Taking the Nano Pulse:
National Research Council Releases Triennial NNI Review

  Michele Mekel, J.D., M.B.A., M.H.A., Associate Director/Legal Fellow
  Center on Nanotechnology and Society

Although nano reports are coming out with such frequency that they alone could pose a serious deforestation threat were they all to be printed, one recently released report had been awaited by the nanocognoscenti for some time. That report, entitled A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative,¹ hit the street late last month.

The Report is the product of the Committee to Review the National Nanotechnology Initiative convened by the National Research Council (NRC) in response to a congressional mandate set forth in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Specifically, the Act designates NRC to conduct triennial evaluations of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and details NRC's duty at length.²

Clearly, carrying out such a comprehensive charge is a lofty, laudable, and laborious task. And, in executing its duties, the Committee provided an excellent and thorough exposition of the NNI's convoluted structure.

In reading the report in totality, however, one could easily be left with the not-so-subtle impression that the Report is as much an appeal for continued and increased nano R&D funding as it is an assessment of the NNI's performance. Moreover, it seems that some of the specific provisions contained within the legislative directive got lost among the litany of items to be addressed. Those particular provisos receiving short shrift include:

• "evaluation of the extent to which the Program has adequately considered ethical, legal, ... and other appropriate societal concerns";³
  
• "use of nanotechnology in the enhancement of human intelligence";⁴ and
  
• "use of nanotechnology in developing artificial intelligence" (A.I.).⁵

In the preface to the Report, the Committee acknowledged enhancement of human intelligence and A.I., in passing, in order to rather hastily dispense with them, stating:

As a result of its reflections on and discussions of what is regarded as the more futuristic aspects of nanotechnology -- such as the use of nanotechnology in developing artificial intelligence, and similar topics popularized by science fiction -- the committee decided that an assessment of such topics in the context of a need for standards and guidelines would be premature and speculative at best. Therefore, the committee chose to address potential real risks rather than perceived risks pertaining to nanotechnology.⁶

Yet, in addressing molecular manufacturing, as also required by the Act, the Committee devoted an entire section of the Report to the topic, which, many would argue, is currently as much the stuff of science fiction as A.I. and human cognitive augmentation. Moreover, the Committee resourcefully found a way to meet otherwise-challenging components of the mandate, including appraising the United States' position in nano R&D vis-á-vis the rest of the world, despite: (1) a lack of nano standards;⁷ and (2) wide variation among nations in how nano R&D is defined and funded.⁸ And, even though the Committee noted an absence of accepted reporting protocols for tracking investments in nano across the NNI's participating agencies and departments, as well as a dearth of metrics for measuring the NNI's economic impact, it, nonetheless, managed to consider such mandated areas of focus.⁹

While not dispatched so cursorily as A.I. and human cognitive enhancement, NELSI -- nano's ethical, legal, and social implications -- were seemingly an afterthought, despite the fact that NELSI bear equal weight with the other areas to be reviewed according to the manner in which the mandate is structured.¹⁰ The Report explicitly states: "Although they were not a central issue for its deliberations, the committee recognized that addressing ethical and societal concerns pertaining to the emergence of nanotechnology will be an important part of responsible development."¹¹

Perhaps, three years from now or so, with the release of the second triennial NNI review, these overlooked -- or, more cynically, ignored -- issues will garner more attention.

Michele Mekel, J.D., M.B.A., M.H.A., is associate director/legal fellow of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society, and executive director/legal fellow of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future.

¹NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, A MATTER OF SIZE: TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE (2006) (hereinafter NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL).
²The Act specifically provides, in pertinent part:

SEC. 5. TRIENNIAL EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- The Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office shall enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a triennial evaluation of the Program, including --
(1) an evaluation of the technical accomplishments of the Program, including a review of whether the Program has achieved the goals under the metrics established by the Council;
(2) a review of the Program's management and coordination across agencies and disciplines;
(3) a review of the funding levels at each agency for the Program's activities and the ability of each agency to achieve the Program's stated goals with that funding;
(4) an evaluation of the Program's success in transferring technology to the private sector;
(5) an evaluation of whether the Program has been successful in fostering interdisciplinary research and development;
(6) an evaluation of the extent to which the Program has adequately considered ethical, legal, environmental, and other appropriate societal concerns;
(7) recommendations for new or revised Program goals;
(8) recommendations for new research areas, partnerships, coordination and management mechanisms, or programs to be established to achieve the Program's stated goals;
(9) recommendations on policy, program, and budget changes with respect to nanotechnology research and development activities;
(10) recommendations for improved metrics to evaluate the success of the Program in accomplishing its stated goals;
(11) a review of the performance of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and its efforts to promote access to and early application of the technologies, innovations, and expertise derived from Program activities to agency missions and systems across the Federal Government and to United States industry;
(12) an analysis of the relative position of the United States compared to other nations with respect to nanotechnology research and development, including the identification of any critical research areas where the United States should be the world leader to best achieve the goals of the Program; and
(13) an analysis of the current impact of nanotechnology on the United States economy and recommendations for increasing its future impact.
(b) STUDY ON MOLECULAR SELF-ASSEMBLY. -- As part of the first triennial review conducted in accordance with subsection (a), the National Research Council shall conduct a one-time study to determine the technical feasibility of molecular self-assembly for the manufacture of materials and devices at the molecular scale.
(c) STUDY ON THE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF NANOTECHNOLOGY. -- As part of the first triennial review conducted in accordance with subsection (a), the National Research Council shall conduct a one-time study to assess the need for standards, guidelines, or strategies for ensuring the responsible development of nanotechnology, including, but not limited to --
(1) self-replicating nanoscale machines or devices;
(2) the release of such machines in natural environments;
(3) encryption;
(4) the development of defensive technologies;
(5) the use of nanotechnology in the enhancement of human intelligence; and
(6) the use of nanotechnology in developing artificial intelligence.
(d) EVALUATION TO BE TRANSMITTED TO CONGRESS. -- The Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office shall transmit the results of any evaluation for which it made arrangements under subsection (a) to the Advisory Panel, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Science upon receipt. The first such evaluation shall be transmitted no later than June 10, 2005, with subsequent evaluations transmitted to the Committees every 3 years thereafter.

15 U.S.C. § 7510 (5) (2004).
³15 U.S.C. § 7510 (5)(a)(6) (2004).
⁴15 U.S.C. § 7510 (5)(c)(5) (2004).
⁵15 U.S.C. § 7510 (5)(c)(6) (2004).
⁶NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, supra, note 1 at viii.
⁷NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, supra, note 1 at 4-12 - 4-13.
⁸NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, supra, note 1 at 2-1 - 2-2.
⁹NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, supra, note 1.
¹⁰The Act calls for, in 15 U.S.C. § 7510(5)(a)(6), "an evaluation of the extent to which the Program has adequately considered ethical, legal, environmental, and other appropriate societal concerns." Id. (emphasis added).
¹¹NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, supra, note 1 at 4-13 (emphasis added).