Emergence and Implications for U.S. 

Competitiveness, the Environment, 

and Human Health

Nanomanufacturing

Report to Congressional Requesters 

United States Government Accountability Office

January 2014

GAO-14-181SP

Convened by the Comptroller General

of the United States

electronics

energy

construction

machine tools

medicine transportation

clothing

agriculture

highlights of a forum
Why GAO Convened 

This Forum

Nanotechnology has been defined as the 

control or restructuring of matter at the 

atomic and molecular levels in the size range 

of about 1–100 nanometers (nm); 100 nm 

is about 1/1000th the width of a hair. 

The U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative 

(NNI), begun in 2001 and focusing primarily 

on R&D, represents a cumulative investment 

of almost $20 billion, including the request 

for fiscal year 2014. As research continues 

and other nations increasingly invest in R&D, 

nanotechnology is moving from the laboratory 

to commercial markets, mass manufacturing, 

and the global marketplace—a trend with 

potential future import that some compare 

to history’s introduction of technologies 

with major economic and societal impact, 

such as plastics and even electricity. Today, 

burgeoning markets, innovation systems, and 

nanomanufacturing activities are increasingly 

competitive in a global context—and the 

potential EHS effects of nanomanufacturing 

remain largely unknown.

At the July 2013 forum, participants from 

industry, government, and academia discussed 

the future of nanomanufacturing; investments 

in nanotechnology R&D and challenges to U.S. 

competitiveness; ways to enhance U.S. competitiveness; and EHS concerns. Participants 

reviewed a summary of forum discussions, and 

two experts (who did not attend the forum) 

independently reviewed a draft of this report. 

Their comments were incorporated in this 

report as appropriate.

View GAO-14-181SP. For more 

information, contact Timothy Persons, 

Chief Scientist, at (202) 512-6412 

or personst@gao.gov

Emergence and Implications for U.S. 

Competitiveness, the Environment, 

and Human Health

Nanomanufacturing

Convened by the Comptroller 

General of the United States

What the Participants Said 

The forum’s participants described nanomanufacturing as a future megatrend that will 

potentially match or surpass the digital revolution’s effect on society and the economy. They 

anticipated further scientific breakthroughs that will fuel new engineering developments; 

continued movement into the manufacturing sector; and more intense international competition. 

Although limited data on international investments made comparisons difficult, participants 

viewed the U.S. as likely leading in nanotechnology research and development (R&D) today. 

At the same time, they identified several challenges to U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing, such as inadequate U.S. participation and leadership in international standard setting; the 

lack of a national vision for a U.S. nanomanufacturing capability; some competitor nations’ 

aggressive actions and potential investments; and funding or investment gaps in the United States 

(illustrated in the figure, below), which may hamper U.S. innovators’ attempts to transition 

nanotechnology from R&D to full-scale manufacturing.

Funding/Investment Gap in the Manufacturing-Innovation Process

Participants outlined three approaches that might be viewed as alternative ways to address 

these challenges—or used together: (1) strengthen U.S. innovation by updating current 

innovation-related policies and programs, (2) promote U.S. innovation in manufacturing 

through public-private partnerships, and (3) design a strategy for attaining a holistic vision for 

U.S. nanomanufacturing. Participants who represented a range of perspectives on environmental, 

health, and safety (EHS) issues also noted that significant research is needed to understand the 

risks associated with nanomaterials. As such, multiple participants advocated a collaborative 

effort, in which nanotechnology stakeholders create an EHS framework, including developing 

standards for measurement and nomenclature, to help assess and address these risks. 

Finally, participants advocated both maintaining R&D support and considering ways to 

address the challenges outlined above. Justification of further steps might be based on their 

potential for improving (1) international data on nanotechnology investments, (2) international 

standard setting for nanomanufacturing and U.S. participation, (3) U.S. ability to maintain or 

enhance competitiveness, and (4) U.S. and international efforts to address EHS issues.

highlights of a forum
Page i GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Letter 1 

Foreword 3

Introduction 5

Participants View Nanomanufacturing as a Future Megatrend 11

Participants See the U.S. as Likely Leading in R&D—but Facing Challenges to Competitiveness 17

Participants Considered Ways to Enhance U.S. Competitiveness 39

Participants Encouraged an Integrated Framework to Assess and Address EHS Implications of 

Nanotechnology 55

Considerations Going Forward 64

Appendix I Forum Agenda 68

Appendix II List of Forum Participants 72

Appendix III List of Other Experts Consulted 75

Appendix IV Forward-Looking Profiles of Four Nanotechnology Industries 79

Appendix V Scope and Methodology 99

Appendix VI Examples of “Transforming General Purpose Technologies” 107

Appendix VII List of References 109

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 118

Tables

Table 1: Four Nanomanufacturing Areas Selected for ExpertBased, Forward-Looking Profiles 10

Table 2: Three Approaches to Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness, 

with Proposed Actions and Rationales 42

Table 3: Examples of Nanomaterials in Concrete and Asphalt and 

Experts’ Views on Market Diffusion in 2013 and 2020 90

Table 4: Countries Making Significant Progress in 

Nanotherapeutics 97

Figures

Figure 1: U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, Fiscal 

Years 2001–2014 6

Figure 2: Some Nanomaterial Characteristics That Could Affect 

Risk 7

Figure 3: Conceptualization of Nanomanufacturing and Digital 

Technology as Megatrends, Based on Statements of 

Some Forum Participants 11

Figure 4: Diverse Value Chains Involving Nanoscale Materials, 

Components, or Devices, as of 2013 14

Figure 5: Public Investments in Nanotechnology R&D in 2013—

Comparison of the U.S. to Selected Leading Investor 

Nations, Based on (1) the U.S. Federal Budget; (2) 

Available Projections for Other Government 

Investments; and (3) the Uncertainty Associated with 

These Projections 20

Figure 6: One Participant’s Indicator of Competitiveness in 

Nanotechnology R&D: Relative Portions of Articles in 

Three Highly Cited Journals for the United States and 

Four Other Leading Countries, 2012 22

Figure 7: Example of Specially Designed Particles and Overview 

of the PRINT® Technology Process That Produced 

Them 24

Figure 8: Funding/Investment Gap in the ManufacturingInnovation Process: the Missing Middle 26

Figure 9: View of a Semiconductor Manufacturing Facility 30
Page iii GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Figure 10: Illustration of a 3D Lithium-Ion (Li-ion) Battery 32

Figure 11: Knowledge Triangle: the Approach of the European 

Institute of Technology and Innovation (EIT) 36

Figure 12: IBM’s Business Inverted Stack Business Model 51

Figure 13: Illustration of Product Life Cycle and Issues Posed 62

Figure 14: Glass Wafer with Multiple Semiconductor Chips, Each 

Having Nanoscale Features; View of a 

Semiconductor-Manufacturing Facility 80

Figure 15: Estimated Global Market Shares of Semiconductor 

Sales, 2012, by Headquarters Location of the Seller 81

Figure 16: Actual and Projected Value of Semiconductors 

Purchased in the United States 82

Figure 17: Three Main Types of Battery-Powered Vehicles 84

Figure 18: Estimated Global Market Shares, 2010, Based on 

Numbers of Lithium-ion Batteries Produced 84

Figure 19: The Lithium Air and the 3D Li-ion Batteries, Illustrated 86

Figure 20: One View of Future Diffusion: Expanding Markets for 

Battery-Powered Vehicles 87

Figure 21: Removal of Harmful Pollutants by NanotechnologyBased Concrete in Sculpture 89

Figure 22: Estimated Market Share of Chemical Sales by 

Country, 2011 92

Figure 23: Nanotherapeutics and Cancer Treatment 95

Figure 24: Overview of Drug Development Process 96

Figure 25: Percentage of Nanomedicine Patent Applications for 

United States, Europe, and Asia, 2008 96

Cover art source: GAO (artwork), which incorporates materials from the College 

of Nanoscale Science & Engineering, State University of New York (photo), and 

Prieto Battery, Colorado, USA (graphics).
Page iv GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Abbreviations

ARM Applied Research and Methods (GAO)

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CNSE College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering 

 (State University of New York, Albany)

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

EHS environmental, health, and safety (issues or implications)

EIT European Institute of Innovation and Technology (of the

 European Commission) 

EMA European Medicines Agency 

EV electric vehicle 

FDA Food and Drug Administration

GPT general purpose technology

IP intellectual property 

Li-ion lithium-ion (batteries)

MDI manufacturing, design, and innovation 

MEP Manufacturing Extension Partnership

NASCENT Center for Nanomanufacturing Systems for Mobile 

 Computing and Mobile Energy Technologies (The 

 University of Texas at Austin)

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

nm nanometer (one billionth of a meter or 10-9

NNI National Nanotechnology Initiative

 m) 

NNMI National Network for Manufacturing Innovation 

NNN National Nanomanufacturing Network

NSF National Science Foundation 

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

R&D research and development

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research

SIA Semiconductor Industry Association 

STEM science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

TIP Technology Innovation Program 

TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

VC venture capital

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

January 31, 2014

The Honorable Lamar Smith

Chairman

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House of Representatives

The Honorable Ralph Hall 

House of Representatives

This report responds to your request that we conduct a Comptroller 

General forum on specific issues in nanotechnology manufacturing. As 

agreed with your staff, we designed the July 2013 forum to elicit the views 

of a group of leading experts on:

• nanomanufacturing’s future;

• U.S. investments and competitiveness in nanotechnology research 

and development, as well as challenges to U.S. competitiveness in 

nanomanufacturing;

• ways to enhance U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing; and

• environmental, health, and safety implications of nanomanufacturing.

We held the forum with assistance from the National Academies. The 

agenda (contained in app. I) structured forum discussions to allow each 

participant to comment openly and interact with others on any issue 

without the need to comment on all issues. We selected the forum’s 

participants (listed in app. II) to represent (1) a range of backgrounds, 

covering academia, government, industry, and nonprofit organizations, 

and (2) experience across varied areas such as conducting 

nanotechnology research, developing new approaches to 

nanomanufacturing, commercializing and manufacturing nano-enabled 

products, and assessing nanomanufacturing’s effect on society and the 

economy.

Developed under the leadership of our Chief Scientist, this report 

summarizes the ideas and themes that emerged in the forum’s 

discussions. The report does not necessarily represent the views of any 

individual participant or organization. Similarly, the report does not 

necessarily represent GAO’s views.

Appendixes to the report (1) list the experts we consulted, in addition to 

forum participants (app. III); (2) reprint forward-looking, descriptive 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

profiles (app. IV) of four nanomanufacturing industries, which we sent to 

all participants in advance of the July meetings; and (3) explain the scope 

and methodology of our work (app. V).

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 7 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. In 

addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

We thank all the forum’s participants for taking the time to share their 

knowledge and insights and explore the topic’s implications for the United 

States.

Questions may be addressed to Timothy M. Persons, Chief Scientist, at 

(202) 512-6412 or personst@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of 

Congressional Relations and Office of Public Affairs appear on the last 

page. Major contributors are listed in appendix VIII. 

Gene L. Dodaro

Comptroller General of the United States
 

Page 3 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

The entry of nanotechnology into manufacturing has been compared to 

the advent of earlier technologies that have profoundly affected modern 

societies, such as plastics, semiconductors, and even electricity. 

Applications of nanotechnology promise transformative improvements in 

materials performance and longevity for electronics, medicine, energy, 

construction, machine tools, agriculture, transportation, clothing, and 

other areas. Many technologically sophisticated products today (for 

example, smartphones, tablet computers, and targeted therapeutic drugs, 

among many others) already benefit from nanotechnology or some 

innovative nano-enabled process—as do other products that are not 

typically conceptualized as “high tech” (such as textiles, lubricants, and 

athletic gear).

However, the path to greater benefits—whether economic, social, or 

environmental—from nanomanufactured goods and services is not yet 

clear. Although many view the United States as the world’s premier 

nanotechnology research and development (R&D) nation, some are 

concerned about our national ability to efficiently and effectively capture 

value from our collective investments, whether through intellectual 

property development, licensing and commercialization, manufacturing 

goods at scale, or delivering new services. Moreover, concerns persist 

regarding the environmental, health, and safety implications of nanoengineered materials.

The forum we convened in July 2013 to explore these issues offered a 

series of facilitated discussions. (The agenda is in app. I.) This report 

summarizes key themes that emerged during the forum. Specifically, the 

report presents participants’ views concerning (1) the anticipated scope of 

future nanomanufacturing developments and related effects; (2) U.S. 

investments and competitiveness in nanotechnology R&D, as compared 

to other leading nations—and current challenges to U.S. competitiveness 

in nanomanufacturing; (3) options for enhancing U.S. nanomanufacturing 

competitiveness; and (4) issues in addressing the environmental, health, 

and safety implications of nanomanufacturing. Additionally, we discuss 

“considerations going forward” based on the overall forum discussions as 

well as participants’ views on possible future actions or next steps.

Foreword
 

Page 4 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

We are grateful to all the participants, reviewers, and interviewees 

involved in formulating this report. We also acknowledge the invaluable 

support provided by the National Academies and the National Research 

Council staff.

Timothy M. Persons, Ph.D.

Chief Scientist
 

Page 5 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Nanotechnology has been defined as the control or restructuring of matter 

at atomic and molecular levels in the size range of about 1 to 100 nm.1 A 

nanometer (nm) is one-billionth of a meter (10-9 m) or about the width of 

an atom. To further illustrate differences in size, the width across a DNA 

molecule is 2 nm, the width of a red blood cell is 10,000 nm, and the 

width of a hair is 75,000 to 100,000 nm.2

Many scientific fields—such as chemistry, materials science, biology, 

physics, and engineering—study and apply nanotechnology; the goal is to 

create materials as well as devices and systems that have fundamentally 

new properties or functions. Worldwide there has been considerable 

investment, both public and private, in nanotechnology R&D. One 

estimate (Roco 2013) put the total worldwide figure for nanotechnology 

R&D investment in 2012 at approximately $24 billion.

Focusing on U.S. public investment since 2001, the overall growth in the 

funding of nanotechnology has been substantial, as indicated by the 

funding of the federal interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative 

(NNI), with a cumulative investment of about $18 billion for fiscal years 

2001 through 2013.3 Adding the request for fiscal year 2014 brings the 

total to almost $20 billion. However, the amounts budgeted in recent 

years have not shown an increasing trend. (See fig. 1.)

The global market for nanomaterials and nano-enabled products appears 

to be growing fast. According to one set of estimates (Bradley 2010), the 

global nanomaterials market in 2010 was expected to reach about $1.3 

billion, but the market for nano-enabled products was expected to be 

much larger—estimated to be over $300 billion in 2010, with an expected 

average annual growth rate of over 40 percent for 2010 through 2014.

While other estimates of market size use different definitions, estimates of 

growth rates in this market tend to be quite high, especially for some 

countries. For example, a study commissioned by the European Union 

 

1 See Roco et al. (2011, xv). 

2 Mongillo (2007, 2).

3 According to the U.S. National Science and Technology Council (2013, 3), the NNI is a 

federal initiative in which 27 units from various agencies and departments coordinate with 

each other and work toward achieving a future “in which the ability to understand and 

control matter at the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry that 

benefits society.” 

Introduction
 

Page 6 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

(ObservatoryNANO 2012) estimated a 44 percent average annual growth 

rate in China’s nanotechnology market between 2005 and 2010. Another 

issue is that some estimates and projections include certain categories of 

products, such as semiconductors with nanoscale features, which others 

exclude.

Figure 1: U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative Funding, Fiscal Years 2001–2014

Note: NNI funding is focused primarily on research and development (R&D). Amounts shown for 

fiscal years 2009 and 2010 include funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009. The amounts budgeted for 2013 and proposed for 2014 may differ from amounts actually 

spent; for example, the sequestration of 2013 may have lowered amounts available.

The use of nanomaterials in diverse consumer and commercial 

applications also raises questions about the potential risks that might 

arise if people or environments were to become exposed to 

nanomaterials during their manufacture, use, or disposal. Nanomaterials 

come in a variety of forms, based on both their chemical composition and 

their physical structure. The environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks 

of a nanomaterial may differ by characteristics such as size, shape, and 

surface chemistry, among others (see fig. 2). In addition, the behavior of 
 

Page 7 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

individuals—for example, their use or misuse of a product—can affect 

EHS risks. The risk posed by a material is a combination of the hazard or 

negative effect that it may have on an organism and the extent of the 

organism’s exposure to it.

Figure 2: Some Nanomaterial Characteristics That Could Affect Risk

Note: Characteristics of a nanomaterial that could affect risk include its particles’ (1) size, (2) 

distribution of sizes in a group of particles, (3) shape, (4) surface area, (5) likelihood of forming 

agglomerates (clumps of particles bound together), and (6) surface chemistry including surface 

composition, shape, or chemical reactivity.

In 2012, we reported that much remains unknown about EHS risks (GAO 

2012a). For example, few tools and methods exist—such as models to 

predict the behavior of nanomaterials in the environment—for conducting 

EHS research. Further, we have little information on the number of 

workers exposed to nanomaterials in the workplace, the extent of the 

release or transport of nanomaterials in the environment, or the effects on 

human health of such exposure. It is difficult to assess the risk of 

nanomaterials because they are too varied to permit generalizations 

about how they behave.

Nonetheless, risks associated with particular uses of specific 

nanomaterials can be assessed. For example, based on research studies 

that have shown adverse lung effects in rodents, the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recently released 

recommended exposure limits for individuals working with carbon 
 

Page 8 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

nanotubes (NIOSH 2013a).4 NIOSH reported that although it is not known 

whether humans exhibit similarly adverse health effects, the toxicity seen 

in short-term animal studies indicates that protective action is warranted.

Because future developments in nanomanufacturing are likely to be 

affected by global economic dynamics and by continuing advances in 

science and technology, as well as by shifts in policy directions, the 

objectives of this report are to summarize forum discussions in the 

following areas:

• The future of nanomanufacturing, as viewed by forum 

participants: Anticipated developments concerned the future 

economic importance and societal impact of nanomanufacturing—for 

example, nanomanufacturing’s prospects for (1) achieving a core 

capacity that can set the pace for improvements across a wide range 

of industry sectors (which could result in a wide array of potential 

societal benefits), and (2) bringing “disruptive innovation” and, 

potentially, a net gain in jobs.5

• U.S. investments in nanotechnology R&D and current challenges 

to U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing: Presentations and 

discussions covered (1) information on this nation’s public and private 

investments in nanotechnology R&D6 compared to other nations’ 

investments and (2) the challenges to global competitiveness that our 

nation faces, including questions about, for example, the adequacy of 

capital to take U.S. innovations from the laboratory to commercial 

production and challenges from other nations that are now investing 

 

4 Carbon nanotubes are nanoscale cylinders made of carbon and have extraordinary 

mechanical strength as well as favorable electrical properties.

5 “Disruptive innovation” refers to a new technology that creates a new market (and a new 

value chain or “value network”) and that ultimately, and often unexpectedly, overtakes an 

existing technology. See Christensen and Raynor (2003). 

6 Within the U.S. government, R&D refers to basic research activities and laboratory scale 

development; it does not include commercialization or commercial-scale development; 

see definition, accessed December 17, 2013, 

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/randdef/fedgov.cfm. 

Objectives 
 

Page 9 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

heavily in this area, as well as issues in intellectual property 

protection.7

• Ways to enhance U.S. competitiveness: Approaches discussed 

ranged from (1) enhancing U.S. competitiveness in innovation across 

the economy to (2) fielding programs supporting advanced 

manufacturing in the United States and (3) developing a U.S. strategy 

for reaching a vision for nanomanufacturing.

• Issues in addressing the environmental, health, and safety 

implications of nanomanufacturing: Included here were 

discussions concerning EHS impacts of nanotechnology and 

approaches for managing risks related to those impacts, which may 

differ from those associated with other kinds of products.

We selected forum participants from academia, industry, and government 

with the assistance of the National Academies. The forum was held July 

23-24, 2013, with 28 expert participants. Appendix I contains the agenda. 

To develop background information for forum participants, we selected 

four nanomanufacturing areas in which to create expert-based, forwardlooking, descriptive profiles of nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing 

activity—corresponding to four of the nine nondefense industry areas 

listed by the National Nanomanufacturing Network (NNN) (see table 1)—

and distributed them to participants.

8 These industry profiles, which we 

produced to frame and stimulate conversation at the forum, do not 

necessarily represent definitive or thorough statements about the areas 

discussed. We selected the four nanomanufacturing areas to (1) illustrate 

cross-industry variation in both the current pervasiveness of 

nanoproducts and the nanomanufacturing competitiveness of the United 

States in a global context, and (2) show that nanomanufacturing is 

relevant to industries that differ in terms of other factors, such as general 

levels of technological sophistication and rates of change.

 

7 For purposes of this report, we define national competitiveness as the productivity with 

which a nation utilizes its set of institutions, policies, and human capital and natural 

endowments to produce goods and services, for the prosperity of its people. See also 

Council on Competitiveness (2007). 

8 The NNN describes itself as an alliance of partners from academia, government, and 

industry; these partners cooperate to advance nanomanufacturing in the United States.

Scope and Methodology 
 

Page 10 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Table 1: Four Nanomanufacturing Areas Selected for Expert-Based, Forward-Looking Profiles 

Profile NNN industry area Industry characteristics a

Semiconductors Electronics and semiconductors Extremely fast changing industry; already pervasive 

products with nanoscale features. U.S. leads in design 

and does some manufacturing.

Battery-powered vehicles Energy and power Medium-to-fast rate of change; initial nano-batteries 

just entering the market. Very limited U.S. involvement 

in manufacturing these batteries.

Nano-based concrete Materials and chemical industries Slow-changing industry; relatively few nanoproducts in 

widespread use. U.S. active in related industries.

Nanotherapeutics Pharmaceuticals, biomedical, and 

biotechnology

Fast changing industry; few nanoproducts in use. U.S. 

currently dominant.

Source: Internano.org and GAO analysis.

a

http://www.internano.org/content/view/200/224/

Altogether, as noted in text, nine areas are listed by the National Nanomanufacturing Network 

(NNN); see (accessed November 20, 2013). NNN 

industry areas that we did not select for profiling include (1) information technology and 

telecommunications; (2) aerospace and automotive; (3) forest and paper products; (4) environment, 

infrastructure, and national security; and (5) clothing, textiles, and personal care. However, our 

profiles may overlap some of these areas.

Following the July forum, we began preparing for this report by providing 

the forum’s participants (in mid-August) an initial summary of the forum 

discussions. We received responses from about 90 percent of 

participants. Almost all who responded said that they agreed with our 

summary, overall, and provided several clarifications of key points made 

during the meetings. After incorporating comments from participants, we 

also obtained reviews from two experts who had not participated in the 

meetings. Many of the forum’s participants and others we consulted in 

preparing this report are active in nanotechnology research or 

manufacturing. Thus, we recognize that the forum discussions and other 

materials may reflect views of persons who would advocate for or might 

benefit from increased government funding or other supportive efforts. 

Therefore, we developed the scope and methodology for this report with 

an emphasis on presenting a carefully balanced view of the issues.

Please see appendix V for a full description of our scope and 

methodology.

We conducted our work from November 2012 through January 2014 in 

accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that 

are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 

perform the engagement to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We 

believe that the information and data obtained and that the analysis 

conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions.
 

Page 11 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Forum participants described nanomanufacturing as an emerging set of 

developments that will become a global megatrend: a technological 

revolution that is now in its formative phases but that many 

knowledgeable persons—in science, business, and government, 

worldwide—expect to burgeon in the years ahead, bringing new 

opportunities, “disruptive innovation,” jobs creation, and diverse societal 

benefits.9

 Multiple participants anticipated that nanomanufacturing could 

eventually match or outstrip the digital revolution in terms of economic 

importance and societal impact, as illustrated in figure 3. 

Figure 3: Conceptualization of Nanomanufacturing and Digital Technology as 

Megatrends, Based on Statements of Some Forum Participants

Note: The envisioned “flattening” of the digital technology trend follows the “diffusion of innovation 

curve” (Rogers 1962). Although not shown here, the two trends may interact; that is, each may 

influence the other, potentially heightening one or both curves; for example, carbon nanotubes are 

being explored as a basis for new, smaller, and more powerful transistors (Shulaker et al. 2013).

 

9 For purposes of this report, a megatrend is defined as a long-term, powerful, and 

evidence-supported process with a formative and transforming impact on the future. 

“Disruptive innovation” is defined as innovation that helps create a new market and value 

network, displacing an earlier technology—and may create jobs—as further discussed 

later in this report. 

Participants View 

Nanomanufacturing 

as a Future 

Megatrend
 

Page 12 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

This bold conceptualization is linked to a variety of anticipated 

developments voiced by numerous forum participants. With respect to the 

future trajectory of nanomanufacturing—that is, the height of the 

nanomanufacturing trend line in figure 3, above, relative to its currently

much lower level—participants said that:

• continuing breakthroughs in the science of nanomaterials are still 

happening and will continue to fuel engineering developments;

• enabling tools and engineering technologies, which are now in their 

infancy, will be replaced by new and more widely available versions 

that may generate significant new potential for developing new 

manufacturing applications; and

• the currently increasing ability of scientists and engineers to design 

and control nanoparticles and devices to achieve desired outcomes 

(such as specific product characteristics or capabilities) will speed 

innovation and bring major advances relative to earlier approaches, 

which were based on discovering a certain kind of nanoparticle and 

then trying to find a useful application for it.

Varied participants also (1) anticipated that by 2030 new developments 

may be achieved through converging technologies—for example, by 

combining nanotechnology with new developments in digital technology 

and biological science, and going forward, the convergence of 

nanotechnology with other new fields or technologies;10 (2) predicted that 

by 2015 to 2020, molecular and hybrid nanosystems will proceed to 

industrial prototyping and commercialization; and (3) foresaw the 

possibility that nanotechnology developments might inspire new national 

investments. To illustrate the last point, multiple participants anticipated 

that conducting fundamental nanotechnology research on concrete could 

yield transformational advances (beyond the current level of nanoimprovements in this area), which might then jump-start major federal 

investments in infrastructure renewal throughout the United States.

 

10 Bainbridge and Roco (2006, 2) see the potential convergence of nanotechnology with 

biotechnology, information technology, and new technologies based in cognitive science 

(known as NBIC) as (1) constituting “a major phase change in the nature of science and 

technology” and (2) having “the greatest possible implications for the economy, society, 

and culture.” Also on the topic of NBIC convergence, Khushf (2007) has written about 

upstream anticipation of ethical issues such as privacy and transparency. See also Roco 

and Bainbridge (2013). 
 

Page 13 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

One participant saw the potential future significance of 

nanomanufacturing as approaching that of electricity, which had 

transforming impacts as it spread during the late 19th century and 

through the 20th century. 

Multiple participants referred to nanomanufacturing as affecting many 

sectors of the economy and having widely transformative impacts—that 

is, essentially having the potential to become a “general purpose 

technology” (GPT), a term that has been used in reference to major 

innovations, such as electricity, computers, and the Internet. Innovations 

such as these have (1) many direct uses in numerous industries and (2) 

additional, indirect “spillover effects.”

11 GPTs significantly affect or benefit 

entire national or global economies and can transform societies. (Others 

have specifically indicated that nanotechnology has the potential to 

qualify as a GPT.12) 

With respect to the potential worldwide opportunities that nanotechnology 

might bring, including opportunities for economic and societal benefits, 

various participants said that:

• Nanomanufacturing will increasingly allow mass reproducibility at an 

extremely precise scale. An historical example suggests, by analogy, 

the potential for nanomanufacturing’s transformational effects: One 

hundred years ago, Henry Ford’s introduction of a moving automobile 

assembly line and his use of interchangeable parts (which was 

relatively new to the automobile industry at that time) achieved a 

(then) new level of reproducible precision in mass production. 

• Nanomanufacturing is increasingly setting the pace for improvements 

across a wide range of industrial sectors with potential for an array of 

important societal benefits. One participant’s view of the future was 

that, in effect, “everything will become nano,” and the result will be 

 

11 Lipsey et al. (2005, 98) provide an example: “the computer . . . enabled the 

development of efficient, precisely controlled robots, which in turn enabled the 

restructuring of many factories along highly automated lines.” 

12 Lipsey et al. (2005) list nanotechnology as a GPT, based on its potential (see app. VI of 

this report); similarly, Youtie et al. (2008) see nanotechnology as having potential to meet 

requirements for classification as a GPT. 
 

Page 14 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

numerous and varied societal benefits.13 This is already happening to 

some degree, based on the examples of emerging developments 

outlined in figure 4, below. Included here, among others, are (1) 

enhanced battery-powered vehicles that in the future may increasingly 

replace gasoline-powered models and thus help protect the 

environment, and (2) chemotherapy designed to target cancer cells 

and thus help millions of future patients avoid pain and suffering—as 

well as possibly saving millions of lives. New advances in applied 

research areas related to these examples are still occurring; to 

illustrate, a recent article (Yadav et al. 2013) described research on a 

bone-enhancing therapy that would be carried directly to the small 

cracks associated with osteoporosis.

Figure 4: Diverse Value Chains Involving Nanoscale Materials, Components, or 

Devices, as of 2013

Notes on value chains, “ever faster computers,” and copper nano-wires: (1) We define a value chain, 

for purposes of this report, as a series of key steps starting with the processing of raw materials and 

continuing to the production of a finished consumer product; each step adds value—and may or may 

not involve a different company or intermediate product. The figure uses three main stages to 

summarize four examples of nanotechnology value chains. (2) With respect to “ever faster 

computers,” digital development has generally followed “Moore’s law,” in part by utilizing chips with 

nano-features; however, more advanced applications of nanotechnology—such as the use of new, 

more advanced nanomaterials in conjunction with 3D chip architecture, optical interconnects, or other 

approaches—may be needed for continuous improvement in future decades. (3) The use of copper 

nano-wires is one example of how nanotechnology can be used to enhance lithium-ion (Li-ion) 

batteries, as illustrated in Figure 10 of this report.

 

13 Roco and Bainbridge (2005; see especially table 1) describe a wide scope of 

nanotechnology’s potential implications for society.
 

Page 15 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

• Nanomanufacturing could eventually bring disruptive innovation and 

the creation of new jobs—at least for the nations that are able to 

compete globally. According to the model suggested by Christensen 

(2012a; 2012b), which was cited by a forum participant, the 

widespread disruption of existing industries (and their supply chains) 

can occur together with the generation of broader markets, which can 

lead to net job creation, primarily for nations that bring the disruptive 

technology to market. The Ford automobile plant (with its dramatic 

changes in the efficient assembly of vehicles) again provides an 

historical example: mass-produced automobiles made cheaply 

enough—through economies of scale—were sold to vast numbers of 

consumers, replacing horse and buggy transportation and creating 

jobs to (1) manufacture large numbers of cars and develop the supply 

chain; (2) retail new cars; and (3) service them. The introduction of 

minicomputers and then personal computers in the 1980s and 1990s 

provides another historical example; the smaller computers disrupted 

the dominant mainframe computing industry (Christensen et al. 2000).

Personal computers were provided to millions of homes, and an 

analyst in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Freeman 1996) documented 

the creation of jobs in related areas such as selling home computers 

and software. According to Christensen (2012b), “[A]lmost all net 

growth in jobs in America has been created by companies that were 

empowering—companies that made complicated things affordable 

and accessible so that more people could own them and use them.”

14

As a counterpoint, a recent report analyzing manufacturing today 

(Manyika et al. 2012, 4) claims that manufacturing “cannot be 

expected to create mass employment in advanced economies on the 

scale that it did decades ago.” 

• Nanomanufacturing could open new world markets. One participant 

suggested that a future direction in nanomanufacturing might bring the 

production of very low cost goods similar in function to existing 

products; such goods might open untapped markets at the “bottom of 

the pyramid” and afford vast numbers of people new access to them. 

 

14 Mentioned earlier, “disruptive innovation” is defined as innovation that helps create a 

new market and value network, displacing an earlier technology—and may create jobs. 

The disruptive process may occur over a few years or possibly decades; see, for example, 

Christensen and Raynor (2003) and Christensen (2012a). By contrast, these authors see 

“sustaining innovation” (which improves products for sale to the same consumers) as 

typically not creating jobs—and “efficiency innovation” (which essentially refers to new 

ways to produce the same products more efficiently for sale to the same consumers) as 

actually destroying jobs.
 

Page 16 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Logically, economic benefits and jobs would flow to those able to 

produce the new minimal cost nanoproducts. (Potentially, spin-off jobs 

might also be created in the consuming nations, but many “old jobs” 

might also be lost.)

Given the potential opportunities now anticipated, and considering that 

economic security is related to national security, participants also foresaw 

intense nanotechnology competition on a global scale—with one 

participant saying that we are already “in a moon race.” 
 

Page 17 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

The United States has made significant investments in nanotechnology 

R&D, and while recognizing the uncertainty associated with cross-nation 

comparisons, forum participants viewed the United States as, overall, 

likely leading in nanotechnology R&D at the present time.15 This view is 

consistent with (1) an apparent U.S. lead in R&D investment, based on

publicly available information, and (2) U.S. dominance in publications in 

three highly cited journals.

Participants also viewed the United States as facing several challenges 

that, taken together, could represent a significant obstacle to U.S. 

competitiveness in nanomanufacturing, going forward. These challenges 

include:

• Gaps in U.S. nano-commercialization funding or investment and 

related issues, which may hamper nano-innovation in the United 

States. Participants described key gaps in government funding and 

private-sector investment for not only technology development but 

also manufacturing development—gaps that they referred to as the 

Valley of Death and the Missing Middle, as explained below.

• Prior U.S. “offshoring” of manufacturing and, in some cases, current 

workforce limitations. Multiple participants said that such factors can 

translate to competitive disadvantages when efforts are made to 

establish and maintain nanomanufacturing in the United States.16

• Lack of sufficient U.S. participation in setting standards for 

nanotechnology or nanomanufacturing. Some participants discussed 

a possible need for a stronger role for the United States in setting 

commercial standards for nanomanufactured goods (including 

defining basic terminology in order to sell products in global 

markets).17

 

15 As previously noted, within the U.S. government, R&D refers to basic research activities 

and laboratory scale development; it does not include commercialization or commercialscale development.

16 For purposes of this report, we define “offshoring” as a U.S. company’s locating some 

or all of its manufacturing operations in one or more other countries for purposes of 

reducing costs. 

17 Other standards issues concern the environmental, safety, and health aspects of 

nanomanufacturing; those issues are discussed in a later section of this report.

Participants See the 

U.S. as Likely 

Leading in R&D—but 

Facing Challenges to 

Competitiveness 
 

Page 18 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

• Lack of a national vision for a U.S. nanomanufacturing capability and 

limited technology transfer at U.S. universities. Varied participants felt 

that such issues could make it more difficult to translate R&D 

investments in nanotechnology to commercial products—and thus 

could represent important limitations.

• Global competition and threats. Participants said that in key 

competitor countries, nano-commercialization funding or investment

gaps (which present barriers to some U.S. innovators) do not apply or 

are being addressed. They also said that some other countries, or 

certain elements in other countries, are “playing by new rules”—using 

tactics that can threaten U.S. competitiveness in a globalized 

economy.

Despite some uncertainty, forum participants view the United States as 

likely leading in nanotechnology R&D at the present time. Specifically, 

participants see the United States as (1) appearing to lead in 

nanotechnology R&D investments, based on publicly available data, and 

(2) dominating in quality research. However, one participant—who agreed 

that the United States likely leads in nanotechnology R&D—said that this 

lead is increasingly being challenged in various areas by other countries.

Participant presentations included information on:

• investments in nanotechology R&D including (1) public-sector 

investments made by the United States and other individual nations, 

and (2) combined public- and private-sector investments made by the 

United States and the world as a whole; and

• indicators of leading nations’ competitiveness in nanotechnology 

R&D, such as numbers of publications in leading journals.

Both public-sector and private-sector investments in R&D are relevant. 

First, with respect to public-sector investments, some leading countries 

(such as the United States, some European countries, and Japan) 

generally track their governments’ expenditures on nanotechnology R&D 

and make these estimates available to the public. Importantly, however, 

participants identified two points limiting international comparisons of 

current public investments in this area:

• Relevant definitions—for example, how nanotechnology itself and 

R&D are defined—may vary across nations, thus reducing the validity 

of comparisons.

Despite Some Uncertainty,

Participants See the U.S.

as Likely Leading in 

Nanotechnology R&D 

U.S. and Other Nations’

Investments in R&D
 

Page 19 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

• Some countries that appear to have made major investments in 

nanotechnology R&D may (1) not adequately or effectively track these 

investments or (2) not share such information externally—resulting in 

limited information on which to base estimates or projections.

Projections of public investments from a consulting firm are available, 

however, and were presented by a forum participant. Figure 5 compares 

the public investment in R&D made by the United States in 2013 to 

investments made by other selected leading investor nations—based on 

(1) the U.S. federal budget’s figure for nanotechnology R&D, (2) 

projections for the U.S. states and other nations, and (3) the uncertainty 

that two key forum participants associated with these projections.18 In 

addition to considering indicators of individual nations’ public investments 

in nanotechnology R&D as of 2013, a forum participant

• presented an R&D public investment level for Western European 

governments—based on combining projected investments by all EU 

countries’ individual governments and a projected European 

Commission investment—which was higher than that estimated for 

any single nation, and

• emphasized that federal U.S. funding, as represented by the NNI 

budget, has not increased from 2012 to 2014.

 

18 These two participants were selected, in part, for their expertise in international data 

concerning nanotechnology.
 

Page 20 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Figure 5: Public Investments in Nanotechnology R&D in 2013—Comparison of the U.S. to Selected Leading Investor Nations, 

Based on (1) the U.S. Federal Budget; (2) Available Projections for Other Government Investments; and (3) the Uncertainty 

Associated with These Projections

Note: The shading in this bar chart characterizes the uncertain levels of public investment in R&D, 

based on two key participants’ opinions concerning available projections for 2013. Specifically, the 

lighter the color of a bar, the greater the uncertainty associated with the projection. Use of fading on 

the upper portion of bars is also intended to convey the uncertainty associated with these projections.

Our intent is to avoid conveying an unwarranted level of precision, which might be associated with a 

specific data point for each nation (see app. V on scope and methodology). Importantly, this figure 

excludes estimates of private-sector investments, which are discussed later in this section. Finally, 

this figure shows indicators of public investments for fiscal year 2013, and we note that different 

nations’ definitions of a fiscal year may vary.

a

Public investments shown for the United States include both state investments (projection) and the 

federal investment represented by the 2013 budget (continuing resolution) for the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative or NNI. The NNI focuses primarily on R&D. Amounts spent by NNI 

agencies and departments may vary from budget figures because of factors such as sequestration.

b

The projected public investment for Germany does not include its contribution to the European 

Commission’s effort in nanotechnology R&D.

Second, turning to private-sector investments in nanotechnology R&D,19

uncertainty about various nations’ levels of investments again derived 

from issues such as varying definitions and possible lack of transparency 

 

19 One participant noted that private-sector R&D investments differ from public-sector 

investments in that private-sector investments tend to place greater emphasis on 

development (by contrast, public-sector investments place greater emphasis on research).
 

Page 21 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

for some countries. Estimates for multiple individual nations’ privatesector investments (alone) were not presented at the forum. However:

• A participant did present an estimate of combined public- and privatesector R&D investment in nanotechnology in 2012 for the United 

States—which was more than twice the figure for U.S. public-sector 

investment, alone (Roco 2013).

• Additionally, two participants (who were selected for the forum, in part, 

because of their knowledge about nanotechnology R&D investments) 

indicated that based on publicly available information, (1) privatesector R&D investments are significant for some countries besides the 

United States and that (2) the United States currently appears to lead 

in combined public- and private-sector investments in nanotechnology 

R&D, but it is possible that one or more nations might be making a 

greater investment than the United States (because their investments 

may be underreported).

Turning to leading nations’ competitiveness in nanotechnology R&D, a 

forum participant presented data from three highly cited journals, showing 

the percentages of articles on nanotechnology that were authored by 

researchers in the five top countries (defined by authorship in these 

journals). The United States led from 1991 to 2012. The U.S. share in 

2012 was approximately 56 percent, although one participant saw this 

figure as likely overstating U.S. dominance.20 Portions for the United 

States and the other four countries in 2012 are illustrated in figure 6.

 

20 That participant expressed the view that the three journals examined may tend to 

publish authors seen as being more prestigious or as having more prestigious affiliations, 

which might bias results in favor of the United States.

Leading Nations’ R&D 

Competitiveness
 

Page 22 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Figure 6: One Participant’s Indicator of Competitiveness in Nanotechnology R&D: 

Relative Portions of Articles in Three Highly Cited Journals for the United States 

and Four Other Leading Countries, 2012

Notes: (1) Roco (2013) defines highly cited journals as Science, Nature, and the Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences. (2) For articles with multiple authors, country was defined as that of 

the corresponding author.

At the same time, China overtook the United States in 2010 in terms of 

the quantity of nano-science articles published annually (a comparison 

made without controlling for quality of publication vehicle). However, 

participants generally viewed the United States as dominating in what 

might be considered quality research on nanotechnology.

Despite some uncertainty about the quality of available data on 

international investments, forum participants—who, in some cases, have 

interacted extensively with nanotechnology experts in other nations—

agreed that currently the United States likely leads other nations in 

nanotechnology R&D, overall. Their position is consistent with (1) an 

apparent current U.S. lead in investments in nanotechnology R&D 

(combined public- and private-sector investments), and (2) U.S. 

competitiveness in R&D, as represented by U.S. dominance in three 

highly cited journals. Although forum participants saw the likely U.S. lead 

in nanotechnology R&D as an important strength, they foresaw intense 

global-scale competition in nanotechnology. Other nations are now 

making large investments in nanotechnology R&D—and multiple 

participants emphasized that it is essential for the United States to 

maintain a high level of investment in fundamental research, even for 

relatively mature industries such as the semiconductor industry, which is 

based on fundamental materials science. As noted in the previous 

section, one participant characterized this competition as a “moon race.” 

Overall Comparison of the U.S. 

to Other Nations: 

Nanotechnology R&D
 

Page 23 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

According to forum participants, nano-innovation may involve developing 

not only (1) a new technology or product but also (2) a new manufacturing 

process to produce that product. For each of these efforts, a gap in U.S. 

government funding, private investment, or other support may occur 

during the middle-stages of innovation or development. Such gaps may 

hamper U.S. nano-innovators as they attempt to transition from basic 

nanotechnology or nanomanufacturing research and laboratory-scale 

development to large-scale commercial nanomanufacturing.

Participants said that in the United States, government often funds 

research and the initial stages of development, whereas industry 

investment typically focuses on the final stages; however, the result is 

that middle-stage funding or investment for nano-innovation is insufficient.

Middle-stage gaps are important because, according to participants, 

significant costs are associated with transitioning nano-based innovations 

to the prototype stage and, more so, to the scale-up manufacturing 

phase.

Varied participants discussed the limited federal funding available for 

commercialization and a “draining away” of VC for nano-innovators. 

Participants also mentioned the lack, in some cases, of a supportive 

regional ecosystem—and one participant provided an example of a U.S. 

nano-innovator who was able to combine varied sources of funding, 

including support from foundations.

Varied participants explained that a nano-innovator may face a dual 

challenge of technology innovation and manufacturing innovation—

although these two processes may be intertwined. Using the example of 

nanotherapeutics for drug delivery, at the same time that innovators at the 

University of North Carolina advanced the maturity of specific 

nanotherapeutic approaches, they also had to create ways to produce the 

new nanotherapeutics: first, in the laboratory and later, in a production 

environment.

To illustrate this, figure 7 shows (1) an example of a specific particleshape required for a certain type of nanoscale drug delivery and (2) the 

method developed to produce this and other specifically shaped 

Gaps in Funding or 

Investment May Hamper 

U.S. Nano-Innovation

Technology Innovation and 

Manufacturing Innovation: a 

Dual Challenge
 

Page 24 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

particles.21 Differently shaped and sized particles can be specially 

designed to maximize uptake by targeted cells and to minimize uptake by 

other cells. The particles are then manufactured using a process such as 

that shown in figure 7 (right-hand illustration). 

Figure 7: Example of Specially Designed Particles and Overview of the PRINT® Technology Process That Produced Them

Note: Each of the specially designed particles, shown magnified above left, is roughly one-tenth the 

width of a hair, or less. The production process, shown at right, begins with the nanoscale, 

lithographic patterning of a template, which is illustrated as a grey plate in (1) above. The template 

defines the size and shape of the particles to be produced. A liquid polymer illustrated as a green 

drop, see (1) above, is spread across the patterned template, filling the space around all the nanosize 

features. The polymer is then cured and becomes a solid inverse, which is used as a mold, illustrated 

as the green plate in (2) above. The mold is filled with a nanoparticle material, as illustrated in red; 

see (2), (3), and (4), above. A harvesting film, illustrated as a clear strip shown in (5) above, is used 

to extract the particles from the mold. Each resulting particle, illustrated in (6) above, is of the same 

size and shape; each also has the same chemical composition.

To illustrate the extensive work that may be involved, many patents may 

be needed to complete development of both a new nano-enhanced 

product (or a series of products) and a new nanomanufacturing process.

According to a forum participant involved with the start-up company that 

developed the PRINT® production process, shown in figure 7, this 

process was launched with three seminal patents in 2004. Many 

 

21 The development of this method for nanomanufacturing medicines was based, in part, 

on earlier approaches used to produce semiconductors, and one participant suggested 

the potential importance of the experience of the semiconductor industry for 

nanomanufacturing in general. 
 

Page 25 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

subsequent applications and processes were needed (approximately 80 

patents pending thus far) to help the technology realize full 

implementation.

Forum participants said that middle-stage funding, investment, and 

support gaps occur for not only technology innovation but also 

manufacturing innovation. They described the Valley of Death (that is, the 

potential lack of funding or investment that may characterize the middle 

stages in the development of a technology or new product) and the 

Missing Middle (that is, a similar lack of adequate support for the middle 

stages of developing a manufacturing process or approach), as explained 

below.

The Valley of Death refers to a gap in funding or investment that can 

occur after research on a new technology and its initial development—for 

example, when the technology moves beyond tests in a controlled 

laboratory setting.22 In the medical area, participants said the problem of 

inadequate funding/investment may be exacerbated by requirements for 

clinical trials. To illustrate, one participant said that $10 million to $20 

million is needed to bring a new medical treatment into clinical trials, but 

“support from [a major pharmaceutical company] typically is not

forthcoming until Phase II clinical trials,” resulting in a Valley of Death for 

some U.S. medical innovations. Another participant mentioned an 

instance where a costly trial was required for an apparently low risk 

medical device—and this participant tied high costs of this type to 

potential difficulties that medical innovators might have obtaining venture 

capital. A funding/investment gap at this stage can prevent further 

development of a technology.

The term Missing Middle has been used to refer to the lack of 

funding/investment that can occur with respect to manufacturing 

 

22 Specifically, the Valley of Death concerns the gap in support (typically, a lack of access 

to capital) that characterizes the transition of an invention from the point of validation in a 

laboratory environment to prototype demonstration in a non-laboratory environment (prior 

to acquisition by industry as a commercial product). An expert who commented on a draft 

of this report noted that another term associated with this gap is “the Badlands.” He 

explained that “the Badlands” refers to “high barriers with restricted passageways through 

them.” He further said that this gap in support is linked to what is essentially a disconnect 

between (1) the scientists and engineers who are skilled in conducting research and 

conceptualizing innovations and (2) venture capitalists, who, by contrast, are skilled in 

identifying and managing risks.

The Valley of Death, the 

Missing Middle, and the High 

Cost of Nano-Innovation
 

Page 26 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

innovation—that is, maturing manufacturing capabilities and processes to 

produce technologies at scale, as illustrated in figure 8.23 Here, another

important lack of support may be the absence of what one participant 

called an “industrial commons” to sustain innovation within a 

manufacturing sector.24 Logically, successful transitioning across the 

middle stages of manufacturing development is a prerequisite to 

achieving successful new approaches to manufacturing at scale.

Figure 8: Funding/Investment Gap in the Manufacturing-Innovation Process: the 

Missing Middle

Substantial amounts of funding/investment are needed to transition 

through the Valley of Death and the Missing Middle. High costs can act as 

an effective barrier to entry for small and medium-sized companies that 

have innovations in technology but lack the resources needed to carry 

their innovations all the way to commercialization and full-scale 

production. Further, an expert in the semiconductor industry told us that 

even very large companies may be unable or unwilling to risk the large 

investments needed to bring new, innovative technologies to market 

because of the exceedingly high costs involved.

Focusing on federal support for nano-commercialization, participants said 

this is generally limited, and as one participant explained, U.S. federal 

 

23 Specifically, the Missing Middle typically concerns the stages of manufacturing 

development characterized by progression from proof of concept through production in the 

laboratory and the capacity to produce a prototype in a production-relevant environment.

24 See Pisano and Shih (2009). 

Limited Federal Funding for 

Nano-Commercialization
 

Page 27 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

policy tends to reflect a commitment to allowing private-sector markets to 

identify and invest in “winning” innovations (rather than the federal 

government’s taking this role). However, there have been significant 

exceptions. To illustrate:

• Multiple forum participants made positive comments about the U.S. 

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. Phases I and II 

of SBIR support R&D and establish commercialization potential (for 

nanotechnology as well as other areas).25 Although the SBIR website 

specifically states that its policy rules out directly funding Phase III 

(the pursuit of the commercialization of technologies developed during 

Phases I and II),26 various agencies in the SBIR program have 

created mechanisms or ways to indirectly support Phase III.

According to a National Research Council report (Wessner 2008, 9), 

some agencies have created mechanisms “such as the Navy’s Phase 

IIB SBIR or Phase III funding with program dollars to help bridge the 

Valley of Death.” And we subsequently reported (GAO 2011a, 13) that 

“NIH offered selected current or past phase II award recipients the 

opportunity to work one-on-one with an advisor over a 9-month period 

to develop business plans to commercialize their technologies . . . 

[and] since 2004, almost 700 award recipients have received the 

assistance.” 

• Additionally, a participant pointed to the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which for example, included major 

funding to build a manufacturing supply chain for advanced batteries 

for electric vehicles.27 Others mentioned that the Department of 

Defense’s funding, which may extend to commercialization, can help 

 

25 Phase I SBIR supports the conduct of experimental or theoretical R&D, and as directed 

in the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, applicants for Phase II SBIR awards 

are required to submit commercialization plans for technologies that are moving toward 

commercialization; see GAO (2011a).

26 One participant, critical of the SBIR program, indicated that it may, in effect, take a small 

business out onto a bridge over the Valley of Death and then “push it off the bridge”— 

indicating that in this participant’s view SBIR may help small businesses with the initial 

stages of the transition to commercialization but cuts off support before those businesses 

actually reach commercialization, leaving some without the follow-on support needed for 

further development.

27 As one participant explained, this funding essentially “gave the United States a toehold” 

in the supply chain for nano-batteries for hybrids and electric vehicles (despite problems in 

establishing that industry in the United States).
 

Page 28 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

maintain industries that enhance national security (and today, these 

are likely to involve nanotechnology). However, such federal 

investments may apply in only limited instances.

Turning to private-sector funding, multiple forum participants said that in 

recent years, venture capital (VC) has “drained away” from relatively 

costly physical science areas such as nanotechnology to fund new 

ventures in Internet services, which generally provide larger and faster 

returns for a given level of investment.28 More generally, there may be a 

reluctance of private sources of funding, including VC, to embark on 

ventures that are perceived as high risk and high cost, or that might take 

too long to start realizing positive cash flows or might fail altogether. A 

related development was noted by a survey of 270 U.S. 

nanomanufacturers, which a participant cited. Specifically, that survey 

(Mehta 2010a, 2010b) identified limited capital as a top barrier to 

nanomanufacturing. Thus, although one participant’s presentation 

estimated U.S. VC investments in nanotechnology at $1 billion in 2010 

(Roco 2013) and another participant noted that some large companies 

provide VC to support innovations that will enhance their own future 

businesses,29 such investments may be far from sufficient, overall. One 

participant’s post-forum suggestion was that there is a lack of adequate 

information on the levels of investment in nanotechnology by various 

sources (such as VC and major corporations) and that this area deserves 

inquiry.

Participants noted that nano-innovators may lack a supportive regional 

ecosystem (which can, in some cases, make the whole greater than the 

sum of its parts). Some regions provide strong comparative advantage to 

developers of innovative technologies in a particular field. This advantage 

derives from the presence of firms engaging in similar or complementary 

activities, a well-trained labor force, financiers, marketers, and legal 

specialists—as well as a developed transportation and communication 

 

28 Participants said this development has been particularly problematic since the recent 

financial crisis and recession.

29 In line with this participant observation, an expert (whom we interviewed prior to the 

forum) mentioned GM Ventures as a source of funding for commercializing nano-batteries 

for hybrids and electric vehicles. 

A Possible “Draining Away” of 

Venture Capital

Regional Ecosystems, 

Foundations, and an Example 

of Multi-Source Support
 

Page 29 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

infrastructure that helps innovators overcome engineering, business, 

institutional, and supply-chain challenges.30

Two participants mentioned an alternative or addition to VC and federal 

funding—philanthropic support from entities such as foundations. Varied 

funding sources may be required to complete the innovation process. A

forum participant told us, in post-forum communications, that over the 

past 9 years, the start-up he founded raised tens of millions of dollars 

from various sources. These included foundation support as well as 

venture capital and federal funding encompassing an SBIR grant and a 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Technology 

Innovation Program (TIP) grant.

Multiple participants said the challenge of establishing widespread

nanomanufacturing in key industries in the United States is heightened by 

issues such as earlier offshoring and loss of U.S.-based industries.

31 One 

forum participant, speaking of advanced batteries, pointed out that when 

“we design here [and] ship [manufacturing] abroad, we lose this shopfloor-innovation kind of mentality”—in other words, too much offshoring of 

skilled manufacturing jobs can, in general, put the United States at a 

disadvantage in terms of its ability to maintain design expertise.32 Other 

participants provided examples suggesting that earlier offshoring, loss of 

key industries, or loss of U.S. leadership can lead to, for example:

• a continued reliance on manufacturing facilities located overseas, 

even as increasingly automated processes diminish the need for low 

cost labor, or

• a lack of U.S. manufacturing expertise in certain areas, making it 

difficult for the United States to enter or re-enter those areas and 

compete successfully.

 

30 See also Wessner (2013a; 2013b; 2013c) and Wessner and Wolff (2012).

31 As previously noted, for purposes of this report, we define “offshoring” as a U.S. 

company’s locating some or all of its manufacturing operations in one or more other 

countries for purposes of reducing costs.

32 A participant told us that this issue has been summed up as “the loss of companies that 

can make things will end up in the loss of research than can invent them,” citing Berger 

(2013a).

Prior Offshoring and Other 

Issues Challenge Efforts 

to Establish and Maintain 

Nanomanufacturing in the 

United States
 

Page 30 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Three examples (semiconductors, advanced batteries for vehicles, and 

cement-based construction materials) illustrate, in the following sections,

how earlier offshoring, loss of key industries, and loss of U.S. industryleadership may negatively affect nanomanufacturing in the United States. 

Additionally, difficulties finding appropriately skilled workers may

challenge U.S. nanomanufacturers, as discussed below. 

The first example concerns the semiconductor industry. Despite U.S.

strength in the design of semiconductors, most (not all) fabrication of 

semiconductors—which includes computer chips with nanoscale 

features—takes place outside the United States. The actual 

manufacturing of semiconductors is automated (as shown in fig. 9) and 

engineers are the key employees at a fabrication plant.

33 

Figure 9: View of a Semiconductor Manufacturing Facility

 

33 To illustrate this point, a participant said that the GlobalFoundries fabrication plant 

located in upstate New York employs about 1,000 engineers. GlobalFoundries has 

fabrication plants in the United States and elsewhere around the world.

Earlier Offshoring and the 

Semiconductor Industry
 

Page 31 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

But significant amounts of unskilled labor are needed for the packaging of 

semiconductors, according to one participant.34 That participant said he 

believes it is important for the United States to establish more fabrication 

plants in this country. With respect to the possibility of this happening in 

the future, we note that one company is now developing advanced 

robotics for semiconductor packaging—which would lessen the need for 

unskilled labor.35

The second example concerns the manufacture of lithium-ion (Li ion) 

nano-enhanced batteries that are used to power hybrids and electric 

vehicles (EV). Most lithium-ion batteries—including those used to power 

hybrids and EVs—are manufactured in Asia, although the United States 

developed the underlying technology and is currently investing heavily in 

nano-R&D for vehicle batteries. According to one forum participant, the 

reason is that: 

(1) Smaller lithium-ion batteries for consumer electronics, such as cell 

phones, have long been manufactured in Asia (because the 

United States “gave up on [that industry] some time ago”); and 

(2) Asian firms appear to have a definite competitive advantage in 

the manufacturing process for lithium-ion batteries, which is 

similar for small and large batteries.36 

However, looking to the future, one participant felt that “the jury is still out” 

on whether the United States can successfully compete in this area.37

Another expert (whom we interviewed in preparation for the forum) said 

that some future versions of nano-engineered batteries will require

 

34 Semiconductor packaging involves encasing semiconductor electronic components in 

glass, metal, ceramic, or plastic—to protect against damage from, for example, corrosion 

or heat—and requires several important precision motions. 

35 Rockwell Automation’s website describes the development and use of advanced 

robotics for this purpose; accessed October 30, 2013, 

http://www.rockwellautomation.com/anorad/solutions/semiconductor-packaging.page. 

36 U.S. companies, such as A123, that were formed to start manufacturing advanced 

vehicle batteries could not successfully compete with more experienced Asian firms—

although low-skill labor costs are less important for advanced vehicle batteries than for 

consumer electronics. (One participant explained that batteries that power hybrid or 

electric vehicles may sell for between $8,000 and $18,000, and about 70% of this cost 

derives from the high-tech production of nano-engineered cells.)

37 For example, this participant was hopeful about the prospects of Johnson Controls, 

which is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Loss of a Key Industry and the 

Case of Nano-Enhanced 

Batteries for Hybrids and EVs
 

Page 32 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

different manufacturing processes and thus might represent a new 

opportunity for U.S. manufacturing. An example of a new type of nanoengineered battery—now in the research or idea stage with respect to 

use in hybrids and EVs—is shown in figure 10.

Figure 10: Illustration of a 3D Lithium-Ion (Li-ion) Battery 

Note: The term interdigitated, which is used in illustration above, refers to an interlocked or 

interwoven design in which copper nano-wires (anode) are coated with an ultra-thin electrolyte, and 

then surrounded by a cathode slurry.

The third example concerns the cement industry. One forum participant 

said that companies headquartered in other countries now control the 

cement industry (which was previously dominated by the United States). 

While cement for domestic use is produced in the United States and 

important university research is being pursued here, the dominant 

companies—headquartered elsewhere—are spearheading development 

of new technologies, which are thus likely to be first adopted overseas.

This participant and another said that, without a U.S. industry focus on 

nano-concrete and without a national R&D agenda or commercialization 

plan in this area, the U.S. concrete industry may continue to lag—and the 

United States may become a late-adopting consumer of innovative 

technologies. One potential implication is that needed modernization of 

U.S. infrastructure (for example, the U.S. highway transportation system, 

which is a critical enabler of economic vitality) could lag behind efforts 

taken by other countries and might impair U.S. economic 

competitiveness.

Loss of U.S. Leadership in the 

Cement Industry
 

Page 33 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Turning to workforce issues, forum participants said that 

nanomanufacturing (like other forms of advanced manufacturing today) is 

very different than manufacturing was in the past—and requires new 

skills. Today’s advanced manufacturing is illustrated by the view of a 

semiconductor-manufacturing facility shown earlier in figure 9. Changes 

in needed skills would seem to be especially applicable to jobs in 

innovative high-tech manufacturing areas, such as nanomanufacturing. 

Various participants said that:

• The new kinds of skills required for high-tech manufacturing jobs can 

be very specialized, for example, powder processing and metallurgy 

extraction.

• There are many manufacturing jobs that in the past required a highschool degree, but that now require an associate’s degree plus 

aptitude for training in areas such as math and statistics.

Multiple participants said that despite current, relatively high 

unemployment, some high-tech manufacturers report they cannot find 

appropriately skilled workers; in fact, the participants said that difficulty 

finding sufficient numbers of skilled workers is a key reason limiting 

expansion of high-tech businesses.38

Further, multiple participants described an underlying problem—perhaps 

an industry communication problem—in that the general public’s 

perception of manufacturing has not kept pace with trends in this area.

One said that some young people today reject manufacturing as a career 

choice, based in part on misperceptions of the current nature of advanced 

manufacturing and the kinds of jobs that are available.

 

38 This view was questioned in a post-forum comment by a participant who pointed to a 

recent survey, which found that about three fourths of the manufacturing firms surveyed 

had filled all openings for core production workers within 3 months. Specifically, Berger 

(2013b, 185) reported that “most employers do not experience . . . vacancies that last for 

three months or more,” although 24 percent did report this. However, according to a 

spokesperson for this survey, it intends to represent manufacturers in general, and hightech manufacturers were not broken out for separate analysis in the currently available 

report. The survey spokesperson noted that some current analyses are focusing on hightech manufacturers, and a future publication may present information relevant to the issue 

above.

Difficulty Finding Appropriately 

Skilled Workers
 

Page 34 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Varied participants pointed to the current lack of a unified system to 

describe nanomaterials—including naming conventions, definitions, and 

standards—as a possible limitation on innovation efforts. As one 

participant noted, such a system is needed for the creation of a database 

of nanomaterials.39 Further, if such a system were developed, it might 

enhance, in the words of one participant, “the capacity to scale up 

innovation... [the creation of] revenue downstream . . . [and] conditions 

for international trade [and] security—which is important [for] investors, 

citizens and consumer groups.” 

One participant noted that nanotechnology standards have been issued 

by American standard-setting organizations for nomenclature and 

measurement, but that international standard-setting efforts have been 

more challenging (referring to developing ISO standards).40 Participants 

stressed the lack of funding and time for participating in these efforts and 

traveling internationally to do this.

Varied participants highlighted potential U.S. under-attention to two 

issues that may limit our nation’s competitiveness, especially in 

nanomanufacturing, as follows:

• A forum participant said that the United States lacks a vision for a 

nanomanufacturing capability. Although a forum presentation 

mentioned four centers, funded by the National Science Foundation 

(NSF), that are focused on new concepts and development of 

methods for nanomanufacturing (that is, centers conducting research 

primarily at “early manufacturing readiness levels”

41), our post-forum 

communications with an NSF official indicated that (1) the funding for 

three of the centers will end in 2014, and for the fourth, in 2015 and 

 

39 One participant said that development of a unified system to describe nanomaterials 

could be the beginning of a “convergence and not divergence” of efforts regarding a 

regulatory framework. 

40 ISO is the International Organization for Standardization.

41 Early manufacturing readiness levels range from the identification of basic 

manufacturing implications through developing a manufacturing proof of concept. For 

specific definitions of manufacturing readiness levels, see GAO (2010a), especially 

appendix II of that report. 

Insufficient U.S. Efforts to 

Set Standards May Limit 

Nano-Innovation

Lack of U.S. Vision for 

Nanomanufacturing and 

Possible Inadequacy of 

Technology Transfer May 

Limit Competitiveness
 

Page 35 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

that (2) there is no program devoted to supporting nanomanufacturing 

centers.42

• Other participants, emphasizing that high-quality research and 

intellectual property (IP) are associated with universities across the 

United States, voiced the opinion that technology transfer capabilities 

in some universities might be improved by their adopting best 

practices—to increase the likelihood of research results “making it out 

of the university” and into industry. According to various forum 

participants, such U.S. universities might (1) increase investments in 

technology transfer; (2) assure that technology transfer staffs have 

sufficient business experience; and (3) increase incentives for the 

transfer of IP into the commercial sector. Where needed, 

improvements such as these might enhance commercialization in 

high-tech areas of endeavor (such as nanomanufacturing). However, 

one participant, in a post-forum communication, questioned the need 

for improvements in technology transfer; this participant felt that 

existing incentives for universities and academic researchers may be 

sufficient.

Participants said that other countries (1) are less affected by funding and 

investment gaps—or have begun to address them; (2) are acquiring or 

attempting to acquire U.S. nano-companies or nano-researchers; and (3) 

in some cases, are associated with threats to the intellectual property of 

U.S. researchers and manufacturers.

Participants said that the Valley of Death and Missing Middle funding and 

investment gaps, which are of concern in the United States, do not apply 

to the same extent in some other countries—for example, China and 

Russia—or are being addressed. One participant said that other countries 

in which these gaps have occurred “have zeroed in [on them] with a laser 

beam.” Another participant summed up his view of the situation with the 

statement: “Government investments in establishing technology 

platforms, technology transfer, and commercialization are higher in other 

countries than in the United States.” He further stated that those making 

higher investments include China, Russia, and the European Union. 

 

42 A fifth NSF-funded center related to nanomanufacturing is the Center for 

Nanomanufacturing Systems for Mobile Computing and Mobile Energy Technologies 

(NASCENT). This center has a different focus from the other four and is described in a 

later section of this report.

Global Competition and 

Threats to U.S. Industry

Valley of Death and Missing 

Middle Less Problematic in

Other Nations
 

Page 36 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Multiple participants referred to the European Commission’s upcoming 

Horizon 2020 program, which will have major funding extending over 7 

years. In addition to providing major funding for fundamental research, 

the Horizon 2020 website states that the program will help to:

“...bridge the gap between research and the market by, for 

example, helping innovative enterprises to develop their 

technological breakthroughs into viable products with real 

commercial potential. This market-driven approach will include 

creating partnerships with the private sector and Member States 

to bring together the resources needed.” 

A key program within Horizon 2020 consists of the European Institute of 

Innovation and Technology (EIT), which as illustrated in the “Knowledge 

Triangle” shown figure 11, below, emphasizes the nexus of business, 

research, and higher education. The 2014-2020 budget for this portion of 

Horizon 2020 is 2.7 billion euros (or close to $3.7 billion in U.S. dollars as 

of January 2014). 

Figure 11: Knowledge Triangle: the Approach of the European Institute of 

Technology and Innovation (EIT)
 

Page 37 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Also relevant to the Missing Middle as this applies to U.S. firms, 

competition from other countries, and resulting impacts, multiple 

participants referred to the previously mentioned case of lithium-ion 

batteries as an example of the United States’ having earlier successfully 

funded R&D, but other countries’ then commercializing and massproducing the resulting products.

Multiple participants also said that certain other countries are purchasing 

struggling U.S. nanotechnology companies and making significant offers 

to U.S. nanoscience researchers and nanotechnology innovators alike. 

For example, they discussed the Chinese purchase (in early 2013) of the 

bankrupt A123, a nano-engineered-battery company founded by a 

researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Moreover, 

outside of formal sessions, multiple participants described instances 

where other countries have made substantial offers to leading nanoresearchers. Similarly, earlier congressional testimony by a university 

professor who is a nanotechnology researcher (Tour 2011) described 

multiple overtures and actual offers from other governments and 

companies in other countries. Such offers are not inconsistent with the 

statements of a nanotechnology innovator who said (in a pre-forum 

interview) that “going to Asia” for funding was “pervasive” in his area of 

work.

Several participants discussed threats to IP associated with global 

competition.

43 One participant described persistent attempts by other 

countries (or by certain elements in other countries) to breach information 

systems at his nanomanufacturing company. Another described an IP 

challenge pertaining to research at U.S. universities, as follows:

• due to a culture of openness, especially among students, ideas and 

research are “leaking out” of universities prior to the initial researchers 

having patented or fully pursued them;

• there are many foreign students at U.S. universities; and

• there is a current lack of awareness about “leakage” and of university 

policies or training to counter it. 

Additionally, one of our earlier interviewees said that one country targeted 

specific research projects at U.S. universities—and then required its own 

 

43 One participant described this situation as approaching “technological war.” 

Acquisition of U.S. NanoCompanies and Offers to U.S. 

Nano-Innovators by Other 

Nations

International Threats to U.S. 

Intellectual Property
 

Page 38 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

citizen-students to apply for admission to each targeted U.S. university 

and seek work on the targeted project. 

Taken together with other factors, this situation can result in an overall 

failure to protect IP and undermine U.S. research competitiveness. 

(Although a culture of openness and the presence of foreign students are 

generally considered strengths of the U.S. system, in this context such 

factors could represent a challenge to capturing the full value of U.S. 

investments.)

Finally, one participant said that a small or mid-sized U.S. company may 

find that it is competing with an overseas, state-run company—essentially 

meaning that a small or mid-sized U.S. company is competing against 

another nation.
 

Page 39 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

In the context of the challenges to U.S. competitiveness described in the 

previous section, forum participants generally agreed that there is a need 

for action, including government action. Specifically, participants agreed 

that the United States should

• increase its participation in international efforts to set basic standards 

for nanotechnology, as explained below, and

• act to enhance U.S. competitiveness through one or more of the 

following approaches—(1) strengthening innovation across the U.S. 

economy, (2) promoting innovation in U.S. manufacturing, and (3) 

designing a grand strategy to reach a vision for U.S. 

nanomanufacturing.

Some actions might be taken by the U.S. government acting alone, while 

others would likely involve a range of actors, including the federal 

government as well as, for example, industry, academia, and state 

governments.

Several forum participants emphasized the importance of international 

cooperation in setting basic standards for nanomaterials and products 

that are enhanced by nanotechnology.44 Governments as well as the 

scientific community and the private sector have an important role to play 

in this regard, as international standards can facilitate expanding 

international trade in nanotechnology-enhanced products. While the U.S. 

model of setting standards reserves a larger role for leadership from nongovernment stakeholders, U.S. government support for the scientific and 

business communities’ efforts in this regard can help avert the risks 

associated with a multiplicity of individual-country standards, or with 

international standards that were set by other nations without sufficient 

U.S. input. Importantly, however, multiple forum participants emphasized 

that currently, there is a need to increase U.S. participation.

Accordingly, basic international standards are important for expanding the 

economic opportunity for emerging technologies. Lack of uniform 

 

44 The term “standard” can have different meanings. For example, it may be used to 

define a technical requirement or refer to a regulatory requirement (see GAO 2013b, 1; 

footnote 2). We use “basic standards” here to refer to technical characterization of 

materials and products and naming and measurement conventions, as opposed to 

regulatory standards related, for example, to environmental, safety, and health 

considerations.

Participants 

Considered Ways to 

Enhance U.S. 

Competitiveness

Participants Saw a Need 

for Increased U.S. 

Participation in Setting 

Basic International 

Standards 
 

Page 40 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

international standards can result in limiting the economic opportunities of 

companies with superior technologies because a multiplicity of standards 

can effectively result in a multiplicity of fragmented markets. Without a 

basic degree of standardization, a manufacturer of a certain product has 

to contend with higher costs and more complex logistics in order to sell its 

products in markets with widely different standards.45 One forum 

participant emphasized this point by saying: “Without standards, we 

cannot sell anything.” 

One participant explained that setting basic standards includes 

characterization of materials and naming and measurement conventions. 

While regulatory standards dealing with environmental, health, and safety 

issues related to nanomaterials and nanotechnology-enhanced products 

are discussed in a subsequent section of this report, we note here that 

forum participants generally agreed that important economic risks are 

associated with the inadequacy of the knowledge base about 

nanomaterials and products that contain them. For example, some forum 

participants expressed the view that consumer trust in a new product is 

essential for its success. Basic standards can greatly facilitate the 

accumulation of a knowledge base that is necessary for greater 

transparency in markets (and can also facilitate progress in addressing 

the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomanufacturing, as 

discussed in a subsequent section).

Several forum participants emphasized that U.S. researchers in the field 

of nanotechnology are limited in their ability to participate in international 

meetings to discuss standards because of lack of government funding or 

alternative budget priorities. Some pointed to the risk that U.S. nanoinnovators might have to contend with other countries’ taking the lead in 

developing international nanotechnology standards, leaving the U.S. 

behind. That is, the outcome could be the development of international 

standards with relatively little input from the U.S. nanotechnology 

community or the development of a patchwork quilt of diverse national 

standards. This in turn could make it harder for U.S. producers to 

compete in foreign markets.

 

45 See GAO (2013b).
 

Page 41 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Forum participants considered ways that the United States could address 

challenges to its competitiveness (in addition to standards issues). As 

described earlier in this report, key challenges to U.S. competitiveness 

cited by participants include: 

• gaps in U.S. funding, investment, and support (that is, the Valley of 

Death and the Missing Middle), which may hamper transfer from R&D 

to large-scale nanomanufacturing;

• issues such as prior offshoring and possible U.S. workforce 

limitations, which may challenge our ability to establish and maintain 

nanomanufacturing in the United States; 

• lack of a national vision for U.S. nanomanufacturing and limited 

technology transfer at some U.S. universities; and

• increasing global competition (for example, other countries are 

addressing funding or investment gaps) coupled with the fact that 

some countries, or entities within them, are “playing by new rules.” 

Taken together, these challenges can represent an emerging threat to the 

United States’ ability to realize a level of future economic benefits 

commensurate with its investments. Participants therefore considered 

approaches to enhancing U.S. competitiveness in this area. Three major 

approaches—which might be viewed as either representing alternatives 

or complementing each other—emerged from the discussion and are 

briefly outlined in table 2. For each approach, participants discussed 

proposed actions and a supporting rationale.

Participants did not voice objections to strengthening innovation across 

the economy (Approach 1), although some did not view this approach as 

sufficient by itself. That is, some urged more targeted action, as 

represented by Approaches 2 and 3. Therefore, each approach is 

described in more detail below.

Participants Discussed 

Three Approaches to

Enhancing U.S. 

Competitiveness in 

Nanomanufacturing
 

Page 42 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Table 2: Three Approaches to Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness, with Proposed Actions and Rationales 

Approach Proposed actions Rationale

1. Strengthen innovation across 

the U.S. economy

Continue or update federal policies and 

programs that help strengthen innovation 

generally (i.e., across all sectors of the 

economy).

Government acts to supply goods and services 

critical to innovation when private markets fail to do 

so, most often because firms cannot capture the full 

benefits of providing them. Beyond these measures, 

which include providing education and building 

infrastructure, firms are in a better position than 

government to make decisions about how to allocate 

resources to the most promising innovations.

2. Promote innovation in U.S. 

manufacturing

Establish centers, encourage clusters, or 

design programs to address the Valley of 

Death or the Missing Middle, especially as 

applied to manufacturing, with financial 

support coming from public-private 

partnerships. (We note that this approach 

may be applied to specific areas within 

manufacturing, for example, 

nanomanufacturing, as indicated by the 

examples given in the below discussion of 

this approach.) 

The United States needs a strong manufacturing 

base because it is essential to the economy and to 

innovation itself. Moreover, structures separating 

manufacturing from design can have significant 

adverse results. Assuring this base means “leveling 

the playing field” in the global economy—by directly 

addressing the Valley of Death and the Missing 

Middle, especially as these apply to innovative 

manufactured products or innovative manufacturing 

processes.

3. Design a “grand strategy” for 

U.S. nanomanufacturing

Define a vision for U.S. nanomanufacturing. 

Design a grand strategy (based on a 

systems approach) for achieving this 

vision—through a collaborative process 

that might be led by the federal 

government. 

Nanomanufacturing is a megatrend: Nanomanufacturing will significantly affect future U.S. 

competitiveness in global markets as well as 

providing societal benefits. Nanomanufacturing may 

be a future general purpose technology (GPT) akin to 

digital technology or electricity, and thus it could be 

classified as a public good with anticipated benefits 

for the entire economy— potentially justifying targeted 

federal support. Moreover, nanomanufacturing may 

become an engine of job creation as its disruptive 

innovations proliferate throughout the U.S. economy. 

Source: GAO analysis of forum information.

Federal policies and programs that strengthen innovation across the 

economy represent an established U.S. approach. Proposed actions and 

a rationale for this approach are discussed below.

Proposed Actions: Continue or Update Efforts to Strengthen Innovation 

across the Economy 

This approach does not focus on supporting any one type of technology 

or any particular economic sector. Rather, government action is typically 

motivated in the presence of spillovers, when an activity generates 

benefits that a private firm cannot fully capture. In such circumstances, 

firms will not supply as much of that activity as would be desired from 

society’s point of view. Such activities include the following:

Approach 1: Strengthen

Innovation across the U.S. 

Economy
 

Page 43 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

• education, which can help assure a future workforce that will meet 

needs as generations change;46

• development of human capital, that is, the knowledge and skills of the 

workforce, for which continuing education may be crucial because 

technological change often brings changes in job skills 

requirements;47

• immigration policies, which may provide the country with both skilled 

workers and potential entrepreneurs;

• frameworks provided by economic policies, including incentives for 

innovation and the removal of disincentives to innovation, 

management of growth and stability in the macro economy, promotion 

of open trade and competition, protection of intellectual property 

rights, nurturing of vibrant capital markets, administration of an 

efficient tax regime, and vigilance to assure effective regulation;

• research with anticipated spillover benefits, including basic research, 

the development of measurement techniques and databases needed 

for research, and so forth; and

• infrastructure support, which has been a key part of U.S. strategies to 

promote economic growth and includes not only the transportation 

system but also, more recently, knowledge-oriented infrastructures, 

such as broadband telecommunications.

Although such actions are long established, the specific activities or 

efforts to enhance competitiveness in innovation may change over time.

Potentially, existing efforts could be updated or improved in light of 

current and anticipated opportunities and challenges.

One participant objected to limiting U.S. action to strengthening 

innovation across the economy. Specifically, he said that the historical 

development of the U.S. economy has included targeting support to 

specific industries—and mentioned radios, aircraft frames and engines, 

semiconductors, and computers. His view was that targeted support in 

instances such as these had helped the foundations of the entire 

economy. He also noted that other countries have targeted support to 

specific industries and succeeded. However, an explicit rationale for 

limiting support to the kinds of actions described above was presented 

and is reprised below.

 

46 As one participant said, education is mainly a responsibility of state and local 

governments, but it is also supported by federal policies and programs.

47 See Clogg (1979, 223).
 

Page 44 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Rationale for Strengthening Innovation across the Economy 

The established policy approach described above (supporting innovation 

across the economy) has underpinned innovation and economic growth 

at least since the end of World War II. Support for individual sectors has 

most often arisen out of the government’s own needs (e.g., aerospace 

and defense). The admonition that the government should not “pick 

winners and losers” stems from the likelihood that the government will not

have sufficient information or foresight about an individual firm’s or a 

particular technology’s growth potential to select it for special subsidy.

This view emphasizes that the U.S. political and economic system is 

based on private-sector primacy and advocates allocating resources 

through the functioning of market mechanisms—because such 

mechanisms are anticipated to result in U.S. investments that not only are 

the (1) most efficient, but also (2) given today’s global content, best suited 

to the comparative advantages of the United States vis-à-vis other 

nations.

To illustrate how the market-centered viewpoint applies to innovation, one 

forum participant said that early government funding of a particular 

technology risks giving it an unfair advantage over others that might prove 

to be more technically and commercially feasible. In other words, in his 

view, greater competition among different innovations has a better 

chance of yielding innovations that are best suited for manufacturing 

scale-up and acceptance by markets. Briefly stated: according to 

advocates of this approach, the federal government ought not select or 

single out certain firms, sectors, or technologies for support; in fact, it 

should not choose manufacturing over, for example, services.48

The current perceived lack of market support for investment in 

nanotechnology (mentioned in an earlier section of this report) led to a 

discussion about whether increased market support would be forthcoming 

in the near future. Some participants expected that such support would be 

forthcoming if there were either (1) a near-term ending of the current VC 

focus on Internet services (which some hypothesized is a “bubble”), 

followed by a “tectonic shift” of VC toward new materials and 

 

48 In a similar vein, one participant expressed the view that R&D itself should not be overly 

targeted in certain directions by the government. Doing so could result in overlooking the 

best research directions.
 

Page 45 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

nanomanufacturing, or (2) a widespread realization by major U.S. 

companies and corporations that nano-enhanced products will make their 

current products obsolete—resulting in decisions to invest substantial 

amounts in nanomanufacturing commercialization efforts relevant to their 

businesses. 

Forum participants expressed concern about the Valley of Death and the 

Missing Middle, as discussed in an earlier section of this report. They also 

noted the “friction” involved in commercializing innovative nanotechnology 

products or processes.49 Specifically, they felt that finding ways to reduce 

friction for U.S. innovators would both shorten time frames for innovation 

and lower associated costs—and as a result, lessen risks to the 

commercialization process. Proposed actions and a rationale are 

discussed below.

Proposed Actions: Establish Centers or Programs to Address the Valley 

of Death and the Missing Middle 

Forum participants identified two centers and a pilot program aimed at 

developing ecosystems or infrastructures to create the conditions for 

innovators to more successfully traverse the Valley of Death and the 

Missing Middle, as described below. These examples alternatively focus 

on (1) nanomanufacturing for several applications; (2) nanomanufacturing 

as it applies to the semiconductor industry; and (3) advanced 

manufacturing in general.

Example 1: NASCENT at the University of Texas at Austin. The Center 

for Nanomanufacturing Systems for Mobile Computing and Mobile Energy 

Technologies (NASCENT) was founded at the University of Texas at 

Austin in September 2012, with funding from NSF. Its objectives are to (1) 

create processes and tools for manufacturing nano-enabled components 

for mobile-computing, energy, healthcare, and security—as well as 

simulations for testing potential nanomanufacturing approaches—and (2) 

provide an ecosystem with computational and manufacturing facilities (for 

example, large-area wafer scale and roll-to-roll nanomanufacturing50), as 

 

49 “Friction” is defined here as resistance encountered when pursuing a commercialization 

objective. To illustrate this concept using the example of innovative Internet services, 

there is less friction in starting up a firm offering new Internet services today than there 

was previously due to the advent of cloud computing, which has commoditized IT 

resources. 

50 See Morse (2011) for a discussion of roll-to-roll manufacturing. 

Approach 2: Promote 

Innovation in U.S. 

Manufacturing
 

Page 46 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

well as the university’s resources, including faculty, staff, and students. 

The overall goal is to facilitate the rapid creation and deployment of new 

products and to mitigate the risks associated with the Valley of Death and 

the Missing Middle. Another goal of the center is to use “10 years of NSF 

funding to develop the center infrastructure so it will . . . [become] selfsupported from industrial partnerships and other [non-NSF] funding 

sources.” Center partners include

• industrial partners—such as tool makers, materials suppliers, and 

device makers—who will provide both technical and financial support;

• companies ranging from start-ups to well-established firms that will 

implement or adopt technology created by the center; and

• “translational research partners” such as technology incubators and 

technology funds.

Example 2: The College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering. The 

College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE), established in 

2004, is part of the State University of New York and is located in 

Albany—within the existing regional (Hudson Valley) ecosystem centered 

on the semiconductor industry. CNSE is designed as a unique research, 

development, prototyping, and educational public-private partnership for 

advancing nanotechnology. A chief CNSE partner is SEMATECH—a 

global consortium of major computer chip manufacturers that coordinates 

cutting-edge R&D projects on semiconductors and is headquartered at 

CNSE. CNSE has more than 300 members and strategic partners that 

include large U.S.- and non-U.S.-headquartered private companies such 

as IBM, Intel, Samsung, and Global Foundries; small and medium 

companies; universities from across the United States; and regional 

community colleges and economic development organizations—as well 

as government-agency sponsors. CNSE facilities allow the development 

of semiconductors just short of mass production; this is relevant for 

companies attempting to transition from an innovative concept to a 

prototype and to prepare for large-scale production. CNSE has developed

models of pre-competitive collaboration among its partners, who use 

high-tech CNSE equipment that would be too costly for many individual 

companies to purchase.51 To illustrate potential mutual benefits to 

participating companies, a forum participant said that one company 

working on developing a new product or process using CNSE facilities 

 

51 To date, CNSE has invested over $14 billion in facilities, including clean room space 

with state-of-the-art tools and equipment. A single piece of equipment in a clean room 

production facility could cost over $100 million.
 

Page 47 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

may be unaware of a proprietary process developed by another CNSE 

partner—which could help it overcome an engineering hurdle; in this 

case, CNSE staff might suggest using the proprietary process under a 

leasing arrangement from the owner. According to a forum participant, 

New York State’s share of the investment was initially much larger than 

that of its private partners, but over time private funding has come to 

exceed New York State’s funding by a factor of 16 to 1.52

Example 3: The Proposed National Network for Manufacturing Innovation.

The proposed National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) is a 

multi-agency federal pilot program, announced in 2012, that uses publicprivate partnerships to enhance manufacturing innovation in the United 

States. Specifically, NNMI aims to:

• address challenges associated with the transition from research and 

the early stages of development to full-scale manufacturing—by 

providing shared-use facilities that support regional needs for scaling 

up the production of goods including manufacturing research and 

workforce development,53 and

• encourage the location of advanced manufacturing in the United 

States—thus strengthening the nation’s manufacturing, design, and 

innovation capacity and countering further offshoring of skilled 

manufacturing jobs.54

NNMI calls for regional groups—with partners including 

private-sector organizations, universities, community colleges, state 

economic development offices, not-for-profits, local governments, and 

other organizations—to submit proposals for establishing an institute 

 

52 Although CNSE is not a federal program, it (like many other universities) receives 

federal funding for various specific projects or activities, such as research.

53 According to the manufacturing.gov website (accessed November 19, 2013), “many 

technologies rooted in U.S. research fail to mature to full scale-up and commercialization 

in domestic factories. As documented by the National Science and Technology Council, ‘A 

gap exists between R&D activities and the deployment of technological innovations in 

domestic production of goods,’ contributing significantly, for example, to the disturbing and 

still-growing trade deficit in advanced technology products.” 

54 The first NNMI institute, at a pilot level, was established in 2012, and three additional 

institutes (all of which are said to involve nanomanufacturing in some way) are planned for

2014. 
 

Page 48 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

within a specific region or geographic location.55 The institutes are 

intended to help assure a nexus of manufacturing, design, and innovation 

(as subsequently discussed). The initial costs of establishing each 

institute are to be shared by the proposing group and the federal 

government, and the federal portion of the funding is expected to diminish 

over time, as private sector and/or local government partners assume 

more responsibility—eventually, full responsibility as the institutes grow in 

their ability to deliver value.

The three models for clusters or centers described above all (1) 

encourage the development of regional clusters or ecosystems for 

science-based manufacturing in the United States;56 (2) consist of publicprivate partnerships focused on pre-competitive R&D cooperation among 

companies in related fields; (3) intend government funding to be used as 

seed money that will be provided for a limited number of years or diminish 

over time; and (4) aim to help private developers overcome what forum 

participants described as a problem of inadequate support for ventures in 

physical science or engineering (which VC might perceive as high risk), 

especially at the commercialization stage.

One participant said that the effectiveness of such initiatives has not been 

firmly established; that successful, spontaneous clusters arise out of 

mechanisms that are not well understood; and that building on those that 

already exist might be a more conservative and possibly more effective 

strategy. This participant pointed to a report from the Organisation for 

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2007), which discusses 

improving cluster-promoting policies and that cautions against inefficient 

government intervention. However, varied participants voiced a specific 

rationale for the approach described above, as follows.

 

55 Private-sector partners might include large manufacturing companies, small and 

medium-sized enterprises, and start-ups.

56 Regional manufacturing ecosystems, sometimes referred to as “clusters,” are seen as 

enabling interaction among firms engaging in similar or complementary activities, research 

universities and institutes, vocational training schools, a well-trained labor force, 

financiers, parts and materials suppliers, marketing channels, and legal specialists. They 

may offer a well-developed transportation and communication infrastructure. Potentially, 

these varied elements help make the whole greater than the sum of its individual parts, 

through stimulating innovation and the development of small and medium-sized 

enterprises (SMEs).
 

Page 49 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Rationale for Supporting Innovation in Manufacturing

Views supporting the establishment of clusters, centers, and programs 

that address the Valley of Death and the Missing Middle include three key 

arguments:

1. Through history, the United States has supported development of 

innovative technologies, spawning new industries in the process.

2. Today, there is a need to “level the playing field” for U.S innovationoriented businesses (especially, manufacturers), which are put at a 

disadvantage by other nations’ successful efforts to grow their own 

technology-based industries by supporting innovation all the way 

through manufacturing scale-up and commercialization.

3. A strong U.S. manufacturing base is needed to support innovation, as 

described further below.

Varied participants said that:

• As mentioned previously, the United States has a long history of 

providing significant support for specific innovative industries, 

including the radio, the semiconductor industry, the computer, and 

aircraft technologies. According to this view, the U.S. economy 

reached its overall highly competitive global position, in part, by 

targeting support to specific industries in at least some instances. 

(Often, such support has been related to U.S. defense needs.)

• Today, other nations’ governments are supporting innovative 

businesses in areas such as nanomanufacturing or addressing 

specific challenges to innovation—such as the inadequacy of funding 

or other resources that occurs at points of transition from R&D to 

actual products or large-scale production. To cite two examples, 

participants mentioned (1) Germany’s Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft—

Europe’s largest research organization—which is viewed as a 

successful public-private partnership that helps incorporate 

technological innovation into different industrial sectors; and (2) 

Russia’s government-owned company, Rusnano, which manages a 

multi-billion-dollar fund focused on acquiring nanotechnology-based 

businesses from around the world. (According to some observers, 

Rusnano has acquired some companies that failed to receive the 

support that they needed in their own countries, for example, the 

United States, where the underlying technologies were first 

developed.) Additional challenges from varied countries around the 

world are discussed in an earlier section of this report.
 

Page 50 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

• There is a need, from this global perspective, to establish and 

maintain a “nexus” of manufacturing, design, and innovation (MDI), 

which is tied to the need for a strong U.S. manufacturing base. A 

National Academy of Engineering report described the intersection of 

manufacturing, design, and innovation as delivering value that is 

enabled by a physical product (Whitefoot and Olson 2012). This

concept posits that in many, perhaps most industries, it is not possible 

to effectively disaggregate the manufacturing process from the design 

of new materials, new processes, and new products. Structures that 

separate manufacturing from design (as occurs when U.S. companies 

offshore most or all their manufacturing but attempt to retain design 

here in the United States) can have a significantly adverse effect.57

This adverse effect reflects the earlier mentioned statement by a 

forum participant who, speaking of advanced batteries, said: “When 

we design here [and] we ship [manufacturing] abroad, we lose this 

shop-floor-innovation kind of mentality.” In sum, the MDI view holds 

that offshoring of manufacturing jobs can put the United States at a 

disadvantage in terms of its ability to (1) maintain design expertise 

and (2) achieve innovation. From this perspective, a strong 

manufacturing base is what supports innovation.

Further, some participants saw a strong manufacturing base as 

expanding opportunities for quality employment in the economy. A case in 

point—according to one participant—is the role of CNSE in Global 

Foundries’ decision to locate a major manufacturing fabrication facility in 

the Albany region. Global Foundries, a leading global manufacturer of 

semiconductors, established a manufacturing facility near Albany, New 

York, in order to benefit from the R&D environment and the supply chain 

and infrastructure advantages that the region offers. According to this 

forum participant, the Global Foundries semiconductor fabrication facility 

brought over 1,000 high-quality jobs to the region.

Additionally, the rationale for this approach (innovation in manufacturing) 

holds that a strong manufacturing base may generate additional activity in 

the services sector. An example of this was provided by a forum 

 

57 Many products not typically conceptualized as high tech are being manufactured in new 

ways—for example, textiles and athletic gear, such as running shoes. Additionally, as 

presented, the MDI nexus is actually broader than “making things” because of the 

connection between manufacturing and services; for example, innovative services may be 

associated with new technological developments or new products. See Whitefoot and 

Olson (2012).
 

Page 51 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

participant who explained that a large share of IBM’s revenues derive 

from services, but these services are based on producing mainframes 

and other hardware that, in turn, are based on proprietary microelectronic 

devices. Figure 12, below, illustrates IBM’s “inverted stack business 

model.” 

Figure 12: IBM’s Business Inverted Stack Business Model

This approach focuses on a vision or goal for nanomanufacturing 

innovation and uses “systems thinking” to devise a comprehensive 

strategy designed specifically to achieve that vision or goal. Systems 

thinking is a holistic approach to evaluation, analysis, and strategy that 

considers how the interdependent parts of a system work together—and 

within a larger context, over time.58 As a forum participant said, the U.S. 

federal government laid the foundation for a systems approach when it 

established the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) a decade ago.

Proposed Actions: Define a Vision for Nanomanufacturing and a Grand 

Strategy to Attain It 

As outlined by a forum participant, the full strategy would be designed, 

proceeding from a vision or goal to the examination of the social, 

 

58 Systems thinking, which was developed in the 1950s at the Sloan School of 

Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been applied by others; 

for example, a forum participant cited Edward W. Deming’s use of this approach. See also 

Rouse (2005). 

Approach 3: Design a U.S. 

Grand Strategy for 

Nanomanufacturing
 

Page 52 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

technological, economic, environmental, and political elements of the 

relevant systems and their interactions with one another; understanding 

the basic science, engineering, and manufacturing involved; and 

consulting the full range of stakeholders. This participant said that 

although systems thinking and the design of a grand strategy, based on a 

vision, are often employed following a crisis that motivates a nation, this 

approach can be usefully pursued in advance of a crisis, using foresight. 

This approach reflects the statements of one participant who said, in 

effect, that the future of nanomanufacturing for the United States is limited 

only by our ability to envision what we want to see realized. This 

approach would likely draw upon the U.S. federal government to develop 

and articulate the strategy—in coordination with industry, academia, 

nonprofits, and state and local governments. Additionally, some federal 

effort is implied for implementation, but the level of funding and the mix of 

funding sources (not specifically discussed at the forum) would likely be 

specified as part of developing a vision and strategy for 

nanomanufacturing. 

Participants discussed potential elements of this grand strategy, which 

could encompass a diversity of actions by federal or state governments, 

as well as academia and industry, such as: (1) addressing the Valley of 

Death and the Missing Middle; (2) possibly changing the tax structure—

for example, to incentivize private-sector long-term investments (e.g., 5 to 

10 years or longer) by lowering tax rates, eventually to zero tax;

59 (3) 

keeping up to date on what other countries are doing as input to strategic 

considerations, going forward (not necessarily to emulate other 

countries);60 (4) partnering with the European Union or key nations; (5) 

articulating substantive national goals that nanotechnology might help 

achieve and holding “grand challenge” contests with large cash awards;61

(6) encouraging the professionalization of technology transfer in 

universities across the country (potentially using best practices of 

technology transfer offices in leading universities as examples); (7) 

breaking down silos in universities to encourage innovation based on 

interdisciplinary work and goal-focused collaboration; and (8) possibly 

 

59 See Christensen (2012a).

60 For a review of how certain other countries are approaching innovative manufacturing, 

see GAO (2013a).

61 Two examples are the X Prize and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA) Grand Challenges.
 

Page 53 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

expanding selected programs (such as NSF’s Innovation Corps) that 

encourage basic-science or basic-engineering investigators to “extend 

their focus beyond the laboratory” and translate findings into commercial 

results or benefits to society.62

Still other actions were suggested at the forum or in post-forum 

comments, including:

• convening industry-led consortiums to conduct road mapping and tool 

building to reduce barriers in expanding U.S. nanomanufacturing, and

• addressing nanomanufacturing as part of a larger international 

dialogue (for example, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment 

Partnership or TTIP that is now being considered63).

One participant cautioned against pursuing a grand strategy based on 

anticipated job creation. This participant noted that in general, advanced 

manufacturing does not appear to be labor intensive and that salaries for 

manufacturing jobs have not increased in line with productivity 

increases—observations which imply that even with new markets, 

subsidies for nanomanufacturing may not result in large numbers of wellpaying jobs. However, a specific rational for developing a grand strategy 

for nanomanufacturing was discussed, as described below.

Rationale for Developing a Grand Strategy for Nanomanufacturing 

Multiple participants expressed varied views that, taken together, argue 

for federal support of nanomanufacturing as a special case, attributable to 

the belief that such technology has the potential to generate benefits 

beyond those that accrue to firms in that industry.

Earlier in this report, forum participants were described as generally 

viewing nanomanufacturing as a potential future megatrend that could 

bring societal and economic benefits equal to or beyond those provided 

 

62 Another relevant program might be the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), 

which is currently “seeking to evolve beyond its traditional support for lean manufacturing 

to increase the innovation capacity of the nation’s small and medium manufacturers” 

(Wessner 2013d, xiii-xiv).

63 For a brief description of TTIP, accessed January 8, 2014, see 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/17/fact-sheet-transatlantic-trade-andinvestment-partnership-t-tip.
 

Page 54 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

by digital technology—and that could potentially have major impacts on 

the future competitiveness of the United States. Multiple participants also 

noted that nanomanufacturing enhances products across many economic 

sectors. Thus, as one argued, federal support for nanomanufacturing 

should not be viewed as supporting a single industry; that is, it spans 

many industries. In this sense, some viewed nanomanufacturing as, in 

effect, a possible future “general purpose technology” (GPT) that, as 

mentioned earlier, might eventually provide benefits as widespread as 

those associated with the introduction of electricity, thus possibly 

qualifying as a public good. For example, Thomas Edison and Nikola 

Tesla, who played pivotal roles in advancing 20th century technology 

based on electricity, could not possibly have acted to produce the scope 

of societal benefits ushered in by their inventions; rather, public 

investments in the electric grid allowed the enormous benefits of 

electricity to spread to society as a whole.

Multiple participants also identified nanomanufacturing as a future 

disruptive technology or innovation that could open new markets and 

result in net jobs creation—at least for successfully competing nations. 

From this perspective, nanotechnology innovations would not just raise 

productivity for firms in existing markets but also create new markets. 

Finally, manufacturing jobs in general have been reported to be higher 

paying than nonmanufacturing jobs and more likely to provide workers 

with benefits.64

 

64 See Langdon and Lehrman (2012, 1-2). 
 

Page 55 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Forum participants offered a wide range of perspectives on the 

environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology, 

nanomanufacturing, and nanomaterials. Forum participants presented 

information on what is currently known about these implications and 

expressed frustration about the lack of progress in understanding the 

risks from potential exposure to nanomaterials. Participants specifically 

noted a current dilemma related to identifying or determining EHS risks. 

Because so few nanomaterials have been studied and no long-term or 

chronic data are available, it is very difficult to predict and manage risks 

for new nanomaterials. Forum participants also identified significant 

research needs to discern EHS implications, and they discussed the need 

to fully communicate the benefits and risks of nanotechnology to the 

public, helping to distinguish between perceived and real risks. While 

participants noted an underlying tension between advancing innovation in 

nanotechnology and adopting regulation to address any negative EHS 

implications, they suggested that an integrated EHS framework and a 

collaborative approach could help offset these tensions. Forum 

participants discussed developing an EHS framework that would help 

build safety into product design and include industry, academia, 

nonprofits, and government.

Some forum participants expressed frustration that EHS implications have 

been discussed for roughly 10 years and yet little is known about the risks 

from potential exposure to nanomaterials. Some participants noted that 

only a few types of nanomaterials have been studied and that the 

universe of nanomaterials available in the market is unknown given the 

range of nanomanufacturing activities. However, a participant presented 

research that concluded that a number of characteristics or properties of 

nanomaterials may contribute to EHS hazards and that workers, in 

particular, may be exposed to nanomaterials.

One presenter noted that while hazardous effects have been seen in 

certain nanomaterials, only certain types of nanomaterials have been 

studied and that we lack the ability to predict hazards for nanomaterials 

generally. This presenter provided exposure data that showed risks are 

higher for workers than the general population, since material used in 

production is in a freer form, but presenters also discussed how clean 

Participants 

Encouraged an 

Integrated Framework 

to Assess and 

Address EHS

Implications of 

Nanotechnology

Participants Expressed 

Frustration about Lack of 

Progress in Understanding 

EHS Implications of 

Nanotechnology, 

Nanomanufacturing, and 

Nanomaterials
 

Page 56 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

rooms and other practices could reduce workplace exposures.65 One 

presenter also stressed that most EHS research to date has been animalbased and that very little data for human exposure have been collected. 

Another presenter stated that there is a fundamental lack of data and 

information for identifying and quantifying the EHS impacts through the 

life cycle of the nanomaterial, and that the U.S. government alone cannot 

generate this data.

Participants debated the risks that nanomaterials pose, with some 

suggesting that risks could be categorized as perceived rather than real. 

A few industry participants explained that the nanomaterials used in their 

products are inert and pose no potential risk of exposure. One of these 

participants emphasized that nanomanufacturers have been using known 

approaches for protecting workers’ health, such as technologies used in 

clean rooms and those developed for handling dangerous chemicals. A 

few participants emphasized the concept of responsible development of 

nanotechnology, with one saying it is an essential component for 

nanomanufacturing. Such an approach requires acknowledging possible 

hazards and taking precautions to prevent exposure to them until more 

detailed information is developed.

Participants discussed some similarities and differences between 

nanotechnology and prior technologies. One participant noted that 

nanomaterials have been used for a long time, although our 

understanding and control of them is now much more sophisticated. 

However, participants also discussed the wide range of new materials 

and products that nanotechnology could create. Participants described 

nanotechnology as generating new questions about EHS impacts.

Participants said significant research was needed to discern or anticipate

EHS implications of manufacturing with nanomaterials and using 

nanotechnologies. Participants noted the presence of significant 

funding—both governmental and private—for nanotechnology research, 

but one participant suggested relatively little funding supports research on

EHS implications, an observation that is consistent with our previous 

reporting on the National Nanotechnology Initiative.66 Some forum 

 

65 In November 2013, NIOSH published guidance on engineering controls for 

nanomaterial production (see NIOSH 2013b).

66See GAO (2012a). 

Significant Research 

Needed to Discern EHS 

Implications
 

Page 57 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

presenters pointed out significant challenges for EHS research stemming 

from the very complex science involved, including the innumerable 

chemistries of various nanomaterials. For example, one participant 

explained that the universe of materials is diverse and heterogeneous. In 

addition, exposures in the workplace have not been uniformly measured 

or widely characterized, and measurements to date have been related to 

specific tasks and locations. Another participant noted that the effects at 

the quantum level are less predictable and therefore less defined. Some 

participants noted the significant information gaps that EHS research

could help fill, for example, to determine where the highest risks of 

exposure existed. While acknowledging research challenges, one 

presenter made the comparison with weather simulations for hurricanes, 

where improving the models used in weather prediction has had a 

dramatic impact, and suggested that computational tools are necessary 

for modeling complex nanomaterial risks. In addition to increased 

computational capacity, multiple participants discussed sustainable 

design and “green chemistry” as potential areas upon which nanoscience 

research could draw or from which it could benefit in considering EHS 

implications. One participant suggested that an increased focus on 

responsible development of nanomaterials could alleviate international 

trade disputes over precautionary regulation.67

The identification of research needs and assessment of progress toward 

meeting those needs is also the subject of a National Research Council 

(2013) study. This study identified needs in areas such as modeling 

nanomaterial releases along the value chain and developing 

instrumentation to measure key nanomaterial properties and changes in 

them in complex biologic and environmental media.

Participants also discussed differences between considering the EHS 

implications of therapeutic uses of nanomaterials and the occupational 

safety and health implications of nanomaterials. When designing 

therapeutic uses, one participant noted the significant resources 

expended on investigating nanomaterials and performing clinical trials. 

However, worker health and safety issues may be more challenging since 

workers are the first people in society exposed to the products of any 

technology. A few participants stated that a company whose priority was 

 

67 The precautionary principle recognizes that government intervention beyond that 

normally justified by scientific evidence may be warranted if there are signals that a 

possible threat may, if unchecked, seriously harm the population.
 

Page 58 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

to bring a new product to market as quickly as possible and profitably, 

may rush to market and risk EHS implications. Thus, the underlying 

research for worker safety may not be an individual company priority. 

However, one participant said that many protective measures already 

used to reduce workplace exposures to larger, aerosolized particles—

such as controls often used in the pharmaceutical industry—will also 

apply to nanoparticles.

Multiple participants spoke about the need for long-term commitment for 

EHS research. One participant stated that EHS research would need to 

be carefully orchestrated and thought through; that it would not be a 2-

year project. For example, multiple participants stated research would 

need to consider new approaches to the assessment of product life 

cycles—that is, to go beyond just disposal, but also include recycling of 

materials.

While multiple participants conveyed that companies could mitigate 

potential hazards to gain benefits from product innovations, some feared 

regulation to address EHS concerns could damage U.S. competitiveness 

and others noted the need for precaution when dealing with 

nanomaterials. For example, one participant noted that a company had 

designed an easier-to-clean scope for colonoscopies using 

nanotechnology. While the company assumed it would be an easy 

approval, the regulatory agency asked it to run a clinical trial to prove the 

new scope was safe and effective. Estimates for clinical trials of similar 

medical devices have been projected to be $30 million, which the 

participant suggested raised questions about whether investors could be 

found. One participant also raised the concern that constituencies (in 

other countries) that have been developed with the precautionary 

principle would significantly delay the continued expansion of 

nanotechnology, that is, until the risks are known and mitigated. Another 

participant, noting global competitiveness issues, worried that early but 

lengthy standard-setting efforts might put U.S. industry on hold at a very 

competitive and time-sensitive stage of the innovation process—while 

other nations progressed. In contrast, one participant stated that there is 

enough evidence of health effects for workers that prudent precautionary 

practices are warranted and effective, and could be a positive factor in 

business growth. For example, one participant noted that his company’s 

product was manufactured in a clean room environment and included a 

nanomaterial bonded into a larger aggregate. Some participants also 

discussed how companies perform research on the safety of their 

nanomaterials and their efforts to inform regulators on the science behind 

Participants Recognized 

Tension between the 

Rapid Introduction of New 

Products and the Need to 

Discern EHS Implications
 

Page 59 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

their products. Others noted that innovation and regulation in relation to 

nanomaterials and technology would have to be considered as part of an 

evolving environment that extends beyond traditional research and 

industry settings. Some forum participants pointed out that technology 

involving nanomaterials has been evolving and that new implications for 

EHS could arise. One participant pointed out the new desktop 

technologies and the democratization of manufacturing raised concerns 

that certain nanomaterials (for example, those in powder form) could be 

inhaled and lead to widespread exposure without users’ knowing about 

and managing the potential hazards. For example, consumer use of

desktop 3-D printers could rapidly and widely advance innovations, but 

controlling the associated EHS risks for individual homes or garages 

would present major regulatory challenges.68

A few forum participants presented information that suggested that the 

public does not understand nanotechnology and likely perceives risks 

from nanomaterials. For example, one participant noted that based on 

some public surveys and statistically valid samples, his or her research 

found that perhaps 40 percent of people had heard the term “nano.” 

Because of this lack of awareness, the public’s perception is going to be 

dependent on the application and how the benefits are presented. This 

participant noted that the public does not have a sense of differentiation 

about nanomaterials—some may be considered high value, for example, 

materials for a better colonoscopy, but others address everyday 

concerns, such as stain-resistant ties and pants.

The forum’s participants discussed the need to educate the general public 

on nanotechnology and that companies should fully consider how they 

develop communication strategies about the potential hazards associated 

with using such products. For example, one presenter’s research pointed 

out the public’s basic distrust of where to seek information, including from 

both industry and government. Some participants noted that this concern 

will need to be considered when determining how to educate the public 

on the benefits and potential risks from new products developed from 

 

68 The manufacturing process known as 3-D printing has been defined as “build[ing]

layers to create a three dimensional solid object from a digital model,” accessed January 

13, 2014, http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/3-D-printing-rapid-prototypingstereolighography-or-architectural-modeling.

Participants Saw a Need 

to Raise Public Awareness 

and Understanding of 

Benefits and Risks
 

Page 60 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. One participant also noted that the 

legal community would have to develop scientific literacy to implement 

and communicate scientifically sound legal standards. One participant 

from the business community wondered whether to continue referring to 

nanotechnology in product names, advertising, or labels—given that 

“nano” may convey risks that actually might not apply. Participants also 

discussed public reaction to genetically modified organisms as 

highlighting the need to understand and communicate about 

nanotechnology risks.

Multiple forum participants emphasized during their discussions that a 

collaborative approach—to include industry, academia, nonprofits, and 

government—could help realize the benefits of nanotechnologies and 

associated products and mitigate EHS risks. Participants suggested ideas 

for and roles within such an approach. For example, industry could 

identify which products use nanotechnologies or incorporate 

nanomaterials and disclose what it had learned concerning those 

materials. Academics could help catalogue such information in a way that 

would be useful for designing new products or create frameworks that 

companies could consider during product design and when conducting 

life-cycle assessments. In addition to supporting education and research 

programs, government could work with industry and academia to set 

appropriate standards and support public-private partnerships and 

international collaborations. One participant stated that government 

involvement in collaborations between academics and industry is 

instrumental to their long-term success.

A few of the participants wanted a stronger role for industry to assist in 

the identification of nanomaterials and their uses, as well as disclosure of 

any EHS implications learned. Specifically, participants pointed out that it 

is challenging to identify the range of uses of nanomaterials in consumer 

and commercial applications without the input of the companies involved 

in the development and production of these materials. Since there are few 

tools and methods to predict the behavior of nanomaterials in the 

environment, industry is in the best position to help identify which 

materials are in use. A few participants noted that industry could explain 

the research behind the product and its real-world impact so that others 

could understand and distinguish real from perceived risks.

A few participants emphasized a stronger role for government in setting 

standards for nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing. While some

industry participants feared potential regulation would stifle 

Participants Encouraged a 

Collaborative Approach for 

Developing an EHS 

Framework
 

Page 61 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

competitiveness, forum participants discussed the need for some 

standardization, especially in defining basic terminology, in order to 

characterize specific materials and products across global markets. Some 

participants discussed how a standard descriptive system would enable 

efforts to characterize the physical attributes of materials at the nanoscale 

and allow greater collaboration among industry, academic, and 

government researchers. One participant noted that in the field of 

nanomedicine, a central characterization laboratory has spurred 

innovation and commercialization by providing standardized information 

on nanomedicines in an open database. A few participants suggested 

that this approach could be applied to the broader topic of 

nanotechnology products.

Multiple participants suggested developing an integrated EHS framework 

for thinking about nanotechnology, nanomanufacturing, and 

nanomaterials. One participant explained that the framework would be 

based on incorporating assessments of EHS implications into the design 

phase of the product—not at the end of life, not at disposal, and not after 

problems or health impacts to consumers or workers have already 

occurred. Participants characterized this concept as “safer by design.” 

One participant explained the idea as capturing the functionality of the 

product while addressing safety concerns. Participants also discussed the 

importance of considering the life cycle and conducting life-cycle material 

assessments. Such an assessment would consider not only the use of 

the material, but all stages of the product’s life cycle from production and 

development through disposal and recycling. The following illustrates an 

example of a life-cycle assessment.
 

Page 62 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Figure 13: Illustration of Product Life Cycle and Issues Posed

One participant expressed the opinion that the United States lacks a 

coherent governance and oversight system for nanomaterials and 

nanotechnology, a lack that could be problematic for U.S. industry and 

innovation as individual municipalities or other countries put governance 

structures in place. One participant suggested that the nations that 

complete standards and risk management systems first will have an 

advantage in supporting development of new nanotechnology products 

and companies. Others specifically cited the European Union’s 

precautionary approach and required labeling as at least reducing 

uncertainty in how such products are regulated in that market. One 

participant noted ongoing participation in international cooperative efforts 

over the last 8 years in about 10 different global standardization efforts 

with respect to nanotechnology. Another participant discussed one global 

effort at the OECD to develop approaches for responsible development of 

nanoscience and nanotechnology.69 We previously reported (GAO 2013b) 

that early and ongoing coordination with foreign governments in emerging 

areas before regulations are in place may facilitate international 

 

69 The OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology (WPN) advises governments on 

emerging policy issues related to the responsible development of nanotechnology and 

promotes international cooperation to facilitate research, development, and responsible 

commercialization of nanotechnology.
 

Page 63 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

regulatory cooperation. While some participants considered the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative a productive government effort, participants 

also noted that the initiative does not have a centralized source of funding 

or decision-making authority.
 

Page 64 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Forum participants described nanomanufacturing as an emerging global 

megatrend: a technological revolution that will likely bring future worldchanging developments, including: 

• new applications across many industries and related social impacts 

that may match or exceed levels of change associated with the digital 

revolution or the advent and spread of electrical power (a view that is 

in line with forward-looking literature indicating that nanotechnology 

has the potential to qualify as a general purpose technology in the 

future), and

• new global-scale economic opportunities and an increasingly intense 

international competition.

According to forum participants, the anticipated importance of future 

nanomanufacturing developments suggests that going forward, the 

United States should consider both retaining effective existing policies 

(with updates as needed) and taking steps toward new actions or 

strategic responses that could address key gaps and challenges.

Forum participants said that it is essential for the United States to 

maintain a high level of investment in fundamental nanotechnology 

research. Two reasons are: (1) while the United States is currently viewed 

as the likely overall leader in nanotechnology R&D, certain other 

countries are now making significant investments in R&D as well as, in at 

least one case, publishing large numbers of papers, and (2) ongoing 

research breakthroughs will continue to drive the future of

nanomanufacturing. Further, forum participants explained that nanoinnovators may need to both

• develop the new technology or product itself—a process that typically 

begins with fundamental research (“early technology readiness 

levels”),70 and

 

70 Early technology readiness levels concern the transition from scientific research to 

applied research and proof-of-concept validation; see GAO (2011b, 36).

Considerations Going 

Forward

Participants Said 

Maintaining a High Level 

of Investment in 

Fundamental Research Is 

Essential
 

Page 65 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

• devise a new and potentially innovative manufacturing method to 

mass-produce that product—a process that may begin with basic 

engineering research (“early manufacturing readiness levels”).71

Although these two research processes—one involving technology 

development and the other, manufacturing development--may often be 

intertwined, one participant emphasized that it may be important to 

consider, as nanotechnology increasingly moves into manufacturing, not 

only (1) continuing support for fundamental nanotechnology research but 

also (2) targeting at least some of the funding for nanotechnology 

research to early-stage research on nanomanufacturing (that is, research 

aimed at conceptualizing innovative processes for eventually testing and 

mass-producing new nanomaterials and nano-enabled products and 

developing these processes in a laboratory environment).

Forum participants identified gaps and challenges in four key areas where 

they believe future action is needed:

1. International data on R&D investment: Public-sector investments by 

nations have been considerable. The U.S. National Nanotechnology 

Initiative (NNI), begun in 2001 and focusing primarily on R&D, 

represents a cumulative investment of almost $20 billion including the 

federal request for fiscal year 2014. With respect to recent and current 

annual levels of R&D investment, NNI’s fiscal year 2013 budget was 

over $1.5 billion, and some other nations are now making publicsector investments that may surpass that figure. Private-sector R&D 

investments are also significant in some countries, including the 

United States. Overall, the United States currently appears to be the 

lead-investor nation. However, two key participants cited data 

reliability issues. According to one of these, a pathway forward might 

include actions such as convening international conferences on 

tracking public-investment data and other related data (such as 

program evaluation data), with representatives from key governments 

from around the globe.

 

71 As explained in a previous section, early manufacturing readiness levels range from the 

identification of basic manufacturing implications through developing a manufacturing 

proof of concept. For specific definitions of manufacturing readiness levels, see GAO 

(2010a, app. II).

Participants Identified Four 

Key Areas Needing Action
 

Page 66 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

2. International standards: Forum participants said there is a lack of 

basic, agreed-upon standards to facilitate industry progress in 

nanotechnology, international trade, and potentially, appropriate 

labeling of nano-enabled consumer products. Progress on basic 

standards may also help address other challenges and gaps 

discussed in this report. Importantly, forum participants said there is 

currently insufficient effort, especially by the United States, to 

participate in and “jump start” standards development. Notably, 

participants said that in the currently restricted U.S. budget 

environment, federal agencies have appeared not to prioritize staff 

travel to participate in international conferences—and that it is 

important to remedy this situation with respect to nanotechnology 

standards. 

3. U.S. competitiveness: Participants recognized that current challenges 

to U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing across world markets, 

taken together, represent a serious threat to realizing a level of future 

economic benefits commensurate with U.S. investments. These 

challenges range from U.S. gaps in funding or investment for nanocommercialization (the Valley of Death and the Missing Middle) and 

issues such as prior offshoring and possible workforce education and 

training issues—to the lack of a U.S. vision for a nanomanufacturing 

capability. Also relevant are issues concerning knowledge about and 

recognition of practices of other countries that may be key to global 

competition and may, in some cases, constitute threats. Participants 

outlined three possible approaches to enhancing U.S. 

competitiveness:

• updating federal policies aimed at supporting innovation across 

the economy (for example, investments in infrastructure and 

education), which is a long-standing approach;

• encouraging or facilitating public-private partnerships that 

specifically address the Valley of Death and the Missing Middle in 

advanced manufacturing and innovation, a step that could help 

support a strong manufacturing base in the United States 

(although the examples provided by participants include centers 

that focus specifically on nanotechnology or nanomanufacturing); 

and

• defining a national vision and designing an overall grand strategy 

for U.S. nanomanufacturing—an approach that might be justified if 

nanomanufacturing is deemed a potential or likely future general 

purpose technology.
 

Page 67 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

These three approaches to enhancing U.S. competitiveness might be 

considered alternatives, or two—or possibly all three—approaches 

might be used together.

4. EHS issues: Participants indicated that currently limited research, 

including a lack of data on the long-term or chronic EHS impacts of 

new nanomaterials, makes it difficult to predict and manage relevant 

risks—and difficult to help the public distinguish between real and 

perceived risks. The underlying tension between advancing innovation 

in nanotechnology and adopting regulation to address any negative 

EHS implications represents another possible difficulty. Participants 

also indicated that to advance in this area would require a revitalized 

approach that is integrative and collaborative.

While participants noted that action in each of the four areas above 

deserves consideration, these areas—and future efforts to address 

them, if made—may overlap. For example, basic international 

standards that set definitions to facilitate industry progress and trade 

could also help advance efforts to achieve more comparable 

international-investment data. Such overlap could serve as the basis 

for the development of a coordinated framework for 

nanomanufacturing-related issues.
Appendix I: Forum Agenda

Page 68 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

COMPTROLLER GENERAL FORUM ON NANOMANUFACTURING

HOSTED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMIES

DAY ONE: TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013

ARRIVALS/CHECK-IN

OPENING SESSION

Welcome

The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United 

States, U.S. Government Accountability Office

Overview

Dr. Timothy M. Persons, Chief Scientist, U.S. Government Accountability 

Office

Significance of Nanomanufacturing to Congress and the Nation

The Honorable George Allen, former United States Senator and former 

Governor of Virginia (10 min.)

The Honorable Bart Gordon, former Member of the United States 

Congress; Partner at K&L Gates (10 min.)

U.S. INVESTMENTS AND COMPETITIVENESS IN 

NANOMANUFACTURING (CURRENT)

What is known about how the United States compares to other nations in 

terms of investments in nanotechnology research and development, 

commercialization, and scale-up? What challenges to nanomanufacturing 

competitiveness does the United States face?

The Global Investment Profile in Nanotechnology—Comparing the 

U.S. to Selected Nations

Françoise D. Roure (10 min.)

Appendix I: Forum Agenda

12:45 p.m.

1:00 p.m. 

1:10 p.m. 

1: 35 p.m. 

1:55 p.m. 
Appendix I: Forum Agenda

Page 69 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Mihail C. Roco (10 min.)

Forum discussion (All)

BREAK

Review of Profiles—Four Nanomanufacturing Areas: Timothy M. 

Persons (5 min.)

Discussion of the four profiles: U.S. competitiveness and alternative views

The semiconductor industry – Discussants: Brian David Johnson, Michael 

Liehr, Celia Merzbacher (15 min.)

Battery-powered vehicles – Discussants: Sarbajit Banerjee, Bill Canis (15 

min.)

Nano-based concrete – Discussants: Björn Birgisson, Hamlin M. Jennings 

(15 min.)

Nanotherapeutics in medicine – Discussants: Joseph DeSimone, Scott E. 

McNeil (15 min.)

Forum discussion (All)

RECEPTION

DAY TWO: WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013

ARRIVALS, COFFEE

Welcome, Review of Day 1, and Preview of Day 2: Timothy M. Persons (5 

min.)

FUTURE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS AND IMPORTANCE

What is anticipated about how fast markets for advanced 

nanomanufacturing might expand? What are possible futures

for U.S. competitiveness? In experts’ judgment, how important 

will U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing be in the future?

2:15 p.m. 

3:10 p.m. 

3:20 p.m.

3:25 p.m. 

3:40 p.m. 

3:55 p.m. 

4:10 p.m. 

4:25 p.m. 

5:30 p.m. 

8:00 a.m.

8:30 a.m. 
Appendix I: Forum Agenda

Page 70 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Prospects for Nanotechnology and Economic Importance: Mihail C. 

Roco (10 min.)

U.S. Nanomanufacturing: Issues and Practice, Looking Forward: 

Manish Mehta (10 min.)

Issues in Innovation Policy: Susan Offutt (10 min.)

Discussants: Brian David Johnson, Matthew Nordan (15 min.)

Forum discussion (All)

BREAK

ENHANCING COMPETITIVENESS IN THE YEARS AHEAD

What are some steps that are being suggested, or that experts 

might suggest, to enhance the future of U.S. competitiveness in 

nanomanufacturing—including potential actions by the federal 

government as well as others?

Joining Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation: Michael Molnar (10 

min.)

Options for Enhancing Future U.S. Competitiveness: Charles 

Wessner (10 min.)

Strategies and Scenarios for the Years Ahead: Sheila R. Ronis (10 

min.)

Discussants: John Ho, James M. Phillips (15 min.)

Forum discussion (All)

WORKING LUNCH: NANOMANUFACTURING—REPORTS FROM 

PRACTITIONERS James M. Phillips, Joseph DeSimone, and Brian David 

Johnson

OUTLOOK FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, AND SAFETY 

ASPECTS OF NANOMANUFACTURING

8:35 a.m. 

8:45 a.m. 

8:55: a.m. 

9:05 a.m. 

9:20 a.m. 

10:30 a.m. 

10:40 a.m. 

10:50 a.m. 

11: 00 a.m. 

11:10 a.m. 

11: 25 a.m. 

12:30 p.m. 
Appendix I: Forum Agenda

Page 71 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

What are concerns about nanotechnology products’ EHS impacts? Do the 

concerns about nanotechnology impacts or approaches for managing 

those risks differ from those associated with other kinds of products?

Nanomanufacturing Workforce Health: Paul Schulte (10 min.)

Nanomanufacturing and the Environment: Lynn L. Bergeson (10 min.)

Discussants: Tina Bahadori, Vicki L. Colvin, David Rejeski (20 min.)

Forum discussion (All)

BREAK

Summary of Forum and Concluding Remarks (Timothy M. Persons and 

All)

END OF FORUM

1:30 p.m. 

1:40 p.m. 

1:50 p.m. 

2:10 p.m. 

3:15 p.m. 

3:25 p.m. 

4:25 p.m. 
Appendix II: List of Forum Participants

Page 72 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General of the United States.

George Allen, Former U.S. Senator and former Governor of Virginia.

Tina Bahadori, National Program Director, Chemical Safety for 

Sustainability Research Program, Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C.

Sarbajit Banerjee, Associate Professor of Chemistry, College of Arts and 

Sciences, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 

Buffalo, New York.

Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner, Bergeson & Campbell PC, 

Washington, D.C.

Bjorn Birgisson, Vice President for Research, KTH Royal Institute of 

Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Bill Canis, Senior Analyst, Transportation and Industry Analysis Section, 

Resources, Sciences and Industry Division, Congressional Research 

Service, Washington, D.C.

Vicki L. Colvin, Kenneth S. Pitzer-Schlumberger Professor of Chemistry; 

Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Rice University, 

Houston, Texas.

Joseph DeSimone, Director, Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private 

Enterprise, and Chancellor’s Eminent Professor of Chemistry, University 

of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Bart Gordon, Former Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, 

House of Representatives, United States Congress; Partner at K&L Gates 

LLP, Washington, D.C.

John Ho, Advanced Development Manager, QD Vision Inc., Lexington, 

Massachusetts.

Hamlin M. Jennings, Principal Investigator, Concrete Sustainability Hub; 

Adjunct Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Appendix II: List of Forum Participants

Host

Participants
Appendix II: List of Forum Participants

Page 73 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Brian David Johnson, Futurist and Principal Engineer, Intel Corporation, 

Santa Clara, California.

Michael Liehr, Executive Vice President of Innovation and Technology, 

Vice President for Research, College of Nanoscale Science and 

Engineering, State University of New York, Albany, New York.

Scott E. McNeil, Director, Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory 

for SAIC-Frederick and the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer 

Research; Vice President, Science Applications International Corporation 

(SAIC), Frederick, Maryland.

Manish Mehta, Director, Strategic Projects and Sustainability, Principal 

Investigator, NCMS-NSF Nanotechnology Commercialization Readiness 

Study, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Celia Merzbacher, Vice President of Innovative Partnerships, 

Semiconductor Research Corporation, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina.

Michael F. Molnar, Director, Advanced Manufacturing National Program 

Office,

1 and Chief Manufacturing Officer, National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Matthew Nordan, Vice President, Venrock, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Susan E. Offutt, Chief Economist, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

Washington, D.C.

Timothy M. Persons, Chief Scientist, U.S. Government Accountability 

Office, Washington, D.C.

James M. Phillips, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, 

NanoMech Corporation, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Robert Pohanka, Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, 

Arlington, Virginia.

 

1 The Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office is an interagency effort that 

administers the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI). 
Appendix II: List of Forum Participants

Page 74 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

David Rejeski, Director, Science and Technology Innovation Program, 

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C.

Mihail C. Roco, Founding Chair, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, 

Engineering and Technology, U.S. National Science and Technology 

Council; Senior Advisor, Nanotechnology, National Science Foundation,

Arlington, Virginia. 

Sheila R. Ronis, Chair and Professor, Department of Management, Walsh 

College, Troy, Michigan.

Françoise D. Roure, Chair, Committee on Technologies and Society, 

French High Council for Industry, Energy, and Technologies; Chair, 

Working Party on Nanotechnology, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.

Paul Schulte, Director, Education and Information Division, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Charles Wessner, National Academies Scholar; Director, National 

Academy of Sciences Technology, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship 

Program, Washington, D.C.
Appendix III: List of Other Experts Consulted

Page 75 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

This list includes experts interviewed in preparation for the forum as well 

as those who reviewed a final draft.1

Mostafa Analoui, Head of Healthcare and Life Sciences, Livingston 

Securities, New York, New York.

Robert D. Atkinson, President, Information Technology & Innovation 

Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Eric Barnes, Vice President for Finance and Operations, NanoMech 

Corporation, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Jon Belkowitz, President, Intelligent Concrete, LLC, Freehold, New 

Jersey.

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Former Director of the National Science 

Foundation, Former Director of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology; Director Emeritus, Global Policy Research Institute, Purdue 

University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Roger Bonnecaze, Co-Director, NASCENT Center, The University of 

Texas at Austin.

John R. Bukowski, Asphalt Pavement Team Leader, Office of 

Infrastructure, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Thomas A. Campbell, Associate Director for Outreach; Research 

Associate Professor, Institute for Critical Technology and Applied 

Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, 

Virginia.

Gardner A. Carrick, Vice President, Strategic Initiatives, The 

Manufacturing Institute, Washington, D.C.

Shaun Clancy, Director and Regional Head, Product Regulatory Services, 

Evonik Industries, Essen, Germany.

 

1 For additional details, please see appendix V.

Appendix III: List of Other Experts Consulted
Appendix III: List of Other Experts Consulted

Page 76 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Raymond David, Manager of Toxicology for Industrial Chemicals, BASF 

Corporation, Florham Park, New Jersey.

Neil Desai, Vice President, Strategic Platforms, Abraxis 

Bioscience/Celgene Corp., Los Angeles, California.

Stephen Ezell, Senior Analyst, Information Technology & Innovation 

Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Michael M. Fancher, Vice President for Business Development & 

Economic Outreach; Director, New York State Center for Advanced 

Technology in Nanoelectronics & Nanomaterials; Associate Professor of 

Nanoeconomics, College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, State 

University of New York, Albany, New York.

Omid Farokhzad, Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesia, 

Harvard Medical School; and Director, Laboratory of Nanomedicine and 

Biomaterials, Anesthesia, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, 

Massachusetts.

Georgene Geary, State Research Engineer, Organizational Performance 

Management, Office of Chief Engineer, Georgia Department of 

Transportation, Atlanta, Georgia.

Charles L. Geraci, Jr., Coordinator, Nanotechnology Research Center, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Steve Gordon, Staff Scientist, 3M Medical Department, 3M Company, 

Maplewood, Minnesota.

Piotr Grodzinski, Director, Office of Cancer Nanotechnology Research, 

National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.

David Howell, Team Lead, Hybrid and Electric Systems, Vehicle 

Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Dexter Johnson, Analyst, Cientifica Ltd., New York, New York.

Eric “Rick” Luebbe, Chief Executive Officer, EnerG2, Seattle, 

Washington.

Robert A. Lutz, Retired Vice Chairman, General Motors Company, 

Detroit, Michigan.
Appendix III: List of Other Experts Consulted

Page 77 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Thom Mason, Laboratory Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee.

André Nel, Professor of Medicine, Pediatrics, and Public Health, 

University of California, Los Angeles, California.

Amy Prieto, Chief Executive Officer, Prieto Battery, Inc., and Associate 

Professor of Chemistry, College of Natural Sciences, Colorado State 

University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Daniel Sarewitz, Co-Director, Consortium for Science, Policy & 

Outcomes; Associate Director, Center for Nanotechnology in Society, 

Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Nora Savage, Environmental Engineer, National Center for Environmental 

Research, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Surendra P. Shah, Director, Center for Advanced Cement-Based 

Materials; Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering, Robert R. 

McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, Northwestern 

University, Evanston, Illinois.

Phillip A. Singerman, Associate Director for Innovation and Industry 

Services, Office of the Director, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

S. V. Sreenivasan, Co-Director, NASCENT Center, The University of 

Texas at Austin.

Ian Steff, Vice President of Global Policy and International Relations, 

Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), Washington, D.C.

Gregory C. Tassey, Former Director and Senior Economist, Economic 

Analysis Office; former Associate Director for Innovation and Industry 

Services, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, 

Maryland.

Suneel N. Vanikar, Concrete Pavement Team Leader, Office of 

Infrastructure, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Mark Verbrugge, Management Committee Member, U.S. Advanced 

Battery Consortium LLC. (USABC), Southfield, Michigan.
Appendix III: List of Other Experts Consulted

Page 78 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Cyrus Wadia, Assistant Director, Clean Energy and Materials R&D, White 

House Office of Science & Technology Policy, Washington, D.C.

Falan Yinug, Director, Industry Statistics & Economic Policy, 

Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), Washington, D.C.
Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 79 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

• Nanotechnology and the Future of the Semiconductor Industry

• Nanotechnology and the Future of Battery-Powered Vehicles

• Nanotechnology and the Future of Nano-Based Concrete

• Nanotechnology and the Future of Nanotherapeutics in Medicine

This appendix reproduces, verbatim, an excerpt from the “Reading 

Package” e-mailed to participants on July 14, 2013, in advance of the 

forum, which was held July 23-24, 2013, at GAO Headquarters, 

Washington, D.C. 

References cited in the profiles are included in the List of References 

(app. VII). 

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of 

Four Nanotechnology Industries
Profile 1: Nanotechnology and the Future of the Semiconductor Industry 

Overview: A semiconductor is the generic term for the various devices and integrated circuits 

that regulate and provide a path for electrical signals. As such, semiconductors are the 

foundation of the electronics industry, and today’s semiconductors are manufactured using 

nanoscaled materials and processes. For example, production of a number of the components 

in semiconductors currently takes place at the nanoscale—that is, at scales of less than 100 

nanometers (nm). In 2012, semiconductors with features spaced 22 nm apart and with layers 

just a few nanometers in thickness entered high-volume production. 

Figure 14: Glass Wafer with Multiple Semiconductor Chips, Each Having Nanoscale Features; 

View of a Semiconductor-Manufacturing Facility 

Note: The photograph on the left shows chips designed for 3D-interconnection, bonded to a glass (nonconductive) substrate, after 

removal of their silicon substrate. Each chip is designed to be stacked with other different chips in a way that allows a 3D vertical 

interconnection, thereby enabling 3D ICs (three-dimensional integrated circuits).

The manufacture of semiconductors has several stages, with the main stages including the 

design of the semiconductor chip, the production of these chips on silicon wafers at fabrication 

plants (or “fabs”), and the testing and packaging of the semiconductors. As Lux Research 

defines the nanotechnology value chain (using three categories—nanomaterials, nanointermediates, and nano-enabled products), semiconductors are intermediate products with 

nanoscale features that are components of finished goods (in this case, consumer electronic 

devices and other items) incorporating nanotechnology.1 Industry experts we spoke with said 

that the diffusion of semiconductor chips with nanoscale features is pervasive and that this 

technology continues to evolve. They noted that the semiconductor industry continues to make 

devices at smaller and smaller sizes and this will continue to improve. However, they also 

explained that that this “scaling” (the downward trend in size) can only go so far with the current 

silicon-based materials. They anticipated that the current silicon-based technology might 

continue to evolve for perhaps another 7 years and there would then likely be a move to a new, 

as of yet undetermined, technology (new materials or new architecture, or both). Industry 

experts we interviewed said that while graphene, a nanomaterial, is being tested as a 

replacement for silicon in manufacturing nano-devices, other materials are also being tested, as

1 See Holman (2007).

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 80 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
are new chip architectures; the experts estimated that the successor to the silicon-based 

semiconductor chip could be 10 or more years away.

Current U.S. Investments and Competitiveness: Data provided by the Semiconductor 

Industry Association (SIA) show global semiconductor sales to have been about $292 billion in 

2012. Figure 15 (below) shows the global market shares of semiconductor sales by the location 

of the headquarters of the firm selling the semiconductors. From this perspective, the United 

States had a 50 percent market share, meaning that firms whose headquarters were located in 

the United States accounted for half of all semiconductors sold worldwide in 2012. SIA also 

reported in 2012 that U.S. direct semiconductor jobs totaled an estimated 244,800. SIA noted 

that this figure includes both (1) the number of semiconductor jobs reported by the U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS), and (2) an estimate by SIA of the number of jobs in the “fabless” 

semiconductor design sector—that is, jobs related to designing semiconductors but not actually 

manufacturing them.

SIA also cited 2011 BLS data showing that U.S. 

semiconductor industry jobs stretch across almost 

every region of the country and into the majority of 

states. BLS reported that U.S. semiconductor jobs 

grew by 3.7 percent over the prior year, compared 

with lower growth (1.2 percent) for the broader 

economy. SIA called the semiconductor industry 

“the backbone of modern technology,” suggesting 

that the industry may have a positive effect on job 

creation in other sectors of the U.S. economy.

Experts indicated that the degree of 

competitiveness of the U.S. semiconductor industry 

varied depending on whether the firm focused on 

design or other aspects of manufacturing. Industry 

experts we spoke with said that the United States is 

and will likely remain dominant in design—although 

they anticipated that U.S. dominance would be challenged by other countries. Other experts 

pointed out that while there are fabs operating in the United States, significant manufacturing 

capacity is located in Asia: 

• One of these experts noted the decline in the manufacturing of semiconductor chips in the 

United States over the years. He said that today some semiconductor firms cannot afford 

the investments to stay up to date with the latest technology.

• Other experts said that it can cost at least $1 billion more over a 10-year period to operate a 

fab in the United States than in some overseas countries, primarily due to differences in tax 

and investment policies. 

Because the tools needed for the semiconductor industry are so expensive—around $100 

million in some cases—some private companies in the United States (as well as companies 

headquartered in other countries) are willing to partner with a publicly funded entity like the 

College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) of the State University of New York, a 

unique research, development, prototyping, and educational cluster for nanotechnology. CNSE 

is also the location of the headquarters of SEMATECH, a global consortium of major computer 

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 81 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
chip manufacturers, which, among other things, coordinates cutting-edge research and 

development projects.

Future Economic Importance: SIA’s analysis of the global semiconductor industry shows a 

rise in worldwide sales from $292 billion in 2012 to $333 billion in predicted sales in 2016. In 

addition, MarketLine, an industry analysis firm, examines semiconductor sales from the 

perspective of where the semiconductors are purchased. When viewed this way, MarketLine 

has noted that while the U.S. semiconductor industry saw significant fluctuations in the value of 

semiconductors purchased in the United States from 2007 to 2011, the forecast for the next few 

years anticipates moderate growth (see fig. 16 below). 

Figure 16: Actual and Projected Value of Semiconductors Purchased in the United States

Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness in the Years Ahead: SIA and its member companies have 

identified what they believe are the “six central issues that will have a critical impact on the U.S. 

semiconductor industry's global competitiveness” in the coming years. These issues concern: 

• corporate tax policy; 

• export controls; 

• environmental regulations; 

• the semiconductor workforce, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) education and immigration policies; 

• funding for basic research; and 

• trade policy, including intellectual property protection.

Industry experts we interviewed about U.S. policies and challenges facing manufacturers 

mentioned many of these same issues. For example, these experts said they would like to see 

the federal research and development tax credit made permanent so firms could take a longerterm view. These experts also said federal funding for basic research is critical to develop new 

technologies and for the continuation of Moore’s law, which posits that the number of transistors 

on a semiconducting chip doubles every 18 to 24 months. Another issue identified by other 

experts we interviewed concerns national strategy; specifically, these experts said that the 

United States does not have a cohesive strategy to assure leadership in the technology of the 

semiconductor industry. In comparison, in November 2012, a group of nano-electronic firms and 

institutes in Europe proposed a research and innovation program that aims to enhance largescale semiconductor microchip manufacturing in Europe, increase nano-electronics-based 

revenues, and create a quarter of a million direct and indirect jobs.

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 82 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
In contrast with many of the experts we interviewed who proposed policies they believed would 

strengthen the semiconductor industry, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD) recently proposed measures to support innovation but without an 

exclusive or targeted focus on manufacturing in general or the semiconductor industry in

particular. Specifically, for the United States to maintain its “cutting edge,” OECD (2012) 

recommended that it emphasize STEM education, preserve federal research and development 

funding, pursue labor policies to bring the long-term unemployed back into the labor market, 

enact some tax and fiscal policy changes, and so forth. Potentially, manufacturing would be 

supported by these policies, but so would other sectors of the U.S. economy.

Outlook for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects: Industry experts we interviewed 

pointed out that the semiconductor devices that are in large scale production today contain 

nanoscale features, but the finished chips themselves do not have freestanding nanoparticles, 

and therefore they do not have discrete engineered nanomaterials that can be released from the 

product. The experts said that generally, in producing semiconductor chips, manufacturers are 

trying to protect the semiconductor chips from the workers—hence the need for clean rooms. 

However, the experts also explained that the current semiconductor manufacturing process 

employs nano-sized particles in slurries that are not incorporated into the product, but are used 

to “polish” or "smooth" the surface of the semiconductor wafer during manufacturing. And some 

of the experts we interviewed acknowledged that there could be exposure to the compounds 

used to polish the silicon wafers. Other experts we interviewed agreed and noted that these 

polishing compounds are generally the only particles employees may come into contact with 

today in semiconductor manufacturing. While some experts believe these compounds can be 

handled appropriately, others stated that this issue could be studied further. Environmental, 

health, and safety (EHS) experts we spoke with pointed out that these slurries are used in highvolumes and that, because these slurries are used in clean room environments, the greatest 

concern for worker safety is where the materials are bulked, compounded, and piped into the 

clean rooms. Some experts also noted the potential for nanomaterial exposures from the use of 

single-wall carbon nanotubes and single-sheet graphene in semiconductors. While other 

experts pointed out that carbon nanotubes and graphene are not yet in large-scale production 

(and therefore have not been a workplace exposure issue), this illustrates that new issues may 

arise in the coming years. Finally, experts we interviewed stated that although the finished 

semiconductor chips themselves do not pose risks to the public, the effluents and wastes from 

semiconductor manufacturing processes must be carefully managed in order to prevent impact 

to the general public. And they stated that additional research is needed to be protective of 

human health and the environment. 

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 83 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
Profile 2: Nanotechnology and the Future of Battery-Powered Vehicles

Overview: Researchers are using nanotechnology to improve the advanced batteries that 

power hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fully electric vehicles (EVs).2 These advanced batteries—

often nanotechnology-based lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries—work together with fuel or electricity, 

or both, as shown in figure 17. Nanoscale materials increase interactions between the anode 

and cathode, improving battery performance. 

Figure 17: Three Main Types of Battery-Powered Vehicles 

Battery-powered vehicles now represent about 3 to 4 percent of the U.S. and worldwide auto 

markets. Factors limiting demand for these vehicles include (1) the cost of an advanced battery, 

which increases the price of a battery-powered vehicle above that of a comparable all-gasoline 

car, and (2) the long battery-recharge times required by plug-in hybrids and EVs, and the EV’s 

limited driving ranges. Potentially, nano-improved batteries will cost less than those currently 

available, have decreased recharge times, and provide the power to lengthen driving ranges. 

Current U.S. Investments and 

Competitiveness: Experts we interviewed about 

nanotechnology and battery-powered vehicles—

selected from government, industry, and 

academia—varied in their views about current 

levels of U.S. competitiveness and investments. 

One challenge to U.S. competitiveness, identified 

by some experts, consists of Asian dominance in 

Li-ion battery manufacturing. Current efforts to 

develop nano-improved batteries for vehicles 

center on Li-ion batteries—and the process for 

manufacturing Li-ion batteries for vehicles is 

similar to that used for other Li-ion batteries. 

Although currently available figures for Li-ion 

battery manufacturing primarily reflect batteries for 

electronics, not vehicles—and although available 

estimates vary—as of 2010, they clearly indicate an overwhelming Asian dominance (fig. 18 

provides one example).

2 This profile focuses on the three main types of battery-powered vehicles shown in figure 6. We do not include “micro-hybrid” 

vehicles that reduce or eliminate use of the gasoline engine while idling and, in some cases, while running downhill.

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 84 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
This dominance means an Asian advantage in terms of greater expertise in manufacturing 

processes for Li-ion batteries. A related challenge is that the number of competitors in this 

currently limited market makes it difficult for new U.S. (and other) companies to succeed against 

companies or nations with established expertise. 

Two examples reflect these challenges: 

• The California nano-battery startup Envia Systems locates its manufacturing in China and 

will “bring its technology to market” using partnerships and “selling manufacturing rights,” 

rather than trying to locate a new manufacturing effort in the United States and compete with 

established Asian suppliers—especially given uncertain demand (LaMonica 2012). 

• A123 was a U.S. start-up that located its manufacturing in Asia to gain expertise—then 

received federal support to establish a plant here. After going bankrupt in 2012, A123 was 

bought by a Chinese company, see, e.g., Bullis (2012). The plant (now named B456) is 

operated in Michigan. 

While some experts emphasized that the nano-improved-batteries industry is in its infancy, 

viewed U.S. research as preeminent, and saw federal support as sizable, others were less 

positive. One said that other nations do more to “give their industries a leg up.” Another said that 

in his view, U.S. investments are lower than—and in some cases, not as sustained as—other 

countries’ and that some U.S. researchers now look to Asia for opportunities. And although 

private venture capital (or VC) is generally a key source of investment for U.S. startups, it may 

be insufficient in this case. One expert praised GM Ventures (which has funded startups such 

as Envia Systems, Inc., and Sakti3) because its staff identifies directions of interest to GM, to 

stimulate proposals. Yet another expert said VC generally looks for return on investment within 

5 years, often resulting in a lack of long-term support for startups aiming for major innovations. 

Future Economic Competitiveness and Importance: One expert anticipated two extreme 

future possibilities as equally plausible. The United States might 

• become competitive or perhaps dominant because (1) the United States leads in research 

and (2) advanced manufacturing does not require large amounts of low-priced labor, or 

• fail to become competitive (even with continuing research success), given the difficulties 

experienced thus far in attempting large-scale manufacture of Li-ion vehicle batteries. 

Future U.S. manufacturing competitiveness will likely be important in this area, for three 

reasons, according to experts we interviewed: First, powerful new nano-improved batteries that 

are now in the research or idea stage, such as those illustrated in figure 19, are expected to 

enter the market. 

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 85 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
Figure 19: The Lithium Air and the 3D Li-ion Batteries, Illustrated

Note: On the 3D Li-ion battery illustration, the term interdigitated refers to an interlocked or interwoven design, in 

which copper nano-wires (anode) are coated with an ultra-thin electrolyte, then surrounded by a cathode slurry. 

Second, for targeted areas such as nano-improved batteries, the pace of R&D may quicken 

because researchers are increasingly able to design nanomaterials by controlling matter at the 

molecular level, designing batteries with specifically targeted characteristics.3 Third—assuming 

these and perhaps other developments, such as rising gas prices and continued federal support 

for battery-powered vehicles—markets may expand, potentially along a trajectory such as that 

illustrated in figure 20.4 Such a diffusion trajectory would, in turn, increase global demand for 

nano-improved batteries, but experts also cautioned that diffusion could be slowed if future gas 

prices remain steady or decline, thus reducing incentives for switching from gasoline-only 

models. (Two other potential obstacles concern possibly limited lithium supplies and possible 

grid overloads, although these are being or could be addressed.5

) 

3 This is in contrast to discovering nano-substances and then identifying useful ways to apply them. For example, Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory intentionally designed a solid lithium nanomaterial that “could ultimately yield batteries . . . 5 to 10 times more 

powerful than current versions.” (IDTech Ex 2013).

4 U.S. government support has included (1) funding for R&D and in some cases, commercialization; (2) emissions requirements for

vehicles sold here; and (3) in selected instances, federal tax credits to buyers of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicles. 

Logically, some of this support would aid many nations’ efforts, not just U.S. efforts. Earlier this year, the President urged Congress 

to consider targeting part of the funding previously appropriated for energy initiatives ($2 billion) to promote advanced vehicles and 

lower their cost over 10 years by supporting research. 

5 The potential for limited lithium supplies, in the future, is being addressed in part by pursuing mining efforts, possible synthetic 

alternatives, and recycling plans. Ideas to avoid future grid overload include demand-related pricing and electronic feedback to 

drivers.

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 86 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
Figure 20: One View of Future Diffusion: Expanding Markets for Battery-Powered Vehicles 

Note: There was some variation in experts’ views. For example, one expert said that the 2020 estimate could range

as high as 30% “if anticipated developments of advanced batteries come to fruition.”

Despite uncertainty about the future pace of diffusion, the prospect of a fast increasing market 

share prompted some experts to anticipate (1) an intensifying international race to develop and 

manufacture nano-improved batteries; (2) a focus on scaling up production of nano-engineered 

materials; and (3) an increased urgency about U.S. competitiveness issues in this area. 

Finally, one interviewee foresaw a future opportunity for improved U.S. competitiveness—if new 

kinds of batteries, such as those illustrated in figure 19, require manufacturing approaches 

different from those now used for Li-ion batteries. (For example, the 3D battery would have a 

different manufacturing process than other Li-ion batteries because of its unique design.)

Enhancing U.S. Competitiveness in the Years Ahead: Generally, the experts we interviewed 

about battery-powered vehicles suggested that future U.S. competitiveness would be enhanced 

by: 

• maintaining R&D tax credits; 

• increasing federal support for research needed to take a new type of battery from lab scale 

to prototyping and on to small-scale pilot lines that show the ability to manufacture it; 

• finding ways to “seed industry,” such as bringing university and industry people together and 

increasing collaboration across the supply chain; and 

• globally harmonizing regulations and standards for nano-improved batteries. 

One interviewee said that it is also important for the United States to better understand “location 

decisions” and to anticipate “shake out” developments (in which some firms fail, leaving a 

smaller number of competitors) in order to stay on top of—or influence—trends.

Two specific examples of existing efforts that the experts we interviewed said might foster 

competitiveness, if expanded, are:

• The new National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), a federal program that 

collaborates with industries and state/local governments to fund new manufacturingAppendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 87 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
innovation institutes and “hubs.” One interviewee said the grass-roots aspect of NNMI would 

likely help avoid problems associated with prior funding of advanced battery manufacturing. 

• The proactive approach of GM Venture Capital, which outlines suggestions for future 

directions in which the company is interested. This challenges researchers to design and 

propose technologies targeted to existing private-sector plans or initiatives. (For example, 

researchers studying carbon nano-products might benefit from knowing directions that nanobattery researchers are attempting to pursue or that existing VC is intending to fund.)

One expert emphasized that new efforts, such as these, should extend across the supply chain 

(from the manufacture of nanomaterials to finished consumer products) because 

competitiveness applies at every link and might be undermined by a single weak link. 

Potentially, a variety of other efforts might be discussed at the Forum. 

Outlook for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects: Although the experts we 

interviewed specifically about battery-powered vehicles were either not very familiar with 

environmental, health, and safety (EHS) issues for nanotechnology manufacturing or not very 

concerned about risks, other experts we interviewed were selected for their knowledge about 

EHS issues. The EHS experts said that EHS risks could arise during manufacture and disposal 

of these batteries. To the extent that the nanomaterials remain contained in the battery during 

normal use, their impacts on consumers should be minimal, according to these experts. 

However, one expert stated that there are no systemic studies of the release of nanomaterials 

during either the battery use or disposal life-cycle phases. This expert stated that if the goal is to 

put many more electric vehicles on the road in the years ahead, a much more thorough analysis 

of life-cycle risks will be needed. Another expert stated that little effort is currently going into 

recycling or reclaiming material in the batteries.

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 88 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
Profile 3: Nanotechnology and the Future of Nano-Based Concrete

Overview: Concrete is the most heavily used construction material in the world—with about 5-

billion cubic yards annually produced worldwide, according to the Portland Cement Association 

(2013)—and demand for it is expected to increase to meet the infrastructure needs of a growing 

global population. Nanomaterials can enhance the performance of the concrete used to 

construct this infrastructure. These materials might potentially result in roads, bridges, 

buildings, and structures that are more easily built, longer-lasting, and better-functioning than 

currently exist. For example, concretes using nanomaterials hold the promise of bridges and 

structures lasting for up to a century or more. Nanomaterials can enable this greater durability 

by strengthening the bonding ability of the cement paste that holds together a concrete mix.6

 

They also can affect other physical and chemical properties of the concrete to improve its 

workability, allow it to cure more quickly, and resist cracking. Moreover, some nanotechnologybased concretes can beneficially convert polluting gases from combustion into substances less 

harmful to the environment. Figure 21 illustrates how nanotechnology-based concrete 

containing nano-titanium dioxide—a catalyst that uses sunlight to produce active forms of 

oxygen—reduces air pollutants by converting nitrogen oxides (NOx) to less harmful nitrate ions 

(NO3

–

). Such concrete was used in the construction of the I-35W bridge sculpture in 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Figure 21: Removal of Harmful Pollutants by Nanotechnology-Based Concrete in Sculpture 

Research is also being conducted on the use of nano-materials to produce concrete with selfsensing and -healing properties. These properties would, for example, allow highway engineers 

to monitor bridges and roads remotely and receive timely feedback on their structural 

conditions, thereby eliminating the need for time-consuming physical testing. Table 3 describes 

nanomaterials that can be used to enhance the performance of concrete and provides experts’ 

views about current and future levels of market diffusion. This table also includes nanomaterials 

that can enhance the performance of asphalt, which is the predominant surface on U.S. roads 

6 Concrete consists of a cement paste made of water and cement that binds a mix of sand and aggregates. Cement 

paste hardens through a chemical reaction called hydration and gains strength to form the rock-like mass known as 

concrete.

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 89 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
supported with federal aid (GAO 2012b). However, this profile primarily focuses on nano-based 

concrete.

Table 3: Examples of Nanomaterials in Concrete and Asphalt and Experts’ Views on Market 

Diffusion in 2013 and 2020

Views on diffusion of 

innovation

Material Description 2013 2020

Silica fume Silica fume containing silicone dioxide increases the strength 

of concrete through improving the bonding characteristics of 

the cement paste that holds the mix together. In application, 

this material contributes to longer-lasting highways, bridges, 

buildings, and structures. A by-product of silicon metal 

production, silica fume has been used for several years. Silica 

fume particles are larger than 100 nanometers, the upper limit 

of the nanoscale; however, newer nano-silica materials sized 

less than this threshold are currently entering the market.

Market 

saturation

Market 

saturation a

Titanium 

dioxide 

Titanium dioxide—through a photocatalytic process—enables 

exposed surfaces to absorb air pollutants and convert them to 

less harmful substances. This process allows for self-cleaning 

as rainwater washes away materials collected on the surface 

and results in concrete that is able to maintain its white color. 

This concrete may be used, for example, to construct roads 

and to create novel architectural features in buildings and 

structures. Titanium dioxide can also be used in asphalt 

pavement to absorb air pollutants through the photocatalytic 

process described above. (See fig. 21.) 

Opinions 

varied from 

market entryb

Opinions 

varied from 

market 

to market expansion

expansion

c 

Nanoclays 

to 

market 

saturation

Concrete containing nanoclays flows more easily and quickly 

gains strength. Concrete can thus be pumped to higher 

elevations to construct taller buildings than previously possible. 

Nanoclays provide another means to produce selfconsolidating concrete which, in application, should reduce 

construction labor costs as fewer workers are needed to place 

the material. 

Market 

entry

Market 

expansion

Nano-lithium Nano-lithium works to seal and densify concrete. It is primarily 

used in the concrete-flooring industry to produce stronger and 

more impenetrable surfaces that should result in reduced 

maintenance and cleaning costs. 

Market entry Market 

expansion

Carbon 

nanotubes 

and 

nanofibers

Dispersed in concrete, carbon nanotubes and nanofibers can 

improve strength and minimize shrinkage (or cracking). These 

materials can conduct electricity, which enables their use as a 

sensing mechanism. This self-sensing characteristic could 

allow, for example, remote monitoring for structural 

weaknesses or traffic volume.

In research Market entry d 

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 90 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
Views on diffusion of 

innovation

Material Description 2013 2020

Bacteria Bacteria can be used to make concrete that is self-healing. 

One concept currently being researched is bacterial mineral 

precipitation, which involves the mixing of dormant spores of 

bacteria in the concrete. If the concrete cracks and water seeps 

in, the bacteria consume the nutrients and produce calcite to fill 

the cracks.

In research Market entry

Nanoparticles Nano-alumina and nano-limestone are examples of 

nanoparticles. Such particles help accelerate concrete’s 

hydration process—which is beneficial for quickly gaining 

strength and reducing the delayed strengthening of high 

volume fly ash concrete;e

In research 

control shrinkage; reduce the heat 

produced during the curing process; and improve long-term 

strength.

Market entry 

Nanoparticles 

for asphalt

Nanoclays, nano-silica, nanomers, and carbon microfibers can 

be added to asphalt to improve pavement performance—such 

as making it more resistant to rutting and cracking—by 

affecting the chemical microstructure that influences physical 

behavior. 

Market entry Manufacturing 

expansion

Source: Selected experts and Birgisson et al. 2012.

a Market saturation generally means that the material is widely available and used. 

b Market entry generally means that innovators and early adopters have developed and brought the material to the 

marketplace. c Market expansion generally means that the material has expanded in the marketplace, beyond the innovators and 

early adopters. 

d In research generally means exploratory and/or investigative activities that a business chooses to conduct with the 

intention of making a discovery that can either lead to the development of new products or procedures, or to 

improvement of existing products or procedures.

e Fly ash that results from the combustion of coal is the most commonly used mineral admixture in concrete. Mineral 

admixtures are often added to make concrete more economical, reduce permeability, increase strength, or influence 

other concrete properties. 

Current U.S. Competitiveness: Experts offered differing views on U.S. global competitiveness 

as it relates to research and the commercialization and use of nanomaterials in concrete 

currently and in the future. 

Research–The U.S.’s well-established research capacity enables its current competitiveness. 

Yet, according to some experts, other countries are likely to outpace the U.S. in research. As 

indicative of the strength of global competition, experts differed in their views on the 

technologies in which the U.S. will be competitively advantaged. For example, one expert 

anticipates that the U.S. will be competitive in research related to nano-TiO2, -silica, and 

-admixture materials while another indicated the U.S. would be only slightly competitive in 

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 91 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
nano-TiO2 research.7

 A third said the U.S. would not be competitive in nano-silica and -

admixture research. 

Commercialization and Use–With most nanomaterials in research or early market stages, some 

experts said that other countries are spending more resources than the U.S. to promote 

commercialization. One expert expects the U.S. to lead in two areas of commercialization: (1) 

nanoclays because this raw material is widely available in some states but limited in other parts 

of the world and (2) carbon nanotubes because of a strong domestic research and development 

base supporting the material. 

Several factors may affect the commercialization and use of nanotechnology-based concrete 

materials. Participants in a 2007 workshop on nanotechnology for cement and concrete 

identified potentially key challenges.8

 

These challenges include the following:

• Owners may be unwilling to bear higher initial costs of using nano-based concrete as 

traditional concrete is a commodity material that is typically sold and placed under low bid 

contracts. 

• Workers involved in making and placing concrete generally do not understand the material 

well; therefore, the mixture has to be easy to use and insensitive to mistakes and variability, 

and education must accompany changes in technology.

• Contracts tend to be inflexible with prescriptive specifications that often limit the acceptability 

of innovative approaches and materials that although more costly in terms of up-front 

resources, may actually reduce total cost of ownership throughout the product’s life cycle.

• Locally available raw materials, particularly aggregates, may not be suitable for use in 

concrete mixes and preclude use of nano-based concretes in some areas. 

Future Economic Importance: The nanomaterials shown earlier in table 3 will likely become 

more pervasive by 2020, highlighting the potential 

importance of nano-based concrete in an 

expanding global construction market. Chemical 

admixtures are one means to introduce nanomaterials into concrete, making the chemical 

industry an important actor in the production of 

nano-based concretes. With a 15 percent share of 

chemical sales worldwide (of which chemical 

admixtures comprise a fraction), the U.S. is 

positioned to supply the chemicals necessary for 

some nano-based concretes—and benefit 

economically from their increased use. (See fig. 

22.) Moreover, cement and raw material producers 

7 An admixture is a material—other than water, aggregates, cementitious materials, and fiber reinforcement—used as an ingredient 

of a cementitious mixture to modify its freshly mixed, setting, or hardened properties and that is added to the concrete before or 

during its mixing.

8 This workshop was sponsored by the National Concrete Pavement Technology Center and the National Science Foundation, in 

cooperation with the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee of the U.S. National Science and Technology 

Council, through the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (Taylor et al. 2007).

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 92 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
stand to similarly benefit from increased demand for concrete that may be driven by 

nanotechnology. 

In addition to chemical and material producers, owners and end users of the constructed 

infrastructure could gain long-term economic benefits. For example, infrastructure constructed 

of nano-based concrete is expected to last longer and require less maintenance, leading to 

lower life-cycle costs and freeing resources that would otherwise be used for maintenance, 

repair, and reconstruction costs. In addition, economic benefits may be realized in terms of 

decreased user costs as motorists, for example, experience fewer delays on roads that are in 

better repair and less congested from maintenance and reconstruction work.

Enhancing U.S. Competiveness in the Years Ahead: Changing U.S. regulations, policy, and 

standards could increase demand for new nano-enhanced concrete, thereby stimulating 

innovation in the United States—and potentially strengthening the U.S.’s competitive position 

vis-à-vis other nations. 

Regulations–Many experts we spoke with said that procurement regulations, such as those that 

state highway agencies use for construction projects, generally discourage use of proprietary 

products to ensure competition in the contracting process and require that awards be made to 

the lowest bidder. In addition, one expert noted that while these highway agencies might 

welcome new technologies, they are hesitant to use them absent sufficient evidence of past 

performance. As a result, contractors are reluctant to base their bids on use of proprietary 

materials—such as those needed to produce nano-concretes—because they may be more 

expensive and lack sufficient performance data. However, the Federal Highway 

Administration—which provides funding to states for highway construction and maintenance 

activities—recently changed its policy to allow states to use bid adjustment factors based on lifecycle-cost analyses in awarding federally funded pavement contracts, and experts said that 

some states are using procurement approaches that base contract award decisions on 

achieving lowest life-cycle cost. These actions indicate that states are beginning to take steps 

to address the challenges identified above by being more willing to bear higher initial costs of 

using nano-based concrete and writing contracts that provide greater flexibility for use of 

innovative approaches and materials. 

Policy–Public policy decisions may affect the extent to which certain construction materials are 

used, as described by two examples. First, one expert said that policies to limit the carbon 

dioxide (CO2) load on the environment could affect the pace at which new nano-based concrete 

materials are developed and implemented. In that cement production accounts for about 5 

percent of global CO2 emissions, using nano-based substitutes for traditional cement in 

concrete mixes can contribute to imposing a lower burden on the environment (Worrell et al. 

2001). Second, as efforts evolve to allow greater use of private ventures to build, operate, and 

maintain infrastructure such as toll roads, concession winners might choose to use 

nanomaterials, higher initial cost notwithstanding, due to expectations of more economical 

performance over time.

Standards–Construction standards—typically incorporated into construction contract 

specifications—are important tools for defining acceptable characteristics of construction 

materials and the means by which they are used and tested. Having standards specific to 

nano-based concretes would help address the challenges identified above, for example, by 

providing information to workers handling the material and to designers in determining if locally 

available raw materials are suitable for use. Experts we spoke with said that while standards are 

necessary, changing them is a slow process because multiple stakeholders must reach 

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 93 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
agreement. Expediting change to standards, therefore, could help promote the use of 

innovative materials such as nano-based concretes.

Experts noted that compared to other countries, U.S. efforts to promote competitiveness are 

less apparent. For example, one expert said that China established a national technology 

center to improve its competitiveness and domestic production of high-value, nano-based 

construction products. Another expert said that while U.S. agencies such as the National 

Science Foundation promote strong fundamental research, the focus might not be on 

construction materials. This expert suggested a more prominent role for the National Science 

Foundation in construction materials research, which would include nanotechnology-based 

concrete materials.

Outlook for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects: Construction is labor intensive and 

generally done outdoors; therefore, as noted by the Transportation Research Board (Birgisson 

et al. 2010), nano-modified materials must be examined for their effects on health and the 

environment should they be released or leached from the concrete. Experts we spoke with who 

were familiar with environmental, health, and safety (EHS) issues expressed concerns, ranging 

from moderate to severe, about the effect of nanomaterials on workers’ health, the public, and 

the environment and said that more information is needed on EHS implications. One expert 

explained that no guidelines are available for selecting clothing or other apparel to prevent 

dermal exposure to nanomaterials primarily because data available on the efficacy of existing 

protective clothing is minimal.9

 This expert added that the current hesitation in using 

nanotechnology could be attributed, in part, to experience using materials like asbestos that 

were useful but turned out to be very harmful to health. Other experts argued that industrial 

hygiene approaches work well for nanomaterials, but there is a need to increase awareness of 

nanomaterials among employers and workers. These experts were particularly concerned about 

secondary workers (those installing/applying nano-enabled products), who may not use 

protective equipment or strong industrial hygiene practices.

9 The main reason for concern is that nanomaterials are very fine in nature and hence they have very large surface areas. In 

general, the more surface area increases, the higher the chances of reaction and exposure.

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 94 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
Profile 4: Nanotechnology and the Future of Nanotherapeutics in Medicine 

Overview: According to experts, one of the most promising medical applications for 

nanotechnology is nanotherapeutics, the delivery of medicine using nanoparticles (particles 

having one or more dimensions on the order of 100 nanometers—100 billionth of a meter—or 

less). The potential of nanotherapeutics is the ability to target the delivery of drugs to specific 

cells—e.g., cancer cells—thereby reducing negative side effects. As one expert said, 

“nanotherapeutics has the potential to address problems in drug delivery for cancer and other 

diseases that cannot be solved using contemporary technologies.” (See fig. 23.)

Figure 23: Nanotherapeutics and Cancer Treatment

Although there are just a few nanotherapeutic drugs currently on the market, experts believe 

that more nanotherapeutic drugs are likely to come on the market in the next 7–10 years and 

that nanotherapeutic applications will continue to expand beyond cancer treatment to other 

conditions, such as infectious diseases, vascular disorders, and degenerative diseases. These 

statements are supported by a recent review that found that as of May 2011, there were about 

150 nanotherapeutic drugs in various stages of clinical study with a handful already approved, 

and that while cancer treatment was the leading application for these nanotherapeutics, there 

were other applications in development (Etheridge et al. 2013). Generally, the drug 

development process for nanotherapeutic drugs is the same as for conventional drugs and 

includes drug discovery, preclinical testing, clinical trials, and regulatory review. (See fig. 24.) 

Overall, estimates for the process can average up to 15 years (GAO 2006). 

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 95 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
Figure 24: Overview of Drug Development Process

Current U.S. Competitiveness: According to a European Commission, Joint Research Centre 

report, in 2008 the United States was the world leader in terms of patents for medical 

applications of nanotechnology (Wagner et al. 2008). (See fig. 25.) In terms of nanotherapeutic 

research, commercialization, and manufacturing, the experts we spoke with earlier this year 

said that the U.S. is dominant. They noted that while the volume of research from other 

countries has increased dramatically, U.S. research is among the best “if not the best in the 

world” for innovation and productivity, giving the U.S. a strong competitive advantage.

However, according to experts, the U.S.’s progress 

in nanotherapeutics could be hampered by 

challenges in the stages of the drug development 

process after drug discovery. Specifically, experts 

we interviewed said that while the U.S. is currently 

dominant in the commercialization and 

manufacturing of nanotherapeutics, these are 

potentially vulnerable areas because many of the 

efforts to commercialize nanotherapeutics are 

carried out by small companies. According to 

experts, small nanotherapeutic companies cannot 

typically sustain the costs of clinical trials and 

regulatory review. The experts said that in order to

make it through these later stages of the drug 

development process, small companies need 

financial support from government, private investors, and/or larger companies; they said that 

these types of funding are limited. In particular, they noted that private investors can be 

reluctant to invest in new drugs—and not just nanotherapeutic drugs—because of the resources 

and uncertainty associated with gaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.10 

According to experts, there are about 10 countries, including the U.S., making significant 

progress in researching or manufacturing nanotherapeutics. (See table 4.) Experts also said 

that many of these countries are making large investments into research; infrastructure; and 

science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education that will allow nanotherapeutics in 

those countries to make significant progress. 

10 The FDA is responsible for overseeing the safety and efficacy of drugs and biological products sold in the United 

States. FDA’s review process involves evaluating scientific and clinical data to determine whether a drug meets 

statutory and regulatory standards for safety and effectiveness, manufacturing and controls, and labeling. For 

example, sponsors must provide “substantial evidence” of effectiveness for the claimed indications of the drug in 

order for FDA to approve the drug. FDA encourages sponsors to establish early interactions with FDA.

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 96 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
Table 4: Countries Making Significant Progress in Nanotherapeutics 

North America Europe Asia a 

United States France

Italy

Germany

Russia

Switzerland

United Kingdom

China

Japan

South Korea

Source: Selected experts.

a 

Future Economic Importance: According to a recent research report, the global nanomedicine 

sector reached $43.2 billion in 2010 and $50.1 billion in 2011, and is projected to grow to $96.9 

billion by 2016 (BCC Research LLC 2012). According to this same report, the anticancer 

products segment of the global nanomedicine market is expected to reach $12.7 billion in 2016. 

Some of the experts we interviewed anticipated the following developments, which might tend to 

stimulate job growth:11

Experts said that European countries sometimes act as one unit on nanotechnology and that other times countries act individually. 

• New companies that facilitate early clinical trials, commercialization, and manufacturing.

• Expansion of contract research organizations skilled in nanotherapeutics.

• Continued growth of academic research (scientists and faculty) in nanotherapeutics.

Enhancing Competitiveness in the Years Ahead: According to experts, future U.S. 

competitiveness in nanotherapeutics will be affected primarily by the ability of the 

nanotherapeutic industry to secure sufficient funding, particularly for commercialization and 

manufacturing, and to have clear regulatory guidelines. For each of these areas, experts 

provided additional detail and examples of efforts that might enhance competitiveness.

The nanotherapeutic experts said that “funding drives everything” and that there are gaps in 

funding, particularly in the stages of the drug development process after drug discovery. To 

address these gaps, experts suggested that the federal government explore ways to fund 

nanotherapeutics at all stages, not just the research that happens during the drug discovery 

stage. 

• Federal funds for commercialization and manufacturing of nanotherapeutics. Whether 

through expansion of SBIR grants or other mechanisms such as favorable tax incentives for 

small start-ups, experts suggested the federal government dedicate more funds to the 

commercialization and manufacturing of nanotherapeutics. 

• Creative funding mechanisms such as public private partnerships and funding from 

philanthropic organizations. Experts said that other countries and regions—such as Europe 

and South Korea—have more diversified government funding mechanisms that allow for 

funding industry and industry-academia collaborations. 

• Private investments in nanotherapeutics. According to experts, private investors are 

reluctant to devote funds to nanotherapeutics because of the time, money, and uncertainty 

11 According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012, the overall U.S. pharmaceutical and medicinemanufacturing industry was estimated to employ almost 270,000 people. 

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 97 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
associated with bringing drugs to market. Experts said that perhaps the federal government 

could create favorable incentives to encourage investors to take risks. 

Experts said that clearly defined regulations and standards will benefit the development of 

nanotherapeutics. According to some experts, if U.S. regulations and standards are ambiguous, 

this could drive companies to other countries.12 As with any new product or technology, it will be 

important to continue to balance the need to advance new nanotherapeutic technologies with 

the need to ensure the safety of new products. FDA said that in its regulation of nanomaterials, 

it “intends to ensure transparent and predictable regulatory pathways grounded in the best 

available science.” Furthermore, FDA said it believes the current frameworks for evaluating the 

safety of FDA-regulated products are “sufficiently robust and flexible to be appropriate for a 

variety of products, including those that make use of nanomaterials.” 

• FDA regulations. FDA recently released guidance on the agency’s approach for regulating 

nanotechnology products. FDA said it will consider releasing additional guidance as needed 

and that the agency is investing in its scientific capabilities regarding the regulation of 

nanotechnology.

• FDA international coordination. International coordination of regulatory efforts for 

nanotherapeutics is also important. According to some experts we interviewed, if other 

countries have less stringent regulations, they may have an advantage in bringing 

nanotherapeutics to the market faster. However, it should be noted that a 2011 analysis 

compared the FDA’s review time for new oncology drugs to the European Medicines 

Agency’s (EMA) review time and found that the FDA’s median review time was shorter than 

EMA’s (Roberts et al. 2011). Furthermore, as mentioned, it is paramount that the need to 

advance new technologies be balanced with the need to ensure the safety of new products. 

FDA said that it works with its international counterparts to “share perspectives and 

information on the regulation of nanotechnology products and their intended uses” and to 

develop nanotechnology-related technical standards. 

Some experts also cited talent recruitment to STEM education as a challenge to the U.S.’s 

competitiveness; these experts said that unless the U.S. produces more graduates in STEM, we 

will begin to lag behind other countries.

Outlook for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects: Generally, the nanotherapeutic 

experts we talked with said they do not believe there is a reason to be significantly more 

concerned about nanotechnology products—such as nanotherapeutics—than other products 

associated with new technologies. Other experts in environmental, health, and safety (EHS) 

risks whom we spoke to stressed the importance of assessing risks across the life cycle of 

these products, including risks to those who administer the drugs and the fate of the materials. 

One expert noted that because nanotherapeutics will be more targeted than traditional drugs, 

the quantity needed will be reduced, a reduction that could potentially reduce exposure as well. 

The expert also said that it should be possible to develop a predictive model for 

nanotherapeutics based on the large amount of screening data obtained to date; FDA and other 

agencies have identified the need for this work in their strategic planning.

12 However, one expert said that because of the complexity of manufacturing nanotherapeutics, the offshoring of 

nanotherapeutics will be slower than for other types of drugs. 

Appendix IV: Forward-Looking Profiles of Four 

Nanotechnology Industries

Page 98 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology

Page 99 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

This report summarizing discussions at the July 23-24, 2013, forum was 

produced through a multiphase process. The three main phases were: (1) 

selecting and inviting forum participants, who had a wide range of 

expertise and views, with the assistance of the National Academies; (2) 

developing a pre-forum Reading Package that included four 

nanomanufacturing industry profiles, and sending this to participants on 

July 12, in advance of the forum; (3) holding the forum, preparing an initial 

post-forum summary of the forum’s discussions, submitting that summary 

to participants for their review, and considering and, as appropriate, 

incorporating the participants’ responses and comments. Most of the 

initial summary was incorporated in the final draft of this report, which was 

sent to two outside experts for their review. The following sections 

discuss our approach to the three main phases outlined above, as well as 

covering other relevant issues, such as our selection and report of policy 

relevant topics, data reliability, the report’s discussion of “considerations 

going forward,” and disclosure.

To prepare for the Comptroller General forum, we contracted with the 

National Academies to assist us in participant selections. We met with 

National Research Council staff to help ensure balance and to assess 

potential conflicts of interest for forum participants.

In our initial discussions with the National Research Council staff, we 

agreed that forum participants should:

• as a group represent a range of backgrounds, experience, and 

knowledge in terms of representing (1) academia, business, 

government, and other sources, such as nonpartisan think tanks; (2) 

experience with research on and manufacturing of nanoparticles 

(including development of manufacturing methods); (3) diverse 

professional backgrounds with regard to knowledge in areas of 

science, economics, innovation policy, global competitiveness, 

manufacturing, foresight, and potential nanotechnology impacts on 

the environment, health, and safety;1

 

1 We also decided that the group as a whole should have representation across our four 

nanomanufacturing profile areas: (a) semiconductors, (b) nano-batteries for vehicles, (c)

nano-based cement/concrete, and (d) drug delivery for cancer treatment, as well as other 

areas. 

Appendix V: Scope and Methodology

Forum Participant 

Selection
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology

Page 100 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

• from an individual perspective, be able to address topics such as (1) 

U.S. and other nations’ investments in nanotechnology; (2) R&D 

commercialization and scale-up; (3) the challenges to 

nanomanufacturing that the U.S. currently faces; (4) the future of 

nanotechnology and the economic importance of nanomanufacturing

(e.g., whether or why future competitiveness in nanomanufacturing is 

important); and (5) what factors (e.g., STEM education or other 

infrastructure factors) are key to future U.S. competitiveness in 

nanomanufacturing; and

• further, include individuals so that the group would represent (1) 

diverse economic views on innovation policy, (2) knowledge about 

selected specific new initiatives that might enhance the future of nanomanufacturing competitiveness in the United States, and (3) diverse 

perspectives on the outlook for the environment, safety, and health 

implications of nanomanufacturing.

Our alternative criteria for defining experts in nanomanufacturing included 

the following (1) significant positions in organization(s) relevant to 

nanomanufacturing issues, including relevant manufacturing firms; (2) 

authorship of papers in professional journals or other substantial 

publications, relevant to nanomanufacturing issues; or (3) inclusion as 

speakers selected to appear on an expert panel or make key-note

presentations relevant to nanomanufacturing issues. Each selected 

expert met one or more of these criteria.

To implement final selections for Comptroller General forum participants, 

first, the National Academies identified potential participants based on the 

criteria listed above. We and the National Academies then met again to 

discuss the National Academies’ list of potential participants along with 

other participants whom we felt met the requisite qualifications. This 

phased strategy allowed the National Academies an opportunity to 

independently identify and internally discuss potential invitees before we 

shared suggestions for potential invitees. This phased strategy was 

employed to bring increased independence to the selection process; 

however, we made final determinations regarding participant selections.

To develop background for the forum participants, we selected four 

industry areas of nanomanufacturing for which we created expert-based, 

forward-looking profiles of nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing 

activity—with attention to four policy relevant topics. The 

nanomanufacturing areas we selected for expert-based profiling 

correspond to four of the nine non-defense industry areas listed by the 

Creation of 

Nanomanufacturing 

Industry Profiles, as ReadAhead Material
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology

Page 101 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

National Nanomanufacturing Network (NNN) (see table 1 in the 

Introduction to this report).

In selecting these four nanomanufacturing areas for profiling, we 

consulted with a leading expert; our goal was to select four areas to (1) 

illustrate cross-industry variation in both the current pervasiveness of 

nanoproducts and the nanomanufacturing competitiveness of the United 

States in a global context and (2) to show that nanomanufacturing is 

relevant to industries that differ in terms of other factors, such as general 

levels of technological sophistication and rates of change. Based on 

application of these criteria and expert consultation, we chose (a) 

semiconductors, (b) nano-enhanced batteries for vehicles, (c) nanobased cement and concrete, and (d) drug delivery for cancer treatment.

For each of the four profiled nanomanufacturing areas, GAO analysts (1) 

conducted a preliminary literature review and created an initial short 

summary of what is known about nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing 

in the area, and (2) deployed a semi-structured interview protocol with 

four to eight expert-interviewees (per profile). The expert-interviewees 

who were selected to help us create the four profiles were selected from 

industry, government, and academia. The interview protocol included 

questions about the expert’s views of current U.S. competitiveness, 

foresight questions about how nanotechnology research and 

manufacturing might develop in the coming years, opinion questions 

about ways of enhancing U.S. competitiveness, and questions on the 

outlook for environment, health and safety (EHS) aspects of 

nanomanufacturing. A final question asked each interviewee about any 

additional items, topics, or concerns they would like to share with us that 

had not been covered in our interview protocol.

After conducting the interviews, GAO analysts and specialists created a 

draft profile for each selected nanomanufacturing area, reflecting the 

experts’ opinions as well as some material from literature. These draft 

profiles were further enhanced with added information on EHS aspects 

from a separate set of interviews with experts. Each of the four drafts was 

sent to two groups for review: (1) stakeholders within GAO representing 

different policy areas and (2) the original expert-interviewees. Comments 

from stakeholders and the expert-interviewees were incorporated in the 

profiles as appropriate. Finally, because experts interviewed about 

nanotherapeutics mentioned issues related to FDA, we sought responses 

to some questions from FDA, later provided FDA with a draft of the 

nanotherapeutics profile for review, and considered FDA’s comments.
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology

Page 102 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

The resulting four nanomanufacturing profiles were shared with invitees in 

advance of the Comptroller General’s forum. The four profiles are also 

included in this report (app. IV presents the profiles). The profiles were 

not designed to be comprehensive or definitive; instead, they were 

developed to provide information that could stimulate discussion among 

an array of experts representing scientific, economic, policy, and business 

perspectives. The profiles were also intended to give readers information 

about the various ways in which nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing 

are being used and could potentially be used in future years as well as to 

help put forum findings in context.

A list of the experts whom we consulted (in addition to forum participants) 

regarding the four nanomanufacturing profiles and other issues related to 

the forum is included in appendix III. Additionally, we interviewed a 

recently retired government official with expert knowledge of the 

semiconductor industry, who asked not to be listed by name, and in 

obtaining background information (for example, suggestions for experts to 

interview), we and National Research Council staff members talked briefly 

with additional experts.

The Comptroller General forum was held on July 23-24, 2013, at the GAO 

headquarters building. The forum was recorded and the discussion was 

transcribed. After the forum was held, we prepared a written summary of 

the discussions and sent this to participants asking for their comments. 

Briefly:

• Twenty-three of the 26 external (non-GAO) participants responded to 

our query.

2 Twenty-two of the 23 respondents concurred overall that 

the draft summary represented participants’ remarks at the forum. The 

twenty-third respondent did not comment on the overall summary but 

did offer specific comments.

• Of the 22 concurring overall, one stated that worker safety issues 

merited further discussion in our initial summary. Other respondents 

had minor comments that suggested we expand the text, deepen 

certain areas, or include a specific point. We incorporated these 

comments as appropriate.

 

2 In addition to the 26 external participants, GAO’s Chief Scientist and Chief Economist 

participated as experts (see app. II). 

Comptroller General 

Forum and Participant 

Follow-up
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology

Page 103 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

• Three forum participants did not respond with any comments on the 

summary.

Finally, we followed up with some forum participants to develop first-hand 

examples of some key points raised by participants in the meeting, 

references to relevant literature, and so forth.

Forum participants were not polled, and votes were not taken on positions 

at the forum. Rather, we reviewed meeting transcripts and interacted with 

participants after the meeting to summarize the discussion and prepare 

this report. In this report,

• The term “various participants” or “varied participants” generally 

means (1) we are aware that there was not evidence of a full 

agreement or consensus on the topics discussed, and (2) multiple 

participants made slightly different points that went to the larger 

point(s) we reported. In these cases after the main point is made, the 

report then usually details varied points made (including any 

countervailing/minority viewpoints if these were expressed at the 

forum). 

• The term “multiple participants” generally indicates that more than one 

participant said something supporting a general point and that the 

views in support of the point were relatively uniform.

• Implicit forum consensus is generally termed “participants said” or 

“participants agreed” in view of the fact that 22 of the 26 external 

participants agreed with the initial written summary that we sent to 

participants after the forum was held.3

Based on a congressional request regarding nanotechnology 

manufacturing and initial discussions with experts, we identified relevant 

policy topics concerning nanotechnology manufacturing that we 

determined would be examined in a GAO Comptroller General forum. The 

 

3

As stated above, of the four external forum participants not counted as agreeing with the 

initial written summary, one responded by providing specific comments but did not 

specifically indicate agreement or disagreement overall; the other three did not respond to 

our inquiry.

Selection and Report of 

Policy Relevant Topics
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology

Page 104 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

forum agenda we created (which is included as app. I of this report), was 

designed to allow for considerable open discussion and flexibility.

Following the forum, we first identified four key topics for organizing 

material discussed, then sent our initial summary to participants, and 

subsequently promulgated this report. The four policy relevant topics we 

selected were (1) the future importance of nanomanufacturing; (2) U.S. 

investments and competitiveness in nanotechnology R&D and U.S. 

competitiveness in nanomanufacturing; (3) approaches to enhancing U.S. 

nanomanufacturing competitiveness in the years ahead; and (4) the 

outlook for nanomanufacturing and nanotechnology with respect to 

environmental, health, and safety (EHS) aspects.

Because the Comptroller General forum was designed to address 

foresight issues involving nanotechnology manufacturing, it was 

necessary to interview experts and select forum participants who were on 

the cutting edge of nanotechnology. Given the need to obtain expertise 

from professionals in the field of nanotechnology and related science and 

policy areas, we could not avoid seeking the expertise of individuals 

whose professional reputations and economic interests might be affected 

by future developments in nanotechnology manufacturing.

Recognizing that the industry-area profiles we produced may reflect the 

views of interviewees who are in a position to benefit from increased 

government funding or other supportive efforts (as well as the views of 

government interviewees), we encouraged forum participants to maintain 

an awareness of the interviewees’ perspectives when considering these 

profiles. For this reason, our pre-forum communications to forum 

participants included a disclaimer to this effect. 

Additionally, the introduction to this report includes a similar disclaimer 

concerning forum participants. Notwithstanding this disclaimer, we took 

additional steps to exercise due diligence and to understand forum 

participants’ potential conflicts of interest. We asked all forum participants 

to sign a form, which asked participants about their perspectives and 

circumstances. Specifically, we asked participants (1) whether they or 

their immediate family had any investments or assets that could be 

affected, in a direct and predictable way, by a decision or action based on 

the information or opinions they would provide to us; (2) whether they or 

their spouse receive any income or hold any organizational positions that 

could be affected, in a direct and predictable way, by the information or 

opinions they would provide us; (3) whether there were any other 

Independence of 

Interviewees and Forum 

Participants
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology

Page 105 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

circumstances, not addressed in the two previous questions, that could 

be reasonably viewed by others as affecting participant viewpoints on the 

topics to be discussed. We received acceptable signed responses from 

all forum participants to these queries.

Some of the quantitative data presented in this report are included, as 

background, in the Introduction or the four industry profiles. Data in these 

portions of the product are presented to provide context for readers. With 

respect to quantitative data in the main sections of the report, we did 

assess the reliability of budgetary figures and the data on country by 

country comparisons of public investments in nanotechnology and data 

on the authorship of scientific journal articles on the topic of 

nanotechnology. We found that the public investment data should be 

presented with a caveat and used graphical methods to convey 

uncertainty—because these data did meet our usual criteria for displaying 

data in a conventional manner.

With regard to public investment estimates and projections, different 

countries have different organizations and institutions that measure and 

administer public nanotechnology investments. These country-specific 

organizations and institutions do not use uniform measurement or 

technology categorization standards. Moreover, not all countries report 

such data publicly. Although the underlying figures for Germany, Japan, 

Russia, and China were adjusted for purchasing power parity to ensure 

that currency variations do not contribute to the non-uniformity in 

measurement, the data (as we explain) still lack precision. Consequently, 

measuring country by country public investments in nanotechnology is

difficult.4 Notwithstanding these issues we felt it was still important to 

convey the relative magnitude in public investment from some specific 

countries.

To visually communicate the lack of precision in international 

nanotechnology R&D funding projections, we used techniques consistent 

with those explained in Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, 

Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate 

 

4 For this reason, this report includes a participant’s suggestion for increased international 

cooperation on standards and data collection and reporting in order to improve our 

knowledge of the economics of nanotechnology. 

Data Reliability
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology

Page 106 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Decisionmaking (Morgan et al. 2009), in consultation with experts as 

described below.

Because of the uncertainty of the data underlying the projections, it would 

have been inappropriate for us to display specific end points in a bar chart

representing these projections. Instead, we used shading techniques 

consistent with approaches used by Morgan and others as a way to 

graphically convey the uncertainty (that is, the lack of precision) in the 

underlying data. In each of the bars, the lack of specific end points is 

used to ensure that our report does not convey or imply a precise or 

specific amount of monetary investment for each country represented, 

because the non-uniformity of organizational structures and measurement 

techniques does not allow for such precision.

The types of imprecision were discussed with (1) one scientific 

organization and (2) two experts not affiliated with that organization. They 

stated that although figures for Germany and Japan were not precise, 

they were relatively more certain than data for public investments in 

Russia and China. This is why our graph shows projections for Germany 

and Japan in a deeper shade of blue. The presentation of data for Russia 

and China is complicated for the reasons listed above and, according to 

experts we spoke with, based upon a less transparent public disclosure of 

applicable information. For this reason, the data for Russia and China are 

relatively less certain than for Germany and Japan, and are presented in 

a lighter shade of blue to indicate less certainty.

This non-audit engagement was designed to represent the viewpoints of 

experts who were selected to participate in the Comptroller General 

forum. We selected the experts with assistance from the National 

Academy of Sciences to ensure balance and representation of a wide 

range of significant viewpoints. We do not present formal 

recommendations addressed directly to executive branch agencies for 

their acceptance or rejection, nor do we present formal Matters for 

Congressional Consideration. However, we do discuss considerations 

going forward based on participants’ views.

Forum attendees and other experts were informed that we would not 

directly identify individuals or their affiliations in association with specific 

comments (without their permission) and this product does not do so.

Discussion of 

Considerations Going 

Forward

Disclosure
Appendix VI: Examples of “Transforming 

General Purpose Technologies”

Page 107 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

A 2005 assessment of economic transformations included the below 

table, which lists examples of transforming general purpose technologies 

and includes nanotechnology as the most recent example.

No. Transforming general purpose technologies Date Classification a

1 Domestication of plants 9,000–8,000 BC Process

2 Domestication of animals 8,500–7,500 BC Process b

3 Smelting of ore 8,000–7,000 BC Process

4 Wheel 4,000–3,000 BC Product c

5 Writing 3,400–3,200 BC Process 

6 Bronze 2,800 BC Product

7 Iron 1,200 BC Product

8 Waterwheel Early medieval period Product

9 Three-masted sailing ship 15th century Product

10 Printing 16th century Process 

11 Steam engine Late 18th to early 19th century Product

12 Factory system Late 18th to early 19th century Organizational

13 Railway Mid 19th century Product

14 Iron steamship Mid 19th century Product

15 Internal combustion engine Late 19th century Product

16 Electricity Late 19th century Product

17 Motor vehicle 20th century Product

18 Airplane 20th century Product

19 Mass-production, continuous-process factory 20th century d Organizational

20 Computer 20th century Product

21 Lean production 20th century Organizational

22 Internet 20th century Product

23 Biotechnology 20th century Process 

24 Nanotechnology 21st century e Process 

Source: Lipsey et al. 2005, 132.

Note: Lipsey et al. (2005, 98) define a general purpose technology as “a single generic technology, 

recognizable as such over its whole lifetime, that initially has much scope for improvement and 

eventually comes to be widely used, to have many uses, and to have many spillover effects.” 

The table notes below are quoted verbatim from this publication.

a ”Many of these dates are approximate and based on rough estimates of when their use in the West 

became widespread enough for the technology to be identified as a general purpose technology from 

contemporary experience, although many were first innovated centuries and even millennia ago.” 

b 

Appendix VI: Examples of “Transforming 

General Purpose Technologies” 

“We [Lipsey et al.] include items 1 and 2 but not more modern agricultural developments because 

the domestication of plants and animals were truly generic developments with many uses that go far 

beyond food to such things as clothing, containers, shelter, transport, and power (many of which are 
Appendix VI: Examples of “Transforming 

General Purpose Technologies”

Page 108 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

still being worked out), while later innovations had a much narrower range of mainly agricultural 

uses.” 

c 

“There is little evidence regarding the origins of the wheel, but it was certainly not in use before the 

agricultural revolution and was in common use by about 3000 BC.” 

d “Although continuous process techniques began to evolve with the rationalization that followed the 

electrification of factories in the late 19th century, we date the emergence of mass production as a 

general purpose technology at Henry Ford’s innovations in the first decade of the 20th century.” 

e “Nanotechnology has yet to make its presence felt as a general purpose technology, but its potential 

is so obvious and developing so quickly that we [Lipsey et al.] are willing to accept that it is on its way 

to being one of the most pervasive general purpose technologies of the 21st century.” 
Appendix VII: List of References

Page 109 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Bainbridge, William Sims, and Mihail C. Roco. 2006. “Progressive 

Convergence.” Chapter 1 in Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Innovations: 

Converging Technologies in Society. Edited by Bainbridge, William Sims, 

and Mihail C. Roco. Netherlands: Springer: 1–8.

Berger, Suzanne. 2013a. “Production in the Innovation Economy: Preview 

of MIT’s major new report on Manufacturing.” Presentation at the National 

Academies: Washington, D.C., February 22.

Berger, Suzanne. 2013b. Making in America: From Innovation to Market. 

Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

BCC Research LLC. 2012. Nanotechnology in Medical Applications: The 

Global Market. Report Code. HLC069B. Wellesley, Massachusetts: BCC 

Research LLC, January.

Birgisson, Björn, Peter Taylor, Jamshid Armaghani, and Surendra P. 

Shah. 2010. “American Road Map for Research for NanotechnologyBased Concrete Materials.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of 

the Transportation Research Board, No. 2142. Washington, D.C.: 

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies: 130–137.

Birgisson, Björn, Anal K. Mukhopadhyay, Georgene Geary, Mohammad 

Khan, and Konstantin Sobolev. 2012. “Nanotechnology in Concrete 

Materials: A Synopsis.” Transportation Research Circular. E-C170. 

Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, December.

Boadway, Robin W., and David E. Wildasin. 1984. Public Sector 

Economics. Revised edition. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Bradley, Jurron. 2010. “The Recession’s Impact on Nanotechnology.” The

Lux Research Analyst Blog, February 4. (Based on the Lux Research 

report, The Recession’s Ripple Effect on Nanotech: State of the Market 

Report. Boston, Massachusetts: Lux Research, Inc., June 9, 2009.) 

Bullis, Kevin. 2012. “A123’s Technology Just Wasn’t Good Enough: 

Taking on Established Battery Makers and Making Electric Vehicles 

Mainstream Will Require Far More Radical Advances.” MIT Technology 

Review, October 18.

Cefic aisbl. 2012. Facts and Figures 2012: The European Chemicals 

Industry in Worldwide Perspective. Brussels, Belgium: Cefic—The 

European Chemical Industries Council.

Appendix VII: List of References
Appendix VII: List of References

Page 110 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Christensen, Clayton M. 2012a. “A Capitalist’s Dilemma, Whoever Wins 

on Tuesday.” The New York Times, November 4.

Christensen, Clayton M. 2012b. “The New Church of Finance: Deeply 

Held Belief Systems and Complex Codes Must Be Changed.” Deseret 

News, December 9.

Christensen, Clayton M., and Michael E. Raynor. 2003. The Innovator’s 

Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, 

Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Christensen, Clayton M., Richard Bohmer, and John Kenagy. 2000. “Will 

Disruptive Innovations Cure Health Care?” Harvard Business Review 78 

(5), September/October: 102–112.

Cientifica, Ltd. 2013. Data provided to GAO, March.

Clogg, Clifford C. 1979. Measuring Underemployment: Demographic 

Indicators for the United States. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Council on Competitiveness. 2007. Competitiveness Index: Where 

America Stands. Washington, D.C.: Council on Competitiveness,

January.

Etheridge, Michael L., Stephen A. Campbell, Arthur G. Erdman, Christy L. 

Haynes, Susan M. Wolf, and Jeffrey McCullough. 2013. “The Big Picture 

on Nanomedicine: The State of Investigational and Approved 

Nanomedicine Products.” Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology, and 

Medicine 9 (1): 1–14.

Executive Office of the President 2012. Report to the President on 

Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing. 

Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President, July.

Freeman, Laura. 1996. “Job Creation and the Emerging Home Computer 

Market.” Monthly Labor Review, August: 46–56.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2006. New Drug 

Development: Science, Business, Regulatory, and Intellectual Property 

Issues Cited as Hampering Drug Development Efforts. GAO-07-49. 

Washington, D.C.: GAO, November 17.
Appendix VII: List of References

Page 111 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2010a. Best Practices: 

DOD Can Achieve Better Outcomes by Standardizing the Way 

Manufacturing Risks are Managed. GAO-10-439. Washington, DC: GAO, 

April 22.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2010b. Nanotechnology: 

Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA Faces 

Challenges in Regulating Risk. GAO-10-549. Washington, D.C.: GAO, 

May 25.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2011a. Small Business

Innovation Research: SBA Should Work with Agencies to Improve the 

Data Available for Program Evaluation. GAO-11-698. Washington, D.C.: 

GAO, August 15.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2011b. Technology 

Assessment: Neutron Detectors: Alternatives to Using Helium-3. 

GAO-11-753. Washington, D.C.: GAO, September 29.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2012a. Nanotechnology: 

Improved Performance Information Needed for Environmental, Health, 

and Safety Research. GAO-12-427. Washington, D.C.: GAO, May 21.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2012b. Materials and 

Practices for Improving Pavement Performance. GAO-13-32R. 

Washington, D.C.: GAO, November 14.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2013a. Global 

Manufacturing: Foreign Government Programs Differ in Some Key 

Respects from Those in the United States. GAO-13-365. Washington, 

D.C.: GAO, July 25.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2013b. International 

Regulatory Cooperation: Agency Efforts Could Benefit from Increased 

Collaboration and Interagency Guidance. GAO-13-588. Washington, 

D.C.: GAO, August 1.

Hassellöv, Martin, and Ralf Kaegi. 2009. “Analysis and Characterization 

of Manufactured Nanoparticles in Aquatic Environments.” Chapter 6 in 

Environmental and Human Health Impacts of Nanotechnology, by Jamie 

R. Lead and Emma Smith. West Sussex, United Kingdom: Blackwell 

Publishing Ltd.: 211–266.
Appendix VII: List of References

Page 112 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Hirsch, Jerry. 2013. “Hybrid Vehicle Sales Speed Up: Fueled by Higher 

Gasoline Prices, a Growing Track Record for Reliability and a Wider 

Selection of Models, Hybrids’ Share of the U.S. Auto Market Climbs to 4% 

and Could Double by Decade’s End.” Los Angeles Times, March 29.

Holman, Michael. 2007. “Nanotechnology’s Impact on Consumer 

Products.” (Slide presentation at a meeting organized by the DirectorateGeneral for Health and Consumers, European Commission, October 25, 

2007.) New York, New York: Lux Research, Inc.

IDTech Ex. 2013. “ORNL Research Paves Way for Larger, Safer Lithium 

Ion Batteries.” IDTechEx, electricvehiclesresearch.com, March 27.

Khushf, George. 2007. “The Ethics of NBIC Convergence.” Journal of 

Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of 

Medicine 32 (3): 185–196.

LaMonica, Martin. 2012. “Startup Envia Battery Promises to Slash EV 

Costs.” CNET Tech News, February 26.

Langdon, David, and Rebecca Lehrman. 2012. “The Benefits of 

Manufacturing Jobs.” ESA Issue Brief #01-12. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, May.

Lipsey, Richard G., Kenneth Carlaw, and Clifford Bekar. 2005. Economic 

Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-term 

Economic Growth. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Manykia, James, Jeff Sinclair, Richard Dobbs, Gernot Strube, Louis 

Rassey, Jan Mischke, Jaana Remes, Charles Roxburgh, Katy George, 

David O'Halloran, and Sreenivas Ramaswamy. 2012. Manufacturing the 

Future: The Next Era of Global Growth and Innovation. McKinsey Global 

Institute, November.

MarketLine—Industry Report. 2012. October 19, 2012.

Mazov, Ilya, Vladimir Kuznetsov, Anatoly Romanenko, and Valentin 

Suslyaev. 2012. “Properties of MWNT-Containing Polymer Composite 

Materials Depending on Their Structure.” Chapter 3 in Composites and 

Their Properties. Edited by Ning Hu. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech: 37–60.

Mehta, Manish. 2010a. 2009 NCMS Study of Nanotechnology in the U.S. 

Manufacturing Industry. Final Report. Prepared under NSF Award 
Appendix VII: List of References

Page 113 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Number DMI-0802026. Ann Arbor, Michigan: National Center for 

Manufacturing Sciences, August 23.

Mehta, Manish. 2010b. “2009 NCMS Study of Nanotechnology in the U.S. 

Manufacturing Industry.” Slides presented at NSERC Grantees 

Conference. Arlington, Virginia, December 7.

Mongillo, John. 2007. Nanotechnology 101. Westport, Connecticut: 

Greenwood Press.

Morgan, M. Granger, Hadi Dowlatabadi, Max Henrion, David Keith, 

Robert Lempert, Sandra McBride, Mitchell Small, and Thomas Wilbanks, 

eds. 2009. Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating, 

and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decisionmaking. 

Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2. Report by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 

January.

Morse, Jeffrey D. (ed.). 2011. Nanofabrication Processes for Roll-to-Roll 

Processing: Report from the NIST-NNN Workshop. Workshop on 

Nanofabrication Technologies for Roll-to-Roll Processing. Seaport 

Convention Center, Seaport Boston Hotel, Boston, Massachusetts,

September 27-28.

National Research Council. 2012. Building the U.S. Battery Industry for 

Electric Drive Vehicles: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities: 

Summary of a Symposium. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. 2013. Research Progress on Environmental, 

Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Materials. Prepublication copy. 

Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, September 13.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 2013a. 

“Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers.” Current 

Intelligence Bulletin 65. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2013-145. 

Cincinnati, Ohio: DHHS, April.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 2013b. 

Current Strategies for Engineering Controls in Nanomaterial Production 

and Downstream Handling Processes. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 

2014-102. Cincinnati, Ohio: DHHS, November.
Appendix VII: List of References

Page 114 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

ObservatoryNANO. 2012. “Public Funding of Nanotechnology.” Seventh 

Framework Programme (2007 to 2013). European Commission.

Office of Cancer Nanotechnology Research. 2010. Cancer 

Nanotechnology Plan. National Cancer Institute, Center for Strategic 

Scientific Initiatives (CSSI), National Institutes of Health. Publication No. 

11-7704. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health, November.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 

2007. “Competitive Regional Clusters: National Policy Approaches.” 

OECD Policy Brief. Paris, France: OECD Publishing, May.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 

2012. OECD Economic Surveys: United States 2012. Paris, France: 

OECD Publishing, June.

Persons, Timothy M. 2013. “Comptroller General Forum on 

Nanomanufacturing: Overview.” Slide presentation at the Comptroller 

General Forum on Nanomanufacturing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Accountability Office, July 23–24.

Pisano, Gary P., and Willy C. Shih. 2009. “Restoring American 

Competitiveness.” Global Competitiveness in the World, Special Issue. 

Harvard Business Review 87 (7-8) July-August: 114–125.

Price Waterhouse Coopers. 2013. Charging Forward: PWC’s 2012 

Electric Vehicle Survey. 

Roberts, Samantha A., Jeff D. Allen, and Ellen V. Sigal. 2011. “Despite 

Criticism of the FDA Review Process, New Cancer Drugs Reach Patients 

Sooner in the United States Than in Europe,” Health Affairs 30 (7): 1375–

1381.

Roco, Mihail C. 2013. “Global Investment Profile in Nanotechnology—

Comparing U.S. to Selected Economies.” Slide presentation at the 

Comptroller General Forum on Nanomanufacturing. U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, Washington, D.C., July 23.

Roco, Mihail C., and William S. Bainbridge. 2005. “Societal Implications of 

Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Maximizing Human Benefit.” Journal 

of Nanoparticle Research 7 (1) February: 1–13.
Appendix VII: List of References

Page 115 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Roco, Mihail C. and William S. Bainbridge. 2013. “The New World of 

Discovery, Invention, and Innovation: Convergence of Knowledge, 

Technology, and Society.” Journal of Nanoparticle Research 15 (9) 

September: 1-17.

Roco, Mihail C., Chad A. Mirkin, and Mark C. Hersam. 2011.

Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020: 

Retrospective and Outlook. New York: Springer Science+Business 

Media, 2011.

Rogers, Everett M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe, Illinois: Free 

Press. 

Roure, Françoise D. 2013. “The Global Investment Profile in 

Nanotechnology.” Slide presentation at the Comptroller General Forum 

on Nanomanufacturing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, July 23–24.

Rouse, Margaret. 2005. “Definition: Systems Thinking.” SearchCIO.com, 

October; accessed September 12, 2013, 

http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/systems-thinking. 

Shulaker, Max M., Gage Hills, Nishant Patil, Hai Wei, Hong-Yu Chen, H.-

S. Philip Wong, and Subhasish Mitra. 2013. “Carbon Nanotube 

Computer.” Nature 501 (7468) September 26: 526–530.

Taylor, Peter, Krishna Rajan, Björn Birgisson, and Tom Cackler. 2007. 

Report of the Workshop on Nanotechnology for Cement and Concrete. 

Center for Transportation Research and Education and the National 

Concrete Pavement Technology Center. Ames, Iowa: National Concrete 

Pavement Technology Center, September 5.

Tour, James. 2011. Testimony at hearing on “Oversight of the National

Nanotechnology Initiative and Priorities for the Future” before the 

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives. Serial No. 

112-15. 112th Congress, 1st Session, April 14, 2011. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, 2011: 54–58.

U.S. Government Accountability Office: please see GAO.

U.S. National Science and Technology Council. 2003. Supplement to the 

President’s 2004 Budget. 
Appendix VII: List of References

Page 116 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

U.S. National Science and Technology Council. 2005 through 2013. 

Supplements to the President’s 2006 though 2014 Budgets. Arlington, 

Virginia: National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.

U.S. National Science and Technology Council. 2013. The National 

Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s Budget for 

Fiscal Year 2014. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President, 

May.

Wagner, Volker, Bärbel Hüsing, Sibylle Gaisser, and Anne-Katrin Bock. 

2008. Nanomedicine: Drivers for Development and Possible Impacts. 

EUR 23494 EN. European Commission and Joint Research Centre. 

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European 

Communities.

Wessner, Charles W. (ed.). 2008. An Assessment of the SBIR Program. 

Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Wessner, Charles W. (ed.). 2013a. Best Practices in State and Regional 

Innovation Initiatives: Competing in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: 

The National Academies Press.

Wessner, Charles W. (Rapporteur). 2013b. Building the Illinois Innovation 

Economy: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, D.C.: The National 

Academies Press.

Wessner, Charles W. (Rapporteur). 2013c. Building the Ohio Innovation 

Economy: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, D.C.: The National 

Academies Press.

Wessner, Charles W. (Rapporteur). 2013d. Strengthening American 

Manufacturing: The Role of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership: 

Summary of a Symposium. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies 

Press. 

Wessner, Charles W., and Alan Wm. Wolff (eds.). 2012. Rising to the 

Challenge: U.S. Innovation Policy for the Global Economy. Washington, 

D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Whitefoot, Kate S., and Steve Olson (Rapporteurs). 2012. Making Value: 

Integrating Manufacturing, Design, and Innovation to Thrive in the 

Changing Global Economy: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: 

The National Academies Press.
Appendix VII: List of References

Page 117 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Worrell, Ernest, Lynn Price, Nathan Martin, Chris Hendriks, and Leticia 

Ozawa Meida. 2001. “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Global Cement 

Industry.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 26: 303–

329. 

Yadav, Vinita, Jonathan D. Freedman, Mark Grinstaff, and Ayusmen Sen. 

2013. “Bone-Crack Detection, Targeting, and Repair Using Ion 

Gradients.” Angewandte Chemie International Edition 52 (42) October 11: 

10977–11001.

Youtie, Jan, Maurizio Iacopetta, and Stuart Graham. 2008. “Assessing the 

Nature of Nanotechnology: Can We Uncover an Emerging General 

Purpose Technology?” Journal of Technology Transfer 33 (3) June: 315–

329.
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 118 GAO-14-181SP Forum on Nanomanufacturing

Timothy M. Persons, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, at (202) 512-6412 or 

personst@gao.gov

Other leadership for this project was provided by Judith A. Droitcour, 

Ph.D., Assistant Director, Applied Research and Methods (ARM), and 

Eric M. Larson, M.S.C.R.P., Ph.D., Analyst-in-Charge and Senior Analyst, 

ARM

Michael W. Armes, M.E., M.B.A., P.E., Assistant Director, Physical 

Infrastructure

Lorraine R. Ettaro, Ph.D., Senior Social Science Analyst, ARM Center for 

Design, Methods, and Analysis

Philip G. Farah, Ph.D. Assistant Director, ARM Center for Economics

Karen L. Howard, Ph.D., Senior Analyst, Health Care

Debra R. Johnson, M.B.A., Assistant Director, Financial Markets and 

Community Investment

Steve Martinez, M.S., Senior Analyst, Physical Infrastructure

Tind S. Ryen, M.S., Senior Analyst, Natural Resources and Environment

Susan E. Offutt, Ph.D., Chief Economist

Carol D. Petersen, Ph.D., Assistant Director, ARM Center for Economics

Anne O. Stevens, Ph.D. Senior Economist, ARM Center for Economics

Walter K. Vance, Ph.D., Assistant Director, ARM Center for Design, 

Methods and Analysis

Karin J. Wallestad, M.B.A., M.P.H., Senior Analyst, Health Care

Key engagement support, including arrangements for the forum, was 

provided by Juanita A. Aiken.

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO contacts

Key Contributors

(460627)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.