E' Floyd Kvamme

1
Federal Nanotechnology RD ProgramNational
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel Report

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

2
History of PCAST and the NNI

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

3
NNAP responsibilities under the21st Century
Nanotechnology RD Act

• Assess
• Trends and developments in nanotechnology.
• Progress in implementing the program.
• Need to revise the program.
• Balance among the component areas of the program,
  including funding levels.
• Whether program component areas, priorities, and
  technical goals developed by the NSET are helping
  to maintain US leadership.
• Management, coordination, implementation, and
  activities of the program.
• Whether social, ethical, legal, environmental,
  and workforce concerns are adequately addressed
  by the program.
• Report and make recommendations every 2 years

4
Other review planning activities

• Interagency NSET Subcommittee to update NNI
  Strategic Plan every 3 years (latest Plan
  released December 2004)
• National Academies to review assess the NNI
  every 3 years (first review expected in early
  2006). Kick-off meeting tomorrow (3/23).
• Recommend that NNAP schedule for reporting be
  aligned with that for NNI planning.

5
NNI Budgets
Millions
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 Est.
2006 Req.
6
NNI Participating AgenciesWith Nanotechnology
RD budgets

• Department of Agriculture (USDA)
• Department of Defense (DOD)
• Department of Energy (DOE)
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
• Department of Justice (DOJ)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  (NASA)
• National Institute of Standards and Technology
  (NIST, Department of Commerce)
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and
  Health (NIOSH, Department of Health and Human
  Services)
• National Institutes of Health (NIH, Department of
  Health and Human Services)
• National Science Foundation (NSF)

7
NNI Participating AgenciesWithout Nanotechnology
RD budgets

• Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS, Dept of
  Commerce)
• Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
• Department of State (DOS)
• Department of Transportation (DOT)
• Department of the Treasury (DOTreas)
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA, HHS)
• International Trade Commission (ITC)
• Intelligence Community (IC)
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
• Technology Administration (TA, Dept of Commerce)
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO, Dept of
  Commerce)

8
NNI FY 2006 Budget RequestTotal 1,054 million
EPA
USDA
NASA
DHS DOJ
NIST
NSF
NIH
DOE
DOD
9
Questions to be Answered

• Where do we stand?
• Is this money well spent and the program well
  managed?
• Are we addressing societal concerns and potential
  risks?
• How can we do better?

10
Where do we stand?Global investments in 2004
(Total8.6 billion)
Private (Corp. VC) Total 4 billion
Public (National, regional, state) Total 4.6
billion
Source Lux Research
11
Where do we stand?International government
spending
Japan
Others
U.S.
W. Europe
Source National Science Foundation
12
Where do we stand?U.S. State investments

• U.S. government funding includes 400 million
  in State funding for nanotech in 2004. (Ref Lux
  Research)
• RD infrastructure (e.g. at State universities)
• Business incubators
• Matching research funds

13
Where do we stand?Research output Publications
? U.S. fraction of publications mirrors fraction
of investment.
Source J. Murday, U.S. Naval Research
Laboratory ISI search using nano
14
Where do we stand?Research output Publications
? Growing of articles in high impact
journals are on nano ? U.S. share is gt50 even
though U.S. investment is 25
Source J. Murday, U.S. Naval Research
Laboratory Search of Science, Nature, and Phys
Rev Ltr using nano
15
Where do we stand?Research output Patents
Source Huang et al. (2004) J. Nanoparticle
Research Nanotechnology keyword search of titles
and claims of patents in USPTO database
16
Where do we stand?Targeted investments

• Some nations are making targeted investments to
  gain advantage in particular sector.
• Korea nanoelectronics
• Taiwan nanoelectronics
• Singapore nanobiotech
• China nanomaterials
• Japan instrumentation
• Europegenerally broad

17
Where do we stand?Areas of opportunity

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

18
Where do we stand?Areas of private sector
activity in U.S.
Source Small Times Media (2004)
19
Where do we stand?TAG identified areas of
opportunity

• Near-term (1-5 years)
• Nanocomposites with greatly improved
  strength-to-weight ratio, toughness, etc.
• Nanomembranes and filters (including for water
  purification and desalination)
• Improved catalysts with one or more orders of
  magnitude less precious metal
• Sensitive, selective, reliable solid-state
  chemical and biological sensors
• Point-of-care medical diagnostic devices
• Long-lasting, rechargeable batteries

20
Where do we stand?TAG identified areas of
opportunity

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

21
Where do we stand?TAG identified areas of
opportunity

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

22
Is this money well spent and the program well
managed?

• Generally yes, based on survey of TAG and NNAP
  review of the updated NNI Strategic Plan
  (including goals and investment priorities)
• Balance of funding is appropriate
• Investment should be diverse, not focused on just
  a few Grand Challenges
• Interagency management is sound

23
NNI Accomplishments

• Advanced the foundational knowledge for control
  of matter at the nanoscale with
• Over 2500 active research projects in 2004
• Research projects at over 500 universities,
  Government labs, and other research institutions
  in all 50 states.
• Created an interdisciplinary nanotechnology
  community, according to the NSF Committee of
  Visitors, an outside review panel, in 2004.
• Built up an infrastructure of over 35
  nanotechnology research centers, networks, and
  user facilities.

24
NNI Accomplishments

• Promoted understanding of societal implications
  and applications through investment of 10 of
  NNI budget for research related to the
  environment, health, safety, and other societal
  concerns.
• Established nanotechnology education programs to
  reach students in graduate, undergraduate, high
  school, and middle school. NNI has impact on
  10,000 graduate students and teachers in 2004
  alone.
• Supported public outreach via a regularly updated
  website (www.nano.gov), a major resource for
  researchers, educators, the press, and the
  public. Website gets 14,000 new visitors each
  month.

25
NNI Centers and User Facilities
Nanoscale Systems in Information Technologies
Cornell
Templated Synthesis Assembly at the Nanoscale
U Wis-Madison
NSF NSECs 14 DOD 3 DOE NSRCs 5 NASA 4
Nanoscience in Biol. Environ. Engin. Rice
Molecular Function at NanoBio Interface U Penn
Integrated Nanopatterning Detection
Northwestern
High-Rate Nanomanufacturing Northeastern
Nanoscale Systems Their Device Applications
Harvard
Affordable Nanoeng. of Polymer Biomedical Devices
Ohio State
Scalable Integrated Nanomanufacturing - UCLA
Directed Assembly of Nanostructures Rensselaer
Polytechnic Inst
Integrated Nanomechanical Systems UC-Berkeley
Nanoscale CEM Manufacturing Systems Center - UIUC
NNIN
Probing the Nanoscale Stanford
Electronic Transport in Molecular Nanotstructures
- Columbia
NCN
2007
2000
2003
2001
2002
2004
2005
2006
Cell Mimetic Space Exploration - UCLA
Institute for Nanoscience - NRL
Nanophase Materials Sciences
Intelligent Bio-Nanomtls Structures for
Aerospace Vehicles Tex AM
Molecular Foundry
Institute of Soldier Nanotechnologies MIT
Integrated Nanotechnologies
Bio-Inspection, Design, Processing of
Multifunctional Nanocomposites - Princeton
Nanoscale Materials
Nanoscience Innovation in Defense - UCSB
5/08
Functional Nanomaterials
Nanoelectronics Computing - Purdue
26
Are we addressing societal concerns and potential
risks?

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

27
Are we addressing societal concerns and potential
risks?

• Environmental, health, safety (EHS)
• NNI spending on RD primarily aimed at EHS in FY
  2006 is 4 (doesnt count RD that is related,
  but with another primary focus)
• Ethical, legal, and other societal implications
• Held workshops in 2000 and 2003
• NSF Center for Nanotechnology and Societyto be
  awarded in 2005

28
How could we do better?Investment areas and
funding levels

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

29
How could we do better?Technology Transfer for
Economic Benefit

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

30
How could we do better?Technology Transfer for
Economic Benefit

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

31
How could we do better?Program Management

• NSET Subcommittee should continue or expand
  efforts to
• Adjust its makeup of subgroups as needs change.
• Consider how it can better share information
  about available user facilities, research
  results, and technologies available for
  commercialization.
• Look for ways to streamline grant reporting
  requirements for maximum benefit and efficiency.
• Coordinate with other interagency groups (e.g.
  Working Group on Manufacturing RD)
• Involve other agencies, where appropriate (e.g.
  Departments of Education and Labor)

32
How could we do better?Societal Implications

• NSET Subcommittee continue efforts to
• Actively coordinate with Government agencies,
  industry, non-profits, and international bodies
  (govt or NGO) to share and coordinate research on
  EHS.
• Communicate with various stakeholders and the
  public regarding the Governments activities,
  including for addressing societal concerns

33
How could we do better?Education Workforce
Preparation

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

34
Future work

• Environmental, health, and safetynational
  international coordination
• Commercialization and technology transfer
• Nanotechnology RD impact on national
  needsnational security and economic growth
• International benchmarking (based on process to
  be developed by STPI)