An official website of the United States government.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-153) calls for a
National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) to periodically review the Federal nanotechnology research
and development (R&D) program known as the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is designated by Executive Order to serve as the NNAP.
This report is the second NNAP review of the NNI, updating the first assessment published in 2005.
Including the NNI budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2009 of $1.5 billion, the total NNI investment since its
inception in 2001 is nearly $10 billion. The total annual global investment in nanotechnology is an estimated
$13.9 billion, divided roughly equally among the United States, Europe, and Asia. Industry analysis suggests
that private investment has been outpacing that of government since about 2006. The activities, balance, and
management of the NNI among the 25 participating U.S. agencies and the efforts to coordinate with
stakeholders from outside the Federal Government, including industry and other governments, are the subject
of this report.
The first report answered four questions: How are we doing? Is the money well spent and the program well
managed? Are we addressing societal concerns and potential risks? How can we do better? That report was
generally positive in its conclusions but provided recommendations for improving or strengthening efforts in
the following areas: technology transfer; environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research and its
coordination; education and workforce preparation; and societal dimensions.
Since the first report, increasing attention has been focused on the potential risks of nanotechnology,
especially the possible harm to human health and the environment from nanomaterials. In this second
assessment, the NNAP paid special attention to the NNI efforts in these areas.
During its review, the NNAP obtained input from various sources. It convened a number of expert panels and
consulted its nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group (nTAG) and the President’s Council on Bioethics. NNI
member agencies and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) also provided valuable
information.
The NNAP finds that the United States remains a leader in nanotechnology based on various metrics,
including R&D expenditures and outputs such as publications, citations, and patents. However, taken as a
region, the European Union has more publications, and China’s output is increasing. There are many examples
of NNI-funded research results that are moving into commercial applications. However, measures of
technology transfer and the commercial impact of nanotechnology as a whole are not readily available, in part
because of the difficulty in defining what is, and is not, a “nanotechnology-based product.”
The NNAP commends and encourages the ongoing NNI investment in infrastructure and instrumentation.
Leading-edge nanoscale research often requires advanced equipment and facilities. The NNI investment in over
81 centers and user facilities across the country that provide broad access to costly instrumentation, state-ofthe-
art facilities, and technical expertise has been enormously important and successful. These facilities,
which have been funded by many different agencies in order to address a variety of missions, support a
diverse range of academic, industry, and government research. In addition, the NNI investment has been used
to leverage additional support by universities, State governments, and the private sector.
Advances in nanotechnology are embodied in a growing number of applications and products in various
industries. Many early applications have been more evolutionary than revolutionary. However, research funded
by the NNI today has the potential for innovations that are paradigm shifting, for example in energy and
medicine.
As with any emerging technology, there is potential for unintended consequences or uses that may prove
harmful to health or the environment or that may have other societal implications. The NNAP notes that
existing regulations apply to nanotechnology-based products, and those who make or sell such products have
responsibilities regarding workplace and product safety. As in 2005, the NNAP believes that the greatest risk
of exposure to nanomaterials at present is to workers who manufacture or handle such materials. However,
environmental, health, and safety risks in a wide range of settings must be identified and the necessary
research performed so that real risks can be appropriately addressed.
The NNAP views the approach for addressing EHS research under the NNI as sound. The recent reports by
the interagency Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group are good steps
by the NNI to prioritize needed EHS research and to coordinate EHS activity across the Federal Government.
The NNAP feels that calls for a separate agency or office devoted to nanotechnology EHS research or to set
aside a fixed percentage of the budget for EHS research are misguided and may have the unintended
consequence of reducing research on beneficial applications and on risk.
In addition to EHS implications, the NNAP considered ethical and other societal aspects of nanotechnology. In
consultation with the President’s Council on Bioethics, the panel concluded that at present,
nanotechnology does not raise ethical concerns that are unique to the field. Rather, concerns over
implications for privacy and for equality of access to benefits are similar to concerns over technological
advances in general. This finding does not diminish the importance of continued dialogue and research on the
societal aspects of nanotechnology.
Overall, the members of the NNAP feel that the NNI continues to be a highly successful model for an
interagency program; it is well organized and well managed. The structure of the interagency Nanoscale
Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council
effectively coordinates the breadth of nanotechnology activities across the Federal Government. The NSET
working groups target functional areas in which additional focus is required. The NNCO provides important
support that is a key to the success of the program. The Strategic Plan updated in 2007 clearly communicates
the goals and priorities for the initiative and includes actions for achieving progress. With the separation in
the updated plan of EHS research from that on other societal dimensions, the NNAP finds the Program
Component Areas (PCAs) that are defined for purposes of tracking programs and investments serve the NNI
well.
