Royal Society Nanotechnology Inquiry: Nanotechnology in the USA

Transcription

1 Royal Society Nanotechnology Inquiry: Nanotechnology in the USA A US S&T Network Report (compiled by S&T Boston) 13 th October 2003

2 Table of Contents Overview Level of Investment Public Funding Federal Funding...3 Federal Funding Outlook State Funding Private and Industry Funding...5 Private Funding Outlook Funding Initiatives Federal Initiatives State Initiatives Examples of State Programmes Nanotechnology Research in the US Academia Research Centres Industry Defence Social and Ethical Issues Regulatory Issues Media, Public and NGO Interest Sources Appendix: Academic Nanotechnology research in the US..17 2

3 Overview The U.S. formally announced the National Nanotechnology Initiative in January Since then the federal government has spent more then $1.7 billion on nanotechnology related research. For next year the US will be allocating over $800 million to nanotech research and current federal legislature is preparing to spend another $2.3 billion over the next three years. On the state level amounts of investment and level of involvement vary from quite substantial to non-existent. Similarly private funding levels vary. Venture capital funding is available for nanotechnology but since so far there are only a handful of companies with nanotechnology-based products only a small percentage of the total venture capital raised goes to nanotechnology. Industry funding on the other hand seems more or less at par with government spending. Given the estimates for future nanotechnology related market sectors and the federal funds already invested, it is certain that US spending for nanotechnology R&D will continue to grow. Ethical, social and legal implications have been part of the US nanotechnology initiative from its conception, yet just recently have substantial funds become available to address these issues. Current regulatory guidelines concerning nanotechnology are based on the guidelines for the corresponding bulk material or other existing regulations pertaining to the intended use. However there has been a move to investigate regulatory implications of nanotechnology by parts of government, large industry and certain academic groups. Media coverage and public debate of nanotechnology has overall been less compared to the UK. Also the focus in the US has been primarily economic implications rather than ethical or toxicological issues. Only recently have concerns about possible societal impacts of nanotechnology been raised in congress and certain academic circles. 1. Level of Investment 1.1 Public Funding In 2004, the United States will be allocating $800 million in funding to the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The House of Representatives has also approved a bill that plans to allocate $2.36 billion to nanotechnology programmes over the next three years. Furthermore there are several substantial state funding programmes Federal Funding U.S. spending since 1997, and the fiscal year funding request, for nanotechnology R&D in ten federal departments and independent agencies is summarised in the table below. Table 1: Federal nanotechnology R&D expenditures (in million $) since 1997 Department/ agency NNI year NNI year NNI year 3 appropr. actual appropr. request Defence 32 n/a n/a n/a Energy 7 n/a n/a n/a Justice 0 n/a n/a n/a Transportation 0 n/a n/a n/a EPA 0 n/a n/a n/a NASA 3 n/a n/a n/a NIH 5 n/a n/a n/a NIST 4 n/a n/a n/a NSF 65 n/a n/a n/a USDA 0 n/a n/a n/a Total * 255* 270* *) NSF estimates: federal spending in nanotechnology was not specifically tracked prior to 2000 (FY 2001) + ) Siegel et al a fiancial year in the US begins on 1. October of the previous year 3

4 The 2003 funding request emphasises long-term, fundamental research aimed at discovering novel phenomena, processes and tools. It also supports new interdisciplinary centres and networks of excellence including shared user facilities, supporting research infrastructure, and addresses research and educational activities on the social implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The 2003 fiscal year budget request of $710 million ($679 million plus $31 million in associated programmes at NASA and the USDA) is a 17% increase over the fiscal year 2002 which was appropriated by Congress at approximately $604 million. However actual nanotechnology spending has been generally greater than budgeted in the fiscal year 2001, NNI spending reached $465 million instead of the $422 million originally budgeted. Federal Funding Outlook: The 2004 NNI budget asks for $847 million, a 19% increase over It proposes significant increases for the Department of Energy and the NSF while reducing funds to NIST as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (see Table 2). In addition to the President s NNI budget congress has introduced a bill (H.R. 766 The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, and S.189 which is the Senate companion bill) to authorise additional funding for nanoscience, nanoengineering, nanotechnology research and other purposes. This bill has been endorsed by several leading science, technology and business organisations. H.R. 766 authorises $ 2.1 billion over 3 years at the NSF, Departments of Energy and NIST, NASA and EPA offsetting the reductions in the NNI budget (see Table 2). Table 2: Federal nanotechnology R&D expenditures outlook (in million $) Department/ agency 2004 NNI year 4 %Change from 2003 H.R % Change from 2003 H.R H.R request NNI only proposed NNI&HR766 proposed proposed NSF % % Defence % % - - Energy % % NIH % % - - NIST % 62 ± 0.0% NASA % 31 ± 0.0% USDA % % - - EPA % 5 ± 0.0% DHS 2 ± 0.0% - ± 0.0% - - Justice 1 ± 0.0% - ± 0.0% - - Total % % Source: NSF, NNI Historically, the nanotechnology budget has increased by about 20% or more every fiscal year since 1997, except for FY 2000 (Table 3). H.R 766 provides for an annual budget increase of 10% and since the NNI implementation plan specifically states that out of year deliverables depend on regular increases in funding for this initiative it is expected that this trend will continue over the next years. Table 3: Total federal nanotechnology R&D expenditures and outlook (in million $) Federal Funding (1) 2006 (1) Total NNI ?- -?- Total H.R Total > > % increase - 63% 34% 5.8% 30% 17.5% 19% 110% >10% >10% Source: NNI and NSF 1) NNI budget for 2005 and 2006 has not been discussed yet, but will in all likelihood exceed previous levels. 4

5 1.1.2 State Funding State funding and funding strategies vary dramatically from state to state, as does the level of involvement at the state level. For details on major state initiatives see point 2.2 below. 1.2 Private and Industry Funding Analysts still see nanotechnology as a maturing science, not so much a technology in itself. There is no focus on nanotechnology as a market space, but rather as an enabling and potentially disruptive technology that can solve problems in industries as diverse as telecom, biotechnology, microelectronics, energy and healthcare. Consequently, there is no firm data for private funding for nanotechnology. Many venture capital firms active in technology funding are involved in nanotechnology, however due to the reasons above, available sources of venture capital funding in the US do not list nanotechnology as a separate funding area (e.g. Money Tree). According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, venture capital based nanotechnology investments are said to be about 2 percent of the total capital raised in the first quarter of 2002 which is a fivefold increase since Solid estimates on venture capital are difficult to calculate. Venture Wire estimates that about $94.5 million were raised in 14 nanotechnology related deals in 2002, and JP Morgan assumes that around $500 million were invested in nanotech start-ups overall in This is more or less in line with US-Government sources, pointing to evidence that current industry spending is more or less at par with federal spending. Private Funding Outlook: Since peaking in early 2000, venture capital investment has plummeted for 12 consecutive quarters. The number of new companies being financed is at its lowest in eight years. Returns generated by venture capital funds have been negative over several quarters for the first time ever. After a year in which venture capitalists predicted that things would start rebounding quickly, few now are anticipating a turnaround soon and predict two or three years before actually hitting bottom and starting to recover. On the other hand, the rate of decline has slowed dramatically over the previous nine months, pointing towards a levelling of overall investing activity. Investments in the second quarter of 2003 are up slightly at $4.3 billion from $4.0 billion in the first quarter of Some analysts predict that venture capital appears to be settling out at this level. Quarterly investing in the $4 billion range is seen as sustainable and in line with historical norms. Currently the venture capital industry is not withholding money but not spending it freely either. Given this scenario and the stage of nanotechnology it is likely that private investment will remain at its relatively low levels for the next quarters. As the technology matures and nanotechnology related products come to market a dramatic increase in private funding is to be expected. Industry funding for nanotechnology R&D has been more or less at par with government funding, even though actual numbers are very hard to obtain. Given the interest and market estimated for nanotechnology it is assumed that this trend will continue over the next years. 2. Funding Initiatives 2.1 Federal Initiatives Attempts to co-ordinate federal strategy for nanotechnology began in November 1996 when staff members from several agencies decided to meet regularly to discuss relevant plans and programmes. These groups continued informally until September 1998, when it was designated as the Internal Working Group on Nanotechnology (IWGN) under the National Science and Technology Council of the Office of Science and Technology. IWGN laid the groundwork for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). It sponsored numerous workshops and studies to define the state of the art and to forecast possible future developments. In August 1999, IGWN completed its first draft for an initiative in nanoscale 5

6 science and technology. The plan went through an approval process involving the President s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). For the FY 2001 budget, the Clinton administration raised nanoscale science and technology to the level of a federal initiative, officially referring to it as the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and announcing it on January 21 st, The NNI is built around five major funding themes distributed among the agencies currently funding nanotechnology research. For FY 2003 the funding level for these themes are: 1) Long term fundamental nanoscience and engineering research ($232 million) 2) Grand challenges ($204 million): These include the design and manufacturing of nanostructured materials that are correct at the atomic and single molecule level. Goals are the cost-effective manufacture of nanoscale electronics, energy conservation and storage devices, and sensors for health care and threat detection. 3) Centres and networks of excellence ($119 million): Establishment of 10 centres and networks, each of which would receive funding of about 3 million/yr for 5 years. 4) Research Infrastructure ($120 million): Creation of R&D infrastructure, which will be made available to researchers from academia, industry and government. 5) Ethical, legal and social implications/workforce education and training ($35 million) Key outcomes are part of the NNI strategy and are listed in the figure below. Note that since Congress did not pass most of its FY 2002 appropriation bills until December 2001, most agencies involved in the NNI have not been able to completely assess their activities and achievements for FY It is also worth noting that the NNI implementation plan (FY 2002 update) states that out of year deliverables depend on regular increases in funding for this initiative. Provide augmented R&D in all 5 areas in response to open competitive solicitations and reviews Establish 10 new centres and networks with full range of nanoscale measurements and fabrication facilities Establish three distributed consortia for nanotechnology research and applications in transportation Begin focused research on nanoscale experimental tools and manufacturing at the nanoscale Develop new standard reference materials for semiconductor nanostructures, lab on a chip, nanomagnetics, and calibration and quality assurance analysis for nanosystems Leverage NNI funds by 25% by working with states, universities, and the private sector to increase funding and synergism in R&D, to nucleate new clusters and industries Develop standardised, reproducible, microfabricated approaches to nanomanipulation, nanocharacterisation and nanomagnetics Develop quantitative measurement methods for nanodevices, nanomanipulation, nanocharacterisation and nanomagnetics Develop 3D measurement methods for the analysis of physical and chemical properties at or near atomic spatial resolution Ensure that 50% of research institutions faculty and students have access to full range of nanoscale facilities Enable access to nanoscience and engineering education in at least 25% of research universities Catalyze creation of several new commercial markets that depend on 3D nanostructures Develop fast and accurate 3D modeling of nanostructures to allow practical system and architecture design Nanoelectronics: First terabit memory chip demonstrated in the laboratory Indtroduce manufacturing at the nanoscale for three new technologies Monitor contaminants in air, water, soil with increased accuracy for better environmental quality Integrate facilities for nanoscale and microscale testing and manufacturing at 10 R&D centres Figure 1: NNI key outcomes and timelines (Source: NNI implementation plan) FY

7 As part of the NNI the most promising complementary and synergistic fields of research have been identified with the help of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO). NNI agencies carrying out this research are developing multi-agency collaborations to co-ordinate funding activities for centres and networks of excellence, share the cost of expensive research initiatives and study potential societal implications surrounding the adoption of nanotechnology capabilities, while reducing the probability of duplicate research efforts (Table 4). Table 4: Overview of the major collaborations in NNI (fields and agencies involved) Area of Investment DOD DOE DOJ DOT Treasury EPA NASA NIH NIST NSF USDA Fundamental research X X X X X X X Nanostructured materials X X X X X X X X X X Molecular electronics X X X X Spin electronics X X X Lab-on-a-chip X X X X X X X X X X Biosensors, bioinformatics X X X X Bioengineering X X X X Quantum computing X X X X X Measurements and standards for tools X X X X X X X X Nanoscale theory, models, simulation X X X X X Environmental modelling X X X X Nanorobotics X X X Unmanned missions X X Nanofabrication user facilities X X X X X X X X International collaborations X X X X X X X X X X X Source: NNI implementation plan Note that all agencies are involved in international collaboration, which is part of NNI implementation plan. In the coming years the federal government will, through the NNI, continue its focus on fundamental research through investigator led activities (bottom up activities) and investments in centres, networks of excellence and infrastructure, with the transition from scientific discoveries to technological innovation will increase in importance. Emphasis will be on the integration of biology with electronic and fabricated devices as well as analysis and utilisation of naturally occurring nanoscale materials and machines. Priority in funding will be given to: Research to enable the nanoscale as the most efficient manufacturing domain Innovative nanotechnology solutions to biological-chemical-radiological-explosive detection and protection Developments of instrumentation and standards Education and training of workers for the future industries Partnerships to enhance industry participation in nanotechnology 2.2 State Initiatives Not too many states do actually have a 'state strategy' to grow nanotechnology. Incentives offered to nanotech businesses are for the most part the same incentives as for any business. Industries are generally targeted as a marketing decision (e.g. biotechnology), but many states do not seem to target nanotechnology. Initiatives start mainly out of university nanotechnology champions, entrepreneurs, foundations & technology accelerators, who continue to raise interest on a regional and national level, convene networking events (academia/industry/investors) and lobby for research funding. On the other hand a number of states have recognised the huge economic potential of nanotechnology and do have instituted their own funded programmes to exploit this opportunity (this is sometimes referred to as the creation of a Nano-Valley as an analogue to Silicon-Valley). 7

8 Some of these states are supporting the development of technology parks at their universities, levering state funds to obtain additional industry funding and utilise university based programmes with a statewide strategic nanotechnology focus. Indiana contributed $5 million to attract $40 million in private contributions, New York spent $70 million to add to over $150 million of industry investment. The table below lists the larger state level initiatives: Table 5: State and Locally Funded Nanotechnology Programmes State Programme Financial Commitment Additional private funds California California Nanosystems Institute $100 million unknown New York Albany Nanotech $ 70 million $150 million Illinois Nanoscience Center $ 36 million unknown Indiana Nanotechnology Center $ 5 million $ 40 million Pennsylvania Nanotechnology Center $10.5 million over 3 yrs unknown Texas Nanotechnology Center Utexas $ 0.5 million over 2 yrs at least $ 350k Virginia Initiative for Nanotech in Virginia $ 3.3 million unknown South Carolina NanoCenter $ 1 million unknown Source: NNI implementation plan Other states are trying to foster new industrial co-operative opportunities: For example Oklahoma has created NanoNet, a network of Oklahoma scientists, engineers and students, with funding of approximately $3 million/yr for 5 years. Yet other states are supporting consortia or workshops with varying commitments Examples of State Programmes California: The California NanoSystem Initiative (CNSI), a joint programme between the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) campuses, has received initial funding of $100 million from the state of California as one of four California Institutes for Science and Innovation (CISI). The $100 million is required to be matched by $200 million in additional funds raised from private donations and new research grants. The four CISIs were founded with the explicit goal to enable new types of research to be done with participation from relevant companies and a clear path to commercialisation for the inventions created. CNSI has been particularly successful at creating industry/university partnerships - more than 25 high-tech businesses (e.g., Agilent, Amgen, Sun Microsystems) with an interest in nanoscale science have signed on as industrial affiliates to the Institute. In exchange for substantial financial contributions, industrial affiliates participate in planning the overall strategic and research direction of CNSI and have the opportunity to place researchers at CNSI to work with academic researchers on pre-competitive topics. CNSI s initial state funding is meant to enable new research by funding buildings and infrastructure; the money may not be used for ongoing operations (e.g., salaries, ongoing research costs). Major new, shared infrastructure at CNSI includes facilities for nanoscale imaging of both biological and inorganic samples, equipment for the synthesis of semiconductor/biological integrated structures, and significant computational resources. In addition to the state s major effort at CNSI, California is home to several significant federally funded nanoscience facilities, including the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility (part of the National Nanotechnology Users Network funded by the National Science Foundation) and the Molecular Foundry (part of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley and funded by the Department of Energy). Although these facilities are not directly funded by the state, their ongoing operations receive indirect subsidies through their respective private sponsors (Stanford) and public sponsors (the University of California at Berkeley) Several of California s regions are assessing their own abilities to compete in the coming nanoera. By way of example, the Silicon Valley area has recently received a small amount of money from the state (~$50k) to sponsor the Bay Area Nanotechnology Initiative, which will conduct a 8

9 study to identify the strengths (e.g., research base, availability of venture capital) and weaknesses (e.g., cost of living, intense focus on IT industry) of the Bay Area relevant to its efforts to become a center of nanotechnology research and commercial innovation. New York: Albany NanoTech is a fully-integrated research, development, prototyping, pilot manufacturing and education resource managing a strategic portfolio of state-of-the-art laboratories, supercomputer and shared-user facilities and an array of research centres located at the University at Albany - SUNY. The centre works with works with over 100 companies located worldwide providing technology development and commercialisation support for pre-competitive and proprietary projects. Its partners represent the entire "food chain" of companies in the semiconductor industry including the advanced device fabricators, primary equipment suppliers, component suppliers and material or chemical suppliers. Its first research centre, the NYS Center for Advanced Thin Film Technology was established by New York State in 1993 to provide its company partners with a unique environment to pioneer, develop, and test new ideas within a technically aggressive yet economically competitive research environment. For the new state's Center of Excellence in Nanoelectronics, which is also located at SUNY Albany, $150 million in private-public funding have been pledged. IBM is contributing $100 million of the total; the state is providing the remaining funds. The funds will be used to build a 300 mm chip prototyping facility and is the largest single university contribution in the history of IBM "by an order of magnitude". New York State has already contributed approximately $70 million for microelectronics and nanoelectronics research at the nanotechnology centre. The Albany NanoTech Complex currently has a net asset value in excess of $125 million and will exceed $500 million within two years through extensive, already committed, state and industry funding for the only user-shared, 228,000 sq. ft., 300 mm wafer class 1 facility in the world. Once the university taps all funding resources, the budget for the nanoelectronics centre of excellence is expected to total over $200 million over the next five years. This Nanoelectronics centre is part of a state-wide $1-billion high-tech initiative launched this year by Governor George Pataki, whose Centers of Excellence plan is intended to leverage $3 in funds from industrial, federal, university, and other sources for every $1 of state investment. Texas: At this time the State of Texas does not have a state-level nanotechnology strategy. However, there are private institutions and university-based programs with statewide strategic nanotechnology foci. Total state government funding directly identified for nano is about $500,000, which was given to the University of Texas at Dallas ( for an endowed professorship. Jim Von Ehr, Founder of Zyvex Corp. ( lobbied the state for the endowment. There are an estimated 200 professors working at least part time on nanotechnology - teaching and research. The state does fund some nano-research, indirectly, as part of their ongoing research funding of $50-60 million annually that is awarded on a competitive basis through the Texas Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which has not been renewed in the last legislative session (2003). No characterisation of this $50 million has been done to identify how much was specific for nanotechnology research. Historically, it is believed to have been less than ten percent (Source: BCG Houston, The Nanotechnology Foundation of Texas, Inc.). Industry funding of R&D has been largely coming from the two largest nanotechnology companies in the state (Carbon Nanotechnologies and Zyvex). University of Texas, Dallas received a 350,000 grant from Zyvex to develop miniature assemblers. Private investment is estimated at about 50 million for the last 10 years. Of that, $20 million each has come from two angel investors, like Houston entrepreneur, Gordon Cain, who helped start-up companies like Carbon Nanotechnologies, Inc. ( $5 million from venture capitalists and 9

10 another $5 million from various other sources. Less than ten companies in Texas received funding from angels or venture capitalists. Most nanotechnology companies in Texas have been funded by the companies founders, SBIR grants or internally generated cash flow. Most recently there has been a move, on the part of Nanotech Champions, like Prof. Smalley (Rice Nobel Laureate) to raise interest, at a Federal and regional level, in Nanotechnology research in energy. He is in discussions with both DOE and NSF. Illinois: The Institute for Nanotechnology was established as an umbrella organisation for the multimillion-dollar nanotechnology research efforts at Northwestern University. The role of the Institute is to support meaningful efforts in nanotechnology, house state-of-the-art nanomaterials characterisation facilities, and nucleate individual and group efforts aimed at addressing and solving key problems in nanotechnology. As part of this effort, a $34 million, 40,000 square foot state-of-the-art was constructed on Northwestern University s Evanston campus. The new facility, which was anchored by a $14 million grant from the Department of Health and Human Services, is one of the first federally funded facilities of its kind in the United States and home to the Institute headquarters ( The State of Illinois is also directly providing in FY 2003 and FY 2004 a total of $36 million for the construction of the DOEs Center for Nanoscale Materials. 2.3 Nanotechnology Research Academia There is a plethora of nanotechnology programmes at US academic institutions - virtually every major research university conducts research in nanotechnology or a nanotechnology related subject. A detailed and complete listing of even just the major academic groups would be beyond the scope of this report. However a good overview of current programmes can be found at the Nanotechology News Now website ( which lists over 220 academic programmes at 92 US universities as well as 5 US collaborative programmes and several international programmes Research Centres Part of the NNI is also the creation and funding of six new application oriented Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centres which are funded by the NSF, initially for 5 years from 2002 to 2006 (see Table 6). These centres reside at academic institutions and together cover a broad spectrum of coherent nanotechnology research. Table 6: NSF Centres for Nanoscale Research School Centre Research Focus 5 yr funding Cornell Centre for Nanoscale Systems in Information Electronics, information storage $11.6 million Northwestern Harvard Columbia Rice Rensselaer Polytech. Inst. Technology Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC) for Integrated Nanopattering and Detection Technologies Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centre Science of Nanoscale Systems and their Device Applications Center for Electronic Transport in Molecular Nanostructures Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) Center for Directed Assembly of Nanostructures and communication Chemical and biological sensors Electronic and magnetic devices, quantum information processing Materials for electronics, photonics and biology Materials for environmental engineering and medicine Composites, drug delivery devices and sensors $11.1 million $10.8 million $10.8 million $10.5 million $10.0 million In addition to the NSF centres, the Department of Energy through its Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) will support five Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs). In FY 2003, 10

11 construction will begin on one NSRC, and engineering and design will continue on two others. NSRCs are user facilities for the synthesis, processing, fabrication, and analysis of materials at the nanoscale. NSRCs were conceived in FY 1999 within the context of the NSTC Interagency Working Group on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology as part of the DOE contribution to the National Nanotechnology Initiative. They involve conventional construction of a simple laboratory building, usually sited adjacent to or near an existing BES synchrotron or neutron scattering facility. Contained within NSRCs will be clean rooms; chemistry, physics, and biology laboratories for nanofabrication; and one-of-a-kind signature instruments and other instruments, e.g., nanowriters and various research-grade probe microscopies, not generally available outside of major user facilities. All NSRCs will be operated as user facilities and be available to all researchers around the world. Access will be determined through submission of proposals that will be reviewed by mechanisms established by the facilities themselves. A brief description of the five centres that are under design or under constructions follows The Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences (CNMS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) will establish a research centre and user facility that will integrate nanoscale science research with neutron science, synthesis science, and theory/modelling/simulation. A new building will provide state-of-the-art clean rooms, general laboratories, wet and dry laboratories for sample preparation, fabrication and analysis. The facility, which will be collocated with the Spallation Neutron Source complex, will house over 100 research scientists and an additional 100 students and postdoctoral fellows. The CNMS s major scientific thrusts will be in nanodimensioned soft materials, complex nanophase materials systems, and the crosscutting areas of interfaces and reduced dimensionality that become scientifically critical on the nanoscale. A major focus of the CNMS will be to exploit ORNL s unique capabilities in neutron scattering. The Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) will use existing LBNL facilities such as the Advanced Light Source, the National Center for Electron Microscopy, and the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center. The facility will provide laboratories for materials science, physics, chemistry, biology, and molecular biology. The Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies (CINT) will focus on exploring the path from scientific discovery to the integration of nanostructures into the micro- and macro-worlds. This path involves experimental and theoretical exploration of behavior, understanding new performance regimes and concepts, testing designs, and integrating nanoscale materials and structures. CINT focus areas are nanophotonics and nanoelectronics, complex functional nanomaterials, nanomechanics, and the nanoscale/bio/microscale interfaces. CINT will be jointly administered by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Sandia National Laboratories. This centre will make use of a wide range of specialised facilities including the Los Alamos Neutron Science centre and the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory at LANL. The Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National Laboratory will have as its focus understanding the chemical and physical response of nanomaterials to make functional materials such as sensors, activators, and energy-conversion devices. The facility will use existing facilities such as the National Synchrotron Light Source and the Laser Electron Accelerator facility. It will also provide clean rooms, general laboratories, and wet and dry laboratories for sample preparation, fabrication, and analysis. The Center for Nanoscale Materials at Argonne National Laboratory will have as its focus research in advanced magnetic materials, complex oxides, nanophotonics, and bioinorganic hybrids. An x-ray nanoprobe beam line at the Advanced Photon Source will be fabricated and run by the Center for use by its users. The facility will use existing facilities such as the Advanced Photon Source, the Intense Pulsed Neutron Source, and the Electron Microscopy Center. The State of Illinois is providing in FY 2003 and FY 2004 a total of $36,000,000 for construction of the building, which is appended to the Advanced Photon Source. BES will provide funding for clean rooms and specialised equipment as well as the operations following commissioning. 11

12 2.2.3 Industry Most industry funded nanotechnology research is focused on applications. Nanomaterials has been the major focus with about 31% of the US nanotechnology start up companies involved. The other major foci are medical and pharmaceutical applications at 21% and electronic research at 11% of nanotech companies involved in research. For most major chemicals and materials firms the current research objective to move nanomaterials into products. Fundamental industry funded nanotechnology research is estimated to be about 14% of the industrial nanotech research expenditure Defence The Department of Defence has been involved in the NNI from the start and has control of the largest nanotechnology research budget after the NSF (see Table 1). For FY 2004 the DoD nanotechnology budget will increase 10.4% to $222 million and the DoD is involved in almost all areas of nanotechnology research covered by the NNI (see Table 4). One of the largest DoD research grants went to the MIT's Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN) ( which was founded in March 2002 by a five year, $50 million contract from the U.S. Army. The ISN s research mission is to pursue a long-range vision for how nanotechnology can make soldiers less vulnerable to enemy and environmental threats. The ultimate goal is to create a 21st century battlesuit that combines high-tech capabilities with light weight and comfort. At UC Santa Barbara, the Center for Nanoscience Innovation for Defense (CNID) has been created to facilitate the rapid transition of research innovation in the nanosciences into applications for the defence sector ( U.S. government allocations of $13.5 million are being shared equally by three University of California institutions: Santa Barbara (UCSB), Los Angeles (UCLA), and Riverside (UCR), and a second increment is anticipated that will ultimately bring total funding to more than $20 million over three years. CNID is sponsored by two federal agencies: the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Defense MicroElectronics Activity (DMEA). The Department of Defence has also committed $1.5 million to pay for equipment for the new $2 million Rice NanoFabrication Facility (RNF) for which construction has just begun. While a portion of the cost is funded by private contributions, the defence funding comes from a special Congressional appropriation to the Strategic Partnership for Research in Nanotechnology, or SPRING, a partnership among Rice, University of Texas at Austin, University of Texas at Dallas and University of Texas at Arlington ( 3. Social and Ethical Issues Ethical, legal and social implications as well as workforce education and training have been part of the NNI from its conception. However the scope and amount spent on this issue has increased dramatically. In FY2003 $35 million will be spent in this area. The NNI efforts are spearheaded by the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) at Rice University, which is one of six major Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers funded by the National Science Foundation. It is the first, and only institute in the world, to focus on applications of nanoscience to biology and the environment exploring the interface between dry nanomaterials and aqueous environments that range from pure water to biological and environmental systems. In April Prof. Vicki Colvin, the director of CBEN, led a panel of expert witnesses that testified before the U.S. House Science Committee, urging lawmakers to also dedicate a portion of H.R. 766 research dollars to societal and ethical studies. This would ensure that nanotechnology develops responsibly and with strong public support. Discussing recent concerns about nanotechnology, Colvin, highlighted that perceived fear could bring the growing nanotechnology 12

13 industry to its knees. The perception that nanotechnology will cause environmental devastation or human disease could itself turn the dream of a trillion-dollar industry into a nightmare of public backlash. Colvin noted that a public backlash against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) crippled the biotechnology industry and ultimately cost billions in lost future revenues. The lack of sufficient public scientific data on GMOs, whether positive or negative, was a controlling factor in the industry s fall from favour. In contrast, Colvin said the Human Genome Project provided a good model for how an emerging technology can defuse potential controversy by addressing it in the public sphere and by setting aside 5 percent of the annual budget for a program to define and address the ethical, legal and societal implications of the project. A similar model should be adopted for nanotechnology research. Provisions strengthen the identification and mitigation of undesired impacts of nanotechnology have been introduced during the debate on H.R. 766 in the House. Amendments to the bill focussed on possible negative impacts and on getting a better handle on possible societal impacts and argued for a formal mechanism for researching societal implications of nanotechnology. As a result the House bill requires a substantial outreach and public relation effort on the part of the programme management, aimed at building consensus around the programme objectives through public discussions, citizens panels, consensus conferences and educational events. The companion Senate bill S.189 is less specific but instructs NSF to create a new Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, Legal and Workforce Issues Related to Nanotechnology funded at $ 5 million a year. The House also wanted a graduate scholarship programme to address the issue of the development of postgraduate nano-competences. According to many, the limited availability of expertise could seriously hinder the development of nanoscale science and technology in the next few years. The scholarship programme sought by the House will offer free tuition to postgraduates who commit themselves to working for the federal government (two years for each year of subsidised study). Differences between the House and Senate on these issues are likely to be resolved in conference. Additional NSF funding for social and ethical issues has already become available. In late August 2003 the National Science Foundation awarded two grants worth more than $1 million a piece to study societal implications of nanotechnology. University of South Carolina philosopher Davis Baird and UCLA Professor Lynne Zucker will be investigating how we can go down a better path with nanotechnology and how nanotechnology makes it from the lab to the marketplace respectively. These grants are the largest awards the foundation has ever devoted exclusively to research in societal implications. 4. Regulatory Issues Currently nanoscale materials are in the same regulatory category as their bulk materials and would be further governed by regulations pertaining to the intended use of nanomaterial (e.g. medical devices). There have been some recent concerns that nanomaterials would not have the same properties as the corresponding bulk and that FDA policy changes are necessary to take this into account. NGOs and some academic centres like CBEN hope that research and public pressure will encourage the FDA to consider reclassifying nanomaterials and requesting toxicity studies for the intended use. Industry response to the regulatory implications of nanotechnology is varied. Large companies such as DuPont or Dow Chemicals favour toxicology studies since they do not want to invest in new technologies or materials that would enter the commodity market, or would possibly have to be disposed off, and could be a liability financially, legally or publicity wise. Small nanotechnology start-ups on the other hand have generally not made any provisions for toxicology studies in their business models and generally do not consider the risk of public perception. If toxicology of nanomaterials ever becomes a major issue it would be financially 13

14 impossible for these companies to survive. Companies using nanomaterials for medical purposes will have to seek FDA approval anyway and do not treat nanomaterials any different than their current source-materials. Few studies on the toxicity of nanomaterials have been published. Preliminary toxicology studies on aggregated fullerenes have shown detrimental effects on bacteria and earthworms. Fullerenes that are not aggregated however seem to be easily biodegradable. Dissolution rates of nanoscale titanium dioxide have been shown to be 7-8 times slower than the normal substance and inhalation of ultra-fine particles in rats cause greater inflammatory response than aggregates. Consequently, in August 2003 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) citing a serious lack of information about the human health and environmental implications of manufactured nanomaterials, e.g., nanoparticles, nanotubes, nanowires, fullerene derivatives, and other nanoscale materials sought applications that evaluate the potential impacts of manufactured nanomaterials on human health and the environment under its Science to Achieve Results (STAR) programme ( EPA seeks proposals evaluating the potential of human and environmental exposure of new manufactured nanomaterials from waste streams or other pathways entering the environment. This request for applications invites research proposals that focus on potential toxicity of and exposure to manufactured (purposefully made) nanomaterials. The EPA is particularly interested in supporting research related to manufactured nanomaterials in the following areas: 1) toxicology of manufactured nanomaterials; 2) fate, transport, and transformation of manufactured nanomaterials; and 3) human exposure and bioavailability. The increasing interest in nanotechnology health and environmental issues is also shown in the appearance of specific dedicated sections at conferences such as the Nanoparticles 2003 conference ( 5. Media, Public and NGO interest There is an abundance of technical nanotechnology related literature covering anything from technologies to funding and market overviews. Compared to the UK there has been little nanotechnology coverage in the mainstream media, mostly on issues whether nanotechnology is the next big technology wave and what kind of products might come out of development. There has been an occasional media article on ethical or toxicological issues however to date there has not been a debate as has been around GMOs and biotech. Within the scientific community most scientists don t think these issues should be debated or don t feel the need to do so. CBEN has been very proactive in involving the media on nanotechnology issues, which has led to some controversy among the scientific community since it was felt that CBEN created problems by publicly discussing potential dangers of nanotechnology. Recently the trend has been more towards supporting an open discussion about nanotech with the public. It is also worth to note that generally the US public trusts the scientific community more than the media and among the scientists who believe in public information it is seen as vital that this trust is maintained and the issues of nanotechnology handled correctly. The perception of nanotechnology in the public in the US differs depending on actual experience and level of information/interest. In the heavily academic centres one is more likely to come across a public discussion about the potential problems of nanotechnology, whereas the rest of the country discusses its use for the next industrial revolution if there is any discussion at all. Sciencefiction literature such as Prey has not had the impact it had in other countries even though it was used as an example in a congressional hearing as an example for how perceived public fear could be triggered and could lead to the demise of a technology. NGOs such as the New York based Environmental Defence Fund, EDF ( generally have two concerns: a) are the materials already on the market and b) nanotechnology is new 14

15 territory and needs to be studied closer. Academic centres such as CBEN have been working with moderate environmental groups like EDF and the World Wildlife Fund ( The aim is to develop a partnership or possible consortium within the nanotechnology industry which will provide the funding for research on the environmental implications of nanotechnology, but also lobby for nanotechnology interests. CBEN s involvement is seen as a way to lend credibility within the scientific community while the NGOs would appeal to the public. CBEN is currently working on a proposal to fund such a consortium. 15

16 6. Sources Consular reports available on the USA Embassy Reports pages of The Nanotechnology Opportunity Report by CMP Clentifica Pricewaterhouse Cooper ( Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report First Stage Capital Nanotech Report US National Nanotechnology Initiative ( NanoTechnology Magazine ( The Institute of Nanotechnology( Nanotechnology News Now ( Center for Nanotechnology at Washington University ( Center of Excellence in Nanoelectronics, Albany Center ( Government Nanotechnology Funding: An International Outlook. M.C. Roco JOM The Nanotechnology Foundation of Texas (NFT) ( National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and its Implementation Plan, National Science and Technology Council, June R&D status and trends in nanoparticles, nanostructural materials and nanodevices in the United States. R.W. Siegel, E. Hu, and M.C. Roco Proceedings of the WTEC workshop 8-9 May 1997, Arlington, VA Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences ( Acronyms used: DOD: Department of Defence DOE: Department of Energy DOJ: Department of Justice DOT: Department of Transportation EPA: Environmental Protection Agency EU: European Union NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration NIH: National Institute of Health NIST: National Institute for Standards and Technology (Department of Commerce) NNI: National Nanotechnology Initiative NSF: National Science Foundation SBIR: Small Business Industry Research (Grant) SUNY: State University of New York 16

17 USDA: United States Department of Agriculture Appendix: Academic Nanotechnology research in the US Up to date the USA has been responsible for more than 28,000 peer reviewed articles published in the area of nanotechnology research. By mapping out the geographic origin of these articles it is possible to map the clusters of (largely academic) nanotechnology research in the US (see Figure A1 below). IL: 12% CA: 19% MA: 8% NY: 10% PA: 7% MD/DC: 9% < 1% 1-2% 2-5% 5-10% >10% TX: 6% Figure 1A: Geographic origin of peer reviewed publications concerning nanotechnology in the US Seven states are responsible for over two thirds of all published nanotechnology research. California is leading with 19% of all nanotechnology publications followed by Illinois and the Massachusetts to Maryland Science corridor. The only other significant nanotechnology research is coming out of Texas. 17