International Study of the Impacts Of

Draft Statement of Work:

International Study of the Impacts of

U.S. Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Research

1. Introduction

The creation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in the U.S. in 2000 catalyzed a vast, worldwide increase in research and development in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Other nations soon created focused funding initiatives to cooperate and compete with the United States. 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. Because of the huge volume of such results, what is less obvious is the impact of the increase in U.S. nano R&D on the structure of science, engineering, and education itself. Indeed, the resulting excitement has benefited the global science, engineering enterprise generally, and particularly science and engineering education. A study of such impacts over the ten years since focused R&D was first proposed could help guide U.S. policy on nano R&D under a new U.S. Administration.

2. Background

There is voluminous literature on the focused investment in nano; 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.

3. 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 nano research, not just in making major discoveries and innovations possible, but to gauge its impacts in altering the ways that science, engineering, and their education are implemented. Since these have clearly been worldwide, it is not sufficient to restrict the examination to the U.S. alone. While PCAST and the National Academies conduct periodic assessments of the structure and performance of the NNI, their scope is limited to the initiative itself, primarily only within the United States, with some attention to the position of U.S. nano vis-à-vis competing nations. They are primarily concerned that the NNI is effective and efficient in its mission, but do not consider the broader issues of the beneficial effects of focused U.S. nano R&D on science, engineering, and education. With information on broader impacts, U.S. policymakers could better plan for evolution of nano R&D in directions that provide greater benefit to the science, engineering, and education system of the United States, including the public as a whole.

4. Benefits of a WTEC Study

After an investigation 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 overseas with comparisons to activities in the United States, including benchmarking of U.S. progress in nano R&D, both in basic research and in translation to applications and commercialization.

One benefit will most likely come from the process itself. An ad-hoc committee of senior U.S. Government Agency representatives could coordinate the study, which would itself provide a forum for those who wish to maximize impacts of nano R&D worldwide. Interested program officers in several agencies could work together to promote the field internationally.

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

There will be other benefits for policy development. For example, the study can address some of the key issues of importance to decision makers, 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 future impacts have been realized, and how should this table be updated?
• What is the impact of increased U.S. nano R&D on foreign nano conduct of 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 R&D organizations in nano 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 academic degree programs, educational labs and centers, education of the public, attraction of new students into careers in science and engineering, etc.
• What is the interface between nano R&D worldwide and society as a whole?
• What lessons can be learned to guide future focused R&D funding to maximize their impacts?
• What are the major emerging ideas in nano R&D programs abroad that are worth exploring in the United States?
• What are the opportunities for further international collaboration to combine complementary resources and strengths? What are the most appropriate international mechanisms for cooperation: OECD, ISO, INC, IRGC, ICON, bilateral agreements, et al.?
• What are the appropriate metrics for comparing U.S. and international nano R&D? How does the United States rate compared to its international competitors using those metrics? This topic could include both (1) nano R&D and (2) practical applications, commercialization, and economic impacts.
• How are other nations transitioning basic research advances in the field into practical applications? Are there models for technology commercialization abroad that ought to be considered in the United States?
• Other related issues of interest to the sponsors.

The bottom line of the study findings might be, “What has the U.S. gained from its investment in focused nanoscience and nanotechnology R&D over the last ten years?” That is, the report could document a wealth of accomplishments that could demonstrate that the investment has been worthwhile.

5. Structure of Study

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
• Applications:
• Dispersions, coatings, and other large surface area structures
• Nanodevices, nanoelectronics, and nanosensors
• Consolidated nanostructures
• Biological, medical, and health
• Energy and chemicals
• Nanoscale processes and the environment
• Infrastructure needs for R&D and education
• Agency funding strategies

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

6. Prospective Panelists

The following experts have tentatively agreed to participate in the study. Additional panelists will be chosen with the approval and recommendation of the study sponsors.

7. Tasks

Task 1

WTEC, in consultation with study sponsors, shall select a panel of five (5) U.S. experts (including the panel chair) in the field who are familiar with the issues and technology elements listed above for research and who are also current in international activities in the field. The panel chair shall have sufficient stature in this field to command respect in recruitment of panelists, and make presentations of results to his or her peers. The chair also will have the necessary skills to lead a panel and efficiently conduct the study.

Task 2

The panel shall be organized at a kickoff meeting to be held in the Washington, DC metro area. The chair will define the scope of the study (with guidance from all of the agency sponsors) and assign each panelist a section of the final report based on his or her area of expertise within the field. A schedule for the study will be established, including dates for the workshop and completion of the final report. At the outset of the study, WTEC shall assist the panelists by conducting electronic literature searches to locate priority sites to visit and to help evaluate research leadership via bibliometrics. Passworded and public Web sites will be established and maintained by WTEC during the course of the study as needed to facilitate the work of the panel.

Task 3

It has been proven in previous R&D assessments that visits to foreign laboratories greatly improve the amount, accuracy, and timeliness of the information available to the panelists. . WTEC has found that professional advance work for these trips is highly beneficial, thus allowances for advance work to be performed by proven performers are included in the recommended budget. This budget assumes that the panel will travel to Asia and Western Europe; other regions may also be considered if the budget permits.

Task 4

The contractor shall organize a workshop in the Washington, DC area for the presentation of the results. Approximately 75 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 5

Panelists will draft a complete final report with illustrations and citations. Site reports will be included as an appendix. WTEC will edit the report to academic standards and will convert the complete final written report into Adobe Acrobat (pdf) format and make it available on the WTEC Web server and on CD-ROM; 100 bound paper copies will be printed, also. Optionally traditional book or other distribution media particularly appropriate to this user community can also be considered.

8. 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 to provide time for dissemination activities that may extend for some months after the report is complete.

a.kickoff meeting -- approximately one month after project initiation (API) (delivery of draft scope of panel work and panelist data)

b.foreign site visits completed -- approximately five months API

c.draft site reports from the site visits - approximately six months API or within six weeks after the last site visits

d.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)

e.draft analytical 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 visited hosts for review (Xerox printed report, 100 copies total, simultaneously placed in PDF form on a CD and the WTEC public Web site -- the primary means of dissemination). Depending on availability of funds, WTEC also will seek opportunities for commercial or professional society publication of a higher-quality version of the final report.

9. Budget

The study could be completed at several levels of effort. A five-person panel of American experts could be recruited to visit the top institutions abroad to discuss impacts and the latest major discoveries and innovations with the leading experts there. The geographic scope would include six countries in Western Europe, plus Japan and China. The panel would then present their results in a workshop at NSF and a final report ($475K). A more comprehensive international assessment could be performed, as in many WTEC studies, with these options: (1) a North American baseline workshop to gather information from the United States (cost depends on participant travel costs—say $40K additional for 15 participants), (2) a larger U.S. delegation of 6-8 panelists ($40K for each additional panelist), (3) visits to other leading countries, e.g., South Korea, Singapore, Australia, Israel, and/or Russia (up to $250K additional, depending on the countries visited), and (4) a more substantial report, including a book version ($20K additional). A short, colorful summary, suitable for a lay audience could also be done, if funds are available. It is expected that several Federal agencies would contribute, thus leveraging the amounts from each. Details are available on request.

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.
2. NRC. 2006. A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National Academies Press.
3. Roco, M.C., R.S. Williams, and P. Alivisatos. 2000. IWGN Workshop Report: Nanotechnology Research Directions. Kluwer.
4. Roco, M.C. and WS Bainbridge. 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Kluwer.
5. Roco, M.C. and W.S. Bainbridge. 2003. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Kluwer.
6. Siegel, RW, E Hu, and MC Roco. 1999. WTEC Panel Report on Nanostructure Science and Technology, Kluwer.

Buchanan c:\data\wtec\Nano2\Nano2SOW6.11.9

Page 1 of 6