Statement of Work for an International Study of the Long-term Impacts and Future Opportunities for Nanoscale Science and Engineering

DRAFT Oct. 6, 2009 /

[Note: this version contains additional items requested by MPS.]

Introduction

The creation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in the U.S. in 2000 catalyzed a vast, world-wide increase in research and development on nanoscience and nanotechnology. The impacts of the resulting increased research and development in nanoscience and nanotechnology (here called “nano R&D”) are seen daily in reports of discoveries and innovations that will improve the lives of people all over the world. Indeed the resulting excitement has benefited the global science and engineering enterprise generally, and particularly science and engineering education.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the progress made in nano R&D worldwide and discuss research directions for the next ten years based on current research and scenario development. The methodology is to recruit an outstanding panel of U.S. experts, who will conduct “scientific progress and opportunity” meetings in the U.S. and abroad to seek expert opinion on the current status of focused nano R&D investment, and seek ideas on the best opportunities to pursue in the near future. Site visits to the labs of researchers abroad with the most prominent results are also included.

Background

There is a voluminous literature on the focused investment in nano R&D; only a few key publications will be cited here. WTEC helped provide the international R&D data for the NNI proposal (Siegel, Hu, and Roco 1999). It also helped gather ideas for a U.S. research agenda through a workshop and report (Roco, Williams, and Alivisatos 2000). Through facilitation of books, WTEC helped Federal agencies consider possible impacts on society (Roco and Bainbridge 2001) and on other fields of science and technology (Roco and Bainbridge 2003). WTEC has also edited and produced a series of workshop reports on nano R&D.

Need for an International Assessment

After ten years of such progress, it is now time to gather and analyze the major effects of this focused investment in nano R&D, not just in making major discoveries and innovations possible, but to gauge its broader impacts in altering the ways that science, engineering and their education are done. With information on these impacts, the scientific community as well as industry and policy-makers could better plan for evolution of nano R&D in directions that provide greater benefit to the science, engineering, and education system of the U.S., and to the public as a whole.

Benefits from a WTEC Study

After a study of the literature already available on broader impacts, the proposed study would use WTEC's methodology of a peer review panel to conduct visits to overseas sites to gather international information on nano R&D impacts in the U.S. and abroad. This effort will be combined with the panel's own knowledge of the U.S. and international scene. The deliverables will include briefings to sponsors, a public workshop, and a final report. Collectively they should provide a comprehensive set of evaluations of developments worldwide, with a focus from basic to precompetitive research, including benchmarking of progress in nano R&D in different countries.

To control the scope, the study would focus on only 6-7 technical areas, such as electronics, biomedical, cognition, manufacturing, CNT applications, quantum effects applications, and others selected by the sponsors. Emphasis on engines of change in nano R&D, such as sensing and manipulation tools, new ideas, and new applications could also help scope the study.

There will be other benefits for policy development. For example, the study can address some of the key issues of importance to science and engineering communities, including:

  • On a strategic level--how has the vision of nanotechnology changed in the last ten years? What is the state-of-the-art now vs. ten years ago? Where is the field likely to go next?
  • How have the technological impacts changed in this period? For example Table ES1 in the 1999 report lists GMR read heads as a present impact and forecasts terabit memory and microprocessing as a future impact. Which of these future impacts have been realized, and how should this table be updated?
  • What is the international impact of increased U.S. nano R&D, i.e. on foreign nano R&D?
  • What are the most important scientific discoveries and engineering innovations worldwide that can be attributed to U.S. nano R&D vs. nano R&D abroad?
  • What have been the major impacts of U.S. and foreign nano R&D on the structure of science and engineering in the U.S. and abroad? These would include new organizations in nano R&D and the encouragement of interdisciplinary R&D.
  • What have been the major impacts of focused nano R&D on education for science and engineering in the U.S. and abroad? These could include new degree programs, new educational labs and centers, new approaches to education of the public, attraction of new students into majors in science and engineering, etc.
  • What is the interface between nano R&D worldwide and society as a whole? How is nanoscience and nanotechnology perceived by the public, in the U.S. and abroad?
  • What lessons can be learned to guide future focused R&D funding efforts to maximize their impacts?
  • What are the major emerging ideas in nano R&D programs abroad that are worth exploring in the U.S.?
  • In addition to counts of publications, citations, and patents, what are appropriate metrics for comparing U.S. and international nano R&D? How does the U.S. rate compared to its international competitors using those metrics? This topic should include both (1) nano R&D and (2) its practical applications, commercialization, and economic impacts.
  • How are other nations doing in transitioning basic research advances in the field into practical applications? Are there models for technology commercialization abroad that ought to be considered in the U.S.?
  • What is the impact of nano R&D on our environment and general well-being?
  • What is the public's perception of the field in the various countries? What approaches have been used to inform the public?

The bottom line of the study findings might be, “What is the nanoscale science and engineering progress made in the last ten years and what is likely to happen in the next ten years?”

Topics

The technical issues in the Nanotechnology Research Directions report will provide the structure for the study. These include:

  • Fundamental Scientific Issues for Nanotechnology
  • Investigative Tools:
  • Theory, Modeling, and Simulation
  • Experimental Methods and Probes
  • Synthesis, Assembly, and Processing of Nanostructures
  • Innovations and Applications:
  • Dispersions, Coatings, and Other Large Surface Area Structures
  • Nanodevices, Nanoelectronics, and Nanosensors
  • Consolidated Nanostructures
  • Biological, Medical, and Health
  • Energy
  • New Chemical Products
  • Nanoscale Processes and the Environment, including toxicology of nanomaterials
  • Infrastructure Needs for R&D and Education, including the role of individual vs. group approaches to research

Panelists will be recruited to cover one or more of these issues.

Panelists

Panelists selected as of October 1, 2009 include co-chairs Chad Mirkin and Mark Hersam, plus Dawn Bonnell, Jeffrey Brinker, Evelyn Hu, Andre Nel, and Jeffrey Welser.

Tasks

Task 1

The contractor, in consultation with study sponsors, shall select a panel of U.S. experts (tentatively six, including the co-chairs, but it could be more depending on the study scope and budget) in the field who are familiar with the technology elements listed above for nano R&D and who are also current in international activities in the field. The panel chairs shall have sufficient stature in this field to command respect in recruitment of panelists, and make presentation of results to his or her peers. The chairs also will have the necessary skills at leading a panel to efficiently conduct the study.

Task 2

The panel shall be organized at a kick-off meeting to be held in the Arlington, VA area. The co-chairs will define the scope of the study (with guidance from the agency sponsors) and assign each panelist a section of the report based on his or her area of expertise. A schedule for the study will be established, including dates for the workshop and completion of the final report. During the preliminary study, the contractor shall assist the panelists by conducting electronic literature searches. Public and private Web sites will be maintained by the contractor to facilitate the work of the panel.

Task 3

The contractor will organize a “scientific progress and opportunity” meeting in the Arlington, VA area, which will bring together the WTEC panel and an additional group of about six experts. In the morning each participant will prepare a short slideshow on their answers to the questions poised above. In the afternoon, a focused discussion will take place directed toward consensus findings on these questions. This initial meeting will also serve to refine the methods to be used abroad in similar meetings.

Task 4

The contractor shall organize a fact-finding trip for the panel abroad. This will include several foreign meetings will be held for “scientific progress and opportunities,” including foreign researchers and the WTEC panel, plus visits to centers of excellence in nano R&D. This budget assumes that the panel will travel to two countries in Asia and up to eight in Western Europe; other regions may also be considered if the budget permits.

Task 5

The contractor shall organize a workshop in the Arlington, VA area for the presentation of the results. Approximately 60 key participants from government and the private sector would be expected to attend a one-day presentation and discussion of the results. Each panelist will make a 30-minute presentation with visual aids of his or her findings, and the chair will make an overall summary. Copies of the visual aids will be available at the workshop meeting. A one-day private meeting of sponsors and panelists will be held the day before the public workshop to give sponsors an opportunity to hear the panelists’ frank assessments, and for the panelists to debate the findings they will present in public the following day.

Task 6

The contractor shall produce a final written report detailing the findings of academic quality with numerous illustrations and references to sources.

Task 7

The contractor shall convert the complete final written report into Adobe Acrobat and make it available on the WTEC Web server and on CD-ROM, with color illustrations. The contractor will also produce 100 copies of a softbound version in monochrome. The contractor will negotiate with a prestigious commercial publisher to seek a partnership to produce a book version for broader dissemination to the research community and the public.

Schedule, Milestones, and Deliverables

The schedule for the study will be determined at the kickoff meeting by mutual agreement of the sponsors, the WTEC staff, and the panel members. However, a typical schedule and associated deliverables is shown below. The term “or” means the latter of two events. The schedule presented below is a plan for finishing the study in 12 months, although 18 months is allowed for dissemination activities that may extend for some months after the report is complete.

  1. Kickoff meeting -- approximately one month after project initiation (API) (delivery of draft scope of panel work and panelist data)
  2. U. S. scientific progress and opportunity meeting – approximately three months API
  3. Foreign site visits and scientific progress and opportunity meetings completed -- approximately five months API
  1. Draft site reports from the meetings abroad - approximately six months API or within six weeks after the last site visits
  1. Workshop -- approximately seven months API or within two months after the last site visits (hard copies of presentation material delivered and posted on Web shortly thereafter)
  1. Draft final report -- approximately ten months API or three months after the workshop
  1. Final report -- approximately twelve months API or two months after the draft report is sent to the site visit hosts for review (printed version, 100 copies total, plus 100 copies of a CD version for mailing to hosts and workshop attendees, plus posting on the WTEC public Web site -- the primary means of dissemination).

Budget

The estimated budget for a study with six panelists and three sponsor representatives traveling for a week in Asia and another week in Western Europe is $525,000. This also includes one U.S. scientific progress and opportunity meeting, those abroad, about 10 site visits to top labs abroad, and the final workshop and report. This budget is based on WTEC's cost experience in organizing over 60 such international technology assessments and is intended to fit the resources now promised. Details are in Table 1.

Table 1: 6 Panelists, 1 US P&O Meeting, EU + Japan and PRC
Salaries / 106
Fringes / 28.6
ODCs
Dom Travel / 25.4 / Includes one P&O meeting in US
Foreign Travel / 121 / Includes travel by advance, et al.
Materials / 2
Publications / 15
Editor / 23
Advance (2) / 50 / Includes bibliometrics
Panelists / 30
Students / 3
Computer / 1
Venues / 9.7 / Includes venues abroad
Total ODCs / 280.1
Total Direct / 414.7
Indirect / 110.3
Total / 525.0

It is likely that the scope will be broadened technically and geographically as more resources are identified. An estimate of cost of those options include:

Each additional panelist to cover an additional technical area: $50K

Additional scientific progress and opportunity meeting in the U.S.: $20K

Adding another Asian country for about half the panel: $30K

Adding another European country for about half the panel: $25K

Adding a Springer book (They require a bulk order subsidy): $30K, but we could probably get the Imperial College Press to publish it gratis.

For Further Information:

Duane Shelton, WTEC, , 717-299-7130

Geoff Holdridge, WTEC, , 443-794-2743

References

  1. PCAST (2008). The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Executive Office of the President, April, 2008.
  2. NRC (2006), A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National Academies Press, 2006.
  3. Roco, MC, RS Williams, and P. Alivisatos (2000), IWGN Workshop Report: Nanotechnology Research Directions. Kluwer, 2000.
  4. Roco, MC and WS Bainbridge (2001), Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Kluwer, 2001.
  5. Roco, MC and WS Bainbridge (2003), Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Kluwer, 2003.
  6. Siegel, RW, E Hu, and MC Roco (1999), WTEC Panel Report on Nanostructure Science and Technology, Kluwer, 1999.

Buchanan c:\...\N2DraftSOW10.6.9.doc

Page 1 of 1