Triennial Review of the
NATIONAL
NANOTECHNOLOGY
INITIATIVE
Committee on Triennial Review of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative
National Materials and Manufacturing Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
A Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. 1443446 with the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-44794-2
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-44794-1
Digital Object Identifier: 10.17226/23603
Cover image: “Orbital Chess, just opened in the Modern Defense.” This hypermodern opening challenges previous ideologies of old chess masters. Today, not only in chess but also in science and engineering, there are challenges to previous paradigms. Nanotechnology operates at a size range where enhanced properties are available and new achievements can be made in a modern era. Orbital chess pieces embody this with a new design using quantum mechanical shapes to modernize a centuries-old game. Art design: Erik Svedberg.
This report is available in limited quantities from
National Materials and Manufacturing Board
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
nmmb@nas.edu
http://www.nationalacademies.edu/nmmb
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/23603.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
Reports document the evidence-based consensus of an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and committee deliberations. Reports are peer reviewed and are approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Proceedings chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other convening event. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and have not been endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit nationalacademies.org/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
CELIA I. MERZBACHER, Semiconductor Research Corporation, Chair
JAMES S. MURDAY, University of Southern California, Vice Chair
ROBERT H. AUSTIN, NAS,1 Princeton University
ANITA GOEL, Nanobiosym
DOUGLAS W. JAMISON, Harris & Harris Group, Inc.
GERHARD KLIMECK, Purdue University
MARTIN A. PHILBERT, NAM,2 University of Michigan
NELLY M. RODRIGUEZ, Catalytic Materials, LLC
BRIDGET R. ROGERS, Vanderbilt University
LOURDES SALAMANCA-RIBA, University of Maryland, College Park
BRENT M. SEGAL, Lockheed Martin Corporation
SUBHASH C. SINGHAL, NAE,3 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
RHONDA STROUD, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
MICHAEL S. TOMCZYK, Villanova University
Staff
JAMES LANCASTER, Acting Director, National Materials Manufacturing Board
ERIK B. SVEDBERG, Senior Program Officer, Study Director
NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer
HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate
JOSEPH PALMER, Senior Project Assistant
HENRY KO, Research Assistant
HYEKYUNG (CLARISSE) KIM, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow (until April 2015)
__________________
1 National Academy of Sciences.
2 National Academy of Medicine.
3 National Academy of Engineering.
NATIONAL MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING BOARD
CELIA I. MERZBACHER, Semiconductor Research Corporation, Chair
RODNEY C. ADKINS, NAE,1 IBM Corporate Strategy
MICHAEL I. BASKES, NAE, Bagley College of Engineering
JIM C.I. CHANG, National Cheng Kung University, North Carolina State University
LEO CHRISTODOULOU, Boeing, Inc.
JACK HU, NAE, University of Michigan
SANDRA L. HYLAND, Consultant, Falls Church, Virginia
MICHAEL F. McGRATH, McGrath Analytics, LLC
ROBERT MILLER, NAE, IBM Almaden Research Center
EDWARD MORRIS, National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining, America Makes: The National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute
NICHOLAS A. PEPPAS, NAE/NAM,2 University of Texas, Austin
TRESA POLLOCK, NAE, University of California, Santa Barbara
F. STAN SETTLES, NAE, University of Southern California
HAYDN G. WADLEY, University of Virginia
BEN WANG, Georgia Institute of Technology
STEVE ZINKLE, NAE, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Staff
JAMES LANCASTER, Acting Director
ERIK B. SVEDBERG, Senior Program Officer
HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate
NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer
JOSEPH PALMER, Senior Project Assistant
HENRY KO, Research Assistant
__________________
1 National Academy of Engineering.
2 National Academy of Medicine.
Preface
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is a multiagency effort to advance nanoscale science, engineering, and technology and to capture the associated economic and societal benefits. The NNI comprises the collective activities and programs among the participating federal agencies and offices,1 which are coordinated through the efforts of the interagency Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO).
In accordance with the provisions of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (Section 5 of Public Law 108-153), the NNCO asked the National Research Council2 (NRC) to conduct a triennial review of the NNI. In particular, the NRC was asked to assess (1) mechanisms to advance focused areas of nanotechnology toward advanced development and commercialization and (2) the physical and human infrastructure needs for successful realization in the United States of the benefits of nanotechnology development. In response to this request, the NRC formed an ad hoc committee of experts in nanotechnology research, innovation, education, and facilities.
This report represents the consensus of the Committee on Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which met five times between June and
___________________
1 See Appendix C for the actual participating agencies.
2 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.
December 2015. The committee benefited enormously from meeting with representatives from government, industry, and academia. In particular, the committee thanks the following for contributing their time and expertise:
Larry Bell, Museum of Science-Boston,
Robert Celotta, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Teresa Clement, Raytheon Missile Systems,
Khershed Cooper, National Science Foundation,
Lance Criscuolo, Zyvex Technologies,
Dorothy Farrell, National Institutes of Health,
Lisa Friedersdorf, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office,
Frank Gayle, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Piotr Grodzinski, National Cancer Institute,
Nancy Healy, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Lori Henderson, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee,
Daniel Herr, Nanomanufacturing Innovation Consortium,
Mark Hoover, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Catherine Hunt, The Dow Chemical Company,
Frank Jaworski, Raytheon Vision Systems,
Alex Liddle, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
George Maracas, Department of Energy,
Scott McNeil, National Institutes of Health,
Michael McQuade, United Technologies Corporation,
Michael Meador, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office,
Richard Miller, Olin College,
Mike Molnar, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Jeff Neaton, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Deb Newberry, Dakota County Technical Collage,
Ranga Pitchumani, Department of Energy,
Dan Ralph, Cornell University,
Mike Roco, National Science Foundation,
Phillip Sayre, Keller & Heckman Law Firm,
Daphne Schmidt, Math Science Innovation Center,
Russell Shilling, Department of Education,
Lew Sloter, Department of Defense,
Mark Tuominen, University of Massachusetts,
Richard Vaia, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Lloyd Whitman, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Stanley Williams, Hewlett Packard Labs.
Information from and discussions with these individuals were essential to the Academies’ work.
On behalf of the committee, we express our deep appreciation to Academies staff, in particular James Lancaster, acting director of the National Materials and Manufacturing Board, and Erik Svedberg, study director of this report, who provided insight, guidance, and support throughout the study and preparation of the report.
Finally, as co-chairs of the committee, we thank the other committee members who worked diligently and gave generously of their time.
Celia I. Merzbacher, Chair
James S. Murday, Vice Chair
Committee on Triennial Review of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative
This page intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Dawn A. Bonnell, University of Pennsylvania,
William F. Brinkman, Princeton University,
Samuel H. Fuller, Analog Devices, Inc.,
Bertrand I. Halperin, Harvard University,
Steven M. Larson, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center,
Edwin P. Przybylowicz, Eastman Kodak Company,
David J. Srolovitz, University of Pennsylvania,
Sally Tinkle, Science and Technology Policy Institute, and
Pryia Vashishta, University of Southern California.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of
the report was overseen by Michael R. Ladisch, Purdue University, who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Contents
Background for Advanced Development and Commercialization—Task A
Background for Physical and Human Infrastructure for Nanotechnology—Task B
2 FROM RESEARCH TO COMMERCIALIZATION: NEED FOR NNI FOCUS
Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives
Nanotechnology-Inspired Grand Challenges
Prizes: A Mechanism for Providing Focus and Implementing Grand Challenges
The Roles of Regulation and Policy in Promoting or Inhibiting Commercialization
Nanomanufacturing as a Pillar of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Basic Research in Support of Viable Nanomanufacturing
Applied Research and Development in Support of Nanomanufacturing
Nanomedicine Manufacturing: An Emerging Opportunity
4 PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY
Leading-Edge Capabilities at Risk
Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology
5 HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY
Trends in U.S. Undergraduate and Graduate Science and Engineering Education
Growing Competition to Retain the Best and Brightest
STEM Education at the Nanoscale: Graduate and Undergraduate
STEM Education at the Nanoscale: K-12
Resources Available to Enhance Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education
C Evolution of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Membership Organizations
D List of International Programs That Promote STEM Repatriation
E Brief Extracts from the Award Synopses of National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructures