1

E. Floyd KvammeCo-Chair, PCAST

March 22, 2005

Federal Nanotechnology R&D Federal Nanotechnology R&D ProgramProgram

National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel ReportNational Nanotechnology Advisory Panel Report

2

History of PCAST and the NNIHistory of PCAST and the NNI

1999 - PCAST supports the establishment of an NNIFY 2001 - NNI launched2002 - NRC report “Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers” recommends that OSTP establish an independent standing advisory board.February 2003 - President tasks PCAST with reviewing NNIDecember 2003 - 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act signed, calling for the President to establish or designate a National Nanotechnology Advisory PanelJuly 2004 - President designates PCAST as the NNAP

3

NNAP responsibilities under theNNAP responsibilities under the2121stst Century Nanotechnology R&D Century Nanotechnology R&D ActAct

Assess:Trends and developments in nanotechnology.Progress in implementing the program. Need to revise the program.Balance among the component areas of the program, including funding levels. Whether program component areas, priorities, and technical goals developed by the NSET are helping to maintain US leadership.Management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the program.Whether social, ethical, legal, environmental, and workforce concerns are adequately addressed by the program.

Report and make recommendations every 2 years

4

Other review & planning Other review & planning activitiesactivities

Interagency NSET Subcommittee to update NNI Strategic Plan every 3 years (latest Plan released December 2004)

National Academies to review & assess the NNI every 3 years (first review expected in early 2006). Kick-off meeting tomorrow (3/23).

Recommend that NNAP schedule for reporting be aligned with that for NNI planning.

5

NNI BudgetsNNI Budgets

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 2 3 4 5 62001 2002 2003 2004 2005Est.

2006Req.

Mill

ions

$

6

NNI Participating AgenciesNNI Participating AgenciesWith Nanotechnology R&D budgetsWith Nanotechnology R&D budgets

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 Standards and Technology (NIST, Department of Commerce)National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, Department of Health and Human Services)National Institutes of Health (NIH, Department of Health and Human Services)National Science Foundation (NSF)

7

NNI Participating AgenciesNNI Participating AgenciesWithout Nanotechnology R&D Without Nanotechnology R&D budgetsbudgets

Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS, Dept of Commerce)Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)Department of State (DOS)Department of Transportation (DOT)Department of the Treasury (DOTreas)Food and Drug Administration (FDA, HHS)International Trade Commission (ITC)Intelligence Community (IC)Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)Technology Administration (TA, Dept of Commerce)U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO, Dept of Commerce)

8

NNI FY 2006 Budget RequestNNI FY 2006 Budget RequestTotal = $1,054 millionTotal = $1,054 million

NSF

DODDOE

NIH

NIST

DHS & DOJEPA

NASAUSDA

9

Questions to be AnsweredQuestions to be Answered

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?

10

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?Global investments in 2004 (Total=$8.6 Global investments in 2004 (Total=$8.6 billion)billion)

Asia North America

Europe

Other

Europe

AsiaNorth

America

Other

Private (Corp. + VC)Total = $4 billion

Public (National, regional, state)Total = $4.6 billion

Source: Lux Research

11

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?International government spendingInternational government spending

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Investm

en

t ($

M)

Japan

W. Europe

U.S.Others

Source: National Science Foundation

12

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?U.S. State investmentsU.S. State investments

U.S. “government” funding includes ~$400 million in State funding for nanotech in 2004. (Ref: Lux Research)

R&D infrastructure (e.g. at State universities)Business incubatorsMatching research funds

13

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?Research output: PublicationsResearch output: Publications

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Art

icle

s

Rest of World

United States

Source: J. Murday, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory; ISI search using “nano*”

U.S. fraction of publications mirrors fraction of investment.

14

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?Research output: PublicationsResearch output: Publications

Source: J. Murday, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory * Search of Science, Nature, and Phys Rev Ltr using “nano*”

Growing % of articles in “high impact” journals* are on nano U.S. share is >50%; even though U.S. investment is ~25%

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

Year

% "

na

no

*" a

rtic

les Rest of World

United States

15

Source: Huang et al. (2004) J. Nanoparticle Research Nanotechnology keyword search of titles and claims of patents in USPTO database

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?Research output: PatentsResearch output: Patents

16

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?Targeted investmentsTargeted investments

Some nations are making targeted investments to gain advantage in particular sector.

Korea– nanoelectronicsTaiwan– nanoelectronicsSingapore– nanobiotechChina– nanomaterialsJapan– instrumentationEurope—generally broad

17

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?Areas of opportunityAreas of opportunity

Areas of opportunityGreatest numbers of publications in semiconductors, biology, medicine, chemistry, multidisciplinary, and ITGreatest numbers of patents in chemicals/catalysts/pharma; electronics; and materials

18

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?Areas of private sector activity in Areas of private sector activity in U.S.U.S.

Source: Small Times Media (2004)

19

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?TAG identified areas of opportunityTAG identified areas of opportunity

Near-term (1-5 years):Nanocomposites with greatly improved strength-to-weight ratio, toughness, etc.Nanomembranes and filters (including for water purification and desalination)Improved catalysts with one or more orders of magnitude less precious metal Sensitive, selective, reliable solid-state chemical and biological sensorsPoint-of-care medical diagnostic devicesLong-lasting, rechargeable batteries

20

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?TAG identified areas of opportunityTAG identified areas of opportunity

Mid-term (5-10 years):Targeted drug therapiesEnhanced medical imagingHigh efficiency, cost effective solar cellsImproved fuel cells Efficient technology for water to hydrogen conversionCarbon sequestration

21

Where do we stand?Where do we stand?TAG identified areas of opportunityTAG identified areas of opportunity

Long-term (20+ years):Drug delivery through cell wallsMolecular electronicsAll-optical information processingNeural prosthetics for treating paralysis, blindness, etc.Conversion of energy from the environment (thermal or chemical)

22

Is this money well spent and the Is this money well spent and the program well managed?program well managed?

Generally “yes,” based on survey of TAG and NNAP review of the updated NNI Strategic Plan (including goals and investment priorities)

Balance of funding is appropriate Investment should be diverse, not focused on just a few “Grand Challenges”Interagency management is sound

23

NNI AccomplishmentsNNI Accomplishments

Advanced the foundational knowledge for control of matter at the nanoscale with:

Over 2500 active research projects in 2004

Research projects at over 500 universities, Government labs, and other research institutions in all 50 states.

“Created an interdisciplinary nanotechnology community,” according to the NSF Committee of Visitors, an outside review panel, in 2004.

Built up an infrastructure of over 35 nanotechnology research centers, networks, and user facilities.

24

NNI AccomplishmentsNNI Accomplishments

Promoted understanding of societal implications and applications through investment of ~10% of NNI budget for research related to the environment, health, safety, and other societal concerns.

Established nanotechnology education programs to reach students in graduate, undergraduate, high school, and middle school. NNI has impact on 10,000 graduate students and teachers in 2004 alone.

Supported public outreach via a regularly updated website (www.nano.gov), a major resource for researchers, educators, the press, and the public. [Website gets ~14,000 new visitors each month.]

25

NNI Centers and User FacilitiesNNI Centers and User Facilities

2000 20032001 2002 2004

Nanoscale Systems in Information Technologies – CornellNanoscience in Biol. & Environ. Engin. – Rice

Integrated Nanopatterning & Detection – NorthwesternNanoscale Systems & Their Device Applications – Harvard

Directed Assembly of Nanostructures – Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst

Scalable & Integrated Nanomanufacturing - UCLANanoscale CEM Manufacturing Systems Center - UIUC

2005 2006 2007

Templated Synthesis & Assembly at the Nanoscale – U Wis-MadisonMolecular Function at NanoBio Interface – U Penn

High-Rate Nanomanufacturing – NortheasternAffordable Nanoeng. of Polymer Biomedical Devices – Ohio StateIntegrated Nanomechanical Systems – UC-Berkeley

Probing the Nanoscale – Stanford

Institute of Soldier Nanotechnologies – MITNanoscience Innovation in Defense - UCSB

Institute for Nanoscience - NRL

Nanophase Materials Sciences

Integrated Nanotechnologies

Molecular Foundry

Nanoscale Materials Functional Nanomaterials

5/08

NSF NSECs – 14

DOD – 3

DOE NSRCs – 5

NASA – 4

Cell Mimetic Space Exploration - UCLAIntelligent Bio-Nanomtls & Structures for Aerospace Vehicles – Tex A&MBio-Inspection, Design, & Processing of Multifunctional Nanocomposites - PrincetonNanoelectronics & Computing - Purdue

Electronic Transport in Molecular Nanotstructures - Columbia

NNIN

NCN

26

Public engagement is part of:All NSF university-based centersAll DOE user facilitiesNNAP processInteragency NSET Subcommittee (via its Nanotechnology Public Engagement Group)NNI outreach via www.nano.gov

Are we addressing societal Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks?concerns and potential risks?

27

Are we addressing societal Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks?concerns and potential risks?

Environmental, health, & safety (EHS)NNI spending on R&D primarily aimed at EHS in FY 2006 is ~4% (doesn’t count R&D that is related, but with another primary focus)

Ethical, legal, and other societal implicationsHeld workshops in 2000 and 2003NSF Center for Nanotechnology and Society—to be awarded in 2005

28

How could we do better?How could we do better?Investment areas and funding Investment areas and funding levelslevels

Investment areas (aka Program Component Areas) are appropriate, but should be periodically assessedTo ensure progress within the PCAs:

Review activities Govt-wide for each PCAIdentify research targets for each PCA

Continue robust funding

29

How could we do better?How could we do better?Technology Transfer for Economic Technology Transfer for Economic BenefitBenefit

Federal Government RoleFund basic research and infrastructure—this is a critical Government function in the innovation chain.Actively utilize SBIR/STTR programsSeek opportunities in which nanotechnology provides advantages in fulfilling needs of mission agencies (i.e., be an early adopter)

30

How could we do better?How could we do better?Technology Transfer for Economic Technology Transfer for Economic BenefitBenefit

Expand Federal-industry interactionIncrease Federal-State interaction through additional workshops, use of electronic and other communications, enhanced awareness of R&D user facilities.

31

How could we do better?How could we do better?Program ManagementProgram Management

NSET Subcommittee should continue or expand efforts to:

Adjust its makeup of subgroups as needs change.Consider how it can better share information about available user facilities, research results, and technologies available for commercialization.Look for ways to streamline grant reporting requirements for maximum benefit and efficiency.Coordinate with other interagency groups (e.g. Working Group on Manufacturing R&D)Involve other agencies, where appropriate (e.g. Departments of Education and Labor)

32

NSET Subcommittee continue efforts to:

Actively coordinate with Government agencies, industry, non-profits, and international bodies (govt or NGO) to share and coordinate research on EHS.Communicate with various stakeholders and the public regarding the Government’s activities, including for addressing societal concerns

How could we do better?How could we do better?Societal ImplicationsSocietal Implications

33

How could we do better?How could we do better?Education & Workforce PreparationEducation & Workforce Preparation

Focus on STEM education at all levelsCoordinate with Departments of Education and Labor to improve access to materials and methods developed for purposes of nanotechnology education and training.

34

Future workFuture work

Environmental, health, and safety—national & international coordinationCommercialization and technology transferNanotechnology R&D impact on national needs—national security and economic growthInternational benchmarking (based on process to be developed by STPI)