Federal Nanotechnology R D Program National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel

Federal Nanotechnology R&D Program National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel Report E. Floyd Kvamme Co-Chair, PCAST March 22, 2005 1

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 - 21 st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act signed, calling for the President to establish or designate a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel July 2004 - President designates PCAST as the NNAP 2

NNAP responsibilities under the 21 st Century Nanotechnology R&D 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 3

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. 4

Millions $ NNI Budgets 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Est. 2006 Req. 5

NNI Participating Agencies With Nanotechnology R&D 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) 6

NNI Participating Agencies Without Nanotechnology R&D 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) 7

NNI FY 2006 Budget Request Total = $1, 054 million NASA EPA USDA DHS & DOJ NIST NIH DOE NSF DOD 8

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? 9

Where do we stand? Global investments in 2004 (Total=$8. 6 billion) Other Asia Other North America Europe Private (Corp. + VC) Total = $4 billion Asia North America Europe Public (National, regional, state) Total = $4. 6 billion Source: Lux Research 10

Where do we stand? International government spending Japan U. S. Others W. Europe Source: National Science Foundation 11

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) R&D infrastructure (e. g. at State universities) Business incubators Matching research funds 12

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*” 13

Where do we stand? Research output: Publications Growing % of articles in “high impact” journals* are on nano U. S. share is >50%; 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*” 14

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 15

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 Europe—generally broad 16

Where do we stand? 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 17

Where do we stand? Areas of private sector activity in U. S. Source: Small Times Media (2004) 18

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 19

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 20

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) 21

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 22

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. 23

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. ] 24

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

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 26

Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks? Environmental, health, & safety (EHS) NNI spending on R&D primarily aimed at EHS in FY 2006 is ~4% (doesn’t count R&D 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 Society— to be awarded in 2005 27

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 28

How could we do better? Technology Transfer for Economic Benefit Federal Government Role Fund basic research and infrastructure—this 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) 29

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 R&D user facilities. 30

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 R&D) Involve other agencies, where appropriate (e. g. Departments of Education and Labor) 31

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 Government’s activities, including for addressing societal concerns 32

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. 33

Future work Environmental, health, and safety—national & international coordination Commercialization and technology transfer Nanotechnology R&D impact on national needs—national security and economic growth International benchmarking (based on process to be developed by STPI) 34