A Quadrennial Review of the
NATIONAL
NANOTECHNOLOGY
INITIATIVE
Nanoscience, Applications,
and Commercialization
Committee on National Nanotechnology Initiative:
A Quadrennial Review
National Materials and Manufacturing Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS500 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001
This study is based on work supported by Award Number 1842482 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: 978-0-309-67465-2
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-67465-4
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25729
Cover: Strategies for developing timely and beneficial technologies using nanoscience to help society are as important as ever. This NNI review looks carefully at applications and commercialization of nanoscience and their strategies. In the board game Go, where the strategy one employs is critical, the number of ways that the game can play out is extremely large—some even claim that it is larger than the number of atoms in the universe. The cover depicts the first game won by a computer program over a 9th dan-ranked human player. In the future, it is expected that an ever-increasing use of artificial intelligence will augment human efforts in moving all fields forward. Artist: Erik Svedberg.
This publication 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 publication are available 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 2020 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. 2020. A Quadrennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative: Nanoscience, Applications, and Commercialization. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25729.
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. John L. Anderson 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 National 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.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE: A QUADRENNIAL REVIEW
LIESL FOLKS, University of Arizona, Chair
HAYDN WADLEY, University of Virginia, Vice Chair
NICHOLAS L. ABBOTT, NAE,1 Cornell University
OLIVER BRAND, Georgia Institute of Technology
HAROLD CRAIGHEAD, NAE, Cornell University
MARIE D’IORIO, University of Ottawa
TRAVIS EARLES, Lockheed Martin Corporation
GRAHAM R. FLEMING, NAS,2 University of California, Berkeley
TERI W. ODOM, Northwestern University
RICARDO RUIZ, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
JO ANNE SHATKIN, Vireo Advisors
MARK TUOMINEN, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Staff
ERIK SVEDBERG, Study Director
JAMES LANCASTER, Director, NMMB and BPA
NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer
AMISHA JINANDRA, Research Associate
BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate
JOE PALMER, Program Coordinator
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
2 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
NATIONAL MATERIALS AND MANUFACTURING BOARD
THERESA KOTANCHEK, Evolved Analytics, LLC, Chair
KEVIN ANDERSON, NAE,1 Brunswick Corporation
CRAIG ARNOLD, Princeton University
TERESA CLEMENT, Raytheon Technologies
THOMAS M. DONNELLAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
STEPHEN FORREST, NAS2/NAE, University of Michigan
JULIA GREER, California Institute of Technology
JOHN KLIER, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
DAVID C. LARBALESTIER, NAE, Florida State University
MICK MAHER, Maher & Associates, LLC
ROBERT MILLER, NAE, IBM Almaden Research Center
GREGORY TASSEY, University of Washington
STEVEN J. ZINKLE, NAE, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Staff
JAMES LANCASTER, Director
ERIK SVEDBERG, Senior Program Officer
NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer
AMISHA JINANDRA, Research Associate
BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate
JOSEPH PALMER, Senior Project Assistant
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
2 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
Preface
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to form an ad hoc review committee to conduct a quadrennial review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) pursuant to the 2003 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Section 5 of Public Law 108-153.1, which authorized the NNI to coordinate the nanotechnology-related research and development (R&D) of 26 federal agencies. The research coordinated by the NNI is highly interdisciplinary, is conducted in an increasingly competitive global arena, and is making transformative impacts in fields as diverse as microelectronics and medicine. The translation of past NNI coordinated work is now making significant contributions to the nation’s high-technology economy, its security, and the health and prosperity of its citizens. The statement of task for the quadrennial review was to analyze the relative position of the U.S. nanotechnology program relative to the programs of other nations, determine whether NNI coordination should continue, and if it should, identify how to improve the NNI’s R&D strategy and R&D portfolio to further enhance the economic prosperity and national security of the United States.
The report that follows shows that the United States maintains a strong nanoscience and technology R&D program. It argues that this program’s coordination is becoming more critical in the current era of intensifying global competition from developed nations such as Japan and those within the European Union, and from developing nations such as India, but especially from China. In the latter case, researchers are witnessing aggressive, and in many cases effective, planning of a national R&D strategy that seeks to harvest the economic, medical, and national
security benefits of nanotechnology as quickly as possible. This, combined with very large investments in state-of-the-art facilities and the allocation of substantial resources for the education/training and attraction of top research international talent, is clearly intended to result in Chinese leadership of this critically important area of technology. This report identifies changes to the NNI to promote a resurgence of the nation’s nanotechnology program and enable it to respond to the dynamic changes of the new global research environment in which it functions.
The committee thanks the review committee members for dedicating their remarkable technical expertise and experience to the task that was assigned to them. In executing its charge, the committee met five times between March 14, 2019, and November 7, 2019. The committee is also grateful to the many people and organizations that have provided the information needed to compile this report. The committee heard from a broad spectrum of speakers from government, industry, consultant organizations, nonprofit trade organizations, and academia. In particular, the committee thanks the following individuals for their contributions to this study and participation in the committee’s meetings: Lisa Friedersdorf, NNCO; Lloyd Whitman, NIST; Mihail C. Roco, NSF; Stephanie Morris, NIH; Anil Patri, FDA; Michael A. Meador, NASA; Hongda Chen, USDA NIFA; Khershed Cooper, NSF; Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University; Yan Borodovsky, retired; Hilary Godwin, University of Washington; Nathan S. Lewis, California Institute of Technology; Andre Nel, UCLA; Peter Dröll, Germany; Antti J. Makinen, CIV USN CNR; James Alexander Liddle, NIST; World Nieh, USDA; Alan Rudie, USDA; Samuel Brauer, Nanotech Plus, LLC; Celia Merzbacher, SRI; Treye A. Thomas, U.S. CPSC Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction; Peidong Yang, Berkeley; Matthew Hull, Virginia Tech; Chad Mirkin, Northwestern University; Matt Laudon, TechConnect; Orin Herskowitz, Columbia Technology Ventures; Waguih Ishak, Corning; and Emilie J. Siochi, NASA.
The committee also thanks the director of the National Materials and Manufacturing Board, James Lancaster, and the study director, Erik Svedberg, for their help and guidance in performing this quadrennial review. We also express special appreciation to staff members Joe Palmer, Amisha Jinandra, and Neeraj Gorkhaly for assistance with meeting arrangements and all the daily tasks.
Liesl Folks, Chair
Haydn Wadley, Vice Chair
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals 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 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, 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 thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
2 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
of this report was overseen by Martin A. Philbert, NAM,3 University of Michigan. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Every member of the committee made heroic efforts to complete this task. Erik Svedberg provided guidance and management and we also appreciate such from Jim Lancaster.
___________________
3 Member, National Academy of Medicine.
Contents
What Is “Nanotechnology” and Why Is It of Pervasive Interest?
The Evolving Global Environment
2 THE U.S. NANOTECHNOLOGY R&D ECOSYSTEM
The NNI Program Component Areas
Overall Assessment of Value of the PCAs
Concluding Remarks on the U.S. Nanotechnology R&D Ecosystem
The Global Nanotechnology R&D Ecosystem
Concluding Remarks on the Global Nanotechnology R&D Ecosystem
4 FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLEMENTATIONS
Strategic Alignment with National Priorities
Commercialization of Nanotechnology