Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Changes from December 16, 2013 to May 30, 2014

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
December 16, 2013May 30, 2014

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34511

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Summary
Nanoscale science, engineering, and technology—commonly referred to collectively as
nanotechnology—is believed by many to offer extraordinary economic and societal benefits.
Congress has demonstrated continuing support for nanotechnology and has directed its attention
primarilyparticularly to three topics that may affect the realization of this hoped for potential: federal
research and development (R&D) in nanotechnology; U.S. competitiveness in the field; and
; and environmental,
 health, and safety (EHS) concerns. This report provides an overview of these topics—which are
discussed in more detail in other CRS reports—
topics and two others: nanomanufacturing and public
 understanding of and attitudes toward 
nanotechnology.
The development of this emerging field has been fostered by significant and sustained public
investments in nanotechnology R&D. Nanotechnology R&D is directed toward the understanding
and control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometers. At this size, the properties of
matter can differ in fundamental and potentially useful ways from the properties of individual
atoms and moleculesboth of
individual atoms and molecules, on the one hand, and of bulk matter, on the other. Since the 
launch of the National Nanotechnology
 Initiative (NNI) in 2000 through FY2013, Congress has appropriated 
approximately $1819.4 billion
 for nanotechnology R&D through FY2014. President Obama has 
requested $1.75 billion in NNI funding for
FY2014. More FY2015.
While more than 60 nations have established similar programs. In 2010, total annual global
public R&D investments reached an estimated $8.2 billion, complemented by an estimated
private sector investment of $9.6 billion. Data on economic outputs used to assess
competitiveness in mature  after the launch of the NNI, it appears
that several have eliminated centralized nanotechnology-focused programs (e.g., the United
Kingdom), some in favor of market- or application-oriented topic areas (e.g., health care
technologies). By one estimate, in 2012, total annual global public R&D investment was $7.5
billion, down from $8.3 billion in 2010; corporate nanotechnology R&D spending in 2012 was an
estimated $10 billion. Data on economic outputs used to assess competitiveness in mature
technologies and industries, such as revenues and market share, are not
 available for assessing 
nanotechnology. AlternativelyAs an alternative, data on inputs (e.g., R&D expenditures)
 and non-financial 
outputs (e.g., scientific papers, or patents) may provide insight into the current
 U.S. position and 
serve as bellwethers of future competitiveness. By these criteria, the United
 States appears to be 
the overall global leader in nanotechnology, though some believe the U.S.
 lead may not be as 
large as it was for previous emerging technologies.
Some research has raised concerns about the safety of nanoscale materials. There is general
agreement that more information on EHS implications is needed to protect the public and the
environment; to assess and manage risks; and to create a regulatory environment that fosters
prudent investment in nanotechnology-related innovation. Nanomanufacturing—the bridge
between nanoscience and nanotechnology products—may require the development of new
technologies, tools, instruments, measurement science, and standards to enable safe, effective,
and affordable commercial-scale production of nanotechnology products. Public understanding
and attitudes may also affect the environment for R&D, regulation, and market acceptance of
products incorporating nanotechnology.
In 2003, Congress enacted the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L.
108-153) providing a legislative foundation for some of the activities of the NNI, addressing
concerns, establishing programs, assigning agency responsibilities, and setting authorization
levels. Efforts to reauthorize the act have been unsuccessful. As of the date of this report, no
reauthorization legislation had been introduced in the 113th Congress. In October 2013, the
Title B of the America Competes
Reauthorization Act of 2014 (H.R. 4159), introduced by the ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology circulated a draft
reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act that included a “Reauthorization of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative” subtitle. The majority version of the 2013 America COMPETES Act
reauthorization bill does not include a nanotechnology reauthorization provision
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, would reauthorize the NNI.

Congressional Research Service

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
The National Nanotechnology Initiative.......................................................................................... 5
Structure .................................................................................................................................... 6
Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Selected Issues ................................................................................................................................. 89
U.S. Competitiveness ................................................................................................................ 89
Global Funding.................................................................................................................... 9 10
Scientific Papers .................................................................................................................. 9 11
Patents ............................................................................................................................... 1012
Environmental, Health, and Safety Implications ..................................................................... 1112
Nanomanufacturing ................................................................................................................. 1314
Public Attitudes and Understanding ........................................................................................ 13

Tables
Table 1. NNI Funding, by Agency15
Concluding Observations............................................................................................................... 16

Figures
Figure 1. Total NNI Funding in Current Dollars, FY2001-FY2015 ................................................ 7
Figure 2. Total NNI Funding in Constant FY2015 Dollars, FY2001-FY2015 ................................ 7

Tables
Table 1. NNI Funding by Agency, FY2001-FY2015 ....................................................................... 8

Appendixes
Appendix. Department/Agency Members of the NSET Subcommittee ...................................... 7.. 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 1418

Congressional Research Service

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Overview
Congress continues to demonstrate interest in and support for nanotechnology due to what many
believe is its extraordinary potential for delivering economic growth, high-wage jobs, and other
societal benefits to the nation. To date, the Science and Technology Committee in the House and
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation haveCongress has directed theirits attention
primarily particularly to three 
topics that may affect the United States’ realization of this hoped for potential:
 federal research 
and development (R&D) investments under the National Nanotechnology
 Initiative (NNI); U.S. 
international competitiveness in nanotechnology; and environmental, health, and safety (EHS)
concerns. This report provides a brief overview of these topics—which are discussed in greater
detail in other CRS reports1— and two other subjects of interest 
to Congress: nanomanufacturing
 and public attitudes toward, and understanding of, 
nanotechnology.1
Nanotechnology research and developmentR&D is directed toward the understanding and control of
 matter at dimensions 
of roughly 1 to 100 nanometers. At this size, the physical, chemical, and
 biological properties of 
materials can differ in fundamental and potentially useful ways from the
both the properties of 
individual atoms and molecules, on the one hand, orand bulk matter, on the other hand.
In 2000, President Clinton launched the NNI to coordinate federal R&D efforts and promote U.S.
competitiveness in nanotechnology. Congress first funded the NNI in FY2001 and has provided
increased appropriations for nanotechnology R&D in each subsequent year. In 2003, Congress
enacted the 21st Century for each year through FY2012. Recently,
however, overall NNI funding has declined, falling by more than $300 million (16.5%) in
FY2013 and by $12 million (1.1%) in FY2014. In 2003, Congress enacted the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (P.L. 108-153). The act
 provided a statutory 
foundation for the NNI, established programs, assigned agency
 responsibilities, authorized and authorized
agency funding levels for FY2005 through FY2008, and initiated
research to address key issues. Though no funding has been explicitly
authorized for the NNI beyond FY2008, Congress has continued to appropriate funds to agencies
for nanotechnology research, and the executive branch continues to operate and report on the
NNI, as coordinated by the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET)
subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).
Federal R&D investments are focused on advancing understanding of fundamental nanoscale
phenomena and on developing nanomaterials, nanoscale devices and systems, instrumentation,
standards, measurement science, and the tools and processes needed for nanomanufacturing. NNI
appropriations also fund the construction and operation of major research facilities and the
acquisition of instrumentation. Finally, the NNIThe NNI also supports research directed at identifying and
managing potential environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology, as well as its
ethical, legal, and societal implications.
Most current applications of nanotechnology are evolutionary in nature, offering incremental
improvements in existing products and generally modest economic and societal benefits. For
example, nanotechnology is being used in automobile bumpers, cargo beds, and step-assists to
reduce weight, increase resistance to dents and scratches, and eliminate rust; in clothes to increase
stain- and wrinkle-resistance; and in sporting goods, such as baseball bats and golf clubs, to
improve performance.
In the longer term, nanotechnology may deliver revolutionary advances with profound economic
and societal implications. Potential applications discussed by the technology’s proponents involvemicrochips to improve speed and energy use while
reducing size and weight; in display screens to improve picture quality, provide wider viewing
angles, and longer product lives; in automobile bumpers, cargo beds, and step-assists to reduce
1
For additional information on these issues, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, CRS Report RL34493, Nanotechnology and U.S.
Competitiveness: Issues and Options, and CRS Report RL34614, Nanotechnology and Environmental, Health, and
Safety: Issues for Consideration, all by John F. Sargent, and CRS Report RL34332, Engineered Nanoscale Materials
and Derivative Products: Regulatory Challenges, by Linda-Jo Schierow.

Congressional Research Service

1

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

various weight, increase resistance to dents and scratches, and eliminate rust; in clothes to increase
resistance to staining, wrinkling, and bacterial growth and to provide lighter-weight body armor;
and in sporting goods, such as baseball bats and golf clubs, to improve performance.2
In the longer term, proponents of nanotechnology believe it may deliver revolutionary advances
with profound economic and societal implications. The applications they discuss involve various
degrees of speculation and varying time-frames. The examples below suggest areas where
such possiblea few of the areas
where revolutionary advances may emerge, and early research and development efforts
thatfor which early R&D efforts may provide 
insights into how such advances may be achieved. As yet, however, most of these examples are at
an early stage of development.
•

Detection and treatment technologies for cancer and other deadly diseases.
Current  Current
nanotechnology disease detection efforts include the development of
 sensors that 
can identify biomarkers, —such as altered genes, that may provide an
early indicator of cancer.3 receptor proteins that are
indicative of newly-developing blood vessels associated with early tumor
development,4 and prostate specific antigen (PSA)5—that may provide an early
indicator of cancer.6 One approach uses carbon nanotubes and nanowires to
identify the unique molecular signals of cancer biomarkers. Another approach
uses nanoscale cantilevers—resembling a row of diving boards—treated with
molecules that bind only with cancer biomarkers. When these molecules bind, the
additional weight bends the cantilevers indicating the presence and concentration
of these biomarkers. Nanotechnology holds promise for showing the presence,
location, and/or contours of cancer, cardiovascular disease, or neurological
disease. Current R&D efforts employ metallic, magnetic, and polymeric
nanoparticles with strong imaging characteristics attached to an antibody or other
agent that binds selectively with targeted cells. The imaging results can be used
to guide surgical procedures and to monitor the effectiveness of non-surgical
therapies in killing the disease or slowing its growth. Nanotechnology may also
offer new cancer treatment approaches. For example, nanoshells with a core of
silica and an outer metallic shell can be engineered to concentrate at cancer
lesion sites. Once at the sites, a harmless energy source (such as near-infrared
light) can be used to cause the nanoshells to heat, killing the cancer cells they are
attached to.27 Another treatment approach targets delivery of tiny amounts of a
chemotherapy drug to cancer cells. In this approach the drug is encapsulated
inside a nanoshell that is engineered to bind with an antigen on the cancer cell.
Once bound, the nanoshell dissolves, releasing the chemotherapy drug, killing
the cancer cell. Such a targeted delivery approach could reduce the amount of
chemotherapy drug needed to kill the cancer cells, reducing the side effects of
chemotherapy.3

•

Clean, inexpensive, renewable power through energy creation, storage, and
transmission technologies. Nanoscale semiconductor catalysts and additives
show promise for improving the production of hydrogen from water using
sunlight. The optical properties of these nanoscale catalysts allow the process to
use a wider spectrum of sunlight. Similarly, nanostructured photovoltaic devices
(e.g., solar panels) may improve the efficiency of converting sunlight into
electricity by using a wider spectrum of sunlight. Improved hydrogen storage, a
key challenge in fuel cell applications, may be achieved by tapping the chemical
properties and large surface area of certain nanostructured materials. In addition,
carbon nanotube fibers have the potential for reducing energy transmission losses
from approximately 7% (using copper wires) to 6% (using carbon nanotube

2

National Cancer Institute website, Nanoshells, http://nano.cancer.gov/learn/understanding/nanotech_nanoshells.asp.
National Cancer Institute website, http://nano.cancer.gov/resource_center/tech_backgrounder.asp

2

National Nanotechnology Initiative website, Benefits and Applications, http://www.nano.gov/you/nanotechnologybenefits.
3
See, for example, National Institutes of Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine website, “Multiplexed
Fluorescence Imaging of Tumor Biomarkers in Gene Expression and Protein Levels for Personalized and Predictive
Medicine,” Mark Q. Smith, et al., March 12, 2013, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3594694/
4
National Cancer Institute website, Nanotechnology in Clinical Trials, http://nano.cancer.gov/learn/now/clinicaltrials.asp.
5
Ibid.
6
National Institutes of Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine website, “Biomarkers in cancer screening, research
and detection: present and future: a review,” S. Kumar et al., Sept.-Oct. 2006, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
16966157.
7
National Cancer Institute website, Nanoshells, http://nano.cancer.gov/learn/understanding/nanotech_nanoshells.asp.

Congressional Research Service

2

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

chemotherapy drug needed to kill the cancer cells, reducing the side effects of
chemotherapy.8 A recent advance may enable a nanoparticle to carry three or
more different drugs and release them “in response to three distinct triggering
mechanisms.”9
•

Renewable power. Nanoscale semiconductor catalysts and additives show
promise for improving the production of hydrogen from water using sunlight.
The optical properties of these nanoscale catalysts allow the process to use a
wider spectrum of sunlight. Similarly, nanostructured photovoltaic devices (e.g.,
solar panels) may improve the efficiency of converting sunlight into electricity by
using a wider spectrum of sunlight. Improved hydrogen storage, a key challenge
in fuel cell applications, may be achieved by tapping the chemical properties and
large surface area of certain nanostructured materials. In addition, carbon
nanotube fibers have the potential for reducing energy transmission losses from
approximately 7% (using copper wires) to 6% (using carbon nanotube fibers), an
equivalent annual energy savings in the United States of 24 million barrels of
oil.10

•

Water treatment. Nanotechnology approaches—such as nanosorbents,
nanocatalysts, bioactive nanoparticles, nanostructured catalytic membranes, and
nanoparticle enhanced filtration—may enable improved water quality in both
large-scale water treatment plants and point-of-use systems.11 Nanotechnology
water desalination and filtration systems may offer affordable, scalable, and
portable water filtration systems. Filters employing nanoscale pores work by
allowing water molecules to pass through, but prevent larger molecules, such as
salt ions and other impurities (e.g., bacteria, viruses, heavy metals, and organic
material), from doing so. Some nanoscale filtration systems also employ a matrix
of polymers and nanoparticles that serve to attract water molecules to the filter
and to repel contaminants.12

•

High-density memory devices, faster data access. A variety of nanotechnology
applications may hold the potential for improving the density of memory storage
and accelerate access speed to stored data.13

8

National Cancer Institute, http://nano.cancer.gov/resource_center/tech_backgrounder.asp. Nanotech News,
Nanoparticles Enhance Combination Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy, April 2012, http://nano.cancer.gov/action/
news/2012/apr/nanotech_news_2012-4-2f.asp; Nanotech News, First-Of-Its-Kind Self-Assembled Nanoparticle for
Targeted and Triggered Thermo-Chemotherapy, December 2012, http://nano.cancer.gov/action/news/2012/dec/
nanotech_news_2012-12-13b.asp; and National Cancer Institute, NCI Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer, 2011
NCI Alliance Annual Bulletin, Joe Alper, Nanoparticles Deliver Drug Cocktails to Tumor, 2011.
3

Congressional Research Service

2

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

fibers), an equivalent annual energy savings in the United States of 24 million
barrels of oil.4
•

Universal access to clean water. Nanotechnology water desalination and
filtration systems may offer affordable, scalable, and portable water filtration
systems. Filters employing nanoscale pores work by allowing water molecules to
pass through, but prevent larger molecules, such as salt ions and other impurities
(e.g., bacteria, viruses, heavy metals, and organic material), from doing so. Some
nanoscale filtration systems also employ a matrix of polymers and nanoparticles
that serve to attract water molecules to the filter and to repel contaminants.5

•

High-density memory devices. A variety of nanotechnology applications may
hold the potential for improving the density of memory storage and accelerate
access speed to stored data.6

•

Higher crop yield9
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT News, “Targeting Cancer with a Triple Threat,” April 15, 2014,
https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/nanoparticles-can-deliver-three-cancer-drugs-at-once-0415.
10
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The
White House, Nanoscience Research for Energy Needs, December 2004.
11
Anita Street, Richard Sustich, Jeremiah Duncan, Nora Savage, eds., Nanotechnology Applications for Clean Water:
Solutions for Improving Water Quality, 2nd ed. (Elsevier, 2014).
12
Abraham, M., “Today’s Seawater is Tomorrow’s Drinking Water,” University of California at Los Angeles,
November 6, 2006; and NNI website, Benefits and Applications, http://www.nano.gov/you/nanotechnology-benefits.
13
EurekAlert!, American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Memory Breakthrough Could Bring Faster
Computing, Smaller Memory Devices and Lower Power Consumption,” http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/201308/thuo-mbc081413.php; and IBM Research, Silicon Integrated Nanophotonics, http://researcher.ibm.com/researcher/
view_project.php?id=2757.

Congressional Research Service

3

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

•

Higher crop yields and improved nutrition. Higher crop yield might be
achieved using nanoscale sensors that detect the presence of a virus or diseaseinfecting particle. Early, location-specific detection may allow for rapid and
targeted treatment of affected areas, increasing yield by preventing losses.714
Nanotechnology also offers the potential for improved nutrition. Some
companies are exploring the development of nanocapsules that release nutrients
targeted at specific parts of the body at specific times.815

•

Self-healing materials. Nanotechnology may offer approaches that enable
materials to “self-heal” by incorporating, for example, nanocontainers of a repair
substance (e.g., an epoxy) throughout the material. When a crack or corrosion
reaches a nanocontainer, the nanocontainer could be designed to open and release
its repair material to fill the gap and seal the crack.9

•

Sensors that can warn of minute levels of toxins and pathogens in air, soil, or
water16

•

Toxin and pathogen sensors. Microfluidic and nanocantilever sensors 
(discussed earlier) may be
 engineered to detect specific pathogens (e.g., bacteria, virus) or toxins (e.g., sarin

4

Nanoscience Research for Energy Needs, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National
Science and Technology Council, The White House, December 2004.
5
Abraham, M. “Today’s Seawater is Tomorrow’s Drinking Water,” University of California at Los Angeles,
November 6, 2006; and NNI website, Benefits and Applications, http://www.nano.gov/you/nanotechnology-benefits.
6
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Nanotechnology, http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/about/
nanotechnology.html; and IBM Research, Silicon Integrated Nanophotonics, http://researcher.ibm.com/researcher/
view_project.php?id=2757.
7

virus) or toxins (e.g., sarin gas, hydrogen cyanide) by detecting their unique
molecular signals or through selective binding with an engineered nanoparticle.17

•

Environmental remediation. The high surface-to-volume ratio, high reactivity,
and small size of some nanoscale particles (e.g., nanoscale iron) may offer more
effective and less costly solutions to environmental contamination. By injecting
engineered nanoparticles into the ground, these characteristics can be employed
to enable the particles to move more easily through a contaminated site and bond
more readily with targeted contaminants.18

Nanotechnology is also expected by some to make substantial contributions to federal missions
such as national defense, homeland security, and space exploration and commercialization.
U.S. private-sector nanotechnology R&D funding (corporate and venture capital) is now
estimated to be more than twice the amount of U.S. public funding.19 In general, the private
sector’s efforts are focused on translating fundamental knowledge and prototypes into
commercial products; developing new applications incorporating nanoscale materials; and
14

Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems, draft report on the National Planning
Workshop, submitted to the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, July 2003.
815
Kole, Chittaranjan, Kole, Phullara, et al., “Nanobiotechnology Can Boost Crop Production and Quality: First
Evidence from Increased Plant Biomass, Fruit Yield and Phytomedicine Content in Bitter Melon,” BMC
Biotechnology, PubMed, April 26, 2013, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23622112?dopt=Abstract&holding=
f1000,f1000m,isrctn; and Wolfe, Josh. “Safer and Guilt-Free Nano Foods,” Forbes.com, August 10, 2005.
9
16
Antoni P. Tomsia, Maximilien E. Launey, and Janice S. Lee et al., “Nanotechnology Approaches for Better Dental
Implants,” International Journal of Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2011, pp. 25-49.White, Scott R. and Geubelle, Philippe 
H., “Self-Healing Materials: Get Ready for Repair-and-Go,” Nature
 Nanotechnology, Vol. 5, pp. 247-248, 2010, 
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v5/n4/abs/nnano.2010.66.html;
 Berger, Michael. “Nanomaterial Heal Thyself,” 
Nanowerk Spotlight, June 13, 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/
spotlight/spotid=2067.php.

Congressional Research Service

3

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

gas, hydrogen cyanide) by detecting their unique molecular signals or through
selective binding with an engineered nanoparticle.10
•

Environmental remediation of contaminated sites. The high surface-tovolume ratio, high reactivity, and small size of some nanoscale particles (e.g.,
nanoscale iron) may offer more effective and less costly solutions to
environmental contamination. By injecting engineered nanoparticles into the
ground, these characteristics can be employed to enable the particles to move
more easily through a contaminated site and bond more readily with targeted
contaminants.11

Nanotechnology is also expected by some to make substantial contributions to federal missions
such as national defense, homeland security, and space exploration and commercialization.
U.S. private sector nanotechnology R&D is now estimated to be twice that of public funding. In
general, the private sector’s efforts are focused on translating fundamental knowledge and
prototypes into commercial products; developing new applications incorporating nanoscale
materials; and developing technologies, methods, and systems for commercial-scale
manufacturing.
Many other nations and firms around the world are also making substantial investments in
nanotechnology to reap its potential benefits. Between 2001 and 2004, more than 60 countries
established nanotechnology programs at the national level.12
With so much potentially at stake, some Members of Congress have expressed interest and
concerns about the U.S. competitive position in nanotechnology R&D and success in translating
R&D results to commercial products. This has led to an increased focus on potential spotlight/spotid=2067.php.
17
“Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology,” Nanotechnology Signature Initiative, National
Science and Technology Council, July 9, 2012, http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
sensors_nsi_2012_07_09_final_for_web.pdf.
18
EPA website. http://epa.gov/ncer/nano/research/nano_remediation.html.
19
Hilary Flynn, David Hwang, and Michael Holman, Nanotechnology Update: Corporations Up Their Spending as
Revenues for Nano-Enabled Products Increase, Lux Research, Inc., February 2014.

Congressional Research Service

4

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

developing technologies, methods, and systems for commercial-scale manufacturing. Many other
nations and firms around the world are also making substantial investments in nanotechnology.
With so much potentially at stake, some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about the
U.S. competitive position in nanotechnology R&D and U.S. success in translating R&D results to
commercial products. These concerns have led to an increased focus on barriers to
commercialization efforts, including the readiness of technologies, systems, and processes for
large-scale nanotechnology manufacturing; potential environmental, health, and safety (EHS)
effects of nanoscale materials; public understanding and attitudes toward nanotechnology; and
other related issues.
This report provides an overview of the NNI, macro-level view of federal R&D investments in
 nanotechnology, U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology, and EHS-related issues.

10

“Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology,” Nanotechnology Signature Initiative, National
Science and Technology Council, July 9, 2012, http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
sensors_nsi_2012_07_09_final_for_web.pdf.
11
EPA website. http://epa.gov/ncer/nano/research/nano_remediation.html.
12
Mihail C. Roco, “The Long View of Nanotechnology Development: The National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10
Years,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, February 2011, p. 428.

Congressional Research Service

4

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer


competitiveness in nanotechnology, and EHS-related issues.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative
President Clinton launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2000, establishing a multiagency programprogram20 to coordinate and expand federal efforts to advance the state of nanoscale
science, engineering, and technology, and to position the United States to lead the world in its
development and commercialization. The NNI is comprised of 15 federal agencies that receive
appropriations to conduct and fund nanotechnology R&D and 12 other federal agencies with

nanotechnology research, development, and commercialization. In FY2014, the NNI includes 11
federal departments and independent agencies and commissions with budgets dedicated to
nanotechnology R&D, as well as 9 other federal departments and independent agencies and
commissions with responsibilities for health, safety, and environmental regulation; trade; 
education; training;
 intellectual property; international relations; and other areas that might affect 
nanotechnology.
21 The Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration 
both conduct
 nanotechnology R&D and have regulatory responsibilities.
Congress has played a central role in the NNI, providing appropriations for the conduct of
nanotechnology R&D (discussed below), establishing programs, and creating a legislative
 foundation for some of 
the activities of the NNI through enactment of the 21st Century
 Nanotechnology Research and 
Development Act of 2003. The act authorized appropriations for
 FY2005 through FY2008 for five NNI agencies–
NNI activities at five agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF),
 Department of Energy 
(DOE), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
 Department of Commerce 
(DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and
 Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). Congress remains actively engaged in the NNI.

Congress has continued its active engagement in the NNI through hearings, proposed authorizing
legislation, and annual appropriations. While many provisions of the 21st Century 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act have
 no sunset provision, FY2008 was the last year of agency authorizations included in the act.
Legislation to amend and 
year for which it authorized appropriations. In the 110th Congress, legislation to amend and
reauthorize the act was introduced in the House (H.R. 5940, 110th
Congress) and the Senate (S. 3274, 110th Congress) in the 110th Congress. The House passed H.R.
5940 by a vote of 407-6; the Senate did not act on S. 3274. In January 2009, H.R. 554 (111th
Congress), the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009, was introduced in
the 111th Congress. The act contained essentially the same provisions as H.R. 5940. In February
2009, the House passed the bill by voice vote under a suspension of the rules. The bill was
referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; no further action
was taken. On May 7, 2010, the House Committee on Science and Technology reported the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116, 111th Congress) which included,
as Title I, Subtitle A, of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010. This
title was removed prior to enactment.13 No reauthorization bill was introduced in the 112th
Congress.
In October 2013, the ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology circulated a draft reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act that included a
“Reauthorization of the National Nanotechnology Initiative” subtitle.14 For a a detailed discussion
of the provisions of this draft, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology
Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr. The
majority version of the America COMPETES Act reauthorization does not include a
nanotechnology reauthorization provision.
13
For additional information on the reauthorization efforts, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology
Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr.
14
“Ranking Member Johnson Circulates America Competes Discussion Draft,” House Democrats, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, October 29, 2013, http://democrats.science.house.gov/press-release/ranking-memberjohnson-circulates-america-competes-discussion-draft.

Congressional Research Service

5

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer). The House
20

The original six NNI agencies were the NSF, DOD, DOE, NIST, NASA, and NIH.
Previously the NNI counted more than 20 participating agencies, however departments with multiple participating
agencies are now counted as a single participant. For example, four agencies of the Department of Commerce
participate in the NSET subcommittee—the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Economic Development
Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—but are only counted as a
single participating department.
21

Congressional Research Service

5

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

passed H.R. 5940 by a vote of 407-6; the Senate did not act on S. 3274. In the 111th Congress,
H.R. 554, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009, was introduced in
January 2009. The bill contained essentially the same provisions as H.R. 5940. In February 2009,
the House passed the bill by voice vote under a suspension of the rules. The bill was referred to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; no further action was taken. In
May 2010, the House Committee on Science and Technology reported the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116) which included, as Title I, Subtitle A, the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010. This title was removed prior to enactment.
No reauthorization bill was introduced in the 112th Congress. In the 113th Congress, Title B of the
America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2014 (H.R. 4159), introduced in March 2014 by the
ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, would reauthorize
the NNI.22 During markup of the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology Act
of 2014 (H.R. 4186) by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, an amendment
to add a title reauthorizing the NNI was defeated.

Structure
The NNI is coordinated within the White House through the National Science and Technology
Council’s NSET subcommittee. The NSET subcommittee is comprised of representatives from 27
federal agencies, White House20
federal departments and agencies, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the
Office of
 Management and Budget.15 (A list of NSET subcommittee member agencies is provided
in the Appendix.) The NSET subcommittee has established fourtwo working groups: the
National Environmental 
and Health Implications (NEHI), National Innovation and Liaison with
Industry (NILI), Global Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN), Nanomanufacturing, and
 Working Group; and Nanomanufacturing, Industry Liaison, and
Innovation (NILI) Working Group. Two previous working groups—Global Issues in
Nanotechnology (GIN) Working Group and Nanotechnology Public Engagement and 
Communications (NPEC) working groups. The National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) provides administrative and technical support to
Working Group—were eliminated.23 Based on a 2010 recommendation
by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), the NSET
subcommittee has designated coordinators for four broad areas—global issues; standards
development; environmental, health, and safety research; and education, engagement, and societal
dimensions—to “track developments, lead in organizing activities, report periodically to the
NSET subcommittee, and serve as central points of contact for NNI information in the
corresponding areas.”24 The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) provides
administrative and technical support to the NSET subcommittee.

Funding
Funding for the NNI is provided through appropriations to each of the NNI-participating
agencies. The NNI has no centralized funding. Overall NNI funding is calculated by aggregating
the nanotechnology-related expenditures of each NNI agency. Funding remains concentrated in
the original six NNI agencies (see footnote 20),,16 which account for approximately 9694% of NNI funding in
FY2012. The NNI funds fundamental and applied nanotechnology R&D, multidisciplinary
centers of excellence, and key research infrastructure. It also supports efforts to address societal
implications of nanotechnology, including ethical, legal, EHS, and workforce issues.
For FY2012, Congress appropriated an estimated $1.857 billion for nanotechnology R&D, four
times the $464 million appropriated for nanotechnology R&D in 2001. The NNCO was not able
to specify FY2013 actual NNI funding in its FY2014 budget supplement due to the late resolution
of the federal budget process. FY2013 funding remained unavailable at the time of this report. In
total, Congress has appropriated approximately $18 billion for the NNI from FY2001 to FY2013.
President Obama has requested $1.702 billion for nanotechnology R&D in FY2014, a $155
million (8.4%) decrease below the actual FY2012 funding level of $1.857 billion. The chronology
of NNI funding is detailed in Table 1.

15
NSET subcommittee members include Bureau of Industry and Security, DOC; Consumer Product Safety
Commission; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA);
Department of Defense (DOD); Department of Education; DOE; Department of Homeland Security; Department of
Justice; Department of Labor; Department of State; Department of Transportation; Department of the Treasury; EPA;
Food and Drug Administration; Forest Service, USDA; Intelligence Technology Innovation Center; International Trade
Commission; NASA; National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS);
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (DHHS); NIST,
DOC; NSF; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior; and U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, DOC.
16
The original six agencies were the NSF, DOD, DOE, NIST, NASA, and NIH.

Congressional Research Service

6

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Table 1. NNI Funding, by Agency
(in millions of current dollars)
FY
2001
Actual

Agency

National Institutes of
Health (DHHS)a


funding in FY2014.
22

For additional information on the reauthorization efforts, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology
Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr.
23
The NSET subcommittee “periodically reviews the need for existing or new working groups in terms of focus,
intended participation, and scope.” NSET, NSTC, National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014, p.
52, http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
24
NSET, NSTC, National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan , February 2014, pp. 53-54.

Congressional Research Service

6

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

For FY2014, Congress appropriated an estimated $1.538 billion for nanotechnology R&D, down
19.6% in current dollars from peak NNI funding in FY2010 of $1.913 billion (see Figure 1). The
decrease is 26.1% in inflation-adjusted dollars (see Figure 2).25 In total, Congress has
appropriated approximately $19.4 billion for the NNI from FY2001 to FY2014. President Obama
has requested $1.537 billion for nanotechnology R&D in FY2015, essentially the same as the
estimated total appropriated for FY2014. NNI funding by agency is detailed in Table 1.
Figure 1.Total NNI Funding in Current Dollars, FY2001-FY2015

Source: CRS analysis of NNI data.
Note: ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Figure 2.Total NNI Funding in Constant FY2015 Dollars, FY2001-FY2015

Source: CRS analysis of NNI data.
Notes: ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Dollars adjusted using GDP (Chained) Price
Index data obtained from Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year
2015, Historical Tables, Table 10.1.

25

Total NNI funding was higher in FY2009 when regular appropriations and American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) funding are counted.

Congressional Research Service

7

 Table 1. NNI Funding by Agency, FY2001-FY2015
(in millions of current dollars)
Agency

FY
2001
Actual

FY
2002
Actual

FY
2003
Actual

FY
2004
Actual

FY
2005
Actual

FY
2006
Actual

FY
2007
Actual

FY
2008
Actual

FY
2009
Actual

FY
2009
ARRA

FY
2010
Actual

FY
2011
Actual

FY
2012
Actual

FY
2014
Request2013
Actual

FY
2014
Est.

FY
2015
Request

National Institutes of Health
(NIH)a

40

59

78

106

165

192

215

305

343

73

457

409

456

461459

442

442

National Science Foundation

150

204

221

256

335

360

389

409

409

101

429

485

466

431421

411

412

Department of Energyb

88

89

134

202

208

231

236

245

333

293

374

346

314

370314

303

343

Department of Defensec

125

224

220

291

352

424

450

460

459

440

425

426

217

National Institute of
Standards and
Technology (DOC)170

176

144

33

77

64

77

79

78

88

86

93

115

96

95

102

National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

22

35

36

47

45

50

20

17

14

20

17

19

18

Environmental
Protection Agency

5

6

5

5

7

5

8

12

12

18

17

18

17

Other Agencies91

98

83

5

6

5

5

7

5

8

12

12

18

17

18

15

16

17

22

35

36

47

45

50

20

17

14

20

17

19

16

18

14

1

3

2

5

9

13

19

22

40

62

32

64

8764

75

83

464

697

760

989

1,200

1,351

1,425

1,554

1,702

1913

1,845

1,857

1,767

National Science
Foundation
Department of

Energyb

Department of Defensec

TOTALd

43

511

Source: NNI website.550

1538

1537

National Institute of Standards
and Technology
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Other Agencies
TOTAL

d

43

511

Source: NNI website, http://www.nano.gov/. Figures for FY2012 and FY2014 from The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s FY2014 Budget,
National Science and Technology Council, Executive Office of the President, May 2013.
a.

According to NIH, the agency has adopted the Research, Condition, and Disease Categorization (RCDC) system to provide more consistent and transparent
information to the public about NIH research. The shift to the RCDC process of categorization changes the way individual research projects are assigned to
categories. This change will result in some differences in total dollar amounts between the 2008 reports and those issued in previous years. Any difference, whether an
increase or decrease in funding levels, does not necessarily reflect a change in the amount of money the NIH received from Congress or a change in the actual content
of the NIH research portfolio. For more information, please go to: http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/reasons/default.aspx. Funding for other Department of Health and Human
Services agencies (i.e., the Food and Drug Administration and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) is included in the figure for “Other Agencies.”

b.

According to NSTC, funding levels for DOE include the combined budgets of the Office of Science, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of
Fossil Energy, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy.

c.

According to NSTC, the Department of Defense budgetsactual figures for FY2006-FY2011 and beyond include congressionally directed funding outside the NNI plan. The extent to which such
 funding is 
included or not included in reporting of funding in earlier fiscal years is uncertain.

d.

Numbers may not add to total due to rounding of agency budget figures.

CRS-78

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Selected Issues
The remainder of this report discusses four issues of congressional interest with respect to
nanotechnology: U.S. competitiveness; environmental, health, and safety implications;
nanomanufacturing; and public attitudes and understanding.

U.S. Competitiveness
Nanotechnology is largely still in its infancy. Accordingly, measures such as revenues, market
share, and global trade statistics—which are often used to assess and track U.S. competitiveness
in other more mature technologies and industries—are generally not available for assessing the relative
U.S. U.S.
position internationally in nanotechnology. To date, the federal government does not collect
data  data
on nanotechnology-related revenues, trade, or employment, nor are comparable international
government data available. 
Nevertheless, many nanotechnology experts assertexperts believe that the United States, broadly speaking, is the
global  is the global
leader in nanotechnology. However, some of these experts believeSome experts believe, however, that in contrast to many
previous emerging technologies—such as semiconductors, satellites, software, and
biotechnology—the U.S. lead is narrower, and the investment level, scientific and industrial
infrastructure, technical capabilities, and science and engineering workforces of other nations are
more substantial than in the past.
In the absence of comprehensive and reliable economic output data (e.g., revenues, market share,
trade), indicators such as inputs (e.g., public and private research investments) and non-financial
outputs (e.g., scientific papers, patents) have been used to gauge a nation’s competitive position in
emerging technologies. By these measures (discussed below), the United States appears to lead
the world, generally, in nanotechnology. However, R&D investments, scientific papers, and
patents may not provide reliable indicators of the United States’ current or future competitive
position. Scientific and technological leadership may not necessarily result in commercial
leadership or national competitiveness for a variety of reasons:
•

Basic research in nanotechnology may not translate into viable commercial
applications.

•

Basic research is.
Some organizations do occasionally produce estimates of global R&D and product revenues for
nanotechnology. In the absence of formal data collection, these figures often depend on subjective
estimates of nanotechnology’s contribution to a particular industry or product. While some
products are defined by their nanotechnology properties (for example, nanoscale silver used for
antibacterial purposes), many products incorporate nanotechnology as only a part of their
functionality (for example, nanoscale gates in semiconductors) thus rendering an assessment of
the value of nanotechnology in a particular product subjective (i.e., what percentage of
semiconductor revenues should be attributed to nanotechnology).
In 2014, Lux Research, Inc., an emerging technologies consulting firm, produced a report,
Nanotechnology Update: Corporations Up Their Spending as Revenues for Nano-enabled
Products Increases, that included an estimate of revenues from nanomaterials, nanointermediates, and nano-enabled products.26 The report, funded in part by the National Science
Foundation and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, estimates that total global
revenues from nano-enabled products reached $731 billion in 2012, up from $339 billion in 2010.
Of the 2012 revenues, the United States accounted for $236 billion, or about one-third of total
global sales, about the same as Europe ($235 billion) and about 10% higher than Asia ($214
billion). Other countries—aggregated by Lux Research as “Rest of the World”—accounted for an
estimated $47 billion.

26
Nano-intermediates include, for example, nano-based coatings, fabrics, memory and logic chips, contrast media,
optical components, orthopedic materials, and superconducting wire that are incorporated into nano-enabled products,
such as cars, clothing, aircraft, computers, consumer electronic devices, and pharmaceuticals.

Congressional Research Service

9

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

An alternative mechanism for gauging a nation’s competitive position in emerging
technologies—in the absence of periodic, comprehensive, and reliable economic output data (e.g.,
revenues, market share, trade)—is the use of inputs (e.g., public and private research investments)
and non-financial outputs (e.g., scientific papers, patents). By these measures (discussed below),
the United States appears to lead the world, generally, in nanotechnology. However, R&D
investments, scientific papers, and patents may not provide reliable indicators of the United
States’ current or future competitive position. Scientific and technological leadership may not
necessarily result in commercial leadership or national competitiveness for a variety of reasons:
•

Basic research in nanotechnology may not translate into viable commercial
applications.

•

Basic research results are generally available to all competitors.

•

U.S.-based companies may conduct production and other work outside of the
United States.

•

U.S.-educated foreign students may return home to conduct research and create
new businesses.

•

U.S. companies with leading-edge nanotechnology capabilities and/or intellectual
property may be acquired by foreign competitors.

•

U.S. policies or other factors may prohibit nanotechnology commercialization,
make it unaffordable, or make it less attractive than foreign alternatives.

•

Aggregate national data may be misleading as countries may establish global
leadership in niche areas of nantoechnologynanotechnology.

With these caveats, the following section reviews input and non-economic output measures as
indicators of the U.S. competitive position in nanotechnology.

Congressional Research Service

8

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Global Funding
The United States has led, and continues to lead, all nations in known public investments in
nanotechnology R&D, though the estimated U.S. share of global public investments has fallen as
other nations have established similar programs and increased funding. In 2011, Lux Research, an
emerging technologies consulting firm,its 2014 report, Lux
Research estimated total (public and private) global
 nanotechnology funding for 2010 to be approximately $17.8 billion with corporate R&D
accounting for a majority of funding for the first time.17 Cientifica, a privately held
2012 to be
approximately $18.5 billion, of which the United States accounted for approximately $6.6 billion
(36%). In 2010 corporate R&D accounted for a majority of global nanotechnology funding for
the first time.27 Cientifica, a privately held nanotechnology business analysis and consulting firm, 
estimated global public investments in
 nanotechnology in 2010 to be approximately $10 billion 
per year, with cumulative global public
 investments through 2011 reaching approximately $67.5 
billion. Cientifica also concluded that
 the United States had fallen behind both Russia and China 
in nanotechnology R&D funding on a
 purchasing power parity (PPP) basis (which takes into 
account the price of goods and services in
 each nation), but still leadsled the world in real dollar terms 
(adjusted on a currency exchange rate
basis).18
Private investments in nanotechnology R&D come from two primary sources, corporations and
venture capital investors. Lux Research estimated that total global private sector nanotechnology
funding had risen from $9.2 billion in 2009 to $9.6 billion in 2010, while the venture capital
component of the investment had fallen from $822 million in 2009 to $646 million in 2010.
According to the firm, U.S. private sector funding of approximately $3.5 billion led all other
nations, followed by Japan (almost $3 billion) and Germany (about $1 billion). Lux Research also
reported that the amount of venture capital funding in Europe was one-fifth that of the North
American level.19
According to an analysis by the National Bureau of Economic Research, on a PPP comparison
basis, the United States led the world in 2006 in corporate R&D investments in nanotechnology
with an estimated $1.9 billion investment, followed by Japan with $1.7 billion. In total, U.S.- and
Japan-based companies accounted for nearly three-fourths of global corporate investment in
nanotechnology R&D in 2006. China ranked fifth in corporate investment, accounting for
approximately 3% of global private nanotechnology R&D investments.20

Scientific Papers
The quantity basis).28
27

OECD /NNI International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology, Background Paper 2:
Finance and Investor Models in Nanotechnology, Working Party on Nanotechnology, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, March 16, 2012, p. 4.
28
Global Funding of Nanotechnologies and Its Impact, Cientifica, July 2011, available at http://cientifica.eu/blog/wp(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

10

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Private investments in nanotechnology R&D come from two primary sources, corporations and
venture capital (VC) investors. According to Lux Research, between 2010 and 2012 corporate
spending on nanotechnology R&D increased fastest in the United States (32%), followed by Asia
(11%), and Europe (3%). All other nations, collectively, increased funding by 22%.29 Total global
corporate nanotechnology R&D spending in 2012 was an estimated $9.4 billion (in PPP dollars),
led by the United States ($4.1 billion), Japan ($2.3 billion), Germany ($707 million), China
(approximately $400 million), and Korea ($474 million).30
According to Lux Research, venture capital funding for nanotechnology fell 27% in 2012, from
an estimated $793 million in 2011 to $580 million in 2012. The United States accounted for more
than $400 million of VC funding, nearly 70% of total global VC funding, followed by the United
Kingdom with more than $100 million in 2012.31 Lux Research previously reported that the
amount of venture capital funding in Europe was one-fifth that of the North American level.32

Scientific Papers
The publication of peer-reviewed scientific papers is considered by some to be an indicator of a
nation’s scientific leadership. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2005
reported that the U.S. share of nanotechnology papers was a world-leading 24%, but that this 
represented a decline from
approximately 40% in the early 1990s, concluding:

17

OECD /NNI International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology, Background Paper 2:
Finance and Investor Models in Nanotechnology, Working Party on Nanotechnology, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, March 16, 2012, p. 4.
18
Global Funding of Nanotechnologies and Its Impact, Cientifica, July 2011, available at http://cientifica.eu/blog/wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Global-Nanotechnology-Funding-Report-2011.pdf.
19
OECD /NNI International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology, Background Paper 2:
Finance and Investor Models in Nanotechnology, Working Party on Nanotechnology, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, March 16, 2012, p. 4.
20
Profiting from International Nanotechnology, Lux Research, Inc., December 2006.

Congressional Research Service

9

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

 approximately 40% in the early 1990s, concluding:
Taken as a whole these data confirm that the strength and depth of the American science
base points to the United States being the dominant player in nanotechnology for some time
to come, while the United States also faces significant and increasing international
competition.2133

Reflecting the same trend, the number of papers in the Science Citation Index (SCI)2234 related to
nanotechnology discoveries rose from 18,085 in 2000 to approximately 65,000 in 2008, a
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.3%. The U.S. share of these papers grew at a
somewhat slower pace (13.8% CAGR) from 5,342 in 2000 to approximately 15,000 in 2008,
reducing the total U.S. share from 29.5% in 2000 to approximately 23.1% in 2008.23
35

(...continued)
content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Global-Nanotechnology-Funding-Report-2011.pdf.
29
Nanotechnology Update: Corporations Up Their Spending as Revenues for Nano-enabled Products Increases, Lux
Research, Inc., February 2014.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
OECD /NNI International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology, Background Paper 2:
Finance and Investor Models in Nanotechnology, Working Party on Nanotechnology, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, March 16, 2012, p. 4.
33
Zucker, L.G. and M.R. Darby. “Socio-Economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and Nanobank,”
National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2005.
34
The Science Citation Index, a product of Thomson Reuters Corporation, provides bibliographic and citation
information from more than 3,700 scientific and technical journals published around the world.
35
Mihail C. Roco, “The long view of nanotechnology development: the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10
years,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, February 2011, p. 429. Growth rates and U.S. percentages of total
publications calculated by CRS.

Congressional Research Service

11

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

One measure of the importance of a scientific paper is the number of times it is cited in other
papers. An analysis by Evaluametrics, Ltd. reports that nanotechnology papers attributed to the
United States are much more frequently cited than those attributed to China, the nations of the
European Union (EU27), and the rest of the world as a whole. This held true overall and
separately in each of the four disciplines examined (biology, chemistry, engineering, and physics).
The U.S. lead was particularly pronounced in biology. China fell below the world average
number of citations in each discipline, as well as overall. The EU27 performed near the world
average in engineering and physics, and somewhat higher in chemistry.

Patents
Patent counts—assessments of how many patents are issued to individuals or institutions of a
particular country—are frequently used to assess technological competitiveness. By this measure,
the U.S. competitive position in nanotechnology appears to be strong. A 2007 U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office
 analysis of patents in the United States and in other nations stated that U.S.-origin inventors and
 assignees/owners have
•

the most nanotechnology-related U.S. patents by a wide margin;

•

the most nanotechnology-related patent publications globally, but by a narrower
margin (followed closely by Japan); and

•

the most nanotechnology-related inventions that have patent publications in three
or more countries, 31.7%, followed by Japan (26.9%), Germany (11.3%), Korea
(6.6%), and France (3.6%).24

21

Zucker, L.G. and M.R. Darby. “Socio-Economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and Nanobank,”
National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2005.
22
The Science Citation Index, a product of Thomson Reuters Corporation, provides bibliographic and citation
information from more than 3,700 scientific and technical journals published around the world.
23
Mihail C. Roco, “The long view of nanotechnology development:the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10
years,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, February 2011, p. 429. Growth rates and U.S. percentages of total
publications calculated by CRS.
24
Eloshway, Charles. “Nanotechnology Related Issues at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,” Workshop on
Intellectual Property Rights in Nanotechnology: Lessons from Experiences Worldwide, Brussels, Belgium, April 2007.

Congressional Research Service

10

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Environmental, Health, and Safety Implications
Key policy issues associated with U.S. competitiveness in nanotechnology include
environmental, health, and safety (EHS) concerns; nanomanufacturing; and public understanding
and attitudes. EHS concerns include both direct consequences for health, safety, and the
environment, and how uncertainty about EHS implications and potential regulatory responses
might affect U.S. competitiveness. One such effect might be the discouragement of investment in
nanotechnology due to the possibility of regulations that might bar products from the market,
impose high regulatory compliance costs, or result in product liability claims and clean-up costs.
Some of the unique properties of nanoscale materials—for example, small size, high surface areato-volume ratio—have given rise to concerns about their potential implications for health, safety,
and the environment. While nanoscale particles occur naturally and as incidental by-products of
other human activities (e.g., soot),25 EHS concerns have been focused primarily on nanoscale
materials that are intentionally engineered and produced.
Much of the public dialogue about risks associated with nanotechnology has focused on carbon
nanotubes (CNTs) and other fullerenes (molecules formed entirely of carbon atoms in the form of
a hollow sphere, ellipsoid, or tube) since they are currently being manufactured and are among
the most promising nanomaterials. These concerns have been amplified by some research on the
36

Environmental, Health, and Safety Implications
Some of the unique properties of nanoscale materials—for example their small size and high ratio
of surface area to volume—have given rise to concerns about their potential implications for
health, safety, and the environment. While nanoscale particles occur naturally and as incidental
by-products of other human activities (e.g., soot), EHS concerns have been focused primarily on
nanoscale materials that are intentionally engineered and produced.37
Environmental, health, and safety (EHS) concerns include both direct consequences of
nanotechnology for health, safety, and the environment, and how uncertainty about EHS
implications and potential regulatory responses might affect U.S. competitiveness. One such
effect might be the discouragement of investment in nanotechnology due to the possibility of
regulations that might bar products from the market, impose high regulatory compliance costs, or
result in product liability claims and clean-up costs.
Much of the public dialogue about risks associated with nanotechnology has focused on carbon
nanotubes (CNTs) and other fullerenes (molecules formed entirely of carbon atoms in the form of
a hollow sphere, ellipsoid, or tube) since they are currently being manufactured and are among
the most promising nanomaterials. These concerns have been amplified by some research on the
36

Eloshway, Charles. “Nanotechnology Related Issues at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,” Workshop on
Intellectual Property Rights in Nanotechnology: Lessons from Experiences Worldwide, Brussels, Belgium, April 2007.
37
Some naturally occurring nanoparticles cause adverse health effects. Studies on the effects of naturally occurring
particles are numerous and inform R&D on engineered nanoparticles.

Congressional Research Service

12

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

effects of CNTs on animals, and on animal and human cells. For example, researchers have
reported that carbon nanotubes inhaled by mice can cause lung tissue damage;2638 that buckyballs
(spherical fullerinesfullerenes) caused brain damage in fish;2739 and that buckyballs can accumulate within
cells and potentially cause DNA damage.2840 On the other hand, some research has found CNTs and
fullerenes to be non-toxic. In addition, work at Rice University’s Center 
for Biological and
 Environmental Nanotechnology conducted in 2005 found cell toxicity of CNTs 
to be low and that
 toxicity can be reduced further through simple chemical changes to the CNT’s 
surface.2941
Among the potential EHS benefits of nanotechnology are applications that may reduce energy
consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions; remediate environmental damage; cure,
manage, or prevent deadly diseases; and offer new materials that protect against impacts, selfrepair to prevent catastrophic failure, or change in ways that provide protection and medical aid to
soldiers on the battlefield.
Potential EHS risks of nanoscale particles in humans and animals depend in part on their potential
to accumulate, especially in vital organs such as the lungs and brain, that might harm or kill, and
diffusion in the environment that might harm ecosystems. For example, several products on the
market today contain nanoscale silver, an effective antibacterial agent. Some scientists have

25

Some naturally occurring nanoparticles cause adverse health effects. Studies on the effects of naturally occurring
particles are numerous and inform R&D on engineered nanoparticles.
26
Lam, C.; James, J.T.; McCluskey, R.; and Hunter, R. “Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7
and 90 days after intratracheal instillation,” Toxicological Sciences, September 2003. Vol 77. No. 1. pp 126-134.
27
Oberdörster, Eva. “Manufactured Nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C60) Induce Oxidative Stress in the Brain of Juvenile
Largemouth Bass,” Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2004. Vol. 112. No. 10.
28
“Understanding Potential Toxic Effects of Carbon-Based Nanomaterials,” Nanotech News, National Cancer Institute
Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer, July 10, 2006.
29
“Modifications render carbon nanotubes nontoxic,” press release, Rice University, October 2005.

Congressional Research Service

11

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer


raised concerns that the dispersion of nanoscale silver in the environment could kill microbes that
are vital to ecosystems.
Like nanoscale silver, other nanoscale particles might produce both positive and negative effects.
For example, some nanoscale particles have the potential to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, a
structure that protects the brain from harmful substances in the blood. Currently, the barrier
hinders the delivery of therapeutic agents to the brain.3042 The characteristics of some nanoscale
materials may allow pharmaceuticals to be developed to purposefully and beneficially cross the
blood-brain barrier and deliver medicine directly to the brain to treat, for example, a brain tumor.
Alternatively, other nanoscale particles might unintentionally pass through this barrier and harm
humans and animals.
There is widespread uncertainty about the potential EHS implications of nanotechnology. A
survey of business leaders in the field of nanotechnology indicated that nearly two-thirds believe
that “the risks to the public, the workforce, and the environment due to exposure to nano particles
are ‘not known,’” and 97% believe that it is very or somewhat important for the government to
address potential health effects and environmental risks that may be associated with
nanotechnology.31
43

38

Lam, C.; James, J.T.; McCluskey, R.; and Hunter, R. “Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7
and 90 days after intratracheal instillation,” Toxicological Sciences, September 2003. Vol 77. No. 1. pp 126-134.
39
Oberdörster, Eva. “Manufactured Nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C60) Induce Oxidative Stress in the Brain of Juvenile
Largemouth Bass,” Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2004. Vol. 112. No. 10.
40
“Understanding Potential Toxic Effects of Carbon-Based Nanomaterials,” Nanotech News, National Cancer Institute
Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer, July 10, 2006.
41
“Modifications render carbon nanotubes nontoxic,” press release, Rice University, October 2005.
42
“Blood-Brain Barrier Breached by New Therapeutic Strategy,” press release, National Institutes of Health, June
2007.
43
“Survey of U.S. Nanotechnology Executives,” Small Times Magazine and the Center for Economic and Civic
Opinion at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, Fall 2006.

Congressional Research Service

13

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Many stakeholders believe that concerns about potential detrimental effects of nanoscale
materials and products on health, safety, and the environment—both real and perceived—must be
addressed for a variety of reasons, including the following:
•

protecting and improving human health, safety, and the environment;

•

enabling accurate and efficient risk assessments, risk management, and costbenefit trade-offs;

•

creating a predictable, stable, and efficient regulatory environment that fosters
investment in nanotechnology-related innovation;

•

ensuring public confidence in the safety of nanotechnology research,
engineering, manufacturing, and use;

•

preventing the negative consequences of a problem in one application area of
nanotechnology from harming the use of nanotechnology in other applications
due to public fears, political interventions, or an overly broad regulatory
response; and

•

ensuring that society can enjoy the widespread economic and societal benefits
that nanotechnology may offer.

Policy issues associated with EHS impacts of nanotechnology include the magnitude, timing, 
foci,
 and management of the federal investment in EHS research; the adequacy of the current regulatory

regulatory structures to protect public health and the environment; and cooperation with other nations

nations engaged in nanotechnology R&D to ensure all are doing so in a responsible manner.

30

“Blood-Brain Barrier Breached by New Therapeutic Strategy,” press release, National Institutes of Health, June
2007.
31
“Survey of U.S. Nanotechnology Executives,” Small Times Magazine and the Center for Economic and Civic
Opinion at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, Fall 2006.

Congressional Research Service

12

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Nanomanufacturing
Securing the economic benefits and societal promiseNanomanufacturing
Securing the potential economic and societal benefits of nanotechnology requires the ability to
translate knowledge of nanoscience into market-ready nanotechnology products.
Nanomanufacturing is the bridge connecting nanoscience and nanotechnology products. Although
some nanotechnology products have already entered the market, these materials and devices have
tended to require only incremental changes in manufacturing processes. Generally, they are
produced in a laboratory environment in limited quantities with a high degree of labor intensity,
high variability, and high costs. To make their way into safe, reliable, effective, and affordable
commercial-scale production in a factory environment may require the development of new and
unique technologies, tools, instruments, measurement science, and standards for
nanomanufacturing.
Several federal agencies support nanomanufacturing R&D focusing on the development of
scalable, reliable, cost-effective manufacturing of nanoscale materials, structures, devices, and
systems. In its FY2014 budget supplement, the NNI reported nanomanufacturing R&D funding of
eight agencies totaling $93.9 million in FY2013, and proposed funding of $100.3 million for
FY2014. For its FY2015 budget supplement, the NNI changed its data collection and reporting
taxonomy, eliminating the Nanomanufacturing program component area (PCA).44 Under the new
PCA taxonomy, nanomanufacturing R&D funding is included in the Nanotechnology Signature
44

The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act directed the NNI to develop and report
nanotechnology R&D funding in finer detail using categories called “Program Component Areas,” or PCAs.

Congressional Research Service

14

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Initiatives45 PCA under the subcategory “Sustainable Nanomanufacturing: Creating the Industries
of the Futures” and may also be included as part of the figures reported for other PCAs, the
Foundational Research PCA and Nanotechnology-Enabled Applications, Devices, and Systems
PCA in particular. Since the other PCAs are not further parsed, it is not possible to identify total
funding for nanomanufacturing R&D. The President’s FY2015 budget proposes $36.2 million for
the Sustainable Nanomanufacturing initiative in FY2015, with NSF, NIST, and NASA accounting
for the largest amount of funds.
In addition, some agencies seek to advance nanomanufacturing through non-R&D activities. For
example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is seeking to stave off
potential nanomanufacturing EHS problems by developing and disseminating case studies that
demonstrate the utility of applying “Prevention through Design” principles to nanomanufacturing.

Public Attitudes and Understanding
What the American people know about nanotechnology and their attitudes toward it may affect


Public Attitudes and Understanding
What the American people know about nanotechnology and the attitudes that they have toward it
may affect the environment for research and development (especially support for public R&D
 funding), 
regulation, market acceptance of products incorporating nanotechnology, and, perhaps,
 the ability 
of nanotechnology to weather a negative event such as an accident or spill.
In 2007industrial accident.
In 2009, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies (PEN) reported results of a nationwide poll of adults that found more than 42%
had “heard68% had heard
little (31%) or nothing at all” (37%) about nanotechnology, while only 631% said that they had “
heard a lot.” In
addition (9%) or some (22%).46 In a 2007 poll, more than half of those surveyed felt they could 
not assess the relative value of
 nanotechnology’s risks and benefits. Among those most likely to 
believe that the benefits outweigh
 the risks were those earning more than $75,000 per year, men, 
people who had previously heard
 “some” or “a lot” about nanotechnology, and those between the 
ages of 35 and 64. Alternatively,
amongConversely, those most likely to believe that the risks of nanotechnology outweigh
outweigh the benefits include
included people earning $30,000 or less; those with a high school diploma 
or less; women; racial and
 ethnic minorities; and those between the ages of 18 and 34 or over age 65.32
The 
65.47
The 2007 PEN survey found a strong positive correlation between familiarity with and awareness of
nanotechnologynanotechnology
familiarity/awareness and perceptions that benefits will outweigh risks. However, the survey data also
indicate that communicating with the public about nanotechnology in the absence of clear,

also indicate that communicating with the public about nanotechnology in the absence of clear,
45
NNI Signature Initiatives are areas of particular focus—solar energy, next-generation electronics, and sustainable
manufacturing—in which participating agencies have identified key opportunities and plan more intensive
programmatic collaboration. There are currently five Signature Initiatives: Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection
and Conversion; Sustainable Nanomanufacturing—Creating the Industries of the Future; Nanoelectronics for 2020 and
Beyond; Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure (NKI): Enabling National Leadership in Sustainable Design; and
Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology—Improving and Protecting Health, Safety, and the
Environment.
46
Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., “Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology, and Public Opinion: A Report of
Findings Based on a National Survey Among Adults,” conducted on behalf of Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies,
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September 22, 2009, http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/
assets/files/8286/nano_synbio.pdf.
47
Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., “Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal
Regulatory Agencies: A Report of Findings,” conducted on behalf of Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies,
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September 2007.

Congressional Research Service

15

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

definitive answers to EHS questions could create a higher level of uncertainty, discomfort, and
opposition.
Congress expressed its belief in the importance of public engagement in the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. §§7501 et seq-7502.). The act
calls  calls
for public input and outreach to be integrated into the NNI’s efforts. The NNI has sought to
foster  foster
public understanding through a variety of mechanisms, including written products,
speaking  speaking
engagements, a web-based information portal (nano.gov), informal education, and
 efforts to 
establish dialogues with stakeholders and the general public. The NSET subcommittee
 has also 
established a Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications working group
to  to
develop approaches by which the NNI can communicate more effectively with the public.
32

“Awareness of and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies: A Report of Findings,”
survey by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, September 2007.

Congressional Research Service

13

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Author Contact Information
John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jsargent@crs.loc.gov, 7-9147

Congressional Research Service

14

Concluding Observations
The federal government has made sustained investments in nanotechnology under the NNI since
FY2001. While numerous nanotechnology applications have been incorporated in commercial
products, they have generally offered incremental improvements in product performance.
Proponents assert that nanotechnology has the potential to bring revolutionary products to market,
reshaping existing industries and creating new ones. These products may bring significant
economic and social benefits to the United States and to the world; however, substantial research,
development, and innovation-related hurdles remain before these benefits might be realized.
Congress may play an active role in addressing some or all of these hurdles. Among the issues
Congress may opt to consider: budget authorization levels for the covered agencies; R&D
funding levels, priorities, and balance across the program component areas; administration and
management of the NNI; translation of research results and early-stage technology into
commercially viable applications; environmental, health, and safety issues; ethical, legal, and
societal implications; education and training for the nanotechnology workforce; metrology,
standards, and nomenclature; public understanding; and international dimensions.

Congressional Research Service

16

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Appendix. Department/Agency Members of the
NSET Subcommittee
As of April 2014, the NSET subcommittee included the following member departments and
agencies:
Consumer Product Safety Commission†*
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service†
Forest Service†
National Institute of Food and Agriculture†
Department of Commerce
Bureau of Industry and Security
Economic Development Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology†
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Department of Defense†
Department of Education
Department of Energy†
Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Food and Drug Administration†
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health†
National Institutes of Health†
Department of Homeland Security†
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of Transportation†
Department of Treasury
Environmental Protection Agency†
Intelligence Community
National Aeronautics and Space Administration†
National Science Foundation†
Nuclear Regulatory Commission*
U.S. International Trade Commission*
†

Indicates a federal department, independent agency, or commission with a budget dedicated
to nanotechnology research and development.

*

Indicates an independent commission that is represented on NSET but is non-voting.

Congressional Research Service

17

 Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer

Author Contact Information
John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jsargent@crs.loc.gov, 7-9147

Congressional Research Service

18

 