An Assessment of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Physical Measurement Laboratory: Fiscal Year 2025 (2026)
Chapter: 1 Introduction
1
Introduction
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Physical Measurement Laboratory (PML) sets U.S. standards essential for industry, research, government, and ultimately for consumers and the public. This includes standards for mass, length, time, frequency, temperature, electricity, and electromagnetic radiation. The fundamental need for accurate measurements is reflected in the U.S. Constitution, which defines the government’s role to “fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” to promote consistency and uniformity in commerce and other activities.1 PML’s priorities are determining the International System of Units (SI), disseminating the SI, quantum research and applications, fabrication for metrology and metrology for fabrication, and applications of physical measurement. Within these priorities are other aspects of the NIST mission such as providing calibration services to industrial and other partners to enable conformity, accreditation, and traceability of products, services, and research outcomes. Determining the SI has recently taken major advances to develop new procedures and tools to define standard measurement units based on laws of physics and fundamental physical constants as opposed to a physical artifact such as the metal cylinder that formerly served as the International Prototype Kilogram.
This work requires developing procedures and tools to revolutionize how measurements are made in every application, maintaining instruments that can calibrate force compression or tension as large as 4.448 MN (1 million pounds-force) (Bartel et al. 1997), as well as developing devices and metrics for nanoscale environments and exploring and leveraging quantum mechanical properties. Within the divisions reviewed in this assessment, PML includes expertise in several areas: microsystems, nanotechnology, and nanoscale device characterization, to advance nanofabrication and nanomanufacturing; radiation physics, to provide accurate characterization of ionizing radiation and radioactivity; quantum processes and controls, to advance a wide spectrum of new understanding at quantum scales; and measurement science, including dimensional, thermodynamic, optical radiation, and fluid flow metrology. Work at PML supports NIST’s overall strategic goals of accelerating innovation in critical and emerging technologies such as quantum science, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and semiconductors; bolstering U.S. leadership in standards development; accelerating commercial adoption of U.S. innovations; and building research infrastructure that enables innovation in critical and emerging technologies (NIST n.d.)
PML’s total budget in fiscal year 2025 was $241.7 million. The scientific and technical research services base budget represents the bulk of funding and has been falling since 2021, from above $150 million in 2021 to now $140 million in 2025. Scientific and technical research services non-base funding totaled $47.8 million, federal
___________________
1 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 5.
and non-federal government and cooperative research and development agreement funding totaled $25.8 million, calibrations totaled $3.3 million, and other funding including from the CHIPS and Science Act totaled $16 million in 2025 (Kushmerick 2025). Other agency funds for PML work come primarily from defense agencies such as DARPA, the U.S. Department of War, and the services. Non-defense agencies include NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security. There is a separate appropriation to NIST for Construction of Research Facilities, which includes Safety, Capacity, Maintenance, and Major Repairs. That funding has been approximately flat averaging about $97 million between FY2020–FY2025, with $88 million appropriated in 2025 (AIP 2026). When including all PML-specific funding streams, total funding has been approximately flat since FY2020. Given inflation, flat overall budgets for PML and for NIST-wide construction and maintenance of facilities means that funding has fallen relative to costs. The PML and facilities funding levels are outside of PML leadership’s control, but the panel was tasked with assessing the budget, facilities, equipment, and human resources, and noted where the budget is causing constraints in PML’s ability to deliver on its mission.
STATEMENT OF TASK
In 2025, at the request of the Director of NIST, the National Academies convened the Panel on Assessment of the NIST Physical Measurement Laboratory, hereafter referred to as “the panel.” The panel was established to review five divisions in PML for fiscal year 2025: (1) Microsystems and Nanotechnology, (2) Radiation Physics, (3) Nanoscale Device Characterization, (4) Quantum Measurement, and (5) Sensor Science. The assessment process was designed to consist of an in-person site visit and drafting of a comprehensive report. The panel carried out the responsibilities outlined in the statement of task, which is reprinted below:
The National Academies shall appoint a panel to assess independently the scientific and technical work performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Physical Measurement Laboratory (PML). The panel will review technical reports and technical program descriptions prepared by NIST staff and will visit the facilities of the Physical Measurement Laboratory. Visits will include technical presentations by NIST staff, demonstrations of NIST projects, tours of NIST facilities, and discussions with NIST staff. The panel will deliberate findings in closed sessions and will prepare a report summarizing its assessment findings and recommendations.
NIST has requested that the laboratories be assessed against the following broad criteria:
- Assess the organization’s technical programs.
- How does the quality of the research compare to similar world-class research in the technical program areas?
- Is the quality of the technical programs adequate for the organization to reach its stated technical objectives? How could it be improved?
- Assess the portfolio of scientific expertise within the organization.
- Does the organization have world-class scientific expertise in the areas of the organization’s mission and program objectives? If not, in what areas should it be improved?
- How well does the organization’s scientific expertise support the organization’s technical programs and the organization’s ability to achieve its stated objectives?
- Assess the adequacy of the organization’s budget, facilities, equipment, and human resources.
- How well do the facilities, equipment, and human resources support the organization’s technical programs and its ability to achieve its stated objectives? How could they be improved?
- Assess the effectiveness by which the organization disseminates its program outputs.
- How well are the organization’s research programs driven by stakeholder needs?
- How effective are the dissemination methods and technology transfer mechanisms used by the organization? Are these mechanisms sufficiently comprehensive?
- How well is the organization monitoring stakeholder use and impact of program outputs? How could this be improved?
CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSMENT
The panel comprising 24 volunteers with subject-matter expertise aligned with the scientific and technical work conducted at PML convened in Gaithersburg, Maryland, on September 9–11, 2025, to conduct an in-person assessment of PML. During the review, the panel engaged with PML leadership and staff, who delivered comprehensive presentations detailing the center’s research activities, operations, and strategic priorities. These sessions were complemented by guided tours of PML facilities and substantive, interactive discussions between panel members and PML personnel.
In formulating its evaluation, the panel drew upon the collective technical acumen, disciplinary breadth, and professional experience of its members. The assessment employed a qualitative methodology, grounded in the materials submitted by PML, as well as the content of presentations, poster sessions, facility tours, and associated discussions. The content of this report can be assumed to be based on those qualitative assessments, and citations to appropriate sources are provided in cases where further information and evidence were available. Although the report does not address every individual research project or program, the omission of specific topics should not be interpreted as an indication of negative judgment. Rather, the panel focused its commentary on areas it considered most salient based on the information made available. In its assessment, the panel made qualitative statements about PML’s achievements (e.g., high-quality publications, world-class research); its definitions of these descriptors are provided in Appendix B. The resulting report emphasizes PML’s ongoing scientific and technical work, identifying key opportunities and challenges as observed during the site visit.
It is important to underscore that NIST maintains a distinct advisory entity, the Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, which is charged with addressing broader questions related to strategic direction and research alignment across the agency’s laboratories. Accordingly, this review does not include an evaluation of whether PML is pursuing the “appropriate” lines of research, as such determinations fall beyond the purview of the panel’s mandate.
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
Following this introductory chapter, the report is organized into six subsequent chapters, where Chapters 2–6 align with the five divisions the panel reviewed, and Chapter 7 summarizes the panel’s assessment. Specifically, Chapter 2 presents the panel’s review of the Microsystems and Nanotechnology Division vision; Chapter 3 presents the review of the Radiation Physics Division; Chapter 4 presents the review of the Nanoscale Device Characterization Division; Chapter 5 presents the review of the Quantum Measurement Division; and Chapter 6 presents the review of the Sensor Science Division. Chapter 7 summarizes the panel’s conclusions and presents both overarching and chapter-specific recommendations.
REFERENCES
AIP (American Institute of Physics). 2026. FYI Budget Tracker: FY2026 National Institute of Standards and Technology. Accessed March 10, 2026. https://www.aip.org/fyi/fy2026-national-institute-of-standards-and-technology.
Bartel, T., S. Yaniv, and R. Seifarth. 1997. “Force Measurement Services at NIST: Equipment, Procedures, and Uncertainty.” National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/calibrations/97ncs4b.pdf.
Kushmerick, J. 2025. “Physical Measurement Laboratory Overview: NASEM Review of Gaithersburg Divisions.” Presentation to the committee. September 9. Gaithersburg, MD. Including updated actual obligated budget figures from Patrick Hovis, National Institute of Standards and Technology, March 31, 2026.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). n.d. “NIST Strategy for American Technology Leadership in the 21st Century.” NIST Office of the Director. https://www.nist.gov/director/strategic-priorities. Accessed February 18, 2026.
