on and coordinate U.S. international activities on nanotechnology, monitor international programs, and identify opportunities for international coordination and communication. Currently, this working group is in communication with U.S. delegates to and representatives of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Wassenaar Arrangement,16 and the President’s Export Council’s Subcommittee on Export Administration.

In another NNI outreach effort and in pursuit of the NNI’s second goal of facilitating the transfer of new technologies into products for economic growth, jobs, and other public benefit, the NSET Subcommittee has established the Consultative Board for Advancing Nanotechnology (CBAN), which is charged with

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

promoting a dialog on NNI-related research programs and industry needs relating to nanotechnology. CBAN has been working with the semiconductor, electronics, and chemical industries and plans to expand activities with other industry sectors. For example, in March 2004, under the auspices of the NNI, the Council for Chemical Research and the Chemical Industry Vision 2020 (ChI) formed a partnership to engage in activities involving joint planning and support of collaborative activities in key R&D areas, identifying and promoting new R&D for exploratory areas, and expanding nanotechnology R&D. One of the established NNI-ChI CBAN working groups is addressing environmental safety and health issues for nanotechnology.17

The NSET Subcommittee has utilized the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Small Business Technology Transfer program to support early-stage nanotechnology developments and to accelerate the transfer of newly developed nanotechnologies to practical commercial applications and public use. In addition, in November 2003, NSF and the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC), one of the Semiconductor Industry Association’s affiliates, signed a statement of principles, “Silicon Nanoelectronics and Beyond,” that outlines university research for future technologies at the nanoscale level.18

Having seen evidence of positive impacts of their efforts to date, the committee believes that the working groups and other outreach and coordination efforts stimulated by and established under the NNI have made a considerable contribution to coordination of R&D efforts in pursuit of realizing the full potential of nanotechnology.

Solicitation of New Inter- and Intra-agency Collaborative Research

A significant impact of the NNI has been the development of new collaborations across agencies and between different units within agencies that are conducting R&D relevant to the broad goals articulated by the NNI, as signified by announcements on the Web for programs such as the following:19

  • Nanotechnology Research Grants Investigating Environmental and Human Health Effects of Manufactured Nanomaterials (2004), a program organized by the EPA, NSF’s Engineering Directorate, NIOSH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), that sought proposals for investigating the potential implications of nanotechnology and manufactured nanomaterials for human health and the environment. Research areas included toxicology; fate, transport, and transformation; and exposure of humans and other species in natural ecosystems to nanomaterials.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
  • The NIH’s National Cancer Institute and NSF awarded training grants for nanobiotechnology intended to facilitate greater diversity in the globally engaged science and engineering workforce by establishing integrative training environments for U.S. science and engineering doctoral students to focus on interdisciplinary nanoscience and technology research with applications to cancer.

  • Interagency Opportunities in Metabolic Engineering, a program involving NSF, DOE, DOD, DOC, USDA, NIH, EPA, and NASA in a collaborative effort to provide an opportunity for an interagency granting activity in the area of metabolic engineering through in-kind support such as equipment, laboratory space, personnel time, and materials.

  • The Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory, an effort aimed at performing preclinical efficacy and toxicity testing of nanoparticles, with the National Cancer Institute as the lead agency, in strong collaboration with NIST and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

  • The National Toxicology Program (NTP), a collaboration of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the NIH, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Center for Toxicological Research of the FDA. Under the NTP’s broad-based research program to address potential human health hazards from unintentional exposure associated with the manufacture and use of new chemicals, an effort has been initiated to investigate the toxicology of nanoscale materials of current or projected commercial importance.

  • Collaborations by the Naval Research Laboratory and NASA’s Ames Research Center to develop single-molecule detection of trace levels of explosives.20

The NNI is also promoting intra-agency programs that cross disciplinary boundaries. Through the Interdisciplinary Training for Undergraduates in Biological and Mathematical Sciences program, the NSF’s Directorate for Biological Sciences, in a joint effort with its Education and Human Resources and Mathematical and Physical Sciences directorates, is enhancing undergraduate education and training at the intersection of the biological and mathematical sciences, to better prepare undergraduate biology or mathematics students to pursue graduate study and careers in fields that integrate the mathematical and biological sciences. The NIH’s Emerging Technologies for the Study of Reproductive Neuroendocrinology program involves the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in an effort to stimulate the development of new technologies, including nanotechnology, to address issues in neuroendocrine control of the reproductive function.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

Investment in Centers and Networks for Multidisciplinary Nanoscale R&D

The committee believes that a critically important impact of the NNI has been the focused investment by the NNI-participating agencies in the establishment and development of multidisciplinary research and education centers devoted to nanoscience and nanotechnology. Many such centers are designated as user facilities available to researchers from academia and the private sector, and to scientists at the national laboratories. Featuring physical facilities, equipment, instrumentation, technical expertise, and necessary operating personnel, the centers bring together researchers with a wide range of expertise in an array of disciplines. User facilities are powerful and efficient vehicles for broadening access to the scientific and technical resources currently funded by federal support from NNI-participating agencies. They are particularly important to the nanoscale science and technology community owing to the equipment-intensive nature of much of the characterization and processing of nanomaterials.

An illustrative list of centers is provided in Box 1-3. A few specific agency center activities, described below, are but some examples of how the NNI has affected the infrastructure for R&D in the United States. A recent survey by Asia Nano Forum, presented at the Global Nanotechnology Network (GNN) workshop in

BOX 1-3

Examples of Some NNI-related Centers with Support from DOD, DOE, NASA, NIOSH, NIST, and NSF

The following list illustrates the disciplinary and geographic diversity of the NNI-related centers supported by various federal departments and agencies at the time of this writing and is not intended to be complete or final.

DOD

  • Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies—Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • Center for Nanoscience Innovation for Defense—University of California Santa Barbara

  • Institute for Nanoscience, Naval Research Laboratory

DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers

  • Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

  • Center for Functional Nanomaterials, Brookhaven National Laboratory

  • Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, Sandia National Laboratories

  • Center for Nanoscale Materials, Argonne National Laboratory

  • Molecular Foundry, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

NASA

  • Institute for Cell Mimetic Space Exploration—University of California Los Angeles, Arizona State University, California Institute of Technology, University of California Irvine

  • Institute for Intelligent Bio-Nanomaterials & Structures for Aerospace Vehicles—Texas A&M University, University of Texas at Arlington, University of Houston, Texas Southern University, Rice University, Prairie View A&M University

  • Bio-Inspection, Design and Processing of Multi-functional Nanocomposites—Princeton University

  • Institute for Nanoelectronics and Computing—Purdue University, Northwestern University, Cornell University, University of Florida, University of California San Diego, Yale University, Texas A&M University

NIOSH

  • Center of Excellence in Nanotechnology Research

NIST User Centers

  • Advanced Measurement Laboratory

  • NIST Center for Neutron Research

  • National Nanomanufacturing and Nanometrology Facility

NSF (NSEC, Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center)

  • Center for Nanoscale Systems, Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC)—Cornell University, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of California Santa Barbara, Delft University, University of Basel, University of Tokyo

  • Center for Nanoscience in Biological & Environmental Engineering—Rice University, University of Texas

  • Integrated Nanopatterning and Detection (NSEC)—Northwestern University, University of Chicago, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Harold Washington College

  • Electron Transport in Molecular Nanostructures (NSEC)—Columbia University

  • Nanoscale Systems and Their Device Applications (NSEC)—Harvard University, MIT, University of California Santa Barbara, Delft University of Technology, University of Basel, University of Tokyo

  • Directed Assembly of Nanostructures (NSEC)—Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

  • Nanobiotechnology, Science and Technology Center—Cornell University, Columbia University, Harvard University, Northwestern University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rice University

  • Extreme Ultraviolet Science and Technology—Colorado State University, University of California Berkeley, University of Colorado Boulder

  • Center for Scalable and Integrated Nano-Manufacturing (NSEC)—UCLA, University of California Berkeley, Stanford University, University of California San Diego, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
  • Center for Chemical-Electrical-Mechanical Manufacturing Systems (NSEC)—University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, California Institute of Technology, North Carolina Agricultural and Technological State University

  • Templated Synthesis & Assembly at the Nanoscale—University of Wisconsin-Madison

  • Molecular Function at NanoBio Interface—University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University

  • High-Rate Nanomanufacturing—Northeastern University, University of Massachusetts Lowell, University of New Hampshire, Michigan State University

  • Affordable Nanoengineering of Polymer Biomedical Devices—Ohio State University, University of California Berkeley, Northeastern University, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, University of Wisconsin-Madison

  • Integrated Nanomechanical Systems—University of California Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford University, University of California Merced

  • Probing the Nanoscale—Stanford University

  • Learning & Teaching in Nano S&E—Northwestern University, Purdue University, University of Michigan, University of Illinois at Chicago, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

NSF National Nanofabrication Infrastructure Network (NNIN)

  • Cornell University, Cornell Nanoscale Science and Fabrication Facility

  • Howard University, Keck Center for the Design of Nanoscale Materials for Molecular Recognition

  • Pennsylvania State University, Nanofabrication Facility

  • Stanford University, Stanford NanoFabrication Facility

  • University of California Santa Barbara, Nanotech Fabrication Facility

  • Georgia Institute of Technology, Microelectronics Research Laboratory

  • Harvard University, Center for Imaging and Mesoscale Systems

  • North Carolina State University, Triangle National Lithography Center

  • University of Michigan, Solid State Electronics Laboratory

  • University of Minnesota, Minnesota Nanotechnology Cluster

  • University of New Mexico, Nanoscience at the University of New Mexico

  • University of Texas at Austin, Microelectronics Research Center

  • University of Washington, Center for Nanotechnology

NSF’s Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN) for Nanoelectronics, Nanoelectromechanics, Nanobioelectronics

  • Purdue University, University of Illinois, Stanford University, University of Florida, University of Texas El Paso, Northwestern University, Morgan State University

SOURCE: National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). 2004. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C.: NSTC. December. See also http://nano.gov/html/centers/nnicenters.html, accessed March 2006; also, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, 2005, Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY 2006 Budget Request, March.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

May 2005, indicates that the United States is among the world leaders in terms of funding for these infrastructure elements today.21 According to the NNI, the budget requested for major research facilities and instrumentation acquisition in FY 2006 was $148 million, accounting for 14 percent of the budget.22

Department of Defense

The research mission of MIT’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies is to use nanotechnology to improve the survival of soldiers. The ultimate goal is to create a 21st-century battle suit that combines high-tech capabilities with light weight and comfort. Established in 2002, the institute is funded at $50 million for 5 years. The DOD-supported Center for Nanoscience Innovation in Defense, at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was created to facilitate the rapid transition of research innovation in the nanosciences into applications for the defense sector. It was established in 2002 and funded at $20 million for 3 years.

The Naval Research Laboratory’s Institute for Nanoscience conducts interdisciplinary research at the intersections of the fields of materials, electronics, and biology in the nanometer size domain. The institute exploits the broad multidisciplinary character of the Naval Research Laboratory, bringing together scientists with disparate training and backgrounds to address common goals at the intersection of their respective fields at this length scale. The objective of the institute’s programs is to provide the Navy and the DOD with scientific leadership in this complex, emerging area and to identify opportunities for advances in future defense technology.

Department of Energy

Five nanoscale science research centers (NSRCs) are under development by DOE and will be collocated with existing major facilities at DOE laboratories across the country. Upon completion, the NSRCs will be operated as user facilities that are accessible to all researchers on a merit-reviewed basis. The construction budget is about $60 million to $80 million per center, and the annual operational budget is about $20 million per center.

  • The Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, based at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the first of the DOE’s NSRCs, includes a nanofabrication research laboratory with clean rooms and an area designated for electron-beam imaging with low levels of electromagnetic interference and vibration. The center is co-located with the new Spallation Neutron Source.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
  • The Center for Functional Nanomaterials, based at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, will focus on characterization of the chemical and physical response of nanomaterials as a basis for making functional materials such as sensors, activators, and energy-conversion devices.

  • The Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, involving Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories, will concentrate on nanophotonics and nanoelectronics, complex functional nanomaterials, nanomechanics, and nanoscale/bio/microscale interfaces.

  • The Center for Nanoscale Materials, based at the Argonne National Laboratory, will focus on research in advanced magnetic materials, complex oxides, nanophotonics, and bioinorganic hybrids.

  • The Molecular Foundry, at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, will use existing LBNL facilities such as the Advanced Light Source, the National Center for Electron Microscopy, and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center.

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NIST’s National Nanomanufacturing and Nanometrology Facility supports the development of new infrastructural metrology and standards for U.S. nanotechnology efforts through centralized access to NIST’s unique nanometrology and nanofabrication resources, including the facilities of the Advanced Measurement Laboratory and NIST’s nanometrology experts at the Advanced Measurement Laboratory. It was started in 2005 with a $10 million budget. The NIST Center for Neutron Research is part of the Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory at NIST. Its activities are focused on provision of neutron measurement capabilities to researchers in the United States. It is a national center for research using thermal and cold neutrons, offering advanced measurement capabilities for use by all qualified applicants.23

National Science Foundation

The NSF’s National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) comprises facilities at 13 partner universities aimed at providing fabrication and characterization facilities, instrumentation, and expertise. These facilities either are subsidized or the full cost is recovered, and they are accessible through merit review. The NNIN was started in 2004, with more than $28 million allocated for the 5-year effort.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

The NSF’s Network for Computational Nanotechnology, started in 2002, includes seven universities that together support computational research, as well as education and modeling and simulation tools that can be accessed via the Web.

Announced in October 2005, the NSF’s Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network award will support a national network of science museums, providing informal educational activities for schoolchildren as well as adults. Two centers for nanotechnology in society are being created through NSF funding and, through a network of social scientists, economists, and nanotechnology researchers, will formulate a long-term vision for addressing societal, ethical, environmental, and education concerns; involve partners or affiliates to collaborate on topics related to responsible nanotechnology; formulate plans to involve a wide range of stakeholders; and develop a clearinghouse for information on communicating about nanoscience and nanotechnology and engaging the public in meaningful dialog.24

EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING

During the course of this study the committee heard from several sources, and indeed it is the experience of many educators on the committee, that NNI-related science and technology R&D and the strong federal support for discovery-based research and interdisciplinary collaborations at university centers are attracting and exciting students. For example, new research opportunities are drawing the attention of students to research at the interface of the physical and biomedical sciences, a direct benefit of collaborative federal funding by agencies such as NIH, NSF, and DOE.

While nanotechnology holds much promise for attracting students to the nation’s research universities, it is troubling that math and science indicators at the K-12 level have been showing a steady decline in overall U.S. student performance.25,26 Also, the number of U.S.-born and U.S.-educated students advancing into the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) track is at an all-time low.27 These trends continue despite a significant emphasis on teaching by federal research granting organizations such as NSF whose centers are serving important roles in this regard, and despite educational programs funded for K-12 students, college and graduate students, and general public understanding. Stronger STEM programs in K-12 education could leverage state initiatives, reach out to university education departments to train new teachers, and involve teachers’ professional organizations (such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the Mathematical Association of America) for continuing education and certification. Recommendations for such changes were recently made in the National Research Council report Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.28

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

In addition to educating students, sharing the discoveries of science with a broader audience is an important responsibility of the science and technology community. Beyond efforts to impact K-16 education, understanding by and engagement of the public are important objectives that the science community must address, given that such understanding is basic to the public’s trust in and support for nanotechnology R&D, on the one hand, and to the public’s excitement about scientific exploration and discovery in general, on the other.

Science and engineering are not conducted in a vacuum. University education, including participation in the research conducted at universities, fosters the next generation of scientific thinkers. Industry R&D enables new products with better functionality, leading to manufacturing and jobs. Government leadership advances the best interests of the nation, maintaining an infrastructure for S&T excellence, stimulating industrial innovation, protecting the environment, improving health, and ensuring national security. And the general public, who are the catalyst for and beneficiaries of government’s successes, must be kept informed.

Science in the media needs to reflect the challenges and opportunities that drive the scientific and technological infrastructure supported by federal funds and private investments. Many organizations, including the National Academies, have increased their public outreach activities with greater coverage on public radio and open access to their publications. With greater online access, NSF and DOE media Web sites have also increased their coverage with exciting news releases and featured stories. For example, it is worth noting that the NSF site on nanotechnology captures the imagination of many with news, discoveries, and images.29,30 The committee believes that the public’s curiosity about nanotechnology could be leveraged more effectively to build public support for the federal support of R&D in the physical and biomedical sciences, as well as attract new talent into U.S. undergraduate and graduate education.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Revisiting the NNI’s first three goals (see the subsection “Development of an Updated Strategic Plan” above in this chapter) provides a useful framework for summarizing the committee’s conclusions about the impact of the NNI. The issue in the fourth goal, responsible development, is dealt with separately in this report in Chapter 4, in the context of the committee’s separate task to consider that particular issue.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

Goal 1:
Maintain a World-Class Research and Development Program Aimed at Realizing the Full Potential of Nanotechnology

The committee notes that federal R&D programs are intended to advance the boundaries of knowledge and develop technologies that address government and national needs. To accomplish the vision of the NNI, a coordinated federal investment has been developed at the frontiers and intersections of many disciplines, including biology, chemistry, engineering, materials, and physics. Activities aimed at making progress toward the NNI’s first goal include support for basic or knowledge-inspired research, and development of technology. Application areas of interest to both government and industry include the environment, health, medicine, energy, information technology, defense, transportation, and agriculture and food systems. NNI activities have produced significant advances in these and other application areas and are progressing from fundamental discovery to technological applications and commercialization.

The committee concluded that development of the goals articulated in the NNI’s strategic plan and establishment of the related PCAs are an important outcome of the NNI that has had a positive impact on allocation of federal support to the fields and disciplines that make up nanotechnology. In addition, the committee is convinced that the successful coordination driven by the NSET Subcommittee and the coordination framework it has established are at the heart of the NNI’s advances toward achievement of its first goal. The NNI is successfully coordinating nanoscale R&D efforts and interests across the government as the federal agencies supporting nanoscale research move toward a broadly common vision of federal investment in nanotechnology and nanoscience. The working groups and other outreach and coordination efforts developed under the initiative have contributed considerably to the development of new collaborations between agencies and between different units within agencies, all in pursuit of realizing the full potential of nanotechnology in the context of the NNI PCAs.

Research supported by NNI-participating agencies includes cutting-edge basic research leading to fundamental discoveries as a basis for producing valuable and marketable technologies, processes, and techniques. Federal investments under the NNI are developing the tools of science—facilities and instruments that enable discovery and development—particularly unique, expensive, or large-scale tools beyond the means of a single organization. The committee is convinced that the significant U.S. investment in the NNI to date and the resultant research progress have set the stage for even more valuable advances at the nanoscale by U.S. scientists and engineers in the next decade. The multidisciplinary collaborative approach fostered by the NNI has enabled advances in basic research for the creation of foundational knowledge, targeted applied research for high-impact applications, and established

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

infrastructure for access to facilities, equipment, and instrumentation. The NNI has also created interdisciplinary linkages that otherwise are likely not to have formed. These new interconnections between fields and between individual scientists and engineers from a diverse range of fields will be a lasting legacy of the initiative.

At a time of restrained R&D budgets, the committee stresses the importance of balancing federal support in pursuit of shorter-term research goals with longer-term R&D programs when budgets are being prioritized. Achieving a balanced program will require that federal support for basic nanoscale research not be compromised in favor of applied shorter-term technology work. Basic research and applied research are equally important, each with a different characteristic timescale within which benefits can be realized and goals reached. Two essential inputs to establishing balance in the NNI are the continued operation of the interagency coordination mechanisms and access to effective advice from members of the R&D community who have specific expertise to address technical areas and cross-disciplinary issues in nanoscale science and technology.

The committee notes that sustaining the capacity for U.S. science and technology advances into the future means not just providing financial support for NNI R&D but also ensuring a robust R&D infrastructure, broadly defined. Currently the NNI supports research that provides graduate students in the United States access to world-class education and research training opportunities, thereby contributing to the development of a workforce with skills for the 21st century. Throughout its study the committee heard of research from around the world that is important to U.S. efforts to meet the goals of the NNI, and it is widely recognized that in the United States visiting and domiciled foreign-born researchers and students are key contributors to all science and engineering fields. Their scientific knowledge and technical expertise contribute substantially to stimulating innovation, to this country’s significant benefit. Continuing to attract the world’s best students and researchers interested in nanotechnology will depend partly on how policies and the implementation of legal frameworks, such as immigration law and export control law, help or hinder international collaboration. The committee believes an important role of the NNI involves articulating to the NNI-participating federal agencies, to other relevant branches of the federal government, and to the U.S. Congress the importance of (1) maintaining the openness of the U.S. R&D enterprise to global partnerships and (2) ensuring the development of a high-quality U.S. science and technology workforce regardless of national origins. The U.S. visa system and the export control and licensing system can be supportive of, rather than barriers to, R&D, especially university-based and precompetitive research.

In addition, the committee believes that federal agencies are motivated by their participation in NNI activities to establish priorities, coordinate programs, and leverage resources. The level of interagency collaborations has proved very

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

effective. It deserves continuing strong support, and so the committee offers the following recommendation:


Recommendation. In view of the NNI’s evident progress toward developing a framework essential to maintaining and enhancing the nation’s competitive position in nanoscale science and technology, the committee recommends that the federal government sustain investments in a manner that balances the pursuit of shorter-term goals with support for longer-term R&D and that ensures a robust supporting infrastructure, broadly defined. Supporting long-term research effectively will require making new funds available that do not come at the expense of much-needed ongoing investment in U.S. physical sciences and engineering research.


Assessing the value to the nation’s ongoing investments in NNI-related science, engineering, and technology will require that high-quality information and data be collected and made publicly available each year, and also that a baseline of information and data be established against which to assess the impacts of the federal investment in the NNI and thereby determine if NNI and national goals are being met. The committee acknowledges the challenges inherent in collecting, organizing, and tracking such data across agencies and notes the OMB’s efforts to improve agencies’ reporting of data on NNI-related research support. However, the committee is convinced that there is room for improvement in the reporting mechanisms so as to ensure improved transparency and confidence in the numbers. Efforts toward a coordinated system of consistent tracking and reporting should involve each NNI-participating agency equally and should include intra-agency actions as well.


Recommendation. To build a capability for assessing the contribution of NNI investments to individual agencies’ strategic goals and the broader goals of the NNI itself, the committee recommends that the federal agencies participating in the NNI, in consultation with the NNCO and the Office of Management and Budget, continue to develop and enhance means for consistent reporting and tracking of funds requested, authorized, and expended annually. The current set of PCAs provides an appropriate initial template for such tracking.

Goal 2:
Facilitate Transfer of New Technologies into Products for Economic Growth, Jobs, and Other Public Benefit

To achieve the full benefit of the results of NNI-funded R&D requires the transitioning of ideas into products. Technology transfer can occur via various pathways, including hiring of recent graduates and licensing of intellectual prop-

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

erty resulting from federally funded research. A primary aspect of all technology transfer activities is interaction among those who are performing R&D and those who manufacture and sell goods and services. While NNI-stimulated interaction with industry has been encouraging, the committee welcomes NNI plans to further explore how to facilitate successful commercialization of nanotechnology. These issues are discussed in Chapter 3 on the economic impact of nanotechnology, which includes a recommendation to address the need for collecting data on and developing means to measure the transfer of technology from research to the marketplace, as well as the commercial development of nanotechnology.

Goal 3:
Develop Educational Resources, a Skilled Workforce, and the Supporting Infrastructure and Tools to Advance Nanotechnology

A well-educated and skilled workforce, and a supporting infrastructure of instrumentation, equipment, and facilities, are essential to progress in developing nanotechnology. The committee believes that the NNI’s progress on these deliverables has been good to date, but it believes that more attention is needed to education.

The federal government maintains a suite of user facilities that support nanoscale R&D, including, for example, the high-intensity X-ray and neutron source facilities operated by DOE, NSF, and NIST. A role of the NNI is to continue to develop infrastructure that specifically addresses the specialized needs of the nanotechnology research community, and federal support can make these state-of-the-art research capabilities accessible to researchers based on merit review.

Nanoscale science, engineering, and technology education can help to (1) produce the next generation of researchers and innovators, (2) provide the 21st-century workforce with the math and science education and technological skills it will need to succeed, and (3) inform decision makers in an increasingly technology-driven society. The committee heard from its interviews with representatives of corporations during this study that workers with interdisciplinary skills and background are what companies with R&D programs in nanotechnology are looking for. Satisfying the growing demand for a highly skilled workforce will require a new approach to science and technology education and training. In this regard, the committee notes that while the four existing NNI working groups have accomplished much, there has not been a similar level of coordination or management brought to the NNI goal of developing educational resources and a skilled workforce. It is abundantly clear that “nano” is exciting K-12 students’ interest in science, and this trend should be nurtured. Several NNI workshops have addressed the need to coordinate nanoscale R&D with efforts to strengthen education and workforce development.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

As new participants in the NNI, the Department of Education and the Department of Labor could help to frame and prioritize the main issues that nanoscale R&D poses for K-12 education and the nation’s workforce. Involvement at the state and local levels could also help to ensure that national policy is flexible enough to accommodate local student needs, enhance teacher training, and encourage the public’s participation in addressing issues related to science education and nanotechnology. This new approach would complement ongoing educational work by S&T agencies whose mission integrates educational objectives with research support, like the National Science Foundation.

In this regard, the committee offers the following recommendation:


Recommendation. Given that interest in nanotechnology presents a significant opportunity to stimulate renewed involvement in science and technology education and thereby strengthen the nation’s workforce, the committee recommends that the NSET Subcommittee create a working group on education and the workforce that engages the Department of Education and the Department of Labor as active participants.


The committee believes that an educational working group within the NSET Subcommittee could consider the opportunities for agency and interagency initiatives to:

  • Support the education of the 21st-century workforce;

  • Encourage U.S. students to undertake graduate studies that include course work in nanoscale science and technology and continue on to work at U.S. scientific institutions;

  • Stimulate dialog on undergraduate interdisciplinary education and the introduction of nanotechnology into current disciplinary curricula;

  • Broker a national dialog involving the nanotechnology centers and facilities that are engaged in educational programs on each center’s strengths and on regional needs and thereby enable a sharing of experiences;

  • Leverage the public’s interest in nanotechnology and broaden people’s understanding, furthering the objective of encouraging minorities and women to take up careers as scientists and engineers;

  • Encourage a dialog with the public and policymakers, in partnership with the working group on public engagement, on nanoscale science, technology, and medicine and their economic potential and societal impacts; and

  • Initiate state and regional dialogs on nanoscale science and engineering education at precollege levels, engaging education professionals and community groups to define regional issues and support innovative initiatives.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

Recognizing the Importance of and Providing Access to Nanoscience-specific Advice and Expertise

In 2004, PCAST was designated as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel31 in response to the NRC report Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers and the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.32,33 Although acknowledging designation of the nation’s preeminent committee of science advisors to the government as a welcome testament to the NNI’s importance to the country, the committee concluded that there is an ongoing national need for an independent panel of scientific and technical advisors with operational expertise specific to nanotechnology and nanoscience. Such an advisory panel would be available to provide advice to PCAST, the NSET Subcommittee, and the NNCO on research opportunities, investment strategies, approaches to responsible development, and program priorities focused on nanoscale science and engineering.

Specific activities of such a panel could include regular consultation with the leaders of federal agencies participating in the NNI to discuss and provide scientific and technical input and thus help ensure ongoing coordination of NNI program goals, budgets, and reporting. Such meetings could help to build additional new bridges among NNI-participating agencies and to proactively identify emerging societal implications of advances in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology—the committee has not seen any evidence of PCAST doing this.

The many advisory committees established across the federal government that operate under the Federal Advisory Committee Act provide multiple successful models for emulation in establishing this nanoscale-focused advisory panel. The committee believes that the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, as it operated before its responsibilities also were assumed by PCAST, is a good model for a future nanoscale advisory panel.

The committee recognizes that PCAST in its role as NNAP created a nanotechnology technical advisory group (TAG) of about 50 government and private sector nanotechnology scientists to assist PCAST in its execution of its NNAP-related tasks. However, the committee agrees with assessments it received from many quarters that the TAG is not an effective mechanism and that a more focused and proactive approach is required. The committee concluded that the size and scope of the NNI merit a smaller, more structured and effective, dedicated advisory panel.

The chartering of a specific NNI-level advisory mechanism would provide the government the opportunity to establish a panel of experts optimized for addressing nanoscale R&D and nanotechnology issues specific to NNI goals rather than relying on the advice of the multiplicity of agency advisory panels that are focused on the mission needs of those agencies. Such an advisory panel would be well positioned also to provide advice on (1) prioritizing the support for short- and long-

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

term research, (2) balancing the allocation of resources for large-scale centers and the work of individual principal investigators, and (3) giving expert advice on the value of high-risk but high-reward research requiring interdisciplinary expertise. Therefore, the committee offers the following recommendation:


Recommendation. So that a source of independent expert advice on nanoscience and nanotechnology is readily available to the NSET Subcommittee, the NNCO, and PCAST, the committee recommends that the federal government establish an independent advisory panel with specific operational expertise in nanoscale science and engineering; management of research centers, facilities, and partnerships; and interdisciplinary collaboration to facilitate cutting-edge research on and effective and responsible development of nanotechnology.

SUMMARY OBSERVATION

The committee believes that the NNI is successfully establishing R&D programs with wider impact than could have been expected from separate agency funding without coordination. The NNI’s management structure involves both top-down leadership and broad R&D community involvement that can be characterized as grassroots or bottom-up support. Collectively, the sum of the effort has translated so far into tangible, but difficult to quantify, results. For the continued success of the program, arguably the most important factors may be ongoing federal government support for and commitment to achievement of the NNI’s goals, which to a large extent also reflect broad national goals. Stability and continuity of the program will lead to future gains. As a long-term investment by the nation, the NNI requires the application of foresight and vision, stability in goals, and continuity in funding support to ensure realization of the benefits whose development the initiative is meant to catalyze.

NOTES

  

1. Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council. 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry. Supplement to the President’s FY 2006 Budget Request. March.

  

2. Current NSET Subcommittee membership consists of officials from the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), Transportation (DOT), Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), State (DOS), Treasury (DOTreas), Education (ED), and Labor (DOL), and from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC), National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Food and Drug Administra-

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

  

tion (FDA), Intelligence Technology Innovation Center (ITIC), International Trade Commission (ITC), U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

  

3. Public Law 108-153, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:4:./temp/~c108jIZb59::, accessed July 2006.

  

4. Such a panel had been called for in a 2002 NRC review of the NNI. In 2001, following a request from the White House National Economic Council and the NNI-participating agencies, the National Research Council (NRC) conducted a review of the NNI and an evaluation of the NNI research portfolio, the suitability of federal investments, and interagency coordination efforts. The resultant report, Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2002), was released in 2002 with 10 recommendations on the NNI. The NSET Subcommittee subsequently provided responses to each of these recommendations, which pointed to significant progress in recommended program areas (such as the interface between biosciences and support for instrumentation) and the steady development of an interdisciplinary research community, responsive to the needs of society.

  

5. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. May. Available at http://www.nano.gov/FINAL_PCAST_NANO_REPORT.pdf, accessed July 2006.

  

6. Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council. 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry. Supplement to the President’s FY 2006 Budget Request. March.

  

7. For more information on the program component areas, see in this chapter the subsection titled “Development of an Updated Strategic Plan.”

  

8. K. Koizumi, Congressional Action on R&D in the FY 2006 Budget, American Association for the Advancement of Science, available at http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ca06.pdf, accessed March 2006.

  

9. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-5.html, accessed March 2006.

  

10. The workshop agenda and a list of participants are given in Appendix C.

  

11. Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). 2004. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C.: NSTC. December.

  

12. The societal dimensions component encompasses three subtopics: (a) research directed at environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology development and risk assessment of such impacts; (b) education-related activities such as development of materials for schools, undergraduate programs, technical training, and public outreach; and, (c) research directed at identifying and quantifying the broad implications of nanotechnology for society, including social, economic, workforce, educational, ethical, and legal implications. (Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council. 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry. Supplement to the President’s FY 2006 Budget. March.)

  

13. Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council. 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry. Supplement to the President’s FY 2006 Budget Request. March.

  

14. Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). 2004. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. Washington, D.C.: NSTC. December.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×

  

15. This information was communicated to the committee through agency presentations and discussions during the committee’s workshops.

  

16. The Wassenaar Arrangement was established as a means to contribute to regional and international security and stability by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilizing accumulations. Participating states seek, through their national policies, to ensure that transfers of these items do not contribute to the development or enhancement of military capabilities that undermine these goals and are not diverted to support such capabilities.

  

17. J. Solomon, Praxair, presentation to this committee, March 24, 2005.

  

18. See http://www.nano.gov/html/res/SRC_ExecutiveSummary1.pdf, accessed March 2006.

  

19. See http://nano.gov/, accessed March 2006.

  

20. Director, Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Nano-technology Research and Development Programs, 2005. Washington, D.C.: DOD. May 17.

  

21. Asia Nano Forum, 3rd International Workshop to Develop a Global Nanotechnology Network, May 26-27, 2005, Saarbrücken, Germany.

  

22. Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council. 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry. Supplement to the President’s FY2006 Budget Request. March.

  

23. See http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/whatwedo.html, accessed March 2006.

  

24. See http://www.nano.gov/html/society/ELSI.html, accessed March 2006.

  

25. National Assessment of Educational Progress Achievement Levels 1992-1998. Available at http://www.nagb.org/pubs/sciencebook.pdf, accessed March 2006.

  

26. Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003, December 2004. Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005005.pdf, accessed March 2006.

  

27. National Science Board. 2006. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Vol. 1, NSB 06-01; Vol. 2, NSB 06-01A. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation.

  

28. National Research Council. 2005. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employ-ing America for a Brighter Economic Future (prepublication copy). Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.

  

29. See http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/index.jsp?prio_area=10, accessed March 2006.

  

30. See http://www.nsf.gov/news/overviews/nano/index.jsp, accessed March 2006.

  

31. Executive Order 13349 was signed on July 23, 2004, to designate PCAST to serve as the NNAP.

  

32. National Research Council. 2002. Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

  

33. Public Law 108-153, 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, January 2003.

Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"1 A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative." National Research Council. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11752.
×
Page 44
Next: 2 Tracking and Benchmarking Progress »
A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $61.00 Buy Ebook | $48.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was created in 2000 to focus and coordinate the nanoscience and nanotechnology research and development (R&D) activities being funded by several federal agencies. The purpose of the NNI is to marshal these research activities in order to accelerate responsible development and deployment of nanotechnology for economic benefit and national security. To take stock of the progress of the NNI, Congress, in P. L. 108-153, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, directed the National Research Council to carry out a review of the program every three years. This report presents the results of the first of those reviews, which addresses the economic impact of nanotechnology developments and provides a benchmark of U.S. R&D efforts relative to those undertaken by foreign competitors. In addition, the report offers an assessment of the current status of responsible development of nanotechnology and comments on the feasibility of molecular self-assembly.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!