AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS 

AND TECHNOLOGY 

CENTER FOR NANOSCALE SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY

FISCAL YEAR 2016

Panel on Assessment of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at the

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Committee on NIST Technical Programs

Laboratory Assessments Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

A Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This study was supported by Contract No. SB1341-12-CQ-0036 with the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication 

do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency or organization that provided support for the project.

Digital Object Identifier: 10.17226/24631

Copies of this report are available from

Laboratory Assessments Board

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 928

Washington, DC 20001

Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, 

Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2016 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested Citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. An Assessment of 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology: Fiscal 

Year 2016. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24631.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by 

President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues 

related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding 

contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the 

National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. 

Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. 

Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 

1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical 

and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to 

medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and 

conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The 

National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding 

contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, 

engineering, and medicine. 

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at 

www.national-academies.org. 
Reports document the evidence-based consensus of an authoring committee of experts. 

Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information 

gathered by the committee and committee deliberations. Reports are peer reviewed and are 

approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Proceedings chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other 

convening event. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the 

participants and have not been endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or 

the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit 

nationalacademies.org/whatwedo.
v

PANEL ON ASSESSMENT OF THE CENTER FOR NANOSCALE SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

KANTI JAIN, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Chair

STEPHEN A. CAMPBELL, University of Minnesota 

JAMES J. COLEMAN, University of Texas, Dallas 

DANIEL J.C. HERR, University of North Carolina, Greensboro 

SERGEI V. KALININ, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

DANIEL LOPEZ, Argonne National Laboratory

OSKAR PAINTER, California Institute of Technology

ELSA REICHMANIS, Georgia Institute of Technology

KENNETH REIFSNIDER, University of Texas, Arlington

MARY TANG, Stanford University

ANIL V. VIRKAR, University of Utah

ALICE E. WHITE, Boston University

Staff

LIZA HAMILTON, Associate Program Officer

EVA LABRE, Administrative Coordinator

JAMES P. MCGEE, Director 

RENEE HAWKINS, Financial and Administrative Manager
vi

COMMITTEE ON NIST TECHNICAL PROGRAMS

ELSA REICHMANIS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Chair

LEWIS BRANSCOMB, University of California, San Diego

WILLIAM C. GEAR, NEC Research Institute, Inc. (retired)

JENNIE S. HWANG, H-Technologies Group

KANTI JAIN, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

C. KUMAR PATEL, Pranalytica, Inc.

ALICE WHITE, Boston University

Staff

LIZA HAMILTON, Associate Program Officer

EVA LABRE, Administrative Coordinator

JAMES P. MCGEE, Director 

RENEE HAWKINS, Financial and Administrative Manager
vii

LABORATORY ASSESSMENTS BOARD

JOHN W. LYONS, National Defense University, Chair

ROSS B. COROTIS, University of Colorado, Boulder

PAUL A. FLEURY, Yale University

C. WILLIAM GEAR, Princeton University

WESLEY L. HARRIS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

JENNIE S. HWANG, H-Technologies Group

W. CARL LINE BERGER, University of Colorado, Boulder

C. KUMAR N. PATEL, Pranalytica, Inc.

ELSA REICHMANIS, Georgia Institute of Technology

LYLE H. SCHWARTZ, U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (retired)

Staff

LIZA HAMILTON, Associate Program Officer

EVA LABRE, Administrative Coordinator

JAMES P. McGEE, Director 

ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer

RENEE HAWKINS, Financial and Administrative Manager

ix

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives 

and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical 

comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure 

that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study 

charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the 

deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Naomi J. Halas, Rice University,

James S. Harris, Stanford University,

Catherine J. Murphy, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,

Julia M. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, and

Henry I. Smith, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, 

they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the 

report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by David E. Crow, University of

Connecticut, who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was 

carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully 

considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring panel and 

the institution.

xi

Contents

SUMMARY 1

1 THE CHARGE TO THE PANEL AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS 7

2 THE NANOFABRICATION FACILITY 9

Scope and Mission, 9

Staffing, 9

Alignment with Mission, 10

Quality of Research and Facilities, 10

Urgent Need for Evaluation of the NanoFab as a User Facility, 11

3 THE RESEARCH PROGRAM 14

Electron Physics Group, 14

Energy Research Group, 17

Nanofabrication Research Group, 21

4 KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 25

ACRONYMS 31

1

Summary

In 2016, at the request of the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1 formed the Panel on 

Assessment of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (referred to in this report as “the panel”) and established the following statement of task 

for the panel:

An ad hoc committee will assess the scientific and technical work performed by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology. The 

panel will review technical reports and technical program descriptions prepared by NIST staff and 

will visit the facilities of the NIST laboratory. Visits will include technical presentations by NIST 

staff, demonstrations of NIST projects, tours of NIST facilities, and discussions with NIST staff. 

The panel will deliberate findings in a closed session panel meeting and will prepare a report 

summarizing its assessment of the quality of the technical work performed at the Center.

The Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) is one of two user facilities 

established by NIST, the other being the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR), which is also 

located at the NIST facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The CNST has two components with 

complementary purposes—the research program, composed of three groups (Electron Physics, 

Nanofabrication Research, and Energy Research), which makes up the NanoLab, and the Nanofabrication

Facility (NanoFab). Together, the NanoLab (with its next-generation tools and access to collaborative 

research with its multidisciplinary research staff) and the NanoFab (with its comprehensive toolset, which

includes advanced capabilities for lithography, thin film deposition, and nanostructure characterization) 

make up the user facility. Individuals from beyond NIST and elsewhere at NIST can interact with the 

CNST through collaborations with the scientific research staff in the NanoLab’s research program and 

through use of the NanoFab to fabricate structures or devices.

The mission of the CNST is to “operate a national, shared resource for nanoscale fabrication and 

measurement and develop innovative nanoscale measurement and fabrication capabilities to support 

researchers from industry, academia, NIST, and other government agencies in advancing nanoscale 

technology from discovery to production.”2

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

The CNST is a national asset with some leading-edge, best-of-kind equipment and extremely 

competent research and technical staff. Most of its programs are well conceived and have demonstrated 

impressive accomplishments. Some projects, however, are in fields that are led by other organizations 

(e.g., photovoltaics and nanobiomedical research), and this introduces the question as to why these CNST 

 1 Effective July 1, 2015, the institution is called the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine. References in this report to the National Research Council are used in an historical context identifying 

programs prior to July 1. 2 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology 2010,

NIST SP 1121, Gaithersburg, Md., March 2011, p. 4.
2

projects were brought into existence. Additionally, more effort needs to be put into improved strategic 

planning. While several groups and activities are organized properly, some projects are not placed 

logically; for example, nanobiomedicine is currently housed with the Energy Research Group (ERG). 

Some projects do not have sufficient synergy between objectives and resources; for example, the set of 

tools and skills developed in the Electron Physics Group (EPG) seems to be less suited to the stated goal 

of neuromorphic3 device development (which includes building test circuits in the NanoFab and 

developing new microspecies to measure them) than to areas such as the fundamental physics of quantum 

systems or quantum computing. 

Despite these issues, the majority of the staff, as well as the research conducted within the CNST,

are excellent. The CNST, however, is not yet optimally serving the community of potential users. CNST 

management does not appear to have taken a proactive approach to publicize the availability of this 

national resource, which includes both staff and facilities, to the scientific and engineering community at 

large. It is very important that this be done. This could substantially increase productivity, as judged on 

the basis of publications, collaborations, and growth in users. The CNST could improve its visibility

through greater presence at conferences and interaction with industry, striving for more external awards, 

and producing a larger number of high-quality publications. 

The metrics for NanoFab usage and impact need to be more logical and transparent. The NanoFab 

needs to maintain accurate year-to-year data on the number of users, the sources of these users, and the 

amount of income derived from users. 

Furthermore, the CNST could make a greater impact, particularly in the Washington, D.C.,

metropolitan area, since the NanoFab is operating well below capacity. The annual federal budget of the 

CNST was reported as $37 million, which includes $5 million for the purchase of equipment and service 

contracts. Revenues generated by the external users, which includes industry, academia, and other 

government agencies,were approximately $1.2 million in 2015, according to the data provided to the 

panel. This translates to less than 3 percent of the total budget. This appears to be very low given that the 

CNST is primarily a user facility. 

Given that the CNST is a user facility, it may be useful to have an external advisory board of 

stakeholders that includes users—for example, faculty and laboratory directors from academia and 

industry, and others as appropriate. Such an advisory board might be especially valuable should user 

demand ever exceed the availability of equipment, and if the CNST were to develop a strategic plan for 

the expansion involving new equipment responsive to changing community needs. Additionally, the 

recommendations of the previous (2011) National Research Council assessment panel, An Assessment of 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology: Fiscal 

Year 2011,

4 do not seem to have been addressed by the CNST. Concerned that the recommendations of 

the current panel may be similarly ignored, the panel concluded that it would be important to conduct the 

next assessment within 2 years.

 3 Neuromorphic systems are required to develop cognitive processors as well as to understand how the brain 

works and how to measure brain function and dysfunction. A NIST project in the Physical Measurement Laboratory 

utilizes superconducting single flux quantum (SFQ) and spintronics devices to mimic neural systems. These 

neuromorphic systems can operate a billion times faster than biologic neural systems. NIST is developing novel 

metrology, analogous to functional MRI, to measure synthetic cortical function. A key goal is to be able to measure 

spatial and temporal correlations in high-density spiking systems to understand memory and data processing in 

neural systems (from NIST, “Neuromorphic Systems,” https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/neuromorphicsystems, updated August 2, 2016). 4 NRC, An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science and 

Technology: Fiscal Year 2011, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 2011.
3

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General Conclusions and Recommendations

NanoFab usage is well below capacity. The CNST management does not appear to have taken a 

proactive approach to publicize the availability of this national resource, which includes both staff and 

facilities, to the scientific and engineering community at large. It is very important that this be done. The 

metrics for NanoFab usage and impact need to be more logical and transparent. The NanoFab needs to 

maintain accurate year-to-year data on the number of users, the sources of these users, and the amount of 

income derived from users. 

Recommendation 1: CNST management should take a proactive approach to publicize the 

availability of CNST resources and to increase the usage of CNST resources. CNST 

management should support this effort by maintaining accurate year-to-year data on the 

number of users, the sources of these users, and the amount of income derived from users.

Given that the CNST is a user facility, it would be useful to have an external advisory board of 

stakeholders, including users. This could include faculty and laboratory directors from academia and 

industry, and others as appropriate.

Recommendation 2: CNST management should consider establishing an external advisory 

board of stakeholders, including CNST users.

The recommendations of the 2011 NRC assessment panel do not seem to have been addressed by 

the CNST. Concerned that the recommendations of the current panel may be similarly ignored, it would 

be important to conduct the next National Academies assessment within 2 years. 

Recommendation 3: CNST management should arrange the next National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine assessment within 2 years.

The Nanofabrication Facility

The detailed quantitative information needed for the evaluation of the NanoFab was difficult to 

obtain during the review of the facility. This is unacceptable for a user facility with this level of federal 

support. Detailed tracking of all users is routinely done by leading research fabrication facilities, and it is 

an essential tool for understanding usage trends and making rational decisions about staffing, equipment 

upgrades, and new equipment acquisition. The NanoFab management needs to adopt similar practices, 

and if already implemented, to make the results available to reviewers in a timely manner.

Recommendation 4: CNST management should initiate a process that provides, maintains, 

and makes publicly available detailed data on all CNST users that identifies the number of 

facility users per equipment, their organizational affiliations, their fields of interest, the 

amount of income they provide to the CNST, and the outcomes of their facility utilization. 

NanoFab data should not be conflated with that of the NanoLab. The former consists of 

commercially available equipment designed to fabricate and measure micro- and 

nanostructures. The latter develops and hosts unique equipment, generally designed for 

exquisitely detailed measurements.

The NanoFab management has not yet begun significant recruiting efforts, and additional growth 

is possible because the facility is far from capacity. Approaching capacity is to be viewed as a positive 
4

goal—more users decrease idle equipment time, spreading costs more broadly. New users would also 

increase the impact of the facility. 

Recommendation 5: The NanoFab management should begin an outreach program to 

recruit new users. 

The CNST director and the staff expressed the desire to see more users from a broader range of 

disciplines and external organizations, particularly from industry; however, a strategic plan with a

roadmap and metrics for achieving this goal was not articulated. Developing and applying metrics to 

manage operations would enable the benchmarking of performance against that of similar facilities and 

would also be a means of goal setting for strategic planning.

Recommendation 6: CNST leadership should define a strategic plan with a roadmap and 

associated metrics for the NanoFab and should benchmark NanoFab operations against 

those of other nanofabrication facilities. 

Its high level of sustained funding and collaboration with the process research team gives the 

NanoFab the opportunity to be a leading national resource. They need to be more engaged with the 

fabrication community.

Recommendation 7: CNST management should become more outward looking and more 

broadly engaged with the fabrication community beyond the traditional mechanisms of 

research collaborations and peer-reviewed publications. CNST management should 

increase service in professional organizations, sharing of fabrication protocols, and 

proliferating best practices (such as the NanoFab Equipment Management Operation 

[NEMO]). CNST management should also consider playing a leadership role in the 

University/Government/Industry Micro/Nanotechnology (UGIM) Symposium and the 

National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI) program.

Electron Physics Group

Questions remain regarding CNST’s strategic priorities with respect to the EPG. The set of tools 

and skills developed in the EPG seems to be less suited to the stated goal of neuromorphic device 

development (which includes building test circuits in the NanoFab and developing new microspecies to 

measure them) than to areas such as the fundamental physics of quantum systems or quantum computing. 

The information processing domain represents an emergent opportunity and encompasses biomimetic and 

hybrid transdisciplinary approaches that transcend any single team’s scope.

Recommendation 8: The Electron Physics Group and the CNST should consider how best 

to position its work on neuromorphic versus neuronal architectures and approaches to 

information processing. 

EPG’s ultralow-temperature scanning tunneling microscope (ULT-STM) represents a unique 

measurement and integrated sample and tip preparation infrastructure. The fundamental research using 

this tool needs to continue, along with work that enables further enhancements of this multimodal 

measurement tool.

Recommendation 9: The CNST should continue to support the ultralow-temperature 

scanning tunneling microscope (ULT-STM) for continued success. 
5

EPG collaborations outside of NIST are overwhelmingly academic. In particular, there currently 

appear to be few EPG collaborations and weak linkages with industrial users. For example, participation 

in workshops that bring together scientific leaders and identify potential options that enable future 

strategic measurement challenges may help to catalyze the next generation of scientific inquiry. 

Additionally, increasing engagement with external professional societies could increase the impact of the 

EPG investigators and the CNST. 

Recommendation 10: The Electron Physics Group should increase its collaborative 

engagements with external users and its investment in external professional activities, such 

as conference organization, editorships, or society governance.

Energy Research Group

The ERG has very good scientific expertise, facilities, and equipment. The exclusive focus on 

energy may not be appropriate, given the range of related research topics and proposed future initiatives. 

Long-range strategic planning for the group was not clearly articulated, nor was it apparent in discussions. 

The ERG needs to develop a strategic plan to outline intended directions for the coming year and into the 

following 5 years.

Recommendation 11: The CNST should develop a strategic plan that reconsiders the 

mission and research focus of the Energy Research Group to more accurately reflect its

breadth of research activities. As part of this effort, the CNST should consider whether 

there is sufficient “customer pull” for continued, significant efforts in photovoltaics.

ERG personnel are well qualified and active, with a good record of publications and involvement 

in the technical community. The ERG, however, is small and its staff are highly specialized. 

Opportunities for growing the group in more general directions need to be considered.

Recommendation 12: The CNST should evaluate the staffing of the Energy Research Group 

in terms of alignment with its mission and ability to carry out that mission. The CNST 

should strive for group staffing levels with sufficient critical mass to address important 

measurement challenges commensurate with its mission and strategic directions. 

Research being conducted at the ERG is of high quality. The researchers need to enhance 

collaborations with external users. This will lead to increased visibility of ERG researchers. This will also 

lead to greater use of this valuable national resource.

Recommendation 13: The Energy Research Group researchers should become more

engaged in the professional community via society committees and trade associations. 

Nanofabrication Research Group

The diversity and quality of user-driven research projects under development in the NRG 

demonstrate the excellent scientific and technical expertise this group provides. It is difficult, however, to 

identify the alignment of the existing research activities with the group’s mission. This current 

disconnection makes it difficult to assess the projects relative to the mission. 
6

Recommendation 14: The Nanofabrication Research Group should redefine its mission to 

align it to the group’s existing research or, if it does not have the flexibility to redefine its

mission, it should realign the research projects to the current mission. 

In line with the NRG’s mission, the NRG needs to enhance engagement with the fabrication 

community through talks at conferences, organizing workshops and conference sessions, and society 

service. 

Recommendation 15: The Nanofabrication Research Group (NRG) should increase 

engagement with the fabrication community through strategic presentation of talks at 

conferences, organizing of workshops and conference sessions, and society service. The 

NRG should consider convening or participating in existing industry/academic/government 

consortia. One such example is the Microphotonics Center at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, which sponsors a road-mapping activity and has spring and fall meetings. The 

NRG should consider building a similarly vibrant community around its strengths in 

nanoelectromechanical systems, precision measurement, and/or atomic scale microscopy. 
7

1

The Charge to the Panel and the Assessment Process

At the request of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine1 has, since 1959, annually assembled panels of 

experts from academia, industry, medicine, and other scientific and engineering communities to assess the 

quality and effectiveness of the NIST measurements and standards laboratories, of which there are now 

seven,2 as well as the adequacy of the laboratories’ resources.

At the request of the Director of NIST, in 2016 the National Academies formed the Panel on 

Assessment of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology and established the following statement of task for the panel:

An ad hoc committee will assess the scientific and technical work performed by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology. The 

panel will review technical reports and technical program descriptions prepared by NIST staff and 

will visit the facilities of the NIST laboratory. Visits will include technical presentations by NIST 

staff, demonstrations of NIST projects, tours of NIST facilities, and discussions with NIST staff. 

The panel will deliberate findings in a closed session panel meeting and will prepare a report 

summarizing its assessment of the quality of the technical work performed at the Center.

The context of this technical assessment is the mission of NIST, which is to promote U.S. 

innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology 

in ways that enhance economic security and improve the quality of life. The NIST laboratories conduct 

research to anticipate future metrology and standards needs, to enable scientific and technological 

advances, and to improve and refine existing measurement methods and services.

NIST specified that the following areas of work at the Center for Nanoscale Science and 

Technology (CNST) would be reviewed: the NanoLab research program, which is composed of three 

groups (Electron Physics, Energy Research, and Nanofabrication Research) and the Nanofabrication

facility. To accomplish the assessment, the National Academies assembled a panel of 12 volunteers 

whose expertise matched that of the work performed by the CNST staff.3

On May 2, 2016, the panel assembled at the NIST facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland, for a two 

and a half day assessment, during which it received welcoming remarks from the CNST director, heard 

overview presentations by CNST management and presentations by researchers at the CNST, toured 

portions of the CNST facility, and attended an interactive session with CNST management. The panel 

 1 Effective July 1, 2015, the institution is called the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine. References in this report to the National Research Council are used in an historical context identifying 

programs prior to July 1. 2 The seven National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories are the Engineering 

Laboratory, the Physical Measurement Laboratory, the Information Technology Laboratory, the Material 

Measurement Laboratory, the Communication Technology Laboratory, the Center for Nanoscale Science and 

Technology (CNST), and the NIST Center for Neutron Research. 3 See the NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology website at http://www.nist.gov/cnst/ for 

information on CNST organization and programs (accessed May 17, 2016).
8

also met in a closed session to deliberate on its findings and to define the contents of this assessment 

report.

4

The panel’s approach to the assessment relied on the experience, technical knowledge, and 

expertise of its members. An exhaustive assessment of every activity at the CNST was not feasible. The 

panel’s goal was to provide an overall assessment of accomplishments, challenges, and opportunities for 

improvement in the CNST. To accomplish its mission, the panel reviewed the general background 

material provided by the CNST and examples of technical research and other major activities. The choice 

of projects to be reviewed was made by the CNST. These examples were intended collectively to portray 

salient activities of the center while also allowing for useful suggestions specific to the projects and 

programs that the panel examined. The panel applied a largely qualitative, rather than quantitative,

approach to the assessment.

Given the necessarily nonexhaustive nature of the review, the omission in this report of any 

particular CNST project should not be interpreted as a negative reflection on the omitted project.

 4 The agenda for the assessment meeting is presented on the website of the National Academies at 

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49707.
9

2

The Nanofabrication Facility

SCOPE AND MISSION

The role of the Nanofabrication Facility (NanoFab) in the CNST mission is to provide 

“economical access to and training on a commercial state-of-the-art tool set.”1 More specifically, the 

NanoFab is intended to perform the following functions:

1. Provides access to state-of-the-art, commercial nanoscale measurement and fabrication 

tools and methods, along with associated technical expertise, in a shared-access, sharedcost environment to industry, academia, NIST, and other government agencies; 

2. Enables processing and characterization of a wide range of nanoscale materials, 

structures, and devices critical to the nation’s measurement and technology needs; and

3. Fosters internal collaboration in nanotechnology across NIST’s laboratories and external 

collaboration with NIST’s partners through its shared environment.2

These mission statements are consistent with the statements on NIST’s website that the NanoFab

supports the development of nanotechnology from discovery to production. The Center [for 

Nanoscale Science and Technology—CNST] operates a national shared-use nanofabrication and 

measurement facility, the NanoFab, complemented by a multidisciplinary research staff are 

creating the next generation of tools needed to advance nanotechnology.3

STAFFING

The NanoFab Operations Group consists of 21 people—a manager, 2 assistant managers, 6 

process engineers, 3 microscopists, 2 user coordinators, 6 technicians (which includes 4 equipment 

engineers), and an administrative specialist. Of the process engineers, 3 hold doctorates in science or 

engineering, and 3 hold masters degrees. This represents an increase of 4 positions since the 2011 

National Research Council (NRC) assessment.4 The group has, collectively, slightly more than 200 

person-years of experience. In addition, the NanoFab draws on CNST support staff, who provide 

operational infrastructure, such as administration, information technology, facilities, and engineering. 

This is a reasonable level of staffing given the mission and scope of the facility.

 1 NIST, “Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology” http://www.nist.gov/cnst/, accessed June 10, 2016. 2 Vincent Luciani, NanoFab Operations Manager, CNST, NIST, “Overview of the NanoFab Operations 

Group,” presentation to the panel, Gaithersburg, Md., May 2, 2016.

3 NIST, “User Facilities” http://www.nist.gov/user-facilities.cfm, accessed June 10, 2016. 4 National Research Council (NRC), An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology: Fiscal Year 2011, The National Academies Press, Washington, 

D.C., 2011.
10

Process engineers are responsible for approximately 11 tools each. On those tools, they provide 

training, develop processes, and provide process services for remote users. In addition, they consult with 

users to help them develop processes or integrate processes to fabricate a desired structure. One of the 

process technicians works in the evening to provide onsite user support and to perform remote user 

support. A second process technician performs tool maintenance in the evenings. The facility relies 

heavily on external maintenance support through contracts on 10 of the 100 tools. In addition, the facility 

uses outside consultants to support annual safety audits. The NanoFab manager justifiably puts 

considerable emphasis on laboratory safety.

Staffing and equipment have increased since the 2011 NRC assessment in a way that seems 

commensurate with the expanded scope of work. Based on the growing numbers of research participants 

over the past few years, it would be expected that the staffing and equipment set would continue to grow 

accordingly, to fill what appears to be available space in the cleanroom and adjacent laboratories. 

ALIGNMENT WITH MISSION

Consistent with the observation in the 2011 NRC assessment, the NanoFab operation, with its 

excellent facility and staff, is well aligned with the mission to serve as a national user facility. The 

presentations provided during the review showcased how these facilities were leveraged to support NIST 

research projects and industry and, through collaborations, academia. Performance against mission 

objectives was difficult to assess because a detailed strategic plan with a roadmap and performance 

metrics was not presented to the panel. Only limited user information was provided, as discussed below. 

QUALITY OF RESEARCH AND FACILITIES

The CNST facility is equipped to support a broad range of research activities, including many 

materials and substrates. This requires a highly flexible tool set that can handle anything from 1 cm 

samples to full 200 mm wafers. In that respect, it is reasonable to compare the facility to those found in 

leading research universities. One would see similar equipment at Cornell University or Stanford

University. The CNST facility has somewhat more equipment and gives users access to a few higher-end 

capabilities, but the difference is not dramatic.

Overall, the NanoFab tool set is robust. The lithography capabilities are strong, with standard 

contact printing, an i-line ASML stepper, direct write optical, and two JEOL 6300 electron-beam 

lithography systems. An array of resist-processing equipment exists, including an unusual resist-dispense 

system that supports highly nonplanar substrates. The NanoFab has multiple dual-beam, focused-ion 

beam systems that are used for fabrication and transmission electron microscope (TEM) sample 

preparation. The NanoFab hosts multiple field emission scanning electron microscopes (FE-SEMs) and 

an FEI Titan S/TEM for extreme (<0.2 nm) resolution microscopy. Other tools include several thin film 

deposition systems, including an impressive physical vapor deposition (PVD) system capable of ultra-flat 

interfaces of metals and oxides. A soft lithography bay is currently being set up.

The current capability of the facility is somewhat above the leading university fabrication 

facilities, and tool acquisition is continuing at a strong pace. The NanoFab is on a path to become one of 

the best fabrication laboratories in the country that are open to outside researchers. A key distinguishing 

feature of the CNST facility is the pervasive use of statistical process monitoring. All of the major tools 

had charts showing the history of some standard process results. This helps to provide more consistent 

process results, although it requires routine running of standard processes, and so adds cost.

Examples of several user projects were given during the review. These included several that 

required considerable process development and/or unusual capabilities. 

One issue facing university and other small fabrication facilities is the dearth of laboratory 

management platforms that can support a large, shared-use facility in a way that is compliant with respect 
11

to cost and to network security and versatile enough to accommodate the multitude and variety of user 

transactions. The commercial options are vulnerable, one-person operations. Many fabrication facilities 

have resorted to in-house software development, which is challenging and beyond the financial 

wherewithal of most. With in-house software development resources, the NanoFab staff have developed 

the most advanced, elegantly designed in-house laboratory management system that the panel has seen. 

The system is compliant with even the stringent security constraints of NIST. Moreover, in contrast to the 

monolithic design of most available laboratory management systems, the NanoFab Equipment 

Management Operation (NEMO) was built using current software development methods. It is modulebased, making it easy to modify, upgrade, and maintain. The CNST would do the country well by making 

NEMO available to the fabrication research community.

URGENT NEED FOR EVALUATION OF THE NANOFAB AS A USER FACILITY

As noted in the 2011 NRC assessment, the NanoFab and its highly skilled staff are responsible 

for a major advance in the research capabilities of the CNST. The NanoFab and its staff address the core 

mission of operating a shared-use facility. Facility usage was difficult to assess, because the information 

provided by the CNST director was insufficient. When pressed on this point, he provided some additional 

information, but detailed analysis was difficult because the information was partial and provided only at 

the last minute, and there was insufficient opportunity to ask follow-up questions.

Considering the limited information that was provided, the following represents an attempt to 

benchmark the CNST NanoFab against the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) 

facilities, which are reasonably comparable in mission, size, staffing, and number of tools. The former 

NNIN consortium of 14 national user facilities collected user statistics over its 12 years of operation. 

Over the course of the NNIN, seven of the sites built new facilities or joined with new facilities. They 

aggressively marketed themselves following the open, shared-use model that has been demonstrated to be 

an effective way to cultivate a critical mass of users. For each of the new NNIN facilities, the user base 

was largely established in 5 years, with growth slowing thereafter. The CNST NanoFab has been in 

operation for about 9 years, and the expectation is that this would have provided sufficient opportunity to 

establish the bulk of its user base.

Without the needed data, it was difficult to determine how much capacity is available; however, 

during a nearly hour-long in-laboratory tour in the middle of the day, only one non-staff person was

observed. Furthermore, in comparison to similarly sized NNIN facilities, the user base numbers are much 

lower, by at least 25 percent and perhaps up to 300 percent. This leads to the conclusion that despite its 

enviable location and advanced capabilities, the CNST NanoFab is not aggressively recruiting new users, 

particularly external ones. This conclusion was confirmed by comments made by the CNST management

during the review. 

A more reliable source of data is user fee income, which captures both user number and use 

intensity for both local and remote users. With a current operating budget of about $7 million, about half 

is provided by user fees. This is a reasonable balance, judging by the experience of NNIN facilities. 

External NanoFab income has increased significantly since 2011 and is now approximately $1.2 million 

per year. Income from NIST sources outside of the CNST has declined somewhat over the same period. 

The fiscal year (FY) 2015 users fees came from the following sources: $1.5 million from users employed 

by CNST, $0.9 million from users employed by NIST (outside of the CNST), and approximately $1.2

million from users external to NIST. Overall, the user fee income is increasing by about 10 percent per 

year; however, this was heavily influenced by a large spike in CNST usage in FY2015. Ignoring that 

spike, total user fee income has been nearly flat since the NRC assessment in 2011.5

 5 NRC, An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science and 

Technology: Fiscal Year 2011, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2011.
12

The NanoFab is a key asset for the CNST and the Washington, D.C., area. Proximity to a large 

number of universities, major agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and a significant 

number of companies, all of which have little or no capabilities in nanoscale fabrication and 

characterization, makes the CNST NanoFab a tremendous potential asset for economic development and 

training of nanoscale researchers in the region. Furthermore, given its level of support and access to the 

process research team, it could become a national resource for research fabrication facilities. 

Considerations pertaining to the NanoFab and its management are summarized below.

The detailed quantitative information needed for evaluation of the NanoFab was difficult to 

obtain. This is completely unacceptable for a user facility with this level of federal support. The lack of 

evidence of external users during the review tour, combined with the opacity of the data given, creates an 

impression that the picture being provided was overly optimistic. The NanoFab needs to maintain and 

freely provide accurate year-to-year data on the number of users, the sources of these users, and the 

amount of user income. The latter provides the most unambiguous measure of facility usage. 

Furthermore, to provide an accurate assessment of the NanoFab, this data cannot be conflated with that of 

the NanoLab. The former consists of commercially available equipment designed to fabricate micro- and 

nanostructures. The latter develops and hosts unique equipment, generally designed for exquisitely 

detailed measurements.

If it has not already done so, the NanoFab needs to start a process that provides a detailed 

tracking of all users to determine their origin and their fields of interest (microelectromechanical systems 

[MEMS], materials, electronics, etc.). Laboratory operating software can then be used to determine 

laboratory usage by group. This is routinely done by leading research fabrication facilities, and it is an 

essential tool for understanding usage trends to make rational decisions about staffing, equipment 

upgrades, and new equipment acquisition. Furthermore, polling of users is essential and needs to be done 

regularly. The difficulty experienced by the panel in getting this data is a glaring deficiency.

The NanoFab management needs to begin an outreach program to recruit new users. Since they 

have not yet begun significant recruiting efforts, additional growth is possible. More users decrease idle 

equipment time, spreading costs more broadly. They also increase the impact of the facility. Contrary to 

the evaluation provided to the panel, the panel assesses that the laboratory is nowhere near capacity. 

Approaching capacity is to be viewed as a positive goal and would yield an increased impact. 

Furthermore, the NanoFab can increase staffing levels and/or add equipment or start to attract more 

external users by the quality of the projects. 

The demonstration of support for industry users that distinguishes the NanoFab from university 

facilities is encouraging. More rigorous process control provides more reproducible processes that enable 

commercial success for companies. This comes with an increase in user rates relative to university 

laboratories. For example, the NanoFab electron-beam lithography rates, even subsidized, are 2 to 3 times 

those of comparable machines at universities. Concerns were raised about the application of the NIST 

subsidy to private companies. In the Department of Energy (DOE) model, companies are given access

free of charge, but applications go through a reasonably rigorous external review process. The current 

CNST review process appears to be cursory. This can be an issue, especially if the facility begins to 

approach capacity and starts to become more selective.

The leadership needs to define a strategic roadmap for the NanoFab. The CNST director and the 

staff expressed the desire to see more users from a broader range of disciplines and external 

organizations, particularly from industry, given the association with the Department of Commerce 

(DOC); yet the action plan and metrics for success were not articulated. Developing and incorporating 

metrics to manage operations would enable the benchmarking of performance against that of similar 

facilities and would also be a means of goal setting for strategic planning.

The laboratory needs to continue drawing down resources devoted to complementary metal-oxide 

semiconductor (CMOS) technology because research in this area has declined sharply. Support for the 

new nanobiomedical area will be required, but details of the nature of this support are difficult to predict 

at this time due to the embryonic nature of the current effort. The investment of CNST resources to recruit 

a leading researcher to break new ground in the nanobiomedical area for the NanoLab is acknowledged; 
13

however, the NanoFab only needs to look to similar facilities in universities where nanobiomedical 

research is taking hold, or to engage with NIH, to learn which equipment and processes are most needed 

to support research efforts in this area. 

Its high level of sustained funding and collaboration with the process research team gives the 

CNST NanoFab the opportunity to be a leading resource in the country. As such, they need to be more 

outward looking and more broadly engaged with the fabrication community beyond the traditional 

mechanisms of research collaborations and peer-reviewed publications, through service in professional 

organizations, sharing fabrication protocols, and proliferating best practices (such as NEMO). Playing a 

highly visible role in University/Government/Industry Micro/Nanotechnology (UGIM) Symposium and 

the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI) are two possible avenues. An effort to 

make the CNST process detail readily available for publication in the NIST research journal is an 

excellent idea, as is the lithography toolbox developed by a project leader in the NRG. Still, distribution 

mechanisms need to be developed if the work is to have any impact. NIST could do the nanofabrication 

world a great service by playing a leading role in developing and propagating fabrication research 

processes and practices. 
14

3

The Research Program

The CNST’s research program is composed of three groups that make up the NanoLab: the EPG, 

the ERG, and the NRG.

ELECTRON PHYSICS GROUP

Introduction

The research effort in the EPG is largely unchanged since the 2011 NRC assessment.

1 The group 

performs five well-defined projects: scanning probe microscopy; nanomagnetic imaging; nanomagnet 

dynamics; theory, modeling, and simulation; and novel ion sources. These activities are supported by a

team comprising eight researchers with expertise in electronics, equipment design, and information 

technology. The EPG focuses on the development of enabling metrological tools and fundamental 

research in the field of nanoscale electronics.

Assessment of Technical Programs

Accomplishments

The research effort in scanning probe microscopy involves unique instrument design and is 

among the best in its field. Driven by the necessity to understand the low-temperature physics of 

quantum, strongly correlated, and low-dimensional materials, comparable tools to those at NIST have 

been developed worldwide. The set of tools developed at NIST, however, offers noise performance that is 

orders of magnitude above these competing efforts. This performance is enabled by the unique instrument 

design and low-noise facility developed by NIST. This tool set also allows a broad spectrum of physical 

studies, enabled by independent control of the (vector) magnetic field, gate bias, and probe bias. 

The seamless integration between the imaging facility and the in situ sample preparation enables

the study of a broad range of functional materials beyond the classical cleavable samples, such as 

graphene, high-temperature superconductors, or layered correlated oxides. The scientific output made 

possible by these unique instruments is extremely impressive. It has enabled multiple collaborative works 

published in top scientific journals, and several notable results are, potentially, of textbook quality. The 

EPG has a measured and consistent plan for future instrument development that incorporates force-based 

detection. This may facilitate collaborations in unexplored areas of fundamental physics research. 

The research in nanomagnetic imaging and nanomagnet dynamics is equally impressive. One

project leader is a pioneer in scanning electron microscopy with polarization analysis (SEMPA), and 

another leads a commendable program in diamond nitrogen-vacancy center (N-V center) magnetometry 

and magneto-optical measurements. This combination of techniques is unique to NIST and provides the

 1 NRC, An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science and 

Technology: Fiscal Year 2011, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
15

NIST community with a special set of tools for probing static and dynamic domain structures. The team 

focused on theory provides the necessary theoretical support to enable a smooth transition from 

measurement results to domain-specific knowledge. 

The effort that is focused on the development of novel ion sources for ion-beam-based fabrication 

and imaging requires a long-term dedicated effort. The effort contributes to the development of the next 

generation of imaging and fabrication capabilities for fundamental and applied science. There has been a

successful transition of some developed technologies to commercial settings.

Research efforts in the EPG have focused on quantum and low dimensional systems, 

nanomagnetic phenomena, and ion beam science. These efforts match with the NIST strengths in 

nanoscale measurement device fabrication; characterization and metrology; broad magnetic device-based 

metrology; and the emerging area of functional ionic devices, including energy research and 

neuromorphic computing. 

Opportunities and Challenges

Questions remain regarding CNST’s strategic priorities with respect to the EPG. The set of tools 

and skills developed in the EPG seems to be less suited to the stated goal of neuromorphic device 

development (which includes building test circuits in the NanoFab and developing new microspecies to 

measure them) than to areas such as the fundamental physics of quantum systems or quantum computing. 

The EPG and CNST need to consider how best to position its work on neuromorphic versus neuronal 

architectures and approaches to information processing. The information-processing domain represents an 

emergent opportunity and encompasses more biomimetic and hybrid transdisciplinary approaches that 

transcend any single team’s scope.

The research efforts in the EPG provide significant unexploited opportunities for growth. The 

output of the group has been fairly constant over the past decade, owing to the numerous opportunities 

forged by the need for high-resolution and high-veracity imaging, metrology, and atomic manipulation. 

Opportunities have also been driven by the fact that semiconductor technology crossed below the 10 nm 

threshold. There is potential for rapid growth in the emergence of quantum computing and other singleatom devices as well as magnetoelectronic and spintronic devices.

Portfolio of Scientific Expertise

The staffing and composition of the EPG is largely unchanged since the NRC 2011 assessment.2

 

EPG research encompasses scanning-probe microscopy; nanomagnetic imaging and dynamics; theory, 

modeling, and simulation; and laser manipulation of atoms. The EPG conducts a wide range of crossdisciplinary research that focuses on developing innovative measurement capabilities for nanotechnology, 

with an emphasis on future electronics applications. The research conducted by this group is uniformly of 

a very high standard. The EPG is developing impressive measurement tools and methods.

Adequacy of Facilities, Equipment, and Human Resources

Accomplishments

The EPG consists of 17 scientific staff (5 project leaders, 9 postdoctoral researchers, 1 staff 

scientist, and 2 students). It also has 8 support staff (2 in electronics, 2 in instrumentation, and 4 in 

information technology). Although the support staff is attached to the EPG, they provide support for all of 

 2 NRC, An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science and 

Technology, 2011, p. 11.
16

the CNST research groups. Senior staff of the EPG have been in place for several years. The integration 

of postdoctoral researchers into projects is smooth, and there appears to be collaboration and 

communication across research areas and across groups. The input of the support staff is very important 

to these efforts, given the fact that much of the equipment is home-built. Staffing is uniformly adequate

across areas. 

The unique modifications being developed to support CNST’s world-leading scanning-probe 

microscopy research will combine a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) with an atomic force 

microscope (AFM) at cryogenic temperatures (10 mK) and a range of ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) samplepreparation chambers. 

The EPG has also developed superb tools that support research on nanomagnetism, including 

imaging using SEMPA, measurements of magnetic dynamics, and new work on magneto-optical 

ferromagnetic resonance. The group continues to work on the development of new ion sources for

focused ion beams to improve imaging, nanoscale milling, circuit editing, and nanoscale implantation.

Opportunities and Challenges

EPG’s ultralow-temperature scanning tunneling microscope (ULT-STM) represents a unique 

measurement and integrated sample and tip preparation infrastructure that needs to be funded for 

continued success. The fundamental research in this area needs to continue, along with work that enables 

further enhancements of this multimodal measurement tool.

Dissemination of Outputs

Accomplishments

Based on information provided by NIST along with Web of Science searches, the EPG’s five

project leaders published more than 50 papers between 2012 and 2015. Many of these papers involved

more than one project leader along with postdoctoral researchers. These papers—approximately one-fifth

of the total CNST publications for that period—were often published in excellent journals such as 

Physical Review Letters and Applied Physics Letters. These papers are also highly cited by their peers. 

Opportunities and Challenges

While the papers published by the EPG are excellent, it is expected that a group of this size, with 

the remarkable experimental capability available to them, would have many opportunities to exploit this 

capability and publish much more. While maintaining quality is of central importance, there is room for a 

more aggressive approach to publishing. In particular, EPG collaborations outside of NIST are 

overwhelmingly academic, and there is opportunity to reach into the commercial community for 

collaborations as well.

Furthermore, given its collective creativity, infrastructure, and resources, the EPG could increase 

its output of foundational publications that further enhance the basic understanding of innovative single 

and multimodal nanoscale measurement methods and tools beyond current capabilities.

The EPG could also beneficially increase its emphasis on collaborative engagements with 

external users; there currently appear to be few collaborations and weak linkages with industrial users. 

Workshops that bring together scientific leaders and identify potential options that enable future strategic 

measurement challenges may help to catalyze the next generation of scientific inquiry. The EPG also does 

not appear to be particularly active in external professional society activities in a significant way. This 

includes conference organization, editorships, or society governance. While EPG staff members have 
17

received significant DOC recognition, it appears that the group has not received society awards and other 

peer recognition for their work to the extent that they could. Greatly increasing the investment in external 

professional activities would enhance the recognition and impact of the investigators and of the CNST.

ENERGY RESEARCH GROUP

Introduction

The mission of the ERG was stated as follows: 

Working with facility users, develop new measurement methods in the areas of energy generation, 

conversion and storage, focusing on correlation of atomic and nanoscale structural and 

morphological properties of materials and devices with functional performance.3

The ERG aims to accomplish this mission through addressing the

unmet needs of users focusing on cross-cutting measurement challenges brought forward by 

energy materials and devices and leveraging broader CNST and NIST expertise. Use novel 

fabrication methods to enable new measurements.4

The evaluative comments and suggestions from the 2011 NRC assessment are presented below. It is 

particularly noteworthy that the comments made 5 years ago remain very relevant today, and little or no 

progress in the suggested directions was apparent from the documents, presentations, and discussions 

associated with the current assessment.

The ERG is still very young. It is too early to judge the quality of the staff with accuracy, and it is 

even somewhat difficult to gauge the alignment of the work with the mission of the group and the 

mission of the CNST, as many laboratories are still under development. Over the next 2 years, the 

group needs to establish greater coherence, accompanied by the development of a stronger 

connection between nanoscale measurements and important problems in energy. The ERG is still 

in the process of growth and stabilization. The following are suggestions for the ERG as it moves 

forward:

• Over the next 2 years, it should establish greater coherence, accompanied by the 

development of a stronger connection between nanoscale measurements and important 

problems in energy.

• Although the new laboratories are outstanding, most of the equipment is commercial or 

modified-commercial. As the group continues to mature, it should aspire to the design 

and fabrication of some noncommercial equipment to address the frontier of nanoscale 

measurements connected to energy.

• Long-range strategic planning for the group was not apparent and needs to be discussed 

more explicitly during the next assessment.

• The CNST should continue the effort to mature the focus and stature of the newer 

research groups, especially the ERG. This effort would include more strategic planning 

and the identification of research issues of central importance to the energy landscape in 

the United States.5

 3 N. Zhitenev, CNST, NIST, “Energy Research Group Overview,” presentation to the panel, Gaithersburg, Md., 

May 2, 2016. 4 Ibid. 5 NRC, An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science and 

Technology, 2011, p. 17.
18

Assessment of Technical Programs

Accomplishments

The ERG has been actively working on a few research topics. The group has been collaborating

with researchers from academia, and these collaborations have been very fruitful because the expertise 

and facilities at the CNST are unique and most universities do not have such facilities. Two examples are 

their collaborative papers on fuel cell materials and lithium-ion batteries. High-resolution transmission 

electron microscopy (HRTEM) contributions by the ERG researchers have been important to the effort to 

explain the fundamental properties of oxygen ion conductors (solid oxide fuel cells) and the intercalation 

properties of certain oxides (lithium ion batteries). Noteworthy accomplishments include the threedimensional re-construction of a fuel cell cathode using focused ion beams and tomographic microscopy 

and work on optical probing of cadmium telluride (CdTe), published in ACS Nano.

6 By probing the 

structure of solar cells at relatively large depths, the latter provides important insights that are not possible 

by typical surface characterization methods. 

Opportunities and Challenges

There are several other current energy topics that can utilize the ERG expertise. For example, 

virtually all electrochemical devices with solid-state materials are based on nanostructured materials 

(polymer electrolyte membrane [PEM] fuel cells, super-capacitors, etc.). ERG researchers need to be 

proactive in communicating their expertise and the availability of their facilities to researchers from other 

organizations, especially academia. Examples include the design and synthesis of core-shell catalysts for 

PEM fuel cells and nanostructured composite electrodes for solid-oxide fuel cells. 

There is some question about the title and charge of the ERG. The intent of the CNST to establish 

a group with a specific focus on the important aspects of energy technology associated with the NIST 

charge is commendable. The charge and scope of the ERG, however, is not entirely clear in the context of 

the total field of science and technology associated with energy in the United States and the context of the 

other agencies and organizations charged with various responsibilities in that technical area. The scope 

defined by the Workshop on Nanoscale Measurement Challenges for Energy Applications,

7 the Grand 

Challenges for Advanced Photovoltaic Technologies and Measurement,

8 and by the “input/requests from 

industry,”9 listing “General Electric, Applied Materials, Northrop Grumman, Dow Chemical, QD Vision, 

Amprius, Clevious, Nantero, CuPont, Intel, etc.”10 was not specifically defined by the background

material provided during the review.

Additionally, as a group focused on photovoltaics, ion transport, and solid-liquid interfaces, the 

ERG needs to be able to clearly differentiate itself from other very significant energy research efforts at 

many universities, national laboratories, and industry. For instance, how does the current effort in 

photovoltaics compare to the many photovoltaics efforts across the globe? What is the compelling reason 

for NIST to be a player in this already crowded field? The ERG has insufficient critical mass to make real 

and substantial impact in the range of energy topics covered.

The ERG has very good scientific expertise, facilities, and equipment. As currently constituted, 

the ERG efforts are focused and motivated by energy needs, including energy generation, conversion, and 

storage, to elucidate the role of atomic and nanoscale structure and morphology in the performance of 

 6 M.S. LeiteM. Abashin, H.J. Lezec, A. Gianfrancesco, A.A. Talin, and N.B. Zhitenev, “Nanoscale imaging of 

photocurrent and efficiency in CdTe solar cells,” ACS Nano 8(11):11883-11890, 2014. 7 Zhitenev, “Energy Research Group Overview,” 2016. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid.
19

devices and materials. The ERG has successfully developed several techniques for imaging and 

measurements and have effectively used both in situ and ex situ measurements. In essence, it is

characterizing nanomaterials and structures using multimodal techniques. The ERG is, however, below 

critical mass to make a significant impact on a sustained basis. The techniques that are currently being 

developed by the ERG are motivated by energy, yet they are relevant to a wide range of technologies. As 

such, the group may be missing significant opportunities to address issues associated with other economic 

sectors.

The exclusive focus on energy may not be appropriate given the range of related research topics 

and proposed future initiatives. 

Long-range strategic planning for the group was not clearly articulated, nor was it apparent in 

discussions. The ERG needs to develop a strategic plan to outline intended directions for the coming year 

and into the following 5 years.

Portfolio of Scientific Expertise

Accomplishments

ERG researchers have been active in publishing in good-quality topical journals such as Solid 

State Ionics and some high-impact journals such as Nanoscale, Nano Letters and ACS Nano. They have 

facilities and expertise for probing at the nanoscale as well as, simultaneously, at the microscale in a 

chemically reacting system (e.g., growth of carbon nanotubes). This allows them to obtain information 

about structure at the nano level—without causing variances due to the probing itself—while, at the same 

time, obtaining relevant information about reaction mechanisms and kinetics. Many ERG researchers 

have been publishing in high-quality journals, and their work is well cited. Several ERG researchers have 

cumulative citations exceeding 5,000, and a few have in excess of 10,000 citations. This is a good 

indicator of scientific expertise as recognized by their peers.

Opportunities and Challenges

The CNST microscopy facilities are unique, and the high-temperature capability with variable 

atmosphere capability is also distinctive. ERG personnel are well qualified and active, with a good record 

of publications and involvement in the technical community. They are highly qualified to take advantage 

of the resources available; however, the group is small (six total) and highly specialized on an individual 

basis. Opportunities for growing the group in more general directions need to be considered. 

The new nanobiomedical area that is being incubated within the ERG includes the recent 

recruitment of a project leader whose expertise is in nanofabrication and biological science.

11 While the 

nanobiomedical area is a growth area in research, it is unclear if it should become a part of the ERG. The 

connection to this area seems tenuous. 

 11 Some of the areas of nanobiomedical research that this project leader and the ERG are focusing on include: 

developing new measurements that bridge nano/micro length scales; incorporating sensors and actuators; and 

detecting and quantifying the integration and disintegration of materials at biotic and abiotic interfaces (V. Szalai, 

CNST, NIST, “Nanobiomed: A New Strategic Direction for the CNST,” presentation to the panel, Gaithersburg, 

Md., May 2, 2016).
20

Adequacy of Facilities, Equipment, and Human Resources

Accomplishments

The facilities appear to be appropriate for the small group with a focused scope of activity and,

overall, appear to be excellent. In operando measurements are very difficult to make, and enabling 

equipment is not readily available to the public user. The CNST can play an important role in making 

equipment available. Morphology-specific measurement, especially for nonequilibrium processes, is also 

greatly needed by the user community, and the ERG seems to be supporting developments in that area. 

Opportunities and Challenges

The CNST and the ERG have recently invested in a suite of soft materials tools that provide an 

exciting range of new opportunities related to soft materials fabrication. With the introduction of a soft 

lithography polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) bench, a microfluidic inspection station, dynamic light 

scattering (DLS) instrumentation, and cryoTEM capability, the ERG has an opportunity to expand its 

role. The Washington, D.C., area is home to many small companies, government laboratories, and 

universities that may provide a host of new and exciting opportunities and challenges.

In particular, nanobiomedicine is one growth area that has been developed by CNST researchers

and led by the ERG. The group will be challenged to provide a critical mass of expertise to attract a new 

user base and grow this potentially significant high-impact area. To be successful, the proposed new 

initiative in nanobiomedicine needs sufficient critical mass to make an impact. 

The nanobiomedical area can gain from the development of measurement tools to view nanoscale 

events in real time and in three dimensions, without loss of macroscale information. A new hire in August 

2016, and a new activity related to a “body-on-a-chip” platform with integrated nanosensors to measure 

physiological responses of tissues will be initiated. This represents an exciting opportunity that may lead 

to significant national and global impact.

As a user facility open to soft materials efforts, the ERG could be in a position to develop new 

measurements that bridge nano- and micro-length scales; incorporate sensors and actuators for optical, 

mechanical, and electrical interrogation; detect and quantify the integration and disintegration of materials 

at the biotic and abiotic interface; print or pattern in or on flexible, stretchable substrates other than 

PDMS; create nanosensors in a specific shape or position in or on a larger probe; and produce curved 

surfaces, curved patterns, or smooth gradients of materials.

The ERG needs to move far beyond the energy sector to contribute real and significant science 

and technology and to make economic impact in other sectors.

Dissemination of Outputs

Accomplishments

The ERG, which consists of 6 project leaders and 14 postdoctoral researchers, has been active in 

scholarly work; however, a list of the papers published since the 2011 NRC assessment12 was not 

provided during the review. Also, since the CNST is a user facility, the accomplishments of the ERG, as 

well as the CNST as a whole, need to include publications generated by external users. Since such a list 

was missing in the materials provided during the review, it was difficult to assess productivity. According 

to the material provided, the number of researchers in all areas, including energy research, participating in 

 12 NRC, An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science 

and Technology, 2011.
21

activities that use the CNST facilities has increased from 192 in FY 2007 to 1,885 in FY2013. It would be 

important to know the corresponding increase in total publications, including those using CNST facilities,

over the same period. The ERG has been actively engaged in the National Nanotechnology Initiative

(NNI) and NIST initiatives, including the NNI Signature Initiative on Nanotechnology for Solar Energy 

Collection and Conversion and several of NIST’s Innovation In Measurement Science programs. CNST 

staff are interacting with several industrial organizations, including General Electric, Applied Materials, 

Northrop Grumman, Dow Chemical, QD Vision, DuPont, and Intel, among others. This is a good user 

base foundation.

Opportunities and Challenges

Research being conducted at the ERG is of high quality. The researchers are encouraged to 

enhance collaborations with external users. Opportunities exist for increasing the use of the CNST by 

external users. Since it was stated during the assessment that, to date, only one user proposal has, on the 

basis of poor technical merit, been turned down, it would appear that there is scope for increasing the user 

base. Increased collaborations should result in increased numbers of publications by CNST scientists and 

increased visability of ERG researchers, which would raise the reputation and profile of the CNST as a 

whole and the ERG in particular. Enhanced collaborations will also lead to greater use of this outstanding 

national resource. 

CNST staff publications since 2012 were identified during the review; however, the ERG did not 

provide a summary list of its specific output. This is a regrettable missed opportunity, because several of 

the publications from ERG members are of excellent quality and published in excellent journals. 

Especially notable work includes the in situ analysis of battery materials with a specific focus on 

solid-liquid interface chemistry incorporating six-dimensional super-resolution microscopy. More 

specific annotation of the output to the community of that and other work would have been welcome

during the review. The research in chemical imaging is good but not superb. The ERG does not have 

sufficient critical mass to make significant advances in a sustainable way. There are many opportunities to 

tie imaging with theory, which would have major impact, but those efforts need to be well integrated.

NANOFABRICATION RESEARCH GROUP

Introduction

The NRG has a stated mission of “working with facility users, develop new measurement 

methods to enable the development and effective industrial-scale use of nanomanufacturing and 

nanofabrication processes.”13 The group has grown slightly since the 2011 NRC assessment;

14 it currently 

consists of 8 project leaders, 3 staff scientists, a process engineer, and 17 postdoctoral researchers, with 

expertise that includes electron microscopy and nano-electromechanical systems. 

The NRG has demonstrated scientific productivity, expressed eagerness to work with users, and 

uses the resources available in an effective manner. However, the scientific activities under way seem 

uncorrelated, making it difficult to identify the essence of the group. The NRG, and the CNST, can do a 

better job in formulating and articulating its core mission. 

 13 NIST, CNST, 2015 Strategic Plan, v.1.5, Gaithersburg, Md., August 31, 2015. 14 NRC, An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science 

and Technology, 2011.
22

Assessment of Technical Programs

The NRG is involved in a wide array of projects. The independent researchers are very strong in 

their areas. Google Scholar profiles reveal that the five senior project leaders each have an h-index above 

35 and more than 4,000 citations, which is one measure of visibility. From the project descriptions that 

were presented during the review, it was clear that they make effective use of the state-of-the-art 

nanofabrication facilities. 

The project on super-resolution fluorescence microscopy for materials science exhibits

exceptional real space resolution that is ideal for soft materials. The study focus is on the emission 

lifetime of molecules, which are sensitive to the local environment providing a sixth dimension of 

imaging. The project uses in situ/operando microscopy at the atomic scale. Although specific applications 

were not provided, possible applications for this research include studies of polymers, composites, and 

catalysis. 

Another project, which is supported by theory, is the one-of-a-kind environmental TEM for

dynamic and spectroscopic analysis of nanomaterials at the atomic scale. Work on this project is in an 

early stage of development. 

The project on nanoplasmonic optomechanics is an exciting and unique approach to the use of

plasmons. The project exhibits capability for both actuation and sensing of motion at unprecedented 

levels. It also has a capability for both electronic direct current (DC) and optical alternating current (AC) 

operation and has the potential to demonstrate faster and denser spatial light modulators.

The work on motion detection and calibration for MEMS and nanoelectromechanical systems 

(NEMS) is an impressive demonstration of capability. Going forward, a comparison to existing 

technologies commercially available (PolyTec) would be useful.

The project on advancing nanoparticle manufacturing exhibits a good understanding of the 

challenges currently limiting the manufacturing of nanoparticles. The project staff is working with experts 

from industrial, governmental, and academic sectors to address technical challenges. While not explicitly 

mentioned, the expectation is that pharmaceutical companies would be particularly interested in this 

capability.

The Nanolithography Toolbox represents the development of an extremely valuable tool for 

computer-aided designing (CAD-ing) and layout of complex lithography patterns used in the micro- and 

nanofabrication of a wide variety of devices (in particular photonic devices, where smooth curves are key 

for low loss). The toolbox is filling an important need of the nanofabrication community, and it is 

enhancing the CNST user experience.

The project on nanophotonic device development for metrology represents state-of-the-art 

nanophotonic devices applied to the development of chip-scale atomic clocks and optical frequency 

combs. This project is an excellent example of how CNST capabilities and scientists can enable NISTwide projects.

The project on metamaterials represents promising early work on plasmonics and metamaterials.

The NRG was a clear leader early in this area, although this leadership role has waned over the past few 

years. It would be useful for this project to identify new research directions or new collaborative 

opportunities inside and out of NIST.

For the project on high-speed manufacturing measurements, there was a lack of clarity about the 

relationship of this research to nanoscience and nanotechnology. Additionally, the impact of this work 

was not clearly explained. While there appears to be an attempt to be customer-focused, the choice of this 

project does not seem to be a good match with the staff’s strengths.
23

Portfolio of Scientific Expertise

Opportunities and Challenges

The diversity and quality of user-driven research projects under development in the NRG

demonstrates the excellent scientific and technical expertise this group provides. The NRG has a 

challenge, however, because it is difficult to align the existing research activities with the mission. It is 

not known how much flexibility the NRG has to define its mission, but the current disconnection makes it 

difficult to assess the programs relative to the mission. If the flexibility exists, given its research 

strengths, a mission such as the following might provide the necessary alignment: developing tools for 

characterization of nanomaterials and using nanofabrication to develop new measurement and metrology 

tools. If it does not have the flexibility to redefine its mission, then the harder job of aligning the research 

projects to the mission needs to be addressed in the next strategic plan. 

The SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis within the CNST 2015 

Strategic Plan was generally insightful, but had a couple of gaps. First, there is an issue with the 

definition of “research participants” that makes it challenging to get a clear view of the true NanoFab user 

base. While the information that was provided in response to questions regarding facility usage was 

illuminating, those data did not support the statement in the CNST 2015 Strategic Plan that “by any 

measure the Nanofabrication facility is a success; its utilization continues to grow with each year.”15 

Furthermore, it was learned during the review that the NanoFab is well below capacity; however, the 

2015 Strategic Plan identifies a different weakness that seems to be contradictory: “technical support 

services have not kept up with the general growth in CNST and may need a new management model.”16

Understanding the costs, technical staffing needs, and user capacity needs to be a top priority. In 

particular, the NRG could be more aggressively looking for opportunities for growth in its users aligned 

with the research activities that are identified in its strategic plan. In addition to the financial benefits, an 

increased user base from industry will both enhance the impact of the NRG and serve as a source of new 

and challenging problems. 

The strategic plan could be strengthened by identifying meaningful metrics and plans to track 

those metrics. The tracking of those metrics will be invaluable information for the next assessment panel. 

Adequacy of Facilities, Equipment, and Human Resources

Accomplishments

The NRG is making great use of the NanoFab for the fabrication of its MEMS, NEMS, and 

nanophotonics devices. It is constantly evaluating the tool set, balancing the need for exploratory research 

and the need for process consistency to test designs. It has done a good job of keeping the tools up to date, 

sometimes by developing relationships with its tool vendors. For example, it has teamed up to develop 

the next-generation focused ion beam with FEI. Two capabilities that stand out are the environmental 

TEM and the Nanolithography Toolbox, a very useful design tool that could have impact beyond the

CNST and its users. Additionally, the NRG is doing an excellent job of hiring nanofabrication experts to 

aid both facility users and CNST staff.

 15 NIST CNST, 2015 Strategic Plan, 2015. 16 Ibid. 
24

Dissemination of Outputs

Accomplishments

As already noted, many of the individual researchers in the NRG have good outside recognition 

of the quality of their work, as evidenced by their citations and name recognition. The group members 

mentioned that they are looking for a way to disseminate the processing recipes for their technical 

advances, including, for instance, processing recipes for the gap-plasmon resonator. This activity is a very 

useful service. 

Opportunities and Challenges

In line with the its mission, the NRG needs to spend more time “taking the pulse” of the 

community through strategically placing talks at conferences, organizing workshops and conference 

sessions, and society service. It will take focus and energy to engage industry. Industry, academic, and 

government consortia are one means. A very successful consortium in the photonics space is the 

Microphotonics Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which sponsors a road-mapping 

activity and has spring and fall meetings. The NRG could create a similarly vibrant community building 

on its strengths in NEMS, precision measurements, and/or atomic scale microscopy. 

A list was provided of conference presentations given by NRG members over their careers. 

Although this list is quite long, the conference attendance seems to be somewhat random, and there was 

no mention of this in the CNST 2015 Strategic Plan.

17 One way that the NRG (and the CNST) could 

increase its visibility is by being strategic with respect to conference attendance by identifying a few of 

the key conferences and having a large presence at these as opposed to small (and possibly) overlooked 

attendance at a much larger number of conferences. This strategy might also result in increased user 

interest.

 17 Ibid. 
25

4

Key Conclusions and Recommendations

The CNST is a national asset with some leading-edge, best-of-kind equipment and extremely 

competent research and technical staff. Most of its programs are well conceived and have demonstrated 

impressive accomplishments. Some projects, however, are in fields that are led by other organizations 

(e.g., photovoltaics and nanobiomedical research), and this introduces the question as to why these CNST 

projects were brought into existence. Additionally, more effort needs to be put into improved strategic 

planning. While several groups and activities are organized properly, some projects are not placed 

logically; for example, nanobiomedicine is currently housed with the Energy Research Group (ERG). 

Some projects do not have sufficient synergy between objectives and resources; for example, the set of 

tools and skills developed in the Electron Physics Group (EPG) seems to be less suited to the stated goal 

of neuromorphic1 device development (which includes building test circuits in the NanoFab and 

developing new microspecies to measure them) than to areas such as the fundamental physics of quantum 

systems or quantum computing. 

Despite these issues, the majority of the staff, as well as the research conducted within the CNST, 

are excellent. The CNST, however, is not yet optimally serving the community of potential users. CNST 

management does not appear to have taken a proactive approach to publicize the availability of this 

national resource, which includes both staff and facilities, to the scientific and engineering community at 

large. It is very important that this be done. This could substantially increase productivity, as judged on 

the basis of publications, collaborations, and growth in users. The CNST could improve its visibility 

through greater presence at conferences and interaction with industry, striving for more external awards, 

and producing a larger number of high-quality publications. 

The metrics for NanoFab usage and impact need to be more logical and transparent. The NanoFab 

needs to maintain accurate year-to-year data on the number of users, the sources of these users, and the 

amount of income derived from users. 

Furthermore, the CNST could make a greater impact, particularly in the Washington, D.C., 

metropolitan area, since the NanoFab is operating well below capacity. The annual federal budget of the 

CNST was reported as $37 million, which includes $5 million for the purchase of equipment and service 

contracts. Revenues generated by the external users, which includes industry, academia, and other 

government agencies,were approximately $1.2 million in 2015, according to the data provided to the 

panel. This translates to less than 3 percent of the total budget. This appears to be very low given that the 

CNST is primarily a user facility. 

Given that the CNST is a user facility, it may be useful to have an external advisory board of 

stakeholders that includes users—for example, faculty and laboratory directors from academia and 

 1 Neuromorphic systems are required to develop cognitive processors as well as to understand how the brain 

works and how to measure brain function and dysfunction. A NIST project in the Physical Measurement Laboratory 

utilizes superconducting single flux quantum (SFQ) and spintronics devices to mimic neural systems. These 

neuromorphic systems can operate a billion times faster than biologic neural systems. NIST is developing novel 

metrology, analogous to functional MRI, to measure synthetic cortical function. A key goal is to be able to measure 

spatial and temporal correlations in high-density spiking systems to understand memory and data processing in 

neural systems (from NIST, “Neuromorphic Systems,” https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/neuromorphicsystems, updated August 2, 2016).
26

industry, and others as appropriate. Such an advisory board might be especially valuable should user 

demand ever exceed the availability of equipment, and if the CNST were to develop a strategic plan for 

the expansion involving new equipment responsive to changing community needs. Additionally, the 

recommendations of the previous (2011) National Research Council assessment panel, An Assessment of 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology: Fiscal 

Year 2011,

2 do not seem to have been addressed by the CNST. Concerned that the recommendations of 

the current panel may be similarly ignored, the panel concluded that it would be important to conduct the 

next assessment within 2 years. 

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General Conclusions and Recommendations

NanoFab usage is well below capacity. The CNST management does not appear to have taken a 

proactive approach to publicize the availability of this national resource, which includes both staff and 

facilities, to the scientific and engineering community at large. It is very important that this be done. The 

metrics for NanoFab usage and impact need to be more logical and transparent. The NanoFab needs to 

maintain accurate year-to-year data on the number of users, the sources of these users, and the amount of 

income derived from users.

Recommendation 1: CNST management should take a proactive approach to publicize the 

availability of CNST resources and to increase the usage of CNST resources. CNST 

management should support this effort by maintaining accurate year-to-year data on the

number of users, the sources of these users, and the amount of income derived from users.

Given that the CNST is a user facility, it would be useful to have an external advisory board of 

stakeholders, including users. This could include faculty and laboratory directors from academia and 

industry, and others as appropriate.

Recommendation 2: CNST management should consider establishing an external advisory 

board of stakeholders, including CNST users.

The recommendations of the 2011 NRC assessment panel do not seem to have been addressed by 

the CNST. Concerned that the recommendations of the current panel may be similarly ignored, it would 

be important to conduct the next National Academies assessment within 2 years. 

Recommendation 3: CNST management should arrange the next National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine assessment within 2 years.

The Nanofabrication Facility

The detailed quantitative information needed for the evaluation of the NanoFab was difficult to 

obtain during the review of the facility. This is unacceptable for a user facility with this level of federal 

support. Detailed tracking of all users is routinely done by leading research fabrication facilities, and it is 

an essential tool for understanding usage trends and making rational decisions about staffing, equipment 

 2 NRC, An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Nanoscale Science and 

Technology: Fiscal Year 2011, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 2011.
27

upgrades, and new equipment acquisition. The NanoFab management needs to adopt similar practices, 

and if already implemented, to make the results available to reviewers in a timely manner.

Recommendation 4: CNST management should initiate a process that provides, maintains, 

and makes publicly available detailed data on all CNST users that identifies the number of 

facility users per equipment, their organizational affiliations, their fields of interest, the 

amount of income they provide to the CNST, and the outcomes of their facility utilization. 

NanoFab data should not be conflated with that of the NanoLab. The former consists of 

commercially available equipment designed to fabricate and measure micro- and 

nanostructures. The latter develops and hosts unique equipment, generally designed for 

exquisitely detailed measurements.

The NanoFab management has not yet begun significant recruiting efforts, and additional growth 

is possible because the facility is far from capacity. Approaching capacity is to be viewed as a positive 

goal—more users decrease idle equipment time, spreading costs more broadly. New users would also 

increase the impact of the facility. 

Recommendation 5: The NanoFab management should begin an outreach program to 

recruit new users. 

The CNST director and the staff expressed the desire to see more users from a broader range of 

disciplines and external organizations, particularly from industry; however, a strategic plan with a 

roadmap and metrics for achieving this goal was not articulated. Developing and applying metrics to 

manage operations would enable the benchmarking of performance against that of similar facilities and 

would also be a means of goal setting for strategic planning.

Recommendation 6: CNST leadership should define a strategic plan with a roadmap and 

associated metrics for the NanoFab and should benchmark NanoFab operations against 

those of other nanofabrication facilities. 

Its high level of sustained funding and collaboration with the process research team gives the 

NanoFab the opportunity to be a leading national resource. They need to be more engaged with the 

fabrication community.

Recommendation 7: CNST management should become more outward looking and more 

broadly engaged with the fabrication community beyond the traditional mechanisms of 

research collaborations and peer-reviewed publications. CNST management should 

increase service in professional organizations, sharing of fabrication protocols, and 

proliferating best practices (such as the NanoFab Equipment Management Operation 

[NEMO]). CNST management should also consider playing a leadership role in the 

University/Government/Industry Micro/Nanotechnology (UGIM) Symposium and the 

National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI) program.

Electron Physics Group

Questions remain regarding CNST’s strategic priorities with respect to the EPG. The set of tools 

and skills developed in the EPG seems to be less suited to the stated goal of neuromorphic device 

development (which includes building test circuits in the NanoFab and developing new microspecies to 

measure them) than to areas such as the fundamental physics of quantum systems or quantum computing. 
28

The information processing domain represents an emergent opportunity and encompasses biomimetic and 

hybrid transdisciplinary approaches that transcend any single team’s scope.

Recommendation 8: The Electron Physics Group and the CNST should consider how best 

to position its work on neuromorphic versus neuronal architectures and approaches to 

information processing. 

EPG’s ultralow temperature scanning tunneling microscope (ULT-STM) represents a unique 

measurement and integrated sample and tip preparation infrastructure. The fundamental research using 

this tool needs to continue, along with work that enables further enhancements of this multimodal 

measurement tool.

Recommendation 9: The CNST should continue to support the ultralow-temperature 

scanning tunneling microscope (ULT-STM) for continued success. 

EPG collaborations outside of NIST are overwhelmingly academic. In particular, there currently 

appear to be few EPG collaborations and weak linkages with industrial users. For example, participation 

in workshops that bring together scientific leaders and identify potential options that enable future 

strategic measurement challenges may help to catalyze the next generation of scientific inquiry. 

Additionally, increasing engagement with external professional societies could increase the impact of the 

EPG investigators and the CNST. 

Recommendation 10: The Electron Physics Group should increase its collaborative 

engagements with external users and its investment in external professional activities, such 

as conference organization, editorships, or society governance.

Energy Research Group

The ERG has very good scientific expertise, facilities, and equipment. The exclusive focus on 

energy may not be appropriate, given the range of related research topics and proposed future initiatives. 

Long-range strategic planning for the group was not clearly articulated, nor was it apparent in discussions. 

The ERG needs to develop a strategic plan to outline intended directions for the coming year and into the 

following 5 years.

Recommendation 11: The CNST should develop a strategic plan that reconsiders the 

mission and research focus of the Energy Research Group to more accurately reflect its 

breadth of research activities. As part of this effort, the CNST should consider whether 

there is sufficient “customer pull” for continued, significant efforts in photovoltaics.

ERG personnel are well qualified and active, with a good record of publications and involvement 

in the technical community. The ERG, however, is small and its staff are highly specialized. 

Opportunities for growing the group in more general directions need to be considered.

Recommendation 12: The CNST should evaluate the staffing of the Energy Research Group 

in terms of alignment with its mission and ability to carry out that mission. The CNST 

should strive for group staffing levels with sufficient critical mass to address important 

measurement challenges commensurate with its mission and strategic directions. 
29

Research being conducted at the ERG is of high quality. The researchers need to enhance 

collaborations with external users. This will lead to increased visibility of ERG researchers. This will also 

lead to greater use of this valuable national resource.

Recommendation 13: The Energy Research Group researchers should become more 

engaged in the professional community via society committees and trade associations. 

Nanofabrication Research Group

The diversity and quality of user-driven research projects under development in the NRG 

demonstrate the excellent scientific and technical expertise this group provides. It is difficult, however, to 

identify the alignment of the existing research activities with the group’s mission. This current 

disconnection makes it difficult to assess the projects relative to the mission. 

Recommendation 14: The Nanofabrication Research Group should redefine its mission to 

align it to the group’s existing research or, if it does not have the flexibility to redefine its

mission, it should realign the research projects to the current mission. 

In line with the NRG’s mission, the NRG needs to enhance engagement with the fabrication 

community through talks at conferences, organizing workshops and conference sessions, and society 

service. 

Recommendation 15: The Nanofabrication Research Group (NRG) should increase 

engagement with the fabrication community through strategic presentation of talks at 

conferences, organizing of workshops and conference sessions, and society service. The 

NRG should consider convening or participating in existing industry/academic/government 

consortia. One such example is the Microphotonics Center at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology, which sponsors a road mapping activity and has spring and fall meetings. The 

NRG should consider building a similarly vibrant community around its strengths in 

nanoelectromechanical systems, precision measurement, and/or atomic scale microscopy. 

31

Acronyms

AC alternating current

ACS Nano American Chemical Society Nano

AFM atomic force microscope 

CAD computer-aided design

CdTe cadmium telluride 

CMOS complementary metal-oxide semiconductor 

CNST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology 

DC direct current

DOC Department of Commerce

DOE Department of Energy 

DLS dynamic light scattering

EPG Electron Physics Group 

ERG Energy Research Group 

FE-SEM field emission scanning electron microscope

FY fiscal year

HRTEM high-resolution transmission electron microscopy 

IT information technology

MEMS microelectromechanical systems 

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

NanoFab Nanofabrication Facility

NCNR NIST Center for Neutron Research

NEMO NanoFab Equipment Management Operation

NEMS nanoelectromechanical systems

NIH National Institutes of Health

NNCI National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure 

NNI network-to-network interface 

NNIN National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NRC National Research Council

NRG Nanofabrication Research Group 

NV nitrogen vacancy 

PDMS polydimethylsiloxane

PEM polymer electrolyte membrane
32

PVD physical vapor deposition 

SEMPA scanning electron microscopy with polarization analysis

STM scanning tunneling microscope 

SWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats

TEM transmission electron microscope

UGIM University/Government/Industry Micro/Nanotechnology 

UHV ultrahigh vacuum 

ULT-STM ultralow-temperature scanning tunneling microscope