.
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
May 30December 19, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34511
c11173008
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
particularly 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
environmental, health, and safety (EHS) concerns. This report provides an overview of these
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 both 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, Congress has appropriated
approximately $19.4 billion for nanotechnology R&D through FY2014. President Obama has
requested $1.5 billion in NNI funding for FY2015.
While more than 60 nations established similar programs 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. As 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. 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, would reauthorize the NNI.Subsequent efforts to amend and reauthorize the act in the 113th Congress, 111th Congress,
and 110th Congress were unsuccessful. No comprehensive reauthorization legislation was
introduced in 112th Congress.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
.
Contents
Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1
The National Nanotechnology Initiative.......................................................................................... 5
Structure .................................................................................................................................... 6
Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Selected IssuesFunding by Agency ................................................................................................................................. 9 7
Funding by Program Component Area................................................................................ 9
Selected Issues ............................................................................................................................... 10
U.S. Competitiveness ................................................................................................................ 9 10
Global Funding.................................................................................................................. 1011
Scientific Papers ................................................................................................................ 1112
Patents ............................................................................................................................... 1213
Environmental, Health, and Safety Implications ..................................................................... 1213
Nanomanufacturing ................................................................................................................. 1415
Public Attitudes and Understanding ........................................................................................ 1516
Concluding Observations............................................................................................................... 1617
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
Table 2. Funding by Program Component Area, FY2013-FY2015 ................................................. 9
Appendixes
Appendix. Department/Agency Members of the NSET Subcommittee ........................................ 1718
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 1819
c11173008
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, Congress has directed its attention 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 and two other subjects of interest
to Congress: nanomanufacturing and public attitudes toward, and understanding of,
nanotechnology.1
Nanotechnology R&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 both the properties of
individual atoms and molecules, on the one hand, and 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 provided
increased appropriations for nanotechnology R&D 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, and authorized
agency funding levels for FY2005 through FY2008. 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. The 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 microchips 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.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
1
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
.
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 a few of the areas
where revolutionary advances may emerge, and for 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 diseases. Current
nanotechnology disease detection efforts include the development of sensors that
can identify biomarkers—such as altered genes,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.7 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
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.September-October 2006, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/
16966157.
7
National Cancer Institute website, Nanoshells, http://nano.cancer.gov/learn/understanding/nanotech_nanoshells.asp.
c11173008
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.
9
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.
c11173008
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.14
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.15
•
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.16
•
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 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.
15
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.
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.
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.
c11173008
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, federal R&D investments in nanotechnology, U.S.
competitiveness in nanotechnology, and EHS-related issues.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
President Clinton launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2000, establishing a multiagency program20 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
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, 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
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 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 for which it authorized appropriations. In the 110th Congress, legislation to amend and
reauthorize the act was introduced in the House (H.R. 5940) and the Senate (S. 3274). 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
c11173008
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..
Legislation to amend and reauthorize the act was introduced in the 113th Congress, 111th
Congress, and 110th Congress. No comprehensive reauthorization legislation was introduced in
112th Congress. In the 113th Congress, bills were introduced in the House and Senate that sought
to amend the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. In the House bill, the
National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2014 was incorporated as part of H.R.
4159, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014, which was referred to two
committees and multiple subcommittees. No further action was taken on the bill. In the Senate,
the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2014 was incorporated as part of S.
2757, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014. S. 2757 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and no further action was taken. 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. Earlier efforts to reauthorize the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act are discussed in CRS Report RL34401, The
National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by
John F. Sargent Jr.
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 20
federal departments and agencies, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the
Office of Management and Budget. (A list of NSET subcommittee member agencies is provided
in the Appendix.) The NSET subcommittee has two working groups: National Environmental
and Health Implications (NEHI) 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 Group—were eliminated.2322 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.”2423 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), which account for approximately 94% of NNI
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
This section provides information on funding for the NNI by agency and by program component
area (PCA).
22
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.
p. 52, http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
2423
NSET, NSTC, National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan , February 2014, pp. 53-54.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
6
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
.
Funding by Agency
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), which accounted for approximately 94% of NNI
funding in FY2014.
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).2524 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
24
Total NNI funding was higher in FY2009 when regular appropriations and American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) funding are counted.
c11173008
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
2013
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
459
442
442
National Science Foundation
150
204
221
256
335
360
389
409
409
101
429
485
466
421
411
412
Department of Energyb
88
89
134
202
208
231
236
245
333
293
374
346
314
314
303
343
Department of Defensec
125
224
220
291
352
424
450
460
459
440
425
426
170
176
144
33
77
64
77
79
78
88
86
93
115
96
95
91
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
64
75
83
464
697
760
989
1,200
1,351
1,425
1,554
1,702
1913
1,845
1,857
1,550
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.
c11173008
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 actual figures for FY2006 and beyond include congressionally directed funding. 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-8
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
.
Funding by Program Component Area
The 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 called for the NSET Subcommittee to
develop categories of investment called Program Component Areas (PCA) to provide a means by
which Congress and the executive branch can be informed of and direct the relative investments
in these areas. The PCAs are categories of investments that cut across the needs and interests of
individual agencies and contribute to the achievement of one or more of the NNI’s goals.
The 2004 NNI Strategic Plan identified seven PCAs. The 2007 NNI Strategic Plan split the
seventh PCA, Societal Dimensions, into two PCAs: Environment, Health, and Safety; and
Education and Societal Dimensions. In 2014, the NSET Subcommittee revised its taxonomy for
PCAs in order “to accommodate the maturation of the Initiative, the enhanced emphasis on
applications, and the greater participation by agencies and communities that are not focused
primarily on R&D.”25 The revision reduces the number of PCAs from eight to five.26
Table 2 provides a funding breakout using the new PCA structure for FY2013 (actual), FY2014
(estimated), and FY2015 (request).
Table 2. Funding by Program Component Area, FY2013-FY2015
(in millions of current dollars)
PCA
Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives
FY2013
Actual
FY2014
Estimated
FY2015
Request
$ 279.9
$ 298.1
$ 291.3
73.6
67.4
69.2
- Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion
- Sustainable Nanomanufacturing
34.7
38.4
36.2
- Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond
87.3
76.7
71.5
7.5
32.1
26.2
- Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure
- Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology
76.8
83.5
88.2
Foundational Research
581.3
539.8
530.4
Nanotechnology-enabled Applications, Devices, and Systems
361.4
363.2
363.0
Research Infrastructure and Instrumentation
212.5
223.2
239.8
Environment, Health, and Safety
115.1
113.3
112.4
$ 1,550.2
$ 1,537.5
$1,536.9
Total
Source: NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s
FY2015 Budget, March 2014, http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_fy15_budget_supplement.pdf.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
25
NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014,
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
26
The five PCAs are: Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives; Foundational Research; Nanotechnology-enabled
Applications, Devices, and Systems; Nanotechnology-enabled Applications, Devices, and Systems; and Research
Infrastructure and Instrumentation. A description of the new PCAs and a chronology of NNI funding by PCA since
FY2001 is available in CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and
Appropriations Issues, by John F. Sargent Jr.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
9
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 more mature technologies and industries—are generally not available for assessing the U.S.
position internationally in nanotechnology. To date, the federal government does not collect data
on nanotechnology-related revenues, trade, or employment, nor are comparable international
government data available.
Nevertheless, many nanotechnology experts assert that the United States, broadly speaking, is the
global leader in nanotechnology. Some 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.
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.2627 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
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.,
27
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.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
910
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 nanotechnology.
With these caveats, the following section reviews input and non-economic output measures as
indicators of the U.S. competitive position in nanotechnology.
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 its 2014 report, Lux
Research estimated total (public and private) global nanotechnology funding for 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.2728 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 led the world in real dollar terms
(adjusted on a currency exchange rate basis).29
28
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.
2829
Global Funding of Nanotechnologies and Its Impact, Cientifica, July 2011, available at http://cientifica.eu/blog/wp(continued...)wpcontent/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Global-Nanotechnology-Funding-Report-2011.pdf.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
1011
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%.2930 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).3031
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 2012.3132 Lux Research previously reported that the
amount of venture capital funding in Europe was one-fifth that of the North American level.3233
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:
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.3334
Reflecting the same trend, the number of papers in the Science Citation Index (SCI)3435 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 U.S. share from 29.5% in 2000 to approximately 23.1% in 2008.35
(...continued)
content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Global-Nanotechnology-Funding-Report-2011.pdf.
2936
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
30
Nanotechnology Update: Corporations Up Their Spending as Revenues for Nano-enabled Products Increases, Lux
Research, Inc., February 2014.
3031
Ibid.
3132
Ibid.
3233
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.
3334
Zucker, L.G. and M.R. Darby. “Socio-Economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and Nanobank,”
National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2005.
3435
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.
3536
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.
c11173008
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
12
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
.
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%).3637
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.3738
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
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;39 that buckyballs
37
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.
3738
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;38 that buckyballs
39
Lam, C.; James, J.T.; McCluskey, R.; and Hunter, R. “Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 7
(continued...)
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
13
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
.
(spherical fullerenes) caused brain damage in fish;3940 and that buckyballs can accumulate within
cells and potentially cause DNA damage.4041 On the other hand, 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.4142
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
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.4243 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.43
38
Lam, C.; James, J.T.; McCluskey, R.; and Hunter, R. “Pulmonary toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in mice 744
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:
(...continued)
and 90 days after intratracheal instillation,” Toxicological Sciences, September 2003. Vol 77. No. 1. pp 126-134.
3940
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.
4041
“Understanding Potential Toxic Effects of Carbon-Based Nanomaterials,” Nanotech News, National Cancer Institute
Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer, July 10, 2006.
4142
“Modifications render carbon nanotubes nontoxic,” press release, Rice University, October 2005.
4243
“Blood-Brain Barrier Breached by New Therapeutic Strategy,” press release, National Institutes of Health, June
2007.
4344
“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.
c11173008
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:
14
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
.
•
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 structures to protect public health and the environment; and cooperation with other
nations engaged in nanotechnology R&D to ensure all are doing so in a responsible manner.
Nanomanufacturing
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).4445 Under the new
PCA taxonomy, nanomanufacturing R&D funding is included in the Nanotechnology Signature
44Initiatives46 PCA under the subcategory “Sustainable Nanomanufacturing: Creating the Industries
45
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
46
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
(continued...)
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
15
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
.
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
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 industrial 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 68% had heard
little (31%) or nothing at all (37%) about nanotechnology, while only 31% said that they had
heard a lot (9%) or some (22%).4647 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. Conversely, those most likely to believe that the risks of nanotechnology
outweigh the benefits 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
65.4748
The 2007 PEN survey found a strong positive correlation between nanotechnology
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,
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 anddefinitive answers to EHS questions could create a higher level of uncertainty, discomfort, and
opposition.
(...continued)
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.
4647
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.
4748
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.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
1516
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. §§7501-7502.). The act calls
for public input and outreach to be integrated into the NNI’s efforts. The NNI has sought to foster
public understanding through a variety of mechanisms, including written products, 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
develop approaches by which the NNI can communicate more effectively with the public.
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.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
1617
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*
c11173008
†
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
1718
Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer
.
Author Contact Information
John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jsargent@crs.loc.gov, 7-9147
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
1819