At the request of the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in 2015 the National Research Council1 formed the Panel on Review of the Center for Neutron Research at the National Institute of Standards and Technology and formulated the following statement of task for the panel:
The National Research Council shall appoint a panel to assess the scientific and technical work performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Center for Neutron Research. This panel will review technical reports and technical program descriptions prepared by NIST staff and will visit the facilities at the Center for Neutron Research. Visits will include technical presentations by NIST staff, demonstrations of NIST projects, tours of NIST facilities, and discussions with NIST staff. The panel will prepare a report summarizing its assessment findings.
The Director of NIST requested that the panel focus its assessment on the following factors:
- Assess the organization’s technical programs.
- How does the quality of the research compare to similar world class research in the technical program areas?
- Is the quality of the technical programs adequate for the organization to reach its stated technical objectives? How could it be improved?
- Assess the portfolio of scientific expertise within the organization.
- Does the organization have world class scientific expertise in the areas of the organization’s mission and program objectives? If not, what areas should be improved?
- How well does the organization’s scientific expertise support the organization’s technical programs and the organization’s ability to achieve its stated objectives?
- Assess the adequacy of the organization’s facilities, equipment, and human resources.
- How well do the facilities, equipment, and human resources support the organization’s technical programs and its ability to achieve its stated objectives? How could they be improved?
- Assess the effectiveness by which the organization disseminates its program outputs.
- How well are the organization’s research programs driven by stakeholder needs?
- How effective are the technology transfer mechanisms used by the organization? Are these mechanisms sufficiently comprehensive?
- How well is the organization monitoring stakeholder use and impact of program outputs? How could this be improved?
___________________
1 Effective July 1, 2015, the institution is called the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. References in this report to the National Research Council are used in an historical context identifying programs prior to July 1.
This report presents general observations and recommendations about the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR), based on the assessment foci of the 2015 review. These observations complement those presented in prior reports,2 whose foci differ.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
With the construction of its new guide hall complete and the availability of the new source for producing cold neutrons, the NCNR is well positioned to investigate some of the most important and impactful problems in condensed matter, including superconductivity and magnetism; energy (batteries, fuel cells, and methane storage); biomedical sciences; pharmacy; and geology. The new guide hall sample laboratory will be state of the art, enabling researchers to take advantage of the most exciting developments in sample preparation processes and techniques. Infrastructural developments at the NCNR include new instruments, such as the chromatic analysis neutron reflectometer (CANDOR) and the very small angle neutron scattering (vSANS) instrument designed to improve capabilities in the spatial and temporal properties of materials, as well as the relocation and upgrade of current instruments, such as the neutron spin echo (NSE) spectrometer. The new cold neutron imaging station enables new neutron imaging experiments of elements in samples of virtually any geometrical configuration, including engine parts. The instrumentation development plans involving the 3He wide-angle polarizers, multiaxis crystal spectrometer (MACS II), and CANDOR are imaginative.
The management of the NCNR has effectively planned for the future and has continued to make wise investments. It is anticipated that the strategic plan, which is expected to be completed in the coming months, will formalize the entire planning and operational process, helping to ensure that the long-term goals and objectives of the center are met.
KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The new guide hall is now complete, and new instruments that enhance measurement capabilities are either complete or are at different stages of completion. Moreover, new sample preparation and sample environment capabilities are continually being established. These developments significantly enhance the ability of the NCNR to remain at the leading edge in neutron research in the coming decades. However, some specific actions in the near- and long-term future will be required.
Recommendation 1: The NCNR should develop and document a plan for instrument development, which should include plans for the two remaining end stations in the new guide hall. In addition, the NCNR should hold a workshop in 2017 to get feedback from users regarding the plan. Input from the user community should also be used to update the NCNR strategic plan, expected to be completed by the end of 2016.
It is commendable that NCNR management is identifying creative ways to procure a budget for cold source developments, instrument upgrades, and new instruments from different sources, such as universities, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and—primarily—from NIST. Nevertheless, this approach is fragmented.
___________________
2 See the National Research Council reports Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Neutron Research—Fiscal Year 2011 and Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Neutron Research—Fiscal Year 2013, published by the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., in 2011 and 2013, respectively.
Recommendation 2: The NCNR should document a plan that describes the sources of financial support, with specific objectives for budgets and strategies, and sources that would ensure that the plans for future instruments are realized.
The research at the NCNR is at the cutting edge, as evidenced by high-quality publication in the very best journals in the world in different fields, and also by the number of citations. Additional opportunities could be realized if there were a stronger integration between theory and experimentation in some areas. The success is particularly notable in cases where theory and experiment are well integrated.
Recommendation 3: The NCNR should develop a strategy to achieve more substantial interactions with researchers around the world to develop integrated teams capable of addressing forefront neutron problems. Potential strategies should include expanding the sabbatical program.
An important objective of the mission of NIST is to transition fundamental scientific knowledge to practical technology. Within NCNR, the nSOFT program plays a central role in meeting this objective. The evolution of the nSOFT program and its progress are commendable. Deep ties have been developed with companies, and the impact on industrial processes is becoming evident. In this regard, the transfer of awareness and practical applications of neutrons to U.S. industry is now evident. The goals and objectives of the program have evolved during the past 2 years.
Recommendations 4: The NCNR should (a) develop and document a complete strategic plan for nSOFT with elements that include the metrics for success (for example, financial, number of companies, patents, publications, new products), a profile of the type of company that would benefit from becoming a member of nSOFT, a financial model, and personnel commitment; (b) work with the companies to articulate success stories illustrating how neutron research has had an impact; (c) clarify the current approach to technology transfer activities; and (d) revisit the current status of intellectual property.
In 2030 the user needs for access to neutron scattering facilities in the United States will not be met. Moreover, the reactor licensing limit of 2029 imposes an additional challenge.
Recommendation 5: The NCNR should expand current initiative planning for a next-generation reactor. This planning may even include consideration of an additional reactor.
Reactor fuel costs continue to rise at a significant rate. A reduction of access to neutron-scattering capabilities would have a negative impact on the neutron-scattering community in the United States. This would have serious implications for the overall progress of science and technology in some fields.
Recommendation 6: The NCNR should procure resources to afford fuel costs in order to continue to operate at current levels.
