In late March, the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) announced a report assessing the impact of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) since its formal launch in 2001. The report also makes recommendations for future changes.
Lux Research’s Director Michael Holman participated in the Nanotechnology Advisory Working Group that drafted the report, which PCAST members presented to President Obama last month. While Working Group deliberations were confidential, the final report offers some insights into how nanotechnology leaders in the U.S. government, industry, and academia view the field today.
Overall, while nanotech is arguably in the trough of the hype cycle, support for nanotech still runs high in the U.S. Drawing on input from industry and government, the report recommends that the government boost support for the NNI – though it also suggests some changes be made.
Most significantly, it recommends government place less emphasis on basic research in favor of projects that help to bring that research to market. The suggestion echoes Lux Research’s observation that nanotechnology has undergone a phase change from discovery to commercialization (see the Introduction to The Nanotech Report, 5th Edition from 2007 – client registration required). While it calls for basic research to continue, the report also asks that “the NNI increase its emphasis on nanomanufacturing and commercial deployment of nanotechnology-enabled products.”
The document’s heart is in the right place on this issue, but its use of the misbegotten term “nanomanufacturing” could send policymakers off on the wrong path. In many cases, the barriers to commercialization – at least those that government can and should address – have less to do with developing appropriate manufacturing technology than helping technology developers (whether in academic labs, at start-ups, or in corporate R&D facilities) to learn how to integrate their inventions into practical applications. If that’s done well, the private sector can and will manage manufacturing scale-up (perhaps with financing assistance from federal loan guarantees). Thus, the government should place less emphasis on manufacturing and more on applications development and other so-called “translational research.” The report takes a more positive step toward in this direction in its call for “Signature Initiatives,” which include application-focused research programs in areas like solar energy or cancer treatment.
On the balance, the report makes a persuasive case that the NNI has helped to boost research in the physical sciences in the U.S. by supporting overall funding levels and fostering useful interdisciplinary collaborations through programs like the National Science Foundation (NSF) Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs). Given the importance of physical sciences research for looming challenges in areas from energy to disease, this aid is all to the good.
Nanotechnology still has considerable momentum – not among jaded business people perhaps, but at least in political and academic circles, and among the general population. Add to this the breadth of technologies it can bring under its umbrella, and it continues to make sense to use the NNI as a leading banner for the physical sciences – for now. In the long run, however, application-focused research should guide efforts like the mooted “Signature Initiatives,” encouraging researchers to cast a broader net in their search for solutions, rather than focusing on nano-enabled ones. As a result, the NNI should ultimately be scaled back to a smaller program focused on basic research at the nanoscale, while broader initiatives – outside the NNI and focused on key challenges – should lead application-oriented research.
facebook 
twitter 
email 
linkedin