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 127
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
ATTACHMENT 2
INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKING OF US MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH
Panel on International Benchmarking of US Materials Science and Engineering Research
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
OCR for page 128
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page 129
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
International Benchmarking of US Materials Science and Engineering Research Panel Members
ARDEN L. BEMENT, Jr. (Chair), Purdue University, School of Materials and Electrical Engineering, West Lafayette, IN
PETER R. BRIDENBAUGH, Executive Vice President, Automotive, Alcoa Technical Center, Alcoa Center, PA
LEROY L. CHANG, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
DANIEL S. CHEMLA, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
UMA CHOWDHRY, Business Planning and Technology Director, DuPont Specialty Chemicals, Wilmington, DE
ANTHONY G. EVANS, Gordon McKay Professor of Materials Engineering, Harvard University, Physics Department, Cambridge, MA
PAUL HAGENMULLER, Professor, Université de Bordeaux I, Laboratorie de Chimie du Solide du CNRS, France
JAMES W. MITCHELL, Director, Materials, Reliability and Ecology Research, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ
DONALD R. PAUL, Melvin H. Gertz Regents Chair in Chemical Engineering, Director, Center for Polymer Research, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
BUDDY D. RATNER, University of Washington, Center for Engineered Biomaterials-UWEB, Seattle, WA
KATHLEEN C. TAYLOR, Head, Physics and Physical Chemistry Department, General Motors Corporation, GM Research and Development Center, Warren, MI
ROBERT M. WHITE, Professor & Head, Department of Electrical & Computer Eng., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
MASAHARU YAMAGUCHI, Professor, Kyoto University, Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Japan
Project Staff
DEBORAH D. STINE, Study Director
PATRICK P. SEVCIK, Research Associate
KATE KELLY, Editor
OCR for page 130
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
Materials Science and Engineering Benchmarking Guidance Group
MILDRED S. DRESSELHAUS (Chair), Institute Professor of Electrical Engineering and Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
L. E. (SKIP) SCRIVEN, Regent's Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
WILLIAM F. BRINKMAN, Vice President, Physical Sciences Research, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ
GABOR A. SOMORJAI, Professor of Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
ROBERT A. LAUDISE, Adjunct Chemical Director, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ
JAMES C. WILLIAMS, General Manager, Engineering Materials Technology Laboratories, GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, OH
ALBERT NARATH, President, Energy and Environment Sector, Lockheed-Martin Corporation, Albuquerque, NM
OCR for page 131
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
PREFACE
In 1993, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine issued the report Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era. In that report, COSEPUP suggested that the United States adopt the principle of being among the world leaders in all major fields of science so that it can quickly apply and extend advances in science wherever they occur. In addition, the report recommended that the United States maintain clear leadership in fields that are tied to national objectives, that capture the imagination of society, or that have multiplicative effect on other scientific advances. These recommendations were reiterated in another Academy report, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, by a committee chaired by Frank Press.
To measure international leadership, the reports recommended the establishment of independent panels that would conduct comparative international assessments of scientific accomplishments of particular research fields. COSEPUP indicated that these panels should consist of researchers who work in the specific fields under review (both from the United States and abroad), people who work in closely related fields, and research users who follow the fields closely.
To test the feasibility of that recommendation, COSEPUP is conducting experimental evaluations of three fields: mathematics, materials science, engineering, and immunology. The panel for each field has been asked to address the following three questions:
OCR for page 132
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
What is the position of the United States in research in the field relative to that in other regions or countries?
What key factors influence relative US performance in the field?
On the basis of current trends in the United States and abroad, what will be the relative US position in the near term and the longer term?
Panels were asked to develop findings and conclusions, not recommendations.
This document provides the second of these assessments—that of the field of materials science and engineering. The panel found that it is critical that the United States lead the world in materials science and engineering innovations; however, the United States is not the leader in the field as a whole. Rather, it is among the world leaders in all subfields of materials science and engineering research and is the leader in some fields.
The panel found that the key to the nation's leadership is the flexibility of the materials science and engineering research enterprise, its innovation system, and its intellectual diversity. But, the ability of the United States to capitalize on its leadership opportunities could be curtailed because of shifting federal and industry priorities, a potential reduction in access to foreign talent, and deteriorating facilities of natural materials characterization. Of particular concern is the lack of adequate funding to modernize major research facilities in the United States when facilities here are much older than in other countries.
Once all the assessments are completed, COSEPUP will discuss the feasibility and utility of the benchmarking process and make whatever recommendations it deems necessary.
The committee thanks the panel for its hard work. We would also like to acknowledge those who made presentations at the panel meeting:
Steven Wax, Asst. Director for Materials and Processing, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
John J. Rush, NIST Center for Neutron Research, National Institutes of Science and Technology
Andrew J. Lovinger, Program Director, Polymers and NSF-wide Coordinator, Advanced Materials & Processing, National Science Foundation
This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and COSEPUP in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institu-
OCR for page 133
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
tional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of 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 participation in the review of this report:
John Armor, Principal Research Associate and Group Head/catalysis, Corporate Science Center, Air Products and Chemicals
Dan Drucker, Graduate Research Professor of Engineering Sciences, Emeritus, University of Florida
Merton Flemings, Toyota Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lambert Ben Freund, Henry Ledyard Goddard University Professor, Division of Engineering, Brown University
Elsa Garmire, Dean, Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College
William G. Howard, Independent Consultant, Scottsdale, AZ
Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Richard A. Auhll Professor and Dean of Engineering, University of California-Santa Barbara
William Nix, Lee Osterson Professor of Engineering and Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University
William Spencer, CEO and Chairman, SEMATECH
Matthew Tirrell, Professor and Head, Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science and Director, Biomedical Engineering Institute, University of Minnesota
Jerry Woodall, Charles William Harrison Distinguished Professor of Microelectronics, Purdue University
While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and COSEPUP.
Finally, the project was aided by the invaluable help of COSEPUP professional staff—Deborah D. Stine, study director, and Patrick P. Sevcik, research associate.
Phillip A. Griffiths
Chair
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
OCR for page 134
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page 135
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
139
1 BACKGROUND
141
2 INTRODUCTION
143
2.1 How Important Is It for the United States to Lead in Materials Science and Engineering?
143
2.2 What Is Materials Science and Engineering?
145
2.3 What Key Factors Characterize the Field?
145
2.4 What Is the International Nature of Materials Science and Engineering?
149
2.5 What Are Some Caveats?
150
2.6 Panel Charge and Rationale
151
3 DETERMINANTS OF SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP
152
3.1 National Imperatives
153
3.2 Innovation
154
3.2.1 Pluralism
154
3.2.2 Partnerships
154
3.2.3 Regulation
155
3.2.4 Professional Societies
156
3.3 Major Facilities
157
3.3.1 Neutron Scattering Facilities
159
3.3.2 Synchrotron Sources
159
3.3.3 Nanofabrication
161
3.3.4 Computing
162
3.3.5 Smaller Scale Facilities
164
OCR for page 136
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
3.4 Centers
166
3.5 Human Resources
167
3.6 Funding
171
4 BENCHMARKING RESULTS
178
4.1 Approach
178
4.2 Assessment of Current Leadership
179
4.2.1 Biomaterials
180
4.2.2 Ceramics
180
4.2.3 Composites
182
4.2.4 Magnetic Materials
183
4.2.5 Metals
186
4.2.6 Electronic and Optical–Photonic Materials
187
4.2.7 Superconducting Materials
189
4.2.8 Polymers
191
4.2.9 Catalysts
192
5 PROJECTION OF LEADERSHIP DETERMINANTS
194
5.1 Overview
194
5.2 Recruitment of Talented Researchers
195
5.3 Funding
199
5.4 Infrastructure
199
5.5 Cooperative Government-Industrial-Academic Research
202
6 LIKELY FUTURE POSITIONS
204
6.1 Introduction
204
6.2 Biomaterials
204
6.3 Ceramics
205
6.4 Composites
205
6.5 Magnetic Materials
205
6.6 Metals
205
6.7 Electronic and Optical–Photonic Materials
206
6.8 Superconducting Materials
207
6.9 Polymers
208
6.10 Catalysts
208
7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
210
7.1 The United States Is Among the World's Leaders in All Subfields, and It Is the Leader in Some.
210
7.2 The Flexibility of the Enterprise Is as Much a Key Indicator of Leadership as Is the Amount of Funding.
211
7.3 The Innovation System Is a Major Determinant to US Leadership.
211
OCR for page 137
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
7.4 The United States Enjoys Strength Through Intellectual and Human Diversity.
211
7.5 Shifting Federal and Industry Funding Priorities, a Potential Reduction in Access to Foreign Talent, and Deteriorating Materials Research Facilities Could Curtail US Ability to Capitalize on Leadership Opportunities.
212
8 REFERENCES
213
APPENDIX A: PANEL AND STAFF BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
215
APPENDIX B: BENCHMARKING RESULTS TABLES
222
APPENDIX C: HOT TOPICS LIST
244
Figures, Tables, and Boxes
Figure 2.1:
Inter-Relationships Among Materials Categories
148
Figure 3.1:
Materials Science and Engineering PhDs Awarded, 1986-1995
167
Figure 3.2:
Employment Status of PhD Materials Scientists, 1985
171
Figure 3.3:
Metallurgical-Materials Engineering Graduate Students in All Institutions, by Race-Ethnicity and Citizenship, 1993
173
Figure 3.4:
All Engineering Graduate Students in All Institutions, by Race-Ethnicity and Citizenship, 1993
173
Figure 3.5:
All Science Graduate Students in All Institutions, by Race-Ethnicity and Citizenship, 1993
174
Figure 3.6:
Federal R&D Budget by Materials Class, in Millions of US Dollars
174
Figure 3.7:
National Science Foundation Division of Materials Research Budget, 1990-1998, in Millions of US Dollars
176
Figure 3.8:
National Science Foundation Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Average Annualized Award Size, Competitive Research Grants, 1992-1996, in Thousands of US Dollars
176
Figure 3.9:
National Science Foundation Division of Materials Research, Permanent Equipment Budget, 1990-1996, in Millions of US Dollars
177
Figure 4.1:
Papers Submitted and Accepted for Magnetism and Magnetic Materials Annual Conferences, 1989-1996
185
Figure 5.1:
Scientists and Engineers Admitted to the US on Permanent Visas by Labor Certification, 1990-1994
196
Figure 5.2:
Foreign Citizen Graduate Enrollment in US Science and Engineering Universities, 1983-1993
197
OCR for page 238
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
Current Position
Likely Future Position
Sub-Subfield
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
Forefront
Among world leaders
Behind world leaders
Gaining/Extending
Maintaining
Losing
Physical properties (other than magnetic)
•
•
Strong leadership at US universities.
Development of fluxoid imaging technologies
•
•
Strong capabilities at US universities, industry, and national laboratories. Leading capabilities in Europe.
Thin-film deposition processes
•
•
US leads; Japan could overtake.
Epitaxial, patterning techniques
•
•
US leads in surface, interface science.
OCR for page 239
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
Relative Position of Subfield: Polymers
Current Position
Likely Future Position
Sub-Subfield
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
Forefront
Among world leaders
Behind world leaders
Gaining/Extending
Maintaining
Losing
1. Controlled polymerization
•
•
US leads in most areas; other countries have important programs, especially in (a) and (b)
(a) Metallocene polymerization of olefins
(b) Living free radical polymerization
(c) Atom transfer radical polymerization
(d) Dendrimer polymerization
(e) Biologic synthesis
(f) Supercritical CO2 as a polymerization medium
2. Multicomponent systems
•
•
US has strong position; many other countries investing heavily.
(a) Blends or alloys
(b) Block, graft copolymers
(c) Nanocomposites
(d) Macrocomposites
(e) Thin-film laminates
(f) Interfaces
OCR for page 240
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
Current Position
Likely Future Position
Sub-Subfield
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
Forefront
Among world leaders
Behind world leaders
Gaining/Extending
Maintaining
Losing
3. Biomedical polymers
•
•
US is preeminent.
(a) Implants
(b) Drug delivery
4. Electronic-Photonic
•
•
(a) Conducting polymers
(b) Polymers for display devices
(c) Resist materials
(d) Electroluminescent
5. Separation media
•
•
US position strong; Europe, Asia have strong efforts in membranes.
(a) Membranes
(b) Molecular recognition
(c) Barrier materials
(d) Modified atmosphere packaging
(e) Coatings
6. Theory, modeling
•
•
US is very strong; strong efforts also in Europe.
(a) Molecular simulation
(b) Monte Carlo techniques
(c) Conformation
(d) Scaling theory
OCR for page 241
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
Current Position
Likely Future Position
Sub-Subfield
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
Forefront
Among world leaders
Behind world leaders
Gaining/Extending
Maintaining
Losing
7. Processing
•
•
Very strong efforts in Germany
(a) Rheology
(b) Flow instability
(c) Computer modeling
(d) New processes
OCR for page 242
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
Relative Position of Subfield: Catalysts
Current Position
Likely Future Position
Sub-Subfield
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
Forefront
Among world leaders
Behind world leaders
Gaining/Extending
Maintaining
Losing
Catalysis
•
•
Shape-selective catalysis, metallocene catalysis for polymerization, and application of catalysts for emissions control (automobile) economically critical in US.
Selective oxidation
•
•
Selective oxidation is a growing area; applications from small to heavy chemical synthesis (30–40 million tons annually). Industry leaders in US and Europe.
Solid acid-base catalysis
•
•
Industrial activity highly competitive, secretive, largely focused in US.
Environmental catalysis
•
•
Environmental progress requires highly sophisticated industrial work. Advances made concert with applications. Strong capabilities in US, Europe, Japan.
OCR for page 243
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
Current Position
Likely Future Position
Sub-Subfield
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Comments
Forefront
Among world leaders
Behind world leaders
Gaining/Extending
Maintaining
Losing
Catalyst characterization
•
•
This area has benefited from advances in atomic resolution microscopy, necessarily equipment dependent. Utility of work depends on strong links to applications.
Combinatorial catalysis
•
•
Still in its infancy; US is strong.
Asymmetric catalysis
•
•
Highly specialized field of great importance limited-quantity manufacturing of products (significantly below the commodity level)— pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals. Industry leaders in US, Europe, Japan.
OCR for page 244
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
APPENDIX C
HOT TOPICS LIST
Biomaterials
Tissue engineering
Molecular architecture
Protein analogs
Biomimetics
Contemporary diagnostic systems
Advanced controlled-release systems
Bone materials
Ceramics
Sol-gel-derived materials
Self-assembled materials
Integrated micromagnetics
Multilayer ferrite processing
Three-dimensional nanoporous silicates
Microwave dielectrics
Electrophoretic preparation of thin films
MEMS heat engines
Single-crystal high-authority ferroelectrics
AIN/Diamond heat dissipation for power electronics
Films and coatings (thermal barrier coatings, diamondlike carbon, hydroxyapetite)
Carbon Nanotubes
Composites
Polymer matrix composites
Large integrated structures
Ambient temperature curing (electron beams)
OCR for page 245
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
Design and testing protocols
Ceramic matrix composites
Oxide composites
Nonoxide composites and fibers
Metal matrix composites
Particle-reinforced alloys
Continuous fiber
Magnetic Materials
Micromagnetics of thin films
Interlayer magnetic coupling
Giant magnetoresistance (spin valves)
Spin-dependent tunneling
Magnetic nanostructures
Colossal magnetoresistance
Metals
High-temperature structural intermetallics
Amorphous (bulk), quasicrystalline, and nanostructured materials (high-strength materials)
Theory and modeling of atomic bonding, crystal structure interfaces, phase diagrams, phase transformations, and properties
Giant Magnetoresistance and related materials
Hydrogen-absorbing materials applications for batteries and hydrogen storage
Advanced processing of materials to net shape (metallic alloys)
Quantitative understanding and modeling of plastic deformation (polycrystalline materials)
Quantitative understanding of structure evolution and plastic deformation of polycrystalline metallic alloys
Integrated of models of structure evolution, plastic deformation, composition, and processing (concurrent product–process design)
Integrated of dimensional scales from atomic clusters to test coupons to final products
Net shape, or novel processing of metallic alloys
Next generation of high temperature alloys
Surface treatments to enhance structural performance
Electronic and Optical–Photonic Materials
Deep ultraviolet and electron lithography
Systems-on-a-chip
Copper metalization and other interconnects
Sub-micron plasma processing
Semiconductor equipment
Holographic storage materials
Organic transistors, organic lasers, and LEDs
OCR for page 246
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
Photonic band-gap materials
Blue-green lasers (gallium nitride materials)
Semiconductor processing
Interconnects
Magnetic storage
Widegap lasers and display
Nanomaterials
Semiconductor Equipment
Wireless
Fibers
Superconducting Materials
High-temperature superconductors
High-temperature superconductor synthesis
Processing of highly textured, dense bulk forms for wire and energy storage
Magnetic phase diagrams and properties
Statistical mechanical modeling of transport and critical phenomena
Experimental measurement of flux transport mechanisms
Modeling of optical and electronic properties
Physical properties (other than magnetic)
Development of fluxoid imaging technology
Thin-film deposition processes
Epitaxial and patterning techniques
Polymers
Controlled polymerization
Metallocene polymerization of olefins
Living free-radical polymerization
Atom transfer radical polymerization
Dendrimer polymerization
Biologic synthesis
Supercritical CO2 as a polymerization medium
Multicomponent systems
Blends or alloys
Block and graft copolymers
Nanocomposites
Macrocomposites
Thin-film laminates
Interfaces
Biomedical polymers
Implants
Drug delivery
Electronic–Photonic
Conducting polymers
Polymers for display devices
OCR for page 247
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
Resist materials
Electroluminescent
Separation media
Membranes
Molecular recognition
Barrier materials
Modified-atmosphere packaging
Coatings
Theory and modeling
Molecular simulation
Monte Carlo techniques
Conformations
Scaling theory
Processing
Rheology
Flow instabilities
Computer modeling
New processes
Catalysts
Selective oxidation
Solid acid–base catalysis
Environmental catalysis
Catalyst characterization
Combinatorial catalysis
Asymmetric catalysts
OCR for page 248
Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields
This page in the original is blank.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
magnetic materials
