MIDSIZE FACILITIES

The Infrastructure for Materials Research

Committee on Smaller Facilities

Solid State Sciences Committee

Board on Physics and Astronomy

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research MIDSIZE FACILITIES The Infrastructure for Materials Research Committee on Smaller Facilities Solid State Sciences Committee Board on Physics and Astronomy Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Grant No. DMR-02050701 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation and Contract No. DE-FG02-02ER45989 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09702-9 (Book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-55199-4 (PDF) Cover: Image of a silicon crystal obtained using a 300-kV VG microscope HB603U scanning transmission electron microscope equipped with a Nion aberration corrector, by M. Chisholm, with processing by A. Borisevich and A. Lupini and aberration correction by P. Nellist, N. Dellby, and O. Krivanek, Nion Company. Courtesy of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. JEOL 4000EX 400-kV top-entry, high-resolution electron microscope equipped with an LaB6 filament. Courtesy of the Nanoscale Materials Characterization Facility, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Virginia, http://www.virginia.edu/ms/electronfacility.html. Two single-walled nanotubes (SWNT), the basis of many structures—and much research—in nanotechnology. Image courtesy of Accelrys, http://www.accelrys.com. Graphical representation of secondary ion mass spectroscopy featuring sputtering of “water molecules.” Courtesy of SIMS Workshop. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research COMMITTEE ON SMALLER FACILITES ROBERT SINCLAIR, Stanford University, Chair ANI APRAHAMIAN, University of Notre Dame ARTHUR I. BIENENSTOCK, Stanford University JOHN P. BRADLEY, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory DAVID R. CLARKE, University of California at Santa Barbara JAMES W. DAVENPORT, Brookhaven National Laboratory FRANCIS J. DISALVO, Cornell University CHARLES A. EVANS, JR., Full Wafer Analysis, Inc. WALTER P. LOWE, Howard University FRANCES M. ROSS, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center DAVID J. SMITH, Arizona State University JOHN M. SOURES, University of Rochester LEONARD D. SPICER, Duke University DONALD M. TENNANT, New Jersey Nanotechnology Consortium and Lucent Technologies Staff DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director TIMOTHY I. MEYER, Senior Program Officer MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Program Officer (until June 2003) DAVID B. LANG, Research Assistant PAMELA A. LEWIS, Program Associate VAN AN, Financial Associate

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research SOLID STATE SCIENCES COMMITTEE MARC A. KASTNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chair PETER F. GREEN, University of Texas at Austin, Vice Chair DAVID D. AWSCHALOM, University of California at Santa Barbara ANGELA M. BELCHER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ROBERT J. CAVA, Princeton University JOHN CLARKE, University of California at Berkeley DUANE DIMOS, Sandia National Laboratories JAMES P. EISENSTEIN, California Institute of Technology PETER C. EKLUND, Pennsylvania State University PATRICK D. GALLAGHER, National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Neutron Research SHARON C. GLOTZER, University of Michigan BARBARA JONES, IBM Almaden Research Center STEVEN A. KIVELSON, Stanford University HERWIG KOGELNIK, Bell Laboratories and Lucent Technologies ANTHONY J. LEGGETT, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign M. BRIAN MAPLE, University of California at San Diego SIDNEY R. NAGEL, University of Chicago ARTHUR P. RAMIREZ, Lucent Technologies, Inc. A. DOUGLAS STONE, Yale University CHRIS G. VAN DE WALLE, University of California at Santa Barbara Staff DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director TIMOTHY I. MEYER, Senior Program Officer DAVID B. LANG, Research Assistant PAMELA A. LEWIS, Program Associate VAN AN, Financial Associate

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY BURTON RICHTER, Stanford University, Chair ANNEILA L. SARGENT, California Institute of Technology, Vice Chair ELIHU ABRAHAMS, Rutgers University JONATHAN BAGGER, Johns Hopkins University GORDON A. BAYM, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign RONALD C. DAVIDSON, Princeton University WILLIAM EATON, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases RAYMOND J. FONCK, University of Wisconsin at Madison ANDREA M. GHEZ, University of California at Los Angeles LAURA H. GREENE, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign FRANCES HELLMAN, University of California at Berkeley ERICH P. IPPEN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MARC A. KASTNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology CHRISTOPHER F. McKEE, University of California at Berkeley JULIA M. PHILLIPS, Sandia National Laboratories THOMAS M. THEIS, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center C. MEGAN URRY, Yale University CARL E. WIEMAN, JILA/University of Colorado Staff DONALD C. SHAPERO, Director TIMOTHY I. MEYER, Senior Program Officer MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Senior Program Officer ROBERT L. RIEMER, Senior Program Officer NATALIA MELCER, Program Officer BRIAN D. DEWHURST, Senior Program Associate DAVID B. LANG, Research Assistant PAMELA A. LEWIS, Program Associate VAN AN, Financial Associate

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research Preface As the role of midsize facilities in materials research has expanded over the past two decades, the need for a systematic and careful assessment has grown, especially in this fiscally constrained era. In response to these observations, the National Research Council (NRC) formed the Committee on Smaller Facilities in 2003, with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE), to examine the broader issues of optimizing current and future investments in the facilities infrastructure of materials research. The committee was charged to examine the range of facilities between “small” and “large,” to identify key features of performance, and to recommend strategies for successful operations, emphasizing revenue-neutral solutions (see Appendix A). It is worth noting that, although the study charge was to examine “smaller” facilities, after conducting its initial data gathering the committee decided that the term “midsize” was more appropriate. The Committee on Smaller Facilities first met in May 2003 to hear presentations by senior personnel with experience in operating user facilities in both university and government laboratory settings (see Appendix B). The committee also heard from representatives of agencies currently providing extensive support for instrument acquisition and facility operation. At this first meeting, the committee also formulated a preliminary definition of “midsize facility,” it established the study’s general areas of investigation, and it articulated a plan for carrying out a series of facility site visits over the summer of 2003.

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research During the summer of 2003, subgroups of the committee, generally consisting of two or three of its members and an NRC staff officer, visited various user facilities around the United States. The purpose of these visits was primarily to gather some firsthand experience relating to the planning, operation, and maintenance of typical midsize facilities. Another important function was to hear directly from users and to learn about the commonalities across and the differences between midsize and other types of facilities. To ensure maximum effectiveness, it was decided to target geographical areas that had clusters of materials research facilities and manifested different regional characteristics: that is, one region might contain a major science, technology, and population center, and another might contain more diffuse centers of activity. The number of sites to be visited was limited by the time and resources available, so it was not possible to cover the full breadth of the United States. The five separate site visit trips of the committee concentrated on the approximate geographical areas of the San Francisco Bay Area, upstate New York, Illinois, Boston, and the Pacific Northwest. A total of 47 facilities and other individuals were visited (see the end of Appendix D, the committee’s interim report). To ensure that broadly similar information was obtained in each case, a checklist was developed and used as a common guide to facilitate discussion during these site visits (the checklist is presented at the end of Appendix D). It is worth noting that the committee visited several facilities that did not conform to the working definition of midsize facility; for instance, an observatory and two commercial analytical service laboratories were included in the roster of visits. The committee felt strongly that the challenges facing midsize facilities in materials research were not unique; by learning about facilities in other fields, the committee gained a broader perspective and exposure to other types of solutions. The full committee convened again in October 2003 to share the experiences and impressions gained by its various subgroups. Several presentations were made relating to the operation and organization of midsize facilities and the need for staff training. Extensive discussions followed, relating to the development of a vision for the committee’s study, the working definition of a midsize facility, the characteristics of successful facilities and their best practices, current and future issues relating to facility operation, and future committee activities. After its second meeting, the committee prepared an interim report that outlined its status and plans (see Appendix D). Recognizing the need to engage facility managers as well as current and potential users of future midsize facilities, the committee developed questionnaires for facility managers and users (see Appendix C). The questionnaires were designed to gather general information to better inform the committee about the range in

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research staff, usage, budget, and capital investment among the facilities being considered. The questionnaires were not intended to be statistical data-gathering instruments. To obtain a standard set of data, the questionnaires were circulated to the midsize facilities that had been visited over the summer of 2003 by committee members. They were also distributed by committee members to their colleagues and by NRC staff to targeted sets of midsize facilities such as the NSF-supported materials research science and engineering centers. In addition to questionnaires sent electronically to members of the American Physical Society’s Division of Materials Physics and Division of Condensed Matter Physics, another 277 questionnaires were distributed to specific facilities that had been identified by committee members and staff. A total of 75 responses were eventually received (as summarized in Appendix C) from facilities ranging in size from the very small to the very large; 56 of the responses fit the committee’s definition of a midsize materials research facility. In addition to disseminating its interim report in the spring of 2004, the committee conducted two town hall meetings, coinciding with the March meeting of the American Physical Society and the spring meeting of the Materials Research Society. The primary purpose of these open meetings was to broaden awareness of the study and to disseminate the committee’s questionnaires. Feedback on the committee’s interim report was generally positive, and thoughtful suggestions were incorporated into the committee’s deliberations at its next meeting. Responses to the facility questionnaire were received by e-mail, postal mail, and fax and entered into a small database for organization. Because of possible biases that might be introduced by the self-selected population that actually responded to the questionnaire, the committee did not consider these results to be statistically significant, but rather believed that they provided a useful, representative overview. The committee then reconvened as a whole in May 2004 to discuss responses to the interim report and the questionnaires. Considerable time was spent digesting the results of the surveys and evaluating how they should be summarized in the report. The committee then focused on formulation of its recommendations and preparation of the final report. The committee was expected to consider a diverse range of midsize facilities. However, it is unlikely that a single set of recommendations will be applicable to all facilities or funding agencies that support them. The smallest of these facilities are mostly located within universities and funded primarily by NSF, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), with annual operating budgets in the range $100,000 to $1 million. Midsize facilities with somewhat larger budgets are still mostly sited at universities

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research and also funded by NSF, NIH, and NASA ($1 million to $5 million). The largest facilities (>$5 million) are primarily located with national laboratories and funded primarily by DOE. Consequently, “one size fits all” recommendations are not appropriate. There are different sets of needs that depend on the size of the facility (annual operating budgets), location (university, national laboratory, commercial organization), and the nature of its activities (research, collaboration, education, service). The large national user facilities, such as the national synchrotron light sources, are outside the scope of this study; they have been considered in detail in earlier reports.1 However, the committee did consider the factors that affect operation of these national user facilities as being complementary to the considerations that are driving the needs of midsize facilities. A notable example within DOE’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences is the construction of five new nanoscience facilities within the laboratory campuses of the Oak Ridge, Argonne, Sandia, Lawrence Berkeley, and Brookhaven National Laboratories. These construction and instrumentation awards are in the $50 million to $100 million range, and the centers are expected to have annual operating budgets in the $15 million to $20 million range. The facilities created to maintain, operate, and support today’s advanced instrumentation need to be recognized as a class of investment, across programs and across agencies. Furthermore, they need to be recognized collectively as a system, with plans for growth, operations, and sustainability: they need stewardship. The support for the infrastructure of midsize facilities needs to be given high priority. Realizing the economies of networking and consolidation can help identify these resources; other agency resources can be reallocated. As midsize facilities become more important, professional staff will become even more pivotal; their career path will need to be respected and cultivated. The committee engaged this project with a firm grasp of current realities and optimism about the future. It is with conviction and a large degree of enthusiasm that the committee urges both agencies and researchers to read this report and to act on its findings and recommendations. Robert Sinclair, Chair Committee on Smaller Facilities 1   See, for example, National Research Council, Cooperative Stewardship: Managing the Nation’s Multidisciplinary User Facilities for Research with Synchrotron Radiation, Neutrons, and High Magnetic Fields, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research Acknowledgments The members of the Committee on Smaller Facilities (COSF) wish to thank the nonmembers who made formal presentations at COSF meetings. (The presenters’ names appear in Appendix B.) Their presentations and the ensuing discussions were extremely informative—and had a major impact on the committee’s deliberations. COSF also expresses its deep appreciation to the hosts and facilitators of its site visits (listed in Appendix D) during the summer of 2003; the hospitality was impeccable and the conversations candid, enlightening, and invaluable. There are clearly large numbers of scientists and engineers dedicated to providing a wide range of facilities and expertise to their communities. The committee also thanks those who sent in letters and e-mail messages in response to COSF’s public request for input from the very large community of scientists who use midsize facilities for materials research. Finally, the committee extends its gratitude to the American Physical Society and the Materials Research Society for their assistance in engaging the broader community through town meetings at their annual conferences. It would be impossible for the members of a National Research Council (NRC) committee to produce a useful report without the help of NRC staff, and the committee thanks the staff for its excellent support, both on and behind the scenes. The committee especially recognizes the contributions of Dr. Timothy I. Meyer, who coordinated tirelessly, expertly, and enthusiastically, all of its efforts.

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Ulrich Dahmen, National Center for Electron Microscopy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, James P. Eisenstein, California Institute of Technology, Patrick Gallagher, Center for Neutron Research, National Institute of Standards and Technology, J. Murray Gibson, Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, Christopher Grovenor, University of Oxford, William Harrington, Evans East Corporation, Julia M. Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories, Ramamoorthy Ramesh, University of California at Berkeley, and Michael Rubner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by W.F. Brinkman, Princeton University. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. We also wish to thank the following individuals for their review of the committee’s interim letter report (reprinted in Appendix D of this volume): Nitash P. Balsara, University of California at Berkeley, Collin Broholm, Johns Hopkins University, R.P.H. Chang, Northwestern University, J. Murray Gibson, Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, Sol Gruner, Cornell University (Report Review Coordinator), Frances Hellman, University of California at San Diego, Herwig Kogelnik, Bell Laboratories and Lucent Technologies, David Sellmyer, University of Nebraska, Thomas Theis, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, and Robert Tycko, National Institutes of Health.

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF MIDSIZE FACILITIES   11      The Many Roles of Midsize Facilities,   12      Enabling Research,   14      Instrument Development,   18      Cross-Disciplinary Science,   18      Education and Outreach,   24      Commercial Activities,   26      Definition of a Midsize Facility,   27      Scope of This Study,   32      Organization of the Report,   33 2   KEY FEATURES AND CAPABILITIES OF MIDSIZE FACILITIES   35      General Observations,   35      Research Activities Supported,   36      Funding,   37      Staff,   38      Industrial Partnerships,   40      Instruments,   41      Specialized Laboratory Environments and Services,   45      Maintenance and Upkeep,   46

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research      Users,   46      Education and Outreach,   47      User Comments,   47      Selected Examples,   49      Essential Qualities of Successful Midsize Facilities,   53 3   CHALLENGES FOR MIDSIZE FACILITIES   61      Long-Term Viability,   62      Diverse and Stable Funding,   62      Stable and Secure Staffing,   72      Visibility to the User Community,   75      Sound Management and Operational Practices,   76      Maintaining a Balanced Suite of Equipment,   78      Networking with Other Facilities to Provide Balanced Resources,   81      Balancing Competing Purposes,   83      Cooperation and Noncompetition with Commercial Interests,   85      Summary,   88 4   INVESTMENT IN MIDSIZE FACILITIES   89      General Scope of Support,   90      National Science Foundation,   91      Department of Energy,   95      Other Agencies,   97      Discussion,   98      International Context,   101      General Comments on Federal Agency Policies,   103      The Case for Regional and Regionally Networked Facilities,   107 5   OPTIMIZING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MIDSIZE FACILITIES   112      Findings and Observations,   114      Conclusions,   115      Recommendations,   118      Realizing Economies,   119      Improving Effectiveness,   121      Follow-up,   122

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research     APPENDIXES         A   Statement of Task   127     B   Committee Meeting Agendas   129     C   Description and Analysis of Questionnaires   133     D   Committee’s Interim Report   157     E   Report of a Site Visit Team   177     F   Selected Federal Programs That Support Midsize Facilities   189     G   Summary of National Science Foundation Workshop on Chemical Instrumentation   212     H   Personal Perspectives from Howard K. Birnbaum   215     I   Committee Member and Staff Biographies   222

OCR for page R1
Midsize Facilities: The Infrastructure for Materials Research This page intentionally left blank.