A Quadrennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative The report can be found at: NAP.EDU/25729 Nanoscience, Applications, and Commercialization Tuesday, June 9, 2020 from 1-2:30pm ET 2020 Facilitated by the National Materials and Manufacturing Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences Origins of the NNI 2 In a January 2000 speech president Bill Clinton advocated the development of nanotechnology, at the California Institute of Technology Image credit: AP ‘Some of our research goals may take twenty or more years to achieve, but that is precisely why there is an important role for the federal government.’ 3 President George W. Bush further increased funding for nanotechnology. On 3rd of December 2003 Bush signed into law the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Public Law 108-153 Image credit: Brandi L. Schottel and Barbara Karn Origins of the NNI 4 Today the NNI is a United States Government research and development initiative involving 20 agencies and departments working together toward the shared vision of developing - A future in which the ability to understand and control matter at the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry that benefits society. The NNI Today https://www.nano.gov/about-nni 5 The NNI brings together the expertise needed to advance this very broad and complex field — creating a framework for shared goals, priorities, and strategies that helps each participating Federal agency leverage the resources of all participating agencies. With the support of the NNI, nanotechnology R&D is taking place in academic, government, and industry laboratories across the United States. The NNI Structure and Coordination The NNI is coordinated by the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET)* - a subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council's (NSTC) Committee on Technology, under the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. *Composed of representatives from the 20 Federal agencies and departments 6 Pursuant to the 2003 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to form an ad hoc review committee to conduct this quadrennial review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) 2020 Review of the NNI Statement of Task This quadrennial NNI review addressed the following tasks: A. Analyze the relative position of the United States compared to other nations with respect to nanotechnology R&D, including trends and developments in nanotechnology science and engineering and the identification of any critical research areas where the United States should be the world leader to best achieve the goals of the Program B. Assess the current state of nanoscience and nanotechnology resulting from the NNI as authorized in 2003, including the current impact of nanotechnology on U.S. economic prosperity and national security. Based on this assessment, consider if and how the NNI should continue. If continuation is suggested, make recommendations regarding new or revised Program goals, new research areas and technical priorities, partnerships, coordination and management mechanisms, or programs to be established to achieve these goals. 7 NNI Quadrennial Review Committee LIESL FOLKS, University of Arizona, Chair HAYDN WADLEY, University of Virginia, Vice Chair NICHOLAS L. ABBOTT, NAE, Cornell University OLIVER BRAND, Georgia Institute of Technology HAROLD CRAIGHAED, NAE, Cornell University MARIE D’IORIO, University of Ottawa TRAVIS EARLES, Lockheed Martin Corporation GRAHAM R. FLEMING, NAS, University of California, Berkeley TERI W. ODOM, Northwestern University RICARDO RUIZ, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory JO ANNE SHATKIN, Vireo Advisors MARK TUOMINEN, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Staff ERIK SVEDBERG, Study Director JAMES LANCASTER, Director, NMMB and BPA NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Associate Program Officer AMISHA JINANDRA, Research Associate BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate JOE PALMER, Program Coordinator 8 Antti J. Makinen, CIV USN CNR James Alexander Liddle, NIST World Nieh, USDA Alan Rudie, USDA Samuel Brauer, Nanotech Plus, LLC Celia Merzbacher, SRI Thomas A. Treye, U.S. CPSC OHIR Peidong Yang, Berkeley Matthew Hull, Virginia Tech Chad Mirkin, Northwestern University Matt Laudon, TechConnect Orin Herskowitz, Columbia Technology Ventures Waguih Ishak, Corning and Emilie J. Siochi, NASA. Lisa Friedersdorf, NNCO Lloyd Whitman, NIST Mihail C. Roco, NSF Stephanie Morris, NIH Anil Patri, FDA Michael A. Meador, NASA Hongda Chen, USDA NIFA Khershed Cooper, NSF Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University Yan Borodovsky, retired Hilary Godwin, University of Washington Nathan S. Lewis, California Inst. Technology Andre Nel, UCLA Peter Dröll, Germany The committee is gratefully to the reviewers of the report Muhammad Alam (Purdue University), Jennifer Dionne (Stanford University), Michael Ettenberg, NAE (Dolce Technologies), Michael Liehr, (SUNY Polytechnic Institute), Henke E. Riel, (IBM Research), Matthew Tirrell, NAS/NAE (University of Chicago) And also Martin A. Philbert, NAM (University of Michigan) for his oversight of the review. Contributors to the NNI Quadrennial Review The committee thanks the following for their contributions to this study and participation in the committee’s meetings: 9 Preface • Nanotechnology is highly-interdisciplinary and has made transformative societal impacts. • Nanotechnology significantly contributes to the US high-technology economy, the nation’s security, to the health and to the prosperity of its citizens. • The US maintains a strong nanoscience and technology R&D program, but the global arena is increasingly competitive. • Program coordination is now critical in the current hyper-competitive global era. • In China, particularly, we see a robust national R&D strategy that seeks to harvest the economic, medical, and national security benefits of the international nanotechnology R&D effort as quickly as possible. • Very large investments in state-of-the-art facilities and the allocation of substantial resources for the training and attraction of top international talent, is clearly intended to result in China’s leadership in nanotechnology. 11 • A redesign of the NNI with the goal of achieving a U.S. resurgence in nanotechnology is recommended. • The NNI should be restructured around these priorities: 1. Improve NNI alignment with the stated national priorities for R&D. 2. Broaden NNI work to accelerate technology transfer to relevant markets. 3. Strengthen state-of-the-art enabling R&D infrastructure and expand domestic workforce education and training. • Engaging and partnering with the nanoscience and technology community broadly will be vitally important if the US is to fully reap the societal benefits of nanotechnology. Summary The highest priority of this report is to provide recommendations that will restore the US to the global forefront of nanotechnology-enabled advances in electronics, health care, clean energy, food production, and clean water and air, and to contribute to the robust defense of U.S. national security interests. 12 Introduction 13 The goals of the NNI are: 1. Advance a world-class nanotechnology R&D program. 2. Foster the transfer of new technologies into products for commercial and public benefit. 3. Develop and sustain educational resources, a skilled workforce, and a dynamic infrastructure and toolset to advance nanotechnology, and 4. Support responsible development of nanotechnology • The NNI is widely viewed nationally and globally as a highly successful cross-disciplinary and interagency coordination effort — arguably the best modern example of such an effort in the US. • Impressive, tangible outcomes that have emerged from these coordination efforts, including the recent formation of the NQI. Impacts of the NNI to date 14 • NNI is organized into Program Component Areas and Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives to promote interagency coordination in areas of national relevance. • This “light coordination” approach has resulted in uneven investments. • Poorly funded: technology transfer and workforce development • Well funded: fundamental research, infrastructure, health, and public safety. • A lack of data collection / availability makes it difficult to determine impacts. • We observe significant inertia to change in priorities hampering timely alignment with national priorities. • In the past, when the global arena was paced by the work of the United States, this approach to NNI coordination was more appropriate than it is today. Organization of NNI effort via PCAs and NSIs Given intense competition and increasing risk of technological surprise, the review committee is concerned that the organizing principles and budgetary arrangements to execute an agile program are no longer adequate. 16 The U.S. Nanotechnology R&D Ecosystem • There are many notable NNI successes, in electronics, healthcare, environmental nanosensors, the development of world-class facilities, and establishment of the US as a global leader in EHS efforts. • Comparison of U.S. and international efforts reveals key competitive weaknesses for the U.S. efforts. • While support of basic nanoscience research must continue, the opportunity now exists for the United States to fully realize the societal benefits of nanoscience via commercialization of responsible nanoproducts. There exists an urgent need to better integrate nanoscience, infrastructure development, and workforce development into an ecosystem that supports the goal of responsible commercialization of nanotechnology for the benefit of the US. 17 Current Perspective • The SARS-COV2 pandemic has shown the value and critical importance of advanced science and technology research and infrastructure to society. • The rapid response in sensors, testing and potential vaccines has been facilitated by nanotechnologies. • 20 years of the NNI has built significant resources and learning, in particular about interdisciplinary research and technology development. • It is time to pivot the NNI to align with current US Strategic R&D Priorities. 18 The Changing Global Environment 19 A Global Perspective • At the launch of the NNI, 20 years ago, government investment into nanotech and R&D was on par between the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, and the United States had a strong lead in the number of patents in nanotechnology. • Sustained investments have been made by other developed nations and the EU, and accelerated investment is seen in developing nations, especially China. • Today, the US is but one of several nations where nanoscience discoveries and technology applications are making important contributions to the economy and to the health of their citizens. • It is unrealistic to expect or to advocate that the United States should lead in every area of nanoscience and technology. • There is a need to identify the most critical topics in which the United States should aim to lead the world. 20 So how has the NNI evolved compared to the nano-programs of other nations? Source: Extracted from the nanotechnology database recently published in Z. Wang, A.L. Porter, S. Kwon, J. Youtie, P. Shapira, S.F. Carley, and X. Liu, 2019, “Updating a search strategy to track emerging nanotechnologies”, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 21(9):199. The committee thanks the authors for permitting a customized search of their database. 21 Rapid Global Shifts in Origins of “Nano-related” Publications China US 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Number of publications 23 Nanotechnology publications in the WoS: 1990 - 2018 “Title-abstract” search for nanotechnology by keywords for five regions 2000-2018 Average worldwide annual growth rate ~15% U.S. ~ 20% China ~ 43% in 2018 U.S.# ~ 30% China ~ 9% in 2000 U.S. ~ 23% China ~ 24% in 2010 U.S. contribution fell from ~30% in 2005 to ~20% in 2018 (about -0.7% per year) U.S. ~ 29% China ~ 16% in 2005 MC Roco and HN Chen, Dec 9 2019 Japan USA Korea China EU 27 Total Asia EU-28 and EFTA North America Number % Number % Number % ICT 809,820 419,031 51.7 255,411 31.5 166,130 20.5 Manufacturing 286,447 158,468 55.3 84,476 29.5 51,245 17.9 Health 266,741 112,740 42.3 87,452 32.8 71,418 26.8 Energy 197,539 116,294 58.9 51,263 26.0 41,353 20.9 Photonics 112,378 56,012 49.8 36,215 32.2 29,711 26.4 Environment 66,100 28,683 43.4 21,595 32.7 14,915 22.6 Transport 22,803 8,767 38.4 9,090 39.9 6,353 27.9 Construction 21,648 7,124 32.9 8,651 40.0 4,042 18.7 1,783,476 907,119 50.9 554,153 31.1 385,167 21.6 SOURCE: Data from European Commission, 2018, NanoData Landscape Compilation Update Report 2017, doi: 10.2777/031727, at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/69470216-f1f6-11e8-9982- 01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-81483247, accessed 11/04/2019. 24 Nanotechnology Publications by Application Field and Region (2000-16) Total Asia EU-28 and EFTA North America Number % Number % Number % ICT 809,820 419,031 51.7 255,411 31.5 166,130 20.5 Manufacturing 286,447 158,468 55.3 84,476 29.5 51,245 17.9 Health 266,741 112,740 42.3 87,452 32.8 71,418 26.8 Energy 197,539 116,294 58.9 51,263 26.0 41,353 20.9 Photonics 112,378 56,012 49.8 36,215 32.2 29,711 26.4 Environment 66,100 28,683 43.4 21,595 32.7 14,915 22.6 Transport 22,803 8,767 38.4 9,090 39.9 6,353 27.9 Construction 21,648 7,124 32.9 8,651 40.0 4,042 18.7 1,783,476 907,119 50.9 554,153 31.1 385,167 21.6 Global nanotechnology patents recorded in the WIPO data base, by lead author location. SOURCE: Reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: H. Zhu, S. Jiang, H. Chen, and M.C. Roco, 2017. 25 Rapid Global Shifts in Origin of Patents Output of high-technology manufacturing industries for selected regions, countries, or economies (2003 – 2016) SOURCE: IHS Global Insight, World Industry Service database (2017) &National Science Board, 2018, Science and Engineering Indicators. 26 China US EU Bachelors Degree Degree awards in S and E fields by country or economy China US EU 6 SOURCE: National Science Board, Science & Engineering Indicators 2020, https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators, Figs 3 and 4. 27 PhD Degrees China US EU 6 India Taiwan Japan S Korea Concluding Remarks on the Global Nanotechnology R&D Ecosystem The US remains a competitor in nanotechnology, but no longer the unambiguous leader. Developed and emerging economies have implemented mechanisms that raise the scale and productivity of their programs: • Prolonged and focused support of the most innovative basic science research and technology development. • Agile, and highly effective, coordination among national and regional agencies to maximize the impacts on societal problems in recognized areas of strategic importance. • Integrated R&D efforts addressing societal challenges that are highly interdisciplinary. • Novel, highly effective, coordination of research in disparate fields has contributed significantly to the rapid rise of new centers of leadership outside the United States. • Promotion of government-industry partnerships, to create and nurture national nanotechnology ecosystems, and to speed the commercialization of promising R&D. • Creation and maintenance of shared state-of-the-art nanotechnology infrastructure that supports fundamental and applied science, commercialization of nanotechnology products, and development of nanotechnology-enabled systems and applications. • National educational and training policies to promote the rapid growth of a highly trained and nanotechnology-skilled workforce. 28 Key findings and recommendations 29 1 – STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES Finding 1.1: The activities of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and its current signature initiatives, while addressing relevant societal challenges, are not explicitly aligned with the current research and development (R&D) priorities established by the federal government. Finding 1.2: The National Quantum Initiative (NQI) is, in large part, an important outgrowth of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), but the degree of coordination and collaboration between these national high-priority efforts is not yet clear. Finding 1.3: The goals of the Bioeconomy Initiative overlap with those of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) toward advanced manufacturing, creating an opportunity to leverage nanomanufacturing infrastructure and the coordinating relationships of the NNI in service of advancing the Bioeconomy Initiative. 30 Images Courtesy of Berkeley Lights An example of how nanotechnology contributes to national strategic R&D priorities – the Bioeconomy and COVID-19 Response Finding 1.4: U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology is slipping in some areas, putting U.S. economic prosperity and national security at risk. Finding 1.5: The United States is not investing significant resources in nanotechnology in ways that are as focused and strategic as in other nations. Finding 1.6: U.S. nanotechnology stakeholders report considerable challenges along the lab-to-market path for nanotechnology-based products. 32 1 – STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES 33 Key Recommendation 1: The Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee and the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) agencies should align the efforts of the NNI to deliver responsible and sustainable nanotechnology-based solutions that address the federal research and development (R&D) priorities, which currently include security, artificial intelligence, quantum information sciences, manufacturing, bio-based materials, water, climate change, space travel, exploration, inhabitation, energy, medical innovations, and food and agriculture. 1 – STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES Implementation Recommendation 1a: Convene multiagency coordination efforts to align the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) priorities with federal research and development (R&D) priorities. Implementation Recommendation 1b: Facilitate ongoing close partnership and collaboration between the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and National Quantum Initiative (NQI) to minimize duplication of effort, maximize the utilization of existing infrastructure, and allow for cross-pollination of ideas across both initiatives. 34 1 – STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES Implementation Recommendation 1c: Through the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) and interagency efforts, align the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and the Bioeconomy Initiative to leverage research and development (R&D) and coordination efforts on nanotechnology to strengthen the bioeconomy, including biotechnology, bio-based products, and sustainable bioproduction, including molecular assembly. Implementation Recommendation 1d: To address the need for closer coordination and agile refocus on strategic opportunities, the NNCO should be adequately resourced to fully interact with NNI agencies and hold those agencies accountable to the new plan. 35 1 – STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES 2 – COMMERCIALIZATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY 36 A FEW KEY FINDINGS • Other countries and regions have evolved their central nanotechnology research and development (R&D) efforts to incorporate a strong emphasis on commercial translation, yielding lab-to-market pathways that are accelerated relative to those in the United States. (Examples: EU Horizon 2020, Japan, China) • Supporting knowledge translation and technology transfer has not been a sufficiently major focus of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to date. • Data on the competitive status of the United States with regard to nanotechnology implementation and commercialization is unavailable through the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) public-facing digital portals. • Pilot and test-bed facilities are a key part of lab-to-market and return-on-investment activities. The United States has not maintained a competitive position with this type of facility. 37 2 – COMMERCIALIZATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY 38 Key Recommendation 2: The Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) should strengthen and expand the lab-to-market innovation ecosystem in support of the transfer of nanotechnologies from bench research to products, to ensure U.S. competitiveness. 2 – COMMERCIALIZATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY KEY IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS • Implement effective coordination among the various national or regionally supported funding agencies to maximize the impacts of fundamental research to advance applications and solutions to societal problems in recognized areas of strategic importance. • Develop a service model strategy to support commercialization activities so as to ensure that (1) nanoproducts are made in the United States whenever possible, (2) relevant skills and expertise are developed locally, (3) barriers to commercialization are identified quickly, and (4) the national return on investment (ROI) is maximized. • Create appropriate data collection methods and a data repository to allow routine assessment of (1) the global status of nanotechnology, (2) new and emerging trends, and (3) the status and return on investment (ROI) of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to be readily assessed. Ideally the data collection process should not become a significant burden on the researchers. • Expand efforts to build a national community of National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) participants, and then leverage this community to improve access to national facilities, increase opportunities for collaboration, create public-private partnerships, and generate pathways for commercialization of products to global markets. 39 2 – COMMERCIALIZATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY KEY IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) • Create a not-for-profit organization whose mandate is to connect National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) participants, industry, and academia through membership and provision of services such as ecosystem studies, national and international conferences, regional workshops, and turnkey missions for stakeholders to international trade shows abroad. • Assess the value of establishing a Nano-Manufacturing Institute that would offer tools to and share expertise with small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) to accelerate product development. • Expand international collaborations on responsible development and manufacturing, with the European Union in particular, and other countries as appropriate, to ensure transparent global standards emerge to the benefit of consumers and U.S. industry. • Leverage the recent Lab-to-Market Return-on-Investment (ROI) Initiative to accelerate nanotechnology commercialization. • Enhance the training of competent nanotechnology professionals in entrepreneurship, technology transfer, and commercialization are essential to lab-to-market return on investment. 40 2 – COMMERCIALIZATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY 41 3 – NANOTECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE Finding 3.1: Other countries have followed U.S. lead and are investing heavily in nanotechnology infrastructure. Finding 3.2: U.S. nanotechnology infrastructure is aging. Finding 3.3: Easy-to-access infrastructure is key enabler for researchers and start-ups. Finding 3.4: State-of-the-art infrastructure helps attract talent. 42 Nanoscale Science Research Centers www.nnci.net nsrcportal.sandia.gov www.nist.gov/cnst ncl.cancer.gov 3 – NANOTECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE Finding 3.1: Other countries have followed the U.S. lead and are investing heavily in nanotechnology infrastructure. Finding 3.2: U.S. nanotechnology infrastructure is aging. Finding 3.3: Easy-to-access infrastructure is key enabler for researchers and start-ups. Finding 3.4: State-of-the-art infrastructure helps attract talent. 43 www.nanopolis.cn/en/ China Nano Valley https://www.nanonet.go.jp/ntj 3 – NANOTECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE Finding 3.5: U.S. nanotechnology infrastructure is lacking scale-up capabilities. Finding 3.6: Non-U.S. micro/nanotechnology centers attract U.S. companies because of technology transfer capabilities. Finding 3.7: Need to redesign and streamline resources for inventors to facilitate commercialization of Nanotechnology. 44 www.imec-int.com Belgium France https://www.minatec.org/ 3 – NANOTECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE 45 New investments by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) agencies are required to strengthen and renew the U.S. network of fabrication and characterization facilities to retain international leadership. These investments should make readily available new tools, expertise, techniques, and processes to support fundamental research in existing and emerging areas, as well as prototyping and pilot/scale-up capabilities. 3 – NANOTECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE Key Recommendation 3: 3 – NANOTECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE Implementation Recommendation 3a: The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) agencies should solicit and promote innovative approaches to transform models of access to, and modernization of, the nanotechnology infrastructure to ensure U.S. leadership in lab-to-market outcomes. A whole-of-government approach is required to develop more thoughtful, strategic, and effective approaches to accelerate technology transfer. Effective collection of performance metrics is also needed. A mechanism for moving this activity forward is to appoint a responsible person from, for example, the Department of Commerce. 46 3 – NANOTECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE Implementation Recommendation 3b: National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) agencies/organizations should develop programs that fund replacement of aging infrastructure (tools) in addition to programs for new, state-of-the-art infrastructure. 47 4 – WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: GLOBAL VIEW ON COMPETITIVENESS 48 Finding 4.1: The United States is losing global competitiveness in recruiting international graduate students and in training science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) students at all levels. Finding 4.2: The United States lacks an overarching strategy for graduate student recruitment and development to support nanotechnology advancement. 49 2020 National Science Board 4 – WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: GLOBAL VIEW ON COMPETITIVENESS 50 Key Recommendation 4: Nanoscience-supporting agencies should significantly increase efforts to attract and train the best students to studies in relevant nanoscience / nanotechnology science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines to ensure a diverse, world-class workforce to support our national interests and security, including via public-private partnerships that support student fellowships. 4 – WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: GLOBAL VIEW ON COMPETITIVENESS Implementation Recommendation 4a: NNI agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, should seed the creation of undergraduate certificate programs in entrepreneurship in partnership with universities. Implementation Recommendation 4b: The NNI agencies should increase and sustain the number of Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) programs focused on nanoscience and nanotechnology. Implementation Recommendation 4c: The NNI should create targeted internship programs between nanotechnology companies and universities for undergraduate and graduate students. 51 4 – WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: GLOBAL VIEW ON COMPETITIVENESS Implementation Recommendation 4d: NNI agencies should foster models that create teams of nanotechnology graduate students, business school students, and private sector stakeholders to advance interdisciplinary training in support of accelerated U.S. lab-to-market outcomes. Implementation Recommendation 4e: The NNI should expand the diversity of STEM students by gender, age, and ethnicity to greatly increase the nanotechnology workforce. 52 2020 National Science Board 4 – WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: GLOBAL VIEW ON COMPETITIVENESS 5 – STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT 53 54 Key Recommendation 5: The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), through the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), should continue to perform its important coordinating role. The NNCO should be adequately resourced and appropriately staffed to deliver an agile and globally competitive nanotechnology program. The work of the NNCO should also be augmented through expanded collaborations with not-for-profit organizations and by establishing new publicprivate partnerships. 5 – STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT Implementation Recommendation 5a: The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) should signal to all stakeholders that it is refocusing its efforts through a renaming or rebranding that captures the revised priorities recommended in this report. Implementation Recommendation 5b: The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should evaluate the current budget level and funding mechanism with consideration to the expanded role of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) and provide specific guidance through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to modify the level of flow through funding from participating agencies to ensure that the NNCO has the resources necessary to execute its responsibilities on behalf of the Nanoscale Science and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee. Implementation Recommendation 5c: Nanoscale Science and Technology (NSET) and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) should actively leverage the Nanotechnology Signature Initiative (NSI) mechanism to focus and coordinate agency work and funding on activities such as technology transfer or training. Implementation Recommendation 5d: Nanoscale Science and Technology (NSET) should coordinate with grants.gov (or other federal research and development reporting avenues) to develop mechanisms to collect and present accurate, current performance data on the outcome of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) research and make clear to all, including to the researchers involved, what research is part of the NNI. 55 5 – STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT Conclusions 56 The report Recommendations identifies these three priorities for shaping the future of the NNI: Priority 1. The NNI should improve alignment with the stated national priorities for R&D and focus on strategically selected environmental and other societal challenges. Priority 2. The NNI should partner broadly to improve the efficiency of translation of nanoscience/nanotechnology research and development into economic, environmental, security, health, etc., (i.e. societal) benefits. Priority 3. The NNI should expand the nation’s nanotechnology ecosystem via increased recruitment and training of future scientists and engineers, with an intentional focus on accelerated technology translation, and with robust investments in next-generation infrastructure to support both basic science and commercialization. A VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF THE NNI 57 Thanks for listening! This report has also been briefed to NNCO, OSTP, the NNI agencies, and the Hill We now move to Q&A please type in any questions The report can be found at: NAP.EDU/25729 58
| Types | Organization |
| Start date | 2020 |