According to forum participants, nanomanufacturing is an emerging megatrend that will bring diverse societal benefits and new opportunities—potentially creating jobs through disruptive innovation. Further, nanomanufacturing has characteristics of a general purpose technology (GPT)—such as electricity or computers, or historically, innovations such as the smelting of ore and the internal combustion engine. As one participant said: “Everything will become nano.” Figure 1, below, provides examples of nanomanufacturing products that illustrate four diverse areas being affected by nanomanufacturing. Different manufacturing activities occur at different stages of the value chain. According to experts, the United States likely leads in nanotechnology R&D today but faces global-scale competition—which one forum participant described as a “moon race.” Two indicators of how the U.S. compares with other countries are R&D funding levels and scientific publications. With respect to R&D funding, there is some uncertainty about international comparisons because relevant definitions may vary across nations—and some countries may not adequately or effectively track R&D investments or not share such information externally. However, forum participants viewed the United States as currently appearing to lead in terms of overall (that is, combined public and private) funding of nanotechnology R&D. When public funding alone was considered, a participant in the July 2013 forum presented projections showing the United States as likely being surpassed by some other nations. With respect to scientific publications, the United States appears to dominate in numbers of nanotechnology publications in three highly cited journals—which is an apparent indication of U.S. competitiveness in quality research. However, China overtook the United States in 2010 through 2012 (the most recent year reported) in terms of the quantity of nano-science articles published annually. A semiconductor is the generic term for the various devices and integrated circuits that regulate and provide a path for electrical signals. As such, semiconductors are the foundation of the electronics industry. semiconductors. However, they also said that U.S. manufacturing in this area has declined (although some plants are located here) and that the United States does not have a strategy to assure U.S. leadership in the semiconductor industry. Nano-based concrete: Concrete is the most heavily used construction material in the world—with about 5-billion cubic yards annually produced worldwide—and demand for it is expected to increase to meet the infrastructure needs of a growing global population. Nanomaterials can enhance the performance of the concrete used to construct this infrastructure. These materials might potentially result in roads, bridges, buildings, and structures that are more easily built, longer-lasting, and better-functioning than those that currently exist. Experts offered differing views on U.S. global competitiveness in the commercialization and use of nanomaterials in concrete. A key forum participant said that while cement for domestic use is produced in the United States, today’s dominant companies— which are spearheading development of new technologies—are headquartered elsewhere (although this industry was previously dominated by the United States). Additionally, some experts said that other countries are spending more resources than the United States to promote commercialization; for example, one expert said that China established a national technology center to improve its competitiveness and domestic production of high-value, nano-based construction products. On the positive side, chemical admixtures are one means to introduce nano-materials into concrete—and the United States has a 15% market share of chemical sales, worldwide. According to forum participants and experts interviewed, challenges to U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing include U.S. funding gaps, significant global competition, and lack of a U.S. vision for nanomanufacturing, among others. Participants said that in the United States, government often funds research or the initial stages of development, whereas industry typically invests in the final stages. As a result, U.S. innovators may find it difficult to obtain either public funding or private investment during the middle stages of innovation. For nano-innovators, this support gap can characterize the middle stages of both (1) efforts to develop a new technology or product, and/or (2) efforts to develop a new manufacturing process. Thus, U.S. innovators may encounter two support gaps, which participants termed: the Valley of Death (the lack of funding or investment for the middle stages of developing a technology or product), and the Missing Middle (a similar lack of adequate support for the middle stages of developing a process or an approach to manufacture the new product at scale). The Valley of Death begins after a new technology or product has been validated in a laboratory environment and continues through testing and demonstration as a prototype in a non-laboratory environment (but before industry acquires it as a commercial technology or product). The Missing Middle occurs during analogous stages of the manufacturing-innovation process, as illustrated below (fig.2). Participants further said that substantial amounts of funding/investment are needed to bridge the Valley of Death and the Missing Middle—and that high costs can be a barrier to commercialization, especially for small and medium-sized U.S. enterprises. Additionally, some said that recently, venture capital (VC) funding has been diverted from physical science areas like nanotechnology to fund new ventures in Internet services that may provide larger and faster returns on investment. Varied forum participants and experts interviewed made statements to the effect that other nations do more than the United States in terms of government investment in technology beyond the research stage. According to participants, the funding and investment gaps that hamper U.S. nano-innovation (such as the Missing Middle) do not apply to the same extent in some other countries—for example, China and Russia—or are being addressed. Multiple participants referred to the European Commission’s upcoming Horizon 2020 program, specifically mentioning a key program within Horizon 2020: the European Institute of Innovation and Technology or EIT, which emphasizes the nexus of business, research, and higher education. The 2014-2020 budget for the EIT portion of this European Commission initiative is €2.7 billion (or close to $3.7 billion in U.S. dollars as of January 2014). Multiple forum participants said that the United States lacks a vision or However, one explained strategy for a nanomanufacturing capability.that such a strategy could be designed by (1) proceeding from a vision or goal to the examination of the social, technological, economic, environmental, and political elements of the relevant systems and their interactions with one another; (2) understanding the basic science, engineering, and manufacturing involved; and (3) consulting the full range of stakeholders. This participant said that although systems thinking and the design of a grand strategy, based on a vision, are often employed following a crisis that motivates a nation, such an effort could be usefully pursued in advance of a crisis, using foresight. Such an effort would reflect the statements of another participant who said, in effect, that the future of nanomanufacturing for the United States is limited only by our ability to envision what we want to see realized. This approach would likely draw upon the U.S. federal government to develop and articulate the strategy—in coordination with industry, academia, nonprofits, and state and local governments. Additionally, some federal effort is implied for implementation, but the level of funding and the mix of funding sources (not specifically discussed at the forum) would likely be specified as part of developing a vision and strategy for nanomanufacturing. Forum participants described further challenges to U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing, including the earlier loss of an industry, as discussed above for lithium-ion batteries—or even extensive prior offshoring in some industries, which can be important, in part because, as one participant said: “when we design here ship abroad, we lose this shop- floor-innovation kind of mentality” and threats to U.S. intellectual property on the part of some other countries or entities within those countries—which occur with respect to both university research and private R&D on, for example, manufacturing processes. Forum participants suggested the need to address policy issues in U.S. research funding, challenges to U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing, and other areas, including environmental, health, and safety (EHS) issues. U.S. research funding. Forum participants said it is essential for the United States to maintain a high level of investment in fundamental nanotechnology research. This is because (1) some other countries are now making significant investments in R&D and (2) ongoing research breakthroughs will drive the future of nanomanufacturing. One participant emphasized that as nanotechnology increasingly moves into manufacturing, it may be important to consider not only continuing funding for fundamental nanotechnology research, but also targeting some funding to early stage research on nanomanufacturing processes. Challenges to U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing. Forum participants said the United States could improve U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing by pursuing one or more of three approaches, which might be viewed either as alternatives or as complementary approaches. These three approaches are described in table 1, below. Two examples of U.S. public-private partnerships that are designed to promote innovation in nanomanufacturing are housed in universities. A related example with similar goals is a user facility that is located within a federal laboratory. The Center for Nanomanufacturing Systems for Mobile Computing and Mobile Energy Technologies (NASCENT) was founded at the University of Texas at Austin in 2012, with funding from NSF.