PREPRINT 

Handbook on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, 2nd ed., Taylor and Francis, 2007, pages 3.1-3.26 

National Nanotechnology Initiative - Past, Present, Future 

Dr. M.C. Roco 

National Science Foundation 

and National Nanotechnology Initiative 

Abstract 

This paper presents the genesis of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, its long-term view 

(2000-2020), its current status, and its likely evolution. 

Introduction 

Nanoscale science and engineering activities are flourishing in the United States. The National 

Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is a long-term research and development (R&D) program that 

began in fiscal year 2001, and today coordinates 25 departments and independent agencies, 

including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of 

Energy, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. The total R&D investment in fiscal 

years 2001-2005 was over $4 billion, increasing from the annual budget of $270 million in 2000 

to $1.2 billion including Congressionally directed projects in fiscal year 2005. An important 

outcome is the formation of an interdisciplinary nanotechnology community with about 50,000 

contributors. A flexible R&D infrastructure with over 60 large centers, networks, and user 

facilities has been established since 2000, as well as an expanding industrial base of more than 

1,500 companies with nanotechnology products with a value exceeding $40 billion at an annual 

rate of growth estimated at about 25 percent. With such a growth and complexity, participation 

of a coalition of academic, industry, business, civil organizations, government and NGOs to 

nanotechnology development becomes essential as an alternative to the centralized approach. 

The role of government continues in basic research but its emphasis is changing while private 

sector becomes increasingly dominant in funding nanotechnology applications. 

The NNI plan proposed in 1999 has led to a synergistic, accelerated, and interdisciplinary 

development of the field, and has motivated academic and industry communities at the national 

1
and global levels. A key factor that has contributed to establishing NNI in year 2000 was the

preparation work for identifying the core nanotechnology concepts and challenges. Secondly, 

the orchestrated effort to assemble fragmented disciplinary contributions and application-domain 

contributions has led to broad support from various stakeholders. Thirdly, the long-term view in 

planning and setting priorities was essential in the transformative governance of nanotechnology. 

Nanotechnology holds the promise to increase the efficiency in traditional industries and bring 

radically new applications through emerging technologies. Several potential R&D targets by 

2015-2020 are presented in this paper. 

The promise of nanotechnology, however, will not be realized by simply supporting research. A 

specific governing approach is necessary for emerging technologies and in particular for 

nanotechnology by considering its fundamental and broad implications. Optimizing societal 

interactions, R&D policies and risk governance for nanotechnology development can enhance 

economical competitiveness and democratization. 

1. Identifying a megatrend in science and technology 

What is nanotechnology? 

Nanotechnology operates at the first level of organization of atoms and molecules for both living 

and anthropogenic systems. This is where the properties and functions of all systems are defined. 

Such fundamental control promises a broad and revolutionary technology platform for industry, 

biomedicine, environmental engineering, safety and security, food, water resources, energy 

conversion, and countless other areas. 

The first definition of nanotechnology to achieve some degree of international acceptance was 

developed after consultation with experts in over 20 countries in 1987-1898 (Siegel et al., Roco, 

1999). However, despite its importance, there is no globally recognized definition. Any 

nanotechnology definition would include three elements: 

- The size range of the material structures under consideration -- the intermediate length 

scale between a single atom or molecule, and about 100 molecular diameters or about 100 

nm. This condition alone is not sufficient because all natural and manmade systems have 

a structure at the nanoscale; 

2
- The ability to measure and transform at the nanoscale; without it we do not have new 

understanding and a new technology; such ability has been reached only partially so far, 

but a significant progress was achieved in the last five years. 

- Exploiting properties and functions specific for nanoscale as compared to the macro or 

micro scales; this is a key motivation for researching nanoscale. 

According to National Science Foundation and NNI, nanotechnology is the ability to understand, 

control, and manipulate matter at the level of individual atoms and molecules, as well as at the 

“supramolecular” level involving clusters of molecules (in the range of about 0.1 to 100 nm), in 

order to create materials, devices, and systems with fundamentally new properties and functions 

because of their small structure. The definition implies using the same principles and tools to 

establish a unifying platform for science and engineering at the nanoscale, and using the atomic 

and molecular interactions to develop efficient manufacturing methods. 

There are at least three reasons for the current interest in nanotechnology. First, the research is 

helping us fill a major gap in our fundamental knowledge of matter. At the small end of the 

scale -- single atoms and molecules -- we already know quite a bit by using tools developed by 

conventional physics and chemistry. And at the large end, likewise, conventional chemistry, 

biology, and engineering have taught us about the bulk behavior of materials and systems. Until 

now, however, we have known much less about the intermediate nanoscale, which is the natural 

threshold where all living and man-made systems work. The basic properties and functions of 

material structures and systems are defined here and, even more importantly, can be changed as a 

function of the organization of matter via 'weak' molecular interactions (such as hydrogen bonds, 

electrostatic dipole, van der Waals forces, various surface forces, electro-fluidic forces, etc.). The 

intellectual drive toward smaller dimensions was accelerated by the discovery of size-dependent 

novel properties and phenomena. Only since 1981 have we been able to measure the size of a 

cluster of atoms on a surface (IBM, Zurich), and begun to provide better models for chemistry 

and biology selforganization and selfassembly. Ten years later, in 1991, we were able to move 

atoms on surfaces (IBM, Almaden). And after ten more years, in 2002, we assembled molecules 

by physically positioning the component atoms. Yet, we cannot visualize or model with proper 

spatial and temporal accuracy a chosen domain of engineering or biological relevance at the 

nanoscale. We are still at the beginning of this road. 

3
A second reason for the interest in nanotechnology is that nanoscale phenomena hold the 

promise for fundamentally new applications. Possible examples include chemical 

manufacturing using designed molecular assemblies, processing of information using photons or 

electron spin, detection of chemicals or bioagents using only a few molecules, detection and 

treatment of chronic illnesses by sub-cellular interventions, regenerating tissue and nerves, 

enhancing learning and other cognitive processes by understanding the “society” of neurons, and 

cleaning contaminated soils with designed nanoparticles. Using input from industry and 

academic experts in the United States, Asia Pacific countries and Europe between 1997 and 1999, 

we have projected that $1 trillion in products incorporating nanotechnology and about 2 million 

jobs worldwide will be affected by nanotechnology by 2015 (Roco and Bainbridge, 2001). 

Extrapolating from information technology, where for every worker another 2.5 jobs are created 

in related areas, nanotechnology has the potential to create 7 million jobs overall by 2015 in the 

global market. Indeed, the first generation of nanostructured metals, polymers, and ceramics 

have already entered the commercial marketplace. 

Finally, a third reason for the interest is the beginning of industrial prototyping and 

commercialization and that governments around the world are pushing to develop 

nanotechnology as rapidly as possible. Coherent, sustained R&D programs in the field have been 

announced by Japan (April 2001), Korea (July 2001), EC (March 2002), Germany (May 2002), 

China (2002) and Taiwan (September 2002). However, the first and largest such program was 

the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, announced in January 2000. 

Nanotechnology - A key component of converging technologies 

Science and engineering are the primary drivers of global technological competition. Unifying 

science based on the unifying features of nature at the nanoscale provides a new foundation for 

knowledge, innovation, and integration of technology. Revolutionary and synergistic advances 

at the interfaces between previously separated fields of science, engineering and areas of 

relevance are poised to create nano-bio-info-cogno (NBIC) transforming tools, products and 

services. 

There is a longitudinal process of convergence and divergence in major areas of science and 

engineering (Roco, 2002; Roco and Bainbridge, 2003). For example, the convergence of 

4
sciences at macroscale was proposed during the Renaissance, and it was followed by narrow 

disciplinary specialization in science and engineering in the 18th - 20th centuries. The 

convergence at the nanoscale reached its strength in about year 2000, and one may estimate a 

divergence of the nanosystem architectures in the next decades. Current convergence at the 

nanoscale is happening because the use of the same elements of analysis (that is, atoms and 

molecules) and of same principles and tools, as well as the ability to make cause-and-effect 

connections from simple components to higher-level architectures. In nano realms, the 

phenomena/processes cannot be separated, and there is no need for discipline specific averaging 

methods. In 2000, convergence had been reached at the nano-world (Figure 1a) because typical 

phenomena in material nanostructures could be measured and understood with a new set of tools, 

and nanostructures have been identified at the foundation of biological systems, 

nanomanufacturing, and communications. A new challenge is building systems from the 

nanoscale that will require the combined use of nanoscale laws, biological principles, 

information technology, and system integration. Then, after 2020, one may expect divergent 

trends as a function of the system architecture. Several possible divergent trends are system 

architectures based on: guided molecular and macromolecular assembling; robotics; 

biomimetics; and evolutionary approaches. While in 2000 we may assume to be at the 

beginning of the “S” development curve, we also may estimate that in 2020 to be in the fast 

ascendant section of the curve (Figure 1b). 

5
Size of structure

21st Century

NANO MICRO MACRO

Top down

System

creation

Bottom up

0.1 m

1 cm

1 mm

0.1 mm

10 μm

1 μm

0.1 μm

10 nm

1 nm

0.1 nm

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040

Utilizatio n of 

Nanoscale Laws 

Biological principles

Information technology

Knowledge of integration

Time

System

creation

Bottom up

0.1 m

1 cm

1 mm

0.1 mm

10 μm

1 μm

0.1 μm

10 nm

1 nm

0.1 nm

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040

Utilizatio n of 

Nanoscale Laws 

Biological principles

Information technology

Knowledge of integration

Time

. . R

obotics

Biomim

etics,

G

ui

ded 

a

sse

m

bling,

E

vol

utionary . .

Converging S&E ConvTech Dive rging system s

R eaching 

nano-world

 a. 

b. 

2000 - 2020

Time (R&D effort)

Nanotechnology Outcomes

Reaching 

nano-world 

Figure 1. a. Reaching at the nanoworld (about 2000) and “converging technologies” approach 

for system creation from the nanoscale (2000-2020) towards new paradigms for nanosystem 

architectures in applications (after 2020); b. Suggested nanotechnology R&D “S” development 

curve (schematic). 

The transforming effect of NBIC convergence on society is expected to be large, not only 

because of the high rate of change in each domain and their synergism with global effect on 

6
science and engineering, but also because we are reaching qualitative thresholds in the 

advancement of each of the four domains. In the United States, we have started two national 

initiatives on Information Technology Research (ITR, in 1999, about $2B in FY 2005) and 

National Nanotechnology Research (NNI, in 2000, reaching about $1.2B in FY 2005) (Figure 2). 

ITR and NNI provide the technological “push” with broad science and engineering 

platforms. Realizing the human potential, “the pull”, would include the biotechnology and 

cognitive technologies. Several topical, agency-specific programs have been initiated in the 

field of biotechnology, such as NIH Roadmaps (including genome), NSF’s Biocomplexity, and 

USDA’s roadmap. There was no national initiative on biotechnology and no large scale 

programs on cognition, except for the core research programs in Social, Behavioral and 

Economical Sciences and centers for science or learning at NSF. There was a need to balance 

this situation, and a partial response was, in 2003, the Human and Social Dynamics NSF priority 

area has been launched. No special interagency program was established on system approach 

and cognitive sciences. 

Information Technology Research

Info

Bio

Nano

Cogno

National Nanotechnology Initiative

NSF Biocomplexity

NIH Roadmaps

NBIC 

! (system approach, .) ! (brain-behavior, .)

! (biotechnology, .)

USDA Roadmaps

! (neurotech, .)

! (cultural, .)

The “Push” The “Pull”

Existing Needs

Figure 2. Converging technologies (NBIC) transforming tools: a survey 

of national R&D programs in 2000.

The convergence is on the broad scale (including anthropology, environment, up to social 

studies), but the most dynamic component driving an accelerating path of change is the 

7
convergence of nanotechnology, modern biology, and digital revolution (Coherence and 

Divergence in Megatrends in Science and Engineering, 1999-2000 (Roco, 1999); Converging 

Technologies for Improving Human Performance (Roco and Bainbridge, 2003). 

With proper attention to ethical issues and societal needs, these converging technologies could 

determine a tremendous improvement in human abilities, societal outcomes, the nation’s 

productivity, and the quality of life of revolutionary products and services. 

2. Key factors in establishing NNI (about 2000) 

Key factors that have contributed to establishing NNI around the year 2000 and the rapid growth 

of nanotechnology are: 

 The preparatory work for identifying core nanotechnology concepts encompassing all 

disciplines, including the definition of nanotechnology and what are key research 

directions; 

 The orchestrated effort to assemble fragmented disciplinary contributions and 

application-domain contributions and get broad and bottom-up support from various 

contributing communities and other stakeholders; and 

 Preparing the initiative as a science project. This included the long-term view (2000-

2020) in planning and setting priorities on three time scale (5years, 1 year, 1 month) and 

three levels (national, agency, and R&D program). The initial R&D focus in the first 

strategic plan (2001-2005) has been on fundamental research and “horizontal” 

multidisciplinary R&D with relevance to multiple application areas. A transition to 

“vertical” industrial development from the basic concepts is a focus for the second plan 

(2006-2010). A policy of inclusion and partnerships has been promoted, including 

international collaboration. The R&D projects have been aligned with societal needs and 

aspirations from the beginning, with a proactive role in the political and international 

context. The governing approach was data-driven and transformative (Roco, 2005a). 

Fundamental changes envisioned through nanotechnology have required a long-term R&D vision.

A two-decade time scale was planned for transitioning from the focus on passive nanostructures 

in 2001-2005 to molecular active nanosystems after 2015. To meet the challenges, the NNI was 

created, and a new approach for its governance was attempted. 

8
The NNI bottom up approach solidified the community of scientists to support the redirection of 

funds toward the new area of nanotechnology. Done top down might have fractured our 

community and led to in-fighting. The orchestration of all the government agencies behind this 

concept was critical in getting the “jump start” that was achieved. 

NNI was conceived as an inclusive process where various stakeholders would be involved. In 

1999 we envisioned “a grand coalition” of academic, industry, government, states, local 

organizations, and the public that would advance nanotechnology. Twenty-five agencies 

covered most relevant areas in national interest in NNI in 2006, and industry already is investing 

more for R&D in the U.S. 

Personal observations made during research and interactions with the community in the 1980s 

helped me posing the right questions. We identified nanotechnology as a “dormant” S&E 

opportunity, but with an “immense” potential. Creating a chorus to support nanotechnology, 

from 1990 to March 1999, was an important preliminary step. 

In 1990, I proposed nanoparticles synthesis and processing at high rates in the Emerging 

Technologies competition for a new programmatic topic at NSF. It was selected for funding, and 

become the first program in a federal agency dedicated to nanoscale science and engineering. 

The awards were for interdisciplinary groups of at least three co-principal investigators in 

different disciplines. The program supported by four divisions at NSF was largely successful 

(the results were presented at grantees meetings, in 1994 and1997). 

In the decade before NNI, between 1990 and 2000, a main challenge was the search was for the 

relevance of nanotechnology. We had to overcome three waves of skepticism. First, a concern 

was the limited relevance of the field and “pseudoscientific” claims. Then, it was the concern of 

large and unexpected consequences culminating with the risk so-called “grey-goo” scenarios. 

The third wave of concerns is on environmental, health and safety (EHS) implications; it arrived 

only later in 2002-2003 when industrial participation has increased. And yet, the main issues 

related to long-term societal implications and human development have reached the public and 

media by 2006. 

9
Participation of multiple agencies is necessary because of the large spectrum of relevance of 

nanotechnology to the society. In November 1996, I organized a small group of researchers and 

experts from government, including Stan Williams (Hewlett Packard), Paul Alivisatos 

(University of California, Berkeley) and Jim Murday (Naval Research Laboratory), and we 

started to do our homework in setting a vision for nanotechnology. We began with preparing 

supporting publications, including a report on research directions in ten areas of relevance, 

despite low expectation of additional funding at that moment. In 1997-1998, we ran a program 

solicitation “Partnership in Nanotechnology: Functional Nanostructures” at NSF and we received 

feedback from the academic community. Also, we completed a worldwide study in academe, 

industry and governments, together with a group of experts including Richard Siegel (Renssalaer 

Polytechnic Institute, then at Argonne National Laboratory) and Evelyn Hu (University of 

California, Santa Barbara). By the end of 1998, we had the understanding what are the 

possibilities at the international level. The visits performed in that time interval were essential in 

developing an international acceptance of nanotechnology, and defining its place among existing 

disciplines.

NNI was prepared with the same rigor as a science project between 1997 and 2000; we 

developed a long term vision for research and development (Roco et al., 2000) and we completed 

an international benchmarking of nanotechnology in academe, government and industry (Siegel 

et al., 1999). Other milestones included a plan for the US government investment (NSTC, 2000), 

a brochure explaining nanotechnology for the public (NSTC, 1999), and a report on the societal 

implication of nanoscience and nanotechnology (Roco and Bainbridge, 2001). More than 150 

experts, almost equally distributed between academe, industry and government, contributed in 

setting the nanotechnology research directions bringing into the dialogue experts like Richard 

Smalley (Rice University), Herb Goronkin (Motorola) and Meyya Mayyapan (NASA Ames). 

The brochure for the public was distributed to 30,000 organizations, proactively prepare a report 

for societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology, and test the interest and capacity of 

the scientific community. This was the time to rally the interest of science and engineering 

communities, international support, as well as key industrial sectors. 

10
3. The beginning of NNI 

On behalf of the interagency group, on March 11, 1999, in the historic Indian Hall at the White 

House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), I proposed the NNI with a budget of 

half billion dollars for fiscal year 2001. I was given 10 minutes to make the case. While two 

other topics were on the agenda of that meeting, nanotechnology captured the imagination of 

those present and discussions reverberated for about two hours. It was the first time that a forum 

at this level with representatives from the major federal R&D departments reached a decision to 

consider exploration of nanotechnology as a national priority. In parallel, over two dozen of 

other competing topics were under consideration by OSTP for priority funding in fiscal year 

2001. We had the attention of Neal Lane, then the Presidential Science Advisor, and Tom Kalil, 

then economic assistant to the President. However, few experts gave even a small chance to 

nanotechnology to become a national priority program. However, after a long series of 

evaluations, NNI was approved and had a budget of $489 million in FY 2001 ($464 million 

proposed by six agencies and $25 million Congressionally directed, see Table 1). 

After that presentation, our focus changed. Because nanotechnology was not known to Congress 

or the Administration, establishing a clear definition of nanotechnology and communicating the 

vision to large communities and organizations took the center stage. Indeed, the period from 

March 1999 through the end of the year was a time of very intense activity. Few experts gave 

even a small chance to nanotechnology for special funding by the White House. Nevertheless, 

with this proposal and the “homework” of studies completed, we focused our attention on the six 

major federal department and agencies -- the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of 

Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), NASA, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) -- that would place nanotechnology 

as a top priority during the summer of 1999. 

We provided detailed technical input for two hearings in the Congress, in both the Subcommittee 

on Basic Science, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives (June 22, 1999) and the 

Senate, and support was received from both parties. The preparatory materials included a full 

200-page benchmarking report, ten-page research directions and one-page summary on 

immediate goals. After the Hearing in the House, Nick Smith, the Chair of the first public 

hearing in preparation of NNI, told “Now we have sufficient information to aggressively pursue 

nanotechnology funding.“ Rick Smalley came and testified despite his illness. 

11
Then, the approval process moved to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (November 

1999), Presidential Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (PCAST) (December 1999) 

and the Executive Office of the President (EOP, White House) (January 2000), and had 

supporting hearings in the House and Senate of the US Congress (Spring 2000). In November 

1999, the OMB recommended nanotechnology as the only new R&D initiative for fiscal year 

2001. On December 14, 1999, the PCAST highly recommended that the President fund 

nanotechnology R&D. Thereafter, it was a quiet month – we had been advised by the Executive 

Office of the President to restrain from speaking to the media about the topic because a White 

House announcement would be made. We prepared a draft statement. A video was being 

produced for the planned multimedia presentation, but we did not have time to complete it. 

President Clinton announced the NNI at Caltech in January 2000 beginning with words such as 

“Imagine what could be done....” He used only slides. After that speech, we moved firmly in 

preparing the Federal plan for R&D investment, to identify the key opportunities and convincing 

potential contributors to be proactive. House and Senate hearings brought the needed recognition 

and feedback from Congress. 

The selection of NNI at OMB, OSTP, and PCAST was in competition with other science and 

technology priorities for fiscal year 2001, and only one topic – nanotechnology - was selected in 

the process. 

I spoke to major professional societies (initially the American Chemical Society, then the 

Institute for Electric and Electronics Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineering 

and American Institute of Chemical Engineering, and attended national meetings for introduction 

of nanotechnology in about 20 countries. 

A challenge in the first years of the initiative with so many new developments was maintaining 

consistency, coherence and original thinking. 

Three names (nanotechnology definition, the name of the initiative - NNI, and of the National 

Nanotechnology Coordinating Office) were decided in the same time interval 1999-2000. The 

name NNI was proposed on March 11, 1999, but it was under “further consideration” until the 

12
Presidential announcement because concerns from several professional societies and committees 

that the title does not include explicitly “science.” We explained that we selected a simple name 

showing the relevance to society. 

The “Interagency Working Group on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology” (IWGN) 

was established in 1998 (October 1998-July 2000) as a cross-cut working group in the National 

Science and Technology Council (NSTC), White House. In1997, I was contacted by T. Khalil 

who saw my publications on nanotechnology. Through NSF, I proposed interagency working 

group working across various topical committees. This was an important victory because the 

initial proposal in March 1998 was to have working group under the NSTC’s Materials activities. 

Also, until March 11, 1999, we were advised to be cautious about interacting with media on 

nanotechnology risks. President Clinton announced the NNI at Caltech in January 2000. In July 

2000, the White House elevated the IWGN to the level of “Nanoscale Science, Engineering and 

Technology” (NSET) Subcommittee of the NSTC’s Committee on Technology with the role “to 

implement NNI” and I was appointed chairman. The National Nanotechnology Coordination 

Office (NNCO) name was decided in August 2000, and the Memorandum of Understanding to 

fund NNCO was signed by the last participating agency on January 17, 2001 in the last day of 

the Clinton Administration. 

In the first year, the six agencies of the NNI invested about $490 million (including 

Congressionally - directed funding), only few percentage points less than the tentative budget 

proposed on March 11, 1999. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, NNI has increased significantly, 

from six to 16 departments and agencies. The Presidential announcement of NNI with its vision 

and program partially motivated or stimulated the international community. About other 60 

countries have announced priority nanotechnology programs since the NNI announcement. It 

was as if nanotechnology had gone through a phase transition. What had once been perceived as 

blue sky research of limited interest (or in the view of several groups, science fiction, or even 

pseudoscience), was now being seen as a key technology of the 21st century. The Bush 

Administration has increased the support for NNI with higher Presidential annual “budget 

requests” each year. The average annual rate of increase of the NNI budgets was over 35 percent 

(including Congressionally - directed funding) in the first five years. The structure of NNI 

programs in the first (fiscal years 2001-2005) and second (fiscal years 2006-2010) strategic plans 

13
is given in Appendix A. The list of NNI participating agencies in January 2006 is provided in 

Appendix B. 

In 2000, we estimated a $1 trillion nanotechnology related market of nanoproducts incorporating 

nanotechnology (Figure 3), and the demand for 2 million workers worldwide by 2015 -- using 

input from industry and experts around the world. We also saw the increasing convergence of 

nanotechnology with modern biology, the digital revolution, and cognitive sciences in the first 

half of the 21st century. 

Passive nanostructures

Active nanostructures

Systems of NS

Average annual rate of increase about 25%

Rudimentary structures Complex

1

10

100

1000

10000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

YEAR

MARKET INCORPORATING 

NANOTECHNOLOGY ($B)

NSF (2000)

Deutche Bank

Lux Research

Mith. Res. Inst.

Figure 3. Estimation of the worldwide market incorporating nanotechnology (Estimation made 

in 2000, at NSF; Roco and Bainbridge, 2001). These estimations have been based on direct 

contacts with leading experts in large companies with related R&D programs in US, Japan and 

Europe, and the international study completed between 1997 and 1999 (Siegel et al., 1999). 

After initially passing the House with a vote of 405-19 (H.R. 766), and then the Senate with 

unanimous support (S. 189) in November 2003, the “21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act” 

was signed by the President on December 3, 2003. The bi-partisan support is strong because the 

nanotechnology progress is seen as “a higher purpose” beyond party affiliation. The Bush 

14
administration provided support and has increased the level of investment in NNI to about $1.2 

billion in 2006. 

4. NNI at five years (2001-2005) 

There are major outcomes after five year (fiscal years 2001-2005) of the NNI. The R&D 

landscape for nanotechnology research and education has changed, advancing it from fragmented 

fields and questions such as “what is nanotechnology?” and “could it ever be developed?” to a 

highly competitive domain where the main question is “how industry and medicine can we take 

advantage of it faster?” In only five years, nanoscience and nanotechnology have opened an era 

of integration of fundamental research and engineering from the atomic and molecular levels, 

increased technological innovation for economic manufacturing of products, and an enabling 

base for improving human health and cognitive abilities in long term. For this reason, 

government investments worldwide for nanotechnology R&D have increased five-fold in five 

years reaching about $4.1 billion in 2005 from about $825 million in 2000, and all Fortune 500 

companies in materials, electronics and pharmaceutical have made investments in 

nanotechnology after 2002. Of 30 Dow Jones companies, 19 have initiatives on application of 

nanotechnology in 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) fuels these 

developments. By creating a “power house” of discoveries and innovations, the NNI has been 

the major driver for nanoscience and nanotechnology developments and applications in the 

United Sates and in the World. In 2005, NNI supported over 4,000 projects and 60 new centers, 

networks and user facilities in the United States. Over $8 billions are invested worldwide now 

by governments and industry for nanotechnology R&D. The vision of a decade ago has taken 

place. 

Figure 4 shows the increase of the relative number of NSF awards in nanoscale science and 

engineering of the total NSF awards, which reached about 11% in 2005. On the same graph one 

may see the increase with some delay of the relative number of nanotechnology-related papers in 

the top twenty cited journals (according to ISO), number of nanotechnology related papers in 

three leading journals (Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Science), 

and number of nanotechnology patents at the United States Patent Office (USPTO). All 

documents were searched using the same method (searching for keywords in the title, abstract 

and claims). 

15
Percentage of NSE Awards/Patents/Papers

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

NSF-NSE Award / Paper / Patent Percentage

Top 20 Journals' Nano Paper Percentage

3 Selected Journals' Nano Paper Percentage

Title-claim Search's Nano Patent Percentage

NSF Nano New Grant Percentage

Figure 4. Time line for the number of NSF awards, number of journal articles (ISO), and 

number of patents (USPTO) on nanoscale science and engineering published between 1991 and 

2005. All documents were searched by the same keywords (as described in Huang et al, 2004) in 

the title and abstract, as well as in the “claims” for patents. 

The NNI R&D program has a total investment of about $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2005 (Table 1). 

Comparative budgets and investments per capita are given in Figure 5 and Tables 2-4. About 65 

percent of funds were dedicated to academic R&D institutions, 25 percent to government 

laboratories and 10 percent to industry of which 7% for SBIR/STTR awards. The first five years 

(fiscal years 2001-2005) of NNI have lead to significant science and engineering advances, have 

increased the confidence that nanotechnology development is one of the key technologies at the 

beginning of the 21st century, and has raised the challenges of responsible development including 

environmental, health and safety (EHS) (Roco, 2003). 

16
Federal Department or 

Agency 

FY 

2000 

Actual 

($M) 

FY 

2001 

Actual 

($M) 

FY 

2002 

Actual 

($M) 

FY 

2003 

Actual 

($M) 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

($M) 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

($M) 

FY 

2006 

Actual 

($M) 

FY 

2007 

Actual 

($M) 

FY 

2008 

Actual 

($M) 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 97 150 204 221 256 335 360 389 409 

Department of Defense (DOD) 

(without Congressionally-directed) 

70 125 224 322 291 252 324 450 460 

Department of Energy (DOE) 58 88 89 134 202 208 231 236 240 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) 32 40 59 78 106 165 192 215 305 

National Institute of Standards and 

technology (NIST) 

8 33 77 64 77 79 78 88 86 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) 

5 22 35 36 47 45 50 20 17 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) - - - - - 3 4 7 7 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) - 5 6 5 5 7 5 8 12 

Homeland Security (TSA) - - 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 

Department of Agriculture 

(USDA: CSREES) - 1.5 0 1 2 3 4 4 6 

Department of Agriculture 

(USDA: Forest Service) 

2 3 5 

Department of Justice (DOJ) - 1.4 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 

Department of Transportation 

(DOT: FHVA) 

1 1 1 

TOTAL without Congr.-directed 

(% of FY 2000 budget) 

270 

(100%) 

464 

(172%) 

697 

(258%)

862 

(319%) 

989 

(366%) 

1,100 

(407%) 

1,241 

(460%) 

1,425 

(528%)

1,549 

(573%)

Congressionally-directed - 25 

(DOD)

40 

(DOD)

80 

(DOD)

103 

(DOD)

~100 

(DOD)

100 

(DOD) 

10

(NASA)

TOTAL with Congr.-directed 

(% of FY 2000 budget) 

270 

(100%

) 

489 

(181%) 

737 

(273%)

942 

(349%) 

1092 

(404%) 

1,200 

(444%) 

1,351 

(481%) 

1,425 

(528%)

1,549 

(535%)

Table 1. Contribution of key federal departments and agencies to NNI investment (Each fiscal 

Year (FY) begins October 1 of the previous year and ends September 30 of the respective year). 

 

17
Index FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

FY 

2004 

FY 

2005 

FY 

2006 

FY 

2007 

FY 

2008 

 GDP (Trillion) 9.8 10.1 10.5 11.0 11.7 12.5 

 Specific NNI R&D ($/Capita) 

(Assume 293 million of 2004) 

0.9 1.7 2.5 3.2 3.7 4.1 4.6 4.8 4.9 

 Specific NNI R&D ($/$M GDP) 27.6 48.4 70.2 85.6 93.3 98.2 

Table 2. Specific NNI R&D expenditure per capita and per GDP between 2000 and 2005 

(the NNI budgets include Congressionally-directed supplements) 

Region 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Est. 

2008 

Req. 

EU + 126 151 179 200 ~ 225 ~ 400 ~ 650 ~ 950 ~1,050 1,150 

Japan 120 135 157 245 ~ 465 ~ 720 ~ 800 ~ 900 ~ 950 980 

USA* 116 190 255 270 464 697 862 989 1,200 1,351 1,397 1,445 

Others 70 83 96 110 ~ 380 ~ 550 ~ 800 ~ 900 ~1,000 1,200 

Total 

(% of 1997) 

432 

(100%) 

559 

(129%) 

687 

(159%) 

825 

(191%) 

1,534 

(355%) 

2,367 

(547%) 

3,112 

(720%) 

3,739 

(866%) 

4,200 

(972%) 

4,681 

(1083%)

Table 3. Estimated Government Nanotechnology R&D Expenditures, 1997-2005 

($ Millions/Year). Explanatory notes: National and EU funding is included. The EU+ includes 

countries in EU (15)/EU(25) and Switzerland (CH): the rate of exchange $1 = 1.1 Euro until 

2002, = 0.9 Euro in 2003, and = 0.8 Euro in 2004-2005; Japan rate of exchange $1 = 120 yen 

until 2002, = 110 yen in 2003, = 105 yen in 2004-2005; “Others” includes Australia, Canada, 

China, Eastern Europe, FSU, Israel, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and other countries with 

nanotechnology R&D; Estimates use the nanotechnology definition as defined in the NNI (this 

definition does not include MEMS, microelectronics, or general research on materials) (see 

Roco, Williams and Alivisatos, 2000, Springer, former Kluwer, also on http://nano.gov), and 

include the publicly reported government of allocations spent in the respective financial years; 

* A fiscal year (FY) begins in the USA on October 1, and in most other countries six month later 

around April 1; Denotes the actual budget recorded at the end of the respective fiscal year except 

for “Estimate” and “Request”, without including Congressionally-directed budget. 

18
Country

/ Region

Gov. 

Nanotech 

R&D, 

2004 

($M) 

Specific 

Nanotech 

R&D, 

2004 

($/Capita)

Specific 

Nanotech 

R&D, 2004 

($/$M 

GDP)

USA 1100 3.7 93

EU-25 ~1050 2.3 86

Japan ~ 950 7.4 250

China ~ 250 0.2 31

Korea ~ 300 6.2 350

Taiwan ~ 110 4.7 208

Table 4. Specific NNI R&D expenditure per capita and per GDP between 2000 and 2005 

(the NNI budgets include Congressionally-directed supplements) (after Roco, 2005b). 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

millions $ / year

W. Europe

Japan

USA

Others

Total

NNI Preparation

(vision / benchmark)

1st Strategic Plan

(passive nanostructures)

2nd Strategic Plan

(active nanostructures

& systems)

Seed funding

(1991 - )

Figure 5. National government investments in nanotechnology R&D in the world and the 

United States in the past ten years (1997-2006) (see Table 3). 

19
Major achievements of NNI in the first five years are listed below. 

 a. First, NNI developed foundational knowledge in nanotechnology with about 4,000 

projects funded in 2001-2005 in over 500 institutions (about 300 academic and over 200 small 

businesses and government laboratories) in all 50 states. Research is advancing toward 

systematic control of matter at the nanoscale faster than envisioned in 2000, when NNI was 

introduced with words like “Imagine what could be done in 20-30 years from now.” In 2005, 

about four hundred projects addressed molecular assembling and nanoscale devices and systems, 

tailoring molecules and manipulating individual atoms. Such R&D projects were not feasible 

just five years ago. For example, Sam Stupp of Northwestern University has designed molecules 

for hierarchical selfassembling in desired materials. Alex Zettl of University of California at 

Berkeley has built the smallest nano-motor with an ax of few nanometers, and Jim Heath at 

Caltech has analyzed and sense cells as complex nanosystems. The time for reaching 

commercial prototypes has been reduced by at least of factor of two for key application areas 

such as detection of cancer, molecular electronics, and nanostructure reinforced composites. 

 

 b. NNI has been recognized for creating an interdisciplinary nanotechnology 

community in the United States. According to an external review committee at NSF (NSF 

COV, 2004), “Two significant and enduring results have emerged from this investment: They are 

the creation of a nanoscale science and engineering community, and the fostering of a strong 

culture of interdisciplinary research.” 

 

 c. Nanotechnology education and outreach is impacted over 10,000 graduate students 

and teachers in 2005. Systemic changes are in preparation for education, by earlier introduction 

of nanoscience and reversing the “pyramid of science” with understanding of the unity of nature 

at the nanoscale from the beginning (Roco, 2003). Nanotechnology education has been expanded 

systematically to earlier education, including undergraduate (Nanotechnology Undergraduate 

Education program with over 80 awards since 2002), high schools (since 2003), as well as 

informal education, science museums and the public. All major science and engineering colleges 

in United States have introduced courses related to nanoscale science and engineering in the last 

five years. NSF has established recently three other networks with national outreach addressing 

education and societal dimensions: (a) The Nanoscale Center for Learning and Teaching aims to 

reach one million students in all 50 states in the next five years; (b) The Nanoscale Informal 

Science Education network will develop, among others, about 100 nanoscale science and 

20
technology museum sites in the next five years; (c) The Network on Nanotechnology in Society 

was established in September 2005 with four nodes at the Arizona State University, University 

of California at Santa Barbara, University of South Carolina, and Harvard University. The 

Network will address both short-term and long-term societal implications of nanotechnology, as 

well as public engagement. All 15 Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers sponsored by 

NSF have strong education and outreach activities. The exhibitions organized by the Cornell 

Nanobiotechnology Center are good illustrations for outreach efforts. The 3,000-square-foot 

exhibition, "It's a Nano World", first opened at Ithaca, N.Y., in 2003, has reached 3 million 

people by the end of 2005. It traveled at Epcot in Florida, and science museums in Ohio, South 

Carolina, Louisiana, Michigan, Virginia and Texas. The exhibition is aimed at 5- to 8-year-olds 

and their parents. In 2006, a new 5,000-square-foot traveling exhibition, "Too Small to See," 

aims at middle school students to explain how nanotechnologists create and use devices on a 

molecular scale. 

 d. R&D and innovation results: With about 25 percent of global government 

investments ($1 billion of $4 billions), the United States accounts for about 50 percent of highly 

cited papers (Zucker and Darby, 2005), ~ 60 percent of USPTO patents (Huang et al, 2004; 

Figure 2), and about 70 percent of startups companies (NanoBusiness, 2004) in nanotechnology 

worldwide. Industry investment in United States has exceeded the NNI in R&D, and almost all 

major companies in the traditional and emerging fields have nanotechnology groups at least to 

survey the competition. Small Times reported 1,455 U.S. nanotechnology companies in March 

2005 with roughly half being small businesses, and 23,000 new jobs were created in small 

startup ‘nano’ companies. The NNI SBIR investment was about $80 million in fiscal year 2005. 

More than 200 small businesses with a total budget of approximately $60 million have received 

support from NSF alone since 2001. Many of these are among the 600 ‘pure play” 

nanotechnology companies formed in the United States since 2001 identified in a survey by 

Small Times. All Fortune 500 companies in emerging materials, electronics and pharmaceutics 

have nanotechnology activities since 2003. 

In 2000, only a handful of companies have corporate interest on nanotechnology (under 1 

percent of the companies). A survey performed by the National Center for Manufacturing 

Sciences (NCMS, 2006) at the end of 2005 shows that 18 percent of surveyed companies are 

already marketing nanoproducts. Also, a broad spectrum of new applications in advanced 

21
nanoparticles and nanocoatings, as well a durable goods, consumer electronics and medical 

products are in the pipeline: 80 percent of the companies are expected to have nanoproducts by 

2010 (within five years) and 98 percent in longer term (Figure 6). Even if the survey s limited, it 

shows a strong vote of confidence from a variety of industrial sectors. 

Figure 6. Commercialization time lines indicate many new nanoproducts introductions in 

2007-2011, and the high level of expectation in long-term (after NCMS, 2006). 

Figure 7 shows the number of USPTO patents searched by keywords in the “title-claims” (Huang 

et al., 2004). While the United States has a commanding lead of about 61 percent that is similar 

in the range of 10 percent with other major databases from Europe and Japan, but the decrease in 

2005 raises questions. In 2005, the overall number of USPTO patents decreased by about the 

same proportion. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

19901992199419961998200020022004

Year

Number of Patents

Others

W.Europe

Japan

USA

Figure 7. The Unites States has over 60 percent of world nanotechnology patents in the 

USPTO database (by searching in “Title-abstract-claims” for nanotechnology keywords with 

an intelligent search engine; Huang et al., 2004) 

22
An interesting result is the higher citation of patents authored by NSF grantees (see Figure 7 

Huang et al, 2005). Statistical analysis shows that the NSF-funded researchers and their patents 

have higher impact factors than other private and publicly funded reference groups. This 

suggests the importance of fundamental research and engineering on nanotechnology 

development. The number of cites per NSF-funded inventor is about ten as compared to two for 

all inventors of NSE-related patents recorded at USPTO, and the corresponding Authority Score 

is 20 as compared to one. 

 e. Significant infrastructure has been established in over 70 universities and 12 

government laboratories with nanotechnology user capabilities. About sixty large centers, 

networks and user facilities have been created by NSF (24), NIH (19), DOE (5), NASA (4), 

DOD (3), NIST (2), and CDC/NIOSH (2). Two user networks established by NSF, the Network 

on Computational Nanotechnology (established in 2002) and the National Nanotechnology 

Infrastructure Network (established in 2003) have attracted over 12,000 academic, industry, and 

government users in 2005 (see list of NSF centers in Appendix C). The DOE user facilities are 

located at five National Laboratories taking advantage of the existing large facilities there. 

NASA has established four academic based centers. 

 f. The NNI’s vision of a “grand coalition” of academe, government, industry and 

professional groups is taking shape. Over 22 regional alliances have been established throughout 

the United States and develop local partnerships, support commercialization and education. 

Professional societies have established specialized divisions, organized workshops and 

continuing education programs, among them the American Association for the Advancement of 

Science, American Chemical Society, American Physics Society, Materials Research Society, 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Institute 

of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the American Vacuum Society. While Federal R&D 

investment is increasing, the attention is extending to the legislative and even judiciary branches 

of the Unites States government. 

 Partnerships have been created between NNI and industry sectors (Consultative 

Boards for Advancing Nanotechnology (CBAN) including with the electronic industry sector, 

chemical industry, and Industrial Research Institute). International agreements have been signed 

with over 25 countries. An example of partnerships is the International Institute for 

Nanotechnology (IIN) at Northwestern University in Illinois. With support from NSF, NIH, 

23
DOE, and NASA, this institute has developed partnerships with the state of Illinois, the city of 

Chicago, and private foundations to create a new kind of science-and-technology-driven regional 

coalition. With $300 million in funding for nanotechnology research, educational programs, and 

infrastructure, IIN has established a large pre-competitive nanoscale science and engineering 

platform for developing applications, demonstrating manufacturability, and training skilled 

researchers. 

g. Societal implications were addressed from the start of the NNI, beginning with the 

first research and education program on environmental and societal implications, issued by NSF 

in July 2000. In September 2000, the report on “Societal Implications of Nanoscience and 

Nanotechnology” was issued. Today, in 2003, the number of projects in the area had grown 

significantly, funded by NSF, EPA, NIH, NIOSH, DOE and other agencies. Awareness of 

potential unexpected consequences of nanotechnology has increased, and federal agencies meet 

periodically to discuss those issues in the NSET Working Group Nanomaterials Environmental 

and Health Issues (NEHI). In the crosscut of all programs, societal implications and 

applications (addressing environmental, health and safety; educational; ethical, legal and other 

social implications) may be identified in about 10 percent of all NNI projects. In the first five 

years of NNI, the NSF investment with relevance to fundamental research supporting 

environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanotechnology is about $82 million, or about 7 

percent of the NSF nanoscale science and engineering investment. Research has addressed the 

sources of nanoparticles and nanostructured materials in the environment (in air, water, soil, 

biosystems, and work environment), as well as the non-clinical biological implications. The 

safety of manufacturing nanomaterials is investigated in four NSF centers/networks including at 

Rice University, Northeastern University, University of Pennsylvania and NNIN (nodes at the 

University of Minnesota and Arizona State University are focused on nanoparticle 

measurement). 

 e. Leadership: As a result of the NNI, the U.S. is recognized as the world leader in this 

area of science, technology, and economic opportunity. The NNI has catalyzed global activities 

in nanotechnology and served as a model for other programs. Several recognitions for 

contributing to NNI are given in Appendix D. 

24
Industry-NNI Collaborative Boards for Advancing Nanotechnology 

The NNI has established a new approach for the interaction with industry sectors besides the 

previous models in supporting academe-industry government collaboration and encouraging 

technological innovation. Consultative Boards for Advancing Nanotechnology (CBAN) are 

representing various industry sectors broadly and help coordinate interactions with electronic, 

chemical, business, medical/pharmaceutical and car manufacturing sectors. The NNI has 

established a new approach for the interaction with various industry sectors besides the previous 

models. Joint Consultative Boards for Advancing Nanotechnology (CBAN) have been formed 

with key industry sectors such as electronic, chemical, biotechnology and business sectors. They 

provide input to R&D planning for short and long-term, to EHS needs, and contribute to 

nanotechnology R&D and education. The CBAN with electronic industry was established in 

October 2003, and five working groups have prepared various reports, and several collaborative 

activities in long-term R&D planning and funding of research have been completed. The main 

objectives of CBAN are: 

(a) Joint planning and support of collaborative activities in key R&D areas; 

(b) Disseminate the NNI R&D results to industry and encourage technology transfer and 

technological innovation and industrial use; 

(c) Identify and promote new R&D for exploratory areas or gaps in current programs, 

including those with potential in niche markets; 

(d) Expand nanotechnology R&D in industry and long-term topics in academe; 

(e) Periodical joint meetings and joint reports; and 

(f) Exchange information. A formal mechanism via public hearings is planned to 

provide opportunity to industrial partners to propose R&D topics. 

5. Technical challenges in 2005-2020 

Nanotechnology has the potential to change our comprehension of nature and life, develop 

unprecedented manufacturing tools and medical procedures, and even effect societal and 

international relations. Nanotechnology holds the promise to increase the efficiency in traditional 

industries and bring radically new applications through emerging technologies. The first set of 

25
nanotechnology grand challenges was established in 1999-2000, and NSET plans to update it in 

2004. Let’s imagine again what could be done. Ten potential developments by 2015 are: 

 At least half of the newly designed advanced materials and manufacturing processes are 

built using control at the nanoscale at least in one of the key components. Even if this 

control may be rudimentary as compared to the long-term potential of nanotechnology, this 

will mark a milestone towards the new industrial revolution as outlined in 2000. By 

extending the experience with information technology in the 1990s, I would estimate an 

overall increase of social productivity by at least 1 percent per year because of these changes. 

Silicon transistors will reach dimensions smaller than 10 nm and will be integrated with 

molecular or other kind of nanoscale systems. Alternative technologies for replacing the 

electronic charge as information carrier with electron spin, phase, polarization, magnetic flux 

quanta, and/or dipole orientation are under consideration. Technologies will be developed 

for directed self assembly into non-regular, hierarchically organized, device oriented 

structures and creation of functional, nanoscale building blocks. Lighter composite 

nanostructured materials, nanoparticle laden more reactive and less pollutant fuels, and 

automated systems enabled by nanoelectronics will dominate automotive, aircraft and 

aerospace industries. Top-down manufacturing is expected to integrate with bottom-up 

molecular assemblies using modular approaches. Nanoscale designed catalysts will expand 

the use in “exact” chemical manufacturing to cut and assemble molecular assemblies, with 

minimal waste. Measurement and imaging of large domains of biological and engineering 

interest are expected to reach atomic precision and time resolution of chemical reactions. 

Visualization and numerical simulation of three-dimensional domains with nanometer 

resolution will be necessary for engineering applications. 

 Suffering from chronic illnesses is being sharply reduced. It is conceivable that by 2015, 

our knowledge to detect and treat tumors in their first year would be advanced and will have 

the ability to reduce suffering and death from cancer. In 2000, we aimed for earlier detection 

of cancer within 20-30 years. Today, based on the results obtained during 2001-2005 in 

understanding the cell and new instrumentation, we are trying to eliminate cancer as a cause 

of death if treated in a timely manner. Pharmaceutical synthesis, processing and delivery will 

be enhanced by nanoscale control, and about half of pharmaceuticals will use 

nanotechnology in a key component. Modeling the brain based on neuron-to-neuron 

interactions will be possible by using advances in nanoscale measurement and simulation. 

26
 Converging science and engineering from the nanoscale will establish a mainstream 

pattern for applying and integrating nanotechnology with biology, electronics, medicine, 

learning and other fields (Roco and Bainbridge, 2003). It includes hybrid manufacturing, 

neuromorphic engineering, artificial organs, expanding life span, enhancing learning and 

sensorial capacities. Science and engineering of nanobiosystems will become essential to 

human healthcare and biotechnology. The brain and nervous systems functions are expected 

to be measure with relevance to cognitive engineering. 

 Life-cycle sustainability and biocompatibility will be pursued in the development of 

new products. Knowledge development in nanotechnology will lead to reliable safety rules 

for limiting unexpected environmental and health consequences of nanostructures. Control 

of contents of nanoparticles will be performed in air, soils and waters using a national 

network. International agreements will address the nomenclature, standards and risk 

governance of nanotechnology. 

 Knowledge development and education will originate from the nanoscale instead of the 

microscale. A new education paradigm not based on disciplines but on unity of nature and 

education-research integration will be tested for K-16 (reversing the pyramid of learning (8)). 

Science and education paradigm changes will be at least as fundamental as those during the 

“microscale S&E transition” that originated in 1950s where microscale analysis and scientific 

analysis were stimulated by the space race and digital revolution. The new “nanoscale S&E 

transition” will change the foundation of analysis and the language of education stimulated by 

the nanotechnology products. This new “transition” originated at the threshold of the third 

millennium. 

 Nanotechnology businesses and organizations will restructure towards integration with 

other technologies, distributed production, continuing education, and forming consortia of 

complementary activities. Traditional and emerging technologies will be equally affected. 

An important development will be creation of nanotechnology R&D platforms to serve 

various areas of applications with the same investigative and productive tools. Two 

examples are the nanotechnology platform created at a newly build laboratory by General 

Electric and the discovery instrumentation platform developed at the Sandia National 

Laboratory.

 The capabilities of nanotechnology for systematic control and manufacture at the nanoscale 

are envisioned to evolve in four overlapping generations of new nanotechnology products 

27
1st: Passive nanostructures (1st generation products)

a. Dispersed and contact nanostructures. Ex: aerosols, colloids

b. Products incorporating nanostructures. Ex: coatings; nanoparticle 

reinforced composites; nanostructured metals, polymers, ceramics

2nd: Active nanostructures

a. Bio-active, health effects. Ex: targeted drugs, biodevices

b. Physico-chemical active. Ex: 3D transistors, amplifiers, 

actuators, adaptive structures

3rd: Systems of nanosystems

Ex: guided assembling; 3D networking and new 

hierarchical architectures, robotics, evolutionary

4th: Molecular nanosystems 

Ex: molecular devices ‘by design’, 

atomic design, emerging functions

~ 2010

~ 2005 

~ 2000

Frame 1 Risk Governance Frame 2 

~ 2015- 2020

CMU

Figure 8. Timeline for beginning of industrial prototyping and nanotechnology 

commercialization: Four generations of nanoproducts 

a. First Generation of products (~2001- ) is “passive nanostructures” and is typically 

used to tailor macroscale properties and functions. The specific behavior is stable in time. 

Illustrations are nanostructured coatings, dispersion of nanoparticles, and bulk materials - 

nanostructured metals, polymers, and ceramics. 

b. Second Generation of products (~ 2005 – ) is “active nanostructures” for mechanical, 

electronic, magnetic, photonic, biological, and other effects. It is typically integrated into 

microscale devices and systems. New transistors, components of nanoelectronics beyond 

CMOS, amplifiers, targeted drugs and chemicals, actuators, artificial “muscles”, and 

adaptive structures illustrate this. 

c. Third Generation (~ 2010 – ) is “systems of nanosystems with three-dimensional 

nanosystems” using various syntheses and assembling techniques such as bioassembling; robotics with emerging behavior, and evolutionary approaches. A key 

challenge is networking at the nanoscale and hierarchical architectures. Research focus 

28
d. Fourth Generation (~ 2015 - ) will bring “heterogeneous molecular nanosystems”, 

where each molecule in the nanosystem has a specific structure and plays a different role. 

Molecules will be used as devices and from their engineered structures and architectures 

will emerge fundamentally new functions. Designing new atomic and molecular 

assemblies is expected to increase in importance, including macromolecules “by design”, 

nanoscale machines, and directed and multiscale selfassembling, exploiting quantum 

control, nanosystem biology for healthcare, human-machine interface at the tissue and 

nervous system level. Research will include topics such as: atomic manipulation for 

design of molecules and supramolecular systems, controlled interaction between light and 

matter with relevance to energy conversion among others, exploiting quantum control 

mechanical-chemical molecular processes, nanosystem biology for healthcare and 

agricultural systems, and human-machine interface at the tissue and nervous system level.

 Energy conversion - is a main objective of nanotechnology development and exploratory 

projects in areas such as photovoltaic conversion and direct conversion of thermal to electric 

energy, are expected to be developed

 Water filtration and desalinization - using nanotechnology has a high promise despite that 

only scarce efforts are underway. 

 Nano-informatics – specific databases and methods to use them will be developed for 

characterization of nanocomponents, on materials and processes integrated at the nanoscale. 

Such databases will interface with the existing such as bio-informatics, human and plant 

genome. 

6. New science and engineering, new governance approach 

The promise of nanotechnology, however, will not be realized by simply supporting research. 

Just as nanotechnology is changing how we think about unity of matter at the nanoscale and 

manufacturing, it’s also changing how we think about the management of the research enterprise. 

29
This switch can be seen as the specialization of scientific disciplines has migrated to more 

unifying concepts for scientific research and system integration in engineering and technology. 

Most of the major U.S. science and technology programs in the 20th century – such as space 

exploration, energy and environmental programs – have been “pulled” primarily by external 

factors. The economy, natural resources, national security and international agreements and 

justifications have initiated top-down R&D funding decisions. 

In contrast, nanotechnology development was initially “pushed” by fundamental knowledge 

(nanoscience and nanoengineering) and the long-term promise of its transformative power. For 

this reason, we have done the preparation and governance of nanotechnology differently. For 

nano, research policies have been motivated by long-term vision rather than short-term 

economical and political decisions. 

Transforming and responsible development has guided many NNI decisions. Investments must 

have return, the benefit-to-risk ratio must be justifiable, and societal concerns must be addressed. 

We have introduced nanomanufacturing as a grand challenge since 2002, and we have 

established a research program at NSF with the same name. NSF awarded three 

nanomanufacturing centers, and NSF, DOD and NIST will create a network in 2006. In another 

example, in 2004-2005, NSF is establishing a new kind of networks with national goals and 

outreach. The four networks are in high school and undergraduate nanotechnology education, 

nanotechnology in society, informal nanotechnology science education, and hierarchical 

manufacturing. The NEHI (Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Issues) and NILI 

(Nanotechnology Innovation and Liaison with Industry) working groups were established by 

NSET (NSTC’s Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee that coordinated 

NNI). The NNI has established a new approach for the interaction with various industry sectors 

besides the previous models: Consultative Boards for Advancing Nanotechnology (CBAN) as 

described earlier. 

Improving technological innovation has been another strategy. While R&D activities have 

spread rapidly in the last five years (they now are in over 60 countries), and nanotechnology has 

been recognized as a key R&D domain, the economical potential and societal benefits of 

nanotechnology basically remain in the exploratory phase. Rather, they are seen as promising, 

and the national investment policies do not generally recognize nanotechnology as important as 

30
information technology and biotechnology. This may be explained by the relatively recent 

developments in nanoscale knowledge and the limited economical understanding of its 

implications. There is an apparent gap between the accelerated accumulation of scientific data, 

and ways to apply the results safely and economically. The promise for future economical 

benefits is a key driver for any emerging technology, but it is generally difficult to document it 

Proactive actions have been taken for addressing societal implications. Immediate and longterm issues are addressed in parallel. We combined formal and informal approaches of 

interaction in order to receive better input from stakeholders, and encouraged push-pull 

dynamics (such as input academic and industry perspectives) in setting research priorities. The 

speed and scope of nanotechnology R&D exceeds for now the capacity of researchers and 

regulators to fully assess human and environmental implications. A specific framework for risk 

governance is needed because nanotechnology developments are fundamental in long-term, 

operating as an open and complex system. One may need to connect the governance at the 

national and the international levels. Interaction with industry, civil organizations and 

international community are essential for the responsible development of nanotechnology. 

The International Dialog on Responsible Nanotechnology R&D (June 17-18, 2004 in Alexandria, 

Virginia) was the first meeting of government representatives from over 25 countries and the 

E.U. dedicated to broad societal issues that cannot be addressed by any single country. This 

activity may yield a set of principles, structured priorities, and mechanisms of interaction, 

including sharing data on responsible research and development of nanotechnology. 

We need to develop anticipatory, deliberate and proactive measures in order to accelerate the 

benefits of nanotechnology and its applications. Adaptive and corrective approaches in 

government organizations are to be established in the complex societal system with the goal of 

improved long-term risk governance. User- and civic-group involvement is essential for taking 

better advantage of the technology and developing a complete picture of its societal implications. 

A multidisciplinary, international forum is needed in order to better address the nanotechnology 

scientific, technological and infrastructure development challenges. Optimizing societal 

interactions, R&D policies and risk governance for the converging new technologies can 

enhance economical competitiveness and democratization. The International Risk Governance 

31
Council (IRGC, 2006) may provide an independent framework for identification, assessment and 

mitigation of risk. 

“NNI is a new way to run a national priority,” told Charles West at the March 23, 2005 PCAST 

meeting reviewing the NNI for Congress. 

The Presidential Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (PCAST, 2005) endorsed the 

governing approach adopted by NNI: the Council “supports the NNI’s high-level vision and 

goals, and the investment strategy by which those are to be achieved.“ 

It was clear, however, that nanotechnology couldn’t advance through the guidance of 

nanotechnologists or public policy administrators alone. The directions in which research was 

traveling were too complex and required more than a top-down management system. 

Rather, it would require the efforts of all interested stakeholders. It would also require visionary, 

nanotechnology-specific and multi-tier management to develop “higher purpose” goals. Key 

stakeholders needed to be involved from the beginning for a successful project. Furthermore, 

introduction of nanotechnology was a global process. 

The most recent NNI discussions are with the Department of Labor for an anticipatory approach 

in training of workers for emerging nanotechnology application areas. We have support on both 

sides of the aisle in the 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act received 100 percent approval 

from Senate in December 2003 (Congress, 2003), and NSET coordinating NNI passed 

unchanged from the Democratic to Republican administrations, receiving strong support from 

the White House. We have justified development of nanotechnology as beyond the interest of a 

single political party. In January 2000, then President Clinton announced the NNI, and in 

January 2006, in the State of the Union address, President Bush listed nanotechnology a top 

technological opportunity for national competitiveness. 

7. Closing remarks 

The NNI has been the major driver for nanoscience and nanotechnology developments and 

applications in the United Sates and in the World. 

32
Besides products, tools and healthcare, nanotechnology also implies learning, imagination, 

infrastructure, inventions, public acceptance, culture, anticipatory laws and architecture of other 

factors. In 1997-2000, we developed a vision, and in the first five years, 2001-2005, the vision 

has become an R&D reality. A main reason for the development of NNI has been the vision 

based on intellectual drive towards exploiting new phenomena and processes, developing a 

unified science and engineering platform from the nanoscale, and using the molecular and 

nanoscale interactions for efficient manufacturing. Another main reason has been the promise of 

broad societal implications, including $1 trillion per year by 2015 of products where 

nanotechnology plays a key role, which would require 2 million workers. 

Nanotechnology is entering new S&E challenges (such as active nanostructures, nanosystems, 

nanobio and nanobiomedicine, advanced tools, environmental and societal implication studies, 

etc.) in 2006. All trends for papers, patents, and worldwide investments are still with 

exponential growth, with potential inflexion points in several years. There is a need for 

continuing long-term planning, interdisciplinary activities and anticipatory measures involving 

interested stakeholders. 

In the next 5-10 years, the challenges of nanotechnology will increase in new directions because 

there is a transition: 

 - From investigating single phenomena and creating single nanoscale components to 

complex systems, active nanostructures and molecular nanosystems 

 - From scientific discovery to technological innovation in advanced materials, 

nanostructured chemicals, electronics, and pharmaceuticals 

 - Expanding to new areas of relevance such energy, food and agriculture, nanomedicine, 

and engineering simulations from the nanoscale 

 - Accelerating development, where the rate of discovery remains high and significant 

changes occur in interval of several years. 

While expectations from nanotechnology may be overestimated in short term, the long-term 

implications on healthcare, productivity and environment appear to be underestimated provided 

proper consideration is given to educational and social implications. 

33
Acknowledgements 

This paper is based on my experience in coordinating the NNI. Opinions expressed here are 

those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of NSTC/NSET or NSF. 

Appendix A. 

The structure of NNI in the first (2001-2005) and second (2006-2010) strategic plans. 

VISION: A future in which the ability to understand and control matter on the nanoscale - 1 to 

100 nm - leads to a revolution in technology and industry. 

 A1. NNI modes of support in fiscal years 2001-2005 (1st NNI Strategic Plan) 

- The funding strategy for the National Nanotechnology Initiative was based on five modes of 

investment. The first mode supports a balanced investment in fundamental research across the 

entire breadth of science and engineering, and it is lead by the National Science Foundation. 

- The second mode, collectively known as the "grand challenges," focuses on nine specific R&D 

areas that are more directly related to applications of nanotechnology. They also sere identified 

as having the potential to realize significant economic, governmental, and societal impact in 

about a decade. These challenges are 

* Nanostructured materials by design 

* Manufacturing at the nanoscale 

* Chemical-biological-radiological-explosive detection, and protection 

* Nanoscale instrumentation, and metrology 

* Nano-electronics, -photonics, and -magnetics 

* Healthcare, therapeutics, and diagnostics 

* Efficient energy conversion and storage 

* Microcraft and robotics 

* Nanoscale processes for environmental improvement 

- The third mode of investment supports centers of excellence that conduct research within host 

institutions. These centers pursue projects with broad multidisciplinary research goals that are 

not supported by more traditionally structured programs. These centers also promote education 

34
of future researchers and innovators, as well as training of a skilled technical workforce for the 

growing nanotechnology industry. 

- The fourth mode funds the development of infrastructure, instrumentation, standards, 

computational capabilities, and other research tools necessary for nanoscale R&D. 

- The fifth mode recognizes and funds research on the societal implications, and addresses 

educational needs associated with the successful development of nanoscience and 

nanotechnology. Besides the graduate and postgraduate education activities, NSF supports 

nanoscale science and engineering programs for earlier nanotechnology education for 

undergraduates, high schools, and public outreach. 

A2. NNI Goals in Fiscal Years 2006-2010 (2nd NNI Strategic Plan) (NSTC, 2004)

This plan describes the goals of the NNI as well as the strategy by which those goals are to be 

achieved. The goals are as follows: 

- Maintain a world-class research and development program aimed at realizing the full potential 

of nanotechnology 

- Facilitate transfer of new technologies into products for economic growth, jobs, and other 

public benefit 

- Develop educational resources, a skilled workforce, and the supporting infrastructure and tools 

to advance nanotechnology 

- Support responsible development of nanotechnology 

The investment strategy includes the major subject categories of investment, or program 

component areas (PCAs), cutting across the interests and needs of the participating agencies: 

1. Fundamental nanoscale phenomena and processes 

2. Nanomaterials 

3. Nanoscale devices and systems 

4. Instrumentation research, metrology, and standards for nanotechnology 

5. Nanomanufacturing 

6. Major research facilities and instrumentation acquisition 

7. Societal dimensions 

35
Appendix B. NNI members 

List of Federal Agencies Participating in the NNI (January 2006)

Federal agencies with budgets dedicated to nanotechnology research and development 

Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 

(USDA/CSREES) 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA/FS) 

 Department of Defense (DOD) 

Department of Energy (DOE) 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Department of Justice (DOJ) 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, Department of Commerce) 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, Department of Health and Human 

Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 

National Institutes of Health (NIH, Department of Health and Human Services) 

National Science Foundation (NSF) 

Other participating agencies 

Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS, Department of Commerce) 

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 

Department of Education (ED) 

Department of Labor (DOL) 

Department of State (DOS) 

Department of the Treasury (DOTreas) 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Department of Health and Human Services) 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

Intelligence Technology Innovation Center, representing the Intelligence Community (IC) 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

Technology Administration (TA, Department of Commerce) 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO, Department of Commerce) 

36
Appendix C. List of National Science Foundation Centers and Networks in the field of 

nanoscale science and engineering established since 2000 

University Name of the center, network or user facility 

Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs) 

Columbia University Center for Electron Transport in Molecular 

Nanostructures 

Cornell University Center for Nanoscale Systems 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Center for Directed Assembly of Nanostructures 

Harvard University Science for Nanoscale Systems and their Device 

Applications 

Northwestern University Institute for Nanotechnology 

Rice University Center for Biological and Environmental 

Nanotechnology 

University of California, Los Angeles Center for Scalable and Integrated 

Nanomanufacturing 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Center for Nanoscale Chemical, Electrical, 

Mechanical, and Manufacturing Systems 

University of California at Berkeley Center for Integrated Nanomechanical Systems 

Northeastern University Center for High Rate Nanomanufacturing 

Ohio State University Center for Affordable Nanoengineering 

University of Pennsylvania Center for Molecular Function at the Nanoscale 

Stanford University Center for Probing the Nanoscale 

University of Wisconsin Center for Templated Synthesis and Assembly at 

the Nanoscale 

Arizona State University 

University of California, Santa Barbara 

University of South Carolina 

Harvard University 

Nanotechnology in Society Network 

Centers from the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education Solicitation 

Northwestern University Nanotechnology Center for Learning and Teaching 

Boston Museum of Science Nanoscale Informal Science Education 

NSF Networks and Centers that Complement the NSECs 

Cornell University and 12 other nodes National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network 

Purdue University and 6 other nodes Network for Computational Nanotechnology 

Oklahoma University, Oklahoma State 

university 

Oklahoma Nano Net 

Cornell University STC: The Nanobiotechnology Center 

37
Appendix D. Recognitions for NNI contribution 

The author of this chapter received several recognitions for contributing to NNI partially 

described in this chapter: 

 From the U.S. interagency committees after announcing NNI (2000) and the first strategic plan 

(2006): 

- Interagency WGN/National Science and Technology Council Plaque, 

"To Dr. M. Roco, who with big ideas has created a National Nanotechnology Program focused 

on things small", 

Washington, D.C, February 16, 2000. 

 - Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, NSTC Plaque, 

“To Mihail C. Roco, Dr Nano, Founding Father of the U.S. National Nanotechnology 

Initiative; For his vision, dedication and energy in advancing the filed of nanotechnology in the 

U.S. and across the world.” Washington, D.C., January 19, 2006. (The picture on the plaque is 

shown in Figure D1). 

 From professional organizations: 

 Dr. Roco is a Correspondent Member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences, a 

Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, a Fellow of the Institute of 

Physics, and a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. The “Engineer of the 

Year” (two times, in 1999 and 2004) by the U.S. National Society of Professional Engineers 

and NSF, Distinguished Service Award of the NSF (2001); AIChE Nanoscale Science and 

Engineering Forum Award for “Leadership and service to the national science and 

engineering community through initiating and bringing to fruition the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative”, New York, September 2005. 

 From national and international surveys: 

Small Times Magazine: “Best of Small Tech Awards” (“Leader of the American 

nanotech revolution”, Nov. 2002); Forbes Nanotechnology: “First in Nanotechnology’s 

Power Brokers”, Forbes, March 2003 (“Leading Architect of NNI”); Scientific American: 

World Technology Leader – Scientific American Top 50 in 2004 (for: “Led nearly $1-billiona-year U.S. government effort in nanotechnology”; “building a solid consensus in the 

scientific and non-technical communities that nanotechnology is important for future 

scientific and economic development, and he has furthered public acceptance of 

38
nanotechnology”), Dec. 2004, New York ; Nanotech Briefs, ABP International, Boston: 

2005 Innovator Award, “For pioneering achievements in advancing the state of the art in 

nanotechnology”, Nano 50, August 2005. 

a. 

b. 

Figure D1. a. Central figure: This nanograph of Dr. M. Roco was recorded at Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory using piezoresponse force microscopy, one of the members of the family of 

techniques known as scanning probe microscopy, which can image and manipulate materials on 

the nanoscale. Each picture element is approximately 50 nanometers in diameter; the distance 

from chin to eyebrow is approximately 2.5 micrometers. b. Plaque from OSTP/NSET awarded 

on January 17, 2006, including the nanograph. 

References 

Huang, Z., H. Chen, Z.K. Chen and M.C. Roco, “Longitudinal Patent Analysis for Nanoscale Science 

and Engineering in 2003: Country, Institution and Technology Field Analysis based on USPTO patent 

database”, J. Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2004, pp. 325-354. 

Huang, Z., Chen, H., Yan, L., and Roco, M.C., “Longitudinal nanotechnology development (1990-

2002): the National Science Foundation funding and its impact on patents”, J. Nanoparticle Research, 

2005, Vol. 7(4-5), pp. 343-376. 

NCMS (National Center for Manufacturing Science), 2006. “2005 NCMS-NSF Cross-Industry 

Survey of the U.S. Nanomanufacturing Industry”, Detroit, MI. 

NSF COV (Committee of Visitors), 2004, Report on Nanoscale Science and Engineering Program, 

NSF, Arlington, Virginia. 

39
40

NSTC (M.C. Roco et al.), 2000, "National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its 

Implementation Plan", National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), White House (WH), 

Washington, D.C., July. 2000. 

NSTC (I. Amato, M.C. Roco et al.), 1999. “Nanotechnology – Shaping the World Atom by Atom”, 

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), White House (WH), Washington, D.C., Sept. 1999. 

NSTC (National Science and Technology Council), 2004b. NNI Strategic Plan, Washington, D.C. 

PCAST (Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology), 2005. “The National 

Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National 

Nanotechnology Advisory Panel”, OSTP, White House, Washington, D.C., May 2005. 

Roco M.C., Williams R.S. and Alivisatos P., eds. 2000. “Nanotechnology Research Directions.” 

U.S. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, D.C., Springer (former Kluwer Academic 

Publishers), 316 pages; http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/IWGN.Research.Directions/ 

Roco, M.C., “Coherence and Divergence in Science and Engineering Megatrends”, J. Nanoparticle 

Research, Vol. 4, No. 1-2, 2002. pp. 9-19. 

Roco, M.C., 2004b, “Nanoscale Science and Engineering: Unifying and Transforming Tools”, AIChE 

Journal, Vol. 50, No. 5, 890-897. 

Roco, M.C. and W. Bainbridge, Eds., 2001. "Societal Implications of Nanoscience and 

Nanotechnology", Springer (former Kluwer Academic Publishers), 350 pages, Boston, 2001. 

Roco, M.C. and Bainbridge, W.S., eds. 2003. Converging Technologies for Improving Human 

Performance.”, Springer (former Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 468 pages. 

Roco, M.C., 2003. “Converging science and technology at the nanoscale: opportunities for education 

and training”, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 21, No. 10, pp. 1247-1249. 

Congress (U.S.). 2003. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, S.189. in 

November 2003; Public Law 108-153 on December 3, 2003, Washington, D.C. 

Roco, M.C., 2005a. “The Vision and Strategy of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative”, in 

Nanotechnology: Global Strategies, Industry Trends and Applications (J. Schulte, ed.), John Wiley & 

Sons, Ltd., 2005, 79-94. 

Roco, M.C., 2005b. “International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005”, J. 

Nanoparticle Research, 2005, 7(6), 707-712. 

Siegel, R., Hu, E., and Roco, M.C., Eds., 1999. “Nanostructure Science and Technology”, National 

Science and Technology Council (NSTC), White House (WH), 320 pages, Washington, D.C., also 

published by Springer (former Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston and Dordrecht).