Consensus Study Report

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This study was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (1333ND23DNB100003). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-60141-2
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/29294

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; https://nap.nationalacademies.org.

The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.

Copyright 2026 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2026. An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Physical Measurement Laboratory: Fiscal Year 2025. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29294.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advise the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

PANEL ON ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST) PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY (PML)

KATE P. KIRBY, Chief Executive Officer (emerita), American Physical Society (retired), Chair

BALAKUMAR BALACHANDRAN, Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland

CARL BLOOMFIELD, Vice President, Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.

GEORGE BURBA, Science & Strategy Fellow, LI-COR; Global Fellow, Water for Food Global Institute; and Co-Founder, CarbonDew

YOUNG-KAI CHEN (NAE), Deputy Chief Technology Officer, Coherent Corporation

SHANYING CUI, Senior Manager, PsiQuantum

NATHALIE DE LEON, Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Princeton University

BENJAMIN FITZRYSLER, Technical Manager, Weights and Measures Office, Minnesota Department of Commerce

THOMAS FOLLAND, Assistant Professor, The University of Iowa

NATHAN GEMELKE, Chief Technology Strategist, QuEra Computing Inc.

IGOR GOLOVKIN, Chief Technology Officer, Prism Computational Sciences, Inc.

GUOHAN HU, Distinguished Research Scientist, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

JUN JIAO, Professor, Portland State University

FRANK LIEBMANN, Metrology Engineer, Fluke Calibration

CHRISTOPHER MARTEL, Senior Director of Operations, Radiation Safety and Control Services, Inc.

DAVID MEDICH, Professor, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

JOHN NICHOL, Associate Professor, University of Rochester

EDWARD O’BRIEN, R&D S&E Electrical Engineer, Sandia National Laboratories

RAYMOND BENTON PAHLKA, Senior Diagnostic Medical Physicist, Texas Children’s Hospital

DANIEL SCHMIDT, Manager, IBM Research

BRIJ SINGH, Electrification R&D Manager, John Deere Inc., USA

LYDIA SOHN, Professor, University of California, Berkeley

STEVEN STAHLEY, Director, Measurement Excellence, Cummins, Inc.

CHERYL XU, Professor, North Carolina State University

Study Staff

ELIZABETH ZEITLER, Director, Laboratory Assessments Board

K. JOHN HOLMES, Senior Scholar

CATHERINE WISE, Senior Program Officer

MAURA WALSH, Administrative Coordinator

Reviewers

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by DAVID W. JOHNSON, JR. (NAE), Bell Laboratories (retired), and DAVID A. WEITZ (NAS/NAE), Harvard University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

Contents

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

PREFACE

SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

Statement of Task

Conduct of the Assessment

Structure of the Report

References

2 MICROSYSTEMS AND NANOTECHNOLOGY

Background on the Microsystems and Nanotechnology Division

Technical Programs

Scientific Expertise

Facilities, Equipment, and Human Resources

Effectiveness of Dissemination of Program Outputs

Conclusions and Recommendations

References

3 RADIATION PHYSICS

Background on the Radiation Physics Division

Technical Programs

Scientific Expertise

Facilities, Equipment, and Human Resources

Effectiveness of Dissemination of Program Outputs

Conclusions and Recommendations

References

4 NANOSCALE DEVICE CHARACTERIZATION

Background on the Nanoscale Device Characterization Division

Technical Programs

Scientific Expertise

Facilities, Equipment, and Human Resources

Effectiveness of Dissemination of Program Outputs

Conclusions and Recommendations

Reference

5 QUANTUM MEASUREMENT

Background on the Quantum Measurement Division

Technical Programs

Scientific Expertise

Facilities, Equipment, and Human Resources

Effectiveness of Dissemination of Program Outputs

Conclusions and Recommendations

References

6 SENSOR SCIENCE

Background on the Sensor Science Division

Technical Programs

Scientific Expertise

Facilities, Equipment, and Human Resources

Effectiveness of Dissemination of Program Outputs

Conclusions and Recommendations

Reference

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overarching Conclusions and Key Recommendations

Division-Specific Conclusions and Recommendations

References

APPENDIXES

A Biographical Sketches of Panel

B Definitions of Qualitative Descriptors

Preface

On September 9–11, 2025, a panel selected and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) met to assess the work and accomplishments of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Physical Measurement Laboratory (PML) based in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

It is probably underappreciated by the U.S. citizenry that the foundations of NIST (formerly the National Bureau of Standards) appear in the U.S. Constitution—giving Congress the authority to “fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”—resulting in the establishment of the oldest office within NIST (the Office of Weights and Measures). NIST’s mission has evolved since then to be the world leader in measurement science, supporting U.S. competitiveness, industrial standards, and advanced technologies. It is often said that NIST is “the national laboratory for industry.”

PML is at the core of NIST’s mission. The panel heard high quality and informative presentations of impressive work addressing the redefinition and improved accuracy of the fundamental constants, and work in disseminating SI units. PML staff pursue world-class programs involving almost all aspects of measurement science, including in quantum science, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology, while carrying out essential calibrations supporting a large, broad customer base that includes U.S. industry, government agencies, and state metrology laboratories. This is a challenging time at NIST, with significant budget cuts, staff departures, and a hiring freeze, and leadership positions which in many cases are vacant or filled only in an “acting” capacity. In addition to these ongoing challenges, the 43-day government shutdown that occurred after our review meeting delayed PML’s calibrations for government and industry, required shutdown of scientific equipment and experiments, and suspended pay for the staff. This adds to the difficulty in recruiting and retaining talented scientists at PML with better compensation available in competing sectors (such as academia and industry).

PML staff are dealing with aging and failing laboratory infrastructure adversely affecting forefront science experiments and essential calibrations. The panel members had a front-row view of these aging infrastructure problems, with temporary HVAC systems unable to keep up with the September heat and a recent flood in at least one building preventing us from attending laboratory tours in that area. The departures of staff and the infrastructure challenges have prompted several important Key Recommendations described at the end of this report.

The panel observed the remarkable culture of the staff at NIST—a very strong work ethic, devotion to the NIST mission, and good mentoring of postdocs and younger colleagues—despite staff having to deal with so many issues that could be demoralizing. The panel wishes to thank the staff for their strong and positive attitude and for the care and effort put into preparing the materials and presentations for us. Overall, the panel was impressed with

Acronyms and Abbreviations