Attachment 2International Benchmarking of Us Materials Science and Engineering Research

Project Staff

DEBORAH D. STINE, Study Director

PATRICK P. SEVCIK, Research Associate

KATE KELLY, Editor

2.1. How Important Is It for the United States to Lead in Materials Science and Engineering?

Materials are the substances from which things are or can be made. Materials science and engineering—the study of how to make, use, and adapt substances—has been central to social advancement and economic growth since the dawn of history. There has been an explosion in our understanding and application of materials science and engineering since the end of World War II, and the connection has become stronger between this field and other areas of emerging technology. The result has been an acceleration in the recent past of its contributions to social advancement and economic growth.

Federally-funded research on materials originally focused on defense and nuclear applications, but was expanded in the 1960s to include the space program, the protection of the environment, and the development of new energy systems. Today, research addresses issues in agriculture, health, information and communication, infrastructure and construction, and transportation. The future holds the promise of "intelligent" materials that will enable diverse technologies to respond dynamically to changes in the environment. A new class of materials, nanostructures, is already being used to advance the study of electromagnetics and mechanical properties (OSTP 1993).

Our national defense will continue to depend on providing the most advanced weapons to our military forces. Advanced materials are crucial to the improved performance and reliability of our weapons. Maintaining world leadership in materials essential to the design and manufacture of weapons will have high national priority.

To be leaders in industrial growth and to promote a vibrant economy, it is critical that the United States be among the world's leaders in all the subfields of materials science and engineering research. We need to be able to evaluate, adapt, and integrate materials identified and developed elsewhere in the world for use in new products and processes. Having world-class researchers who are knowledgeable about the frontiers of materials science and engineering is crucial to the rapid commercial assimilation and exploitation of important discoveries. Innovations in materials science abound in nearly all sectors of our economy. In agriculture, advanced natural polymers can be made from renewable resources that biodegrade more rapidly than plastics do. In energy, new materials and processing can be used to reduce energy costs significantly and conserve resources in the generation, transmission, and storage of energy. In protecting the environment, there is an opportunity to develop materials and processes that lead to cycles of infinite reuse. In health, biomaterials can be used to make artificial organs, joints, and heart valves; pacemakers; and lens implants, among others. Improvements in biomaterials could help improve the delivery of health care and reduce costs through the custom design of artificial biologic implants, for example, that will last a lifetime rather than a few years. In information and communications research involving semiconductors, new methods of design and processing could enhance the viability of the US electronics industry and open new marketing opportunities. In infrastructure and construction, the use of new or improved could reduce expensive maintenance of such structures as buildings, highways, bridges, and airport runways, to name a few. In transportation, materials research can help maintain US leadership in the increasingly competitive world aircraft market and reduce imports of oil and automobiles (OSTP 1993).

It is now possible to synthesize new materials atom by atom. The number of possible combinations of atomic assemblies to achieve new structures and properties is seemingly unbounded. But if the United States is to exploit these possibilities, strong national research capabilities by single investigators and multidisciplinary teams are required. Equipment—large-scale research instrumentation—will be required to characterize new materials from their smallest constituents at all scales of assembly. Computational methods are needed to find the best materials for a particular use.

Strengths in materials science and engineering research and education at US universities and colleges support other disciplines of science and engineering. The benefit increases with the growing unification of the field when multidisciplinary research can be done in centralized laboratories. Collaborative research benefits everyone because it helps identify new areas of endeavor and expand existing ones.

2.2. What is Materials Science and Engineering?

The field of materials science and engineering research seeks to explain and control one or more of four basic elements:

• The properties or phenomena of a material that make it interesting or useful;
• The performance of a material; that is, the measurement of its usefulness in actual conditions of application;
• The structure and composition of a material, including the type of atoms that determine its properties and performance and their arrangement; and
• The synthesis and processing by which the particular arrangements of atoms are achieved (NRC 1989).

For the purposes of this report, the Panel divided materials science and engineering into 9 major subfields:

• Biomaterials
• Ceramics
• Composites
• Magnetic materials
• Metals
• Electronic and optical–photonic materials
• Superconducting materials
• Polymers
• Catalysts

These fields are described in Table 2.1 (modified from OSTP, 1993). The Panel has added the subfield of catalysts to OSTP's original list and combined two of the subfields—electronic and optical–photonic materials. It is important to appreciate that the classifications are arbitrary and overlapping. For example, supertough materials based on abalone shell biomimetrics are both biomaterials and composites. Figure 2.1 illustrates the interrelationships among categories.

2.3. What Key Factors Characterize the Field?

Materials science and engineering is multidisciplinary. Nearly all of science and engineering are involved in some way with some aspect of materials; the field involves internal and external interactions with the science and engineering communities at large. Scientists and engineers in many disciplines, including solid-state physics, chemistry, electronics, biology, and mechanics—not just those with materials science and engineering degrees—provide many of the ideas and motivation for materials science and engineering research.

Nearly all modern industries benefit from developments in materials research. Because there is considerable overlap in the study of materials problems among industries, solutions have enormous economic leverage. Semiconductors, for example, are at the foundation of the electronics industry. The development of new materials also has a large economic multiplying effect because it creates demands for new processing equipment and manufacturing tools.

Research in materials science and engineering is capital intensive and involves increasingly sophisticated characterization instruments and equipment for synthesis, processing, and analysis. The equipment ranges from small, laboratory bench-scale machines that serve a single investigator to synchrotron sources, nuclear reactors, superconducting magnets, and supercomputers that serve large user communities and research groups. The field benefits from the large US installed base of research facilities.

Problems in materials science and engineering research require all forms of research, from small-scale research carried out by a principal investigator and a small team, to large multidisciplinary teams, and regional consortia involving many investigators. Consortia, alliances, and partnerships of industrial, university, and government laboratories are a common mode of exploiting breakthroughs in the field. Equally common are the international collaborations made possible by the explosive growth of the Internet.

Computational research and engineering, involving large-scale supercomputers and computer networks, is gaining importance in solving all manner of materials problems—from the subatomic to the macroscopic scale. Considerable progress has been made recently in simulations of complex materials phenomena based on first principles, such as mesophysical and mesomechanical phenomena. Computational strategies are emerging to provide physical descriptions of materials over a range of sizes important to a given process. In some instances, the use of these strategies allows the prediction of system performance that is not possible now by direct measurement. The field benefits directly from US strengths in computer science and engineering.

New developments in materials science and engineering can aid rapid paradigm shifts in the development of new technologies in fields that are not directly related to materials research. For example, the discovery of high-temperature superconductors just a decade ago is leading to important technological developments in medicine, defense, energy, computing, telecommunications, and transportation. These developments will enable important expansions in the global market of the next century.

Because of the increasing severity of the environments in which many advanced materials are used, the time from first synthesis to practical, reliable application can be long, often fifteen years or more. Long-term research is expensive, so sustained public-sector investment in precompetitive research and development is critical for realizing the economic potential of new materials discoveries. Strong user involvement in the early stages of materials synthesis and applications research is critical for facilitating the early adoption of new materials for new or existing applications.

2.4. What Is the International Nature of Materials Science and Engineering?

Materials science and engineering is an international effort that affects an individual nation's economic, industrial, and military strength and the education of its citizens. Because of the importance of materials to economic strength and industrial success, most major US trading partners have targeted materials science and engineering as a growth area and have made major investments to build competency in the field. Materials science and engineering is prominently represented in national public–private sector partnerships for economic development in most European countries and in the Pacific Rim countries, notably Japan. National and multinational companies with strong research and development programs in materials technologies market their products worldwide.

Materials technology is critical to the development of advanced military weapons and is one determinant of military strength. Nations that supply military equipment, such as the US, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Russia, have built strong industrial and government laboratories that specialize in military-related materials research, although much of their results find civilian applications as well.

Leadership in the subfields of materials science and engineering can shift unexpectedly. Many prominent researchers in materials science and engineering around the world have received graduate education in US research universities. This facilitates international collaboration and exchange with US investigators. Most new discoveries are immediately communicated around the globe today, and most new materials developments are exploited in many countries simultaneously. Likewise, many new discoveries are now announced simultaneously by researchers in different countries.

2.5. What Are Some Caveats?

Because of the size and industrial strength of the US materials science and engineering research community, it cannot be compared meaningfully with those of other single countries. The only sensible method is to compare the US with regional groups, such as Europe or Asia, for example. To the extent possible, in this report, specific countries are mentioned in connection with particular areas of science and technology.

Because of the enormous breadth of the field, it is necessary to divide materials science and engineering research into subfields, each of which is also extremely broad. The panel adopted the material subfields identified by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) National Science and Technology Council in its 1993 and 1995 reports, The Federal Research and Development Program in Materials Science and Technology. The reports list biomaterials, ceramics, composites, electronic materials, magnetic materials, metals, optical–photonic materials, polymers, and superconducting materials. The panel added catalysts to this list and combined the electronic and optical–photonic materials research into one category.

Fundamental materials discoveries can occur in many research settings. For example, NITINOL (a memory alloy) was discovered at a government laboratory, high-temperature superconductivity was discovered at an industrial laboratory, and rapidly solidified amorphous metals were first produced at a university. Many such developments occur in all three settings at the same time, leading to synergistic breakthroughs. Centers of excellence abound in all three settings in the United States as well as abroad.

Multidisciplinary research is a common mode for individual investigators as well as for large research teams. In industrial and governmental laboratories, materials research is, for the most part conducted by multidisciplinary teams, often led by scientists or engineers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. For example, advanced polymer research is commonly led by chemists, and research on electronic materials is commonly led by physicists. Mathematicians often are involved in theoretical studies and in the development of computational models and simulations. At universities, most large science and engineering departments have self-contained research groups that focus on materials-related science, engineering, or both.

In the United States, there has been a strong unification of the field over the past 3 decades, to include the development at most universities of a unified curriculum across the field. At many research universities, the first course in materials is offered to freshmen. There are still many important materials-related courses provided outside materials science and engineering departments, so instruction also has interdisciplinary aspects. Although departments of materials science and engineering are often found in schools of engineering in the United States, they are commonly found in schools of science or natural history abroad.

2.6. Panel Charge and Rationale

The Panel was asked to conduct a comparative international assessment to answer three questions:

• What is the position of US research relative to that of other regions or countries?
• What key factors influence 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 in the longer term?

The panel was asked only to develop findings and conclusions—not recommendations. The panel focus is on leading-edge exploratory research—intermixing basic and applied research and product development.

The panel responded to the second question first, identifying the determinants of leadership that have influenced US advancement in the field and the establishment of the supporting research infrastructure. Section 3 of the report details the panel's findings.

The panel then assessed current US leadership in the nine subfields. The results of this assessment—the benchmarking results given in Section 4 of the report—are in response to the first charge.

The next step was to assimilate past leadership determinants and current benchmarking results to predict US leadership, thereby to address the third charge. This analysis is given in Section 5 of the report.

The panel next attempted to predict—based on near-term and longer term trends in the determinants of leadership and in corresponding developments around the world—leadership positions of the United States in the subfields of materials science and engineering. That is, would the United States gain, maintain, or lose position with respect to its current state? Section 6 of the report discusses the Panel's predictions for each of the subfields assessed. Tables in Appendix B provide specific analyses by sub-subfield.

The panel's principal findings and conclusions are given in Section 7.

3.1. National Imperatives

Several forces coalesced after World War II to bring about what, during the 1950s, was known in the United States as the National Materials Program. The global spread of nuclear weapons capabilities, the growing intensity of intercontinental ballistic missile development, and the space race placed demands on the materials science and engineering communities for advanced materials that would give the United States a strategic edge. Also in the 1950s, leading industrial laboratories had a growing interest in materials research and development and set up well-equipped interdisciplinary laboratories that contributed to economic growth.

The euphoria over developments in synthetic polymers, uses of the transistor, and optical fibers and the emergence of rudimentary composite materials spurred interest in the White House Science Office, the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Defense (DOD) for the establishment in 1960 of what became known as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Interdisciplinary Laboratories (IDLs). Later in 1972, the DARPA IDLs were transferred to NSF to become the Materials Research Laboratories (now the Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers). Also, beginning in the 1960s, AEC and NSF invested in major instrumentation facilities at national laboratories and research universities to probe more deeply the atomic and subatomic properties of matter.

The national imperative for materials research and development was sustained until the mid-1980s by the intensifying cold war, the space race, and growing concern over global competitiveness of US manufacturing. Materials have been named on all the various ''critical technologies" lists, in particular those of the Department of Commerce, DOD, and Rand's Critical Technology Institute. Development of the infrastructure for materials research and development, the increased unification of the field by bringing together materials subdisciplines and by integrating science with engineering and theory with experimentation, is attributable to the momentum created by national imperatives. Thus national imperatives can be credited for much of our current leadership. The major contracts government provides to industry are also, to a large degree, in response to national imperatives. Federally funded programs have contributed to industrial leadership in the semiconductor, civilian aircraft, computer, and optical–electronic industries, among others. Therefore, an understandable concern in the materials research and development community is whether leadership can be sustained in the absence of nationally focused imperatives.

3.2. Innovation

Beauty and elegance can describe a scientific discovery, but its power lies in its effect on our lives. A key factor in its effect is how rapidly and easily ideas can be tested, developed, and extended. The process by which research ideas are developed and funded in the United States—our "innovation system"—is unique. The factors that influence the process—pluralism, partnerships, regulation, and professional societies—are discussed below.

3.3. Major Facilities

Research on materials depends on the ability to fabricate and characterize materials. To be a leader, one must have access to state-of-the-art facilities. An important component of federal support for basic research is the development and maintenance of the major facilities needed to carry out that research. By "major facilities," we mean facilities that have unique research capabilities that are too expensive for any one entity to support. In the case of materials research, these facilities include sources of neutrons, synchrotron radiation, high-energy electrons, and high magnetic fields.

Major facilities serve as an intellectual focus, and science develops as the interplay between experiment and theory. State-of-the-art facilities attract the world's leading scientists, so excellent facilities often make for award-winning research. Table 3.1 lists awards given to scientists for their work in neutron-scattering research.

3.4. Centers

Centers have become a key mechanism for supporting materials science and engineering research as they bring together researchers from many disciplines in one location. Several are supported by NSF:

• Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs),
• Science and Technology Centers (STCs),
• Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), and
• Institute for Mechanics and Materials (IMM).

MRSECs support interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary materials research and education. These centers have strong links to industry and other sectors and their goal is to establish a national network for university-based research. There are several major research areas:

• Surfaces (dynamics, reactions, catalysis);
• Structural materials, interfaces, grain boundaries, nanomechanics;
• Polymeric materials, polymer science;
• Electronic and optical–photonic materials;
• Superconductivity, low temperature phenomena;
• Magnetic materials and structures;
• Nanophase and nanostructured materials, mesoscopic systems;
• Phases, phase transformations, order–disorder;
• Biomolecular materials, self-assembly, colloids;
• Advanced computation, modeling, materials theory; and
• Materials design synthesis and processing.

Eleven MRSECs were established in 1994; 13 more were established in 1996.

In addition to direct funding of materials research, universities can enter an NSF-wide competition to establish STCs and ERCs. Past COSEPUP (1996) and NAE (1989) reports have evaluated these activities. These programs are still soliciting new proposals.

Several STCs that focus on materials science and engineering research:

• Center for Quantized Electronic Structures (Quest),
• Center for Superconductivity,
• Advanced Liquid Crystalline Optical Materials (ALCOM), and
• Center for High Performance Polymeric Adhesives and Composites.

Current ERCs include

• Center for Particle Science and Technology,
• Center for Interfacial Engineering,
• Center for Advanced Electronic Materials Processing, and
• Center for Plasma Aided Manufacturing.

IMM was established in 1992 by NSF to promote interaction between the mechanics and materials communities by fostering activities of industrial relevance. The institute's office is at the University of California-San Diego but its activities and resources are scattered around the nation and the world. IMM's activities include workshops, short courses, and summer schools; scientific visits; planning meetings; and outreach and educational programs focused on a different theme each year. Recent themes have included scale-dependent mechanical phenomena in materials; aging, deterioration, and accelerated testing of materials; and material behavior in product and structural design.

All of these centers have strong multidisciplinary components, and they aid essential university–university and university–industry interactions at the doctoral and postdoctoral level.

3.5. Human Resources

As materials have taken on a more critical role in communications, transportation, and weapons, for example, the need for highly trained scientists has increased. Figure 3.1 shows the number of doctoral degrees awarded by US institutions for materials science and engineering from 1986 to 1995. However, as noted earlier, although materials science and engineering has grown as a distinct academic discipline, many researchers in the field have degrees in other areas. The chart shows the number of doctorates awarded overall and those awarded to US citizens. The percentage going to citizens has remained at 40% for the period. Much has been written about dependence on noncitizens and whether it should be of concern. With the growth of high-tech education and industry in the Asian countries from which many of these noncitizens come, it seems probable that opportunities will expand for their return to their own countries, thereby reducing the net supply of trained scientists in the United States.

Tables 3.7 and 3.8 provide information on employment and occupational status, respectively, of PhDs in materials science in the United States. Figure 3.2 shows employment status. More than 60% of graduates consistently go to work in industry.

ASM-International has compiled a listing of materials faculties (ceramics, materials, metallurgy, and polymers) at educational institutions around the world (except for those in the former Soviet republics). Of these faculties, 169 are in North America (126 in the United States, 32 in Mexico, 11 in Canada), 117 are in Western Europe (40 in France, 28 in Great Britain), 27 are in Eastern Europe (not including the former Soviet republics), 84 are in Asia (29 in Japan, 19 in China), and 21 are in South America (dominated by Brazil with 20). The 85 Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accredited undergraduate programs in the United States are divided into three main groups. Fifty are in the materials engineering group (28 of these are designated materials science and engineering), 22 are in the metallurgy group, and 11 are in the ceramic engineering group. One university has an accredited undergraduate program in welding engineering and there is 1 in plastics engineering. Two-thirds of the materials-related faculties at US institutions offer undergraduate degree programs.

The figures and tables presented here do not tell the complete story about graduates in materials-related programs, however. At the graduate level, some materials research and development programs occur in joint departments; others are department nonspecific. Part of the reason for this is the increasing role of computation in materials science and engineering, which often is carried out in other departments. Many PhD programs with a strong focus on materials are found in departments where materials is not the sole focus. This is particularly true for polymers, biomaterials, composites, catalysts, and electronic materials, among others. For example, there are 16 programs in polymer science in the United States, but most graduate students in polymers study in departments of chemistry and chemical engineering. Electrical engineering departments produce most of the graduates in semiconductor, magnetic, and optical–photonic materials. This makes an accurate accounting of the size and trends in graduate education difficult, but it does provide a picture of the diversity that enriches the field.

Data on women and minorities are shown in Table 3.9 and in Figures 3.3–3.5. Table 3.7 shows that the percentage of women PhDs in materials-related subfields in the physical sciences is greater (17.4%) than is the percentage of women PhDs in materials-related subfields in engineering (15.9%). As a percentage of the total number of women PhDs in the physical sciences and engineering, the percentage of PhDs in materials-related subfields in the physical sciences (6.1%) is lower than is the corresponding percentage (15.3%) in engineering.

Table 3.10 shows that, among the G-7 nations,

• Italy ranks first for percentage of first degrees to women in the natural sciences;
• France ranks first for percentage of first degrees to women in engineering;
• The United States ranks third for percentage of first degrees to women in the natural sciences as well as in the percentage of first degrees to women in engineering; and
• Japan ranks last in percentage of first degrees to women in the natural sciences and engineering.

As shown in Figure 3.3, metallurgical–materials engineering has a significantly lower representation of black, non-Hispanic graduate students than do all engineering (Figure 3.4) and the sciences (Figure 3.5). Metallurgical–materials engineering has a substantially greater representation of noncitizens among graduate students than do all engineering and the sciences. The percentage of foreign students is only 7.1% lower than that of white, non-Hispanic graduate students.

3.6. Funding

Obviously, adequate funding is a necessary element of any research effort. Because the US innovation system has many funding sources and because materials science is a diverse field, it is difficult to determine the amount of funding, much less judge its adequacy. During the Bush Administration, the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) undertook a broad analysis of federal

support in several research areas, one of which was materials. The results for all agencies for fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994 are shown in Figure 3.6 and Table 3.11. Updated information for NSF's Division of Materials Research is shown in Figure 3.7. The average annualized award size for that division compared with others within NSF's mathematics and physical sciences directorate is shown in Figure 3.8. At about $125,000 each, awards for materials research were exceeded only by physics awards at about $170,000 each. Figure 3.9 shows the budget for permanent equipment, which in 1996, was about $18 million. Approximately 20% of the fiscal year 1998 request from NSF was for facilities.

Materials research and development is defined broadly here to include scientific and engineering research on substances in any form and at any stage of preparation, fabrication, manufacture, recycle, or disposal. Program types vary and include basic research and technology development, device or process development, and the gathering or analysis of data on various materials. The fiscal year 1994 budget contains significant activities in synthesis and processing and in theory, modeling, and simulation. These two components were emphasized in a major National Research Council (1989) study on materials science and engineering that incorporated considerable input from industry. The FCCSET study concludes that the budget provided adequate funding to achieve breakthroughs in energy, environment, health and safety, information and communication, infrastructure, national security, and transportation. However, this conclusion was reached before more recent drawdowns in federal investment in research and development (OSTP 1995).

The percentage of research and development investment for materials and industrial technology within the European Union increased from 11% in 1984 to 16% in 1987 and has stayed constant. Materials technologies constituted 9.1% of Eureka projects in 1992. Eureka is a cooperative effort in research and development (outside the European Union program) geared toward industrial and applied research and development (NSF 1996).

In general, it is important to note that several successful nations in high-tech industries (e.g. Japan) follow a different paradigm and strategy in allocating research resources.

4.1. Approach

The approach taken by the Panel to assess the strength of the field of materials research in the United States relative to other countries was as follows:

• By communicating with colleagues in the United States and abroad, panel members scripted the content of a fictitious international conference covering the nine subfields of materials science and engineering. Panel members asked colleagues to identify 5 or 6 ''hot topics" in each subfield and 8 to 10 of the very best people in the world working in each topical area.
• The top 3–4 awards and prizes given in each area and their recipients for the past five years were identified.
• The most significant advances in materials science and engineering research of the past five years were identified.
• Assessments of the state of research in each topical area in the United States compared with that of other nations were solicited.
• The leading journals or other periodicals that could be used as references for the assessment were identified.

The information was used to construct tables that characterize the relative position of the United States in each of 9 subfields now and in the future (Appendix B). The first half of each table ranks the current US position relative to the world materials community for each subfield. A scoring system, with 1 representing "forefront", 3 representing "among world leaders", and 5 representing "behind world leaders", was used. The second half of each table is an assessment of the likely future position of the United States relative to the world materials community. Here 1 represents ''gaining or extending", 3 represents "maintaining", and 5 represents "losing". Although the conference approach does not constitute a systematic assessment and is somewhat subjective, it is the same approach leaders of the field would use to organize world conferences to feature the "best of the best." And in conducting this analysis, panel members relied not only on their own judgment but that of their colleagues.

A report from the United Kingdom (UK 1997) compared by field and country the number of total publications and the relative citation impact. The top 5 countries for the materials science field by total citations are:

1.

United States

2.

Japan

3.

Germany

4.

United Kingdom

5.

France

The measure used in the United Kingdom report, "relative citation impact", is the country's share of the world's citations in the field, divided by its share of world publications in the field. It can be thought of as a comparison of a country's citation rate for a particular field with the world's citation rate for the field. A relative citation impact greater than 1 shows that the country's rate for the field is higher than the world's. According to the report, it is a measure of both the influence and the visibility of a country's research (as disseminated through publications) and it gives some indication of the quality of the average paper. The top 5 countries by relative citation index are:

6.

United States

7.

Denmark

8.

Netherlands

9.

Israel

10.

Switzerland

4.2. Assessment of Current Leadership

US research in materials science and engineering is strong, based on assessment of the subfields. Across subfields, US researchers are among the world leaders. Within subfields there are a few topical areas in which the United States is at the forefront and a few topical areas where the US has little presence or is behind the world leaders. (A general example of the latter is in materials synthesis and processing, where greater scientific emphasis is needed here. Europe is probably ahead in synthesis, and Japan leads in processing. If US universities were to focus research more on "green" processing for sustainable development, US industry could benefit.) For most subfields and topics, however, the United States ranks among world leaders. Comments on the analysis of each of the subfields are found below.

5.1. Overview

Current and future opportunities for materials science and engineering are enormous for several reasons:

• Knowledge of materials and how to tailor their performance economically will be an enabling element for many technologies important to the US economy.
• US research instrumentation and computation facilities are robust.
• There has been a resurgence of interest in processing and synthesis research. This is facilitating the establishment of high-yield, "right-first-time" manufacturing processes, and it has increased the number of pathways for creating new materials.
• The implementation of computational methods is leading to rapid growth in our understanding of complex phenomena and to a reduction in lead time from concept to scientific feasibility.
• The unification of the field and the growth in multidisciplinary collaborations are increasing the productivity and quality of research.
• Graduate education in materials science and engineering is becoming more diverse. It appeals to students with bachelors' degrees in many science and engineering disciplines, and it provides an array of career opportunities.

No country is in a better position than is the United States to take advantage of these factors. However, several developments could curtail our ability to fully capitalize on our strengths:

• There has been a dramatic change in the Department of Defense (DOD) basic research funding strategy toward areas of strictly military relevance. The generic (dual use) materials research formerly funded by DOD has not shifted to other sources of federal funding. The consequence is a major (~50%) reduction in funds for nonmilitary basic materials research at the universities. This could weaken US leadership in such areas as metals, composites, and ceramics, research areas for which DOD had been a primary federal supporter (Figure 3.9).
• The United States could become less attractive for foreign students and researchers, because of the increasing strength and funding opportunities for materials research and development elsewhere. Having fewer foreign participants could slow research capability; for decades, many prominent materials researchers have come to the United States from abroad.
• A traditional US strength has been the availability of diverse facilities at universities conducting leading-edge materials research. With the decline in federal funding, particularly from DOD, for instrumentation and facilities, complex university laboratories, such as those required for next-generation electronic materials and device structures are having difficulty.
• The elimination of central research laboratories and longer term innovation research by many high-tech companies has made technology transition from universities more difficult. Greater efforts and new pathways are needed to ensure the realization of engineering benefit from new materials concepts developed at universities.
• Shortening the cycle between material invention and engineering application is crucial to continued economic competitiveness in the areas of technology that depend on new materials. However, even though there are considerable opportunities, research funding in this area is limited. Other countries are pursuing this opportunity more aggressively than is the United States: There is a growing partnership between industry, university, and government laboratories to exploit new materials concepts more rapidly, for example, at the National Center for Scientific Research in France.

5.2. Recruitment of Talented Researchers

Talented researchers are needed at all levels in materials research. From the 1950s through the 1980s, US institutions attracted the world's best scientists as principle investigators because of the presence of outstanding researchers with whom these individuals could work, a superior economy, and outstanding research facilities. More recently, there has been considerable global leveling in research capability, and the United States has lost appeal among highly talented scientists in the industrialized world. As shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 and Table 5.1, the number of scientists and engineers coming to the United States declined by 26% from 1993 to 1994 (NSF 1997). More current data are needed to determine whether this was a one-time occurrence attributable to immigration from the former USSR before 1994, or a long-term trend.

Although the attraction of talented scientists from less well developed countries will continue, foreign nationals working as materials scientists within the United States are now being heavily recruited by their native countries. Europe, Korea, and Taiwan are enticing scientists working in the United States to return home, and these countries also have begun to attract American researchers. This loss of talent is somewhat offset by the globalization of research and development, permitting US corporations to hire outstanding young scientists at offshore research and development locations. Driven by economic factors and global competitiveness, the trend toward establishing US research facilities abroad is expected to continue. Reciprocal establishment of foreign research facilities within the continental United States has occurred, and continues to be dynamic, but the magnitude of researchers involved may still be overwhelming the system.

There are at least 5 issues that affect the future ability of materials programs to attract high quality graduate students.

First, there is a continuing need to recruit students from other engineering or science fields. For example, science and engineering research in electronic and optical materials has benefited greatly from interdisciplinary work. Recruitment will be facilitated by a broader national recognition and acceptance of materials science and engineering as a distinct academic discipline. This acceptance seems less prevalent here than it is in some other countries.

Second, foreign countries—Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Singapore, Hong Kong—have been the source of graduate students for US programs in many fields, particularly materials science and engineering. Most of these countries have been investing heavily to improve their own academic programs, especially in the various subfields of materials deemed important for the health of their national economies. The recent economic upheaval in Asian countries is likely to affect the flow of students to the United States—although how or to what extent is not clear. Moreover, not all countries in Asia are at the same stage of industrial development, so the drain of bright young people from some of these countries, such as Korea and Singapore, could soon abate. Thus, the number of students in developing countries who seek graduate education abroad might not decrease as quickly as projected, but the mix could change.

The United States should be concerned, however, about the degree to which it can continue to compete to attract bright young people from abroad. For example, Korea recently began to accept postdoctoral fellows from China. Japan has been encouraging its universities to accept postdoctoral fellows and PhD students from other Asian countries. The same is true for Europe, where there are programs among European Community countries at the postdoctoral and professional levels. One can expect increasing competition for talented students by all developed countries around the world, and the expected demographic decrease in the number of young people in developed countries will make the competition for the brightest even tougher. The greater the degree to which the United States continues to make efforts to make its society active, open, and attractive, the better its chances of attracting a significant fraction of talent pool.

As other countries become more successful in retaining or repatriating their top scientists and engineers, there will be a need to replace them by attracting more US students into PhD programs in materials science and engineering.

Third, the supply of graduate students is directly related to the economy. Few US students pursue graduate education without financial support, so a decline in research funding results in fewer students' pursuing graduate degrees. Moreover, a strong job market for those with bachelor's and master's degrees, particularly for people with an interest in materials, decreases the pool of PhD candidates. These effects are now acting in concert in the United States.

Fourth, materials science and engineering researchers, particularly in industry, must keep constantly up with new developments and research opportunities in the field. Graduate fellowships and educational programs conducted either on-site or "beamed" to industry via satellite from universities are a critical element of leadership.

Fifth, attracting more women and minorities into graduate programs in materials science and engineering is not only essential to achieving greater diversity in academia, government, and industry leadership, but it is also an important means of offsetting our current dependence on foreign sources of PhD talent. The field should be able to benefit from the variety of undergraduate preparations that might attract a greater diversity of talent into graduate materials programs.

5.3. Funding

Whereas US industry and government are shifting funds toward short-term research, many other countries, notably Japan, are increasing long-term and basic research funding. Many US companies have eliminated corporate or central research laboratories to more closely align research and development with immediate business opportunities.

Materials research in universities has been sponsored mainly by the federal government. The mission-oriented agencies (principally DOD and the DOE) have provided the most support for a range of fundamental materials research. In particular, DOD has supported about 60% of academic research in the field. The National Science Foundation funding for basic materials research continues to be available (Figures 3.6–3.8) but the recent shift in DOD funding has placed more emphasis on topics of strict military relevance. The consequence will be a curtailment of federal funding for new dual-use materials concepts and small-group research efforts formerly supported by DOD. Some of these new concepts are essential to DOD and to nondefense sectors of the US economy.

A rebalancing of the overall federal research and development funding strategy could be needed to enable materials research in all areas to continue: Otherwise, important developments in key subfields could lag behind in world competition. Many university researchers have had positive experiences with industrial research collaborations.

Although some academic researchers have turned to industry for financial support, in many cases, industry-funded research is of shorter duration and, compared with federal grants, has a specific, short-term focus. Some research projects are conducted under contract terms that capture intellectual properties, protect confidentiality, restrict publication, and require detailed planning and reporting of progress. These conditions rarely attract top graduate talent to the research effort.

The areas in which industrial research collaborations can be most valuable are materials synthesis and processing, where special equipment not generally found in universities is required to achieve process control and to evaluate sequencing protocols and scaling parameters.

5.4. Infrastructure

The quality of the basic research infrastructure and the development of new technology from research strongly influence the long-term health of materials research. The position of the US research enterprise will be determined by the elevation or decline of this infrastructure, which, in this context, is defined broadly to include tangible (facilities) and intangible (supporting policies and services) elements. Several trends for the elements of this infrastructure have been identified:

• The university structure in which the materials science and engineering organization resides strongly influences the fortunes of the discipline. The high quality of academic leadership in materials science and engineering and the excellence of the scientific research enterprise have placed the discipline in a position of strength at most of the top research universities in the United States. The prominence of materials science in nonacademic institutions (industry and government agencies) is also well established here and abroad.
• Maintaining the high scientific and engineering quality of management of materials research organizations within industry and government agencies is critical to the US competitive position. These organizations contribute to the knowledge base through basic research in technologically relevant areas.
• The most advanced information and communication networks available are being used in materials science research. Internet and video conferencing, electronic journals, international distance learning, and distant collaborative research are commonplace. The convergence of voice, data and video systems have made possible the routine use of real-time 3-D imaging and other supercomputing aids for modeling and simulation of materials structures, interfaces, phenomena, and behavior during processing.
• Sophisticated characterization instruments and processing facilities are essential for advancement in materials research. US facilities have instrumentation that is on par with the best in the world. However, rapid advances in design and capabilities of instrumentation can create obsolescence in 5–8 years.
• The integration and overall quality of the characterization services that support US universities and industrial organizations has lost substantial ground to organizations in Japan and Europe. Fortunately, characterization facilities at US national laboratories are among the best. Also, an increasing number of high-quality commercial laboratories are becoming accessible to academic and industrial researchers.
• Small-scale equipment for materials synthesis and processing in most US universities is not keeping pace with similar equipment at some universities abroad. Capabilities in US industry for supplying bulk single crystals and other specialty research materials also have declined. As a result, US researchers are becoming increasingly dependent on foreign sources.
• Forward-looking intellectual property policies, administrative support, and access to patent expertise are improving for US academic researchers in materials science. These policies are generally more flexible and advanced here than they are abroad. The anticipated continuing liberalization of rules that permit academic researchers to commercialize their inventions is a positive step toward decreasing the time from invention to market. Another positive step is the growing assistance from the universities in finding industrial commercialization partners.
• A supportive public (and thus legislature) is a valued element of the intangible infrastructure. Educating the public about the importance of materials should receive increasing attention. Innovative, attention grabbing methods are needed to convey that everything is made of something, whether a natural or synthetic material. Highlighting materials research contributions to major national initiatives is valuable in sustaining public support for the field.
• Federal laboratories and the national laboratories of DOE are critical in providing unique facilities for research, they have instrumentation no single university could afford to put in place. An important complement is the availability of world-class scientists who engage in long-term fundamental research, provide assistance through research collaborations with the user community, and provide advanced instrumentation design and methods. Although the US has enjoyed a research and funding environment that allows for the installation and operation of a diverse range of facilities to support leading-edge research in materials, this position is not assured forever. There are two major challenges that must be addressed with a systematic policy.
• Requirements for fabrication and processing facilities will change as research emphases evolve. For example, even though the microelectromagnetic systems (MEMS) field has become active, very few sites are equipped to fabricate MEMS devices, especially in support of the science and engineering research communities. Therefore, most of the materials community is excluded from research opportunities in this field. There are other examples in films, coatings, composites, and integrated sensors. Greater attention is needed to making the best fabrication and processing facilities available to top research teams. In some subfields, this problem has been addressed by collocating fabrication facilities and research teams, such as the nanofabrication facility at Cornell University. In other instances, flexible foundries, such as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's Metal-Oxide Semiconductor implementation Service, have been made available to top researchers around the country.
• Large central facilities, such as neutron and synchrotron sources, electron microscopy centers, and analytical facilities, many of them at DOE laboratories, must be continuously upgraded and maintained. Funding trends and changing priorities for federal agencies and NSF raise concerns about whether large-scale facilities can keep pace. In some areas, such as neutron scattering, US facilities have not kept up with foreign competition.

5.5. Cooperative Government–Industrial–Academic Research

Maintaining a competitive advantage in materials science depends on strong collaborations between government, industry, and academia. As industrial research focuses even more on materials technologies with short-term (2–3 year) technology–product impact, execution of longer term (5–10 year) basic and innovative exploratory research at universities and national laboratories will require even closer interactions. Basic research in these areas is a vital aspect of knowledge-based materials science, as verified by the continued university hiring of researchers with industrial experience. Collaborative research is accomplished in several foreign countries by individuals with joint academic–commercial appointments and through publicly supported research institutes linked to universities (similar to many US national laboratories) that serve industry's need for longer term research.

One challenge is also a major opportunity for a government–university–industry initiative: There is a 15-year cycle time in many cases from the scientific feasibility of a new material to its engineering implementation. There is a need for continuity of support and a general recognition of the time it takes to go from observation to hypothesis to experimentation to discovery to implementation. A reduction in this schedule could be realized through modeling and simulation, as applied to fabrication, processing yields, performance, and reliability. There are clearly defined, mutually supportive roles for academia, government, and industry where they can work together. For example, the US semiconductor industry has set up a 15-year road map, and such initiatives are in place in other countries. The DOE advanced-supercomputer initiative is a similar effort to develop new computer methods for the simulation of nuclear weapons.

Industry interest for cooperative programs is strong, but direct industry financing seems impossible to organize. Federal funding by explicit policies does not address this issue, nor is such activity subsumed into ERCs, STCs; and MURIs (see earlier discussion on centers) for which materials research and development is complementary to principal scientific and technology goals. Center programs are needed to put this capability in place in the United States. Without better organized government–industry–university efforts in this area, new materials will be more effectively exploited by other countries.

A novel approach that deserves more widespread use is the establishment of virtual industrial–academic institutes or centers for materials technology development. Some models already exist outside the materials field—in manufacturing, food processing, and biotechnology— that allow complex, high-risk, long-term basic research in areas with tremendous technological potential to be attacked synergystically. Establishment of new private–public sector partnerships to fund virtual centers would be helpful.

6.1. Introduction

The likely future position of materials science and engineering in the United States based on the ''world congress" assessment, is that our current position among the world leaders is likely to slip in some areas. The reasons vary, but some common elements include the globalization of research and the growth of economies.

The United States can be expected to continue supporting materials science, and new topics involving nanostructure materials and intelligent materials are among several exciting emerging areas of study. In addition, the United States will never want to lose its current strength in aerospace and defense, which are important not only to US security but for the stability of the post-cold-war world. The combination of global threats and economic opportunities can be expected to continue to drive US materials science and technology. Therefore, the panel finds that US leadership position in materials science and engineering should continue.

6.2. Biomaterials

Our strength relative to other countries in basic and applied biomaterials research is likely to erode in the near-and longer term for several reasons. Our lead in basic research is being contested by huge investments in Europe and Japan in biomaterials, both in academia and in industry. The potential market for biomaterials is larger outside the United States than it is within. There is a concern that our lead in applied areas is being jeopardized because of inconsistent and excessively conservative government regulatory policy and because of the litigious climate of our culture in general, which inhibits development and innovation. Although the United States is currently among the world leaders in contemporary diagnostic systems, we are rapidly losing ground to other nations.

6.3. Ceramics

In ceramics used for their thermal, electric, and mechanical characteristics, the United States and Japan share leadership. The Japanese manufacturing advantage is having an effect on engineering and research strengths, and the relative US position is in decline. However, emerging US research strengths in electromechanical systems and coatings would appear to redress the balance on the research side. Japan and Germany continue to be highly competitive in engineering of ceramics.

In areas concerned with functional–electronic ceramics, work on such topics as self-assembly materials and multilayer ferrite processing, where the United States is at the forefront, should be targeted. Areas where we are among the world leaders and where we should maintain our position in the future include three dimensional nanoporous silicates, microwave dielectrics, and electrophoretic preparation of thin films. The United States is not expected to seriously challenge the Japanese leadership position in integrated micromagnetics.

6.4. Composites

Basic research into composites at US universities is coming to a standstill as a result of the Department of Defense decision to strictly curtail university research funding in metal, polymer, and ceramic matrix composites. If this situation long persists, the US could forfeit its leadership role in composites. Academic research is at a nadir, but important new developments in industry are spurring implementation, especially in transportation and construction applications.

6.5. Magnetic Materials

The US is catching up with the leaders in international research on magnetic materials and magnetism. University research in the magnetic materials area has begun to increase. More basic research on magnetic materials and magnetism is needed to increase the prospects for advances by the United States in this area. The vitality of magnetic recording and the phenomenon of colossal magnetoresistance are starting to produce a renaissance in fundamental magnetism research in the United States.

6.6. Metals

In all probability, the US lead will remain, but that is not a certainty. For 5 decades, investments in materials research and development have been driven largely by national security needs. This has yielded a wealth of basic knowledge and new products. Because the United States is the only remaining "superpower", this driving force should remain, but it will diminish in proportion to perceived threats to our national security. This will shift some of the burden for materials development to nondefense industries, such as transportation. The value of new materials to various industries varies widely—and so does support for materials research and development. Another force that will affect the US position is the consolidation and globalization of all industries from aerospace companies to automotive suppliers. For these businesses, the issues of US competitiveness and research and development leadership are much less important, because their playing field is the world and they will seek knowledge wherever it is to be found.

6.7. Electronic and Optical-Photonic Materials

Research in electronics will continue to focus on materials and processes, and it will be conducted globally through international collaborations among industrial organizations. Industry partnerships with academia and government continue to be encouraged by the US Semiconductor Industry Association, which serves as a vehicle for forming other organizations—SEMATECH (the Semiconductor Research Corporation) and MARCO (the Microelectronics Advanced Research Corporation). Such partnerships, along with focused centers at universities, will continue to be vitally important to our leadership in the now-global semiconductor industry.

As semiconductor technology approaches the 100 nm generation, unprecedented new materials and processing technology will be required. The United States and others will make these advances more or less equally, if not as partners. A global forecast for 2012 for technology-driven research directions in this industry for the United States is provided in the National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (SIA, 1997). Some of the expected materials and process-related research includes silicon-germanium devices, new gate dielectric and gate electrode materials to replace SiO₂, copper interconnection to replace aluminum, new low-dielectric constant materials for interlayer dielectrics, diffusion barrier materials and processing approaches for copper interconnection, and the replacement of polysilicon gates with high-conductivity gates having low or no depletion. New processing, characterization, and metrology methods will be required to achieve surface smoothness of ±2 Å RMS, gate dielectrics of 10 Å, and unprecedented cleanliness control.

The United States should continue its leadership position in compound semiconductors (GaAs, GaAlAs) and wide-band-gap semiconductors (SiC) for power devices and microwave transmitters. These technologies, which will continue to find expanding applications for cellular telephone and satellite communication systems, are now and should continue to be well funded by industry and the government. Europe should continue to share leadership with the United States in electrical power distribution and motor control applications of power transistors.

In the field of nanotechnology, the United States has traditionally been leading in exploratory nanostructures, including quantum wires and dots. It shares the lead with Europe and Russia in mesoscopic physics.

Although continuing to provide leadership in basic research, the United States has conceded commercial leadership in wide-band-gap photonics to Europe and Japan, and the Japanese currently enjoy a commanding lead in GaN technology and the commercialization of photon-pumped, phosphor-coated ultraviolet emitters for displays. There are many excellent US university capabilities in wide-band-gap photonics, but much of the federal funding for this research is short-term oriented and lacks focus or a coherent long-term strategy to regain leadership in this important field. The Japanese are expected to dominate flat panel display technologies well into the future; US developments in thin-film electroluminescent displays on floppy polymer films could provide an important position in this display market for the United States.

Research support in II-VI (ZnSe) wide-band-gap lasers is being shifted in US universities to nitride research. The Japanese continue to make major strides in improving the longevity and external efficiency of II-VI lasers and LED's. The Japanese lead in short wave length solid state laser communications and in related technologies. The United States leads in longer wave length lasers.

6.8. Superconducting Materials

The current strong position of the United States in superconducting materials is not assured. Many early startup companies that showed promise are not yet profitable. Also, there is still less industrial research here than there is in Japan. Still, some small US companies maintain world leadership in the design, manufacture, and characterization of long-length conductors, although the shift in US corporate research away from longer term basic studies presents a question for the future: "Will the private sector benefit commercially from new concepts and advances occurring at universities and national laboratories?" This field could be one by which the success or failure of government–university–industry partnerships will be judged in the future.

The shift in funding and research priorities among government agencies is affecting federal spending for basic research in favor of advanced developments. The Department of Defense still maintains a program in high-temperature superconductor applications, but total funding for basic research is declining and is increasingly in competition with other funding priorities. Momentum favors relative improvements in the US leadership position in some areas (magnetic properties, flux transport measurements and imaging, thin-film processing, and cable development), but without continued strong federal investment in basic and applied research, that position will change.

On the bright side, dramatic advances in high-temperature superconductors have renewed interest in conventional superconductors for advanced applications, such as SQUIDS, energy storage, instrumentation, and telecommunications. With the improvements to and cost reductions projected for cryocoolers, the market potential for superconductor materials and related technologies should grow. The United States is well poised with strong processing and manufacturing capabilities and a growing talent pool to capture a substantial segment of these markets.

6.9. Polymers

The United States has given less attention and funding than have many other countries to polymer research. Overseas education, research, and infrastructure have had infusions of funding that could change their relative positions, and the United States could lose ground in relative terms if not in absolute terms.

The economic importance of synthetic polymers is evidenced by their wide use in plastics, fibers, adhesives, and paints. These materials are a large fraction of the "chemical" category in which the United States has a strong positive trade balance. Sustaining this balance will require the United States to maintain world leadership in polymer research. Environmental and life cycle responsibility is a driver for polymer research and development in Europe and is becoming more so in the United States.

6.10. Catalysts

The leading position of the United States relative to the rest of the world in the subfield of catalysts is likely to lose ground as a result of the targeted funding aimed at growing capabilities in other countries. This area could stagnate in the United States without stronger, better equipped research centers where researchers can work together with common goals. The Catalyst Technology Roadmap Report (Sandia 1997) cites as "the three most important areas of application of catalyst technology in which improvement of catalytic processes would make the most significant progress selective oxidation, alkane activation, and byproduct and waste minimization."

In industrial practice, the United States will remain a world leader for production of chemicals through catalytic reactions in the most energy-efficient, safe, and environmentally compatible way. University-based research will continue to suffer relative to industry laboratories unless better equipment becomes available.

As emerging markets in Asia and Eastern Europe develop and grow, the demand for basic chemicals and polymers (often made catalytically) will grow at double-digit rates. US industry will benefit from this growth because the technology to produce these materials often is not accessible to developing nations, and the expense required to build large-scale manufacturing plants is prohibitive. It is important to continue to invest in research on catalysts and catalysis to promote continued growth of US companies in export markets.

Inventions that use new catalysts or new engineering process concepts that facilitate economic development of small-scale manufacturing plants will allow US companies to invest in new places overseas to serve local markets and speed growth of developing nations. The economies of scale that result from large-volume manufacturing plants support Western economies and allow a cost of manufacture that provides an attractive return on the investment required to build large-volume plants. US companies will continue to seek ways to develop small-scale manufacturing. For example, the concept of "a plant on an IC chip" could some day allow attractive investments by US companies in local bulk chemical and polymer facilities in developing regions of the world.

These points simply argue for continued investment in catalysis research in a way that encourages innovation and allows US industry the flexibility to participate in the growth of emerging markets. Innovation can be encouraged by collaborative research across disciplines and between the public and private sector. Attracting more chemistry students into catalysis research aimed at discovering new science, while simultaneously strengthening links to technology and applications in the engineering area, would benefit the field. A well-funded national institute for catalysis research could serve as the focal point for such collaboration.

7.1. The United States Is Among the World's Leaders in All Subfields, and It Is the Leader in Some.

The United States is currently among world leaders in all of the subfields of materials science and engineering, and currently it enjoys a clear lead in biomaterials. The United States is expected to maintain its lead in metals and electronic–photonic materials because of their large US industrial base. However, the lead in electronic–photonic materials is endangered because of cutbacks in exploratory research. Our earlier preeminence in magnetic materials is now shared with Europe and Japan. This will require particular attention in the future.

Erosion of US leadership is expected in the subfields of composites, catalysts, polymers, and biomaterials because of the high priority being given to these subfields by other countries. Current US weakness in materials synthesis and processing relative to Europe and Japan is especially highlighted in the panel's assessment. In the subfield of catalysts especially, university multidisciplinary research centers with close industry collaborations are needed to conduct cutting-edge research and to reduce the development cycle time for commercialization. Finally, sustaining current federal research support in functional ceramics and superconducting materials is considered important to maintain US leadership in these subfields.

7.2. The Flexibility of the Enterprise is as Much a Key Indicator of Leadership as is the Amount of Funding.

Funding is important in supporting leadership in materials science and engineering, but a balance among all determinants is required to sustain leadership. Several factors provide opportunities to do this. These include the availability of many options for funding research and entrepreneurial developments through our national innovation processes, a robust infrastructure of research instrumentation and computational facilities, growing opportunities for diversifying the US talent base, and continuing improvements in research quality and productivity through greater unification of the field and growth in multidisciplinary collaborations. Of these opportunities, talent diversity needs much greater effort if it is to be realized.

7.3. The Innovation System Is a Major Determinant of US Leadership.

The keys to US leadership in the subfields of materials science and engineering have been the entrepreneurial ability of its researchers and the influence of its diverse economy. The rapid exploitation of new developments is facilitated by the extensive networks and collaborations among leading US researchers that extend to all sectors of our economy and throughout the world. The mobility of graduate and postdoctoral entrepreneurs from the academic world to the private sector is stimulated by the availability of venture capital for small start-up companies. Federal programs that encourage research consortia and partnerships in the private sector and that fund precompetitive research at small and medium-size companies provide additional impetus to the development of innovative materials technology.

Flexibility confers agility among US researchers who have been competitive in emerging materials topics—some of which have become "hot" only in recent years. Thorough research can take time, however, and bringing a new material into the marketplace can take more time. The short-term focus of the US innovation system presents the danger of blocking the development of important materials concepts.

7.4. The United States Enjoys Strength through Intellectual and Human Diversity.

Because materials science and engineering draws from the research infrastructure of most of the physical science and engineering disciplines, it has a high level of intellectual diversity. Intellectual and human diversity are intertwined. As with many science and engineering fields, diversity in educating women and underrepresented minorities in materials science and engineering is now considered inadequate in the United States. However, the disciplines should be especially attractive for diverse representation because of the scope of preparation and technological applications. It is particularly important to attract more domestic students into graduate study even as we continue to recruit the best and brightest from abroad. The ratio of foreign to domestic students at most research universities continues to be high.

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.

US leadership in the various subfields of materials science and engineering is not assured for the future. In contrast to opportunities of leadership, there are current developments that could curtail the ability of the US to capitalize on these opportunities. These include shifting materials research and development priorities in the Department of Defense, which have created research gaps in some materials subfields (e.g., ceramics and composite materials, electronic and optical materials), potential decreases in the supply of foreign graduate students, elimination of central research laboratories by major high-tech companies, and lack of attention to research into methods for shortening the implementation cycle for advanced materials.

The US education system—undergraduate and graduate—has achieved excellence that is acknowledged throughout the world, and we continue to attract top talent from other countries, especially those that lack adequate graduate research systems for training research leaders. There is a concern that improvements in graduate education programs in developing countries will not only meet their own needs for building stronger indigenous research, but will attract home the top researchers and students who currently reside in the United States.

One area of special concern is the lack of adequate funding to modernize major research facilities in the United States. Some US facilities are a generation older than are those in other countries, and there are fewer improvements or new facilities being planned for sources of neutrons, synchrotron radiation, and high-energy particle beams (electrons and protons).

Also important to top US researchers is the need to modernize smaller scale research equipment at universities for materials synthesis, processing, and characterization. The concern is that in some subfields such equipment at foreign universities now outclasses what is available at most US universities.

Panel

Arden L. Bement, Jr., is the Basil S. Turner Distinguished Professor of Engineering and director of the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium at Purdue University. Before this appointment in December 1992, he was vice president for science and technology at TRW, Inc. He joined TRW in 1980 as vice president for technical resources. Dr. Bement began his professional career in 1954 as a research metallurgist and reactor project engineer with the General Electric Company at the Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Richland, Washington. In 1965 he joined Battelle Memorial Institute as manager of the Metallurgy Research Department. Three years later, he became manager of the Fuels and Materials Department. In 1970, Dr. Bement joined the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as professor of nuclear materials, and in 1976 became director of the Materials Science Office of the Defense Advanced Projects Agency. In 1979, he was appointed deputy undersecretary of defense for research and engineering. In 1990 the US Senate confirmed Dr. Bement as a member of the National Science Board for a term that expired in 1994. Dr. Bement is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, is a recipient of the Distinguished Civilian Service Medal of the Department of Defense, and holds an honorary doctorate of engineering from Cleveland State University. He received an EMet from the Colorado School of Mines, an MS from the University of Idaho, and a PhD from the University of Michigan. Dr. Bement has served on many advisory committees and boards for government agencies and nonprofit organizations.

Peter R. Bridenbaugh is retired executive vice president of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). He also served as Alcoa's chief technical officer and vice president for research and development. Dr. Bridenbaugh holds a BS (1962) and an MS (1966) from Lehigh University, and a PhD (1968) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a member of the American Society of Metals, the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, the American Society for Engineering Education, the Industrial Research Institute, and Sigma Xi.

Leroy L. Chang is dean of science and professor of physics at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He was with IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center from 1963 to 1968 and again from 1969 to 1992. From 1985 to 1992, he was manager of quantum structures. In 1968–1969 he was an associate professor of electrical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He received the International Prize for New Materials (1985) from the American Physical Society, the David Sarnoff Award (1990) from the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and the Stuart Ballantine Medal (1993) from the Franklin Institute. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering and also a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Daniel S. Chemla has been director of the Materials Science Division at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and professor in the Department of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, since 1991. He was with AT&T Bell Laboratories as head of the Quantum Physics and Electronics Research Department from 1983 to 1990; from 1981 to 1983 he was a member of the technical staff, both in the Electronic Research Laboratory. Dr. Chemla has held the positions of department head and group leader with the Centre National d'Etudes des Telecommunications in Bageaux, France (1974–1981). He received a degree as Ingenieur Civil des Telecommunications (1965) from the Ecole Superieure National des Telecommunications in Paris. He holds the Diplome d'Etudes Approfondies, Physique des Solides (1967), and a PhD (1972) from the University of Paris. He is co-recipient of the 1988 R. W. Wood prize from the Optical Society of America. He received the 1995 Quantum electronics Award of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers/Laser and Electro-Optical Society, and the 1995 Humboldt Research Award. Dr. Chemla is a fellow of the Physical Society of America, the IEEE-Laser and Electro-Optical Society, and the Optical Society of America. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Uma Chowdhry is business planning and technology director for DuPont's Specialty Chemicals Businesses. Her career since receiving a PhD in materials science and engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1976 has been with DuPont. She has served in various technology management positions. She managed groups working on ceramic materials for electronic applications, superconductors, and catalysts for various heterogeneously catalyzed chemical processes. In 1995, she was appointed business director for a $400 million chemical intermediates business that commercialized two new technologies involving large-scale catalytic processes. Dr. Chowdhry's technical background is in ceramics processing and in heterogeneous catalysis; her current work is in management of technology for technology-based businesses. In 1996, she was elected membership in the National Academy of Engineering.

Anthony G. Evans is Gordon McKay Professor of Materials Engineering at Harvard University's Division of Applied Sciences (1994–present). Concurrently (1985–present), he is Alcoa Professor and codirector of the High Performance Composites Center in the Materials Department at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Previous to this he was Alcoa Professor and chair of the Materials Department. From 1978 to 1985 he was a professor in the Department of Materials Science and Mineral Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Evans holds a BSc (1964) and PhD (1967), both in metallurgy, from Imperial College in London. He is chair of the Defense Sciences Research Council, a vice president of the American Chemical Society, and a member of the National Materials Advisory Board. He is the recipient of many honors and awards and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

Paul Hagenmuller is professor emeritus at the University of Bordeaux (1994) and honorary director of the CNRS Solid State Chemistry Laboratory (1986), which he created in the 1960s. He is editor of many scientific journals and author or co-author of several hundred publications. He is a recipient of two von Humboldt prizes (1997 and 1990), the Gauss-Weber Medal from the University of Gottingen (1997), the Henri Moissan International Prize (1997), and a host of other honors and awards. Dr. Hagenmuller is a member or honorary member of the New York Academy of Sciences; European Academy of Arts, Sciences, and Humanities; the European Academy; the International Academy of Ceramics; and the Materials Research Society of India, among others. He also holds several honorary professorships and degrees. Among his many military decorations is the Croix de Guerre with Palms (1949).

James W. Mitchell is director of materials, reliability and ecology research at Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies (1995–present). He has been with AT&T Bell Laboratories since 1970 as a member of the technical staff (1970–1972), supervisor of the Inorganic Analysis Group (1972–1975), head of the Analytical Chemistry Research (1975–1994), research fellow (1985), and head of the Process and Chemical Engineering Research Department (1994–1995). Dr. Mitchell received a BS in chemistry (1965) from the Agricultural & Technology State University of North Carolina in Greensboro and a PhD in analytical chemistry (1970) from Iowa State University in Ames. He received the Percy L. Julian Industrial Research Award (1981) from the National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers; the US Black Engineer of the Year Award (1993) from the Council of Engineering Deans of Historically Black Colleges and Universities; the Iowa State University, George Washington Carver Visiting Professorship Award (1994); and the AT&T Bell Laboratories Research Fellow Award (1985), among others. Dr. Mitchell is a fellow of the American Institute of Chemists, a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, the American Chemical Society, the National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers, and of the National Academy of Engineering.

Donald R. Paul holds the Melvin H. Gertz Regents Chair in Chemical Engineering and is director of the Texas Materials Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. His research involves structure–property relationships and processing of polymers; his current work deals with polymer blends and membranes. Dr. Paul received a BS in chemical engineering from North Carolina State University and an MS and a PhD in chemical engineering from the University of Wisconsin. He is editor of Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research (published by the American Chemical Society) and serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Polymer Engineering and Science, Polymer, the Journal of Membrane Science, the Journal of Polymer Science–Polymer Physics, and Polymer Contents. He has received numerous awards for teaching and research, including in 1988 his election to the National Academy of Engineering.

Buddy D. Ratner is professor of bioengineering and chemical engineering at the University of Washington. He received a PhD (1972) in polymer chemistry from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. From 1985 to 1996 he directed the National Institutes of Health-funded National ESCA and Surface Analysis Center for Biomedical Problems. In 1996, he assumed the directorship of the University of Washington's engineered biomaterials research center, which is funded by NSF. He is the coeditor of the journal Plasmas and Polymers, a past president of the Society for Biomaterials, and author of more than 250 scholarly works. Dr. Ratner is a fellow of the American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering, the American Vacuum Society, and the Society for Biomaterials. His research interests include biomaterials, polymers, biocompatibility, surface analysis of organic materials, self assembly, and rf–plasma thin-film deposition.

Kathleen C. Taylor is head of the Physics and Physical Chemistry Department of the General Motors Global Research and Development Center. She is responsible for management of research and development in materials science with primary responsibility for 85 PhD, MS, and BS engineers and scientists involved in research programs in exhaust emission control, catalysis, surface chemistry, air pollution control, advanced batteries, fuel cells, corrosion, protective and wear-resistant coatings, light metals, magnetic and optical materials, and chemical and magnetic field sensors. Dr. Taylor was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1995, and she is a member of the American Chemical Society, the Materials Research Society, and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Society of Automotive Engineers International.

Robert M. White is university professor and head of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Carnegie-Mellon University. Before joining CMU in 1993, he served during the Bush Administration as the first undersecretary of commerce for technology. Before going to Washington, he spent 6 years with Control Data Corporation, first as vice president of research for CDC's Data Storage Products Group and then as the corporation's chief technical officer and as a member of the CDC Management Board. Dr. White's early career was spent in teaching and research. He was an assistant professor of physics at Stanford University and was principal scientist at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center for 13 years. He is the author of 4 books and more than 100 technical publications on condensed-matter physics and magnetic recording. White received a BS (1960) in physics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his PhD (1964), also in physics, from Stanford. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the American Physical Society, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1980, he received the Alexander von Humboldt Prize from Germany, and in 1993 the IEEE Award for Contributions to Public Service. He is a director of SGS-Thomson Microelectronics, Zilog, and Ontrack Data International.

Masaharu Yamaguchi is professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Kyoto University, Japan (1987–present). From 1973 to 1987 he was with Osaka University as an associate professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering. From 1965 to 1973 he was a research associate in the Department of Metallurgy. Dr. Yamaguchi received his BSc (1963), MSc (1965), and PhD (1969) from Osaka University. He also is Editor of Intermetallics for Elsevier Science Publishers. Dr. Yamaguchi received the Meritorious Activity Medal (1983) and the Tanigawa-Harris Medal (1995), both from the Japan Institute of Metals.

Staff

Deborah D. Stine is the study director and associate director of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP). She has worked on various projects throughout the National Academy of Sciences complex since 1989. She received a National Research Council group award for her first study for COSEPUP on policy implications of greenhouse warming, and a Commission on Life Sciences staff citation for her work in risk assessment and management. Other studies have addressed graduate education, responsible conduct of research, careers in science and engineering, environmental remediation, the national biological survey, and corporate environmental stewardship. Dr. Stine holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical and environmental engineering from the University of California, Irvine; a master's degree in business administration; and a PhD in public administration, specializing in policy analysis, from the American University. Before coming to the academy, she was a mathematician for the US Air Force, an air-pollution engineer for the state of Texas, and an air-issues manager for the Chemical Manufacturers Association.

Lawrence E. McCray is executive director of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP). He held positions in the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Regulatory Council, and the Office of Management and Budget before coming to the National Academy of Sciences in 1981. He has directed academy studies in carcinogenic risk assessment, export controls, nuclear winter, and federal science budgeting. A Fulbright scholar in 1968, Dr. McCray received the Schattschneider Award in 1972 from the American Political Science Association for the best dissertation in American government and politics. In 1987, he received the National Research Council staff award. Dr. McCray joined COSEPUP in 1988 as executive director and since 1994 has served concurrently as the director of the National Research Council Policy Division.

Patrick P. Sevcik is a research associate with the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP). He works on a variety of projects for COSEPUP, the Policy Division (PD), and the PD Office of Special Projects, assisting Deborah Stine and Lawrence McCray. Before coming to the National Research Council in 1993, he was an assistant program officer with the International Republican Institute from 1990 to 1993, working on democracy development, primarily in central and eastern Europe. Mr. Sevcik has held positions at the White House in the Office of Political Affairs (1989–1990) and on Capitol Hill (1987–1988) in the office of Rep. John DioGuardi (R-NY). During that time, he also held concurrent positions in several Slovak–American organizations. He holds a BA in international affairs, with an emphasis on Soviet and Eastern European studies, from the George Washington University. He has also studied Russian language and culture at the Leningrad Polytechnic Institute in Leningrad. Mr. Sevcik will begin an MS program in health sciences management and policy at New York Medical College in June 1998.