The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and
Appropriations Issues
John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
January 19, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34401
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Summary
Nanotechnology—a term encompassing the science, engineering, and applications of submicron
materials—involves the harnessing of unique physical, chemical, and biological properties of
nanoscale substances in fundamentally new and useful ways. The economic and societal promise
of nanotechnology has led to substantial and sustained investments by governments and
companies around the world. In 2000, the United States launched the world’s first national
nanotechnology program. From FY2001 through FY2010, the federal government invested
approximately $12.4 billion in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology through the U.S.
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). President Obama requested $1.8 billion in NNI
funding for FY2011, a level generally supported by the current continuing resolution (P.L. 111-
322). U.S. companies and state governments have invested billions more. As a result of this focus
and these investments, the United States has, in the view of many experts, emerged as a global
leader in nanotechnology. However, the competition for global leadership in nanotechnology is
intensifying as countries and companies around the world increase their investments.
Nanotechnology’s complexity and intricacies, early stage of development (with commercial pay-
off possibly years away for many potential applications), and broad scope of potential
applications engender a wide range of public policy issues. Maintaining U.S. technological and
commercial leadership in nanotechnology poses a variety of technical and policy challenges,
including development of technologies that will enable commercial scale manufacturing of
nanotechnology materials and products; environmental, health, and safety (EHS) concerns; and
maintenance of public confidence in its safety.
Congress established programs, assigned responsibilities, and initiated research and development
(R&D) related to these issues in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
of 2003 (P.L. 108-153). While many provisions of this act have no sunset provision, FY2008 was
the last year of agency authorizations included in the act. 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, the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010. This title was removed from the bill prior to
enactment.
Proponents of the NNI assert that nanotechnology is one of the most important emerging and
enabling technologies and that U.S. competitiveness, technological leadership, national security,
and societal interests require an aggressive approach to the development and commercialization
of nanotechnology. Critics of the NNI voice concerns that reflect disparate underlying beliefs.
Some critics assert that the government is not doing enough to move technology from the
laboratory into the marketplace. Others argue that the magnitude of the public investment may
skew what should be market-based decisions in research, development, and commercialization.
Still other critics say that the inherent risks of nanotechnology are not being addressed in a timely
or effective manner.
Congressional Research Service
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 2
National Nanotechnology Initiative ............................................................................................. 7
Vision and Goals................................................................................................................... 7
History.................................................................................................................................. 8
Legislative Approach ............................................................................................................ 8
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 ............................ 9
Reauthorization Efforts ................................................................................................. 11
Structure ............................................................................................................................. 12
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee................................... 12
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office .............................................................. 13
Funding .............................................................................................................................. 14
Agency Funding............................................................................................................ 16
Program Component Area Funding ............................................................................... 18
Centers, Networks, and User Facilities ................................................................................ 23
Selected NNI Reports and Assessments ..................................................................................... 24
Selected NNI Reports.......................................................................................................... 24
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a
Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2011
Budget ....................................................................................................................... 25
The National Nanotechnology Strategic Plan (2007)...................................................... 25
Strategy for Nanotechnology-related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research ........ 26
Prioritization of Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for
Engineered Nanoscale Materials: An Interim Document for Public Comment ............. 27
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Environmental, Health, and Safety
Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials.................................................. 27
Selected NNI Assessments .................................................................................................. 28
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology ........................................................ 28
Addendum to the National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology ........................................................ 30
A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative............... 31
The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology ........................................................ 35
Selected Nanotechnology Legislation in the 111th Congress....................................................... 38
Title I, Subtitle A, H.R. 5116 (111th Congress)—National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2010................................................................................................. 38
H.R. 554 (111th Congress)—National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of
2009 ................................................................................................................................ 38
S. 1482 (111th Congress)—National Nanotechnology Amendments Act of 2009 ................. 40
S. 596 (111th Congress)—Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act of
2009 ................................................................................................................................ 42
Congressional Research Service
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
H.R. 820 (111th Congress)—Nanotechnology Advancement and New
Opportunities Act ............................................................................................................. 43
H.R. 2647 (111th Congress)—National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010 ................................................................................................................................ 44
S. 3117 (111th Congress)—Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act .................................. 44
H.R. 4502 (111th Congress)—Nanotechnology Education Act ............................................ 44
S. 2942 (111th Congress)—Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010.......................................... 45
H.R. 5786 (111th Congress)—Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010................................................... 45
Concluding Observations .......................................................................................................... 45
Figures
Figure 1. Organizations With a Role in the National Nanotechnology Initiative and Their
Relationships ......................................................................................................................... 15
Tables
Table 1. NNI Funding, by Agency: FY2001-FY2010 and FY2011 Request................................ 17
Table 2. NNI Funding, by Program Component Area, FY2006-FY2010 and FY2011
Request .................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendixes
Appendix A. Selected Reports on the National Nanotechnology Initiative ................................. 47
Appendix B. List of NNI and Nanotechnology-Related Acronyms............................................. 49
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 50
Congressional Research Service
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Introduction
Nanotechnology has been an issue of interest to Congress for a number of years, coming into
focus in 2000 with the launch of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) by President
Clinton in his FY2001 budget request to Congress. From FY2001 through FY2011, Congress
appropriated approximately $14.2 billion for nanotechnology research and development (R&D).1
These efforts have been directed at advancing understanding and control of matter at the
nanoscale,2 where the physical, chemical, and biological properties of materials differ in
fundamental and useful ways from the
properties of individual atoms or bulk
Nanotechnology: A Description
matter.3
The term “nanotechnology” is often used as an al -
encompassing term for nanoscale science, engineering, and
The development and application of
technology. Nanotechnology is the understanding and
nanotechnology—more fully explained
control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100
nanometers, the size-scale between individual atoms and
below—across a wide array of products and
bulk materials, where unique phenomena enable novel
industries holds the potential for significant
applications. A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter, or
economic and societal benefits. To capture
about the width of 10 hydrogen atoms arranged side-by-
these benefits, the United States will have to
side in a line. Nanotechnology involves imaging, measuring,
modeling, and manipulating matter at this size-scale.
effectively address a variety of technical and
policy challenges that stand as potential
At the nanoscale, the physical, chemical, and biological
barriers to commercialization, including
properties of materials can differ in fundamental and useful
ways from the properties of individual atoms and molecules
environmental, health, and safety (EHS)
or bulk matter. Nanotechnology R&D is directed toward
concerns and their implications for
understanding and creating improved materials, devices, and
workplace, environmental, food, and drug
systems that exploit these new properties.
regulations; development of standards,
Physicist Richard Feynman’s remarks at the 1959 annual
reference materials, and consistent
meeting of the American Physical Society are often cited as
nomenclature; development of new
the first articulation of and vision for nanotechnology.
measurement methods and tools; effective
Though he did not use the term nanotechnology in this
speech, he spoke of controlling matter at the nanoscale and
technology transfer to the private sector;
creating atomic-level machines, positing some of the
protection of intellectual property;
applications that doing so might enable.
availability, affordability, and patience of
Source: The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, 2004,
investment capital; ethical, legal, and
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee,
societal concerns; public understanding,
National Science and Technology Council, The White House,
support, and acceptance; and development
December 2004.
of a world-class scientific and technical
nanotechnology workforce.
This report provides an overview of nanotechnology, the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
possible reauthorization of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of
2003 (P.L. 108-153), and appropriations issues.
1 This figure assumes approximately $1.8 billion in funding for FY2011 based on the current continuing resolution
providing the same level of funding provided in FY2010.
2 In the context of the NNI and nanotechnology, the nanoscale refers to a dimension of 1 to 100 nanometers (see box on
this page).
3 While extensive R&D has been, and continues to be, conducted to understand and harness the properties of individual
atoms, this is not the domain of nanotechnology.
Congressional Research Service
1
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Overview
The economic and societal promise of nanotechnology has led to involvement and investments by
governments and companies around the world. In 2000, the United States became the first nation
to establish a formal, national initiative to advance nanoscale science, engineering, and
technology—the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Through FY2011, Congress has
appropriated approximately $14.2 billion in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology
through the NNI. U.S. companies and state governments have invested billions more.
As a result of this focus and these investments, the United States has emerged as a global leader
in nanotechnology. However, the competition for global leadership is intensifying as foreign
investments in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology increase. Other nations have
followed the U.S. lead and established their own national nanotechnology programs, each with
varying degrees of investment, foci, and support for industrial applications and
commercialization. Today, almost every nation that supports R&D has a national-level
nanotechnology program.
Global public investments in nanotechnology in 2009 alone were estimated to be $9.8 billion,
with cumulative global public investments through 2009 reaching approximately $50 billion.4 In
2005, an assessment of the NNI by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) reported that the United States leads all other nations in public investments
in nanotechnology R&D, accounting for about a quarter of global annual public investments.5 An
April 2009 report by Cientifica, a privately held nanotechnology business analysis and consulting
firm, states that the U.S. share of global public nanotechnology funding has fallen to 19% in 2009
from 31% in 2004, calculated on a currency exchange rate basis, behind Russia (23%) and the
European Union (EU) States (collectively, 27%).6 The situation appears even less favorable when
the share of investment is calculated on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis (which takes into
account the price of goods and services in each nation). Using a PPP approach, Cientifica
concluded in its report that the U.S. share of global public nanotechnology investments is 16%,
less than Russia (25%) and the EU States (27%), and the same as China (16%).7
Global investments in nanotechnology already have begun to yield economic benefits as products
incorporating nanotechnology enter the marketplace. These products are estimated to have
produced $147 billion in revenues in 2007 (including $59 billion in the United States, $47 billion
in Europe, $31 billion in Asia/Pacific, and $9 billion in other nations).8 By tapping the unique
properties that emerge at the nanoscale, proponents maintain that nanotechnology holds the
potential for products that could transform existing industries and create new ones, clean and
4 Nanotechnology Takes a Deep Breath…and Prepares to Save the World, Cientifica, April 2009, available at
http://www.cientifica.eu/files/Whitepapers/Nanotechnology%20Takes%20a%20Deep%20Breath.pdf.
5 The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, May 2005, available at
http://www.nano.gov/html/res/FINAL_PCAST_NANO_REPORT.pdf.
6 Nanotechnology Takes a Deep Breath…and Prepares to Save the World, Cientifica, April 2009, available at
http://www.cientifica.eu/files/Whitepapers/Nanotechnology%20Takes%20a%20Deep%20Breath.pdf.
7 Ibid.
8 “Overhyped Technology Starts to Reach Potential,” press release, Lux Research, July 22, 2008.
http://www.luxresearchinc.com/press/RELEASE_Nano-SMR_7_22_08.pdf. Numbers do not add to total due to
rounding.
Congressional Research Service
2
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
protect the environment, extend and improve the quality of our lives, and strengthen national
security. Most nanotechnology products currently on the market—such as faster computer
processors, higher density memory devices, lighter-weight auto parts, stain-resistant clothing,
antibiotic bandages, cosmetics, and clear sunscreen—are evolutionary in nature, offering
incremental improvements in characteristics such as performance, aesthetics, cost, size, and
weight.
Evolutionary nanotechnology products, however, represent only a small fraction of what many
see as the substantial longer-term economic and societal promise of nanotechnology. One
estimate projects nanotechnology product revenues will reach $3.1 trillion by 2015,9 while
another estimate projects revenues will reach $2.95 billion by 2015, of which almost half will
come from semiconductors.10, 11
Many nanotechnology advocates—including business executives, scientists, engineers, medical
professionals, and venture capitalists—assert that in the longer term, nanotechnology, especially
in combination with information technology, biotechnology, and the cognitive sciences, may
deliver revolutionary advances, including:
• new prevention, detection, and treatment technologies that could reduce
substantially death and suffering from cancer and other deadly illnesses;12
• new organs to replace damaged or diseased ones;13
• contact lenses, skin patches, and glucose-sensing tattoos that monitor diabetics’
blood sugar levels and warn when too high or low;14
• clothing that protects against toxins and pathogens;15
• clean, inexpensive, renewable power through energy creation, storage, and
transmission technologies;16
• inexpensive, portable water purification systems that provide universal access to
safe water;17
• energy efficient, low-emission “green” manufacturing systems;18
9 Ibid
10 Halfway to the Trillion Dollar Market: A Critical Review of the Diffusion of Nanotechnologies, Cientifica, 2007.
http://www.cientifica.eu/files/Whitepapers/A%20Reassessment%20of%20the%20Trillion%20WP.pdf
11 While views vary on how to calculate nanotechnology’s contribution to these products, the consensus is that
nanotechnology is likely to have a significant economic impact and transformative effect on many industries.
12 National Cancer Institute website. http://nano.cancer.gov/resource_center/tech_backgrounder.asp
13 Ibid.
14 Aslan, Kadir; Lakowicz, Joseph R.; and Geddes, Chris D. “Nanogold plasmon resonance-based glucose sensing.
Wavelength-ratiometric resonance light scattering,” Analytical Chemistry, 2005, Vol. 77. Strategic Plan for Pediatric
Urology, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease, National Institutes of Health, Department of
Health and Human Services, February 2006.
15 Risbud, Aditi. “Fruit of the Nano Loom,” Technology Review, February 2006.
16 Nanoscience Research for Energy Needs, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National
Science and Technology Council, The White House, December 2004.
17 Risbud, Aditi. “Cheap Drinking Water from the Ocean,” Technology Review, June 2006.
18 Selko, Adrienne. “New Nanotechnology-Based Coatings Are Energy Efficient and Environmentally Sound,”
Industry Week, August 22, 2007. “Tomorrow’s Green Nanofactories,” Science Daily, July 11, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
3
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
• high-density memory systems capable of storing the entire Library of Congress
collection on a device the size of a sugar cube;19
• agricultural technologies that increase crop yield and improve nutritional value,
reducing global hunger and malnutrition;20
• self-repairing materials;21
• powerful, small, inexpensive sensors that can warn of minute levels of toxins and
pathogens in air, soil, or water;22 and
• decontaminated industrial sites through environmental remediation.23
While some applications of nanotechnology have proven market-ready, much fundamental
research remains ahead, including efforts to advance understanding of nanoscale phenomena;
characterize nanoscale materials; understand how to control and manipulate nanoscale particles;
develop instrumentation and measurement methods; and understand how nanoscale particles
interact with humans, animals, plants, and the environment. In addition, several federal
agencies—such as the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security—see the
potential for nanotechnology to help address mission requirements. Historically, the federal
government has played a central role in funding these types of research and development
activities.
Though federal nanoscale science, engineering, and technology R&D had been underway for over
a decade, the NNI was first initiated as a Presidential technology initiative in 2000.24 The original
participating agencies were the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Defense
(DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institutes
of Health (NIH). In 2010, 25 agencies participated in the NNI, including 14 that received
appropriations to conduct and/or fund nanotechnology R&D. Since its first year of funding in
19 National Nanotechnology Initiative—Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution, Interagency Working Group on
Nanoscience, Engineering, and Technology, National Science and Technology Council, The White House.
http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/iwgn/iwgn.fy01budsuppl/nni.pdf
20 21st Century Agriculture: A Critical Role for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 2003;
and Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems: Draft Report of the National Planning
Workshop to the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
July 2003.
21 Nanotechnology in Space Exploration, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National
Science and Technology Council, The White House, August 2004, available at http://www.nano.gov/
nni_space_exploration_rpt.pdf.
22 Nanotechnology and the Environment, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National
Science and Technology Council, The White House, May 2003, available at http://www.nano.gov/
NNI_Nanotechnology_and_the_Environment.pdf.
23 Proceedings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Workshop on Nanotechnology for Site Remediation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 2005.
24 “National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,” press release, The White House,
January 21, 2000. http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000121_4.html; and “Steering the technology that will
redefine life as we know it,” Industrial Biotechnology, Vol. 1, No. 3, Fall 2005. http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/
reports/mcr_ind_biotech_interview.pdf
Congressional Research Service
4
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
FY2001, the NNI’s annual appropriations have grown nearly four-fold to an estimated $1.8
billion in FY2010.25
In 2003, Congress provided a statutory foundation for some of the activities of the NNI through
the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153). The act
established a National Nanotechnology Program (NNP) and provided authorizations for a subset
of the NNI agencies, namely the NSF, DOE, NASA, NIST, and Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).26 The act, however, did not address the participation of several agencies that fund
nanotechnology R&D under the NNI, including DOD, NIH, and the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). Nevertheless, coordination of nanotechnology R&D activities across all NNI
funding agencies continues under the National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC’s)
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) subcommittee.27 According to the
NSET subcommittee’s 2004 NNI Strategic Plan, “For continuity and to capture this broader
participation, the coordinated federal activities as a whole will continue to be referred to as the
National Nanotechnology Initiative.” Accordingly, the functions and activities established under
the act are incorporated into the executive branch’s implementation of the NNI.
The thrust of the NNI has primarily been the development of fundamental scientific knowledge
through basic research. Investments at mission agencies, such as DOD, have supported
nanotechnology applications development for which they are a primary customer. Other
investments have supported infrastructural technologies. For example, NIST has contributed to
developing tools and standards that enable measurement and control of matter at the nanoscale,
thereby supporting the conduct of R&D and the ability to manufacture nanoscale materials and
products. As understanding of nanotechnology has matured, the NNI has worked with a variety of
industry organizations to facilitate the movement of research results from the laboratory bench to
the marketplace in fields as disparate as semiconductors, chemicals, energy, concrete, and forest
products.
The NNI agencies also have begun to address research needs and regulatory issues related to
environmental, health, and safety issues, as well as issues such as public understanding and
workforce education and training. The NNI agencies actively engage in a variety of international
fora, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the
International Standards Organization (ISO), to cooperatively address nanotechnology issues
related to EHS, metrology28 and standards, nomenclature, and nanoscale materials
characterization.
25 This figure includes $1.657 billion in regular appropriations and $0.140 billion in funding provided by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5).
26 While many provisions of this act have no sunset provision, FY2008 was the last year of agency authorizations
included in the act.
27 Prior to P.L. 108-153, the Bob Stump Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107-314) required DOD
to “provide for interagency cooperation and collaboration on nanoscale research and development.” The NSET
subcommittee is a subcommittee of the NSTC Committee on Technology.
28 Metrology is the science of measurement, including the equipment and processes used to produce a measurement.
Congressional Research Service
5
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Maintaining U.S. leadership poses a variety of technical, economic, and policy challenges,
including:
• safeguarding the environment and ensuring human health and safety;
• creating the standards, reference materials, nomenclature, methods, and tools for
metrology to enable the manufacturing of nanoscale materials and products;
• developing a world-class scientific and technical nanotechnology workforce;
• translating research results into products, including effective technology transfer
to the private sector;
• understanding public perceptions and attitudes and fostering public
understanding;
• addressing ethical, legal and societal implications;
• protecting intellectual property;
• securing investment capital for early-stage research, development, and
commercialization; and
• fostering and facilitating international cooperation and coordination.
Proponents of the NNI assert that nanotechnology is one of the most important emerging and
enabling technologies29 and that U.S. competitiveness, technological leadership, national security,
and societal interests require an aggressive approach to the development and commercialization
of nanotechnology. Critics of the NNI hold a variety of competing views, asserting that
government is not doing enough, is doing too much, or is moving too quickly.
Some in industry have criticized the NNI for being overly focused on basic research and not
being aggressive enough in moving NNI-funded R&D out of government and university
laboratories and into industry. Others in industry have criticized the federal government for not
providing mechanisms to help advance nanotechnology R&D to the point where it becomes
economically viable for venture capitalists, corporations, and other investors to create products
and bring them to market. Some refer to this gap as the “valley of death.”30 Still others in industry
have criticized the NNI for not adequately supporting the development of metrology, standards,
equipment, and processes necessary to manufacture nanotechnology materials, products, and
systems at a commercial scale.
Conversely, supporters of industry-driven market investments contend that extensive government
support for nanotechnology may supplant the judgment of the marketplace by picking “winners
and losers” in technological development. For example, the size and directions of the NNI
investments may encourage industry to follow the government’s lead rather than independently
selecting R&D directions itself or, alternatively, may result in the promotion of a less effective
29 The Department of Commerce has characterized emerging and enabling technologies as those that “offer a wide
breadth of potential application and form an important technical basis for future commercial applications.” (ATP Rule,
15 C.F.R. Part 295).
30 The term “valley of death” is used by business executives, economists, and venture capitalists to describe the
development gap that often exists between a laboratory discovery and the market’s willingness to invest to advance the
discovery to a final commercial product. This gap occurs due to a variety of issues, such as technical risk, market
uncertainty, and likelihood of obtaining an adequate return on investment.
Congressional Research Service
6
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
technology path over a more effective one. These supporters also assert that federal government
funding of scientific research is often wasteful, driven by political considerations and not
scientific merit.31
Some non-governmental organizations (NGO) are critical of nanotechnology for its potential
adverse impacts on human health and safety and on the environment. They assert that the
government is pushing ahead too quickly in developing nanotechnology and encouraging its
commercialization and use without adequately investing in research focused on understanding
and mitigating negative EHS implications.32 They argue that the very characteristics that make
nanotechnology promising also present significant potential risks to human health and safety and
the environment. Some of these critics argue for application of the “precautionary principle,”
which holds that regulatory action may be required to control potentially hazardous substances
even before a causal link has been established by scientific evidence.33 At least one NGO has
called for a moratorium on nanotechnology R&D and new commercial products incorporating
synthetic nanoparticles.34
National Nanotechnology Initiative
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is an interagency program that coordinates federal
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology R&D activities and related efforts among
participating agencies.
Vision and Goals
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) has stated the following vision for
the NNI:
A future in which the ability to understand and control matter on the nanoscale leads to a
revolution in technology and industry. The NNI will expedite the discovery, development,
and deployment of nanotechnology in order to achieve responsible and sustainable economic
benefits, to enhance the quality of life, and to promote national security.35
31 Crews, Clyde Wayne, Jr., “Washington’s Big Little Pork Barrel: Nanotechnology,” Cato Institute website, May 29,
2003.
32 Testimony of Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars, “Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status
of Planning and Implementation under the National Nanotechnology Initiative,” hearing, Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education, House Committee on Science and Technology, October 31, 2007.
33 “NGOs urge precautionary principle in use of nanomaterials,” EurActiv.com, June 14, 2007.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/ngos-urge-precautionary-principle-use-nanomaterials/article-164619 Sass,
Jennifer. “Nanotechnology and the Precautionary Principle,” presentation, Natural Resources Defense Council, 2006.
http://docs.nrdc.org/health/hea_06121402a.pdf The precautionary principle has been used in other countries on some
issues. For example, the Biosafety Protocol to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity incorporates provisions
applying the precautionary principle to the safe handling, transfer, and trade of genetically modified organisms. For
further information, see CRS Report RL30594, Biosafety Protocol for Genetically Modified Organisms: Overview, by
Alejandro E. Segarra and Susan R. Fletcher.
34 “No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium—Size Matters!,” Occasional Paper Series, ETC Group,
April 2003. http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/165
35 The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
To achieve its vision, the NNI has established four goals: maintain a world-class R&D program
aimed at realizing the full potential of nanotechnology; facilitate transfer of new technologies into
products that provide economic growth, jobs, and other public benefits; develop educational
resources, a skilled workforce, and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance
nanotechnology; and support responsible development of nanotechnology.36
History
Attempts to coordinate federal nanoscale R&D began in November 1996, as staff members from
several agencies met regularly to discuss their plans and programs in nanoscale science and
technology. This group continued informally until September 1998, when it was designated as the
Interagency Working Group on Nanotechnology (IWGN) under the NSTC. In August 1999,
IWGN completed its first draft of a plan for an initiative in nanoscale science and technology,
which was subsequently approved by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).37
In his 2001 budget submission to Congress, then-President Clinton raised nanotechnology-related
research to the level of a federal initiative, officially referring to it as the National
Nanotechnology Initiative.38
Legislative Approach
Congress has played a central role in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, providing
appropriations for the conduct of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology research;
establishing programs; and creating a legislative foundation for the activities of the NNI.
Congressional funding for the NNI is provided through appropriations to each of the NNI-
participating agencies. The NNI has no centralized funding. The overall NNI budget is calculated
by aggregating the nanotechnology budgets for each of the federal agencies that conduct or
provide funding for nanoscale science, engineering, and technology research.
In FY2001, the first year of NNI funding, Congress provided $464 million to eight agencies for
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology research.39 The NNI has continued to receive
support from both Congress and the White House. Both the number of agencies participating in
the NNI and the size of the federal investment have grown. Currently 25 agencies participate in
(...continued)
Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, December 2004, available at
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_Strategic_Plan_2004.pdf.
36 Ibid.
37 National Nanotechnology Initiative website. http://www.nano.gov/html/about/history.html
38 “National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,” press release, The White House,
January 21, 2000. http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000121_4.html; and National Nanotechnology Initiative
website. http://www.nano.gov/html/about/history.html
39 In its January 21, 2001 press release, “National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial
Revolution,” announcing the establishment of the NNI, the White House identified only six participating agencies—
NSF, DOD, DOE, NIST, NASA, and NIH. Subsequently, EPA and DOJ reported nanotechnology R&D funding in
FY2001, bringing the total number of agencies funding nanotechnology R&D in FY2001 to eight.
Congressional Research Service
8
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
the NNI, 14 of which received appropriated funds for nanotechnology R&D in FY2010.40 Total
NNI funding in FY2010 was approximately $1.8 billion, more than three times the level of
funding provided in FY2001. The original six agencies identified at the launch of the NNI41 still
account for the vast majority of NNI funding (96.3% in FY2010).
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003
Congress codified and further defined some of the NNI’s activities in the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 which was passed by Congress in
November 2003, and signed into law (P.L. 108-153) by President Bush on December 3, 2003.42
The legislation received strong bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives, which
passed the bill on a recorded vote of 405-19, and in the Senate, which passed the bill by
unanimous consent.
Though this act is often referred to as the enabling legislation for the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, the act actually establishes a National Nanotechnology Program (NNP). The act
provides authorizations for five NNI agencies—the National Science Foundation, Department of
Energy, NASA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Environmental Protection
Agency—but not for the Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, Department of
Homeland Security,43 or other NNI research agencies that collectively accounted for 46% of NNI
funding in FY2003.
The act created the NNP for the purposes of establishing the goals, priorities, and metrics for
evaluation of federal nanotechnology research, development, and other activities; investing in
federal R&D programs in nanotechnology and related sciences to achieve those goals; and
providing for interagency coordination of federal nanotechnology research, development, and
other activities undertaken pursuant to the NNP.
40 NNI participants include agencies that either conduct or provide funding for nanotechnology R&D, as well as
agencies with missions that may affect the development, commercialization, and use of nanotechnology. For example,
in the latter case, the Food and Drug Administration may regulate (or not regulate) nanotechnology products, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) treatment of nanotechnology-related patents may affect the value of the
underlying intellectual property, and the execution of the missions of the Departments of Education and Labor could
affect the preparedness of the U.S. workforce for emerging nanotechnology jobs. Some nanotechnology R&D agencies
may also have non-R&D missions related to nanotechnology. For example, EPA conducts and funds R&D but also has
a regulatory mission that could affect nanotechnology research, development, production, use, and/or disposal.
41 The original six agencies identified at the launch of the NNI were the Department of Defense, Department of Energy,
National Institute of Standards and Technology (Department of Commerce), National Science Foundation, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Institutes of Health (DHHS). “National Nanotechnology
Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,” press release, The White House, January 21, 2000.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000121_4.html; and National Nanotechnology Initiative website.
http://www.nano.gov/html/about/history.html
42 U.S. Congress. 2003. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. P.L. 108-153. 15 U.S.C. 7501.
108 Cong., December 3.
43 FY2003 funding attributed to DHS for the purpose of this calculation is based on nanotechnology R&D
appropriations received by the Department of Transportation’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA
was transferred to DHS in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) which was enacted after the start of
FY2003.
Congressional Research Service
9
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Key provisions of the act include:
• authorizing appropriations for the nanotechnology-related activities of the
National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, NASA, National Institute
of Standards and Technology, and Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal
years 2005 through 2008, totaling $3.679 billion for the four year period;
• establishing a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, with a director and
full time staff to provide administrative support to the NSTC;
• establishing a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) to advise the
President and the NSTC on matters relating to the NNP.
• establishing a triennial review of the NNP by the National Research Council of
the National Academies of Sciences;
• directing the NSTC to oversee the planning, management, and coordination of
the program, including the development of a triennial strategic plan;
• directing the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and
Technology to establish a program to conduct basic research on issues related to
the development and manufacture of nanotechnology, and to use the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to ensure results reach small- and
medium-sized manufacturing companies;
• directing the Secretary of Commerce to use the National Technical Information
Service to establish a clearinghouse of information related to commercialization
of nanotechnology research;
• directing the Secretary of Energy to establish a program to support consortia to
conduct interdisciplinary nanotechnology R&D designed to integrate newly
developed nanotechnology and microfluidic tools with systems biology and
molecular imaging;
• directing the Secretary of Energy to carry out projects to develop, plan, construct,
acquire, operate, or support special equipment, instrumentation, or facilities for
investigators conducting nanotechnology R&D; and
• directing the establishment of two centers, on a merit-reviewed and competitive
basis: (1) the American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center, to conduct,
coordinate, collect, and disseminate studies on the societal, ethical,
environmental, educational, legal, and workforce implications of
nanotechnology; and to identify anticipated issues related to the responsible
research, development, and application of nanotechnology, as well as provide
recommendations for preventing or addressing such issues, and (2) the Center for
Nanomaterials Manufacturing, to encourage, conduct, coordinate, commission,
collect, and disseminate research on new manufacturing technologies for
materials, devices, and systems with new combinations of characteristics, such
as, but not limited to, strength, toughness, density, conductivity, flame resistance,
and membrane separation characteristics; and to develop mechanisms to transfer
such manufacturing technologies to U.S. industries.
While the act establishes a National Nanotechnology Program, the executive branch continues its
broader effort under the NNI framework and name. According to the NNI’s 2004 Strategic Plan:
Congressional Research Service
10
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Many of the activities outlined in the Act were already in progress as part of the NNI.
Moreover, the ongoing management of the initiative involves considerable input from
Federal agencies that are not named specifically in the Act.... For continuity, and to capture
this broader participation, the coordinated Federal activities as a whole will continue to be
referred to as the National Nanotechnology Initiative.44
Reauthorization Efforts
The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act provided a legislative
foundation for some of the activities of the NNI, authorized agency funding levels through
FY2008, and sought to address challenges associated with the development and
commercialization of nanotechnology. While many provisions of this act have no sunset
provision, FY2008 was the last year of agency authorizations included in the act.
Legislation to amend and reauthorize the act was introduced in the House in both the 110th
Congress and 111th Congress:
• H.R. 5940 (110th Congress) and S. 3274 (110th Congress) were both titled the
National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. The House passed
H.R. 5940 by a vote of 407-6; the Senate did not act on S. 3274.
• H.R. 554 (111th Congress), the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments
Act of 2009, contained essentially the same provisions as H.R. 5940 (110th
Congress). In February 2009, the House passed the bill by voice vote under a
suspension of the rules. The Senate did not act on H.R. 554.
• S. 1482 (111th Congress), the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments
Act of 2009, was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further action was taken.
• H.R. 820 (111th Congress), the Nanotechnology Advancement and New
Opportunities Act, also would have amended P.L. 108-153. The provisions of
H.R. 820 covered a variety of jurisdictions, thus the bill was assigned to multiple
House committees. 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, the “National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2010.” Provisions of this subtitle were nearly identical to the
provisions of H.R. 554 (111th Congress). This title was removed from the bill
prior to its enactment.
For additional information on these bills, see “Selected Nanotechnology Legislation in the 111th
Congress.”
44 The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, December 2004, available at
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_Strategic_Plan_2004.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Structure
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee
The NNI is coordinated within the White House through the NSTC, the Cabinet-level council by
which the President coordinates science, space, and technology policies across the federal
government. Operationally, NNI coordination is accomplished through the Nanoscale Science,
Engineering, and Technology (NSET) subcommittee of the NSTC’s Committee on Technology
(CT). The NSET subcommittee also has an informal reporting relationship to the NSTC’s
Committee on Science (CS). The NSET subcommittee is led by an agency co-chair, currently
from the Department of Energy (DOE), and an OSTP co-chair. The NSET subcommittee is
comprised of representatives from 25 federal entities (including 15 that have funded, over the
course of the NNI, nanotechnology R&D), OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget.45
The NSET subcommittee has established several working groups, each taking on efforts in key
subject areas.46 Among them:
National Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI)
The National Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) working group was chartered to
provide for exchange of information among agencies that support research and those responsible
for regulations and guidelines related to nanotechnology products; to facilitate identification,
prioritization, and implementation of research and other activities required for the responsible
research, development, utilization, and oversight of nanotechnology; and to promote
communication of information related to research on environmental and health implications of
nanotechnology to other government agencies and non-government parties. To this end, the NEHI
working group seeks to identify and prioritize environmental, health, and safety research needs
related to nanotechnology. Twenty NNI agencies participate in the NEHI working group, and 13
agencies fund safety-related nanotechnology research and/or have regulatory authorities to guide
the safe use of nanomaterials.47
45 The agencies that participate in the NSET subcommittee comprise the NNI. NSET subcommittee members include
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce; Consumer Product Safety Commission; National Institute
of Food and Agriculture, Department of Agriculture; Department of Defense; Department of Education; Department of
Energy; Department of Homeland Security; Department of Justice; Department of Labor; Department of State;
Department of Transportation; Department of the Treasury; Environmental Protection Agency; Food and Drug
Administration; Forest Service, Department of Agriculture; Director of National Intelligence; International Trade
Commission; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Center for Disease Control, Department of
Health and Human Services; National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce; National
Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; U.S. Geological Survey; and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce’s Technology Administration was a participating agency in
the NNI until its elimination in August 2007 under the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69).
46 The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and
Industry-Supplement to the President’s FY2008 Budget, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, July 2007, available at
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_08Budget.pdf.
47 Testimony of E. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office, Research on
Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and Implementation under the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Nanomanufacturing, Industry Liaison, and Innovation(NILI)
The Nanomanufacturing, Industry Liaison, and Innovation (NILI) working group was chartered
to enhance collaboration and information sharing between U.S. industry and government on
nanotechnology-related activities. It also facilitates federal, regional, state, and local
nanotechnology R&D and commercialization activities. In addition, the NILI working group is to
create innovative methods for transferring federally funded technology to industry. The NILI
working group has facilitated collaborations between the NNI and the semiconductor/electronics
industry, chemical industry, forest products industry, and the Industrial Research Institute.48
Global Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN)
The Global Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN) working group was chartered to monitor foreign
nanotechnology programs and development; broaden international collaboration on
nanotechnology R&D, including safeguarding the environment and human health; and promote
U.S. commercial and trade interests in nanotechnology. The NEHI working group works with the
GIN working group to coordinate the U.S. position and participation in international activities
related to environmental, health, and safety implications of nanotechnology. The GIN working
group facilitates international collaboration on pre-competitive and non-competitive aspects of
nanotechnology, and international engagement on trade, commercialization and regulatory issues.
Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications (NPEC)
The Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications (NPEC) working group was
established to develop approaches by which the NNI can communicate more effectively with the
public.
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) provides administrative and
technical support to the NSET subcommittee. Initially established in 2001 through a
memorandum of understanding among the NNI participating agencies,49 the NNCO was
authorized by the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L.
108-153). The NNCO was charged under the act with providing technical and administrative
support to the NSTC and NNAP; serving as the point of contact for information on federal
nanotechnology activities for the exchange of technical and programmatic information among
stakeholders; conducting public outreach; and promoting access to and early application of NNP
technologies, innovation, and expertise.
The act authorizes the work of the NNCO to be funded by contributions from NSET
subcommittee member agencies. According to the NNCO, funding is provided through a
(...continued)
National Nanotechnology Initiative, hearing, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, House Committee on
Science and Technology, October 31, 2007.
48 The Industrial Research Institute is an association of companies and federally funded laboratories with the mission of
improving R&D capabilities through the development and dissemination of best practices.
49 National Nanotechnology Initiative website, http://www.nano.gov.
Congressional Research Service
13
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
memorandum of understanding signed by eight NNI agencies.50 In principle, each agency
contributes to the NNCO budget in proportion to its share of the President’s total nanotechnology
budget request for the signatory agencies. However, two of the signatories, EPA and DOT, had
sufficiently small enough nanotechnology budgets in the early years of the NNI that they were
not expected to contribute. EPA now contributes to funding the NNCO. Total NNCO funding
from the agencies in FY2010 was $2.4 million. In addition, the NNCO has carried over FY2009
funds intended to support a National Academies’ study, bringing the total NNCO budget for
FY2010 to just under $3 million.
Funding
The NNI supports fundamental and applied research on nanotechnology by funding research,
creating multidisciplinary centers of excellence, and developing key research infrastructure. It
also supports activities aimed at addressing the societal implications of nanotechnology, including
ethical, legal, human and environmental health, and workforce issues.
This section provides information on NNI funding from two perspectives: organizationally by
agency and functionally by program component area.
50 The eight agencies that are signatories to the memorandum of understanding are NSF, DOD, DOE, NIH, NIST,
NASA, EPA, and DOT.
Congressional Research Service
14
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Figure 1. Organizations With a Role in the National Nanotechnology Initiative
and Their Relationships
Source: The National Nanotechnology Strategic Plan, Nanoscale, Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, December 2007.
(Nanomanufacturing working group added to chart in cited source.)
Congressional Research Service
15
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Agency Funding
The NNI budget is an aggregation of the nanotechnology components of the individual budgets of
NNI-participating agencies. The NNI budget is not a single, centralized source of funds that is
allocated to individual agencies. In fact, agency nanotechnology budgets are developed internally
as part of each agency’s overall budget development process. These budgets are subjected to
review, revision, and approval by the Office of Management and Budget and become part of the
President’s annual budget submission to Congress. The NNI budget is then calculated by
aggregating the nanotechnology components of the appropriations provided by Congress to each
federal agency.
For FY2010, regular appropriations for NNI agencies totaled an estimated $1.781 billion,51 a
$79.5 million (4.7%) increase over the FY2009 regular appropriation and nearly four times the
$464 million federal investment in nanotechnology research in FY2001. This growth in
nanotechnology R&D investments reflects expectations in Congress and in the executive branch
that the NNI will expand fundamental knowledge and make important contributions to national
priorities. The chronology of NNI funding is detailed in Table 1.
President Obama requested $1.762 billion in funding for the NNI in FY2011, a decrease of $19.5
million (1.1%). The FY2011 NNI budget request would support a broad range of programs
among 14 agencies. Agencies with the largest budgets are:
• NSF, which supports fundamental nanotechnology research across science and
engineering disciplines;
• DOD, whose investments in nanotechnology are aimed at addressing the
department’s national security mission;
• DOE, which supports nanotechnology research providing a basis for new and
improved energy efficiency, production, storage, and transmission technologies;
• NIH, which emphasizes nanotechnology-based biomedical advances occurring at
the intersection of biology and the physical sciences; and
• NIST, which focuses on research in instrumentation, measurement, standards,
characterization, and nanomanufacturing.
Other agencies investing in mission-related nanotechnology R&D are NASA, EPA, the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and Forest Service at
the Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), DHS, Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
51 This figure does not include NNI funding provided by ARRA. Agency ARRA allocations included $511.2 million
for nanotechnology R&D. Agencies may report additional ARRA funding for SBIR and STTR projects later, when
2009 SBIR/STTR data become available.
Congressional Research Service
16
Table 1. NNI Funding, by Agency: FY2001-FY2010 and FY2011 Request
(in millions of current dollars)
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
ARRA
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
(P.L.
FY2010
FY2011
Agency
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
111-5)a
Estimate
Request
National
Science
Foundation
150 204 221 256 335 360 389 409 409 101 418 401
Department of Defenseb
125 224 220 291 352 424 450 460 459
436 349
Department
of
Energy
88 89 134 202 208 231 236 245 333 293 373 424
National
Institutes
of
Health
(HHS)
40 59 78 106 165 192 215 305 343 73 361 382
Nat’l
Inst.
of
Standards
and
Tech.
(DOC)
33 77 64 77 79 78 88 86 93 43 114 108
Environmental
Protection
Agency
5 6 5 5 7 5 8 12 12 18 20
NASA
22 35 36 47 45 50 20 17 14 14 16
Department
of
Justice
1 1 1 2 2 <1 2 0 1 0
Department
of
Homeland
Security
2 1 1 1 2 2 3 9 12 12
Nat’l Inst. of Food and Agriculture (USDA)c
1 2 3 4 4 6 10 10 9
Nat’l Inst. for Occupational Safety (HHS)
3
4
7
7
7
10
17
Forest Service (USDA)
2
3
5
5
5
5
Federal Highway Administration (DOT)
1
1
1
1
3
2
Food
and
Drug
Administration
(HHS)
7 7 15
Consumer Product Safety Commission
<1
<1
2
TOTALd
464 697 760 989 1,200 1,351 1,425 1,554 1,702 511 1,781 1,762
Sources: NNI website, http://www.nano.gov.
a. Funding figures for nanotechnology-related R&D under the ARRA are preliminary estimates.
b. According to NSTC, the DOD budgets shown above for FY2006, FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009 include congressional y directed funding of approximately $76 million
in FY2006, $63 million in FY2007, and $117 million in FY2009; the NSTC states that the DOD budget for FY2010 also includes congressional y directed funding but
does not provide an amount. According to NSTC, the 2008 DOD estimate “includes many earmarks that are outside the NNI plan.”
c. Formerly, the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
d. Totals may not add due to rounding of agency budget figures.
CRS-17
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Program Component Area Funding
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 splits the seventh
PCA, Societal Dimensions, into two PCAs: Environment, Health, and Safety; and Education and
Societal Dimensions. A description of the seven initial PCAs and their current funding is provided
below,52 as well as a description of the two derivative PCAs.53 The chronology of NNI funding by
PCA is detailed in Table 2.
In the following analysis of funding for each of the PCAs, comparisons involving FY2009
funding (i.e., between FY2010 and FY2009) exclude ARRA funding. In addition, comparisons
between the President’s FY2011 budget request and estimated FY2010 appropriations may be
affected by the President’s exclusion of congressionally directed funding in his budget.
52 The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, December 2004, http://www.nano.gov/
NNI_Strategic_Plan_2004.pdf.
53 The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, December 2007, available at
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18
Table 2. NNI Funding, by Program Component Area, FY2006-FY2010 and FY2011 Request
(in millions of current dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
FY2011
PCA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Preliminary
Estimate
Request
Fundamental Phenomena and Processes
455.9
480.6
478.5
479.2
130.6
467.9
484.4
Nanomaterials
265.1 258.3 285.1 331.9 178.3 373.5 342.3
Nanoscale
Devices
and
Systems
319.6 344.7 372.7 435.2 68.0 429.9 402.0
Instrumentation
Research,
Metrology,
and
Standards
51.0 52.5 69.0 90.8 12.4 84.3 76.9
Nanomanufacturing
33.8 48.1 47.1 75.6 28.5 96.7 101.4
Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition
152.4
152.4
196.4 177.6 72.5 197.3 203.0
Societal
Dimensions
73.5
-
Environment,
Health,
and
Safety
48.3 67.9 74.5 12.0 91.6 116.9
-
Education
&
Societal
Dimensions
39.2 37.7 36.8
9 39.9 34.8
TOTALa
1,351.2 1,424.1 1,554.4 1,701.5
511.3 1,781.1 1,761.6
Source: The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2008 Budget,
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, July 2007. National Nanotechnology Initiative:
FY2009 Budget & Highlights, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, February 2008. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development
Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2010 Budget, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National
Science and Technology Council, The White House, May 2009.
a. Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
CRS-19
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Fundamental Phenomena and Processes
Fundamental Phenomena and Processes includes investments in the discovery and development
of fundamental knowledge pertaining to the new phenomena in the physical, biological, and
engineering sciences that occur at the nanoscale, as well as in understanding and articulation of
scientific and engineering principles related to nanoscale structures, processes, and mechanisms.
FY2010 funding for Fundamental Phenomena and Processes fell to $467.9 million, down $11.3
million (2.4%) from the FY2009 level due primarily to a decrease in DOD funding in this PCA
(down $24.0 million, 14.7%). President Obama’s FY2011 budget proposed $484.4 million in
funding, up $16.5 million (3.5%) over the FY2010 level due primarily to increases in DOE ($14.2
million, 13.8%) and DOD ($412.7 million, 9.1%) funding. The increase in DOE and DOD
funding would be somewhat offset by a decrease in NSF funding of $12.5 million (8.2%).54
Nanomaterials
Nanomaterials includes research investments to discover novel nanoscale and nanostructured
materials. This PCA also attempts to understand the properties of nanomaterials, and supports
R&D to enable the design and synthesis, in a controlled manner, of nanoscale materials with
targeted properties.
FY2010 funding for Nanomaterials rose to $373.5 million, up $41.6 million (12.5%) from the
FY2009 level, led by an increase in DOE funding in this PCA (up $21.7 million, 23.4%).
President Obama’s FY2011 budget proposed $342.3 million for this PCA, a decrease of $31.2
million (8.4%) from the FY2010 level, resulting primarily from reduced DOD funding (down
$36.0 million, 47.8%).55
Nanoscale Devices and Systems
Nanoscale Devices and Systems include R&D investments that apply nanoscale science and
engineering principles to create novel devices and systems or to improve existing ones. It also
includes the use of nanoscale or nanostructured materials to achieve improved performance or
new functionality. To meet this definition, the enabling science and technology must be at the
nanoscale, but the systems and devices are not restricted to that size.
Funding for Nanoscale Devices and Systems fell to $429.9 million in FY2010, down $5.3 million
(1.2%) from the FY2009 level. President Obama’s FY2011 budget proposed $402.0 million in
funding for this PCA, a decrease of $27.9 million (6.5%) from the FY2010 level, largely due to
reductions in DOD funding (down $49.0 million, 33.1%). The decrease in DOD funding for this
PCA would be somewhat offset by increases in DOE ($13.2 million, 76.7%) and NIH funding
($13.1 million, 7.2%).56
54 The National Nanotechnology Initiative: FY2010 Budget & Highlights, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, May 2009, available at
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_2010_budget_supplement.pdf.
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
20
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards
The Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards PCA includes R&D investments for
development of tools needed to advance nanotechnology research and commercialization.
Instrumentation for characterization, measurement, synthesis, and design of nanotechnology
materials, structures, devices, and systems is funded through this PCA. R&D and other activities
related to development of standards, including standards for nomenclature, materials,
characterization, testing, and manufacture, are also in this PCA.
FY2010 funding for Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards fell to $84.3 million,
down $6.5 million (7.2%) from the FY2009 level. President Obama’s FY2011 budget proposed
$76.9 million in funding for this PCA, a decrease of $7.4 million (8.8%) from the FY2010 level,
due to decreases in DOD, DOE, and NSF funding.57
Nanomanufacturing
Nanomanufacturing R&D supports the development of scalable, reliable, cost-effective
manufacturing of nanoscale materials, structures, devices, and systems. It also includes R&D and
integration of ultra-miniaturized top-down processes and complex bottom-up processes.58
FY2010 funding for Nanomanufacturing rose to $96.7 million, up $21.1 million (27.9%) over the
FY2009 level due primarily to increases in NIST ($17.8 million, 189.4%) and DOD ($8.2
million, 28.3%) funding. President Obama’s FY2011 budget proposed $101.4 million for this
PCA, an increase of $4.7 million (4.9%) above the FY2010 level as increases in DOE ($13.9
million, 198.6%) and NSF ($9.8 million, 43.8%) would more than offset decreases in DOD
($12.1 million, 32.5%) and NIST ($7.0 million, 25.7%) funding.59
Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition
This PCA includes investments in the establishment and ongoing operations of user facilities and
networks, the acquisition of major instrumentation, and other activities related to infrastructure
for the conduct of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology R&D.
FY2010 funding for Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition rose to $197.3
million, an increase of $19.7 million (11.1%) over the FY2009 level. President Obama’s FY2011
budget proposed $203.0 million for this PCA, an increase of $5.7 million (2.9%) above the
FY2009 level, led by increases in DOE and DOD funding.60
57 Ibid.
58 Top-down processes are those that achieve design features by removing material from a larger block of material;
bottom-up processes begin with smaller building blocks (atoms or molecules) and achieve design features by putting
them together, possibly using self-assembly.
59 The National Nanotechnology Initiative: FY2010 Budget & Highlights, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, May 2009, available at
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_2010_budget_supplement.pdf.
60 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
21
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Societal Dimensions
The Societal Dimensions PCA includes investments in research and other activities that address
the broad implications of nanotechnology to society. This includes assessing benefits and risks
through research directed at environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology
development; risk assessment of such impacts; education-related activities, such as development
of materials for schools, undergraduate programs, technical training, and public outreach; and
research directed at identifying and quantifying the broad implications of nanotechnology for
society, including social, economic, workforce, educational, ethical, and legal implications.
Under the 2007 NNI Strategic Plan, the Societal Dimensions PCA was divided into two separate
PCAs: Environment, Health, and Safety, and Education and Societal Dimensions. Future PCA
reporting will use the new eight PCA taxonomy. NSTC has retroactively reported FY2007
Societal Dimensions PCA spending in the new PCAs.61 The NSET subcommittee characterizes
the new PCAs as follows:62
Environment, Health, and Safety
This PCA addresses research primarily directed at understanding the environmental, health, and
safety impacts of nanotechnology development and corresponding risk assessment, risk
management, and methods for risk mitigation.
FY2010 funding for Environment, Health, and Safety rose to $91.6 million, up $17.1 million
(23.0%) above the FY2009 level, due to increases in EPA, NIH, NSF, and NIOSH funding.
President Obama’s FY2011 budget proposed $116.9 million in funding for this PCA, an increase
of $25.3 million (27.6%) above the FY2010 level, led by increases at FDA and NIOSH.63
Education and Societal Dimensions
This PCA addresses education-related activities such as development of materials for schools,
undergraduate programs, technical training, and public communication, including outreach and
engagement. Such activities include research directed at identifying and quantifying the broad
implications of nanotechnology society, including social, economic, workforce, educational,
ethical, and legal implications.
FY2010 funding for Education and Societal Dimensions rose slightly to $39.9 million, up $3.1
million (8.4%) from the FY2009 level due primarily to an increase in NSF funding ($3.0 million,
9.6%); NSF accounts for 86.0% of funding in this PCA in FY2009. President Obama’s FY2011
budget proposed $34.8 million in funding for this PCA, a decrease of $5.1 million (12.8%) from
the FY2010 level, accounted for entirely by a decrease in NSF funding.64
61 The National Nanotechnology Initiative: FY2010 Budget & Highlights, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, May 2009, available at
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_2010_budget_supplement.pdf.
62 Ibid.
63 The National Nanotechnology Initiative: FY2010 Budget & Highlights, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, May 2009, available at
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_2010_budget_supplement.pdf.
64 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
22
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Centers, Networks, and User Facilities
A key facet of the National Nanotechnology Initiative has been the development of an extensive
infrastructure of interdisciplinary research and education centers, networks, and user facilities.
The centers and user facilities are located at universities and federal laboratories across the
country.
Centers and networks provide opportunities and support for multidisciplinary research among
investigators from a variety of disciplines and research sectors, including academia, industry, and
government laboratories. Such multidisciplinary research not only can lead to advances in
knowledge, but also may foster relationships that further the development of basic research
results into devices and other applications.
Many agencies support such centers. Examples of federal and federally supported centers include:
• The National Science Foundation has established university-based centers
focused exclusively on nanotechnology, including 15 Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Centers (NSEC), one Engineering Research Center, one Science and
Technology Center, four Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers,
two Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education Centers, and five Nanoscale
Science and Engineering Networks.65
• The NIH has established more than 20 centers, including eight university-based
Nanomedicine Development Centers; a Nanotechnology Characterization
Laboratory, established by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in partnership
with NIST and the Food and Drug Administration; eight university-based Centers
of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, established under the NCI’s Alliance for
Nanotechnology in Cancer initiative; and four university-based centers,
established by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute under its Program of
Excellence in Nanotechnology.
• The Department of Defense supports two university-based nanotechnology
research centers, as well as the Institute for Nanoscience at the Naval Research
Laboratory.
• NASA has established three centers under its University Research, Engineering,
and Technology Institute program.
• The Department of Energy has established five Nanoscale Science Research
Centers (NSRCs) co-located with its national labs.
• NIST has established a Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST).
• NIOSH has established a Nanotechnology Research Center to conduct research
into the application of nanoparticles and nanomaterials in occupational safety and
health and the implications of nanoparticles and nanomaterials for work-related
injury and illness.
65 In addition, 18 other Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers conduct nanotechnology-related research
as part of their overall efforts.
Congressional Research Service
23
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Many of the centers are designated as user facilities and are available to researchers not located at
the center. User facilities are designed to allow outside researchers to take advantage of facilities,
equipment, tools, and expertise. These shared resources provide researchers the opportunity to
conduct research, characterize materials, and test products using equipment and facilities that
their individual companies, universities, or organizations could not afford to acquire, support, or
maintain. Conditions for user access vary by facility and agency. In general, users are not charged
for pre-competitive, non-proprietary work leading to publication, and are charged on a cost-
recovery basis for proprietary work. In some cases, the user facilities are located at federal
government laboratories (e.g., the Department of Energy’s five NSRCs, and the NIST CNST);
other user facilities are located at universities and supported with federal funds (e.g., NSF’s 13
university-based centers in the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN)).
As mentioned earlier, the 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 directed the
establishment of two centers, the American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center and the Center
for Nanomaterials Manufacturing. According to the NSET subcommittee, the requirement to
establish the American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center was met by NSF’s establishment of
the Network for Nanotechnology in Society, comprised of centers at the University of California,
Santa Barbara (with the participation of Harvard University and the University of South Carolina)
and the University of Arizona.66 These centers were funded under NSF’s Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Center (NSEC) program and did not include participation by any other NSET
subcommittee agency.67 The NSET subcommittee states that the requirement for establishing the
Center for Nanomaterials Manufacturing was met by NSF’s establishment of a National
Nanomanufacturing Network (NNN) comprised of four NSECs. The Center for Integrated
Hierarchical Manufacturing at the University of Massachusetts Amherst is the main node of the
NNN.68 The NNN NSECs were established by NSF in collaboration with DOD and NIST, but
exclusively with NSF funds.69
Selected NNI Reports and Assessments
This section presents summaries of recent reports from the NSTC’s Nanoscale Science,
Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee and assessments conducted by the National Research
Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Selected NNI Reports
The NNI’s coordinating body, the NSTC’s Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee, produces a variety of reports that serve to inform Congress and other key
stakeholders on the initiatives’ current activities, investments, and priorities.
66 Private telephone communication between CRS and NSTC staff, January 31, 2008.
67 Private e-mail communication between CRS and NSF staff, January 31, 2008.
68 Private telephone communication between CRS and NSTC staff, January 31, 2008.
69 Private e-mail communication between CRS and NSF staff, January 31, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
24
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading
to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s
FY2011 Budget70
Each year the NSET subcommittee publishes a supplement to the President’s annual budget
request. The FY2011 NNI budget supplement provides a more detailed look at NNI funding in the
President’s budget request, including a break-out of the prior, current, and requested year budgets
for each PCA. The report describes proposed changes in agency R&D budgets, as well as in the
balance of investments by PCA. Of particular note:
• President Obama proposed an overall NNI budget for FY2011 of $1.762 billion,
a $19.5 million (1.1%) decrease below FY2010 funding.
• Estimated funding for EHS R&D in FY2010 rose to $91.6 million, a 23.0%
increase over FY2009. President Obama requested $116.9 million for EHS R&D
in FY2011, an increase of $25.3 million (27.6%) over FY2010.
• President Obama’s FY2011 budget request reflected a decline in spending in
several program component areas compared to FY2010 estimated funding levels,
including nanomaterials, down $12.0 million (3.9%); nanoscale devices and
systems, down $31.2 million (8.4%); nanoscale devices and systems, down $27.9
million (6.5%), and instrumentation research, metrology and standards, down
$7.4 million (8.8%). In addition to EHS funding, other program component areas
to be increased included fundamental phenomena and processes, up $16.5 million
(3.5%), major research facilities and instrumentation acquisition, up $5.7 million
(2.9%), and nanomanufacturing, up $4.7 million (4.9%%).
The National Nanotechnology Strategic Plan (2007)71
The 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153) requires the NSTC to develop
an NNI strategic plan every three years. This plan is to guide the program’s activities to meet the
goals, priorities, and anticipated outcomes of the participating agencies. In addition, the act
requires the triennial report to address how the program intends to move results out of the
laboratory and into application for the benefit of society, its plan for long-term funding for
interdisciplinary R&D, and the allocation of funding for interagency projects. The 2007 strategic
plan is the first to follow external assessments by the National Academies and PCAST (operating
as the NNAP) and seeks to incorporate the findings of these reviews. Of particular note:
• The 2007 strategic plan includes a new chapter on “High-Impact Application
Opportunities and Critical Research Needs” possibly indicating an effort on the
part of the Administration to move the NNI toward more directed research with
commercial and societal benefits. Much of the early NNI work has been focused
on basic research and mechanisms by which such research may produce
70The National Nanotechnology Initiative: FY2011 Budget & Highlights, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, February 2010, available at
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_2011_budget_supplement.pdf.
71 The National Nanotechnology Strategic Plan, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee,
National Science and Technology Council, The White House, December 2007, available at http://www.nano.gov/
NNI_Strategic_Plan_2007.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
25
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
economic and societal dividends. Seven years into the NNI, the program is under
increasing scrutiny to deliver the promised benefits. While the plan does not
establish R&D or application targets per se, this chapter illustrates tangible
benefits that may be achieved by research supported under the NNI. In addition,
the plan provides a matrix that identifies which agencies have a central or
supporting role in each key application area. The plan also provides a series of
nanotechnology application-specific vignettes on topics such as early detection of
life-threatening disease, smarter computers, more energy-efficient transportation,
and energy security.
• The 2007 strategic plan split the Societal Dimensions PCA into two separate
PCAs: Environmental, Health, and Safety, and Education and Societal
Dimensions. This change responds to increased congressional and public
attention to EHS needs. Some critics of the NNI had raised concerns that the
inclusion of investments in education and other societal dimensions in the
broader category obscured and artificially inflated the perception of investments
in EHS R&D.
• The 2007 strategic plan also identifies four areas of common interest across
agencies that is to be the focus of future workshops: sensors and nanoelectronics,
energy, fate and transport of nanomaterials, and medical and health applications.
Strategy for Nanotechnology-related Environmental, Health, and Safety
Research72
Strategy for Nanotechnology-related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research outlines the
NNI’s strategy for addressing nanotechnology EHS concerns. The report outlines the process for
developing a research strategy, including identification of priority needs, assessment of existing
research, and analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the current portfolio of EHS-focused
research. The report provides a summary and analysis of FY2006 EHS research projects using the
five priority categories identified in the earlier report, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials73
(discussed below). The report concludes with a framework for addressing EHS research needs,
including a summary and prioritization of research needs, an implementation strategy, and a
discussion of interagency coordination efforts.
72 Strategy for Nanotechnology-related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research, Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, February 2008, available at
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_Research_Strategy.pdf.
73 The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered
Nanoscale Materials, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and
Technology Council, The White House, September 2006, available at http://www.nano.gov/
NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Prioritization of Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for
Engineered Nanoscale Materials: An Interim Document for Public Comment74
This document is a follow-on to the Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for
Engineered Nanoscale Materials report (discussed below), incorporating public comments,
refinements of the prioritization principles, and continued assessment of research needs. This
report further identifies and defines five priorities within each of the five general categories of
research needs established in the earlier document and presents the revised principles and the
process used for this prioritization. The NEHI working group of the NSET subcommittee expects
to use this report to evaluate the NNI’s current EHS research portfolio, perform a gap analysis,
and identify opportunities for interagency collaboration. The report stresses that the NSET
subcommittee is “pursuing a dynamic, open, and transparent process in developing an NNI EHS
research strategy” and invites continuing public input.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Environmental, Health, and Safety
Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials75
This report documents the efforts of the NSET subcommittee’s Nanotechnology Environmental
and Health Implications (NEHI) working group to identify, prioritize, and implement research
and other activities required for the responsible research and development of nanotechnology. The
report is designed to help inform the research, risk assessment, and risk management activities of
federal agencies and the private sector.
The report identifies priority research within five general research areas: instrumentation,
metrology, and analytical methods; nanomaterials and human health; nanomaterials and the
environment; health and environmental surveillance; and risk management methods.
The report identifies several next steps:
• prioritize research needs among those identified in the report;
• evaluate in greater detail the current NNI EHS research portfolio;
• perform a “gap analysis” of the NNI EHS research compared to the prioritized
needs;
• coordinate and facilitate among the NNI agencies’ research programs to address
priorities; and
• establish a process for periodic review of progress and for updating research
needs and priorities.
74 Prioritization of Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials: An Interim
Document for Public Comment, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and
Technology Council, The White House, August 2007, available at http://www.nano.gov/
Prioritization_EHS_Research_Needs_Engineered_Nanoscale_Materials.pdf.
75 The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered
Nanoscale Materials, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and
Technology Council, The White House, September 2006, available at http://www.nano.gov/
NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
27
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
The report concludes that conducting EHS research in parallel with the development of
nanomaterials and their applications will help to ensure the full, safe, and responsible realization
of the promise of nanotechnology, and that coordination of research activities among NNI-
participating agencies, as well as with industry and other governments, is necessary to expedite
progress. In contrast, some NGOs have asserted the need for EHS research to precede the
development of nanomaterials and nanotechnology applications.
Selected NNI Assessments
The 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153) requires periodic external
reviews of the National Nanotechnology Program (NNP) by the National Research Council, an
arm of the National Academies,76 and the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP).77 In
general, these reviews concluded that the NNI has been successful so far and that its efforts are
important to future U.S. technological leadership and commercial competitiveness. Both reports
emphasize that much nanotechnology research is still in its very early stages and caution against
expecting too much in the near term from this nascent technology. The reports also laud the
cooperative efforts between the NNI and stakeholders in academia and industry and encourage
increased interactions with industry, state and local economic developers, and, where appropriate,
international partners.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel,
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology78
This report presents the findings of the second review of the NNI by the President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology’s, acting as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel,
as mandated by the 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003. PCAST submitted its first
report to the President on May 16, 2005, titled The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five
Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.
As in earlier reports by PCAST and the National Research Council, this report concludes that the
United States remains a leader in nanotechnology, though it recognizes the successful
development of other nations’ nanotechnology research capabilities. The PCAST concluded that
the NNI’s approach to addressing EHS research was “sound” and found proposals for a separate
agency or office devoted to nanotechnology EHS research or to set aside a particular percentage
of NNI funding for EHS research to be “misguided” and potentially counterproductive as
resources may be directed away from research “on beneficial applications and on risk.” The panel
76 The National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the
Institute of Medicine are part of a private, non-profit institution established under a congressional charter. They are
collectively referred to as the National Academies.
77 P.L. 108-153 directs the President to “establish or designate a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.” In July
2004, President Bush designated the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to serve as the NNAP
by issuing Executive Order 13349, Amending Executive Order 13226 To Designate the President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology To Serve as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.
78 The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology
Advisory Panel, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, May 2005, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST-NNAP-NNI-Assessment-2008.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
also concluded that nanotechnology does not raise ethical concerns unique from those
accompanying other technological advances. The PCAST also concluded that the NNI is a
“highly successful model for an interagency program” describing it as “well organized and well
managed.”
Recommendations
The report made six broad recommendations for further strengthening the NNI, supported by
more specific actions. They are:
PCAST recommendation:
Maintaining the world-class R&D infrastructure and strong interagency coordination created
under the NNI is essential to achieving broad societal benefits from nanotechnology
innovation.
Some specific PCAST recommendations include continuing support for NNI multidisciplinary
centers, networks and user facilities; improving coordination within agencies that have several
operating divisions; and strengthening the participation of the Departments of Commerce,
Education, and Labor to address education, training, market assessment, and standards
development challenges related to nanotechnology.
PCAST recommendation:
Progress across the breadth of NNI-supported R&D critically depends upon the development
and implementation of standards for nanomaterial identification, characterization, and risk
assessment.
In this regard, PCAST specifically recommended that federal agencies participate in the
development of voluntary consensus-based standards; develop materials and analytical standards
for nanotechnology EHS research; and work towards development of data sets of physical and
chemical properties of nanomaterials.
PCAST recommendation:
Nanotechnology innovation through to commercialization depends on maintaining and
strengthening cross-sector collaborations and cross-fertilization of technology development
and business development expertise.
Specifically, PCAST recommended expansion of efforts to assess national and international
innovation and commercialization activities led by the Department of Commerce; expanded
partnering between NNI multidisciplinary centers and economic development organizations; and
educated more nanotechnology scientists and engineers to become entrepreneurs and skilled
technology workers.
PCAST recommendation:
Nanotechnology research must be strategically guided, integrated, and coordinated across
agencies, sectors, and countries, and include balanced assessment of risks and benefits in the
context of specific, real-world applications.
Congressional Research Service
29
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Among the specific PCAST recommendations: improving coordination of federal EHS research
efforts with industry and international stakeholders; preventing the segregation of research
focused on EHS implications of nanotechnology from research focused on applications;
continuing interagency collaboration on EHS research and mission-focused research; and
distributing nonproprietary information about the properties of nanomaterials.
PCAST recommendation:
Research on the societal and ethical aspects of nanotechnology should both be integrated
with technical R&D and take place in the context of broader societal and ethical leadership.
PCAST recommendation:
Public perception of and expectations related to nanotechnology should be informed based
on sound science and balanced assessment of risks and benefits (known and anticipated) of
specific innovations and their implications for society.
PCAST recommended that the NNI more clearly demonstrate to the public the value of
nanotechnology and NNI-supported R&D, calling for a more explicit and direct outreach
approach to better inform and engage policymakers, stakeholders, and the general public. In
addition PCAST recommended that NNI agencies should provided additional funding to the
NNCO to support coordination among NNI agencies to enhance their agency-specific
communication efforts.
Addendum to the National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment
and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel,
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology79
PCAST submitted an addendum to its second assessment of the NNI in July 2008, providing an
assessment of The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related
Environmental, Health, and Safety Research. The PCAST letter reaffirmed its judgment (as stated
in its second assessment of the NNI) of the NNI’s approach to EHS research as “fundamentally
sound in terms of strategic priorities as well as focus on and extent of collaboration across
agencies, with industry, and particularly with international stakeholders.” PCAST found the
NNI’s strategic approach to be “quite thorough and robust,” and stated that the NSET
subcommittee’s NEHI working group
remains the best locus of coordination and authoritative advisory capability for the
participating agencies in implementing the government-wide nanotechnology EHS research
strategy that cuts across agency and disciplinary lines.80
PCAST made six recommendations with respect to the NNI’s EHS research strategy. First,
PCAST recommended that an assessment of the federal nanotechnology EHS portfolio and gap
79 Addendum to The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and Recommendations of the National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, May 2005, available at
National Research Council, 2006, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST-
Addendum-Letter.pdf.
80 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
30
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
analysis be performed once every three years noting that such a timetable would support the
triennial reviews of PCAST and the NRC. Second, it proposed increased collaboration with
industry and other countries to fill identified research gaps. Third, PCAST recommended that the
NNI encourage its supported researchers to report on analytical methodologies used in their
research to facilitate development of best practices for risk assessment and characterization.
Fourth, PCAST stated that the NNI should promote broad and practical use of EHS findings in
defining responsible use of nanotechnology in research, manufacturing, and commercial
applications. Fifth, PCAST called for increased funding for exposure assessment in the context of
manufacturing and disposal of nanomaterials and products incorporating relevant quantities of
nanomaterials. Sixth, PCAST recommended that the NNI maintain and strengthen agency support
and coordination efforts through the NSET subcommittee and the NEHI working group,
specifically calling for
all agencies that fund or conduct research on nanomaterials, as well as those agencies with
charters that specifically include EHS-related activities, to directly support the NSET/NEHI
data gathering and communications functions.
A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative81
This 2006 report presents the findings of the National Research Council’s (NRC) first triennial
review mandated by the 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003.
The NRC study concluded that the NNI has been successful in coordinating nanoscale efforts and
interests across the federal government, in catalyzing cooperative R&D across a variety of
scientific and engineering disciplines, and in opening a host of new scientific opportunities
through its infrastructure and R&D investments. The NRC attributed much of this success to
effective communication and coordination by the NSET subcommittee and the NNCO.
Recommendations
Here are the recommendations made by the NRC followed by a discussion of each.
NRC recommendation:
the federal government [should] sustain investments in a manner that balances the pursuit of
shorter-term goals with support for longer-term R&D and that ensures a robust supporting
infrastructure, broadly defined. Supporting long-term research effectively will require
making new funds available that do not come at the expense of much-needed ongoing
investment in U.S. physical sciences and engineering research.
President Bush has expressed support for increasing federal R&D funding for the physical
sciences and engineering, most notably in his American Competitiveness Initiative which
includes nanotechnology investments. Yet, as federal non-discretionary spending growth
increases pressure on federal discretionary spending, finding new funds to support long-term
nanotechnology research may need to come from other scientific disciplines.
81 A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National Research Council, 2006,
available at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11752.
Congressional Research Service
31
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
NRC recommendation:
the federal government [should] establish an independent advisory panel with specific
operational expertise in nanoscale science and engineering; management of research centers,
facilities, and partnerships; and interdisciplinary collaboration to facilitate cutting-edge
research on and effective and responsible development of nanotechnology.
In July 2004, President George W. Bush implemented the provision of the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act to “establish or designate a National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel” by issuing Executive Order 13349, which amends Executive
Order 13226, designating the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to serve
as the NNAP.
The NRC’s recommendation suggests that the President’s designation of PCAST to serve as the
legislatively mandated National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel is not fully adequate. Critics of
the use of PCAST to serve as the NNAP maintain that the scope and depth of expertise needed to
provide effective guidance on the NNI requires an independent panel of people with
nanotechnology- and interdisciplinary-specific expertise and an undivided focus. Supporters of
the use of PCAST for this function assert that a single advisory panel provides an integrated
perspective, reduces unnecessary cost and management burdens, and that expertise can be added
to the panel or accessed through non-member technical advisory groups.
NRC recommendation:
federal agencies participating in the NNI, in consultation with the NNCO and the Office of
Management and Budget, should continue to develop and enhance means for consistent
tracking and reporting of funds requested, authorized, and expended annually. The current
set of PCAs provides an appropriate initial template for such tracking.
It is difficult to assess and track funding for specific purposes within the NNI because the
initiative is not centrally funded and operated. The NNI budget is an aggregation of the
nanotechnology-related activities of the participating federal agencies. Congress funds the NNI-
related R&D on an agency-by-agency basis, with responsibilities crossing many authorizing
committees and appropriations subcommittees. Thus, while it is relatively straightforward to
quantify an agency’s nanotechnology budget, tracking all NNI investments related to a particular
activity—EHS-related research, for example—is much more difficult. The PCAs serve to provide
such a tracking mechanism. In addition, according to the 2007 National Nanotechnology
Initiative Strategic Plan, the division of the Societal Dimensions PCA into two PCAs—
Environmental, Health, and Safety; and Educational and Societal Dimensions—is intended to
better understand and manage the NNI investment. Such a change indicates a level of flexibility
that may enable the executive branch and Congress to more effectively manage and balance
investments in discrete areas of the NNI.
NRC recommendation:
the NSET Subcommittee [should] carry out or commission a study on the feasibility of
developing metrics to quantify the return to the U.S. economy from the federal investment in
nanotechnology R&D. The study should draw on the Department of Commerce’s expertise
in economic analysis and its existing ability to poll U.S. industry. Among the activities for
which metrics should be developed and relevant data collected are technology transfer and
commercial development of nanotechnology.
Congressional Research Service
32
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Few efforts have been made within the federal government to understand the economic impacts
of the nation’s investments in the NNI. Identification and tracking of data that could serve as an
indicator of success in commercializing nanotechnology research or the effects on U.S. job
creation or retention has not been formalized. To the extent that federal assessments of the
economic contribution of and/or potential for nanotechnology products have occurred, they have
not been performed with analytical rigor. Although the Commerce Department retains its
economic analysis expertise, resident primarily in the Economics and Statistics Administration’s
Bureau of Economic Analysis, the department’s Technology Administration, which led
Commerce’s NNI activities and had government-wide responsibilities for technology transfer
activities, was eliminated in August 2007.82 Prior to its elimination, the Technology
Administration contracted for two studies that could contribute to addressing this NRC
recommendation: an analysis of barriers to nanotechnology commercialization performed by the
University of Illinois at Springfield, and an analysis of innovation metrics conducted by the
Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America (ASTRA). These reports are publicly
available at Commerce Department websites.83
NRC recommendation:
research on the environmental, health, and safety effects of nanotechnology [should] be
expanded. Assessing the effects of engineered nanomaterials on public health and the
environment requires that the research conducted be well-defined and reproducible, and that
effective methods be developed and applied to (1) estimate the exposure of humans, wildlife,
and other ecological receptors to source material; (2) assess effects on human health and
ecosystems of both occupational and environmental exposure; and (3) characterize, assess,
and manage the risks associated with exposure.
While the NRC asserts the need for additional EHS research, it does not quantify how much more
is needed. Clayton Teague, director of the NNCO, has testified that the current level of
investment in EHS research is adequate.84 Many critics from academia, industry, and non-profit
organizations have argued strongly that the NNI needs a greater level of investment in EHS
research.85 These critics argue from a variety of perspectives, including the need to:
• protect workers, human health, and the environment;
• create public faith and confidence in the safety of nanotechnology products;
• prevent a problem with one specific nanotechnology product from resulting in a
loss of public support for all nanotechnology R&D; and
• create a predictable and stable regulatory environment.
This last factor is deemed by some as critical to fostering future nanotechnology investments.
82 The Technology Administration was eliminated in the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69).
83 Barriers to Nanotechnology Commercialization, College of Business Management, University of Illinois at
Springfield, September 2007, available at http://www.osec.doc.gov/Report-
Barriers%20to%20Nanotechnology%20Commercialization.pdf Innovation Vital Signs Project, Alliance for Science
and Technology Research in America, July 2007. http://www.ntis.gov/ta_reports/Report-InnovationVitalSigns.pdf.
84 Testimony of Clayton Teague, director of the NNCO, hearing, “Environmental and Safety Impacts of
Nanotechnology: What Research is Needed?” House Committee on Science, November 17, 2005.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24464.000/hsy24464_0.HTM
85 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
33
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
NRC recommendation:
the NSET Subcommittee [should] create a working group on education and the workforce
that engages the Department of Education and Department of Labor as active participants.
The NSET subcommittee has sought, with limited success, greater involvement of the
Departments of Education and Labor in the subcommittee’s activities. An NSET subcommittee
working group on education and the workforce has not yet been established.
With advocates promising the creation of many new jobs—some assert millions—as a result of
global nanotechnology investments, some have expressed concern that the country must prepare
students for nanotechnology research, engineering, and production jobs.86 Assessing which
industries are likely to create such jobs, which skills will be needed, and in what timeframe are
key challenges. If workers with nanotechnology-specific skills are needed and no workers are
available domestically (U.S. citizens, resident aliens, or those in the United States on work visas),
potential employers may opt to establish or move operations outside the United States to tap
workers with those skills abroad. Conversely, if students are trained for jobs that do not emerge or
do not emerge in the same timeframe as students are entering the job market, this investment is
lost. In addition, potential students may be discouraged from pursuing future nanotechnology-
related studies. Close coordination among the Departments of Commerce, Education, and Labor
might help to align federal education and training efforts better with the labor market for
nanotechnology workers.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act also directed the NRC to address two other issues in
its first triennial report: Is molecular self assembly feasible for manufacturing of materials and
devices at the nanoscale? And, what are the needs for standards, guidelines, or strategies for
ensuring the responsible development of nanotechnology?
Molecular Self-Assembly
Self-assembly is the process by which components (atoms, molecules, or more complex
structures) form, without external control or direction, an organized structure. For example, water
molecules dispersed in air in cold temperatures can self-assemble to form snowflakes. Our bodies
act as self-assemblers, producing a variety of cells as needed (e.g., to repair a damage to the skin
or produce new blood cells from added nutrients).
To what extent can molecular self-assembly be used as a tool for nanomanufacturing? On this
issue, the NRC concluded that molecular self-assembly is feasible for the manufacture of simple
materials and devices. However, for the manufacture of more sophisticated materials and devices,
including complex objects produced in large quantities, the NRC found it unlikely that simple
self-assembly processes will yield the desired results. One major barrier cited is the probability of
error during assembly as a result of the systems’ complexity.
86 Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary for Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, remarks, “Nanotechnology:
Economic Opportunities, Societal and Ethical Challenges,” NanoCommerce 2003, December 9, 2003.
http://www.technology.gov/Speeches/PJB_031209.htm Sizing Nanotechnology’s Value Chain, Lux Research, October
2004.
Congressional Research Service
34
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Standards, Guidelines, and Strategies for Ensuring Responsible Development
of Nanotechnology
The NRC concluded that it is not possible yet to make a rigorous assessment of the level of
environmental and health risks posed by engineered nanomaterials and called for further
development of risk assessment protocols. The NRC report also stated that the need for more
EHS data requires an expanded research effort to complement dialog on these issues. In addition,
until reproducible and well-characterized EHS data are available to inform the development of
rigorous risk-based guidelines and best practices, the NRC found it prudent to recommend use of
precautionary measures to protect the health and safety of workers, the public, and the
environment. The NRC report also stressed that addressing the ethical and societal impacts of
nanotechnology will require an integrated approach among scientists, engineers, social scientists,
toxicologists, policymakers, and the public.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel,
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology87
This report presents the findings of the first biennial review of the NNI by the President’s Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology’s, acting as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel,
as mandated by the 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003. The PCAST report finds that
the United States is the acknowledged leader in nanotechnology R&D, but the U.S. leadership
position is under increasing competitive pressure from growing public and private investments
around the world. The report states that the federal investment in the NNI has been well-spent, the
United States is well-positioned to maintain global leadership going forward, and continued
robust funding is important for long-term U.S. economic well-being and national security. This
assessment of the U.S. leadership position is founded not on sales, growth, or market share of
commercial products—common measures of global competitiveness for established products—
but rather on metrics that may serve as early indicators of potential innovation, such as the U.S.
share of scientific publications and patents. The use of such metrics may not be universally
accepted as predictive of leadership position. Technological leadership—or even leadership in
innovation—does not ensure that the economic benefits from such leadership will accrue to the
United States. Companies may choose to manufacture products or conduct other value-added
activities outside the United States. If the assessment of national competitiveness is expanded to
include the value-added activities and jobs generated or retained within the United States, then
the metrics for assessing leadership might change.
The PCAST report acknowledges that there are potential environmental and health risks
associated with nanotechnology, but finds that the NNI is directing appropriate attention and
adequate resources to the research that will ensure the protection of the public and the
environment. Nanotechnology products should not be immune from regulation, according to the
report, but such regulation must be rational and based on science, not on perceived fears. The
PCAST report states that strong communication exists among the NNI agencies responsible for
research and regulation. The PCAST report contains four recommendations for the NNI:
87 The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, May 2005, available at
http://www.nano.gov/html/res/FINAL_PCAST_NANO_REPORT.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
35
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
PCAST recommendation:
To further facilitate technology transfer from the lab to the marketplace, the NNI should
expand its interaction with industry, increase federal-state coordination, and improve
knowledge management of and access to NNI assets, such as user facilities and
instrumentation.
The NSET subcommittee’s National Innovation and Liaison with Industry (NILI) working group
was established to facilitate NNI interactions with industry, and with state and local
nanotechnology initiatives. The NILI working group’s limited resources and agency participation
have hindered its ability to conduct more extensive and sustained outreach.88 Due to the structure
and resource allocation of the NNI, the initiative’s engagements with industry and with state and
local initiatives are largely limited to single agency or laboratory interactions and to public
engagement activities, such as speeches and information on the NNI website.89
PCAST recommendation:
The NNI should continue its efforts to understand the possible toxicological effects of
nanotechnology and where harmful human or environmental effects are proven, pertinent
federal agencies should apply appropriate regulatory mechanisms. There should be strong
interagency and international collaboration on this issue to eliminate unnecessary duplication
of research efforts and to ensure wide dissemination of information. Since exposure to
nanomaterials is most likely to occur during the manufacturing process, research on potential
hazards associated with workplace exposure must be given the highest priority.
With respect to collaboration on EHS issues, the NSET subcommittee’s National Environmental
and Health Implications (NEHI) working group is the primary EHS coordination mechanism for
participating NNI agencies. The Global Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN) working group works
with the NEHI working group on international collaboration on EHS issues. The NIOSH has
published several documents addressing concerns about workplace exposure to nanoparticles.
Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An Information Exchange With NIOSH was intended to
provide the best currently available knowledge on nanoparticle toxicity and control and to solicit
input from the stakeholder community.90 Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace
details the work of NIOSH’s Nanotechnology Research Center from 2004 through 2006.91 In
December 2007, NIOSH released interim guidance concerning the medical screening of workers
potentially exposed to engineered nanoparticles during the manufacture and industrial use of
nanomaterials. The NIOSH says that the document is intended to “generate discussion, fill the
current knowledge gap, and provide interim recommendations until further scientific information
becomes available.”92 The NIOSH is currently seeking public comment on this guidance.
88 Private telephone and e-mail communication with Sean Murdock, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance,
February 4, 2008.
89 Ibid.
90 Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An Information Exchange with NIOSH, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, July 2006.
91 Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, June
2007.
92 NIOSH Update: NIOSH Draft Offers Interim Guidance on Medical Screening of Workers Potentially Exposed to
Engineered Nanoparticles, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, December 13, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
36
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
With respect to regulatory issues associated with nanotechnology, see CRS Report RL34332,
Engineered Nanoscale Materials and Derivative Products: Regulatory Challenges, by Linda-Jo
Schierow.
PCAST recommendation:
The NNI should establish relationships with the Department of Education and Department of
Labor to develop education and training systems to support the Nation’s technical
proficiency in areas related to nanotechnology.
The PCAST report’s recommendation is similar to the recommendation made by the NRC and is
discussed earlier in this paper.
PCAST recommendation:
The NNI must support research aimed at understanding the societal implications of
nanotechnology—including ethical, economic and legal implications—and must actively
work to inform the public about nanotechnology. The NNI should continue to confront
societal issues in an open, straightforward, and science-based manner.
Some critics of the NNI hold deep reservations about the ethical, economic, and legal
implications of nanotechnology. Some of these concerns are common to many technologies, such
as the allocation of risk and benefit during manufacturing. For example, a neighborhood located
near a production facility may bear risks associated with exposure to the byproducts (or products)
of manufacturing, while gaining few of the benefits. Concerns about possible adverse effects of
nanoscale particles on human health and the environment resulting from their small particle size
and unique characteristics may result in increased attention to such costs and benefits with respect
to nanoscale material production. Currently, nanotechnology EHS risks are unknown and may be
acute or pose no more risk than other manufacturing processes.
Privacy rights are another issue associated with the products of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology
may enable the production of highly sensitive, inexpensive sensors that could be deployed
ubiquitously in commercial and public settings. While these sensors may allow check-out-free
purchases from stores, or monitor the environment for toxic substances, critics argue that they
could also impinge on the privacy rights of individuals if, for example, the sensors could detect
chemicals related to the use of tobacco, alcohol, or illegal substances without the permission of
the individual. Such information might be later applied in law enforcement, life insurance, health
insurance, or employment decisions.93 Others express concern that the economically
disadvantaged and less educated—both individuals and nations—might be unable to take part in
the benefits that nanotechnology products could offer.94
On the legal front, innovations in nanotechnology are already presenting unique challenges to the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). For example, U.S. case law generally prohibits
patenting where the sole element of novelty is a change in size, the characteristic most obviously
93 Moore, Fiona M., “Implications of Nanotechnology Applications: Using Genetics as a Lesson,” Health Law Review,
Vol. 10, No. 3, 2002. http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/hli/pdfs/hlr/v10_3/10.3moorefrm.pdf
94 Smith, Richard H.,”Social, Ethical, and Legal Implications of Nanotechnology,” Societal Implications of
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001).
Congressional Research Service
37
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
associated with nanotechnology.95 In addition, many nanotechnology innovations involve
multiple disciplines. Since the USPTO structure for examining patents is discipline-based, an
examiner may not have all of the requisite expertise for the examination, affecting both their
ability to conduct the examination, and the speed at which it can be done. USPTO also has
acknowledged the need to accelerate the speed of nanotechnology-related patent applications.
According to John Doll, Commissioner of Patents, the agency is hampered in its ability to recruit
and retain patent examiners with the requisite skills to handle nanotechnology patents given the
“more generous offers [patent examiners get] from the private sector.”96 Doll said that efforts
have been made to improve hiring and retention at USPTO, and that a new process has been
established allowing an accelerated examination of applications.97
Selected Nanotechnology Legislation in the 111th
Congress
Title I, Subtitle A, H.R. 5116 (111th Congress)—National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010
The provisions of Title I, Subtitle A of H.R. 5116 (111th Congress), the National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2010, were nearly identical to H.R. 554 (111th Congress) (see “H.R.
554 (111th Congress)—National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009” below).
H.R. 5116 changed the name of the act from the “National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2009,” to “National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010,”
and removed the term “interdisciplinary” from a provision establishing “green nanotechnology”
research centers. The Senate removed this title before the bill was enacted.
H.R. 554 (111th Congress)—National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2009
H.R. 554 (111th Congress), the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009,
was introduced on January 15, 2009, and passed by the House of Representatives on February 11,
2009. The bill was referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on
February 12, 2009. The purpose of the bill was to authorize activities for support of
nanotechnology research and development and for other purposes. Among its provisions, the bill
would have amended the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003
to:
• require the NSTC triennial strategic plan to include near-term and long-term
objectives, the anticipated timeframe for achieving near-term objectives, and
metrics for assessing progress; cooperative and collaborative activities in R&D
95 Nanotechnology Patents: Issues for Nanotechnology Inventions, Dorsey and Whitney, LLP, May 9, 2005.
96 Doll, John, Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Letter to the Editor, Small Times, April 23,
2007. http://www.smalltimes.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=290818&p=109
97 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
38
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
and technology transition supported by the states; and proposed research in areas
of national priority;
• require the NSTC annual nanotechnology report supplementing the President’s
budget request to include a breakout of spending for the development and
acquisition of research facilities and instrumentation for each program
component area, and a breakout of spending on all activities related to ethical,
legal, environmental, and societal implications;
• direct NNP agencies to support the activities of committees involved in the
development of standards for nanotechnology and allow agencies to reimburse
the travel costs of scientists and engineers who participate in activities of such
committees;
• direct the agencies to fund the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office,
and to do so in proportion to each agency’s share of the previous year’s NNP
budget;
• require the NNCO to develop and maintain a publicly accessible database of
projects funded under the Environmental, Health, and Safety, the Education and
Societal Dimensions, and the Nanomanufacturing program component areas;
• require the NNCO to develop, maintain, and publicize information on
nanotechnology facilities supported by the NNP, including at a minimum the
terms and conditions for the use of each facility, a description of the capabilities
of the instruments and equipment available for use at the facility, and a
description of the technical support available to assist users of the facility;
• require the establishment of a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP)
“as a distinct entity.” Currently, under the provisions of presidential Executive
Order 13349, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
serves as the NNAP;98
• direct the NNCO to enter into an arrangement with the National Research
Council to conduct a triennial review of the NNP, and authorizes funds for
FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012; and
• define nanotechnology as “the science and technology that will enable one to
understand, measure, manipulate, and manufacture at the nanoscale, aimed at
creating materials, devices, and systems with fundamentally new properties or
functions,” and define nanoscale as “one or more dimensions of between
approximately 1 and 100 nanometers.”
In addition, the bill would have:
• required the designation of a White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy associate director to serve as the “Coordinator for Societal Dimensions of
Nanotechnology” and would charge the coordinator with convening and chairing
a panel of federal agency representatives and others to develop, maintain,
implement, and monitor an annual EHS research plan that includes, among other
things, standards related to nanotechnology nomenclature; standards for methods
98 Executive Order 13349 is available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/janqtr/3CFR13349.htm.
Congressional Research Service
39
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
and procedures for detecting, measuring, monitoring, sampling, and testing
engineered nanoscale materials for environmental, health, and safety impacts;
and standard reference materials for EHS testing;
• required the National Science Foundation to provide grants to establish
Nanotechnology Education Partnerships to recruit and help prepare secondary
school students to pursue postsecondary level courses of instruction in
nanotechnology;
• directed the NSTC to establish an Education Working Group under the NSET
Subcommittee to coordinate, prioritize, and plan NNP educational activities;
• directed certain NNP agencies to provide companies access to their supported
facilities to assist in the development of prototypes of nanoscale products,
devices, or processes for determining proof of concept;
• directed NNP agencies to encourage nanotechnology-related submissions to their
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) programs;
• directed NIST to encourage nanotechnology-related submissions to its
Technology Innovation Program (TIP), and directs the TIP advisory Board to
provide advice to NIST to accomplish this, and to provide an assessment of the
adequacy of TIP resources allocated to nanotechnology related projects;
• directed the NSTC to actively pursue industry liaison groups for all industries;
• directed the NNP to coordinate and leverage federal investments with
nanotechnology research, development, and technology transition initiatives
supported by the States;
• directed the NNP to support nanotechnology R&D activities directed toward
application areas that have the potential for significant contributions to national
economic competitiveness and for other significant societal benefits, such as
nano-electronics, energy efficiency, health care, and water remediation and
purification;
• directed the NNP to support research on the development of instrumentation and
tools required for the rapid characterization of nanoscale materials and for
monitoring of nanoscale manufacturing processes, and to support approaches and
techniques for scaling the synthesis of new nanoscale materials to achieve
industrial-level production rates; and
• directed certain NNP-supported interdisciplinary research centers to support
research on methods and approaches to environmentally benign nanoscale
products and nanoscale manufacturing processes, as well as related technology
transfer and education activities.
S. 1482 (111th Congress)—National Nanotechnology Amendments
Act of 2009
S. 1482 (111th Congress), the National Nanotechnology Amendments Act of 2009, was
introduced on July 21, 2009, and referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Congressional Research Service
40
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Committee. The purpose of the bill was to reauthorize the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research
and Development Act and to expand the scope of the National Nanotechnology Program (NNP).
Among its provisions, the bill would have:
• required the NNP to solicit and draw upon the perspectives of the industrial
community to promote the rapid commercial development of nanoscale-enabled
devices, systems, and technologies and to coordinate research in determining the
key physical and chemical characteristics of nanoparticles and nanomaterials that
may pose environmental, health, and safety risks;
• required the NNCO and other appropriate agencies and councils to issue
guidance to agencies that describes a strategy for transitioning research into
commercial products and technologies and how the program will coordinate or
conduct research on the environmental, health, and safety issues related to
nanotechnology;
• required the NSTC triennial strategic plan to include near-term and long-term
objectives, the anticipated timeframe for achieving near-term objectives, and
metrics for assessing progress; cooperative and collaborative activities in R&D
and technology transition supported by the states; how the NNP intends to
encourage and support interdisciplinary research; and proposed research in areas
of national priority;
• encouraged joint interagency solicitation of grant applications in high priority,
multi-disciplinary research areas;
• required participating agencies to support the activities of the committees of
standards setting bodies involved in the development of standards for
nanotechnology;
• required each participating agency to provide funds to support the work of the
NNCO. Authorizes appropriations to: (1) NIST for the development of
nanotechnology standards; and (2) NSF, for use by the NNCO, to develop and
maintain a public information database of NNP projects in EHS; education;
public outreach; ethical, legal, and other societal issues; and of nanotechnology
facilities accessible for use by individuals from academia and industry;
• made the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) a distinct entity, and
requires the NNAP to establish a subpanel to enable it to assess whether societal,
ethical, legal, environmental, and workforce concerns are adequately addressed
by the NNP;
• revised provisions for triennial external review of the NNP;
• required the designation of a “coordinator for societal dimensions of
nanotechnology,” within OSTP, to convene a panel to develop a research plan,
and requires the coordinator to enter into an arrangement with the National
Science Board to create a report that identifies the broad goals and needs of EHS
researchers;
• directed the NSTC to establish an interagency Education Working Group to
coordinate, prioritize, and plan formal and informal educational activities
Congressional Research Service
41
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
supported under the NNP, including activities to help participants understand the
EHS implications of nanotechnology;
• provided for one or more grants to establish Nanotechnology Education
Partnerships to recruit and help prepare secondary school students to pursue
postsecondary level courses in nanotechnology;
• required agencies supporting nanotechnology research facilities to provide access
to representatives from industry and other stakeholders for the transfer of
research results or assist in developing proof-of-concept prototypes of nanoscale
products, devices, or processes;
• directed NIST, in its Technology Innovation Program, and all agencies with
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) programs, to encourage the submission of nanotechnology
related grant proposals;
• set, for the NNP, the objective of establishing industry liaison groups for all
industry sectors that would benefit from nanotechnology applications;
• required coordination and leveraging of federal investments with nanotechnology
research, development, and technology transition initiatives supported by state
governments;
• required the NNP to support nanotechnology R&D in areas of national
importance (e.g., economic competitiveness, energy production, water
purification, agriculture, and health care; in environmental, health, and safety
research on the risks of nanoparticles) and in ethical, legal, and societal issues
related to nanotechnology;
• required the NNP to support a wide array of research in support of
nanomanufacturing;
• required the director of the NNCO to review and report on nanomanufacturing
research and research facilities;
• required an NNAP review of the nanomanufacturing program component area
and the capabilities of nanotechnology research facilities supported by the NNP;
• set forth provisions regarding NNP nanoscale characterization and metrology
research; and
• required deliberative public input in the decision making processes affecting
policies for the research, development, and use of nanotechnology, and
authorizes $2.0 million for the NNCO to carry out this responsibility.
S. 596 (111th Congress)—Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize
Competition Act of 2009
S. 596 (111th Congress), the Nanotechnology Innovation and Prize Competition Act of 2009, was
introduced on March 16, 2009, and referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee. The purpose of the bill was to establish an award program to honor achievements in
nanotechnology. Under the bill, the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards
and Technology is directed to award prizes to individuals and companies for achievement in one
Congressional Research Service
42
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
or more of the following areas: improvement of the environment, consistent with EPA’s Twelve
Principles of Green Chemistry; development of alternative energy that has the potential to lessen
the dependence of the United States on fossil fuels; and/or improvement of human health,
consistent with regulations promulgated by the FDA. The bill would have authorized financial
prizes for being the first to achieve a specific criteria, as well as recognition prizes, made as part
of the previously established National Technology and Innovation Medal award program. The bill
would have authorized $2,000,000 annually for the financial prizes as well as $750,000 annually
for administration of the prize competitions.
H.R. 820 (111th Congress)—Nanotechnology Advancement and
New Opportunities Act
H.R. 820 (111th Congress), the Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities Act, was
introduced on February 3, 2009, and referred to four House committees: the Committee on
Science and Technology, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Ways and
Means, and the Committee on Homeland Security. The purpose of the bill was to ensure the
development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology. The bill would have:
• established a $100 million Nanomanufacturing Investment Partnership at the
Department of Commerce to work with private investors to advance the
commercialization of nanomanufacturing technologies and to increase the
commercial application of federally supported research results;
• established a 15% tax credit, taken over five years, for the purchase of up to $10
million of stock in qualified nanotechnology companies; and
• established a grant program within the DOC to support the establishment and
development of nanotechnology incubators by non-profit entities and degree-
granting institutions;
• required the Director of the NNCO to prepare a report to Congress on a
nanotechnology research strategy for government and industry that will ensure
the development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology;
• provided a tax credit of 50% for nanotechnology education and training expenses
for businesses and individuals;
• authorize an annual appropriation of $15 million for FY2010 through FY2013 for
the NSF to conduct a grant program for the development of curriculum materials
for interdisciplinary nanotechnology courses at institutions of higher education;
• directed the NSF to establish, through its Advanced Technological Education
program, a program to encourage manufacturing companies to enter into
partnerships with occupational training centers for the development of training to
support nanomanufacturing; and
• directed the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to Congress containing a
strategy for increasing interaction among scientists and engineers at DOE
national laboratories and the informal science education community to prepare
appropriate exhibits for school age children and the general public.
In addition, the bill would have amended the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act of 2003 to:
Congressional Research Service
43
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
• authorize $10 million for the NSF to establish a center for the development of
computer-aided design tools for nanotechnology applications;
• authorize an annual appropriation of $30 million for the DOE to conduct a grant
program for nanotechnology research to address the need for “clean, cheap,
renewable energy;”
• authorize an annual appropriation of $30 million for the EPA for a grant program
for nanotechnology research to address technologies for the remediation of
pollution and other environmental protection technologies;
• authorize an annual appropriation of $30 million for the DHS to conduct a grant
program for nanotechnology research to address the need for sensors and
materials related to homeland security needs; and
• authorize an annual appropriation of $30 million for the DHHS to conduct a
grant program for nanotechnology research to address health-related applications.
H.R. 2647 (111th Congress)—National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2010
Section 242 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R. 2647, P.L. 111-
84) amends the Department of Defense’s nanotechnology reporting responsibilities to align with
those required of other agencies under the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act (P.L. 108-153). H.R. 2647 was signed into law on October 28, 2009.
S. 3117 (111th Congress)—Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act
S. 3117 (111th Congress), the Promote Nanotechnology in Schools Act, was introduced on March
15, 2010, and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The
purpose of the bill was to strengthen the capacity of eligible institutions (i.e., secondary schools,
community colleges, two-year and four-year institutions of higher education, and informal
learning science centers) to provide instruction in nanotechnology. The bill would have
authorized a program at the National Science Foundation for this purpose that would offer
eligible institutions grants of up to $400,000 (subject to a 25% match from non-federal sources)
to assist in the purchase and maintenance of nanotechnology equipment and software, to develop
and provide educational services, and to support teacher education and certification. The bill
would have authorized $15 million for FY2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for FY2011
through FY 2013.
H.R. 4502 (111th Congress)—Nanotechnology Education Act
H.R. 4502 (111th Congress), the Nanotechnology Education Act, was introduced on February 19,
2010, and referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education. The purpose of the bill was to strengthen the capacity of eligible
institutions (i.e., secondary schools, community colleges, four-year institutions of higher
education, and informal learning science centers) to provide instruction in nanotechnology. The
bill would have authorized a program for this purpose at the National Science Foundation that
would offer eligible institutions grants of up to $400,000 (subject to a 25% match from non-
federal sources) to assist in the purchase and maintenance of nanotechnology equipment and
Congressional Research Service
44
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
software, to develop and provide educational services, and to support teacher education and
certification. The bill would have authorized $40 million for FY2011 and “such sums as may be
necessary” for FY2012 through FY 2014.
S. 2942 (111th Congress)—Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010
S. 2942 (111th Congress), the Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010, was introduced on January 21,
2010, and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The bill
would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish within 180 days a
program for the scientific investigation of nanoscale materials included or intended for inclusion
in FDA-regulated products, to address the potential toxicology of such materials, the effects of
such materials on biological systems, and interaction of such materials with biological systems.
The bill would have authorized $25 million per year for fiscal years 2011 to 2015.
H.R. 5786 (111th Congress)—Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010
H.R. 5786 (111th Congress), the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, was introduced on July 20, 2010,
and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on
Education and Labor. The bill would have required the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to monitor developments in the scientific understanding of any adverse health effects related to
the use of nanotechnology in the formulation of cosmetics and to consider scale specific hazard
properties of ingredients when conducting or reviewing safety substantiation of cosmetic
ingredients. In addition, the bill would have required manufacturers to submit to the Secretary a
statement for each cosmetic that includes an ingredient list, including the particle size of any
nanoscale cosmetic ingredients. The bill would also have given the Secretary authority to require
labeling of cosmetics disclosing the use of nanoscale ingredients.
Concluding Observations
Many expect nanotechnology to bring significant economic and societal returns. The United
States was the first government to launch a national-level nanotechnology program and has
invested more than any other nation. As a result of this focus and these sustained investments,
many experts believe that the United States enjoys a technological leadership position in
nanotechnology. Other nations are investing heavily and some industrialized and emerging
economies have formidable capabilities in nanotechnology. Assessments of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative have concluded that the effort is well-managed and has been successful
in achieving its objectives so far. However, these assessments have recognized that the NNI faces
a variety of challenges in ensuring that the full promise of nanotechnology is realized and that the
United States remains the global leader in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology.
Congress may choose to address some or many of the issues addressed in the body of this report
in the course of deliberation on the reauthorization of the 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act
of 2003 or, alternatively, in separate legislation.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act’s funding authorizations extended through FY2008.
The 109th Congress and 110th Congress considered legislation to reauthorize the program. If the
112th Congress opts to consider reauthorization of the act, some of the issues it may wish to
consider include budget authorization levels for the covered agencies; R&D funding levels,
Congressional Research Service
45
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
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. Consideration may also be
given to the establishment of an independent review panel and to coordination of the timing for
the NNAP assessment, the NRC assessment, and the NSET subcommittee’s strategic plan for the
NNI.
Congressional Research Service
46
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Appendix A. Selected Reports on the National
Nanotechnology Initiative
Reports of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2010 Budget. May 2009.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2009 Budget. September 2008.
National Nanotechnology Initiative Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Summary & Highlights. February
2008
Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research. February
2008
The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. December 2007.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2008 Budget. July 2007.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for
Engineered Nanoscale Materials. September 2006.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2007 Budget. July 2006.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2006 Budget. March 2005.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. December 2004.
Nanotechnology in Space Exploration. August 2004.
Nanoscience Research for Energy Needs. Report from a workshop held in March 2004.
Instrumentation and Metrology for Nanotechnology. Report from a workshop held in January
2004.
Nanotechnology: Societal Implications-Maximizing Benefits for Humanity. Report from a
workshop held in December 2003.
Nanobiotechnology. Report from a workshop held in October 2003.
Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology. Report from a workshop held in
September-October 2003.
Congressional Research Service
47
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Supporting the Next Industrial
Revolution, Supplement to the President’s FY2004 Budget. August 2003.
Nanotechnology and the Environment. Report from a workshop held in May 2003.
National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan, Detailed
Technical Report Associated with the Supplemental Report to the President’s FY2003
Budget. June 2002.
National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan, Detailed
Technical Report Associated with the Supplemental Report to the President’s FY2001
Budget. July 2000.
Report of the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience,
Technology, and Engineering (NSET Subcommittee Predecessor)
Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom. 1999.
Agency Reports
NIOSH Update: NIOSH Draft Offers Interim Guidance on Medical Screening of Workers
Potentially Exposed to Engineered Nanoparticles, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. December 2007.
Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health. June 2007.
Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. July 2006.
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology in DOE’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences,
U.S. Department of Energy. February 2003.
External Reviews
A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National Research
Council. 2006.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the
National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (acting as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel). May 2005.
Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National
Research Council. June 2002.
Congressional Research Service
48
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Appendix B. List of NNI and
Nanotechnology-Related Acronyms
ASTRA
Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America
CNST
Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology
CS Committee
on
Science
CT Committee
on
Technology
CSREES
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
DHHS
Department of Health and Human Services
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
DOC Department
of
Commerce
DOD
Department of Defense
DOE Department
of
Energy
DOJ Department
of
Justice
DOT Department
of
Transportation
EHS
Environmental, health, and safety
ELSI
Ethical, legal, and societal implications
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EOP
Executive Office of the President
EPSCoR
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
FHWA Federal
Highway
Administration
GIN
Global Issues in Nanotechnology working group
ISO
International Standards Organization
IWGN
Interagency Working Group on Nanotechnology
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCI National
Cancer
Institute
NEHI
National Environmental and Health Implications working group
NGO Non-governmental
organization
NIH
National Institutes of Health
NILI
National Innovation and Liaison with Industry working group
NIOSH
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
NIST
National Institute of Standards and Technology
NNAP
National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel
NNCO
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office
NNI
National Nanotechnology Initiative
NNIN
National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
NNN National
Nanomanufacturing
Network
NNP National
Nanotechnology
Program
Congressional Research Service
49
The National Nanotechnology Initiative
NPEC
Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications working group
NRC
National Research Council
NSET
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology subcommittee
NSF
National Science Foundation
NSEC
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center
NSRC
Nanoscale Science Research Centers
NSTC
National Science and Technology Council
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OSTP
Office of Science and Technology Policy
PCA Program
Component
Areas
PCAST
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
R&D
Research and development
SBIR
Smal Business Innovation Research
STTR
Smal Business Technology Transfer Research
TSA
Transportation Security Administration
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USPTO
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Author Contact Information
John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
jsargent@crs.loc.gov, 7-9147
Congressional Research Service
50