The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and
Appropriations Issues

John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
December 16, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34401


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 investments by governments and companies around the world. In
2000, the United States launched the world’s first national nanotechnology program. From
FY2001 through FY2014, the federal government invested approximately $19.4 billion in
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology through the U.S. National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI). President Obama has requested $1.5 billion in NNI funding for FY2015. U.S.
companies and state governments have invested billions more. The United States has, in the view
of many experts, emerged as a global leader in nanotechnology, though the competition for global
leadership 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, as well as environmental, health, and safety concerns.
Congress established programs, assigned responsibilities, and initiated research and development
related to these issues in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of
2003 (P.L. 108-153). Although many provisions of this act have no sunset provision, FY2008 was
the last year of agency authorizations included in the act. Bills to amend and reauthorize the act
were introduced in the 110th Congress and 111th Congress but were not enacted. No
comprehensive reauthorization bill was introduced in the 112th Congress. In the 113th Congress,
bills were introduced in the House and Senate that sought to amend the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. In the House bill, the National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2014 was incorporated as part of H.R. 4159, the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014, and referred to two committees. No further action was
taken on the bill. In the Senate, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2014
was incorporated as part of S. 2757, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014. S.
2757 was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and no further
action was taken.
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 its development and commercialization.
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 (NSET) Subcommittee ...................... 12
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office ................................................................. 13
Funding .................................................................................................................................... 14
Agency Funding ................................................................................................................ 15
Program Component Area Funding ................................................................................... 17
Centers, Networks, and User Facilities ................................................................................... 23
NNI Assessments by PCAST, NRC: Selected Issues, Findings, and Recommendations .............. 24
Selected Recommendations from PCAST’s Fifth Assessment ................................................ 26
NNI Program Management ..................................................................................................... 28
Funding .................................................................................................................................... 32
U.S. Technological and Industrial Leadership ......................................................................... 33
Technology Commercialization ............................................................................................... 34
Standards ................................................................................................................................. 37
Economic Impact Metrics and Data Collection ....................................................................... 38
Nanotechnology Workforce Education and Training .............................................................. 40
Environmental, Health, and Safety-Related Issues.................................................................. 41
Societal Implications ............................................................................................................... 45
Concluding Observations ............................................................................................................... 46

Figures
Figure 1. Organizations With a Role in the National Nanotechnology Initiative and Their
Relationships .............................................................................................................................. 14

Tables
Table 1. NNI Funding, by Agency: FY2001-FY2014 and FY2015 Request ................................. 16
Table 2. Funding by Program Component Area, FY2013-FY2015 Request ................................. 20
Table 3. NNI Funding, by Program Component Area, FY2006-FY2012 ...................................... 22

Congressional Research Service

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Appendixes
Appendix A. Selected Nanotechnology Legislation in the 113th, 112th, and 111th
Congresses .................................................................................................................................. 48
Appendix B. Description of Program Component Areas In Use for FY2006 to FY2013 ............. 62
Appendix C. Selected Reports on the National Nanotechnology Initiative ................................... 64
Appendix D. List of NNI and Nanotechnology-Related Acronyms .............................................. 70

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 71

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 FY2014, Congress
appropriated approximately $19.4 billion for nanotechnology research and development (R&D).
President Obama has proposed $1.5 billion in NNI funding for FY2015. The NNI’s efforts have
been directed at advancing understanding and control of matter at the nanoscale,1 where the
physical, chemical, and biological properties of materials differ in fundamental and useful ways
from the properties of individual atoms or
Nanotechnology: A Description
bulk matter.2
The term “nanotechnology” is often used as an all-
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, Executive Office of the
support, and acceptance; and development
President, 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 In the context of the NNI and nanotechnology, the nanoscale refers to a dimension of 1 to 100 nanometers (see box on
this page).
2 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. Since then, 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 research and development
(R&D) has a national-level nanotechnology program.
In 2014, Lux Research, an emerging technologies consulting firm, estimated total (public and
private) global nanotechnology funding for 2012 to be approximately $18.5 billion.3 Lux
Research had previously estimated that in 2010 corporate R&D had surpassed publicly funded
R&D for the first time.4 Cientifica, a privately held nanotechnology business analysis and
consulting firm, estimated global public investments in nanotechnology in 2010 to be
approximately $10 billion per year, with cumulative global public investments through 2011
reaching approximately $67.5 billion. In 2011, Cientifica also concluded that the United States
had fallen behind both Russia and China in nanotechnology R&D funding on a purchasing power
parity (PPP) basis (which takes into account the price of goods and services in each nation), but
still led the world in real dollar terms (adjusted on a currency exchange rate basis).5
Global investments in nanotechnology have begun to yield economic benefits as products
incorporating nanotechnology enter the marketplace. Nano-enabled products are estimated to
have produced $731 billion in revenues in 2012.6 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 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, more energy-efficient computer and television
displays, 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. A 2014

3 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Report to the President and Congress on the Fifth Assessment of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative
, October 2014.
4 Working Party on Nanotechnology, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD /NNI
International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology, Background Paper 2: Finance and
Investor Models in Nanotechnology,
March 16, 2012, p. 4.
5 Cientifica, Global Funding of Nanotechnologies and Its Impact, July 2011, http://cientifica.eu/blog/wp-content/
uploads/downloads/2011/07/Global-Nanotechnology-Funding-Report-2011.pdf.
6 Lux Research, Nanotechnology Update: Corporations Up Their Spending as Revenues for Nano-enabled Products
Increase
, February 17, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
2

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

estimate by Lux Research projects nanotechnology product revenues would reach $4.4 trillion by
2018.7
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;8
• new organs to replace damaged or diseased ones;9
• contact lenses, skin patches, and glucose-sensing tattoos that monitor diabetics’
blood sugar levels and warn when too high or low;10
• clothing that protects against toxins and pathogens;11
• clean, inexpensive, renewable power through energy creation, storage, and
transmission technologies;12
• inexpensive, portable water purification systems that provide universal access to
safe water;13
• energy efficient, low-emission “green” manufacturing systems;14
• high-density memory systems capable of storing the entire Library of Congress
collection on a device the size of a sugar cube;15
• inexpensive, flexible, durable, low-voltage “electronic skin” sensors that allow
robots and prosthetic limbs to detect changes in pressure, humidity, and
temperature;16

7 Lux Research, “Overhyped Technology Starts to Reach Potential,” press release, July 22, 2008,
http://www.luxresearchinc.com/press/RELEASE_Nano-SMR_7_22_08.pdf.
8 National Cancer Institute website. http://nano.cancer.gov/resource_center/tech_backgrounder.asp
9 Ibid.
10 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. National Institute of Diabetes
and Digestive and Kidney Disease, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Strategic
Plan for Pediatric Urology,
February 2006.
11 Risbud, Aditi. “Fruit of the Nano Loom,” Technology Review, February 2006.
12 Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC), Executive Office of the President (EOP), Nanoscience Research for Energy Needs, December 2004.
13 Risbud, Aditi. “Cheap Drinking Water from the Ocean,” Technology Review, June 2006.
14 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.
15 Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering, and Technology, NSTC, EOP, National Nanotechnology
Initiative—Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,
http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/iwgn/iwgn.fy01budsuppl/
nni.pdf.
16 Meital Segev-Bar, Avigail Landman, and Maayan Nir-Shapira, et al., “Tunable Touch Sensor and Combined Sensing
Platform: Toward Nanoparticle-Based Electronic Skin,” ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, vol. 5, no. 12 (2013),
pp. 5531-5541.
Congressional Research Service
3

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• agricultural technologies that increase crop yield and improve nutritional value,
reducing global hunger and malnutrition;17
• self-repairing materials;18
• powerful, small, inexpensive sensors that can warn of minute levels of toxins and
pathogens in air, soil, or water;19 and
• decontaminated industrial sites through environmental remediation.20
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 R&D 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 2000.21 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 2013, 27 agencies participate in the NNI, including 16 that have received
appropriations to conduct and/or fund nanotechnology R&D.22 Since its first year of funding in
FY2001, the NNI’s annual appropriations grew four-fold to a peak of $1.9 billion in FY2010.
Since then, however, federal nanotechnology funding has declined, falling to an estimated $1.5
billion in FY2014. President Obama has requested $1.5 billion in NNI funding for FY2015.23
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

17 U.S. Department of Agriculture, 21st Century Agriculture: A Critical Role for Science and Technology, 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.
18 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, Nanotechnology in Space Exploration, August 2004, http://www.nano.gov/
nni_space_exploration_rpt.pdf.
19 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, Nanotechnology and the Environment, May 2003, http://www.nano.gov/
NNI_Nanotechnology_and_the_Environment.pdf.
20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proceedings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Workshop on
Nanotechnology for Site Remediation,
October 2005.
21 The White House, “National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,” press release,
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.
22 Fifteen agencies received funding in FY2013 for nanotechnology R&D; the Department of Justice has not received
nanotechnology R&D funding since FY2010.
23 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s FY2013
Budget
, March 2014.
Congressional Research Service
4

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

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).24 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.25 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, energy, concrete, and forest products.
The NNI agencies also have sought to address research needs and regulatory issues related to
environmental, health, and safety, 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,
metrology26 and standards, nomenclature, and nanoscale materials characterization.
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;

24 While many provisions of this act have no sunset provision, FY2008 was the last year of agency authorizations
included in the act.
25 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.
26 Metrology is the science of measurement, including the equipment and processes used to produce a measurement.
Congressional Research Service
5

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• 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 technologies27 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.”28 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
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.29
Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 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.30 They argue that the very characteristics that make

27 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).
28 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.
29 Crews, Clyde Wayne Jr., “Washington’s Big Little Pork Barrel: Nanotechnology,” Cato Institute website, May 29,
2003.
30 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

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.31 At least one NGO has
called for a moratorium on nanotechnology R&D and new commercial products incorporating
synthetic nanoparticles.32
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 has stated the following vision for the NNI:
The vision of the NNI is a future in which the ability to understand and control matter at the
nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry that benefits society. The NNI
expedites the discovery, development, and deployment of nanoscale science, engineering,
and technology to serve the public good, through a program of coordinated research and
development aligned with the missions of the participating agencies.33
To achieve its vision, the NNI has established four goals:
• advance a world-class R&D program;
• foster the transfer of new technologies into products for commercial and public
benefit;
• develop and sustain educational resources, a skilled workforce, and a dynamic
infrastructure and toolset to advance nanotechnology; and
• support responsible development of nanotechnology.34

(...continued)
and Science Education, House Committee on Science and Technology, October 31, 2007.
31 “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.
32 ETC Group, “No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium—Size Matters!,” Occasional Paper Series,
April 2003, http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/165.
33 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014,
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
34 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
7

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

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).35
In his FY2001 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.36
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 R&D.
In FY2001, the first year of NNI funding, Congress provided $464 million to eight agencies for
nanoscale R&D.37 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 27 agencies participate in the NNI, 16 of which have received
appropriated funds for nanotechnology R&D.38 Total NNI funding in FY2013 is estimated at
approximately $1.6 billion. The original six agencies identified at the launch of the NNI39 still
account for the vast majority of NNI funding (approximately 95% in FY2013).

35 National Nanotechnology Initiative website, http://www.nano.gov/html/about/history.html.
36 The White House, “National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,” press release,
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.
37 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.
38 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.
39 The original six agencies identified at the launch of the NNI were the Department of Defense, Department of Energy,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

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, 2003.40
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,41 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.
Key provisions of the act include
• authorizing appropriations for the nanotechnology-related activities of the NSF,
DOE, NASA, NIST, and EPA 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;42
• establishing a triennial review of the NNP by the National Research Council of
the National Academy of Sciences;

(...continued)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (Department of Commerce), National Science Foundation, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Institutes of Health (DHHS). The White House, “National
Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,” press release, 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.
40 U.S. Congress. 2003. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. P.L. 108-153. 15 U.S.C. 7501.
108 Cong., December 3.
41 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.
42 Executive Order 13539 designates the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) as the
National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-04-27/pdf/2010-9796.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• 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:
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.43

43 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, December 2004,
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_Strategic_Plan_2004.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10

The National Nanotechnology Initiative


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 113th
Congress, 111th Congress, and 110th Congress. No comprehensive reauthorization legislation was
introduced in 112th Congress.
In the 113th Congress, bills were introduced in the House and Senate that sought to amend the 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. In the House bill, the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2014 was incorporated as part of H.R. 4159, the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014, which was referred to two committees and
multiple subcommittees. No further action was taken on the bill. In the Senate, the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2014 was incorporated as part of S. 2757, the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014. S. 2757 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and no further action was taken.
Several earlier efforts were made to amend and/or reauthorize provisions of the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, including:
• 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.
• 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.
• 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. 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.
• 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.
For additional information, see Appendix A, “Selected Nanotechnology Legislation in the 113th,
112th, and 111th Congresses.”
Congressional Research Service
11

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Structure
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) 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 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 NIST, and
an OSTP co-chair. The NSET Subcommittee is comprised of representatives from 27 federal
entities (including 16 that have funded, over the course of the NNI, nanotechnology R&D), OSTP
and the Office of Management and Budget.44
The NSET Subcommittee has two working groups—Nanotechnology Environmental and Health
Implications (NEHI) and Nanomanufacturing, Industry Liaison, and Innovation (NILI). In
addition, coordinators have been established for four issue areas: global issues; standards
development; environmental, health, and safety research; and education, engagement, and societal
dimensions.45 Two previously established working groups—Global Issues in Nanotechnology and
Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications—were eliminated.
Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications
The Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications 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 EHS research needs related to nanotechnology.
Sixteen NNI agencies (as well as the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO),
OSTP, and OMB) participate in the NEHI working group, including agencies that fund safety-

44 The agencies that participate in the NSET Subcommittee comprise the NNI. NSET Subcommittee members include
Forest Service, USDA; National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA; Agricultural Research Service, USDA;
Bureau of Industry and Security, DOC; Consumer Product Safety Commission; DOD; Department of Education; DOE;
DHS; Department of Justice; Department of Labor; Department of State; Department of Transportation; Department of
the Treasury; Director of National Intelligence; Economic Development Administration, DOC; EPA; Food and Drug
Administration, HHS; U.S. International Trade Commission; NASA; NIH, Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS); NIOSH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HHS; NIST, DOC; NSF; Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior; and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, DOC. 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). Two Executive Office of the President organizations
also participate on the NSET Subcommittee, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of
Management and Budget.
45 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to
a Revolution in Technology and Industry-Supplement to the President’s FY2008 Budget
, July 2007,
http://www.nano.gov/NNI_08Budget.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

related nanotechnology research and/or have regulatory authorities to guide the safe use of
nanomaterials.46
Nanomanufacturing, Industry Liaison, and Innovation
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 to advance and accelerate the creation of new products and
manufacturing processes derived from discovery at the nanoscale. 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.47
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office
The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office provides administrative and technical support
to the NSET Subcommittee. Initially established in 2001 through a memorandum of
understanding among the NNI participating agencies, 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.
In addition, the NNCO serves as a liaison to academia, industry, professional societies, foreign
organizations, and others, facilitating the exchange of technical and programmatic information.
The NNCO also coordinates preparation and publication of NNI interagency planning, budget,
and assessment documents, and maintains the NNI website, http://www.nano.gov.
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
memorandum of understanding signed by eight NNI agencies. 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 FY2013 was $3.0 million.48 Five agencies—NSF, NIH, DOD, DOE, and
DOC—accounted for approximately 95% of this funding. This funding supports NNCO staff and
activities, as well as funding for the triennial review of the NNI by the National Research
Council.

46 NNI website, http://nano.gov/nehi.
47 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.
48 OSTP/OMB, EOP, FY 2013 Interagency Funding For Activities of the National Science And Technology Council.
Congressional Research Service
13


The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Figure 1. Organizations With a Role in the National Nanotechnology Initiative
and Their Relationships

Source: Reproduced from The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Nanoscale, Science, Engineering,
and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, February 2014.
Note:
* Executive Order 13539 designates the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) as
the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-04-27/pdf/2010-
9796.pdf.
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.
Congressional Research Service
14

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 FY2014, NNI R&D funding totaled an estimated $1.538 billion, a $12.7 million (0.8%)
decrease from FY2013. The overall increase was driven primarily by reductions in the R&D
budgets of NIH (down $17.3 million, 3.8%), DOE (down $10.9 million, 3.5%), and NSF (down
$10.4 million, 2.5%), and offset, in part, by increases at DHS (up $10 million, 71.4%), NIST (up
$6.4 million, 7.0%), and DOD (up $5.8 million, 3.4%). The chronology of NNI funding by
agency is detailed in Table 1.
President Obama has requested $1.537 billion in funding for the NNI in FY2015, essentially the
same as in FY2014. In general, increases in funding for DOE and DHS would be offset by
decreases at DOD, NIST, and NASA. The FY2015 NNI budget request would support a broad
range of programs among 15 agencies. Five agencies accounted for 93% of NNI funding in
FY2014:49
• HHS, primarily NIH, (28.7%), which emphasizes nanotechnology-based
biomedical advances occurring at the intersection of biology and the physical
sciences;
• NSF (26.7%), which supports fundamental nanotechnology research across
science and engineering disciplines;
• DOE (19.7%), which supports nanotechnology research providing a basis for
new and improved energy efficiency, production, storage, and transmission
technologies;
• DOD (11.4%), whose investments in nanotechnology are aimed at addressing the
department’s national security mission; and
• NIST (6.4%), which focuses on research in instrumentation, measurement,
standards, characterization, and nanomanufacturing.
Other agencies investing in mission-related nanotechnology R&D are: DHS; NASA; EPA; the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Forest Service, and Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) at the Department of Agriculture (USDA); the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS); DHS; Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA); and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

49 Based on FY2014 estimated funding levels.
Congressional Research Service
15


Table 1. NNI Funding, by Agency: FY2001-FY2014 and FY2015 Request
(in millions of current dollars)
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
ARRA
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
(P.L.
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
FY2015
Agency
Request
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
111-5)a
Actual
Actual
Est.
Actual
Est.b
Department of Energyc
88 89 134 202 208 231 236 245
332.6 293.2 373.8 346.2 313.8 314.2 303.3 343.1
National Science Foundation
150
204
221
256
335 360 389 409
408.6
101.2
428.7 485.1 466.3 421.0 410.6 412.4
National Institutes of Health (HHS)
40
59
78
106
165 192 215 305
342.8 73.4
456.8 408.6 456.0 458.8 441.5 441.5
Department of Defensed
125 224 220 291 352 424 450 460 459.0
439.6 425.3 426.1 170.1 175.9 144.0
Nat’l Inst. of Standards and Tech. (DOC)
33
77
64 77 79 78 88 86
93.4
43.4
114.7 95.9 95.4 91.4 97.8 82.6
NASA
22 35 36 47 45 50 20 17
13.7 19.7 17.0 18.6 16.4 17.9 13.7
Environmental Protection Agency
5
6
5
5 7 5 8 12
11.6
17.7
17.4 17.5 14.6 15.5 16.8
Food and Drug Administration (HHS)




6.5
7.3
9.9 13.6 16.1 17.0 17.0
Nat’l Inst. for Occ. Safety and Health (HHS)




3
4
7
7
6.7

8.5 10.0 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.1
Nat’l Inst. of Food and Agriculture (USDA)e

1 2 3 4 4 6
9.9 13.2 10.0 11.3 12.5 13.1 12.8
Department of Homeland Security

2
1 1 1 2 2 3
9.1
21.9
9.0 18.7 14.0 24.0 32.4
Forest Service (USDA)





2 3 5
5.4
7.1
10.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
Agricultural Research Service (USDA)












2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Federal Highway Administration (DOT)





1
1
1
0.9

3.2 1.0 1.0 2.4 2.0 1.5
Consumer Product Safety Commission




0.2
0.5
1.8 2.0 1.3 2.0 2.0
Department of Justice
1
1
1
2
2
<1
2
0
1.2

0.2





TOTALf
464 697 760 989 1,200 1,351 1,425 1,554
1,701.6 511.3
1,912.8 1,847.3 1,857.3 1,550.2 1,537.5 1,536.9
Sources: NNI website, http://www.nano.gov; NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative, Supplement to the President’s FY2015 Budget, March 2014.
Notes:
a. Funding figures for nanotechnology-related R&D under the ARRA are preliminary estimates.
b. 2014 numbers are based on 2014 enacted levels, and may shift as operating plans are finalized.
c. Funding levels for DOE include the combined budgets of the Office of Science, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), the Office of Fossil
Energy, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E).
d. According to NSTC, the DOD budgets shown above include congressionally directed funding of approximately $76 million in FY2006, $63 million in FY2007, $117
mil ion in FY2009, and $75 million in FY2010. According to NSTC, the 2008 DOD estimate “includes many earmarks that are outside the NNI plan.”
e. Formerly, the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
f.
Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
CRS-16

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 split the
seventh PCA, Societal Dimensions, into two PCAs: Environment, Health, and Safety; and
Education and Societal Dimensions. In 2014, the NSET Subcommittee revised its taxonomy for
PCAs in order “to accommodate the maturation of the Initiative, the enhanced emphasis on
applications, and the greater participation by agencies and communities that are not focused
primarily on R&D.”50 The revision reduces the number of PCAs from eight to five. Of particular
note is the addition of a PCA to identify funding devoted to the Nanotechnology Signature
Initiatives (NSIs) with a breakout of funding provided for each NSI. According to the NSET
Subcommittee “the new PCAs are more broadly strategic, fully inclusive, and consistent with
Federal research categories, while correlating well with the NNI goals and high-level
objectives.”51
A description of the new PCAs and their current funding is provided below. A chronology of NNI
funding by PCA is provided in Table 2 using the new PCA structure for FY2013 to FY2015
(request) and in Table 3 using the previous PCA structure from FY2006-FY2012.52
Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives
The NNI’s Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives (NSIs) are multi-agency, cross-sector
collaborations designed to accelerate innovation in targeted areas of national priority. According
to the NSET Subcommittee:
NSIs serve to spotlight topical areas that exhibit particular promise, existing effort, and
significant opportunity, and that bridge across multiple Federal agencies. They are intended
to be dynamic, with topical areas rotating and evolving over time. This category includes
foundational research and nanotechnology-enabled applications, devices, and systems within
each NSI, as appropriate. Instrumentation that is specifically developed in support of a
confined topical area covered by one of the NSIs is included here, but otherwise, the
development or acquisition of more broadly applicable instrumentation (as well as resources
devoted to facilities) falls under the separate PCA on Research Infrastructure and
Instrumentation. Most research on Environment, Health, and Safety falls within the separate
PCA ... but activities directly pertinent to specific NSIs are reported [under the NSI PCA].53

50 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014,
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
51 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s FY2015
Budget
, March 2014, http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_fy15_budget_supplement.pdf.
52 A description of the previous PCA categories is provided in Appendix A.
53 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014,
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Total funding for the NNI Signature Initiatives in FY2014 was $298.1 million, up $18.2 million
(6.5%) from FY2013. The President requested $291.3 million for FY2015.
The following paragraphs provide a brief description of each NSI, as articulated by the NSET
Subcommittee, and current and requested funding levels:54
Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion. The Nanotechnology for
Solar Energy Collection and Conversion NSI is focused on understanding of energy
conversion and storage phenomena at the nanoscale, improving nanoscale characterization of
electronic properties relevant to solar energy, and utilization of the unique physical
phenomena that occur on the nanoscale to help overcome current performance barriers and
substantially improve the collection and conversion of solar energy. This NSI has three thrust
areas: (1) improving photovoltaic solar electricity generation; (2) improving solar thermal
energy generation and conversion; and (3) improving solar-to-fuel conversions. Funding in
FY2014 was $67.4 million, down $6.2 million (8.4%) from FY2013. The President requested
$69.2 million for FY2015.
Sustainable Nanomanufacturing. The Sustainable Nanomanufacturing NSI is focused on
establishing manufacturing technologies for economical and sustainable integration of
nanoscale building blocks into complex, large-scale systems by supporting product, tool, and
process design informed by and adhering to the overall constraints of safety, sustainability,
and scalability. This NSI specifically focuses at this time on high-performance structural
carbon-based nanomaterials, optical metamaterials, and cellulosic nanomaterials. The
nanomanufacturing NSI has two thrust areas: (1) design of scalable and sustainable
nanomaterials, components, devices, and processes; and (2) nanomanufacturing measurement
technologies. Funding in FY2014 was $38.4 million, up $3.7 million (10.7%) from FY2013.
The President requested $36.2 million for FY2015.
Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond. The Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond NSI is
focused on discovery and use of novel nanoscale fabrication processes and innovative
concepts to produce revolutionary materials, devices, systems, and architectures to advance
the field of nanoelectronics. The nanoelectronics NSI has five thrust areas: (1) exploring new
or alternative “state variables” for computing; (2) merging nanophotonics with
nanoelectronics; (3) exploring carbon-based nanoelectronics; (4) exploiting nanoscale
processes and phenomena for quantum information science; and (5) expanding the national
nanoelectronics research and manufacturing infrastructure network. Funding in FY2014 was
$76.7 million, down $10.6 million (12.1%) from FY2013. The President requested $71.5
million for FY2015.
Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure. The Nanotechnology Knowledge
Infrastructure NSI has four thrust areas that focus efforts on cooperative interdependent
development of (1) a diverse collaborative community; (2) an agile modeling network
coupling experimental basic research, modeling, and applications development; (3) a
sustainable cyber-toolbox for nanomaterials design; and (4) a robust digital nanotechnology
data and information infrastructure. Funding in FY2014 was $32.1 million, up $24.6 million
(328.0%) from FY2013. The President requested $26.2 million for FY2015.

54 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014,
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18

The National Nanotechnology Initiative


Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology. The Nanotechnology for
Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology NSI has two thrust areas: (1) to develop and
promote adoption of new technologies that employ nanoscale materials and features to
overcome technical barriers associated with conventional sensors; and (2) to develop methods
and devices to detect and identify engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) across their life cycles in
order to assess their potential impact on human health and the environment. Funding in
FY2014 was $83.5 million, up $6.7 million (8.7%) from FY2013. The President requested
$88.2 million for FY2015.
Foundational Research
The Foundational Research PCA includes:
• discovery and development of fundamental knowledge pertaining to new
phenomena in the physical, biological, and engineering sciences that occur at the
nanoscale;
• elucidation of scientific and engineering principles related to nanoscale
structures, processes, and mechanisms;
• research aimed at discovery and synthesis of novel nanoscale and nanostructured
materials and at a comprehensive understanding of the properties of
nanomaterials ranging across length scales, and including interface interactions;
and
• research directed at identifying and quantifying the broad implications of
nanotechnology for society, including social, economic, ethical, and legal
implications.55
Funding for the Foundational Research PCA in FY2014 was $539.8 million, down $41.5 million
(7.1%) from FY2013. The President requested $530.4 million for FY2015.
Nanotechnology-Enabled Applications, Devices, and Systems
The Nanotechnology-Enabled Applications, Devices, and Systems PCA includes: R&D that
applies the principles of nanoscale science and engineering to create novel devices and systems,
or to improve existing ones, and the incorporation of nanoscale or nanostructured materials and
the processes required to achieve improved performance or new functionality, including
metrology, scale up, manufacturing technology, and nanoscale reference materials and standards.
To meet this definition, the enabling science and technology must be at the nanoscale, but the
applications, systems, and devices themselves are not restricted to that size.56

55 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014,
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
56 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014,
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Funding for the Nanotechnology-Enabled Applications, Devices, and Systems PCA in FY2014
was $363.2 million, up $1.8 million (0.5%) from FY2013. The President requested $363.0
million for FY2015.
Research Infrastructure and Instrumentation
The Research Infrastructure and Instrumentation PCA includes the establishment and operation of
user facilities and networks, acquisition of major instrumentation, workforce development, and
other activities that develop, support, or enhance the nation’s physical or human infrastructure for
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology. This PCA includes R&D pertaining to the tools
needed to advance nanotechnology research and commercialization, including next generation
instrumentation for characterization, measurement, synthesis, and design of materials, structures,
devices, and systems. While student support to perform research is captured in other categories,
dedicated educational and workforce efforts ranging from curriculum development to advanced
training are included in this PCA as resources supporting the human infrastructure of the NNI.57
Funding for the Research Infrastructure and Instrumentation PCA in FY2014 was $223.2 million,
up $10.7 million (5.0%) from FY2013. The President requested $239.8 million for FY2015.
Environment, Health, and Safety
The Environment, Health, and Safety PCA includes R&D primarily directed at understanding the
environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology development and corresponding risk
assessment, risk management, and methods for risk mitigation.58
Funding for the Environment, Health, and Safety PCA in FY2014 was $113.3 million, down $1.8
million (1.6%) from FY2013. The President requested $112.4 million for FY2015.

Table 2. Funding by Program Component Area, FY2013-FY2015 Request
(in millions of current dollars)
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
PCA
Actual
Estimated
Request
Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives
$ 279.9
$ 298.1
$ 291.3
Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion
73.6
67.4
69.2
Sustainable Nanomanufacturing
34.7
38.4
36.2
Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond
87.3
76.7
71.5
Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure
7.5
32.1
26.2
Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology
76.8
83.5
88.2

57 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014,
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
58 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014,
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
20

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
PCA
Actual
Estimated
Request
Foundational Research
581.3
539.8
530.4
Nanotechnology-enabled Applications, Devices, and Systems
361.4
363.2
363.0
Research Infrastructure and Instrumentation
212.5
223.2
239.8
Environment, Health, and Safety
115.1
113.3
112.4
Total
$ 1,550.2
$ 1,537.5
$1,536.9
Source: NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s
FY2015 Budget
, March 2014, http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_fy15_budget_supplement.pdf.
Notes: Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.


Congressional Research Service
21


Table 3. NNI Funding, by Program Component Area, FY2006-FY2012
(in millions of current dollars, except for final column)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
ARRA
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
PCA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
(P.L. 111-5)
Actual
Actual
Actual
Fundamental Phenomena and Processes
455.9
480.6
478.5
479.2
130.6
490.5
567.9
518.8
Nanomaterials
265.1 258.3 285.1 331.9 178.3 358.9 348.2 358.5
Nanoscale Devices and Systems
319.6
344.7
372.7
435.2
68.0
542.1
454.7
457.9
Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards
51.0
52.5
69.0
90.8
12.4
89.4
73.2
58.3
Nanomanufacturing
33.8 48.1 47.1 75.6 28.5 84.8 92.0
114.9
Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition
152.4 152.4 196.4 177.6 72.5 190.2 185.8 197.1
Societal
Dimensions
73.5

- Environment, Health, and Safety

48.3
67.9
74.5
12.0
90.2
88.0
109.9
- Education & Societal Dimensions

39.2
37.7
36.8
9.0
66.9
37.5
41.9
TOTALa 1,351.2
1,424.1
1,554.4
1,701.5
511.3
1,912.8
1,847.3
1857.3
Sources: NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to
the President’s FY2008 Budget
, July 2007. NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, National Nanotechnology Initiative: FY2009 Budget & Highlights, February 2008. NSET
Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s
FY2010 Budget
, May 2009. NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and
Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2011 Budget
, The White House, February 2010. NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and
Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2012 Budget
, February 2011. NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National
Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2013 Budget
, February 2012. NSET
Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s
FY2014 Budget
, May 2013.
Notes: n/a = not available
a. Totals may differ from the sum of the components due to rounding.
CRS-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. Among them:
• The NSF has established a variety of university-based centers supporting
nanotechnology research, including Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers
(NSECs), Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), Nanosystems Engineering
Research Centers (NERCs), Science and Technology Centers, Materials Research
Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs), Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Networks (NSENs), and Centers for Chemical Innovation (CCIs).
• The NIH has established more than 25 centers, including five 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; nine university-based Centers
of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, established under the NCI’s Alliance for
Nanotechnology in Cancer initiative; four university-based centers, established
by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute under its Program of Excellence
in Nanotechnology; and six university-based NCI Cancer Nanotechnology
Training Centers. In addition, NSF and the Environmental Protection Agency
have established two university-based Centers for Environmental Implications of
Nanotechnology (CEIN).
• The DOD supports three university-based nanotechnology research centers, as
well as the Institute for Nanoscience at the Naval Research Laboratory.
• The DOE has established five Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs).
The NSRC user facilities are co-located with DOE 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.
• The USDA Forest Service has established Cellulose Nanomaterial Pilot
Facilities, including the Process Development Center/University of Maine School
of Forest Resources and the Advance Structures and Composites Center and the
Forest Products Laboratory.
Some 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,
Congressional Research Service
23

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

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 NSRCs, and the NIST CNST); other
user facilities are located at universities and supported with federal funds (e.g., NSF’s 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.59 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.60 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.61 The NNN NSECs were established by NSF in collaboration with DOD and NIST, but
exclusively with NSF funds.62
NNI Assessments by PCAST, NRC:
Selected Issues, Findings, and Recommendations

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
(NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),63 and by the National Nanotechnology
Advisory Panel (NNAP), directing the President to “establish or designate a National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.” Both President Obama64 and President Bush65 issued executive
orders designating the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to serve as the
NNAP. References to PCAST in this section refer to the council operating in its capacity as the
NNAP.

59 Private telephone communication between CRS and NSTC staff, January 31, 2008.
60 Private email communication between CRS and NSF staff, January 31, 2008.
61 Private telephone communication between CRS and NSTC staff, January 31, 2008.
62 Private email communication between CRS and NSF staff, January 31, 2008.
63 The NAS and NRC are part of the National Academies which also includes the National Academy of Engineering
and the Institute of Medicine.
64 Executive Order 13539.
65 Executive Order 13349.
Congressional Research Service
24

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Under the act, the NNAP is to report to the President and Congress on its assessments of the NNP
at least once every two years on a variety of factors, including trends and developments in
nanotechnology science and engineering; progress made in implementing the NNP; the need to
revise the program; the balance among the program components, including funding levels for the
program component areas; whether the program component areas, priorities, and technical goals
developed by the NSTC are helping to maintain U.S. leadership in nanotechnology; the
management, coordination, implementation, and activities of the program; and whether societal,
ethical, legal, environmental, and workforce concerns are adequately being addressed.
In addition, the act directs the NNCO to enter into an arrangement with NRC to conduct a
triennial review of the program. Each review is to include an evaluation of the technical
accomplishments of the program, including the following:
• a review of whether the program has achieved the goals under the metrics
established by the NSTC;
• a review of the program’s management and coordination across agencies and
disciplines;
• a review of the funding levels at each agency for the program’s activities and the
ability of each agency to achieve the program’s stated goals with that funding;
• an evaluation of the program’s success in transferring technology to the private
sector;
• an evaluation of whether the program has been successful in fostering
interdisciplinary research and development;
• an evaluation of the extent to which the program has adequately considered
ethical, legal, environmental, and other appropriate societal concerns;
• recommendations for new or revised program goals;
• recommendations for new research areas, partnerships, coordination and
management mechanisms, or programs to be established to achieve the program’s
stated goals;
• recommendations on policy, program, and budget changes with respect to
nanotechnology research and development activities; recommendations for
improved metrics to evaluate the success of the program in accomplishing its
stated goals;
• a review of the performance of the NNCO and its efforts to promote access to
and early application of the technologies, innovations, and expertise derived from
program activities to agency missions and systems across the federal government
and to U.S. industry;
• an analysis of the relative position of the United States compared to other nations
with respect to nanotechnology R&D, including the identification of any critical
research areas where the United States should be the world leader to best achieve
the goals of the program; and
• an analysis of the current impact of nanotechnology on the U.S. economy and
recommendations for increasing its future impact.
Congressional Research Service
25

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

The PCAST has produced five assessments of the NNI and the NRC has produced two. The
assessment reports are:
The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel,
NNAP/PCAST, May 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “First Assessment”).
A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
NAS/NRC, 2006.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel,
NNAP/PCAST, April 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Second Assessment”).
Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, NNAP/PCAST, March 2010, (hereinafter referred to
as “Third Assessment”).
Report to the President and Congress on the Fourth Assessment of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, NNAP/PCAST, April 2012 (hereinafter referred to as
Fourth Assessment”).
Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, NRC, 2013.
Report to the President and Congress on the Fifth Assessment of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, NNAP/PCAST, October 2014 (hereinafter referred to
as “Fifth Assessment”).
Highlights of recommendations included in the Fifth Assessment are provided below, followed by
selected findings and recommendations of each of the assessments grouped by broad issue area.
Selected Recommendations from PCAST’s Fifth Assessment
In its Fifth Assessment, PCAST asserts that nanotechnology and the NNI are at a “critical
transition point.” Technologically, PCAST states, there will be an “evolution from nanoscale
components to interdisciplinary nano-systems,” a change in the complexity and potential of
nanotechnology. Organizationally, PCAST states the need for the NNI to evolve from “a
foundational research-based initiative to one that also provides the necessary focus to ensure
rapid commercialization of nanotechnology.”66 PCAST asserts the importance of adopting an
increased focus on enabling commercialization of research in the context of international
competition.
Further, PCAST asserts, as its “primary conclusion,” that
the United States will only be able to claim the rewards that come from investing in
nanotechnology research and sustaining an overarching Federal initiative if the Federal
interagency process, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the agencies
themselves transition their nanotechnology programmatic efforts beyond supporting and

66 PCAST (acting as the NNAP), Report to the President and Congress on the Fifth Assessment of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, October 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/
pcast_fifth_nni_review_oct2014_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

reporting on basic and applied research and toward building program, coordination, and
leadership frameworks for translating the technologies into commercial products.
PCAST identifies the “three most important recommendations” of its Fifth Assessment as:
1. transitioning from the NNI’s current use of Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives
to the concept of Grand Challenges (discussed in the box “Characteristics of
Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives and Grand Challenges”);
2. the establishment of a standing committee of cross-sector nanotechnology
experts that advises the nanotechnology activities of the federal government, and
an NSTC process that enables cross-funding of priorities to address Grand
Challenges; and
3. the need for a more formal systems of metrics to assess the effectiveness of NNI
research and commercialization activities.
In addition, PCAST recommended an expansion of the National Science Foundation’s iCorps
program to include a specific focus on entrepreneurship in the nanotechnology area; the
identification of potential Institutes for Manufacturing Innovation dedicated to
nanomanufacturing as part of the President’s proposed National Network for Manufacturing
Innovation;67 and additional five-year support for single-investigator pursuing high-risk research
in nanoscience and nanotechnology. PCAST adds that, while it encourages the NNI to provide
additional focus on and resource for the commercial transition of maturing nanotechnologies, it
affirms the importance of the NNI’s continuing support for discovery and exploratory research.
While acknowledging that “much of the analysis and many of the recommendations are not new,”
PCAST asserts that implementation of its recommendations is critical to the success of the NNI,
adding
If another two years passes without these kinds of changes, we believe the value of a
centrally-reported NNI will be substantially decreased. The next PCAST review will most
certainly focus on the success of this implementation.68

67 For information about the President’s proposed National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, see CRS Report
R42625, The Obama Administration’s Proposal to Establish a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, by
John F. Sargent Jr.
68 PCAST (acting as the NNAP), Report to the President and Congress on the Fifth Assessment of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative
, October 2014, pp. 3-4, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
PCAST/pcast_fifth_nni_review_oct2014_final.pdf.

Congressional Research Service
27

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Characteristics of Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives and Grand Challenges
In its Fifth Assessment, PCAST recommends replacing the NNI’s Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives with “Grand
Challenges.” This box provides information and differentiation on the characteristics associated with NSIs and Grand
Challenges.
According to the NSET Subcommittee, the NNI implemented Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives “to enable the
rapid advancement of science and technology in the service of national economic, security, and environmental goals
by focusing resources on critical challenges and R&D gaps.”69 NSIs provide a mechanism for increased collaboration
on topical areas that the NNI deems likely to benefit from close and targeted interagency interactions. NSIs employ a
broad range of funding mechanism to foster innovation and accelerate nanotechnology development. The first three
NSIs were initiated in 2010 and are focused on solar energy, sustainable manufacturing, and next-generation
electronics. In 2012, the NNI added NSIs on informatics and sensors, bringing the total number of NSIs to five.
In its Fifth Assessment, PCAST defines the term “Grand Chal enges” and differentiates it from a Nanotechnology
Signature Initiative:
While an NSI is shaped by the coordination of three or more Federal agencies around a topic, a Grand
Challenge is a large, outward‐facing effort with a specific, measurable goal. A Grand Challenge has a well‐defined
technical goal with a story‐telling case that inspires different sectors to invest in achieving the goal. Most Grand
Challenges address an issue of significant societal impact. An example is the goal of the DOE SunShot Initiative:
“reduce the total costs of photovoltaic solar energy systems by about 75% so that they are cost competitive at
large scale with other forms of energy without subsidies before the end of the decade.” A nanotechnology Grand
Challenge should be audacious but achievable and stimulate the network of activities that will drive scientific
ideas to commercial nanotechnology and catalyze new discovery for technologies of the future.70
In addition, PCAST states that Grand Challenges: have a measurable end‐point; require advances in fundamental
scientific knowledge, tools, and infrastructure for successful completion; have clear milestones en route to the final
goal that are both measurable and valuable in their own right; are integrating, with solutions requiring the involvement
of multiple disciplines that, in many cases, do not typically interact; span from fundamental science to engineering
demonstration and, upon completion, to commercialization; are too big to be undertaken by a single institution or
even a few institutions.

NNI Program Management
PCAST’s Fifth Assessment of the NNI recommended several changes to the management of the
NNI, including:
• Replacing Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives with Grand Challenges
(discussed earlier);
• Establishing a mechanism for engaging research, development, and industrial
stakeholders in the identification and selection of Grand Challenges;
• Using innovation prize competitions and public-private partnerships to reach
critical milestones toward completion of Grand Challenges;
• Selecting leaders for each Grand Challenge and including them in NSET
leadership roles;

69 NNI website, http://www.nano.gov.
70 PCAST (acting as the NNAP), Report to the President and Congress on the Fifth Assessment of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative
, October 2014, pp. 27-28, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
PCAST/pcast_fifth_nni_review_oct2014_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
28

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• Putting the PCAST review of the NNI on a three-year time interval concurrent
with the National Research Council’s review;
• Establishing a separate standing committee of cross-sector nanotechnology
experts to provide guidance to the NNI (but not to function in an evaluative
capacity); and
• Establishing a common set of evaluation metrics to quantify and report the
impact on workforce, productivity, and scientific knowledge in nanotechnology71
In its 2013 Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative draft, the NRC identified
five crosscutting topics:
First, it is essential to identify and support the members of the NNI nanotechnology
community....
Second, strengthening NNI planning, management, and coordination can be enabled by
developing and implementing interagency plans for focused areas—the signature initiatives
and the working groups....
Third, the NNI website (www.nano.gov) needs to serve the various stakeholder groups—
including researchers, small and large businesses, educators and students, and the mass
media—better....
Fourth, the NSET Subcommittee, NNI agencies, and the NNCO need to take advantage of
advances in technology and methods for data collection and social-network analysis to
develop and test specific metrics for assessing progress toward NNI goals and informing
program management....
Fifth, the NNI would benefit from identifying, sharing, and implementing best practices,
such as those described in this report, especially [those] related to technology transfer and
commercialization.72
In support of these themes, the NRC made a number of recommendations related to program
management (as well as recommendations to address other issues; these are presented later in this
section). Among the NRC recommendations:
• The NSET Subcommittee should regularly assess working groups, re-defining or
eliminating ones that are no longer useful and forming new working groups as
needed. The NRC recommended the NSET Subcommittee consider establishing
working groups on facility oversight and coordination and on education and
workforce development.
• Each NSET Subcommittee working group should address specific goals, develop
annual plans for outputs and shorter-term outcomes, and highlight ties to the NNI
signature initiatives.

71 PCAST (acting as the NNAP), Report to the President and Congress on the Fifth Assessment of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative
, October 2014, pp. 6-7, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
PCAST/pcast_fifth_nni_review_oct2014_final.pdf.
72 NRC, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, draft, 2013, pp. 90-91.
Congressional Research Service
29

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• The NSET Subcommittee should inform and obtain input from the NSTC
Committee on Technology with respect to NNI objectives and plans at least once
a year.
• The NNI website should be redesigned to provide portals and guidance
customized to meet the needs of a variety of NNI stakeholder communities,
including companies, user facilities, users, educators, and the media.
• Each signature initiative team should develop a strategic plan that includes
specific goals with quantifiable technical targets where possible, milestones,
expected outputs and short-term outcomes, and that identifies the roles and
responsibilities of agencies, the NSET Subcommittee, and the NNCO.
• The NSET Subcommittee should incentivize groups in nanotechnology-enabled
industries to participate in developing technical roadmaps and in partnering to
address long-term research needs through agency efforts such as the NIST
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortium program (AmTech).73
In its 2013 draft report, the NRC (like PCAST in its Third Assessment, see below) also expressed
concerns about the adequacy of authority of NSET Subcommittee representatives within their
agencies and their ability to influence budget decision making. The NRC does acknowledge that
“there may be a tradeoff between authority in the agencies and the ability to devote time and
effort to the many NNI coordinating activities.”74
In its Fourth Assessment, PCAST lauded the NNI’s “significant progress” in addressing several
issues identified in the Third Assessment, but expressed concern about the lack of progress in
others, notably “significant and persistent hurdles to an optimal structure and management of the
initiative.” In particular, PCAST noted that despite the publication in 2011 of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan,75
individual agency contributions lack the cohesion of an overarching framework, and there is
no clear connection between the goals and objectives of the NNI strategic plan with those of
individual agencies.76
While recognizing that some agencies do not have dedicated nanotechnology programs, but rather
decentralized nanotechnology activities across multiple organizational units, PCAST
recommended the development of implementation plans by each agency—in consultation with
external stakeholders—that discuss the alignment of agency activities with the objectives of the
NNI strategic plan.
PCAST renewed its recommendations that each NSET Subcommittee agency have senior
representatives with decision-making authority participate in coordination activities of the NNI,
and that the NSET Subcommittee dedicate 0.3% of NNI funding to the NNCO to ensure
appropriate staffing and budget levels to effectively develop, monitor, and assess NNI programs.

73 NRC, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, draft, 2013, pp. 1-9.
74 NRC, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, draft, 2013, p. 6.
75 NSTC Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2011,
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2011_strategic_plan.pdf.
76 PCAST, EOP, Fourth Assessment, April 2012.
Congressional Research Service
30

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

In 2011, NNCO funding was $2.9 million; if funding had been set at 0.3%, the NNCO would
have received $5.5 million in FY2011.77
To expand and strengthen the role of the NNCO in the NNI, PCAST also recommended
appointing the NNCO director as a co-chair of the NSET Subcommittee and allowing non-federal
experts to serve as NNCO director.78
PCAST further recommended creating a standing PCAST Nanotechnology Steering Committee
of experts from industry, academia, and civil society to provide more frequent and in-depth
guidance.79 This recommendation raises the question of whether the role envisioned for the
NNAP, as authorized by the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, is
appropriately being served by PCAST or whether it might be better served by the establishment
of a separate, dedicated entity. In its first assessment of the NNI, the NRC recommended that
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.80
Coming after President Bush’s designation of PCAST to serve as the legislatively mandated
NNAP, this recommendation may suggest the need for a separate, NNI-only focused entity to
serve as the NNAP. 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-specific and interdisciplinary expertise and an undivided
focus. Supporters of using PCAST for this function assert that a single advisory panel provides an
integrated perspective, reduces unnecessary cost and management burdens, and allows for
expertise to be added to the panel or accessed through non-member technical advisory groups.
In its Third Assessment, PCAST praised the NNI for having “distinguished itself during its first
decade as a successful cooperative venture,” and further described the initiative as well-organized
and well-managed.81 Nevertheless, in both its Third Assessment and Fourth Assessment, PCAST
offered a number of recommendations for improving NNI program management. In its Third
Assessment
, PCAST stated that “the NNCO should broaden its impact and efficacy and improve
its ability to coordinate and develop NNI programs and policies.” In this regard, PCAST
recommended that OSTP undertake the following actions:
• Require each agency in the NNI to have senior representatives with decision-
making authority participate in coordination activities of the NNI.
• Strengthen the NNCO to enhance its ability to act as the coordinating entity for
the NNI.

77 Ibid.
78 Ibid
79 Ibid.
80 NRC, A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2006.
81 PCAST, EOP, Third Assessment, March 12, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
31

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• Dedicate 0.3% of NNI funding to the NNCO to ensure the appropriate staffing
and budget to effectively develop, monitor and assess NNI programs.82
In its 2013 budget supplement, the NSET Subcommittee characterized these program
management recommendations as actions “unlikely or not needed.” With respect to requiring the
participation of senior agency representatives with decision-making authority, the NSET
Subcommittee replied that member agencies make their own decisions with regard to
representation. The NSET Subcommittee also responded to PCAST’s recommendation that the
NNCO’s coordination function be strengthened and better funded. First, the NSET Subcommittee
reasserted that it is the NSET Subcommittee, not the NNCO, that serves as the coordinating entity
for the NNI, and that the NNCO serves to provide administrative support to the NSET
Subcommittee. Second, the NSET Subcommittee stated that it did not support providing the
NNCO a fixed percentage of the overall NNI investment, explaining that NNCO activities are
based on programmatic needs as proposed each year by the NNCO and vetted by the NSET
Subcommittee’s Budget Steering Group.
Funding
A key question for federal policy makers is how much funding should be provided for
nanotechnology R&D, and how this funding should be allocated among program component
areas and cross-cutting activities. While NNI funding grew from $464 million in FY2001 to a
peak of $1.913 billion in FY2010, regular appropriations for the NNI subsequently fell to an
estimated $1.857 billion in FY2012. The President has requested $1.702 billion for FY2014.
In its 2013 draft report, the NRC noted that, given the constrained federal budget environment,
agencies will need to set priorities for R&D investments and expand coordination of
nanotechnology efforts.83
In its Third Assessment, PCAST recommended that the federal government increase funding for
the NNI to ensure that the United States retains its
leadership role in the development and commercialization of nanotechnology in the face of
mounting competition from countries that have responded to the example set by the NNI.84
PCAST cautioned that in undertaking these new investments the NNI should maintain or expand
the level of funding devoted to basic nanotechnology research.
Similarly, in its first assessment of the NNI, the NRC recommended
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

82 Ibid. Two other PCAST program management recommendations related to metrics and appointment of individuals to
the NNCO to lead interagency EHS and standards development efforts are discussed elsewhere in this section.
83 NRC, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, draft, 2013, p. 81.
84 PCAST, EOP, Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative
, March 12, 2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-nni-report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

making new funds available that do not come at the expense of much-needed ongoing
investment in U.S. physical sciences and engineering research.85
U.S. Technological and Industrial Leadership
Given the economic, societal, and national security potential of nanotechnology, Congress
maintains ongoing interest in the competitive position of the United States in this emerging field.
In its 2013 draft report, the NRC noted that Battelle/R&D Magazine’s 2012 Global R&D Funding
Forecast86 predicted the United States’ share of total R&D87 would decrease from 32.8% in 2010
to 31.1% in 2012, while the share funded by the nations of Asia is expected to grow from 34.3%
to 36.7%, potentially posing long-term challenges to U.S. competitiveness. Nevertheless, the
NRC notes that R&D spending is only one factor among many (such as tax, regulatory, health
care, energy, and education policies; subsidy programs; currency valuation; science-based
industrial parks; and worker training) that can affect national competitiveness. The NRC
recommended that the NSET Subcommittee periodically review the status of the competitive
environment for nanotechnology-enabled industry in the United States relative to that of other
nations.88
In its Fifth Assessment, PCAST recognized the global competition for nanotechnology talent and
recommended that NNI agencies support single investigators engaged in creative, high-risk
research, and to fund at least five new National Security Science and Engineering Faculty
Fellowship-style grants in nanoscience and nanotechnology annually. PCAST also offered strong
support for nanoscale research centers and infrastructure networks—particularly the Next
Generation National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network—for training transdisciplinary
scientists and engineers.
In its Fourth Assessment, PCAST asserted that the NNI “remains a successful cooperative
venture” that has had a “catalytic and substantial impact” on the growth of the U.S.
nanotechnology industry, and concluded that
the United States is today, by a wide range of measures, the global leader in this exciting and
economically promising field of research and technological development.89
PCAST attributed the U.S. leadership position in nanotechnology, in large part, to the NNI.
The assertion of U.S. leadership in nanotechnology echoes PCAST’s findings in its Third
Assessment
. That assessment, however, noted that U.S. leadership was threatened by several
aggressive competitors:

85 NRC, A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2006, http://books.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=11752.
86 Battelle and R&D Magazine, “2012 Global R&D Funding Forecast,” December 2011, http://battelle.org/docs/
default-document-library/2012_global_forecast.pdf?sfvrsn=2, accessed 11/15/2012.
87 Total R&D includes nanotechnology and all other fields.
88 NRC, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, draft, 2013, p. 81.
89 PCAST, EOP, Report to the President and Congress on the Fourth Assessment of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative
, April 2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/
PCAST_2012_Nanotechnology_FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
33

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

The United States is clearly the world’s leader in nanotechnology R&D and
commercialization based on research funding, total number of papers in the most significant
scientific publications, patents filed and granted, private sector funding for new and existing
companies developing nanotechnologies, and sales of nanotechnology-based products.
However, foreign competitors, particularly China, South Korea, Germany, and Japan, are
making gains on many of these same metrics. China in particular has significantly increased
its share of nanotechnology research publications and patents and now supports
nanotechnology as a larger fraction of its total scientific research compared to the United
States.... Though still the leader in nanotechnology R&D and commercialization, the United
States is losing ground to foreign competitors, particularly China, South Korea, Germany,
and Japan, on a number of key metrics of research output and commercial activity.90
PCAST’s Fourth Assessment noted that “in addition to China, South Korea, and other early
movers, the Russian Nanotech Corporation (RUSNANO) is now also rising as a major player,
second only to the United States in its nanotechnology R&D spending.”91 PCAST cited data from
Lux Research indicating that RUSNANO had increased its funding by nearly 40% to $1.05
billion, and planned to increase funding to nearly $1.5 billion by 2015.
PCAST’s assessment of the U.S. leadership position was 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. For example, companies may choose to manufacture products or
conduct other value-added activities outside the United States. If the assessment of national
competitiveness were to be expanded to include value-added activities and jobs generated or
retained within the United States, then different metrics for assessing global leadership might be
needed.
Technology Commercialization
Technology commercialization involves the movement of scientific and technological insights
into products and services. It is the process by which knowledge created by investments in R&D
is translated into economic benefits (e.g., strengthening existing firms and establishing new ones,
creating jobs, producing new products, reducing the cost of existing products and improving their
performance, delivering returns to investors) and societal benefits (e.g., offering new and
improved sources of renewable energy, reducing pollution and remediating environmental
damage, improving human heath).
PCAST’s Fifth Assessment of the NNI recommended several changes to improve the
commercialization of nanotechnology. PCAST recommended that the NSET Subcommittee
should work with federal agencies to define potential Manufacturing Innovation Institutes
dedicated to nanomanufacturing as part of the President’s proposed National Network for
Manufacturing Innovation. PCAST also recommended expansion of the NSF iCorps program—
focused on providing hands-on business knowledge to scientists and engineers on bringing

90 PCAST, EOP, Third Assessment, March 12, 2010.
91 PCAST, EOP, Fourth Assessment, April 2012.
Congressional Research Service
34

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

technology products to market—to assist researchers engaged in nanoscience and nanotechnology
research. Additionally, PCAST called for the NNCO and the Department of Commerce to
establish an annual nano-focused economic development forum for academic researchers, the
venture capitalists, and industry representatives to facilitate the development of business
partnerships.
In its 2013 draft report, the NRC credits the NNI agencies and the NNCO for having taken steps
to boost technology transfer of NNI research results, including making technology transfer a
primary goal; reporting on progress in the annual budget supplement, including the amount of
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program and Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) program funds going to nanotechnology research; providing access to information about
the NNI and user facilities through the NNI website; and conducting workshops on regional,
state, and local programs related to nanotechnology.
The NRC noted that there are a variety of cooperative research models with unique characteristics
that the NNI might draw upon to facilitate technology commercialization. In this regard, the NRC
recommended that the NNI agencies identify and share best practices in intellectual property
management.92
In its Fourth Assessment, PCAST continued its Third Assessment emphasis on improving
commercialization efforts, and lauded the NNI’s response to commercialization-related
recommendations the council made in its previous assessment, specifically:
• development of an NNCO Industry and State Liaison position and expanded
efforts by the NNCO in supporting nanotechnology commercialization;
• the NILI working group’s development of an agenda focused on job creation and
state outreach, as well as mechanisms to incorporate industrial input in NNI
planning;
• DOE programs that include industrial partners to overcome technological barriers
to nanotechnology commercialization;
• NIST’s plans to start the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia
program in FY2013 to speed development and commercialization of new
products and services, including nanotechnology; and
• NIH’s creation of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences to
accelerate translation of promising technologies and clinical studies to
applications and practice.93
Nevertheless, the PCAST co-chairs also noted in their transmittal letter to President Obama that
additional work in a number of areas was still required to facilitate technology commercialization
and U.S. leadership in nanotechnology:
... additional efforts are needed in four areas: strategic planning, program management,
metrics for assessing impact, and increasing support for research on environmental, health,
and safety issues associated with nanotechnology. Continued lack of attention to these

92 NRC, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, draft, 2013, p. 84.
93 PCAST, EOP, Fourth Assessment, April 2012.
Congressional Research Service
35

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

concerns will make it harder for the U.S. to maintain its leadership role in the
commercialization of nanotechnology.94
Previously, in its Third Assessment, PCAST recommended that, to maintain the U.S. leadership
position in nanotechnology,
the NNI increase its emphasis on nanomanufacturing and commercial deployment of
nanotechnology-enabled products, and that the agencies within the NNI must interact and
cooperate more with one another to ease the translation of scientific discovery into
commercial activity.95
In this regard, PCAST made a number of recommendations. Among them:
• double federal funding for nanomanufacturing over five years;
• launch at least five government-industry-university partnerships modeled after
the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative;
• for each nanotechnology signature initiative, develop milestones, promote strong
education components, and create public-private partnerships to leverage the
outcomes;
• fund at least five NSIs over the next two to three years—including ones in
priority areas such as homeland security, national defense, and human health—at
annual levels of $20 million to $40 million each;
• tap the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration for
advice on how the NNI can best ensure its programs create new jobs in the
United States, including mechanisms for coordinating with state efforts; and
• clarify the development pathway and sustain investments by DOE, DOD, NIST,
NIH, NCI, and FDA in focused areas to accelerate technology transfer to the
marketplace.96
In its 2013 budget supplement, the NSET Subcommittee responded to PCAST’s
commercialization-focused recommendations stating that “key NNI agencies” were on track to
double their nanomanufacturing investments over five years, while maintaining their investments
in fundamental nanotechnology research. The five agencies identified by PCAST as targets for
doubling—NSF, DOE, DOD, NIST, and NIH—funded a total of $46.8 million in
nanomanufacturing R&D in FY2008; in FY2012 nanomanufacturing funding for these agencies
had more than doubled to $101.5 million. Agency funding was concentrated, with NSF and DOD
accounting for 86% of this total. However, President Obama has requested $89.9 million in
nanomanufacturing funding for these agencies for FY2014, a reduction of $11.6 million (11.4%)
from the FY2012 level.97

94 Ibid.
95 PCAST, EOP, Third Assessment, March 12, 2010.
96 Ibid.
97 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s 2013
Budget
, February 2012.
Congressional Research Service
36

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

The NSET Subcommittee also said that interagency task forces for the three initial NSIs were
developing coordination plans with milestones, that there was a likelihood that two additional
NSIs would be added within the next year, and that the NILI working group was working in
conjunction with the NNCO’s Industry and State liaison to produce a work plan that includes job
creation and outreach to states and industry. With respect to clarifying the development pathway,
the NSET Subcommittee asserted that it is employing well-established mechanisms, such as the
SBIR and STTR programs, and that it is developing new programs to accelerate technology
transfer and to clarify regulatory pathways.98
Standards
Standards are likely to play a critical role in many aspects of nanotechnology R&D and
commercialization, among them the development of research tools, conduct of research,
reproducibility of experimental results, development and enforcement of regulations, materials
characterization, nanomanufacturing, and product testing and evaluation.
In its 2013 draft report, the NRC encouraged the NNI and NNCO to continue efforts focused on
facilitating the development of standards:
Standards development is critical for commercialization, use, and sound regulation of
nanotechnology. The NNCO and NIST have played leading roles in this activity. NNI
agencies should continue their active participation in standards development organizations
and in the development of metrology and characterization tools, standard reference materials,
terminology, and nomenclature.99
As in earlier assessments, in its Third Assessment, PCAST re-asserted the importance of standards
stating that “the establishment of standards is essential to growth of most new technologies, and
nanotechnology is no exception.”100 Further, PCAST recommended that the NNCO serve as the
coordinating agency for
collaborating with stakeholders on enabling programs such as metrology; standards including
size, shape and composition of nanomaterials, and databases of physical and chemical
properties of nanomaterials; and manufacturing safety.101
In support of this role, PCAST also recommended that an individual be appointed to the NNCO
to lead interagency coordination of standards development efforts.102 With the departure of
NNCO Director Clayton Teague who had served in this capacity, the NSET Subcommittee named
Dr. Ajit Jillavenkatesa, senior standards policy advisor for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, to this role. Dr. Jillavenkatesa also co-chairs the Nanotechnology Standards Panel of
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), is active in the ANSI-accredited U.S.
Technical Advisory Group to the International Organization for Standardization Technical
Committee 229, and participates in the NSET Subcommittee.103

98 Ibid.
99 NRC, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, draft, 2013, p. 83.
100 PCAST, EOP, Third Assessment, March 12, 2010.
101 Ibid.
102 Ibid.
103 Email communication between CRS and OSTP, August 20, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
37

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Economic Impact Metrics and Data Collection
PCAST’s Fifth Assessment of the NNI recommended establishing a common set of evaluation
metrics to quantify and report the impact on workforce, productivity, and scientific knowledge in
nanotechnology.
Economic impact metrics and data collection were also focus areas of the NRC’s 2013 draft
report. The NRC recommended:
• the NNI establish a framework that links high level goals with specific actions,
outputs, and outcomes, linked to performance-based data;
• the NNI collect and publish nine data sets to enable a better quantitative
assessment of the NNI’s success, including
(1) NNI-funded projects;
(2) published documents resulting from NNI activities;
(3) frequently cited and downloaded papers and patents, invited presentations, special
sessions at conferences, and media reports;
(4) number of students supported;
(5) user-facility and network use;
(6) technology transfer data;
(7) education and outreach data;
(8) U.S.-based nanotechnology job advertisements; and
(9) NNI-related communications about environmental, health, safety, and societal
implications of nanotechnology
The NRC cautioned, however, against the exclusive use of strictly quantitative measures
for assessing NNI success, stating that “well-crafted qualitative and semi-quantitative
metrics and their review, supported by rigorously documented quantitative metrics, are
more likely to be useful in producing evaluations that measure success and in setting NNI
goals and policy.”104
• the NSET Subcommittee and the NNCO obtain data-mining expertise to
undertake the collection and collation of essential data sets, to develop analysis
tools to support the management and reporting needs of the NNCO and the
agencies, and to manage the process of making the data sets publicly available;
and
• agencies link NNI participants to their work products, organizations, and grants,
as well as to published paper and patent databases.

104 NRC, Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, draft, 2013, p. 45.
Congressional Research Service
38

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

In its Third Assessment, PCAST highlighted the need for economic impact metrics and data
collection, recommending the development of NNI economic impact metrics; making economic
impact an explicit metric in the second decade of the NNI; and lodging responsibility with a
statistical agency (such as the DOC’s Bureau of Economic Analysis) to estimate job creation and
the value of nanotechnology products and products incorporating nanotechnology components,
rather than relying on funding agencies for such estimates.105
In its 2013 budget supplement, the NSET Subcommittee also responded that the NNCO had
engaged in discussions with the Department of Commerce about economic metrics, provided
support for a symposium on the economic value of nanotechnology, and requested the NRC
identify metrics to assess the success of nanotechnology as part of the council’s triennial review
of the NNI.106
In its first assessment of the NNI, the NRC also recommended a focus on development of metrics
and a greater role for the DOC in economic data collection and analysis:
[The NRC recommends] the NSET Subcommittee 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.107
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 2007.108 Prior to its elimination, the Technology
Administration contracted for two studies that sought to 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.109

105 PCAST, EOP, Third Assessment, March 12, 2010.
106 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s 2013
Budget
, February 2012.
107 NRC, A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2006.
108 The Technology Administration was eliminated in the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69).
109 College of Business Management, University of Illinois at Springfield, Barriers to Nanotechnology
Commercialization
, September 2007, http://www.osec.doc.gov/Report-
Barriers%20to%20Nanotechnology%20Commercialization.pdf; and ASTRA, Innovation Vital Signs Project, July
2007. http://www.ntis.gov/pdf/Report-InnovationVitalSigns.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
39

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Nanotechnology Workforce Education and Training
With nanotechnology advocates promising the creation of many new jobs—some have estimated
the number to be in the millions—as a result of global nanotechnology investments, some have
asserted that the country must prepare students for nanotechnology research, engineering, and
production jobs.110 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 (e.g., 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 may be lost and human capital underutilized. In addition,
potential students may be discouraged from pursuing nanotechnology-related studies in the
future. 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.
In its 2013 draft report, the NRC noted the NNI’s recognition of the importance of
nanotechnology education and workforce training, but asserted a need for better coordination and
integration among NNI agencies. To this end, the NRC recommended either re-defining the scope
of the Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications working group to undertake this
work or establishing a new NSET Subcommittee Education and Workforce Development
Working Group for this purpose. Similarly, in its 2006 assessment, the NRC recommended the
NSET Subcommittee “create a working group on education and the workforce that engages the
Department of Education and Department of Labor as active participants.”
In its Third Assessment, PCAST found that the United States remained unchallenged in educating
nanotechnology researchers. However, PCAST noted that a large number of foreign students
return to their home countries after completing their education:
The United States still trains the majority of Ph.D. students in nanoscience and
nanotechnology, and though many of these students wish to remain in the United States after
completing their degree programs, the data show that over one-third of these students return
to their home countries and contribute to the development of nanotechnology R&D programs
throughout the world.111
While acknowledging that the United States may gain some benefits from training
nanotechnology researchers who return to their home countries, PCAST recommended the federal
government undertake efforts to retain scientific and engineering talent trained in the United
States:
by developing a program to provide U.S. Permanent Resident Cards for foreign individuals
who receive an advanced degree in science or engineering at an accredited institution in the

110 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.
111 PCAST, EOP, Third Assessment, March 12, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
40

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

United States and for whom proof of permanent employment in that scientific or engineering
discipline exists.112
PCAST also recommended that NNI agencies continue making investments in innovative and
effective education, and that the NNCO consider commissioning a comprehensive evaluation of
the outcomes of the overall investment in NNI education.113
In its 2013 budget supplement, the NSET Subcommittee responded to PCAST’s Third Assessment
workforce education and training recommendations stating that NNI agencies were contributing
to the development of nanotechnology curricula for students in grade school through postdoctoral
training, and that NSF is considering supporting an external study to evaluate the NNI’s
investment in education. In addition, while acknowledging the need to undertake efforts to retain
U.S. educated foreign scientific and engineering talent in the United States, the NSET
Subcommittee stated that it did not endorse specific approaches at this time.114
Environmental, Health, and Safety-Related Issues
Environmental, health, and safety issues related to nanotechnology research, development, use,
and disposal (nanoEHS) continue to be a focus of NNI assessments. Some analysts have
described nanotechnology as a two-edged sword. On the one hand, some are concerned, for
example, that nanoscale particles may enter and accumulate in vital organs, such as the lungs and
brains, potentially causing harm or death to humans and animals, and that the diffusion of
nanoscale particles in the environment might harm ecosystems. On the other hand, some analysts
believe that nanotechnology has the potential to deliver important EHS benefits (e.g., reducing
energy consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions; remediating environmental
damage; curing, managing, or preventing diseases; and offering new safety-enhancing materials
that are stronger, self-repairing, and able to adapt to provide protection).
Stakeholders generally agree that concerns about potential detrimental effects of nanoscale
materials and devices—both real and perceived—must be addressed to protect and improve
human health, safety, and the environment; create public faith and confidence in the safety of
nanotechnology products; enable accurate and efficient risk assessment, risk management, and
cost-benefit trade-offs; reduce EHS and related regulatory uncertainties that may impede
investment;115 foster innovation; and ensure that society can enjoy the widespread economic and
societal benefits that nanotechnology may offer.
The NSET Subcommittee has sought to address nanotechnology-related EHS concerns through a
variety of approaches, including agency funding for EHS-related research, increased coordination
of agency EHS-related research through the NSET Subcommittee’s NEHI Working Group, and
development of a government-wide research strategy.

112 Ibid.
113 Ibid.
114 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s 2013
Budget
, February 2012.
115 For more information on regulatory issues associated with nanotechnology, see CRS Report RL34332, Engineered
Nanoscale Materials and Derivative Products: Regulatory Challenges
, by Linda-Jo Schierow.
Congressional Research Service
41

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

At the request of the NNCO, the NRC conducted a review of the NSET Subcommittee’s 2008
nanoEHS research strategy, Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and
Safety Research
.116 While the NRC found that the NSET Subcommittee’s 2008 strategy “could be
an effective tool for communicating the breadth of federally supported research associated with
developing a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental, health, and safety
implications of nanotechnology” and that it was “likely to eliminate unnecessary duplication of
their research efforts,” it concluded that
[the report] does not describe a strategy for nano-risk research. It lacks input from a diverse
stakeholder group, and it lacks essential elements, such as a vision and a clear set of
objectives, a comprehensive assessment of the state of the science, a plan or road map that
describes how research progress will be measured, and the estimated resources required to
conduct such research.
There remains an urgent need for the nation to build on the current research base related to
the EHS implications of nanotechnology—including the federally supported research
described in the 2008 NNI document—by developing a national strategic plan for
nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety research.117
Among its criticisms of the 2008 strategy, the NRC asserted that:
• research needs in certain categories, notably risk management and exposure
assessment, were “poorly defined” or “incomplete”;
• certain research needs that did not fall directly in one of the strategy’s identified
categories could be overlooked;
• research needs were not presented as concrete, measurable objectives, and that
the implementation plan failed “to provide any sense of how success toward
specific goals will be measured or what resources might be needed to achieve
them”;
• the gap analysis was flawed and was neither accurate nor complete in laying a
foundation for a research strategy, and that consequently it was difficult to
understand the priorities of selected research needs and the logic for the
priorities; and
• the federal funding specifically addressing nanotechnology-related EHS issues is
far less than portrayed in the NNI document and may be inadequate.
The NRC review also called for the development of a national strategic plan, not just a federal
government strategic plan. The NRC asserted that the 2008 strategy’s focus on federal
government agency activities failed to incorporate the role of non-governmental stakeholders
with the potential for contributing research and knowledge of the EHS implications of
nanotechnology.

116 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety
Research,
February 2008.
117 NRC, Review of Federal Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research, 2009,
p. 93.
Congressional Research Service
42

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

In 2011, the NSET Subcommittee published Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental,
Health, and Safety Research
,118 which sought to address some of the shortcomings of the 2008
research strategy identified by the NRC. According to the NSET Subcommittee, the strategy was
informed by data collected from “the NNI agencies responsible for overseeing the manufacture
and use of engineered nanomaterials and nanotechnology-enabled products”; reviews by PCAST
and the NRC; and consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders, including industry, academia,
non-governmental organizations, and public health advocacy organizations.119
The 2011 strategy identified five core nanoEHS research needs: nanomaterial measurement
infrastructure, human exposure assessment, human health, environment, and risk assessment and
risk management methods. For each of the nanoEHS research needs, the NSET Subcommittee set
goals, identified needed research, and analyzed ongoing research. The strategy also included a
chapter on informatics and modeling for nanoEHS research.
In 2012, the NRC published, A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects
of Engineered Nanomaterials
, in response to a request from the Environmental Protection Agency
to perform an independent study to develop and monitor the implementation of an integrated
research strategy to address the EHS aspects of engineered nanomaterials. In putting forward its
own strategy, the NRC asserted that
Despite increasing budgets for nanotechnology-EHS research and a growing number of
publications, regulators, decision-makers, and consumers still lack the information needed to
make informed public health and environmental policy and regulatory decisions.120
The conceptual framework put forth by the NRC included three key features:
• a value-chain and life-cycle perspective that considers potential effects
originating in the production and use of nanomaterials, nanomaterial-containing
products, and the wastes generated;
• a focus on determining how nanomaterial properties affect key processes that are
relevant to predicting both hazard and exposure; and
• a reliance on principles that help to identify emergent, plausible, and severe risks
resulting from designing and engineering materials at the nanoscale, rather than
an adherence to rigid definitions of engineered nanomaterials.
PCAST has also made a number of findings and recommendations related to EHS research.
In its Fifth Assessment, PCAST recommended that NSET
continue development of a multidisciplinary nanotechnology environmental, health, and
safety ecosystem that promotes non‐animal based (alternative) test strategies for safety
assessment and multi‐stakeholder participation in regulatory decisionmaking and safe

118 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy, October 2011.
119 NSET Subcommittee, NSTC, EOP, Key Concepts in the 2011National Nanotechnology Initiative Environmental,
Health, and Safety Research Strategy.

120 NRC, A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
43

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

implementation to facilitate market access of nanomaterials and nanotechnology‐enabled
products.121
In its Third Assessment, PCAST found that
In the absence of more detailed scientific evidence—and effective assessment and
communication of the evidence that does exist—the distinction between plausible and
implausible risks remains unclear. The resulting uncertainty threatens to undermine
confidence and trust among investors, businesses, and consumers, and could jeopardize the
success of nanotechnology. This is not a hypothetical threat. Consumer and advocacy groups
already have raised concerns over the use of engineered nanomaterials in products as diverse
as clothing, fuel additives, and sunscreens. Businesses have been hampered by regulatory
uncertainty. A number of industries have shied away from nanotechnology for fear of
consumer rejection in the face of speculative concerns.122
In its 2006 assessment, the NRC recommended expansion of funding for nanoEHS research. The
NRC specifically noted the need for assessing the effects of engineered nanomaterials on public
health and the environment and recommended the development of effective methods to estimate
the exposure of humans, wildlife, and other ecological receptors to source material; assess effects
on human health and ecosystems of both occupational and environmental exposure; and
characterize, assess, and manage the risks associated with exposure.123 While the NRC asserted
the need for additional EHS research, it did not quantify how much more was needed.
PCAST’s Fourth Assessment lauded the “significant progress” made by the NNI to address
potential EHS risks of nanotechnology, noting the rapid growth rate for EHS-focused research
funding compared to overall NNI funding; the implementation of PCAST’s earlier
recommendation to identify a central coordinator for EHS-research within the NNCO; and for
development and release of an EHS research strategy, articulating an approach that incorporates
the “evolving research needs and the strategic research plans of three relevant agencies.”124
PCAST noted that the NNI strategy aligned with the findings of the 2012 NRC report, A Research
Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials
,125
specifically with respect to
the importance of a life cycle approach to assessing risks, the need for more research on
human and environmental exposure to nanomaterials, better tools for measuring and tracking
nanomaterials, and the need for cross-cutting informatics infrastructure for nanotechnology-
related EHS research.126
However, PCAST expressed concerns about “a lack of integration between nanotechnology-
related EHS research funded through the NNI and the kind of information policymakers need to

121 PCAST (acting as the NNAP), Report to the President and Congress on the Fifth Assessment of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative
, October 2014, p. 7, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/
pcast_fifth_nni_review_oct2014_final.pdf.
122 PCAST, EOP, Third Assessment, March 12, 2010.
123 NRC, A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, 2006.
124 PCAST, EOP, Fourth Assessment, April 2012.
125 NRC, Committee to Develop a Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered
Nanomaterials, A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Aspects of Engineered
Nanomaterials (ENMs)
, 2012, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13347.
126 PCAST, EOP, Fourth Assessment, April 2012.
Congressional Research Service
44

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

effectively manage potential risks from nanomaterials.”127 To address this concern, PCAST
recommended that OSTP and the NSET Subcommittee expand the charter of the NEHI working
group to enable the group to address cross-agency nanotechnology-related policy issues more
broadly, and that the NNI should ensure close integration of its efforts with those of the Emerging
Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee (ETIPC).128 PCAST also
recommended additional funding for cross-cutting areas of EHS that promote knowledge transfer
such as informatics, partnerships, and instrumentation development.129
In its Third Assessment, PCAST credited the NNI with increasing funding for EHS-focused
research. Funding for EHS-related nanotechnology research across all agencies grew from $37.7
million in FY2006 to $109.9 million in FY2012. President Obama has requested $121.1 million
in nanoEHS funding for FY2014.
Some advocates for increased focus on nanotechnology-related EHS issues have proposed the
establishment of a separate agency or office devoted to nanotechnology EHS research, and/or to
set aside a particular percentage of NNI funding for EHS research. In its Second Assessment,
PCAST found these proposals to be “misguided” and potentially counterproductive as such
approaches may direct resources away from research “on beneficial applications and on risk.”
The panel also concluded that nanotechnology does not raise ethical concerns unique from those
accompanying other technological advances.130
Societal Implications
The term “societal implications” in the context of the NNI refers to the effects, broadly speaking,
that advances in nanotechnology research and application may have on individuals, groups, and
society as a whole. With nanotechnology holding potential breakthroughs in areas such as
materials and manufacturing, medicine and healthcare, environment and energy, biotechnology
and agriculture, electronics and information technology, and national security,131 the societal
implications—including ethical, economic, and legal implications—may be both deep and
widespread.
Understanding the potential societal implications of nanotechnology is considered important to
federal efforts to maximize nanotechnology’s potential positive effects and minimize its potential
negative effects. Beginning with its first review of the NNI, PCAST stressed the importance of
research aimed at understanding the societal implications of nanotechnology and recommended
the NNI actively work to inform the public about nanotechnology and to confront societal issues
in an open, straightforward, and science-based manner.132

127 Ibid.
128 The Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee was created jointly in 2010 by OSTP,
OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative. The
ETIPC members include assistant secretary-level representatives from about 20 Federal agencies.
129 PCAST, EOP, Fourth Assessment, April 2012.
130 PCAST, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and Recommendations of the National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel
, May 2005, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST-
NNAP-NNI-Assessment-2008.pdf.
131 NSF, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, March 2001, http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/
NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf.
132 PCAST, EOP, The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
45

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

PCAST has continued to stress the importance of a strong NNI program in societal implications,
recommending in its Fourth Assessment:
The NSET Subcommittee should develop a clear expectation and strategy for programs in
the societal dimensions of nanotechnology. An effective program in societal implications
would have well-defined areas of focus, clearly articulated outcomes as well as plans for
assessing and evaluating those outcomes, and partnerships that leverage the value of its
activities. Ultimately, the inclusion of such programs in the NNI has the goal of streamlining
nanotechnology innovation and its positive impact on society, and the creation of new jobs,
opportunities and a robust economy.133
Some critics of the NNI hold deep reservations about the ethical, societal, 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 nanoscale 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 not well
understood and may be acute, pose no more risk than other manufacturing processes, or perhaps
even less.
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 beneficial
applications, such as check-out-free purchases from stores or the monitoring of 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.134 Others express
concern that the economically disadvantaged and less educated—both individuals and nations—
might be unable or less able to take part in the benefits that nanotechnology products could
offer.135
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. Many experts believe that, as a result of this focus and these
sustained investments, the United States enjoys a technological leadership position in

(...continued)
National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, May 2005, http://www.nano.gov/html/res/
FINAL_PCAST_NANO_REPORT.pdf.
133 PCAST, EOP, Fourth Assessment, April 2012.
134 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.
135 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
46

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

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 identified 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, 110th Congress, 111th Congress, and 113th Congress considered legislation to
reauthorize the program. If the 114th 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, 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
47

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Appendix A. Selected Nanotechnology Legislation
in the 113th, 112th, and 111th Congresses

S. 2757 (113th Congress)—America COMPETES Reauthorization Act
of 2014

S. 2757, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2014, was introduced on July 31, 2014,
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The National
Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2014 is included as Subtitle B of Title VI of the
bill.
Among the provisions of the bill’s nanotechnology subtitle:
• The National Science and Technology Council would be directed to establish
nanotechnology signature initiatives in focused areas of national importance.
• The NSTC would be required to produce a strategic plan at least once every four
years. The strategic plan would specify the overarching goals for the program;
near-term and long-term objectives; and the metrics to be used for assessing
progress toward such objectives. In addition, the strategic plan would describe
how the program intends to allocate funding for interagency nanotechnology
projects; encourage and support interdisciplinary research and development in
nanotechnology; and support the engineering, scale-up, and commercialization of
nanotechnology necessary to move results out of the laboratory and into
applications.
• The federal multi-agency nanotechnology effort would be officially designated as
the “National Nanotechnology Initiative.”
• The Director of OSTP would be required to appoint the NNCO director to serve
as a co-chair of the NSET Subcommittee of the NSTC.
• The National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (currently PCAST, as designated
by the President) would be required to conduct reviews at least once every four
years.
• The NNCO would be required to engage the National Academy of Sciences in a
review of the program every four years. The review is to include: a review of the
research priorities of the program, including whether the amount and allocation
of funding among program component areas and nanotechnology signature
initiatives is appropriate to accomplish the program’s goals and objectives; an
evaluation of the program’s management and coordination across agencies and
disciplines, including the effectiveness of the NNCO in providing technical and
administrative support to the program; and an assessment of the program’s
success in transferring technology to the private sector and recommendations for
improving technology demonstration, transfer, and commercialization.
• With respect to technology transfer, the NNCO director and NNI agencies would
be encouraged to inform the public about the science, technology, and benefits of
nanotechnology; and the commercial products enabled by nanotechnology.
Congressional Research Service
48

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• NNI agencies would be encouraged to provide access to federally owned or
operated nanotechnology research centers or designated user facilities to a
representative of industry, academia, or other potential user for the purpose of
transferring research results; demonstrating models of nanoscale- or
nanotechnology-enabled products or devices; or demonstrative processes for
determining proof of concept.
• Agency heads would be authorized to reimburse the travel expenses of an
employee of the agency who participates in the development of domestic and
international standards for nanotechnology.
• The NNCO would serve as a central repository to collect, track, analyze, and
report data regarding the impact of nanotechnology on the U.S. economy;
publications concerning nanotechnology; patents relating to nanotechnology;
educational activities relating to nanotechnology; and matters concerning the
U.S. workforce and nanotechnology.
• The NSF in cooperation with the Secretary of Education and Secretary of Labor,
working with the NNCO, would be required to evaluate the investments of the
NNI in education and workforce training in a report to Congress.
• The Council, working with the NNCO director, would be required to periodically
convene meetings for nanotechnology related centers, networks, and user
facilities to share best practices regarding strategic planning, intellectual property
management, outreach to industry; and technology demonstration, transfer, and
commercialization.
Congress also would express its sense that the NSTC should coordinate development by the NNI
agencies of performance measures, targets, timeframes, cost estimates and available resources for
nanotechnology environment, health, and safety research that align with the research needs of the
NNI, consistent with the agencies’ respective statutory authorities, and to provide the information
in publicly available reports.
H.R. 4159 (113th Congress)—America Competes Reauthorization Act
of 2014 (including Subtitle B, the National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2014)

H.R. 4159 (113th Congress), the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2014, was introduced
on March 6, 2014, and referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the
Committee on Higher Education and the Workforce. The National Nanotechnology Initiative
Amendments Act of 2014 is included as Subtitle B of Title I of the bill.
Among the provisions of the bill’s nanotechnology subtitle:
• The National Science and Technology Council would be required to publish a
strategic plan every three years to guide the activities of the NNI. The strategic
plan is required to include near-term and long-term objectives for the NNI, the
anticipated timeframe for achieving the near-term objectives, and the metrics to
be used for assessing progress toward the objectives.
Congressional Research Service
49

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• Federal agencies would be directed to support nanotechnology standards
development efforts.
• Funding for the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office would be
provided by each NNI agency in proportion to its share of total NNI funding for
the previous fiscal year; the director of the NNCO would be authorized to
establish a minimum contribution level or other exception for agencies whose
share of total funding is below a threshold level.
• The NNCO would be required to maintain (1) a publicly accessible database of
NNI-funded environmental, health, and safety (EHS) activities (2) links to
agency information on nanotechnology facilities that are accessible to individuals
from academic institutions and industry.
• The National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel would be required to produce
triennial reviews of the NNI, and to do so, to the extent practicable, in the year
following each review by the National Research Council.
• The director of the NNCO would be required to enter into an arrangement with
the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences to produce
a triennial report on the NNI, including an evaluation of research priorities,
technical content, scientific and technological accomplishments, success in
technology transfer, and adequacy of the NNI’s activities addressing ethical,
legal, environmental, and other appropriate societal concerns, including human
health.
• The Director of the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy would
be required to designate a Coordinator for Environmental, Health, and Safety
Research to provide oversight of coordination, planning, and budget
prioritization of research and other activities related to nanotechnology EHS
research. The coordinator would be required to develop and update a research
plan triennially.
• NSET agencies would be encouraged to introduce nanoscale science,
engineering, and technology into undergraduate science and engineering
education by supporting the development of courses of instruction or modules to
existing courses, faculty professional development, and acquisition of equipment
and instrumentation suitable for undergraduate education and research in
nanotechnology. These educational efforts would be coordinated by the NSET
Subcommittee and the NSTC Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Math Education (CoSTEM).
• Any nanotechnology educational activity supported under the NNI’s Education
and Societal Dimensions program component area would be required to include
an educational component on the EHS aspects of nanotechnology.
• Agencies supporting nanotechnology research would be required to provide
remote access to their facilities via the Internet by secondary school students and
teachers.
• Agencies supporting nanotechnology research would be required to provide
access to their nanotechnology research facilities to companies for the purpose of
assisting the companies in the development of prototypes of nanoscale products,
devices, or processes for determining proof-of-concept.
Congressional Research Service
50

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• The NNI would be directed to support Signature Initiatives—nanotechnology
research and development activities directed toward application areas that have
the potential for significant contributions to national economic competitiveness
and for other significant societal benefits (e.g., nanoelectronics, energy
efficiency, solar energy, health care, and water remediation and purification).
• The NNI would be directed to support nanomanufacturing research, including the
development of instrumentation and tools required for the rapid characterization
of nanoscale materials and for monitoring of nanoscale manufacturing processes,
and approaches and techniques for scaling the synthesis of new nanoscale
materials to achieve industrial-level production rates.
• Certain NNI centers would be directed to support “Green Manufacturing”
activities, including research on methods and approaches to develop
environmentally benign nanoscale products and nanoscale manufacturing
processes, fostering the transfer of research results to industry, and providing for
the education of scientists and engineers through interdisciplinary studies in the
principles and techniques for the design and development of environmentally
benign nanoscale products and processes.
H.R. 2996 (113th Congress)—Revitalize American Manufacturing
and Innovation Act of 2014

H.R. 2996, the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014, was introduced
on August 2, 2014, reported by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on
September 15, 2014, and passed by the House by voice vote on September 15, 2014. The primary
purpose of the bill is to establish a Network for Manufacturing Innovation Program. Centers with
a nanotechnology focus would qualify under the bill as a “center for manufacturing innovation.”
H.R. 1385 (113th Congress)—Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care
Products Act of 2013

H.R. 1385, the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013, was introduced on March
21, 2013, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. The nanotechnology-related provisions of this bill are essentially
identical to those included in both H.R. 2359 (112th Congress) and H.R. 5786 (111th Congress).
Among its provisions are several related to nanotechnology. Under the bill, the Secretary of HHS
would be authorized to require that minerals and other particulate ingredients be labeled as “nano-
scale” on a cosmetic ingredient label or list if not less than 1% of the ingredient particles in the
cosmetic are 100 nanometers or smaller in not less than 1 dimension, and that other ingredients in
a cosmetic be designated with scale-specific information on a cosmetic ingredient label or list if
such ingredients possess scale-specific hazard properties. The bill would also require the
Secretary of HHS 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 reviewing or evaluating the safety of cosmetics
and ingredients. In addition, the bill would require manufacturers to submit to the Secretary a
statement for each cosmetic that includes an ingredient list, including the particle size range of
any nanoscale cosmetic ingredients.
Congressional Research Service
51

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

H.R. 394 (113th Congress)—Nanotechnology Advancement and
New Opportunities Act

H.R. 394, the Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities Act, was introduced on
January 23, 2013, and subsequently referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, and to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Homeland
Security. The purpose of the bill is to ensure the development and responsible stewardship of
nanotechnology. The provisions of this bill are essentially identical to those in both H.R. 2749
(112th Congress) and H.R. 820 (111th Congress). The bill would:
• establish 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;
• establish a 15% tax credit, taken over five years, for the purchase of up to $10
million of stock in qualified nanotechnology companies;
• establish a grant program within the DOC to support the establishment and
development of nanotechnology incubators by non-profit entities and degree-
granting institutions;
• require the NNCO Director 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;
• provide a tax credit of 50% for nanotechnology education and training expenses
for businesses and individuals;
• authorize an annual appropriation of $15 million for FY2012 through FY2015 for
the NSF to conduct a grant program for the development of curriculum materials
for interdisciplinary nanotechnology courses at institutions of higher education;
• direct 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
• direct 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:
• authorize $10 million for 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 Department of Energy to
conduct a grant program for nanotechnology research to address the need for
“clean, cheap, renewable energy”;
Congressional Research Service
52

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• authorize an annual appropriation of $30 million for the Environmental
Protection Agency 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 Department of
Homeland Security 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 Department of Health
and Human Services to conduct a grant program for nanotechnology research to
address health-related applications.
S. 3187/P.L. 112-144 (112th Congress)—Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act

S. 3187, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, was introduced May 15,
2012, and became law (P.L. 112-144) on July 9, 2012. Among its provisions, P.L. 112-144 directs
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
intensify and expand activities related to enhancing scientific knowledge regarding
nanomaterials included or intended for inclusion in products regulated under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or other statutes administered by the Food and Drug
Administration, to address issues relevant to the regulation of those products, including the
potential toxicology of such nanomaterials, the potential benefit of new therapies derived
from nanotechnology, the effects of such nanomaterials on biological systems, and the
interaction of such nanomaterials with biological systems.
In this regard, the HHS Secretary is authorized to
(1) assess scientific literature and data on general nanomaterials interactions with biological
systems and on specific nanomaterials of concern to the Food and Drug Administration;
(2) in cooperation with other federal agencies, develop and organize information using
databases and models that will facilitate the identification of generalized principles
characteristics regarding the behavior of classes of nanomaterials with biological systems;
(3) promote Food and Drug Administration programs and participate in collaborative efforts,
to further the understanding of the science of novel properties of nanomaterials that might
contribute to toxicity;
(4) promote and participate in collaborative efforts to further the understanding of
measurement and detection methods for nanomaterials;
(5) collect, synthesize, interpret, and disseminate scientific information and data related to the
interactions of nanomaterials with biological systems;
(6) build scientific expertise on nanomaterials within the Food and Drug Administration,
including field and laboratory expertise, for monitoring the production and presence of
nanomaterials in domestic and imported products regulated under this act;
Congressional Research Service
53

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

(7) ensure ongoing training, as well as dissemination of new information within the centers of
the Food and Drug Administration, and more broadly across the Food and Drug
Administration, to ensure timely, informed consideration of the most current science
pertaining to nanomaterials;
(8) encourage the Food and Drug Administration to participate in international and national
consensus standards activities pertaining to nanomaterials; and
(9) carry out other activities that the Secretary determines are necessary and consistent with
the purposes described in paragraphs (1) through (8).
S. 1662 (112th Congress)—Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act
of 2011

S. 1662, the Nanotechnology Regulatory Science Act of 2011, was introduced on October 6,
2011, and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The bill
would have amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to require the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish within the Food and Drug Administration a
program for the scientific investigation of nanomaterials included or intended for inclusion in
products regulated under the FFDCA to address the potential toxicology of such materials; the
effects of such materials on biological systems; and the interaction of such materials with
biological systems.
H.R. 2749 (112th 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 provisions of this bill are
essentially identical to those of H.R. 394, introduced in the 113th Congress (described above).
H.R. 2359 (112th Congress)—Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011
H.R. 2359, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, was introduced on June 24, 2011, and referred to two
House committees: the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Education
and the Workforce. The nanotechnology-related provisions of this bill are essentially identical to
those of H.R. 1385, introduced in the 113th Congress (described above).
S. 1867 (112th Congress)—National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012

S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was introduced on
November 11, 2011, and passed by the Senate on December 1, 2011. Section 5501 of the bill
would have expanded the research topics given special consideration under the SBIR and STTR
Congressional Research Service
54

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

programs to include rare diseases, security, energy, transportation, or improving the security and
quality of the water supply of the United States, and the efficiency of water delivery systems and
usage patterns in the United States (including the territories of the United States) through the use
of technology (to the extent that the projects relate to the mission of the federal agency), broad
research topics, and topics that further one or more critical technologies or research priorities;
research topics identified in the NNI’s strategic plan (required under Section 2(c)(4) of the 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act); and in any report of the National
Science and Technology Committee’s Committee on Technology focused on areas of
nanotechnology identified in the strategic plan.
S. 493 (112th Congress)—SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011
S. 493, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011, was introduced in the Senate on March 4,
2011, and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. The bill was
reported with amendments but without a written report on March 9, 2011. On May 4, 2011, a
cloture motion on the bill failed. As part of the larger purpose of reauthorizing the SBIR and
STTR programs, S. 493 would have required agencies with SBIR and STTR programs to give
consideration to research topics identified in the NSET Subcommittee’s national nanotechnology
strategic plan mandated by P.L. 108-153 and related documents, and to give special priority to
applications for the support of projects related to nanotechnology and other specified fields of
application. Section 501 (Research Topics and Program Diversification) of S. 493, which
contained the nanotechnology related provisions, was incorporated in its entirety in S. 1867, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This bill was passed by the Senate, but
the provision was not included in the final enacted version of the House bill (P.L. 112-81).
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 R&D and for other purposes. Among its provisions, the bill would have amended
the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 to:
Congressional Research Service
55

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

• 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
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;136
• 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

136 Executive Order 13349, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2005/janqtr/3CFR13349.htm.
Congressional Research Service
56

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

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
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.
Congressional Research Service
57

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

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 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
Congressional Research Service
58

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

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
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.
Congressional Research Service
59

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

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
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 million 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 provisions of this bill are
essentially identical to those of H.R. 394, introduced in the 113th Congress (described above).
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
Congressional Research Service
60

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

would have authorized $15 million for FY2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for FY2011
through FY2013.
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
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 FY2014.
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 nanotechnology-related provisions of this bill are essentially identical
to those of H.R. 1385, introduced in the 113th Congress (described above).
Congressional Research Service
61

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Appendix B. Description of Program Component
Areas In Use for FY2006 to FY2013

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.
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.
Nanoscale Devices and Systems
Nanoscale Devices and Systems includes 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.
Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards
Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards 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.
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.137

137 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 or nanoscale additive manufacturing.
Congressional Research Service
62

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition
Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition 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.
Societal Dimensions
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.
Environment, Health, and Safety
Environment, Health, and Safety 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.
Education and Societal Dimensions
Education and Societal Dimensions 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 for society, including
social, economic, workforce, educational, ethical, and legal implications.

Congressional Research Service
63

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Appendix C. Selected Reports on the National
Nanotechnology Initiative

Reports of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council

Progress Review on the Coordinated Implementation of the 2011 NNI Environmental, Health,
and Safety Research Strategy, June 2014. http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
2014_nni_ehs_progress_review.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s FY2015 Budget, March
2014. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_fy15_budget_supplement.pdf
National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2014. http://nano.gov/sites/default/
files/pub_resource/2014_nni_strategic_plan.pdf
Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative Workshop, May 17, 2013. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nni_rsl_2012_rpt_0.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2014 Budget, May 2013.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_fy14_budget_supplement.pdf
Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure (NKI): Enabling National Leadership in Sustainable
Design, white paper, discussion draft, May 9, 2013. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/
pub_resource/nki_data_readiness_levels_draft_discussion_doc_for_web.pdf
Bridging NanoEHS Research Efforts: A Joint U.S.–EU Workshop, workshop proceedings,
October 2012. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/2011_us-
eu_workshop_proceedings_-_final_locked.pdf
Nanotechnology for Sensors and Sensors for Nanotechnology: Improving and Protecting Health,
Safety, and the Environment, white paper, July 2012. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/
pub_resource/sensors_nsi_2012_07_09_final_for_web.pdf
Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure (NKI):Enabling National Leadership in Sustainable
Design, white paper, May 14, 2012. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nki_nsi_white_paper_-_final_for_web.pdf
Public Participation in Nanotechnology, Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Workshop, April 17, 2012. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nni_public_participation_ws_report.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2013 Budget, February 2012.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_2013_budget_supplement.pdf
Congressional Research Service
64

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy, October 2011. http://nano.gov/sites/default/
files/pub_resource/nni_2011_ehs_research_strategy.pdf
Policy Principles for the U.S. Decision-Making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of
Applications of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials, June 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/nanotechnology-regulation-and-oversight-
principles.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2012 Budget, March 2011.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_2012_budget_supplement.pdf
Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative Workshop, February 2011. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nni_2012_budget_supplement.pdf
National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, February 2011. http://nano.gov/sites/default/
files/pub_resource/2011_strategic_plan.pdf
National Nanotechnology Initiative Signature Initiative: Nanotechnology for Solar Energy
Collection and Conversion, July 2010. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nnisiginitsolarenergyfinaljuly2010.pdf
National Nanotechnology Initiative Signature Initiative: Sustainable Nanomanufacturing –
Creating the Industries of the Future, July 2010. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/
pub_resource/nni_siginit_sustainable_mfr_revised_nov_2011.pdf
National Nanotechnology Initiative Signature Initiative: Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond,
July 2010. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nni_siginit_nanoelectronics_jul_2010.pdf
nanoEHS Series: Risk Management Methods & Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of
Nanotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, March 2010.
Communicating Risk in the 21st Century: The Case of Nanotechnology, February 2010.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/berube_risk_white_paper_feb_2010.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2011 Budget, February 2010.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_2011_budget_supplement.pdf
nanoEHS Series: Nanomaterials and Human Health & Instrumentation, Metrology, and
Analytical Methods: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, November
2009. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nanoandhumanhealthandinstrumentation.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2010 Budget, May 2009.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_2010_budget_supplement.pdf
Congressional Research Service
65

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Nanotechnology-Enabled Sensing, Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop,
May 2009. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/NNI-Nanosensors-stdres.pdf
nanoEHS Series: Human and Environmental Exposure Assessment Workshop Materials, February
2009. http://nano.gov/node/122
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2009 Budget, September 2008.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_09budget.pdf
Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research, February
2008. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_ehs_research_strategy.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, December 2007. http://nano.gov/sites/
default/files/pub_resource/nni_strategic_plan_2007.pdf
Prioritization of Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale
Materials, August 2007. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
prioritization_ehs_research_needs_engineered_nanoscale_materials.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2008 Budget, July 2007.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_08budget.pdf
Manufacturing at the Nanoscale: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop,
January 2007. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
manufacturing_at_the_nanoscale.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for
Engineered Nanoscale Materials, September 2006. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/
pub_resource/nni_ehs_research_needs.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2007 Budget, July 2006.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_07budget.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in
Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2006 Budget, March 2005.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_06budget.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, December 2004.
Research Directions II: Long-Term Research and Development Opportunities in Nanotechnology,
Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, September 2004.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/research_directionsii.pdf
Nanotechnology in Space Exploration, August 2004. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/
pub_resource/space_exploration_rpt_0.pdf
Congressional Research Service
66

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Nanoscience Research for Energy Needs: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Grand Challenge Workshop, March 2004. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/
nni_energy_rpt.pdf
Nanoelectronics, Nanophotonics, & Nanomagnetics: Report of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative Workshop, February 2004. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nni_electronic_photonics_m.pdf
Instrumentation and Metrology for Nanotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative Workshop, January 2004. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nni_instrumentation_metrology_rpt.pdf
Nanotechnology: Societal Implications-Maximizing Benefits for Humanity: Report of the
National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, December 2003. http://nano.gov/sites/default/
files/nni_societal_implications.pdf
Nanobiotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, October 2003.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_nanobiotechnology_rpt.pdf
Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology, September-October 2003. [No URL
available.]
National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Supporting the Next Industrial
Revolution, Supplement to the President’s FY2004 Budget. August 2003. http://nano.gov/sites/
default/files/pub_resource/nni04_budget_supplement.pdf
Materials by Design: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, June 2003.
http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_materials_by_design.pdf
Nanotechnology and the Environment: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Workshop, May 2003. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nanotechnology_and_the_environment_app_imp.pdf
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.
Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, March 2001. http://www.wtec.org/
loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/report-grayscale.pdf
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. http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/
nni_implementation_plan_2000.pdf
Report of the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience,
Technology, and Engineering (NSET Subcommittee Predecessor)

Nanotechnology Research Directions, IWGN Workshop Report, September 1999. http://nano.gov/
sites/default/files/pub_resource/research_directions_1999.pdf
Congressional Research Service
67

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom, 1999. http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/
IWGN.Public.Brochure/IWGN.Nanotechnology.Brochure.pdf
Agency Reports
Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program, Office of the Director of Defense
Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, December 2009. http://nano.gov/sites/
default/files/pub_resource/dod-report_to_congress_final_1mar10.pdf
Current Intelligence Bulletin 60: Interim Guidance for Medical Screening and Hazard
Surveillance for Workers Potentially Exposed to Engineered Nanoparticles, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department
of Health and Human Services. February 2009.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-116/pdfs/2009-116.pdf
Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace: A Report from the NIOSH
Nanotechnology Research Center, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, June
2007. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2010-104/pdfs/2010-104.pdf
Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace: Managing the Health and Safety Concerns
Associated with Engineering Nanomaterials, National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human
Services, March 2009.
External Reviews
Report to the President and Congress on the Fifth Assessment of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, PCAST (acting as the NNAP), October 2014. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_fifth_nni_review_oct2014_final.pdf
GAO Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the
Environment, and Human Health, January 2014. http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660591.pdf
Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, NRC, September 2013.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18271/triennial-review-of-the-national-nanotechnology-initiative
A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials,
NRC, 2012, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13347
Report to the President and Congress on the Fourth Assessment of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, PCAST (acting as the NNAP), April 2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST_2012_Nanotechnology_FINAL.pdf
Review of Federal Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety
Research, Committee for Review of the Federal Strategy to Address Environmental, Health,
and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials, Committee on Toxicology,
NRC, 2009. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12559#toc
Congressional Research Service
68

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, PCAST (acting as the NNAP), March 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-nni-report.pdf
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Second Assessment and Recommendations of the
National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, PCAST (acting as the NNAP), April 2008.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST-NNAP-NNI-
Assessment-2008.pdf
A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, NRC, 2006.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11752
The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations of the
National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, PCAST (acting as the NNAP), May 2005.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-nni-five-years.pdf
Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, NRC,
June 2002. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084547
Congressional Research Service
69

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

Appendix D. 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
FFDCA
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
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
Congressional Research Service
70

The National Nanotechnology Initiative

NNP
National Nanotechnology Program
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
NSI
Nanotechnology Signature Initiative
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
Small Business Innovation Research
STTR
Small Business Technology Transfer Research
TSA
Transportation Safety 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
71