# Presentation: 498729

## E. Floyd Kvamme
Co-Chair, PCAST
March 22, 2005 

**E. Floyd Kvamme**
- Co-Chair, PCAST
- March 22, 2005

**Federal Nanotechnology R&D Program****National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel Report**

## History of PCAST and the NNI

- 1999 - PCAST supports the establishment of an NNI
- FY 2001 - NNI launched
- 2002 - NRC report “Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers” recommends that OSTP establish an independent standing advisory board.
- February 2003 - President tasks PCAST with reviewing NNI
- December 2003 - 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act signed, calling for the President to establish or designate a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel
- July 2004 - President designates PCAST as the NNAP

## NNAP responsibilities under the21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act

- NNAP responsibilities under the21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act

- 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

## Other review & planning activities

- 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.

## NNI Budgets

- 2001

- 2002

- 2003

- 2004

- 2005
- Est.

- 2006
- Req.

- Millions $

## NNI Participating AgenciesWith Nanotechnology R&D budgets

- NNI Participating AgenciesWith 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)

## NNI Participating AgenciesWithout Nanotechnology R&D budgets

- NNI Participating AgenciesWithout Nanotechnology R&D budgets

- 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)

## NNI FY 2006 Budget RequestTotal = $1,054 million

- NNI FY 2006 Budget RequestTotal = $1,054 million

**NSF**

**DOD**

**DOE**

**NIH**

**NIST**

**DHS & DOJ**

**EPA**

**NASA**

**USDA**

## Questions 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?

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

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

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

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

- Source: Lux Research

## Where do we stand?International government spending

- Where do we stand?International government spending

- Japan

- W. Europe

- U.S.

- Others

- Source: National Science Foundation

**Notes:**
Note that here “US” does not include any State $$$.

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

- Where do we stand?U.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 incubators
- Matching research funds

## Where do we stand?Research output: Publications

- Where do we stand?Research output: Publications

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

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

## Where do we stand?Research output: Publications

- Where do we stand?Research 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%*

## Where do we stand?Research output: Patents

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

- Where do we stand?Research output: Patents

**Notes:**
There are some caveats for these data:
Based on patents in the USPTO database. 
Affiliation is based on filer’s country of origin (U.S. affiliates of foreign firms might be included as “US”)

## Where do we stand?Targeted investments

- Where do we stand?Targeted investments

- Some nations are making targeted investments to gain advantage in particular sector.
- Korea– nanoelectronics
- Taiwan– nanoelectronics
- Singapore– nanobiotech
- China– nanomaterials
- Japan– instrumentation
- Europe—generally broad

## Where do we stand?Areas of opportunity

- Where do we stand?Areas of opportunity

- Areas of opportunity
- Greatest numbers of publications in semiconductors, biology, medicine, chemistry, multidisciplinary, and IT
- Greatest numbers of patents in chemicals/catalysts/pharma; electronics; and materials

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

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

- Source: *Small Times Media* (2004)

**Notes:**
Note:
Strong activity in Chemicals and Biomedical sectors
Wide diversity

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

- Where do we stand?TAG 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 sensors
- Point-of-care medical diagnostic devices
- Long-lasting, rechargeable batteries

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

- Where do we stand?TAG identified areas of opportunity

**Mid-term (5-10 years):**
- Targeted drug therapies
- Enhanced medical imaging
- High efficiency, cost effective solar cells
- Improved fuel cells
- Efficient technology for water to hydrogen conversion
- Carbon sequestration

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

- Where do we stand?TAG identified areas of opportunity

**Long-term (20+ years):**
- Drug delivery through cell walls
- Molecular electronics
- All-optical information processing
- Neural prosthetics for treating paralysis, blindness, etc.
- Conversion of energy from the environment (thermal or chemical)

## Is this money well spent and the 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

**Notes:**
Balance here pertains to:
Long-term vs. short-term
Basic vs. applied
Application vs. assessment of risks

Caveat re Grand Challenges:  Mission agencies (in coordination w/ other agencies where appropriate) should identify “challenges” or targets, with performance-based metrics.  (Example: NIH National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Nanotechnology Plan.)

## NNI 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.

## NNI 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](http://www.nano.gov/)_), a major resource for researchers, educators, the press, and the public. [Website gets ~14,000 *new* visitors each month.]

## NNI Centers and User Facilities

- 2000

- 2003

- 2001

- 2002

- 2004

**Nanoscale Systems in Information Technologies – *****Cornell***

**Nanoscience in Biol. & Environ. Engin. – *****Rice***

**Integrated Nanopatterning & Detection – *****Northwestern***

**Nanoscale Systems & Their Device Applications – *****Harvard***

**Directed Assembly of Nanostructures – *****Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst***

**Scalable & Integrated Nanomanufacturing - *****UCLA***

**Nanoscale CEM Manufacturing Systems Center - *****UIUC***

- 2005

- 2006

- 2007

**Templated Synthesis & Assembly at the Nanoscale – *****U Wis-Madison***

**Molecular Function at NanoBio Interface – *****U Penn***

**High-Rate Nanomanufacturing – *****Northeastern***

**Affordable Nanoeng. of Polymer Biomedical Devices – *****Ohio State***

**Integrated Nanomechanical Systems – *****UC-Berkeley***

**Probing the Nanoscale – *****Stanford***

**Institute of Soldier Nanotechnologies – *****MIT***

**Nanoscience 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 - *****UCLA***

**Intelligent Bio-Nanomtls & Structures for Aerospace Vehicles – *****Tex A&M***

**Bio-Inspection, Design, & Processing of Multifunctional Nanocomposites - *****Princeton***

**Nanoelectronics & Computing - *****Purdue***

**Electronic Transport in Molecular Nanotstructures - *****Columbia***

**NNIN**

**NCN**

## Public engagement is part of:
All NSF university-based centers
All DOE user facilities
NNAP process
Interagency NSET Subcommittee (via its Nanotechnology Public Engagement Group)
NNI outreach via www.nano.gov 

- Public engagement is part of:
- All NSF university-based centers
- All DOE user facilities
- NNAP process
- Interagency NSET Subcommittee (via its Nanotechnology Public Engagement Group)
- NNI outreach via _[www.nano.gov](http://www.nano.gov/)_

- Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks?

## Are we addressing societal 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 implications
- Held workshops in 2000 and 2003
- NSF Center for Nanotechnology and Society—to be awarded in 2005

## How could we do better?Investment areas and funding levels

- How could we do better?Investment areas and funding levels

- Investment areas (aka Program Component Areas) are appropriate, but should be periodically assessed
- To ensure progress within the PCAs:
- Review activities Govt-wide for each PCA
- Identify research targets for each PCA
- Continue robust funding

## How could we do better?Technology Transfer for Economic Benefit

- How could we do better?Technology Transfer for Economic Benefit

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

**Notes:**
Note that once infrastructure is built, it must be maintained and operated

## How could we do better?Technology Transfer for Economic Benefit

- How could we do better?Technology Transfer for Economic Benefit

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

## How could we do better?Program Management

- How could we do better?Program 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)

## 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

- 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?Societal Implications

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

- How could we do better?Education & Workforce Preparation

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

## Future work

- Environmental, health, and safety—national & international coordination
- Commercialization and technology transfer
- Nanotechnology R&D impact on national needs—national security and economic growth
- International benchmarking (based on process to be developed by STPI)