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

The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview,
Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues
February 29, 2008
John F. Sargent
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science and Industry Division

The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview,
Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues
Summary
Nanotechnology — a term encompassing the science, engineering, and
applications of submicron materials — involves the harnessing of unique physical,
chemical, and biological properties of nanoscale substances in fundamentally new
and useful ways. The economic and societal promise of nanotechnology has led to
substantial and sustained investments by governments and companies around the
world. In 2000, the United States launched the world’s first national nanotechnology
program. Since then, the federal government has invested more than $8 billion in
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology through the U.S. National
Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). U.S. companies and state governments have
invested billions more. As a result of this focus and these investments, the United
States has, in the view of many experts, emerged as a global leader in
nanotechnology. However, the competition for global leadership in nanotechnology
is intensifying as countries and companies around the world increase their
investments.
Nanotechnology’s complexity and intricacies, early stage of development (with
commercial pay-off possibly years away), and broad scope of potential applications
engender a wide range of public policy issues. Maintaining U.S. technological and
commercial leadership in nanotechnology poses a variety of technical and policy
challenges, including development of technologies that will enable commercial scale
manufacturing of nanotechnology materials and products; environmental, health, and
safety (EHS) concerns; and maintenance of public confidence in its safety.
Congress established programs, assigned responsibilities, and initiated research
and development (R&D) related to these issues in the 21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153). While many provisions of
this act have no sunset provision, FY2008 is the last year of agency authorizations
included in the act. Consideration may be given to reauthorization of this act in

2008.

Proponents of the NNI assert that nanotechnology is one of the most important
emerging and enabling technologies and that U.S. competitiveness, technological
leadership, national security, and societal interests require an aggressive approach to
the development and commercialization of nanotechnology.
Critics of the NNI voice concerns that reflect disparate underlying beliefs.
Some critics assert that the government is not doing enough to move technology from
the laboratory into the marketplace. Others argue that the magnitude of the public
investment may skew what should be market-based decisions in research,
development, and commercialization. Still other critics say that the inherent risks of
nanotechnology are not being addressed in a timely or effective manner.
From the NNI’s inception through FY2008, Congress has appropriated a total
of $8.5 billion for NNI activities. NNI funding in FY2008 is estimated to be $1.491
billion. For FY2009, President Bush requested $1.527 billion for the NNI.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Overview
............................................................2
National Nanotechnology Initiative....................................9
Vision and Goals..............................................9
History .....................................................10
Legislative Approach..........................................10
Structure ....................................................14
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee...14
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office..................16
Funding ....................................................18
Agency Funding..........................................18
Program Component Area Funding...........................20
Centers, Networks, and User Facilities............................24
NNI Reports and Assessments.......................................26
NNI Reports.................................................26
The National Nanotechnology Strategic Plan (2007).............26
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and
Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and
Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2008 Budget......27
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Environmental,
Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered
Nanoscale Materials...................................28
Prioritization of Environmental, Health, and Safety Research
Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials: An Interim
Document for Public Comment..........................28
NNI Assessments.............................................29
A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative..............................29
The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years:
Assessment and Recommendations of the National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology.....................34
Nanotechnology Legislation in the 110th Congress......................38
S. 1199/H.R. 2436 — Nanotechnology in the Schools Act.............38
S. 1547 — National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Incorporating the Provisions of S. 1425)..................38
H.R. 3235 — Nanotechnology Advancement and New
Opportunities Act.........................................39
S. 1372 — Nanotechnology Infrastructure Enhancement Act...........40
Concluding Observations...........................................41

Reports of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council....43
Report of the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience,
Technology, and Engineering (NSET Subcommittee Predecessor)...44
Agency Reports..............................................44
External Reviews.............................................44
Appendix B. List of NNI and Nanotechnology-Related Acronyms..........45
List of Figures
Figure 1. Organizations With a Role in the National Nanotechnology
Initiative and Their Relationships................................17
List of Tables
Table 1. NNI Funding, by Agency: FY2001-FY2008, and FY2009 Request..19
Table 2. NNI Funding, by Program Component Area, FY2006-FY2009......20

The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Overview, Reauthorization, and
Appropriations Issues
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.
Since then, Congress has appropriated more than $8 billion for nanotechnology
research and development (R&D). These 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 bulk matter.²
The development and application of nanotechnology — more fully explained
below — across a wide array of products and industries holds the potential for
significant economic and societal benefits. To capture these benefits, the United
States will have to effectively address a variety of technical and policy challenges
that stand as potential barriers to commercialization, including environmental, health,
and safety concerns and their implications for workplace, environmental, food, and
drug regulations; development of standards, reference materials, and consistent
nomenclature; development of new measurement methods and tools; effective
technology transfer to the private sector; protection of intellectual property;
availability, affordability, and patience of investment capital; ethical, legal, and
societal concerns; public understanding, support, and acceptance; and development
of a world-class scientific and technical nanotechnology workforce.
In 2003, Congress passed the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and
Development Act (P.L. 108-153) providing a legislative foundation for some of the
activities of the NNI, authorizing agency funding levels through FY2008, and
intended to address several of these challenges. Discussions are underway with
respect to the possible reauthorization of this act in 2008. Congress may use this
opportunity to further address these issues and to establish authorization levels for
agency nanotechnology R&D. Alternatively, Congress may choose to address these
issues in separate legislation. Several bills were introduced in the first session of the

110^th Congress to address specific nanotechnology issues.

¹ In the context of the NNI and nanotechnology, the nanoscale refers to a dimension of 1 to

100 nanometers (see box below).

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.

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.
Overview
The economic and societal promiseNanotechnology: A Description
of nanotechnology has led to involvement
and investments by governments andThe term “nanotechnology” is often
companies around the world. In 2000,used as an all-encompassing term for
the United States became the first nationnanoscale science, engineering, and
to establish a formal, national initiative totechnology. Nanotechnology is the
advance nanoscale science, engineering,understanding and control of matter at
and technology — the Nationaldimensions of roughly 1 to 100
Nanotechnology Initiative. Since then,nanometers, the size-scale between
Congress has appropriated more than $8individual atoms and bulk materials,
billion in nanoscale science, engineering,where unique phenomena enable novelapplications. A nanometer is
and technology through the NNI. U.S.one-billionth of a meter, or about the
companies and state governments havewidth of 10 hydrogen atoms arranged
invested billions more. side-by-side in a line. Nanotechnology
involves imaging, measuring, modeling,
As a result of this focus and theseand manipulating matter at this size-scale.
investments, the United States has
emerged as a global leader inAt the nanoscale, the physical,
nanotechnology. However, thechemical, and biological properties of
competition for global leadership ismaterials differ in fundamental and useful
intensifying as foreign investments inways from the properties of individualatoms and molecules or bulk matter.
nanoscale science, engineering, andNanotechnology R&D is directed toward
technology increase. Other nations haveunderstanding and creating improved
followed the U.S. lead and establishedmaterials, devices, and systems that
their own national nanotechnologyexploit these new properties.
programs, each with varying degrees of
investment, foci, and support forPhysicist Richard Feynman's
industrial applications andremarks at the 1959 annual meeting of the
commercialization. Today, almost everyAmerican Physical Society are often cited
nation that supports R&D has aas the first articulation of and vision for
national-level nanotechnology program. nanotechnology. Though he did not usethe term nanotechnology in this speech,
Global nanotechnology investmenthe spoke of controlling matter at thenanoscale and creating atomic-level
in 2006 has been estimated at $12.4machines, positing some of the
billion, with public investmentsapplications that doing so might enable.
accounting for approximately $6.4
^Source:^T^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^onal^N^anot^e^c^hnol^ogy
^Iⁿ^itia^{tive S}^t^ra^tegⁱ^{c Pla}ⁿ^,^2004,^Nan^o^s^cale
^Scⁱ^e^nc^e^,^E^ngi^ne^e^rⁱ^ng,^and^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy
^Su^b^c^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^,^Natioⁿ^a^{l Scien}^{ce an}^d
^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^Co^uncⁱ^l^,^T^h^e^W^hⁱ^t^e^H^o^use^,
^Decem^{ber 2004.}

billion.³ While the United States leads all other nations in public investments in
nanotechnology R&D, it is estimated to account for only about a quarter of global
annual public investments.⁴
Global investments in nanotechnology already have begun to yield economic
benefits as products incorporating nanotechnology enter the marketplace. These
products are estimated to have produced $50 billion in revenues in 2006.⁵ 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 the national security. Most
nanotechnology products currently on the market — such as faster computer
processors, higher density memory devices, lighter-weight auto parts, stain-resistant
clothing, antibiotic bandages, cosmetics, and clear sunscreen — are evolutionary in
nature, offering incremental improvements in characteristics such as performance,
aesthetics, cost, size, and weight.
Evolutionary nanotechnology products, however, represent only a small fraction
of what many see as the substantial longer-term economic and societal promise of
nanotechnology. One estimate projects nanotechnology product revenues will reach
$2.6 trillion⁶ by 2014, or 15% of global manufacturing output, while another
estimates global revenues will reach $2.95 trillion by 2015, of which almost half will
come from semiconductors.^{7, 8}
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:

³ Profiting From International Nanotechnology, Lux Research, December 2006.
⁴ The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations
of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology, May 2005.
⁵ “Nanotechnology Moves from Discovery to Commercialization,” press release, Lux
Research, November 20, 2007. [http://www.luxresearchinc.com/press/

2007-lux-research-nanotech-r eport-5.pdf]

⁶ Sizing Nanotechnology’s Value Chain, Lux Research, 2004.
⁷ Halfway to the Trillion Dollar Market: A Critical Review of the Diffusion of
Nanotechnologies, Cientifica, 2007. [http://www.cientifica.eu/files/Whitepapers/
A% 20Reassessment%20of%20the%20T rillion%20WP.pdf]
⁸ While views vary on how to calculate nanotechnology’s contribution to these products, the
consensus is that nanotechnology is likely to have a significant economic impact and
transformative effect on many industries.

^!new prevention, detection, and treatment technologies that could
reduce substantially death and suffering from cancer and other
deadly illnesses;⁹
^!new organs to replace damaged or diseased ones;¹⁰
^!contact lenses, skin patches, and glucose-sensing tattoos that monitor
diabetics’ blood sugar levels and warn when too high or low;¹¹
^!clothing that protects against toxins and pathogens;¹²
^!clean, inexpensive, renewable power through energy creation,
storage, and transmission technologies;¹³
^!inexpensive, portable water purification systems that provide
universal access to safe water;¹⁴
^!energy efficient, low-emission “green” manufacturing systems;¹⁵
^!high-density memory systems capable of storing the entire Library
of Congress collection on a device the size of a sugar cube;¹⁶
^!agricultural technologies that increase crop yield and improve
nutritional value, reducing global hunger and malnutrition;¹⁷

⁹ National Cancer Institute website. [http://nano.cancer.gov/resource_center/tech_
backgr ounder.asp]
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ Aslan, Kadir; Lakowicz, Joseph R.; and Geddes, Chris D. “Nanogold plasmon resonance-
based glucose sensing. Wavelength-ratiometric resonance light scattering,” Analytical
Chemistry, 2005, Vol. 77. Strategic Plan for Pediatric Urology, National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease, National Institutes of Health, Department of
Health and Human Services, February 2006.
¹² Risbud, Aditi. “Fruit of the Nano Loom,” Technology Review, February 2006.
¹³ Nanoscience Research for Energy Needs, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House,
December 2004.
¹⁴ Risbud, Aditi. “Cheap Drinking Water from the Ocean,” Technology Review, June 2006.
¹⁵ 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.
¹⁶ National Nanotechnology Initiative — Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,
Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering, and Technology, National
Science and Technology Council, The White House. [http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/
iwgn/iwgn.fy01budsuppl/nni.pdf]
¹⁷ 21st Century Agriculture: A Critical Role for Science and Technology, U.S. Department
(continued...)

^!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
Although some applications of nanotechnology have proven market-ready, much
fundamental research remains ahead, including efforts to advance understanding of
nanoscale phenomena; characterize nanoscale materials; understand how to control
and manipulate nanoscale particles; develop instrumentation and measurement
methods; and understand how nanoscale particles interact with humans, animals,
plants, and the environment. In addition, several federal agencies — such as the
Departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security — see the potential for
nanotechnology to help address mission requirements. Historically, the federal
government has played a central role in funding these types of research and
development activities.
Though federal nanoscale science, engineering, and technology R&D had been
underway for over a decade, the NNI was first initiated as a Presidential technology
initiative in 2000.²¹ 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 2007, 25 agencies participated in the NNI, including 13 that received
appropriations to conduct and/or fund nanotechnology R&D.
Since its first year of funding in FY2001, the NNI’s annual appropriations have
grown three-fold to an estimated $1.491 billion in FY2008. From FY2001 through

¹⁷ (...continued)
of Agriculture, June 2003; and Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and
Food Systems: Draft Report of the National Planning Workshop to the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, July

2003.

¹⁸ Nanotechnology in Space Exploration, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, August 2004.
¹⁹ Nanotechnology and the Environment, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology
Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House, May 2003.
²⁰ Proceedings of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Workshop on Nanotechnology
for Site Remediation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2005.
²¹ “National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,” press
release, The White House, January 21, 2000. [http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/

20000121_4.html]; and “Steering the technology that will redefine life as we know it,”

Industrial Biotechnology, Vol. 1, No. 3, Fall 2005. [http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/
reports/mcr_ind_biot ech_intervi ew.pdf]

FY2008, Congress appropriated a total of $8.5 billion for NNI activities. President
Bush has requested $1.527 billion for the NNI in FY2009.
In 2003, Congress provided a statutory foundation for some of the activities of
the NNI through the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
of 2003 (P.L. 108-153). The act established a National Nanotechnology Program
(NNP) and provided authorizations for a subset of the NNI agencies, namely the
NSF, DOE, NASA, NIST, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 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.²² 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.
While many provisions of this act have no sunset provision, FY2008 is the last
year of agency authorizations included in the act. Discussions are underway
regarding the potential reauthorization of this act in 2008.
The thrust of the NNI has primarily been the development of fundamental
scientific knowledge through basic research. Investments at mission agencies, such
as DOD, have supported nanotechnology applications development for which they
are a primary customer. Other investments have supported infrastructural
technologies. For example, NIST has contributed to developing tools and standards
that enable measurement and control of matter at the nanoscale, thereby supporting
the conduct of R&D and the ability to manufacture nanoscale materials and products.
As understanding of nanotechnology has matured, the NNI has worked with a variety
of industry organizations to facilitate the movement of research results from the
laboratory bench to the marketplace in fields as disparate as semiconductors,
chemicals, energy, concrete, and forest products.
The NNI agencies also have begun to address research needs and regulatory
issues related to environmental, health, and safety issues, as well as issues such as
public understanding and workforce education and training. The NNI agencies
actively engage in a variety of international fora, such as the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the International Standards

²² 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.

Organization (ISO), to cooperatively address nanotechnology issues related to EHS,
metrology²³ 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;
^!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 technologies²⁴ 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

²³ Metrology is the science of measurement, including the equipment and processes used to
produce a measurement.
²⁴ The Department of Commerce characterizes 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).

market. Some refer to this gap as the “valley of death.”²⁵ 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.²⁶
Some non-governmental organizations (NGO) are critical of nanotechnology for
its potential adverse impacts on human health and safety and on the environment.
They assert that the government is pushing ahead too quickly in developing
nanotechnology and encouraging its commercialization and use without adequately
investing in research focused on understanding and mitigating negative EHS
implications.²⁷ They argue that the very characteristics that make nanotechnology
promising also present significant potential risks to human health and safety and the
environment. Some of these critics argue for application of the “precautionary
principle,” which holds that regulatory action may be required to control potentially
hazardous substances even before a causal link has been established by scientific

²⁵ 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.
²⁶ Crews, Clyde Wayne, Jr., “Washington’s Big Little Pork Barrel: Nanotechnology,” Cato
Institute website, May 29, 2003. [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3110]
²⁷ Testimony of Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor, Project on Emerging
Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Research on
Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of Planning and
Implementation under the National Nanotechnology Initiative,” hearing, Subcommittee on
Research and Science Education, House Committee on Science and Technology, October

31, 2007.

evidence.²⁸ At least one NGO has called for a moratorium on nanotechnology R&D
and new commercial products incorporating synthetic nanoparticles.²⁹
National Nanotechnology Initiative
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is an interagency program that
coordinates federal nanoscale science, engineering, and technology R&D activities
and related efforts among participating agencies.
Vision and Goals
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) has stated the following
vision for the NNI:
A future in which the ability to understand and control matter on the nanoscale
leads to a revolution in technology and industry. The NNI will expedite the
discovery, development, and deployment of nanotechnology in order to achieve
responsible and sustainable economic benefits, to enhance the quality of life, and³⁰
to promote national security.
To achieve its vision, the NNI has established four goals: maintain a world-class
R&D program aimed at realizing the full potential of nanotechnology; facilitate
transfer of new technologies into products that provide economic growth, jobs, and
other public benefits; develop educational resources, a skilled workforce, and the
supporting infrastructure and tools to advance nanotechnology; and support
responsible development of nanotechnology.³¹

²⁸ “NGOs urge precautionary principle in use of nanomaterials,” EurActiv.com, June 14,
2007. [http://www.euractiv.com/en/environment/ngos-urge-precautionary-prin
ciple-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.
²⁹ “No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium — Size Matters!,” Occasional
Paper Series, ETC Group, April 2003. [http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/
pdf_file/165]
³⁰ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Nanoscale Science, Engineering,
and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White
House, December 2004.
³¹ Ibid.

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).³²
In his 2001 budget submission to Congress, then-President Clinton raised
nanotechnology-related research to the level of a federal initiative, officially referring
to it as the National Nanotechnology Initiative.³³
Legislative Approach
Congress has played a central role in the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
providing appropriations for the conduct of nanoscale science, engineering, and
technology research; establishing programs; and creating a legislative foundation for
the activities of the NNI.
Congressional funding for the NNI is provided through appropriations to each
of the NNI-participating agencies. The NNI has no centralized funding. The overall
NNI budget is calculated by aggregating the nanotechnology budgets for each of the
federal agencies that conduct or provide funding for nanoscale science, engineering,
and technology research.
In FY2001, the first year of NNI funding, Congress provided $464 million to
eight agencies for nanoscale science, engineering, and technology research.³⁴ 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. Today 25 agencies participate in the NNI, 13 of which

³² National Nanotechnology Initiative website. [http://www.nano.gov/html/about/
history.html]
³³ “National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the Next Industrial Revolution,” press
release, The White House, January 21, 2000. [http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/

20000121_4.html]; and National Nanotechnology Initiative website. [http://www.nano.gov/

html/about/history.html ]
³⁴ 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.

received appropriated funds for nanotechnology R&D in FY2007.³⁵ Total NNI
funding in FY2008 was $1.491 billion, more than three times the level of funding
provided in FY2001. The original six agencies identified at the launch of the NNI³⁶
still account for the vast majority of NNI funding, 98.3% in FY2008.
Some of the NNI’s activities were codified and further defined in the 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 which was passed
by Congress in November 2003. On December 3, 2003, the act was signed into law
(P.L. 108-153) by President Bush.³⁷ 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,³⁸ 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.

³⁵ 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.
³⁶ U.S. Congress. 2003. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. P.L.

108-153. 15 U.S.C. 7501. 108 Cong., December 3.

³⁷ Ibid.
³⁸ 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.

Key provisions of the act include:
^!authorizing appropriations for the nanotechnology-related activities
of the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, NASA,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Environmental
Protection Agency for fiscal years 2005 through 2008, totaling
$3.679 billion for the four year period;
^!establishing a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, with
a director and full time staff to provide administrative support to the
NSTC;
^!establishing a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel (NNAP) to
advise the President and the NSTC on matters relating to the NNP.
^!establishing a triennial review of the NNP by the National Research
Council of the National Academies of Sciences;
^!directing the NSTC to oversee the planning, management, and
coordination of the program, including the development of a
triennial strategic plan;
^!directing the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of
Standards and Technology to establish a program to conduct basic
research on issues related to the development and manufacture of
nanotechnology, and to use the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
program to ensure results reach small- and medium-sized
manufacturing companies;
^!directing the Secretary of Commerce to use the National Technical
Information Service to establish a clearinghouse of information
related to commercialization of nanotechnology research;
^!directing the Secretary of Energy to establish a program to support
consortia to conduct interdisciplinary nanotechnology R&D
designed to integrate newly developed nanotechnology and
microfluidic tools with systems biology and molecular imaging;
^!directing the Secretary of Energy to carry out projects to develop,
plan, construct, acquire, operate, or support special equipment,
instrumentation, or facilities for investigators conducting
nanotechnology R&D; and
^!directing the establishment of two centers, on a merit-reviewed and
competitive basis: (1) the American Nanotechnology Preparedness
Center, to conduct, coordinate, collect, and disseminate studies on
the societal, ethical, environmental, educational, legal, and
workforce implications of nanotechnology; and to identify
anticipated issues related to the responsible research, development,
and application of nanotechnology, as well as provide

recommendations for preventing or addressing such issues, and (2)
the Center for Nanomaterials Manufacturing, to encourage, conduct,
coordinate, commission, collect, and disseminate research on new
manufacturing technologies for materials, devices, and systems with
new combinations of characteristics, such as, but not limited to,
strength, toughness, density, conductivity, flame resistance, and
membrane separation characteristics; and to develop mechanisms to
transfer such manufacturing technologies to U.S. industries.
While the act establishes a National Nanotechnology Program, the Executive
Branch continues its broader effort under the NNI framework and name. According
to the NNI’s 2004 Strategic Plan:
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 National³⁹
Nanotechnology Initiative.
Structure
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee.
The NNI is coordinated within the White House through the NSTC, the Cabinet-level
council by which the President coordinates science, space, and technology policies
across the federal government. Operationally, NNI coordination is accomplished
through the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology (NSET) subcommittee
of the NSTC’s Committee on Technology (CT). The NSET subcommittee also has
an informal reporting relationship to the NSTC’s Committee on Science (CS). The
NSET subcommittee is led by an agency co-chair, currently from the Department of
Energy (DOE), and an OSTP co-chair. The NSET subcommittee is comprised of
representatives from 25 federal entities, OSTP and the Office of Management and
Budget.⁴⁰

³⁹ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Nanoscale Science, Engineering,
and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White
House, December 2004.
⁴⁰ The agencies that participate in the NSET subcommittee comprise the NNI. NSET
subcommittee members include Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce;
Consumer Product Safety Commission; Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service, Department of Agriculture; Department of Defense; Department of
Education; Department of Energy; Department of Homeland Security; Department of
Justice; Department of Labor; Department of State; Department of Transportation;
Department of the Treasury; Environmental Protection Agency; Food and Drug
Administration; Forest Service, Department of Agriculture; Intelligence Technology
Innovation Center; International Trade Commission; National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Center for Disease Control,
(continued...)

The NSET subcommittee has established several chartered and non-chartered
working groups that conduct work in key subject areas. The three chartered working
groups are:⁴¹
National Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI). The NEHI
working group was chartered to provide for exchange of information among agencies
that support research and those responsible for regulations and guidelines related to
nanotechnology products; to facilitate identification, prioritization, and
implementation of research and other activities required for the responsible research,
development, utilization, and oversight of nanotechnology; and to promote
communication of information related to research on environmental and health
implications of nanotechnology to other government agencies and non-government
parties. To this end, the NEHI working group has been attempting to identify and
prioritize environmental, health, and safety research needs related to nanotechnology.
Twenty of the 25 NNI agencies participate in the NEHI working group, and 13
agencies fund safety-related nanotechnology research and/or have regulatory⁴²
authorities to guide the safe use of nanomaterials.
National Innovation and Liaison with Industry (NILI). The NILI
working group was chartered to enhance collaboration and information sharing
between U.S. industry and government on nanotechnology-related activities. It also
facilitates federal, regional, state, and local nanotechnology R&D and
commercialization activities. In addition, the NILI working group is to create
innovative methods for transferring federally funded technology to industry. The
NILI working group has facilitated collaborations between the NNI and the
semiconductor/electronics industry, chemical industry, forest products industry, and⁴³

the Industrial Research Institute.
⁴⁰ (...continued)
Department of Health and Human Services; National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Department of Commerce; National Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
U.S. Geological Survey; and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Department of
Commerce. The Department of Commerce’s Technology Administration was a participating
agency in the NNI until its elimination in August 2007 under the America COMPETES Act
(P.L. 110-69).
⁴¹ The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a
Revolution in Technology and Industry-Supplement to the President’s FY2008 Budget,
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and
Technology Council, The White House, July 2007.
⁴² Testimony of E. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office,
Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology: Current Status of
Planning and Implementation under the National Nanotechnology Initiative, hearing,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, House Committee on Science and
Technology, October 31, 2007.
⁴³ 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.

Global Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN). The GIN working group was
chartered to monitor foreign nanotechnology programs and development; broaden
international collaboration on nanotechnology R&D, including safeguarding the
environment and human health; and promote U.S. commercial and trade interests in
nanotechnology. The NEHI working group works with the GIN working group to
coordinate the U.S. position and participation in international activities related to
environmental, health, and safety implications of nanotechnology. The GIN working
group facilitates international collaboration on pre-competitive and non-competitive
aspects of nanotechnology, and international engagement on trade, commercialization
and regulatory issues.
In addition to the chartered working groups, the NSET subcommittee has two
non-chartered working groups: the Nanomanufacturing working group and the
Nanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications (NPEC) working group.
National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. The National
Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) provides administrative and technical
support to the NSET subcommittee. Initially established in 2001 through a
memorandum of understanding among the NNI participating agencies,⁴⁴ the NNCO
was authorized by the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act
of 2003 (P.L. 108-153). The NNCO was charged under the act with providing
technical and administrative support to the NSTC and NNAP; serving as the point
of contact for information on Federal nanotechnology activities for the exchange of
technical and programmatic information among stakeholders; conducting public
outreach; and promoting access to and early application of NNP technologies,
innovation, and expertise.
The act authorizes the work of the NNCO to be funded by contributions from
NSET subcommittee member agencies. According to the NNCO, funding is
provided through a memorandum of understanding signed by eight NNI agencies.⁴⁵
In principle, each agency contributes to the NNCO budget in proportion to their 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 FY2008 is $2.1 million.

⁴⁴ National Nanotechnology Initiative website, [http://www.nano.gov].
⁴⁵ The eight agencies that are signatories to the memorandum of understanding are NSF,
DOD, DOE, NIH, NIST, NASA, EPA, and DOT.

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

^Source:^T^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^o^nal^N^anot^echnol^{ogy St}^r^a^t^e^gi^{c Pl}^an^{, Nan}^o^s^{cale, Scien}^{ce, En}^gⁱⁿ^eerin^g^,^an^d
^T^echⁿ^o^log^y^Su^bcom^m^{ittee, Nation}^a^{l Scien}^ce^an^d^T^echⁿ^o^log^y^C^o^uⁿ^c^{il, T}^h^{e W}^h^{ite Hou}^s^e,^Decem^ber
^{2007. (N}^an^om^an^u^f^act^u^rⁱⁿ^g^w^o^rkⁱⁿ^g^g^r^ou^{p added t}^o^ch^artⁱⁿ^ci^t^e^{d s}^o^u^r^ce.)

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.
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 FY2008, the NNI budget totaled an estimated $1.491 billion, a 4.8%
increase over FY2007 funding and more than triple the $464 million federal
investment in nanotechnology research in 2001. This growth in nanotechnology
R&D investments reflects expectations in Congress and in the executive branch that
the NNI will expand fundamental knowledge and make important contributions to
national priorities. In his FY2009 budget, the President has requested $1.527 billion
for nanotechnology R&D, a 2.3% increase above the estimated FY2008 funding
level. The chronology of NNI funding is detailed in Table 1.
The President’s proposed FY2009 NNI budget supports a broad range of
programs among 13 agencies. Agencies with the largest budgets are:
^!NSF, which supports fundamental nanotechnology research across
science and engineering disciplines;
^!DOD, whose investments in nanotechnology are aimed at addressing
the department’s national security mission;
^!DOE, which supports nanotechnology research providing a basis for
new and improved energy efficiency, production, storage, and
transmission technologies;
^!NIH, which emphasizes nanotechnology-based biomedical advances
occurring at the intersection of biology and the physical sciences;
and
^!NIST, which focuses on research in instrumentation, measurement,
standards, characterization, and nanomanufacturing.

Other agencies investing in mission-related nanotechnology R&D are NASA,
EPA, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
and Forest Service at the Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), DHS, Department of Justice (DOJ), and
Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Table 1. NNI Funding, by Agency:
FY2001-FY2008 and FY2009 Request
(in millions of current dollars)
^FY^FY^FY^FY^FY^FY^FY^FY^FY
²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³²⁰⁰⁴²⁰⁰⁵²⁰⁰⁶²⁰⁰⁷²⁰⁰⁸²⁰⁰⁹
^Agency^Actu^al^Actu^al^Actu^al^Actu^a^l^Actu^al^Actu^al^Actu^al^Estim^a^te^R^e^que^s^t
^N^S^F¹⁵⁰²⁰⁴²²¹²⁵⁶³³⁵³⁶⁰³⁸⁹³⁸⁹³⁹⁷
^DOD^a¹²⁵²²⁴³²²²⁹¹³⁵²⁴²⁴⁴⁵⁰⁴⁸⁷⁴³¹
^D^O^E⁸⁸⁸⁹¹³⁴²⁰²²⁰⁸²³¹²³⁶²⁵¹³¹¹
^{NIH (DHHS)}⁴⁰⁵⁹⁷⁸¹⁰⁶¹⁶⁵¹⁹²²¹⁵²²⁶²²⁶
^N^I^S^T⁽^D^O^C⁾³³⁷⁷⁶⁴⁷⁷⁷⁹⁷⁸⁸⁸⁹¹⁰
^N^A^S^A²²³⁵³⁶⁴⁷⁴⁵⁵⁰²⁰¹⁸¹⁹
^E^P^A⁵⁶⁵⁵⁷⁵⁸¹⁰¹⁵
^D^O^J¹¹¹²²^<¹²²²
^D^H^S²¹¹¹²²¹¹
^CSRE^E^S
⁽^U^S^D^A⁾¹²³⁴⁴⁶³
^NIOSH³⁴⁷⁶⁶
^Fo^r^e^{st Ser}^v^ice
⁽^U^S^D^A⁾²³⁵⁵
^FHW^A^(DOT⁾¹¹¹¹
^TO^TA^L^b⁴⁶⁴⁶⁹⁷⁸⁶³⁹⁸⁹^1,200^1,351^1,425^1,491^1,527
^Sources^:^{The N}^a^{tional N}^anotechnol^o^g^y^Initiative:^Res^e^ar^{ch and Development Leading to a}
^Revol^u^tⁱ^{on i}ⁿ^T^echnol^{ogy and Indus}^t^r^{y, Suppl}^em^ent^t^o^t^h^{e Pr}^esⁱ^d^ent^’^s^FY^{2008 Budget}^{, Nan}^o^s^cale
^Scien^{ce, En}^gⁱⁿ^eerⁱⁿ^g^,^an^d^T^echⁿ^o^lo^g^y^Su^b^c^o^m^m^ittee^,^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^S^c^ien^{ce an}^d^T^echⁿ^o^lo^g^y^Co^uⁿ^c^{il, T}^h^e
^Whⁱ^t^e^H^o^u^s^{e, Ju}^l^y^2007.^{The N}^a^{tional N}^{anotechnology}^{Initiative Str}^a^{tegic Plan}^{, Nan}^o^s^{cale Scien}^ce,
^E^ngi^ne^e^rⁱ^ng,^aⁿ^d^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^Sub^c^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^,^N^a^tⁱ^o^na^l^Scⁱ^e^nc^e^aⁿ^d^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^Co^uncⁱ^l^,^T^h^e^W^hⁱ^t^e
^Hou^s^{e, Decem}^ber^2004.^N^a^{tional N}^{anotechnology Initiati}^{ve: FY2009 Budget &}^Highlights^{, Natio}ⁿ^a^l
^S^cⁱ^eⁿ^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^l^o^g^y^C^o^uⁿ^cⁱ^l^,^T^h^{e Wh}ⁱ^t^e^H^o^u^s^{e, F}^e^bru^a^ry^2008.
^{a. A}^ccordiⁿ^g^t^o^N^S^T^C^,^t^h^e^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e bu}^dg^et^s^s^h^owⁿ^abov^{e f}^o^{r F}^Y^{2006 an}^{d F}^Y²⁰⁰⁷
ⁱⁿ^c^l^u^d^e^C^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^l^y^dⁱ^r^e^c^t^e^d^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^o^f^a^p^p^r^o^xⁱ^m^a^t^el^y^{$76 m}^illion^an^{d $63 m}^illion^,
^res^p^ectiv^ely^.^A^ccordin^g^{to NS}^T^C^{, th}^{e 2008 DOD}^es^tim^{ate “}ⁱⁿ^c^lu^des^m^aⁿ^y^ear^m^a^r^k^s^t^h^{at are}
^o^u^tsid^{e th}^{e NNI}^p^l^an^.”
^{b. Nu}^m^b^ers^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add du}^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^of^ag^en^cy^bu^dg^{et f}ⁱ^g^u^r^es^.

Program Component Area Funding. The 21st Century Nanotechnology
R&D Act of 2003 called for the NSET subcommittee to develop categories of
investment called Program Component Areas (PCA) to provide a means by which
Congress and the executive branch can be informed of and direct the relative
investments in these areas. The PCAs are categories of investments that cut across
the needs and interests of individual agencies and contribute to the achievement of
one or more of the NNI’s goals. The 2004 NNI strategic plan identified seven PCAs.
The 2007 NNI strategic plan splits the seventh PCA, Societal Dimensions, into two
PCAs: Environment, Health, and Safety; and Education and Societal Dimensions. A
description of the seven initial PCAs and their current funding are provided below,⁴⁶⁴⁷
as well as a description of the two derivative PCAs. The chronology of NNI
funding by PCA is detailed in Table 2.
Table 2. NNI Funding, by Program Component Area,
FY2006-FY2009
(in millions of current dollars)
PCA F Y 2006Ac t u al F Y 2007Ac t u al F Y 2008Estimate F Y 2009Request
Fundamental Phenomena and Processes455.9480.6531.6550.8
Nanomaterials 265.1 258.3 254.7 227.2
Nanoscale Devices and Systems319.6344.7342.3327.0
Instrumentation Research, Metrology,
and Standards51.052.560.481.5
Nanomanufacturing 33.8 48.1 50.2 62.1
Major Research Facilities and
Instrumentation Acquisition152.4152.4154.4161.3
Societal Dimensions73.5
- Environment, Health, and Safety48.358.676.4
- Education and Societal Dimensions39.239.040.7
TOTAL 1,351.2 1,424.1 1,491.2 1,527.0
^Source:^T^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^onal^N^{anotechnology Initiative: Res}^e^ar^{ch and}^{Development Leading to a Revolution}
ⁱⁿ^T^echnol^{ogy and Indus}^t^r^{y, Suppl}^e^m^eⁿ^t^t^o^t^h^{e Pr}^esⁱ^d^ent^’^s^FY^{2008 Budget}^{, Nan}^o^s^{cale Scien}^ce,
^E^ngi^ne^e^rⁱ^ng,^aⁿ^d^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^Sub^c^o^m^mⁱ^t^t^e^e^,^N^a^tⁱ^o^na^l^Scⁱ^e^nc^e^aⁿ^d^T^e^c^hno^l^o^gy^Co^uncⁱ^l^,^T^h^e^W^hⁱ^t^e
^H^o^u^s^{e, Ju}^l^y^2007.

⁴⁶ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Nanoscale Science, Engineering,
and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White
House, December 2004.
⁴⁷ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Nanoscale Science, Engineering,
and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White
House, December 2007.

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.
FY2008 funding for Fundamental Phenomena and Processes rose to $531.6
million, up $51.0 million (10.6%) over the FY2007 level due to increases in DOD
(up $48.6 million, 23.1%) and NIH (up $9.9 million, 21.7%) funding in this PCA.
The increases in FY2008 funding for DOD and NIH in this PCA were partially offset
by decreases in other agencies’ budgets. The President’s FY2009 budget proposes
$550.8 million in funding for this PCA, up $19.2 million (3.6%) above the FY2008
level.⁴⁸
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.
FY2008 funding for Nanomaterials fell to $254.7 million, down $3.6 million
(1.4%) from the FY2007 level, led by a decrease in DOD funding in this PCA (down
$17.1 million, 19.9%). The decline in FY2008 spending in this PCA resulting from
the DOD reduction was partially offset by increases in other agencies’ budgets,
including a $9.0 million (13.1%) increase in DOE funding and a $3.7 million (6.3%)
increase in NSF funding. The President’s FY2009 budget proposes $227.2 million
for this PCA, a decrease of $27.5 million (10.8%) from the FY2008 level.⁴⁹
Nanoscale Devices and Systems. Nanoscale Devices and Systems
include R&D investments that apply nanoscale science and engineering principles to
create novel devices and systems or to improve existing ones. It also includes the use
of nanoscale or nanostructured materials to achieve improved performance or new
functionality. To meet this definition, the enabling science and technology must be
at the nanoscale, but the systems and devices are not restricted to that size.
Funding for Nanoscale Devices and Systems fell to $342.3 million in FY2008,
down $2.4 million (0.7%) from the FY2007 level. The President’s FY2009 budget
proposes $327.0 million in funding for this PCA, a decrease of $15.3 million (4.5%)
from the FY2008 level, largely due to reductions in DOD (down $12.1 million,

10.1%) and DOE (down $4.9 million, 37.7%) funding in this PCA. The decrease in

⁴⁸ The National Nanotechnology Initiative: FY2009 Budget & Highlights, Nanoscale
Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology
Council, The White House, February 2008.
⁴⁹ Ibid.

DOD and DOE funding for this PCA is somewhat offset by increases in other
agencies’ budgets.⁵⁰
Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards. The
Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards PCA includes R&D investments
for development of tools needed to advance nanotechnology research and
commercialization. Instrumentation for characterization, measurement, synthesis, and
design of nanotechnology materials, structures, devices, and systems is funded
through this PCA. R&D and other activities related to development of standards,
including standards for nomenclature, materials, characterization, testing, and
manufacture are also in this PCA.
FY2008 funding for Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards
increased to $60.4 million, up $7.9 million (15.0%) over the FY2007 level, led by a
$3.7 million (86.0%) increase in DOD funding. The President’s FY2009 budget
proposes $81.5 million in funding for this PCA, an increase of $21.1 million (34.9%)⁵¹
above the FY2008 level, with DOE and NIST accounting for the largest increases.
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.⁵²
FY2008 funding for Nanomanufacturing rose to $50.2 million, up $2.1 million
(4.4%) over the FY2007 level due to increases in the budgets of NIST and DOE. The
President’s FY2009 budget proposes $62.1 million for this PCA, an increase in
funding of $11.9 million (23.7%) above the FY2008 level, due to increases in DOD,
DOE, and NIST funding for this PCA.⁵³
Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition. This
PCA includes investments in the establishment and ongoing operations of user
facilities and networks, the acquisition of major instrumentation, and other activities
related to infrastructure for the conduct of nanoscale science, engineering, and
technology R&D.
FY2008 funding for Major Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition
rose to $154.4 million, an increase of $2.0 million (1.3%) over the FY2007 level.
The President’s FY2009 budget proposes $161.3 million for this PCA, an increase

⁵⁰ Ibid.
⁵¹ Ibid.
⁵² 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.
⁵³ The National Nanotechnology Initiative: FY2009 Budget & Highlights, Nanoscale
Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology
Council, The White House, February 2008.

of $6.9 million (4.5%) above the FY2008 level, led by a $9.2 million (10.0%)
increase in DOE funding and partially offset by decreases in other agencies’
budgets.⁵⁴
Societal Dimensions. The Societal Dimensions PCA includes investments
in research and other activities that address the broad implications of nanotechnology
to society. This includes assessing benefits and risks through research directed at
environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology development; risk
assessment of such impacts; education-related activities, such as development of
materials for schools, undergraduate programs, technical training, and public
outreach; and research directed at identifying and quantifying the broad implications
of nanotechnology for society, including social, economic, workforce, educational,
ethical, and legal implications.
Under the 2007 NNI Strategic Plan, the Societal Dimensions PCA was divided
into two separate PCAs: Environment, Health, and Safety, and Education and
Societal Dimensions. Future PCA reporting will use the new eight PCA taxonomy.
NSTC has retroactively reported FY2007 Societal Dimensions PCA spending in the⁵⁵⁵⁶
new PCAs. The NSET subcommittee characterizes the new PCAs as follows:
Environment, Health, and Safety. This PCA addresses research primarily
directed at understanding the environmental, health, and safety impacts of
nanotechnology development and corresponding risk assessment, risk management,
and methods for risk mitigation.
FY2008 funding for Environment, Health, and Safety rose to $58.6 million, up
$10.3 million (21.3%) above the FY2007 level. A total of nine agencies funded work
in this PCA in FY2008, including three agencies that did not have funding in this
PCA in FY2008.⁵⁷ The President’s FY2009 budget proposes $76.4 million in
funding for this PCA, an increase of $17.8 million (30.4%) above the FY2008 level,
led by increases at NIST (up $12 million) and EPA (up $4.7 million).⁵⁸
Education and Societal Dimensions. This PCA addresses education-
related activities such as development of materials for schools, undergraduate
programs, technical training, and public communication, including outreach and

⁵⁴ Ibid.
⁵⁵ The National Nanotechnology Initiative: FY2009 Budget & Highlights, Nanoscale
Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology
Council, The White House, February 2008.
⁵⁶ The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, Nanoscale Science, Engineering,
and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White
House, December 2004.
⁵⁷ The three agencies reporting FY2008 funding in the Environment, Health, and Safety PCA
that reported no funding for this PCA in FY2007 are DOD, DOE, and NASA.
⁵⁸ The National Nanotechnology Initiative: FY2009 Budget & Highlights, Nanoscale
Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology
Council, The White House, February 2008.

engagement. Such activities include research directed at identifying and quantifying
the broad implications of nanotechnology society, including social, economic,
workforce, educational, ethical, and legal implications.
FY2008 funding for Education and Societal Dimensions fell slightly to $39
million, down $0.2 million (less than 1%) from the FY2007 level. The President’s
FY2009 budget proposes $40.7 million in funding for this PCA, an increase of $1.7
million (4.4%) above the FY2008 level, accounted for entirely by an increase in NSF
funding.
Centers, Networks, and User Facilities
A key facet of the National Nanotechnology Initiative has been the development
of an extensive infrastructure of interdisciplinary research and education centers,
networks, and user facilities. The centers and user facilities are located at universities
and federal laboratories across the country.
Centers and networks provide opportunities and support for multidisciplinary
research among investigators from a variety of disciplines and research sectors,
including academia, industry, and government laboratories. Such multidisciplinary
research not only can lead to advances in knowledge, but also may foster
relationships that further the development of basic research results into devices and
other applications.
Many agencies support such centers. Examples of federal and federally
supported centers include:
^!The National Science Foundation has established university-based
centers focused exclusively on nanotechnology, including 15
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSEC), one
Engineering Research Center, one Science and Technology Center,
four Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers, two
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education Centers, and five
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Networks.⁵⁹
^!The NIH has established more than 20 centers, including eight
university-based Nanomedicine Development Centers; a
Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory, established by the
National Cancer Institute (NCI), in partnership with NIST and the
Food and Drug Administration; eight university-based Centers of
Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, established under the NCI’s
Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer initiative; and four
university-based centers, established by the National Heart, Lung,
and Blood Institute under its Program of Excellence in
Nanotechnology.

⁵⁹ In addition, 18 other Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers conduct
nanotechnology-related research as part of their overall efforts.

^!The Department of Defense supports two university-based
nanotechnology research centers, as well as the Institute for
Nanoscience at the Naval Research Laboratory.
^!NASA has established three centers under its University Research,
Engineering, and Technology Institute program.
^!The Department of Energy has established five Nanoscale Science
Research Centers (NSRCs) co-located with its national labs.
^!NIST has established a Center for Nanoscale Science and
Technology (CNST).
^!NIOSH has established a Nanotechnology Research Center to
conduct research into the application of nanoparticles and
nanomaterials in occupational safety and health and the implications
of nanoparticles and nanomaterials for work-related injury and
illness.
Many of the centers are designated as user facilities and are available to
researchers not located at the center. User facilities are designed to allow outside
researchers to take advantage of facilities, equipment, tools, and expertise. These
shared resources provide researchers the opportunity to conduct research,
characterize materials, and test products using equipment and facilities that their
individual companies, universities, or organizations could not afford to acquire,
support, or maintain. Conditions for user access vary by facility and agency. In
general, users are not charged for pre-competitive, non-proprietary work leading to
publication, and are charged on a cost-recovery basis for proprietary work. In some
cases, the user facilities are located at federal government laboratories (e.g. the
Department of Energy’s five NSRCs, and the NIST CNST); other user facilities are
located at universities and supported with federal funds (e.g. NSF’s 13
university-based centers in the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
(NNIN)).
As mentioned earlier, the 21^st 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.⁶⁰ 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.⁶¹ The
NSET subcommittee states that the requirement for establishing the Center for
Nanomaterials Manufacturing was met by NSF’s establishment of a National

⁶⁰ Private telephone communication between CRS and NSTC staff, January 31, 2008.
⁶¹ Private email communication between CRS and NSF staff, January 31, 2008.

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.⁶² The NNN NSECs were established by NSF in
collaboration with DOD and NIST, but exclusively with NSF funds.⁶³
NNI Reports and Assessments
This section presents summaries of recent reports from the NSTC’s Nanoscale
Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee and assessments conducted by
the National Research Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology.
NNI Reports
The NNI’s coordinating body, the NSTC’s Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee, produces a variety of reports that serve to inform
Congress and other key stakeholders on the initiatives’ current activities,
investments, and priorities.
The National Nanotechnology Strategic Plan (2007).⁶⁴ The 21^st Century
Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153) requires the NSTC to develop an
NNI strategic plan every three years. This plan is to guide the program’s activities
to meet the goals, priorities, and anticipated outcomes of the participating agencies.
In addition, the act requires the triennial report to address how the program intends
to move results out of the laboratory and into application for the benefit of society,
its plan for long-term funding for interdisciplinary R&D, and the allocation of
funding for interagency projects. The 2007 strategic plan is the first to follow
external assessments by the National Academies and PCAST (operating as the
NNAP) and seeks to incorporate the findings of these reviews. Of particular note:
^!The 2007 National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan
includes a new chapter on “High-Impact Application Opportunities
and Critical Research Needs” possibly indicating an effort on the
part of the Administration to move the NNI toward more directed
research with commercial and societal benefits. Much of the early
NNI work has been focused on basic research and mechanisms by
which such research may produce economic and societal dividends.
Seven years into the NNI, the program is under increasing scrutiny
to deliver the promised benefits. While the plan does not establish
R&D or application targets per se, this chapter illustrates tangible
benefits that may be achieved by research supported under the NNI.

⁶² Private telephone communication between CRS and NSTC staff, January 31, 2008.
⁶³ Private e-mail communication between CRS and NSF staff, January 31, 2008.
⁶⁴ The National Nanotechnology Strategic Plan, Nanoscale, Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House,
December 2007.

In addition, the plan provides a matrix that identifies which agencies
have a central or supporting role in each key application area. The
plan also provides a series of nanotechnology application-specific
vignettes on topics such as early detection of life-threatening disease,
smarter computers, more energy-efficient transportation, and energy
security.
^!The 2007 National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan split
the Societal Dimensions PCA into two separate PCAs:
Environmental, Health, and Safety, and Education and Societal
Dimensions. This change responds to increased Congressional and
public attention to EHS needs. Some critics of the NNI had raised
concerns that the inclusion of investments in education and other
societal dimensions in the broader category obscured and artificially
inflated the perception of investments in EHS R&D.
^!The plan also identifies four areas of common interest across
agencies that is to be the focus of future workshops: sensors and
nanoelectronics, energy, fate and transport of nanomaterials, and
medical and health applications.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development
Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the
President’s FY2008 Budget.⁶⁵ Each year the NSET subcommittee publishes a
supplement to the President’s annual budget request. The FY2008 NNI budget
supplement provides a more detailed look at each agency’s nanotechnology R&D
budget request and a break-out of the prior, current, and requested year budgets for
each PCA. In addition, the report provides data on agency funding for Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer
Research (STTR). The report describes proposed changes in agency R&D budgets,
as well as in the balance of investments by PCA. Of particular note:
^!The President’s FY2008 budget proposed a $90.9 million (6.7%)
increase in the overall NNI budget.
^!Funding for EHS R&D in FY2007 rose to $47.8 million, a 26.8%
increase over FY2006. The President’s FY2008 request includes

58.6 million, a 22.6% increase over estimate FY2007 funding.

^!The President’s FY2008 budget request reflected a decline in
spending on nanoscale devices and systems of $41.7 million (13.1%)
below FY2007, led by a decline in DOD spending of $36.9 million
(34.3%).

⁶⁵ The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a
Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2008 Budget,
Nanoscale, Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and
Technology Council, The White House, July 2007.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Environmental, Health, and
Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials.⁶⁶ This report
documents the efforts of the NSET subcommittee’s Nanotechnology Environmental
and Health Implications (NEHI) working group to identify, prioritize, and implement
research and other activities required for the responsible research and development
of nanotechnology. The report is designed to help inform the research, risk
assessment, and risk management activities of federal agencies and the private sector.
The report identifies priority research within five general research areas:
instrumentation, metrology, and analytical methods; nanomaterials and human
health; nanomaterials and the environment; health and environmental surveillance;
and risk management methods.
The report identifies several next steps:
^!prioritize research needs among those identified in the report;
^!evaluate in greater detail the current NNI EHS research portfolio;
^!perform a “gap analysis” of the NNI EHS research compared to the
prioritized needs;
^!coordinate and facilitate among the NNI agencies’ research
programs to address priorities; and
^!establish a process for periodic review of progress and for updating
research needs and priorities.
The report concludes that conducting EHS research in parallel with the
development of nanomaterials and their applications will help to ensure the full, safe,
and responsible realization of the promise of nanotechnology, and that coordination
of research activities among NNI-participating agencies, as well as with industry and
other governments, is necessary to expedite progress. In contrast, some NGOs have
asserted the need for EHS research to precede the development of nanomaterials and
nanotechnology applications.
Prioritization of Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs
for Engineered Nanoscale Materials: An Interim Document for Public
Comment.⁶⁷ This document is a follow-on to the Environmental, Health, and
Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials report (discussed above),

⁶⁶ The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Environmental, Health, and Safety Research
Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials, Nanoscale, Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council, The White House,
September 2006.
⁶⁷ Prioritization of Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered
Nanoscale Materials: An Interim Document for Public Comment, Nanoscale, Science,
Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee, National Science and Technology Council,
The White House, August 2007.

incorporating public comments, refinements of the prioritization principles, and
continued assessment of research needs. This report further identifies and defines
five priorities within each of the five general categories of research needs established
in the earlier document and presents the revised principles and the process used for
this prioritization. The NEHI working group of the NSET subcommittee expects to
use this report to evaluate the NNI’s current EHS research portfolio, perform a gap
analysis, and identify opportunities for interagency collaboration. The report stresses
that the NSET subcommittee is “pursuing a dynamic, open, and transparent process
in developing an NNI EHS research strategy” and invites continuing public input.
NNI Assessments
The 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-153) requires
periodic external reviews of the National Nanotechnology Program (NNP) by the
National Research Council, an arm of the National Academies,⁶⁸ and the National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.⁶⁹ In their first reviews, both institutions reviewed
the NNI in its entirety, including the activities of those agencies that are not part of
the NNP.
In general, these reviews concluded that the NNI has been successful so far and
that its efforts are important to future U.S. technological leadership and commercial
competitiveness. Both reports emphasize that much nanotechnology research is still
in its very early stages and caution against expecting too much in the near term from
this nascent technology. The reports also laud the cooperative efforts between the
NNI and stakeholders in academia and industry and encourage increased interactions
with industry, state and local economic developers, and, where appropriate,
international partners.
A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology⁷⁰
Initiative. This 2006 report presents the findings of the National Research
Council’s (NRC) first triennial review mandated by the 21st Century Nanotechnology
R&D Act of 2003.
The NRC study concluded that the NNI has been successful in coordinating
nanoscale efforts and interests across the federal government, in catalyzing
cooperative R&D across a variety of scientific and engineering disciplines, and in
opening a host of new scientific opportunities through its infrastructure and R&D

⁶⁸ The National Research Council, the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine are part of a private, non-profit
institution established under a congressional charter. They are collectively referred to as the
National Academies.
⁶⁹ P.L. 108-153 directs the President to “establish or designate a National Nanotechnology
Advisory Panel.” In July 2004, President Bush designated the President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology to serve as the NNAP by issuing Executive Order
13349, Amending Executive Order 13226 To Designate the President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology To Serve as the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel.
⁷⁰ A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National
Research Council, 2006.

investments. The NRC attributed much of this success to effective communication
and coordination by the NSET subcommittee and the NNCO.
Recommendations. Here are the recommendations made by the NRC
followed by a discussion of each.
NRC recommendation:
the federal government [should] sustain investments in a manner that balances
the pursuit of shorter-term goals with support for longer-term R&D and that
ensures a robust supporting infrastructure, broadly defined. Supporting
long-term research effectively will require making new funds available that do
not come at the expense of much-needed ongoing investment in U.S. physical
sciences and engineering research.
President Bush has expressed support for increasing federal R&D funding for
the physical sciences and engineering, most notably in his American Competitiveness
Initiative which includes nanotechnology investments. Yet, as Federal non-
discretionary spending growth increases pressure on federal discretionary spending,
finding new funds to support long-term nanotechnology research may need to come
from other scientific disciplines.
NRC recommendation:
the federal government [should] establish an independent advisory panel with
specific operational expertise in nanoscale science and engineering; management
of research centers, facilities, and partnerships; and interdisciplinary
collaboration to facilitate cutting-edge research on and effective and responsible
development of nanotechnology.
In July 2004, President George W. Bush implemented the provision of the 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act to “establish or designate
a National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel” by issuing Executive Order 13349,
which amends Executive Order 13226, designating the President’s Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology to serve as the NNAP.
The NRC’s recommendation suggests that the President’s designation of
PCAST to serve as the legislatively mandated National Nanotechnology Advisory
Panel is not fully adequate. Critics of the use of PCAST to serve as the NNAP
maintain that the scope and depth of expertise needed to provide effective guidance
on the NNI requires an independent panel of people with nanotechnology- and
interdisciplinary-specific expertise and an undivided focus. Supporters of the use of
PCAST for this function assert that a single advisory panel provides an integrated
perspective, reduces unnecessary cost and management burdens, and that expertise
can be added to the panel or accessed through non-member technical advisory
groups.
NRC recommendation:
federal agencies participating in the NNI, in consultation with the NNCO and the
Office of Management and Budget, should continue to develop and enhance

means for consistent tracking and reporting of funds requested, authorized, and
expended annually. The current set of PCAs provides an appropriate initial
template for such tracking.
It is difficult to assess and track funding for specific purposes within the NNI
because the initiative is not centrally funded and operated. The NNI budget is an
aggregation of the nanotechnology-related activities of the participating federal
agencies. Congress funds the NNI-related R&D on an agency-by-agency basis, with
responsibilities crossing many authorizing committees and appropriations
subcommittees. Thus, while it is relatively straightforward to quantify an agency’s
nanotechnology budget, tracking all NNI investments related to a particular activity
— EHS-related research, for example — is much more difficult. The PCAs serve to
provide such a tracking mechanism. In addition, according to the 2007 National
Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, the division of the Societal Dimensions
PCA into two PCAs — Environmental, Health, and Safety; and Educational and
Societal Dimensions — is intended to better understand and manage the NNI
investment. Such a change indicates a level of flexibility that may enable the
executive branch and Congress to more effectively manage and balance investments
in discrete areas of the NNI.
NRC recommendation:
the NSET Subcommittee [should] carry out or commission a study on the
feasibility of developing metrics to quantify the return to the U.S. economy from
the federal investment in nanotechnology R&D. The study should draw on the
Department of Commerce’s expertise in economic analysis and its existing
ability to poll U.S. industry. Among the activities for which metrics should be
developed and relevant data collected are technology transfer and commercial
development of nanotechnology.
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 2007.⁷¹ Prior to its elimination, the
Technology Administration contracted for two studies that could contribute to
addressing this NRC recommendation: an analysis of barriers to nanotechnology
commercialization performed by the University of Illinois at Springfield, and an
analysis of innovation metrics conducted by the Alliance for Science and Technology

⁷¹ The Technology Administration was eliminated in the America COMPETES Act (P.L.

110-69).

Research in America (ASTRA). These reports are publicly available at Commerce
Department websites.⁷²
NRC recommendation:
research on the environmental, health, and safety effects of nanotechnology
[should] be expanded. Assessing the effects of engineered nanomaterials on
public health and the environment requires that the research conducted be
well-defined and reproducible, and that effective methods be developed and
applied to (1) estimate the exposure of humans, wildlife, and other ecological
receptors to source material; (2) assess effects on human health and ecosystems
of both occupational and environmental exposure; and (3) characterize, assess,
and manage the risks associated with exposure.
While the NRC asserts the need for additional EHS research, it does not
quantify how much more is needed. Clayton Teague, director of the NNCO, has
testified that the current level of investment in EHS research is adequate.⁷³ Many
critics from academia, industry, and non-profit organizations have argued strongly
that the NNI needs a greater level of investment in EHS research.⁷⁴ These critics
argue from a variety of perspectives, including the need to:
^!protect workers, human health, and the environment;
^!create public faith and confidence in the safety of nanotechnology
products;
^!prevent a problem with one specific nanotechnology product from
resulting in a loss of public support for all nanotechnology R&D;
and
^!create a predictable and stable regulatory environment.
This last factor is deemed by some as critical to fostering future nanotechnology
investments.

⁷² Barriers to Nanotechnology Commercialization, College of Business Management,
University of Illinois at Springfield, September 2007. [http://www.osec.doc.gov/
Report-Barriers%20to%20Nanotechnology%20Commercialization.pdf] Innovation Vital
Signs Project, Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America, July 2007.
[http://www.ntis.gov/ta_reports/Report-InnovationV italSigns.pdf]
⁷³ Testimony of Clayton Teague, director of the NNCO, hearing, “Environmental and Safety
Impacts of Nanotechnology: What Research is Needed?” House Committee on Science,
November 17, 2005. [http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24464.000/
hsy24464_0.HTM]
⁷⁴ Ibid.

NRC recommendation:
the NSET Subcommittee [should] create a working group on education and the
workforce that engages the Department of Education and Department of Labor
as active participants.
The NSET subcommittee has sought, with limited success, greater involvement
of the Departments of Education and Labor in the subcommittee’s activities. An
NSET subcommittee working group on education and the workforce has not yet been
established.
With advocates promising the creation of many new jobs — some assert
millions — as a result of global nanotechnology investments, some have expressed
concern that the country must prepare students for nanotechnology research,
engineering, and production jobs.⁷⁵ Assessing which industries are likely to create
such jobs, which skills will be needed, and in what timeframe are key challenges. If
workers with nanotechnology-specific skills are needed and no workers are available
domestically (U.S. citizens, resident aliens, or those in the United States on work
visas), potential employers may opt to establish or move operations outside the
United States to tap workers with those skills abroad. Conversely, if students are
trained for jobs that do not emerge or do not emerge in the same timeframe as
students are entering the job market, this investment is lost. In addition, potential
students may be discouraged from pursuing future nanotechnology-related studies.
Close coordination among the Departments of Commerce, Education, and Labor
might help to align federal education and training efforts better with the labor market
for nanotechnology workers.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act also directed the NRC to address
two other issues in its first triennial report: Is molecular self assembly feasible for
manufacturing of materials and devices at the nanoscale? And, what are the needs
for standards, guidelines, or strategies for ensuring the responsible development of
nanotechnology?
Molecular Self-Assembly. Self-assembly is the process by which
components (atoms, molecules, or more complex structures) form, without external
control or direction, an organized structure. For example, water molecules dispersed
in air in cold temperatures can self-assemble to form snowflakes. Our bodies act as
self-assemblers, producing a variety of cells as needed (e.g. to repair a damage to the
skin or produce new blood cells from added nutrients).
To what extent can molecular self-assembly be used as a tool for
nanomanufacturing? On this issue, the NRC concluded that molecular self-assembly
is feasible for the manufacture of simple materials and devices. However, for the
manufacture of more sophisticated materials and devices, including complex objects
produced in large quantities, the NRC found it unlikely that simple self-assembly

⁷⁵ 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.

processes will yield the desired results. One major barrier cited is the probability of
error during assembly as a result of the systems’ complexity.
Standards, Guidelines, and Strategies for Ensuring Responsible
Development of Nanotechnology. The NRC concluded that it is not possible
yet to make a rigorous assessment of the level of environmental and health risks
posed by engineered nanomaterials and called for further development of risk
assessment protocols. The NRC report also stated that the need for more EHS data
requires an expanded research effort to complement dialog on these issues. In
addition, until reproducible and well-characterized EHS data are available to inform
the development of rigorous risk-based guidelines and best practices, the NRC found
it prudent to recommend use of precautionary measures to protect the health and
safety of workers, the public, and the environment. The NRC report also stressed that
addressing the ethical and societal impacts of nanotechnology will require an
integrated approach among scientists, engineers, social scientists, toxicologists,
policymakers, and the public.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment
and Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel,
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.⁷⁶ This
report presents the findings of the first biennial review of the NNI by the President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology’s, acting as the National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, as mandated by the 21st Century Nanotechnology
R&D Act of 2003. PCAST submitted its first report to the President on May 16,
2005, titled The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. The second
report was due in 2007 but has yet to be completed.
The PCAST report finds that the United States is the acknowledged leader in
nanotechnology R&D, but the U.S. leadership position is under increasing
competitive pressure from growing public and private investments around the world.
The report states that the federal investment in the NNI has been well-spent, the
United States is well-positioned to maintain global leadership going forward, and
continued robust funding is important for long-term U.S. economic well-being and
national security. This assessment of the U.S. leadership position is founded not on
sales, growth, or market share of commercial products — common measures of
global competitiveness for established products — but rather on metrics that may
serve as early indicators of potential innovation, such as the U.S. share of scientific
publications and patents. The use of such metrics may not be universally accepted
as predictive of leadership position. Technological leadership — or even leadership
in innovation — does not ensure that the economic benefits from such leadership will
accrue to the United States. Companies may choose to manufacture products or
conduct other value-added activities outside the United States. If the assessment of
national competitiveness is expanded to include the value-added activities and jobs

⁷⁶ The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and Recommendations
of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology, May 2005.

generated or retained within the United States, then the metrics for assessing
leadership might change.
The PCAST report acknowledges that there are potential environmental and
health risks associated with nanotechnology, but finds that the NNI is directing
appropriate attention and adequate resources to the research that will ensure the
protection of the public and the environment. Nanotechnology products should not
be immune from regulation, according to the report, but such regulation must be
rational and based on science, not on perceived fears. The PCAST report states that
strong communication exists among the NNI agencies responsible for research and
regulation. The PCAST report contains four recommendations for the NNI:
PCAST recommendation:
To further facilitate technology transfer from the lab to the marketplace, the NNI
should expand its interaction with industry, increase federal-state coordination,
and improve knowledge management of and access to NNI assets, such as user
facilities and instrumentation.
The NSET subcommittee’s National Innovation and Liaison with Industry
(NILI) working group was established to facilitate NNI interactions with industry,
and with state and local nanotechnology initiatives. The NILI working group’s
limited resources and agency participation have hindered its ability to conduct more
extensive and sustained outreach.⁷⁷ Due to the structure and resource allocation of
the NNI, the initiative’s engagements with industry and with state and local
initiatives are largely limited to single agency or laboratory interactions and to public⁷⁸
engagement activities, such as speeches and information on the NNI website.
PCAST recommendation:
The NNI should continue its efforts to understand the possible toxicological
effects of nanotechnology and where harmful human or environmental effects are
proven, pertinent federal agencies should apply appropriate regulatory
mechanisms. There should be strong interagency and international collaboration
on this issue to eliminate unnecessary duplication of research efforts and to
ensure wide dissemination of information. Since exposure to nanomaterials is
most likely to occur during the manufacturing process, research on potential
hazards associated with workplace exposure must be given the highest priority.
With respect to collaboration on EHS issues, the NSET subcommittee’s
National Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) working group is the
primary EHS coordination mechanism for participating NNI agencies. The Global
Issues in Nanotechnology (GIN) working group works with the NEHI working group
on international collaboration on EHS issues. The NIOSH has published several
documents addressing concerns about workplace exposure to nanoparticles.
Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An Information Exchange With NIOSH was

⁷⁷ Private telephone and e-mail communication with Sean Murdock, executive director of
the NanoBusiness Alliance, February 4, 2008.
⁷⁸ Ibid.

intended to provide the best currently available knowledge on nanoparticle toxicity
and control and to solicit input from the stakeholder community.⁷⁹ Progress Toward
Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace details the work of NIOSH’s Nanotechnology
Research Center from 2004 through 2006.⁸⁰ In December 2007, NIOSH released
interim guidance concerning the medical screening of workers potentially exposed
to engineered nanoparticles during the manufacture and industrial use of
nanomaterials. The NIOSH says that the document is intended to “generate
discussion, fill the current knowledge gap, and provide interim recommendations
until further scientific information becomes available.”⁸¹ The NIOSH is currently
seeking public comment on this guidance.
With respect to regulatory issues associated with nanotechnology, see CRS
Report RL34332, Engineered Nanoscale Materials and Derivative Products:
Regulatory Challenges, by Linda-Jo Schierow.
PCAST recommendation:
The NNI should establish relationships with the Department of Education and
Department of Labor to develop education and training systems to support the
Nation’s technical proficiency in areas related to nanotechnology.
The PCAST report’s recommendation is similar to the recommendation made by the
NRC and is discussed earlier in this paper.
PCAST recommendation:
The NNI must support research aimed at understanding the societal implications
of nanotechnology — including ethical, economic and legal implications — and
must actively work to inform the public about nanotechnology. The NNI should
continue to confront societal issues in an open, straightforward, and
science-based manner.
Some critics of the NNI hold deep reservations about the ethical, economic, and
legal implications of nanotechnology. Some of these concerns are common to many
technologies, such as the allocation of risk and benefit during manufacturing. For
example, a neighborhood located near a production facility may bear risks associated
with exposure to the byproducts (or products) of manufacturing, while gaining few
of the benefits. Concerns about possible adverse effects of nanoscale particles on
human health and the environment resulting from their small particle size and unique
characteristics may result in increased attention to such costs and benefits with

⁷⁹ Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An Information Exchange with NIOSH, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, July 2006.
⁸⁰ Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, June 2007.
⁸¹ NIOSH Update: NIOSH Draft Offers Interim Guidance on Medical Screening of Workers
Potentially Exposed to Engineered Nanoparticles, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, December 13, 2007.

respect to nanoscale material production. Currently, nanotechnology EHS risks are
unknown and may be acute or pose no more risk than other manufacturing processes.
Privacy rights are another issue associated with the products of nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology may enable the production of highly sensitive, inexpensive sensors
that could be deployed ubiquitously in commercial and public settings. While these
sensors may allow check-out-free purchases from stores, or monitor the environment
for toxic substances, critics argue that they could also impinge on the privacy rights
of individuals if, for example, the sensors could detect chemicals related to the use
of tobacco, alcohol, or illegal substances without the permission of the individual.
Such information might be later applied in law enforcement, life insurance, health
insurance, or employment decisions.⁸² Others express concern that the economically
disadvantaged and less educated — both individuals and nations — might be unable
to take part in the benefits that nanotechnology products could offer.⁸³
On the legal front, innovations in nanotechnology are already presenting unique
challenges to the U.S. Patent and Trademark (USPTO). For example, U.S. case law
generally prohibits patenting where the sole element of novelty is a change in size,
the characteristic most obviously associated with nanotechnology.⁸⁴ In addition,
many nanotechnology innovations involve multiple disciplines. Since the USPTO
structure for examining patents is discipline-based, an examiner may not have all of
the requisite expertise for the examination, affecting both their ability to conduct the
examination, and the speed at which it can be done. USPTO also has acknowledged
the need to accelerate the speed of nanotechnology-related patent applications.
According to John Doll, Commissioner of Patents, the agency is hampered in its
ability to recruit and retain patent examiners with the requisite skills to handle
nanotechnology patents given the “more generous offers [patent examiners get] from
the private sector.”⁸⁵ Doll said that efforts have been made to improve hiring and
retention at USPTO, and that a new processes has been established allowing an
accelerated examination of applications.⁸⁶

⁸² 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]
⁸³ Smith, Richard H.,”Social, Ethical, and Legal Implications of Nanotechnology,” Societal
Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2001).
⁸⁴ Nanotechnology Patents: Issues for Nanotechnology Inventions, Dorsey and Whitney,
LLP, May 9, 2005.
⁸⁵ Doll, John, Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Letter to the
Editor, Small Times, April 23, 2007. [http://www.smalltimes.com/Articles/Article_
Display.cfm? ART ICLE_ID=290818&p=109]
⁸⁶ Ibid.

Nanotechnology Legislation in the 110th Congress
S. 1199/H.R. 2436 — Nanotechnology in the Schools Act
S. 1199, the Nanotechnology in the Schools Act, was introduced on April 24,
2007. Companion legislation, H.R. 2436, was introduced on May 22, 2007. The bill
seeks to strengthen the capacity of U.S. secondary schools and institutions of higher
education to prepare students for careers in nanotechnology by providing grants to
those schools and institutions.
Under the legislation, the Director of the National Science Foundation is
directed to establish a nanotechnology in the schools program. This program would
award grants of not more than $150,000 to public or charter secondary schools
offering advanced science courses and to institutions of higher education. These
grants would be for the purchase of nanotechnology equipment and software and the
provision of nanotechnology education to students and teachers. Institutions must
provide non-federal matching funds of 25% of the grant amount, but this provision
can be waived for institutions with endowments of $5 million or less.
The bill authorizes $15 million for the program in FY2008, and such sums as
may be necessary for FY2009 through FY2011. S. 1199 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 2436 was referred to
the House Science and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education.
S. 1547 — National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2008 (Incorporating the Provisions of S. 1425)

S. 1425 was introduced on May 17, 2007. The purpose of S. 1425 was to
enhance the Department of Defense’s nanotechnology R&D program. The
provisions of S. 1425 were later incorporated in S. 1547, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as section 255. The bill would amend
language in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
relating to the defense nanotechnology R&D program. Section 255 of S. 1547 would:
^!revise the nanotechnology R&D program purposes;
^!replace the Director of Defense Research and Engineering with the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics as the program administrator responsible for overseeing
coordination of the nanotechnology R&D program with other
departments and agencies participating in the NNI;
^!outline program activities, including the establishment of research
priorities; development of a strategic plan for defense
nanotechnology R&D that is integrated with the strategic plan for the
NNI; and establishment of a strategy for transitioning research
results into products needed by DOD, including support for

development of nanomanufacturing capabilities and a
nanotechnology defense industrial base; and
^!extend program reporting requirements through 2013.
The bill also requires a report from the Comptroller General to the congressional
defense and appropriations committees on progress made by DOD in achieving the
purposes of the program. S. 1425 was referred to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services. The provisions of this bill have been incorporated in section 255 of S.

1547, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

H.R. 3235 — Nanotechnology Advancement and New
Opportunities Act
H.R. 3235, the Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities Act, was
introduced on July 31, 2007. The purpose of the bill is to ensure the development
and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology. 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 tax credit of up to $10 million for the purchase of stock
in qualified nanotechnology companies;
^!establish a grant program within the DOC to support the
establishment and development of nanotechnology incubators;
^!authorize $10 million for the NSF to establish a center for the
development of computer-aided design tools for nanotechnology
applications;
^!authorize an annual appropriation of $30 million for the DOE to
conduct a grant program for nanotechnology research to address the
need for clean, cheap, renewable energy;
^!authorize an annual appropriation of $30 million for the EPA for a
grant program for nanotechnology research to address technologies
for the remediation of pollution and other environmental protection
technologies;
^!authorize an annual appropriation of $30 million for the DHS to
conduct a grant program for nanotechnology research to address the
need for sensors and materials related to homeland security needs;

^!authorize an annual appropriation of $30 million for the DHHS to
conduct a grant program for nanotechnology research to address
health-related applications;
^!require the Director of the NNCO to prepare a report to Congress on
a nanotechnology research strategy for government and industry that
will ensure the development and responsible stewardship of
nanotechnology;
^!provide a tax credit of 50% for nanotechnology education and
training expenses for businesses and individuals;
^!authorize an annual appropriation of $15 million for FY2008
through FY2011 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.
On July 31, 2007, H.R. 3235 was referred to the House Science and Technology
Committee’s Subcommittee on Research and Science Education; the House Ways
and Means Committee; the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection; and the House
Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity,
and Science and Technology.
S. 1372 — Nanotechnology Infrastructure Enhancement Act
S. 1372, the Nanotechnology Infrastructure Enhancement Act, was introduced
on May 11, 2007. The purpose of the bill is to improve the national nanotechnology
infrastructure by establishing a Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center or node
on the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network located in an EPSCoR
(Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) state.⁸⁷ The bill would:

⁸⁷ According to the National Science Foundation, twenty-four states, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are currently eligible to compete in the National
Science Foundation’s EPSCoR program opportunities. The states are: Alabama, Alaska,
Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi,
(continued...)

^!require the Director of the NSF to establish a geographically diverse,
interdisciplinary Center for Nanotechnology Research and
Engineering focused on either the science and engineering of
manufacturing at the nanoscale in multiple dimensions or
nanotechnology for sustainable energy, water, agriculture, and the
environment;
^!allow the center to be a Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center
or a National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network node;
^!require that the center shall include a lead academic institution
located in an EPSCoR state and at least one additional academic
institution located in a second EPSCoR state, while permitting the
center to include other institutions within or outside of the United
States; and
^!require the center to conduct state-of-the-art research on
nanomanufacturing; collaborate with other NSF grantees, and with
grantees from other federal agencies, working on
nanomanufacturing; share resources with the programs of other NSF
grantees for the purpose of mutual advantage; and work toward a
nanomanufacturing network that encourages extensive industrial
collaboration.
Concluding Observations
Many expect nanotechnology to bring significant economic and societal returns.
The United States was the first government to launch a national-level nanotechnology
program and has invested more than any other nation. As a result of this focus and
these sustained investments, many experts believe that the United States enjoys a
technological leadership position in nanotechnology. Other nations are investing
heavily and some industrialized and emerging economies have formidable
capabilities in nanotechnology. Assessments of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative have concluded that the effort is well-managed and has been successful in
achieving its objectives so far. However, these assessments have recognized that the
NNI faces a variety of challenges in ensuring that the full promise of nanotechnology
is realized and that the United States remains the global leader in nanoscale science,
engineering, and technology.

⁸⁷ (...continued)
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wyoming. [http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/epscor/eligible.jsp] For more information
on EPSCoR, see CRS Report RL30930, U.S. National Science Foundation: Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), by Christine M. Matthews.

Congress may choose to address some or many of the issues addressed in the
body of this report in the course of deliberation on the reauthorization of the 21^st
Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 or, alternatively, in separate legislation.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act’s funding authorizations extend
through FY2008. Action is being considered in both the House and Senate on
reauthorization of the program. Possible topics for consideration in the
reauthorization process 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.

Appendix A. Selected Reports on the National
Nanotechnology Initiative
Reports of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and
Technology Subcommittee of the National Science and
Technology Council
The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. December 2007.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a
Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2008
Budget. July 2007.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Environmental, Health, and Safety Research
Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. September 2006.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a
Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2007
Budget. July 2006.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a
Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY2006
Budget. March 2005.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan. December 2004.
Nanotechnology in Space Exploration. August 2004.
Nanoscience Research for Energy Needs. Report from a workshop held in March

2004.

Instrumentation and Metrology for Nanotechnology. Report from a workshop held
in January 2004.
Nanotechnology: Societal Implications-Maximizing Benefits for Humanity. Report
from a workshop held in December 2003.
Nanobiotechnology. Report from a workshop held in October 2003.
Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology. Report from a workshop
held in September-October 2003.
National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Supporting the Next
Industrial Revolution, Supplement to the President’s FY2004 Budget. August

2003.

Nanotechnology and the Environment. Report from a workshop held in May 2003.

National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan,
Detailed Technical Report Associated with the Supplemental Report to the
President’s FY2003 Budget. June 2002.
National Nanotechnology Initiative: The Initiative and Its Implementation Plan,
Detailed Technical Report Associated with the Supplemental Report to the
President’s FY2001 Budget. July 2000.
Report of the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience,
Technology, and Engineering (NSET Subcommittee
Predecessor)
Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom. 1999.
Agency Reports
NIOSH Update: NIOSH Draft Offers Interim Guidance on Medical Screening of
Workers Potentially Exposed to Engineered Nanoparticles, National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health. December 2007.
Progress Toward Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. June 2007.
Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology in the Workplace, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. July 2006.
Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology in DOE’s Office of Basic Energy
Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy. February 2003.
External Reviews
A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
National Research Council. 2006.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative at Five Years: Assessment and
Recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel, President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (acting as the National
Nanotechnology Advisory Panel). May 2005.
Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology
Initiative, National Research Council. June 2002.

Appendix B. List of NNI and Nanotechnology-
Related Acronyms
ASTRAAlliance for Science and Technology Research in America
CNSTCenter for Nanoscale Science and Technology
CSCommittee on Science
CTCommittee on Technology
CSREESCooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
DHHSDepartment of Health and Human Services
DHSDepartment of Homeland Security
DOCDepartment of Commerce
DODDepartment of Defense
DOEDepartment of Energy
DOJDepartment of Justice
DOTDepartment of Transportation
EHSEnvironmental, health, and safety
ELSIEthical, legal, and societal implications
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency
EOPExecutive Office of the President
EPSCoRExperimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
FHWAFederal Highway Administration
GINGlobal Issues in Nanotechnology working group
ISOInternational Standards Organization
IWGNInteragency Working Group on Nanotechnology
NASANational Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCINational Cancer Institute
NEHI National Environmental and Health Implications working group
NGONon-governmental organization
NIHNational Institutes of Health
NILINational Innovation and Liaison with Industry working group
NIOSHNational Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
NISTNational Institute of Standards and Technology
NNAPNational Nanotechnology Advisory Panel
NNCONational Nanotechnology Coordination Office
NNINational Nanotechnology Initiative
NNINNational Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
NNNNational Nanomanufacturing Network
NNPNational Nanotechnology Program
NPECNanotechnology Public Engagement and Communications working
group
NRCNational Research Council
NSETNanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology subcommittee
NSFNational Science Foundation

NSECNanoscale Science and Engineering Center
NSRCNanoscale Science Research Centers
NSTCNational Science and Technology Council
OECDOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OMBOffice of Management and Budget
OSTPOffice of Science and Technology Policy
PCAProgram Component Areas
PCASTPresident’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
R&DResearch and development
SBIRSmall Business Innovation Research
STTRSmall Business Technology Transfer Research
TSATransportation Security Administration
USDAU.S. Department of Agriculture
USPTOU.S. Patent and Trademark Office