Summary

Twenty years ago, the United States had the foresight to direct billions of dollars into nanotechnology research and development (R&D). As a result, the nation became a global leader in nanotechnology research, and its major industries benefited from the first round of nanotechnology inventions. Many critical and emerging technologies are directly enabled by nanotechnology. These include quantum information and enabling technologies, human–machine interfaces, biotechnologies, such as COVID-19 vaccines and at-home COVID-19 tests, and semiconductors and microelectronics. These and many other commercial outcomes are a clear indication of the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI’s) economic, societal, and national security benefits.

Unfortunately, just as the nation is beginning to realize the benefit of its research investment, the committee finds that the United States is at risk of losing its leadership in nanotechnology.

It is critical that the United States act swiftly and decisively to preserve and expand its nanotechnology investment and that it do so with a renewed focus on the nanotechnology infrastructure. As described in the 2020 quadrennial review, there is a race among nations for leadership in nanotechnology research, and the global competition for extracting value from nanotechnology’s advances is equally fierce. By centering on sustaining and expanding the nanotechnology infrastructure, which includes human capital, cutting-edge tools, and shared facilities, the nation’s nanotechnology innovation and discovery can remain the best in the world.

This review is pursuant to the authorizing legislation of the NNI, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L. 108-153), which

mandated a periodic review of the NNI. The statement of task of each recent triennial or quadrennial review of the NNI has focused on specific areas or aspects of the program instead of reviewing the overall NNI program. For example, the 2020 report A Quadrennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative: Nanoscience, Applications, and Commercialization¹ focused on the relative position of the United States compared to other nations with respect to nanotechnology R&D. This report assessed the current state of nanotechnology, detailing the impact on U.S. economic prosperity and national security, and then considered whether and in what form the NNI should continue. The 2016 report Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative² focused on advanced development, commercialization, and physical and human infrastructure needs. Earlier, the 2013 report Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative³ centered on technology transfer, progress toward NNI goals, and evaluation of NNI’s management and coordination of nanotechnology research across the federal agencies.

This review focuses on the infrastructure of the NNI, and the statement of task is reprinted in Box S-1. The committee recommends a new focus on renewing and expanding the nanotechnology infrastructure, including instruments, facilities, and people, so that the intellectual capital of nanotechnology can be converted into economic, social, and national security gains for the United States. This conclusion reflects a consideration of the suitability of the nation’s existing nanotechnology infrastructure for current and emerging needs in academia and industry. It also rests on the committee’s analysis of the existing nanotechnology infrastructure users in academia and beyond as well as the existing barriers that limit the impact and accessibility of the infrastructure.

To address the statement of task, including the request to “make recommendations … that will improve the value of the NNI’s R&D strategy, portfolio, and infrastructure investments,” this report makes the point that infrastructure impacts what research can be carried out and by whom. Important factors include availability, location, tools, and instruments (current versus outdated), as well as the professional staff that serve to maintain the infrastructure and train the users.

Chapter 1 is a stage-setting chapter that describes the committee’s analysis of the critical what, where, and who of nanotechnology. While the definition of nanotechnology and related infrastructure is well understood in the nanoscience and technology community, it is important to explore this topic as it is the central

___________________

¹ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2020, A Quadrennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative: Nanoscience, Applications, and Commercialization, The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/25729.

² NASEM, 2016, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/23603.

³ National Research Council, 2013, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/18271.

theme of this review. Chapter 1 also looks across the United States to identify where users are likely to find nanotechnology infrastructure. This includes the states, regions, and locales, such as institutions of higher education and federal facilities, which host and themselves support facilities broadly available to nanotechnology users. The committee realized that it may be challenging for a researcher to identify and locate specific capabilities or instrumentation within the existing patchwork of nanotechnology infrastructure. For example, there is no single source of information that details the resources available in the nation’s nanotechnology infrastructure. This opening chapter also makes the case that maintaining and expanding the

nanotechnology infrastructure is a job too large in scale, and crosses too many sectors, to be delegated to any one federal agency or to industry. These infrastructure resources are relevant to chemistry, physics, engineering, biology, medicine, manufacturing, and more. This disciplinary breadth crosses agencies and conventional academic boundaries, and without interagency coordination nanotechnology’s future will be precarious. Additionally, much like the U.S. interstate highway system, the power of the nanotechnology infrastructure rests on its wide accessibility. It must serve everyone—students, scholars, entrepreneurs, teachers, and industry and corporate researchers from large and small companies alike. The committee found that thousands of academic and industry researchers use the nanotechnology infrastructure every year. These users tapped into experts who operate these facilities and left with the latest knowledge about process integration, materials engineering, and data analysis. For example, most of the cleanrooms found in the nanotechnology infrastructure support sophisticated multi-step processes and the associated cutting-edge characterization tools needed to make the next generation of semiconductor chips. It is important that the NNI continue providing this and other unique expertise.

Also, in Chapter 1 the committee emphasizes the full picture of U.S. nanotechnology capabilities. While a network of shared infrastructure funded by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology exists, the government focus on nanotechnology in the prior two decades has provided future researchers with a multitude of instruments and facilities at universities and state laboratories that are not currently captured as NNI R&D user facilities. Chapter 1 highlights how a census that presents a complete picture of these available resources could transform user engagement opportunities. Last, along with other information, this chapter and report take into consideration as part of its analysis and deliberative process the 2023 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report,⁴ which includes a recommendation to sunset or substantially revise the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. This quadrennial review finds that now is not the time to sunset the act, but rather to substantially revise it with an orientation toward nanotechnology infrastructure. Sunsetting the NNI would curtail the blossoming commercial relevance of nanotechnology and limit the many benefits the nation will realize from its years of strategic investment. This conclusion concurs with the recommendations of the 2020 quadrennial review.

While the past 20 years of nanotechnology investment have laid a strong foundation—one that anchors the committee’s findings and recommendations—this

___________________

⁴ President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2023, “The Seventh Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative,” https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/PCAST_NNI_Review_August2023.pdf.

infrastructure is aging. With increasing numbers of users seeking to utilize this infrastructure, which includes the technical expertise of the staff as well as tools and facilities, the committee finds that many facilities struggle with maintenance costs for major equipment and the highly skilled labor needed to train users. The committee identifies alternative funding mechanisms and includes a section on “Funding for Nanotechnology” that notes state, regional, local, industry, and philanthropic sources of funding. The committee also recognizes the importance of public–private partnerships in the future and notes university and corporate collaborations as an area of great importance.

Chapter 2 explores the opportunities and barriers to federal coordination for sustaining and coordinating U.S. global leadership in nanotechnology with respect to its infrastructure. The United States is no longer a leader in key indicators of scientific productivity in areas of science and engineering highly relevant to nanotechnology, including publications and patents. Another barrier is the perception that nanotechnology is a mature field, no longer in need of coordination and dedicated support. Nanotechnology has become even more relevant to the United States as it has accelerated innovation, economic development, and job creation in many different industry sectors. The committee concludes that coordination is critical for researchers and industries to understand the available landscape of U.S. nanotechnology infrastructure offerings. Coordination is also critical for knowledge transfer and training among facilities to develop and drive best operational practices and efficiencies. The committee also explores other barriers, including misaligned infrastructure performance metrics, unaccounted infrastructure depreciation costs, and insufficient support for professional staff.

As discussed in Chapter 3, expanding nanotechnology infrastructure to serve emerging areas of knowledge is key. Nanoscale fabrication now reaches far beyond silicon and encompasses tools to shape and form devices formed from nearly all key electronic and optical materials. Characterization tools are increasingly multi-modal, combining atomic imaging with vibrational spectroscopy, often over many orders of magnitude with respect to length and timescales. Critical new national investments, in areas such as semiconductor manufacturing and quantum devices, use existing nanotechnology infrastructure in ways that place new demands on instrument capabilities and shared facilities. Expansions to nanotechnology infrastructure will be needed to fully capitalize on advances in artificial intelligence and deep learning. Furthermore, nanotechnology infrastructure has a profound impact on energy research by enabling the discovery and development of more efficient energy conversion and storage materials and systems. Researchers studying agriculture and food security are also a growing customer base for nanotechnology infrastructure. Last, the committee explores how nanotechnology has made new tools available to biology researchers that allow imaging and observing biological processes at the molecular scale. Examples of impact and continued opportunity for

basic biological studies include single-molecule studies and imaging, nanofabrication of biological and biomimetic structures, and genetic research.

If the first two decades of nanotechnology were about defining and developing nanotechnology specialists, the next two decades center on making the tools and concepts of nanotechnology available to all. Chapter 4 takes up how this could happen and concludes that increasing usage will depend on improved user awareness of the nanotechnology infrastructure. This chapter details how nanotechnology infrastructure facilities should be evaluated in part based on their availability to users and identifies that more support for user travel to facility locations would have great impact. It describes the reason that broad access to nanotechnology infrastructure is so critical: it is essential to both workforce development for the industries of the future as well as commercial expansion of nanotechnology-enabled industry. It then examines how user awareness, use permission agreements and processes, financial and travel logistics, availability of equipment, and intellectual property may present barriers to the use of nanotechnology infrastructure.

Last, Chapter 5 offers concluding remarks on the nation’s nanotechnology infrastructure, as well as a list of all the report’s recommendations. Below is a list of the report’s highest priority recommendations.

Recommendation 1.1: In the coming year, the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office (NNCO) should conduct a census of accessible nanotechnology infrastructure sites (instruments, staff, facilities) and display findings on a public, web-accessible map that includes university, regional, and national resources. This information, which should be maintained annually by NNCO, will enhance the visibility, availability, and impact of these assets.

Recommendation 1.2: Within 2 years, Congress should reauthorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative as the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure and orient, with the appropriate funding, the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and agency activity toward the renewal and expansion of infrastructure to serve existing and emerging nanotechnology research and development.

Recommendation 2.4: Within the next 2 years, the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office should undertake a study to determine the level of resources needed to maintain state-of-the-art nanotechnology infrastructure. The study should include a timeframe, measures of success and efficiency, and accountability measures.

Recommendation 3.3: Federal agencies that support nanotechnology infrastructure should within the next year, and periodically thereafter, prioritize investment in new capabilities that advance fabrication, materials synthesis, characterization, and data analysis to support emerging technologies to help the United States maintain its commercial edge.

Recommendation 4.1: All agencies that fund nanotechnology infrastructure should include in their infrastructure evaluations measures of performance that capture the breadth and heterogeneity of the associated user bases.

Recommendation 4.5: All agencies that fund nanotechnology infrastructure should increase program funding or provide a competitive travel grant program to include dedicated travel support for users and, where feasible, summer access for academics, researchers, and students who are not from R1 institutions.

This page intentionally left blank.