Materials in a New Era - Physicswilkins/physics/new-materials-nrc.pdf · The 1999 Solid State...

Materials in a New Era

Proceedings of the 1999 Solid StateSciences Committee Forum

NA

TI

ON

AL

R

ES

EA

RC

H

CO

UN

CI

LS

OL

ID

S

TA

TE

S

CI

EN

CE

S

CO

MM

IT

TE

E

i



NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESSWashington, D.C.

Solid State Sciences CommitteeBoard on Physics and Astronomy

Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications

National Research Council

ii

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the NationalResearch Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, theNational Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsiblefor the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This project was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-9802308, the U.S.Department of Commerce under Grant No. 43SBNB867063, and the U.S. Department of Energy under GrantNo. DE-FG02-96ER45554. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publi-cation are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies thatprovided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number 0-309-06799-5

Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Additional copies of this report are available from:

Solid State Sciences CommitteeBoard on Physics and AstronomyNational Research Council, HA 5622101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20418

Printed in the United States of America

iii

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol-ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and totheir use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, theAcademy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr.Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academyof Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in theselection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising thefederal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meet-ing national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers.Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure theservices of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to thehealth of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by itscongressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issuesof medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associatethe broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge andadvising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy,the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and theNational Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific andengineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medi-cine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of theNational Research Council.

iv

SOLID STATE SCIENCES COMMITTEE

THOMAS P. RUSSELL, University of Massachusetts–Amherst, ChairMYRIAM P. SARACHIK, CUNY/City College of New York, Vice ChairPAUL A. FLEURY, University of New Mexico, Past ChairGABRIEL AEPPLI, NEC Research InstituteFRANK S. BATES, University of MinnesotaMARC A. KASTNER, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGERALD D. MAHAN, University of Tennessee at KnoxvilleDAVID MONCTON, Argonne National LaboratoryCHERRY A. MURRAY, Bell Laboratories, Lucent TechnologiesVENKATESH NARAYANAMURTI, Harvard UniversityJULIA M. PHILLIPS, Sandia National LaboratoriesJAMES ROBERTO, Oak Ridge National LaboratoryJ. MICHAEL ROWE, National Institute of Standards and TechnologyDALE W. SCHAEFER, University of Cincinnati

KEVIN D. AYLESWORTH, Program Officer

BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY

ROBERT C. DYNES, University of California, San Diego, ChairROBERT C. RICHARDSON, Cornell University, Vice ChairGORDON BAYM, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignWILLIAM BIALLEK, NEC Research InstituteVAL FITCH, Princeton UniversityRICHARD D. HAZELTINE, University of Texas at AustinJOHN HUCHRA, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for AstrophysicsJOHN C. MATHER, NASA Goddard Space Flight CenterCHERRY A. MURRAY, Lucent TechnologiesANNEILA I. SARGENT, California Institute of TechnologyJOSEPH H. TAYLOR, JR., Princeton UniversityKATHLEEN C. TAYLOR, General Motors Research and Development CenterJ. ANTHONY TYSON, Lucent TechnologiesCARL WIEMANN, University of Colorado/JILAPETER G. WOLYNES, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

DONALD C. SHAPERO, DirectorROBERT L. RIEMER, Associate DirectorKEVIN AYLESWORTH, Program OfficerJOEL PARRIOTT, Program OfficerNATASHA CASEY, Senior Administrative AssociateGRACE WANG, Senior Project AssociateMICHAEL LU, Project Associate

v

COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS,AND APPLICATIONS

PETER M. BANKS, Veridian ERIM International, Inc., Co-chairW. CARL LINEBERGER, University of Colorado/JILA, Co-chairWILLIAM F. BALLHAUS, JR., Lockheed Martin CorporationSHIRLEY CHIANG, University of California, DavisMARSHALL H. COHEN, California Institute of TechnologyRONALD G. DOUGLAS, Texas A&M UniversitySAMUEL H. FULLER, Analog Devices, Inc.JERRY P. GOLLUB, Haverford CollegeMICHAEL F. GOODCHILD, University of California, Santa BarbaraMARTHA HAYNES, Cornell UniversityWESLEY T. HUNTRESS, JR., Carnegie InstitutionCAROL JANTZEN, Westinghouse Savannah River CompanyPAUL KAMINSKI, Technovation, Inc.KENNETH H. KELLER, University of MinnesotaJOHN R. KREICK, Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company (retired)DANIEL KLEPPNER, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyMARSHA I. LESTER, University of PennsylvaniaDUSA M. McDUFF, State University of New York at Stony BrookJANET NORWOOD, U.S. Commissioner of Labor Statistics (retired)M. ELISABETH PATÉ-CORNELL, Stanford UniversityNICHOLAS P. SAMIOS, Brookhaven National LaboratoryROBERT J. SPINRAD, Xerox PARC (retired)

NORMAN METZGER, Executive Director (through July 1999)MYRON F. UMAN, Acting Executive Director (from August 1999)

vi

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

These proceedings have been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technicalexpertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report ReviewCommittee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assistthe authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meetsinstitutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The contents of thereview comments and the draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative pro-cess. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report:

Gordon A. Baym, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,David Campbell, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,Charles W. Clark, National Institute of Standards and Technology,Denis McWhan, Brookhaven National Laboratory,James J. Rhyne, University of Missouri, andNicholas P. Samios, Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Although the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, the re-sponsibility for the final content of this proceedings rests solely with the authoring committee and the NRC.

vii

Contents

Abstract..............................................................................................................................................................1

Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................3Thomas P. Russell, Chair, Solid State Sciences Committee

Summary of Articles ..........................................................................................................................................3

Keynote Address: Unlocking Our Future .......................................................................................................11Laura Lyman Rodriguez, Office of Representative Vernon Ehlers

I: Materials and the Federal Role

Perspectives from the Office of Science and Technology Policy .................................................................... 15Arthur Bienenstock, Associate Director for Science

Perspectives from the National Institutes of Health........................................................................................16Marvin Cassman, Director, National Institute of General Medical Sciences

Perspectives from the U.S. Department of Energy ..........................................................................................17Martha Krebs, Director, Office of Science

Perspectives from the U.S. Department of Defense ........................................................................................18Hans Mark, Director of Defense Research and Engineering

Perspectives from the National Institute of Standards and Technology .........................................................20Raymond G. Kammer, Director

Perspectives from the National Science Foundation ......................................................................................22Robert A. Eisenstein, Assistant Director, Mathematical and Physical Sciences

II: Materials R&D in a Changing World

Report of the Committee on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics .........................................................25Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Harvard University

Materials R&D in Industry..............................................................................................................................26Cherry A. Murray, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies

Changing Roles for Research Universities .....................................................................................................29J. David Litster, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Changing Roles for Government Laboratories ...............................................................................................30John P. McTague, Vice President (retired), Ford Motor Company

viii

Panel Discussion of the Future of Materials R&D .........................................................................................32Moderator: Tom Russell, Chair, Solid State Sciences CommitteePanel: Cherry A. Murray, Committee on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics; VenkateshNarayanamurti, Chair, Committee on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics; SkipStiles, House Science Committee Minority Staff; William Oosterhuis, Department ofEnergy; Harlan Watson, House Science Committee Majority Staff; Thomas Weber,National Science Foundation

III: Materials Education and Infrastructure

Materials Education for the 21st Century .......................................................................................................35Robert P.H. Chang, Northwestern University

Meeting the Challenge in Neutron Science .....................................................................................................37Thom Mason, Scientific Director, Spallation Neutron Source, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Toward a Fourth-Generation Light Source ....................................................................................................38David E. Moncton, Associate Laboratory Director, Advanced Photon Source, Argonne NationalLaboratory

Smaller Facilities—Opportunities and Needs .................................................................................................41J. Murray Gibson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Argonne NationalLaboratory

IV: Materials R&D—A Vision of the Scientific Frontier

The Science of Modern Technology ................................................................................................................43Paul Peercy, SEMI/SEMATECH

Novel Quantum Phenomena in Condensed-Matter Systems ...........................................................................46Steven M. Girvin, Indiana University

Nonequilibrium Physics ..................................................................................................................................48James S. Langer, University of California, Santa Barbara

Soft Condensed Matter ....................................................................................................................................49V. Adrian Parsegian, National Institutes of Health

Fractional Charges and Other Tales from Flatland .......................................................................................50Horst Störmer, Bell Laboratories and Columbia University

List of Participants

ix



1

Abstract

The 1999 Solid State Sciences Committee Forum, entitled “Materials in a New Era,” was held at the Na-tional Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., on February 16-17, 1999. The forum was designed to launchthe report entitled Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics: Basic Research for Tomorrow’s Technology.That report, part of the decadal survey series, Physics in a New Era, reviews some of the outstanding accom-plishments in materials research over the last decade. It indicates some emerging areas and conveys the trueexcitement in the field from a perspective of basic science and potential societal impact. The forum was de-signed to showcase the main themes of that report.

The tone of this forum was considerably more upbeat than that of the forum held 3 years ago. In the interim,the federal funding picture for scientific research has stabilized and improved, there is increased awareness ofthe value of sustained investment in research in Washington, and industrial support for physical science hasstabilized. With such relatively good news, it is tempting for the community to become complacent about beingrecognized as an invaluable contributor to the U.S. and world economy. However, the message of this forum isthat the condensed-matter and materials physics community must continue to be proactive in bringing the fieldto a more broadly based audience, including politicians and lay persons not versed in science.

These proceedings provide a written record of the 2-day event for forum attendees and other interestedscientists, program managers, policymakers, and members of the general public. The sources of the articlesherein are written material provided by the speaker and notes taken by members of the Solid State SciencesCommittee. Unless otherwise specified, the articles were prepared from notes taken by a member of the SolidState Sciences Committee.

3

Executive SummaryThomas P. Russell

Chair, Solid State Sciences Committee

The 1999 Solid State Sciences Committee Forum, en-titled “Materials in a New Era,” was held at the NationalAcademy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., on February 16-17, 1999. The forum was designed to coincide with the re-lease of the decadal report Condensed-Matter and MaterialsPhysics: Basic Research for Tomorrow’s Technology. Thereport, part of the series Physics in a New Era, reviews someof the outstanding accomplishments in materials research overthe last decade and indicated some of the emerging areaswhere there is excitement in the field from a perspective ofbasic science as well as potential societal impact. The pro-gram for the forum was designed to highlight these accom-plishments and emerging areas.

The 1st day of the forum focused on the national politicalenvironment surrounding materials science, the funding con-straints under which materials scientists must operate, andthe changing roles of government laboratories, industry, andacademic institutions in promoting materials science. The2nd day focused on education, infrastructure, and emergingareas in condensed-matter physics and materials science.

The tone of this forum was considerably more upbeat

Laura Lyman Rodriguez, a staff member in the officeof Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), set the stage from anational perspective with the keynote presentation on the re-cently issued study Unlocking Our Future: Toward a NewNational Science Policy. This report, the result of a House ofRepresentatives study headed by Representative Ehlers, wasaimed at developing a national science policy appropriate forthe 21st century. The study finds that the federal govern-ment, scientists, and educators must address several issues,as follows: (1) Our science policy is outdated, (2) the Ameri-can public does not understand science and its practice, and(3) scientists are politically clueless. It is evident that ournation needs to improve its science, mathematics, engineer-ing, and technology education; to develop a new concise,coherent, and comprehensive science policy; and to make itsscientists socially responsible and politically aware. The re-port makes the following four major recommendations:

1. Continue to push the boundaries of the scientificfrontier by supporting interdisciplinary research,

maintaining a balanced research portfolio, andfunding more innovative “risk-taking” projects.

2. Support private research efforts, an essential com-ponent of a healthy U.S. R&D portfolio, by en-couraging young, startup companies, making theR&D tax credit permanent, streamlining regula-tions, and pursuing and developing effective part-nerships.

3. Increase efforts in education at all levels includ-ing preschool to graduate school; conduct re-search on curricula and education; address issuesof teacher training, recruitment, and retention;provide for a more diversified graduate experi-ence; and increase public outreach.

4. Strengthen the relationship between science andthe society that supports it through improvedcommunication among scientists, journalists,and the public and by engaging the scientificcommunity in helping society make good de-cisions.

than that of the forum held 3 years ago. In the interim, thefederal funding picture for scientific research has stabilizedand improved, there is increased awareness of the value ofsustained investment in research in Washington, and indus-trial support for physical science has stabilized. With suchrelatively good news, it is tempting for the community tobecome complacent about being recognized as an invaluablecontributor to the U.S. and world economy. However, themessage from the forum is clearwe, as a community, can-not afford to be complacent but must act proactively in bring-ing condensed-matter and materials physics to a more broadlybased audience, including politicians and lay persons notversed in science. Doing so will require active participationby scientists in educating students on all levels and gettingyoung students interested in materials physics. In addition,scientific research is becoming much more interdisciplinary.Some of the key advances in science are occurring at theinterface between different disciplines. It is imperative thatactive dialogs be established between different communitiesto bring the knowledge and advances made in materials phys-ics to other disciplines.

Summary of Articles

Keynote Address: Unlocking Our Future

4

Materials and the Federal Role

The interdependence of different fields of re-search was emphasized by a number of representa-tives of federal agencies.

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Arthur Bienenstock, Associate Director for Sci-ence in the Office of Science and Technology Policy(OSTP), emphasized the Clinton administration’sunequivocal commitment to maintaining leadershipacross the frontiers of scientif ic knowledge.Technology and the underlying science in manyfields are responsible for more than 50 percent ofthe increases in productivity that we have enjoyedover the last 50 years. The various branches of sci-ence are truly interdependent—progress in one fielddepends on advances in many other areas. As anexample, Bienenstock pointed to computerized axialtomography (CAT) scans, one of the mainstays ofmedical diagnostics, asking why it took so long af-ter the discovery of x-rays for the technology to de-velop. Progress in many fields was needed to makethe technology a reality—solid state physics and en-gineering to enable the computers that control theinstrument and collect and analyze the data, materi-als science to provide the x-ray detectors, and math-ematics and computer science for the algorithms toreconstruct the image from the raw data. CAT scanswould not exist today if any of these were missing.

National Institutes of Health

Marvin Cassman, Director, National Institute ofGeneral Medical Sciences, further embroidered thetheme of interdependence by discussing themultidisciplinary nature of research at major facili-ties such as synchrotrons and neutron sources. Inthe United States, most such facilities are fundedby agencies with major responsibilities for con-densed-matter and materials research. Biologicalresearch, however, is finding an increasing need forthese facilities and now accounts for a significantfraction of all work being carried out at these na-tional sources. Appropriate cooperation amongthese communities and the agencies that fund themwill be essential to the continued viability of theseimportant and extremely costly facilities. An inter-agency working group has been formed under theauspices of OSTP to facilitate such cooperation.

U.S. Department of Energy

Martha Krebs , Director of the Department ofEnergy Office of Science, presented the view fromher office. The fiscal year 2000 budget request forthe Office of Science is $189 million greater thanthat for the fiscal year 1999 budget. This increaseis largely for construction of the Spallation NeutronSource and for the Scientific Simulation Initiative,an interagency initiative that will bring teraflop-scale computing to bear on a number of problemsincluding global systems, combustion, and basicscience (which may include materials). Krebs iden-tified a number of future directions and opportuni-ties in materials research including neutron scatter-ing, materials at high magnetic fields, sp2-bondedmaterials, granular materials, complex materials, andhigh-temperature superconductors.

U.S. Department of Defense

Hans Mark , Director for Defense Research andEngineering in the Department of Defense (DOD),began his presentation by noting the basic axiomthat possession of superior technology leads to vic-tory in war. However, what has not been recognizedis that fundamental scientific research is the linkbetween superior technology and basic knowledge.He outlined four new science and technology topicsthat the Defense Science Board should be consider-ing and invited the community to suggest others.The ones he suggested were:

1. “Strange” molecules, i.e., fullerenes, car-bon nanotubes, or hyperbranched mol-ecules;

2. Predictive chaos theory/nonlinear dynamicsand its applicability to national security;

3. Software development, especially newtechniques for producing software such asgenetic algorithm development and appli-cation and automation of software devel-opment; and

4. High-power electrical devices.

He emphasized that it is essential for the U.S.military to receive the best possible scientific infor-mation and, to this end, the DOD will continue tosupport basic research.

5

Science Foundation (NSF), surveyed the broad rangeof research currently supported by the NSF thatspans length scales from the subatomic to the astro-nomic. Although Mathematical and Physical Sci-ences supports such a broad range of research, overthe past 10 years its budget has only increased by60 percent, an increase that can be compared withthe nearly doubled budget of the National ScienceFoundation. Mathematical and Physical Sciencesis not keeping pace, with greater budgetary increasesgoing to Engineering, Biology, Education, and Com-puter Science. Can this be changed? Only if thedirect impact of Mathematical and Physical Sciencesresearch on these other fields and on society in gen-eral is demonstrated and argued convincingly. Quot-ing Neal Lane, “It is necessary to involve materialsscientists in a new role, undoubtedly an awkwardone for many, that might be called the ‘civic scien-tist.’ This role is one in which science shares indefining our future.”

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Raymond Kammer, Director of the National Instituteof Standards and Technology (NIST), outlined the impactthat NIST has had in materials science including the highquality of research performed in its laboratories, the researchfacilities that are provided to the scientific community, andthe Advanced Technology Program that has an impact onthe industrial sector of research in the United States. With thegrowth of industrial interest in soft materials, includingbiomaterials, the drive toward nanoscale structures, and theimportance of magnetic materials, it is essential that NISTremain on the forefront of research in these fields. NIST willcontinue to develop, build, and operate the best possible re-search facilities where NIST will play a special role.

National Science Foundation

Robert A. Eisenstein, the Assistant Director forMathematical and Physical Sciences of the National

Materials R&D in a Changing World

Report of the Committee on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics

The focal point of the forum was the report of the Com-mittee on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP),Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics: Basic Researchfor Tomorrow’s Technology. Venkatesh Narayanamurti,Dean of Engineering and Applied Science, Harvard Univer-sity, chaired this committee and summarized the report.

Over the past decade, CMMP has been marked by theunexpected. If one looks at the last decadal study by Brinkman(Physics Through the 1990s, National Academy Press, Wash-ington, D.C., 1986) , the majority of major findings were farfrom expectations. One need only look at the discoveries offullerenes, giant magnetoresistance, the fractional quantumHall effect, and atomic force microscopy, to name a few, tosee the impact that the unforeseen has had on science andsociety in general.

CMMP, however, faces stringent challenges in the futureto ensure its intellectual vitality and transfer of knowledge topractical applications. In general, science is becomingmultidisciplinary in that advances in different fields are broughtabout by the integration of the expertise existent in specificsubfields. For the scientific effort to succeed, facilities infra-structure needs to be in place so that research by a broadcommunity can be enabled in an efficient and effective man-ner. New modes of cooperation between the academic, in-dustrial, and government communities must be established

to ensure a connectivity of CMMP with society and to pre-serve the innovative climate. The future of science lies withstudents who are currently being trained or will be trained atour universities. Yet, with the multidisciplinary nature ofresearch, academic institutions need to evaluate and, perhaps,modify the curriculum to train students in the best way.

Narayanamurti went on to describe several actions thatmust be taken to maintain and enhance the productivity ofCMMP. The different government funding agencies need tonurture the core research effort, modernize the CMMP re-search infrastructure, and invest in state-of-the-art equipment.

Concerning larger facilities, the current gap between theUnited States and the rest of the world in neutron scienceneeds to be closed by construction of the Spallation NeutronSource and by upgrading existing reactor and spallation-basedsources. Support of operating, and upgrading existing, syn-chrotron sources and investment in the next generation ofsynchrotron sources should be strengthened.

Incentives should be provided for partnerships amongacademic, industrial, and government laboratories. Univer-sities need to enhance the students’ understanding of both therole of knowledge integration and transfer and also knowl-edge creation.

Can we predict where advances will be made? Abso-lutely not. Nonetheless, it is abundantly clear that the successachieved in CMMP has had an impact that transcends manydisciplines and has led to marked advances in completelyunexpected areas.

6

ratories. How can the national laboratories operateas a truly integrated system working more efficientlyto address the problems of national importance?

McTague cited the four specific examples: theCenter for Excellence for Synthesis and Processingof Advanced Materials, the Partnership for a NewGeneration of Vehicles, the Spallation NeutronSource, and the Information Technology for the 21stCentury. Each of these examples is based on inter-active, collaborative efforts among several nationallaboratories, which will require them to operate in aconcerted manner from the management level downto the laboratory bench level.

McTague concluded by noting that he was cau-tiously optimistic that the national laboratories willbe able to meet this challenge. The laboratories mayevolve beyond being simply a collection of isolatedinstitutions.

Panel Discussion of the Futureof Materials R&D

The first day concluded with a panel discussionincluding Cherry A. Murray, VenkateshNarayanamurti, Thomas Weber of the NationalScience Foundation, William Oosterhuis of the De-partment of Energy, Skip Stiles, a member of theHouse Science Committee Minority Staff, andHarlan Watson, a member of the House ScienceCommittee Majority Staff.

Although the members of the panel fully agreed thatCMMP has a compelling case for support, that the im-pact of CMMP in society has been significant, and thatthe importance of CMMP in industry has been and willcontinue to be great, these facts are not sufficient to en-sure the health and prosperity of the field. Specifically,scientists need to continually “beat the stump” with localand national politicians, educating them on the manner inwhich CMMP has had significant impact on their con-stituents and why future funding is essential. Althoughall these arguments have been made in the past, the trans-mission of this message has not been effective. Evenwith convincing arguments, the funding of the scientificenterprise is still faced with the reality that spending capswill be in place over the next 2 years and that no newmoney will materialize unless these caps are lifted. TheFrist-Rockefeller bill (S. 1305) authorizing a doubling ofresearch funding is a good organizational tool but willnot produce more funding and does not bind future Con-gresses.

Materials R&D in Industry

Cherry A. Murray , Director of Research at BellLaboratories, Lucent Technologies, discussed materi-als R&D in the industrial sector. The development ofcorporate research in the United States since the 1970shas evolved from “just in case” to “just in time” to“just indispensable.” Without question, industrial re-search is becoming more tightly coupled to products,and the opportunities to conduct “blue sky” research(i.e., research completely disconnected from the bot-tom line) are very limited. However, the technologi-cal advances that have been witnessed during the pastdecade now place technology in the position of push-ing fundamental limits. As a consequence, many com-panies are now increasing their support of long-termresearch. To maintain a competitive edge, companiesmust maintain “in-house” competencies, stimulate in-novation, fuel growth, and broaden the product port-folios. But why the need for research? Inventions,technological expertise, and strong intellectual prop-erty positioning are the answer. Murray concludedwith the remark that “. . . physical sciences researchis as essential as ever for leading-edge high-technol-ogy companies.”

Changing Roles for Research Universities

J. David Litster of the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology described the current funding transitionin which research universities are involved. Using hishome institution as an example, Litster noted the enor-mous pressure that universities are facing in terms ofoverhead recovery rates with the flat or declining bud-gets. During the 1980s federal funding for student fi-nancial aid showed a significant decrease, from 50 per-cent to 20 percent, with the universities being left tomake up the difference. To make up these large finan-cial burdens, universities have turned to industrial sup-port for research. However, a delicate balance mustbe struck, because industry is sensitive to intellectualproperty and ownership, whereas universities must befree to publish.

Changing Roles for Government Laboratories

John McTague, recently retired Vice Presidentof Ford Motor Company and Co-chair of the Secre-tary of Energy’s Laboratory Operations Board, ad-dressed the challenges that face government labo-

7

Materials Education for the 21st Century

Robert P.H. Chang of Northwestern Universitypresented several sobering facts concerning the cur-rent state of education in the United States and statedthe imminent need for educational reform in materialsscience if the field is to remain vibrant. From the lownumber of American students attending college andadvancing on to higher degrees to the overall poor per-formance of American children in international test-ing and the dearth of teachers trained in materials sci-ence, the outlook for the future of materials sciencemust be of concern to every materials scientist at allinstitutions—academic, industrial, and government.Materials science, essential in our everyday lives andvital to our future, still has a very low profile in sec-ondary education. Materials science is an ever-chang-ing discipline with new areas continually emerging, andit is necessary for academic institutions to shift in acommensurate time frame. Although easily said, thisis difficult to realize given the slow rate at which aca-demic institutions can change. Consequently, existingresources, such as the Materials Research Science andEngineering Centers and Science and Technology Cen-ters funded by the National Science Foundation, mustbe used to best advantage. Outreach programs of thecenters serve K-12 education needs. Although theseprograms are effective, they are simply not enough.Chang’s studies indicate that the middle school andhigh school years are a particularly crucial time in theeducational development of children. At this age, manystudents lose interest in materials science, and we mustask ourselves why this occurs and how materials sci-ence education can bridge the gap between high schooland college.

Chang concluded that all materials science initia-tives must undertake to foster greater awareness of theimportance of materials science education, introducematerials science at the high school level to enhancemathematics and science education, and get teachersinvolved in materials science education.

Meeting the Challenge in Neutron Science

Thom Mason, Science Coordinator for the Spalla-tion Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Labora-tory, outlined the status of this $1.3 billion project thatinvolves an integrated effort from the five national labo-ratories. The history of neutron sources has been

marked by several key threshold points.In particular, for neutron scattering, the develop-

ment of the graphite reactor at Oak Ridge, the NationalResearch Universal reactor in Canada, and the devel-opment of neutron waveguides marked significantbreakthroughs in the use of neutrons for materials re-search.

We stand now on another threshold with the plannedconstruction of the Spallation Neutron Source at theOak Ridge National Laboratory. This will be theworld’s most powerful pulsed neutron source. It willenable qualitatively new and different science in disci-plines ranging from materials science to biological sci-ences. The Spallation Neutron Source will offer nearlyone order of magnitude enhancement in the neutronflux on the sample over existing spallation sources andwill open new areas of materials science.

Is the pathway straightforward and without ob-stacles? Any effort that involves five different nationallaboratories and that requires each component con-structed at the different laboratories to operate perfectlyand to mesh with exceptional precision will not bestraightforward. The construction of the SpallationNeutron Source is technically difficult. And the coor-dination of five different laboratories operating undersevere budget constraints poses a significant manage-rial challenge. Nonetheless, the future of materialsscience based on neutrons rests on the Spallation Neu-tron Source. It is absolutely imperative for the scien-tific well-being of the nation that the Spallation Neu-tron Source be successfully completed on time andwithin budget.

Toward a Fourth-Generation Light Source

David E. Moncton, Director of the Advanced Pho-ton Source, Argonne National Laboratory, describedthe advances that have been made in the x-ray flux withthe developments in synchrotron radiation sources andthe science that these sources have enabled. The de-velopments of these sources have been driven by theurgent and compelling needs of science. In turn, themassive increases in flux have also opened unexpectedareas of science.

Fourth-generation sources offer spectacular gainsin flux and brilliance; large quantitative improvementsin beam coherence, timing, and dynamics; and largequalitative improvements in photon degeneracy overcurrent sources. Such sources hold opportunities in

Materials Education and Infrastructure

8

tellectual challenges are left when one considers thephysics of well-known objects, such as atoms, that in-teract via well-defined and well-understood electro-magnetic forces. Superconductivity, superfluidity, andthe fractional quantum Hall effect are three recent ex-amples of surprises lurking in familiar systems. Thesephenomena underscore the fact that the quantum me-chanics of large collections of objects can be unusualand unexpected. Emergent phenomena, such as phasetransitions and broken symmetries, often appear inlarge collections of objects. These pose significanttheoretical and experimental challenges to condensed-matter and materials physicists, because materials con-structed from a large collection of atoms routinely havecompletely unexpected properties.

Nonequilibrium Physics

James S. Langer of the University of California,Santa Barbara, treated the subject of nonequilibriumphysics—the physics of materials not in mechanicalor thermal equilibrium with their surroundings. Al-though the Brinkman report recognized the importanceof nonequilibrium behavior, some of the most impor-tant areas where nonequilibrium behavior is criticalwere completely overlooked. Areas that have emergedinclude topics ranging from friction and fracture togranular materials to ductility. Each of these ratherfamiliar areas provides a prime example in whichnonequilibrium physics plays a key role. One goal ofnonequilibrium physics is to quantify the relationship

enabling a tremendous amount of research across thenation, and provide capabilities far beyond that affordedby the laboratory of an individual researcher.

Maintaining and upgrading these facilities is by nomeans inexpensive. Operating costs upwards of $1million with replacements costs of over $2 million an-nually is not uncommon. Yet, the number of mecha-nisms that such centers have for obtaining the neces-sary funding is limited. Many are situated at NSF-supported Materials Research Science and Engineer-ing Centers, Science and Technology Centers, andEngineering Research Centers or Department of En-ergy-supported Materials Research Laboratories. Al-though such centers have proven to be important, open-ing different avenues for support and maintenance ofthese centers is critical.

atomic and molecular physics, biology, chemical phys-ics, materials science, high-field physics, and soft mat-ter physics.

Smaller Facilities—Opportunities and Needs

J. Murray Gibson, University of Illinois, addressedan often overlooked, yet essential component of mate-rials science research, namely, the smaller facilities thatinclude, for example, electron microscopy facilities,ion beam facilities, and mass spectrometry facilities.These facilities lie in the intermediate funding range,being too expensive for any single investigator to con-sider for funding, yet too small to capture the attentionon a national level. However, these facilities performan exceptionally vital role in materials science research,

The Science of Modern Technology

This topic was discussed by Paul Peercy of SEMI/SEMATECH. Although the scientific discoveries overthe past decade have been both unexpected and im-pressive, equally impressive have been the technologi-cal advances based on our increased understanding ofthe physics, chemistry, and processing of materials.These insights have enabled modern technology to keeppace with, if not exceed, the expectations set byMoore’s Law. Scientific understanding has not onlydemonstrated the feasibility of advances in technol-ogy but also led the way to producing devices in a high-volume, low-cost manner.

Today’s technological revolution would not be pos-sible without this basic understanding. This fact holdstrue for industries across the board, ranging from semi-conductors to communications to commodity poly-mers. To keep pace, continued research in the optical,electrical, and magnetic properties of materials mustcontinue. As size scales shrink, nanostructured mate-rials, artificially structured materials, self-assembledsystems, and biologically based systems will becomeincreasingly important for future advances.

Novel Quantum Phenomena inCondensed-Matter Systems

Steven M. Girvin from Indiana University pre-sented a lecture focused on novel quantum phenom-ena. He dispelled the notion that few surprises or in-

Materials R&D—A Vision of the Scientific Frontier

9

between precision and predictability. Nonequilibriumphenomena continually come to the foreground in theunderstanding of the response of a material to an ap-plied external field or its ultimate properties. With in-creasing interactions between different disciplines, itis evident that nonequilibrium phenomena will increasein importance.

Soft Condensed Matter

V. Adrian Parsegian of the National Institutes ofHealth underscored the importance of condensed-mat-ter and materials physics to the biological communityand the general importance of cross-disciplinary re-search. One can look at the advances that have beenmade with high-powered synchrotron and neutronsources where advances in one field have a significantimpact on another. As discussed previously byCassman, the number of protein structures that are be-ing solved has increased by a large factor through ad-vances developed by the synchrotron community.However, it is not sufficient simply to offer the mostsophisticated instrumentation. At present, physicistsare simply off the radar screen of most biologists, where

the former are considered as being insular and paro-chial. It is necessary to establish a dialog between thedifferent communities. Doing so, however, will re-quire an education of both physicists and biologists thatwill increase the awareness of the two communities ofeach other and, thereby, stimulate interactions.

Fractional Charges and OtherTales from Flatland

Horst Störmer of Bell Laboratories and ColumbiaUniversity, who recently shared the 1998 Nobel Prizein physics with D.C. Tsui and Robert Laughlin for theirdiscovery of the fractional quantum Hall effect, ad-dressed the forum with his “Tales from Flatland” whereelectrons can move along a two-dimensional surface,being confined in the third dimension, and carry a frac-tional charge. Fractional charges arise when a two-dimensional gas of electrons becomes highly correlated.In an animated presentation, Störmer took the forumattendees through the initial discovery of the quantumHall effect to experiments performed under very highmagnetic fields where fractionally charged excitationsare observed.

11

Keynote Address: Unlocking Our Future

Laura Lyman RodriguezOffice of Representative Vernon Ehlers

Four main theses were developed in the report:

1. Our science policy is outdated.2. The U.S. public does not understand science or

its practice.3. Scientists are politically clueless.4. Our nation needs:

– Better science, mathematics, engineeringand technology education;

– A new concise, coherent, and comprehen-sive science policy; and

– Socially responsible and politically awarescientists.

The report identified the following four major areasas needing attention:

1. Continued discoveries at the scientific frontier;2. Research advances in the private sector;3. Integration of science and decisionmaking

through both the regulatory and judicial systems;and

4. Improvement of science education.

Fundamental research is of primary significance be-cause it will drive many of the innovations that can makethe vision of better and healthier lives a reality. This re-search depends largely on funding from the federal gov-ernment—funding that must be stable, substantial, andof high priority. The report strongly endorses the needfor a major federal role in funding individual investiga-tors for pursuit of fundamental research in the sciences,mathematics, and engineering. The goal of the report isto strengthen the basic research enterprise in the country.

The Federal Level

Interdisciplinary research is becoming increasinglyimportant and must be supported at the federal level.Because interdisciplinary research does not fit neatly intoa specific funding category, it can fall through the cracksin our current system of funding. Therefore, mechanismsshould be established to support this research as an im-

In 1945, Vannevar Bush outlined the national sci-ence policy under President Franklin Roosevelt withthe publication of “Science—The Endless Frontier.”The policy outlined by Bush was comprehensive.Among other things, it addressed the status of sci-ence in the nation and defined areas of national needin science. Subsequent Administrations followedthis policy without major modifications.

Although the policy has lasted more than 50years, there have been sweeping changes in its so-cial context. The Cold War is over, the Soviet Unionno longer exists, and we are in the midst of an un-precedented revolution in technology. To addressscience policy in light of these changes, the Speakerof the House requested a study in mid-1997. Thereport of this study was released on September 24,1998, and was approved by the full House of Repre-sentatives on October 8, 1998.

Representative Vernon Ehlers, the first researchphysicist elected to Congress, was chosen to leadthe study. During his investigation, RepresentativeEhlers received input from over 10,000 scientistsnationwide. This wide base of expertise enabled himto produce a dramatic new vision for science andtechnology. Although some of the points made inthe report may seem obvious to the practitioners ofscientific research, it was written for Congress andserves as a framework for future funding and policydiscussions. The report is not meant as an end.

Congressman Ehlers’ goal and vision is for theUnited States to maintain its preeminent status inscience and technology—not just to provide oppor-tunity for U.S. scientists but to improve the lives,health, and freedom for people everywhere. He be-lieves it is our responsibility, as the sole remainingsuperpower, to use our leadership in science andengineering for the betterment of the world. How-ever, for science to continue to benefit society, thescientific enterprise must stay strong and be sustain-able. The recommendations in the report are meantto provide a framework in which the continuedstrength and sustainability can be achieved.

NOTE: This article was prepared from written materialprovided to the Solid State Sciences Committee by thespeaker.

12

• R&D tax credit should be made permanent. Theuncertainty about the existence of a tax creditfrom year to year inhibits innovative, long-term,multiyear research in the industrial sector.

• Regulations that are needlessly burdensome mustbe streamlined.

• Partnerships between government, academic, andindustrial laboratories must be promoted.

Education

Development of the nation’s intellectual capital in sci-ence and mathematics is vitally important to ensure abright future for the United States. The report recom-mends changes at all levels of education—from K-12through graduate school. Teacher training, the retentionof qualified teachers, curricula, and research at the K-12level are addressed in the report. The report also stressesthe need for a diversified education. In particular, at thegraduate level, students can no longer be trained exclu-sively for careers as academic researchers because themajority of Ph.D. graduates will pursue careers outsideof academia. Communication between the scientific es-tablishment and the lay public must also be improved.Although the freedom of the individual researcher is nec-essary to bring about ground-breaking discoveries, it iscrucial that the scientific and engineering communitiesstrengthen their ties to society and to the taxpayers whoultimately support their research.

The report recognizes and underscores the idea thatscience helps us make everyday decisions—as a society,as a government, as individuals, and as voters. The abil-ity to draw on science and engineering to facilitate thedecision-making process must be strengthened. If a morecivic-minded mentality is adopted and if policymakersreach out to communities, the quality of decisions andpolicies related to scientific research can be improved.

General Remarks

Congressman Ehlers set out to write a document thatwas concise, coherent, and comprehensive. Because ofthese constraints, in-depth treatments of specific aspectsof the scientific enterprise were not possible. Rather, thereport is a “broad brush” view of the entire science andengineering landscape. It is intended to be the begin-ning of a process and not the end of one. For example,the report is the first step in a long-term process inwhich Congress will focus on the national sciencepolicy with reviews at least every 5 years. The workto address specific science policy issues must emerge

portant part of the federal basic research portfolio.The balance of funding between different disciplines

must also be addressed. Prosperity, health, and securityare the result of breakthroughs in a diversity of disciplines.Moreover, advances in one area of science often dependon advances in completely different research areas.

Exploratory research ideas that are creative and trulyrepresent a leap in thinking must be supported. As re-search funding becomes more competitive, strictly fund-ing “safe” incremental research at the expense of morerisky ideas must be avoided. A fraction of the federalresearch funds must be set aside for this purpose.

The discretionary budget, the source of all federal sci-ence funding, is shrinking. Controlling this reduction orturning it around requires controlling entitlement spend-ing. Entitlement programs, such as Social Security andMedicare, need reformation because they can consumeany surplus that is generated. In 1962, entitlements used25 percent of the budget, whereas now the amount is 50percent. Without control, this percentage will increase,such that, by 2010, all revenues will be spent on entitle-ments and interest, leaving nothing for defense and do-mestic discretionary spending. The current surplus offederal funds adds a twist to the overall budget strategybut does not alter the fact that discretionary restraints mustbe incorporated.

The Private Sector

Research in industry is important for harvesting thefruits of basic research that benefit society. New find-ings can rarely, if ever, be brought directly from the labora-tory bench to a salable item. The gap between basic re-search and industry-driven applied research or productdevelopment is referred to as the “valley of death.” Asacademic research becomes more basic, applied researchis shifting more and more toward product development,thus broadening the gap between the two worlds. It is inthis netherworld where discoveries that may be very ben-eficial for society are lost or forgotten. The bridges orpathways between the two do not follow a straight trajec-tory but have a complex, interactive relationship. Conse-quently, truly innovative research in industry is absolutelynecessary and must be encouraged. To attain this goal,the following policies should be pursued:

• Young startup companies must be encouraged,because they often pursue research that is farmore basic than applied. Capitalization of thesecompanies is critical and tax policies must beenacted that support this.

13

from the continuing review. Representative Ehlersintends to begin the congressional dialog on sciencepolicy during the 106th Congress.

In the words of the Ehlers report:

We must ensure that the well of scientific discov-ery does not run dry, by facilitating and encouragingadvances in fundamental research.

We must see that this well of discovery is not al-lowed to stagnate.

We must strengthen both the educational systemwe depend upon to produce the diverse array of people. . . who draw from and replenish the well of discov-ery, as well as the lines of communication betweenscientists and engineers and the American people.

15

I. Materials and the Federal Role

Perspectives from the Office of Science and Technology PolicyArthur Bienenstock

Associate Director for Science, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Arthur Bienenstock provided a perspective on theClinton administration’s science policy and fiscal year2000 science and technology budget submission, withparticular emphasis on new initiatives and opportunitiesin the materials sciences. He reiterated theadministration’s commitment to the federal role in sci-ence, quoting from the 1997 Office of Science and Tech-nology Policy report, Science and Technology Shapingthe 21st Century, “The Administration is unequivocallycommitted to maintaining leadership across the frontiersof scientific knowledge.”

The President and Vice President invoke twooverarching themes in articulating their broad support forscience:

• The fact that technology and the underlying sci-ence are responsible for over one-half of pro-ductivity increases over the past 50 years; and

• The importance of the interdependencies of thesciences (e.g., the dependence of the biomedicalsciences on advances in natural science, math-ematics, and engineering).

This support is seen in the Administration’s fiscal year2000 budget submission, which shows substantial in-creases for scientific research at the National Institutes ofHealth (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), De-partment of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, NationalAeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and U.S.Department of Agriculture. Included in these increasesis $366 million for an Information Technology Initiative,$214 million for construction of the Spallation NeutronSource, and $50 million for an Interagency EducationResearch Initiative.

The Information Technology Initiative increases fed-eral investments in fundamental information technologyresearch, advanced computing for science and engineer-ing, and research in the social and economic implicationsof the information revolution. Support is also providedfor the education and training of the U.S. information tech-nology work force. This initiative is led by NSF withsignificant involvement by the Department of Defense,DOE, and NASA.

Bienenstock reviewed progress toward implementingthe goal of S. 1305, authorization legislation that calls fora doubling of the federal investment in science over thenext 12 years. The NIH R&D budget increased signifi-cantly in fiscal year 1999 and is on a path toward achiev-ing this goal in less than 12 years. The non-NIH civilianR&D budgets have not experienced such growth and havebeen essentially flat in recent years. One of the outstand-ing challenges is how to place federal investment in R&Don a growth curve within the current budget caps.

To demonstrate the interdependence of the sciences,Bienenstock reviewed the development of x-ray researchleading to the modern computerized axial tomography(CAT) scan. X-rays were discovered in 1896, and theirimportance for diagnostic and therapeutic radiology wasalmost immediately recognized. X-ray crystallographywas awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, and manyrelated Nobel prizes have followed, particularly in pro-tein crystallography. Why, then, did it take so long todevelop the CAT scan? Although the concept was un-derstood, the CAT scan could not be realized until paral-lel advances in computers, detectors, and image process-ing were achieved. These advances required investmentsin solid state physics and engineering, materials science,and mathematics and computer science. The CAT scanis not an x-ray advance. It is the result of a broad integra-tion of science across several disciplines—an integrationthat could not have been achieved without broad leader-ship “across the frontiers of science.”

Bienenstock closed his presentation by stressing theimportance of the federal role in supporting a broad rangeof research. The importance of recognizing the interde-pendence of research is clearly apparent in condensed-matter and materials physics, where advances often oc-cur at interfaces with biology, chemistry, atomic physics,materials science, and the engineering disciplines.Bienenstock encouraged the condensed-matter and ma-terials physics community to advocate support for a broadrange of research. He also urged the community to be-come engaged in the emerging dialog concerning post-Social Security federal budget priorities. Competing pri-orities include broad tax cuts and investments in the fu-ture such as research and education. The R&D commu-nity has a large stake in the outcome.

16

ences Advisory Committee on Department of En-ergy Synchrotron Radiation Sources (the Birgeneau/Shen Report) clearly states the desirability of re-stricting the operation of the sources to only onefunding agency. Using multiple funding agenciesto operate a single source would lead, in the opin-ion of the report, to duplication of effort, unneces-sary complication of operations, and inefficiency.Yet, the dilemma stands as to the partitioning be-tween different agencies of funding for thesesources, for supporting staff scientists, and for in-strumentation.

A study that was recently released from the Of-fice of Science and Technology Policy addresses thisissue. The working group that produced the reportconsisted of representatives from the NIH, DOE, theNSF, and the National Institute of Standards andTechnology. Some of the more important findingsof this study are discussed below.

How can this rapid expansion in protein crys-tallography be supported? It is clear that existingfacilities are being stretched to their limit in termsof the staff scientists. It is inconceivable that cur-rent staff levels can support increased demand. Con-sequently, enhancing the number of the staff and thenumber of staff capable of interfacing with the bio-logical community is imperative. In particular, itshould be possible for a biologist, totally unfamil-iar with diffraction methods, to determine the crys-tal structure of a newly isolated protein without hav-ing to spend years in developing an effort in crys-tallography. Along with this, improved access pro-cedures to existing sources need to be established.Procedures need to be set in place where nonspe-cialists can perform experiments at the sources andwalk away with a crystal structure in a easy andstraightforward manner.

Although many advances have been made inthe sources, advances in experimentation requireparallel advances in the supporting equipment. Thisincludes advances in the detectors, thediffractometers, and the ancillary equipment. If theefficiency in detecting diffracted x-rays does notkeep pace with the advances made to the source,then what has been gained? Similarly, if the limit-ing step in data accumulation rests with the

The interplay between the biological sciencesand solid state sciences is clearly manifest in therapid acceleration of the number of crystal struc-tures of proteins that are being determined. Overthe course of 10 years, 1987-97, for example, thenumber of protein crystallographic structures thathave been deposited in the Protein Data Base hasincreased from tens to thousands. This rapid in-crease in the number of structures has been madepossible, in part, by the improvements in x-ray syn-chrotron sources. Over this period, the x-ray bright-ness has increased by orders of magnitude—fromfirst-generation sources, like the Stanford Synchro-tron Radiation Laboratory, to second-generationsources, like the National Synchrotron Light Sourceat the Brookhaven National Laboratory, to third-gen-eration sources, like the Advanced Photon Source(APS) at the Argonne National Laboratory. Atpresent, within a 90-minute experiment at the Ad-vanced Photon Source, sufficient data can be col-lected to determine a structure. The rate-limitingstep in a structural determination is the ability toproduce a high-quality crystal. Although x-raybrightness is a key element in the massive increasein the number of crystal structures determined, theneed and desire to know the spatial distribution ofchemical entities as well as the realization that dis-tribution underpins the functionality of the proteinhave also been of critical importance to this growth.

This coupling of the need from the biologicalcommunity with the advances in the x-ray sources,constructed primarily for solid state science researchusing traditional funding sources like the Depart-ment of Energy (DOE) and the National ScienceFoundation (NSF), has provided a synergy that isvirtually unparalleled. The excitement over suchadvances comes at a cost. It is very apparent thatbiologists are becoming increasingly heavy users atthe synchrotron sources, which draw their opera-tional costs from the physics and materials sciencesat the DOE and the NSF.

This raises an important question as to howfunding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH),the primary funding agency of biological research,can be introduced effectively and efficiently into thepicture. The recent report of the Basic Energy Sci-

Perspectives from the National Institutes of Health

Marvin CassmanDirector, National Institute of General Medical Sciences

National Institutes of Health

17

Perspectives from the U.S. Department of Energy

Martha KrebsDirector, Office of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy

diffractometer, be this in the movement of stepping mo-tors or in its alignment, then are the enhancements in theflux being used effectively? Consequently, there is a con-tinued need to support R&D efforts for improvements toinstrumentation.

With the large growth in biological activity in theUnited States and worldwide, the importance of the quan-titative determination of protein crystal structure, and thedemand that is being placed on current facilities, the ex-

pansion of existing crystallographic capabilities is criti-cal to the further growth of the field. One needs onlyview the Advanced Photon Source, where there is a largepercentage of remaining sectors in the ring dedicated toprotein crystallography, to get a feeling for the demand.Even with the APS, crystallographic facilities at the dif-ferent light sources across the country need to be increased.If current trends persist, even large increases may not besufficient to satisfy the demand.

The Department of Energy (DOE) is the second larg-est source of federal support for basic and applied re-search with a total budget of $4.4 billion and is the largestprovider of R&D facilities. The DOE is the top supporterof the physical sciences including materials R&D. TheDOE share of materials research rose from 35 percent oftotal federal support in 1998 to 42 percent in 1999 with atotal budget of $780.9 million.

Nondefense basic research is managed by DOE’s Of-fice of Science (SC), which accomplishes its mission pri-marily through support of multiprogram laboratories andresearch facilities and also through support of universityresearch at a level of $478 million per year and industryat $126 million per year. Apart from a dramatic decreaseof funding for major facilities in the period 1994-97, SC’sresearch budget has roughly tracked the cost of livingover the last decade. Facilities funding is at a historichigh in the fiscal year 2000 budget request, which in-cludes provisions for the Spallation Neutron Source.

In addition to the operation of major research facili-ties, the Materials Science Division supports a balancedportfolio of materials research including:

• Structure and dynamics of solids, liquids andsurfaces;

• Electronic structure;• Surfaces and interfaces;• Synthesis and processing science;• Predictive theory, simulation, and modeling;

• Structural characterization at the angstrom level;and

• Mechanical and physical behavior of materials.

It is difficult to enhance base support for research with-out a distinguishable national initiative. This politicalreality is particularly important for materials because thereis no intuitively apparent credible national problem thatrequires a major initiative in materials research. DOEhas played a major role in national initiatives regardingglobal climate change, the human genome project, andthe new Scientific Simulation Initiative.

SC captures its research under four themes that reflectits basic research, energy, environmental, and facilitiesmissions:

1. Exploring energy and matter;2. Fueling the future;3. Protecting our living planet; and4. Using extraordinary tools for extraordinary sci-

ence.

Given the high cost of construction and operation ofnational facilities, facilities initiatives necessarily stressthe base research efforts. Nevertheless, these facilitieshave historically prevented erosion of the base researchand have served as the basis for revitalization of DOE’smission as national priorities evolve.

18

Perspectives from the U.S. Department of Defense

Hans MarkDirector of Defense Research and Engineering

U.S. Department of Defense

The Connection Between Basic Science andCritical Technologies for War

That the possession of superior technology leads tovictory in war has been a basic axiom ever since peoplestarted to fight wars and then to write history. Whathas not always been clear is the connection betweenthis superior technology and basic knowledge that isthe result of fundamental scientific research. This re-lationship was not fully recognized in Europe until thebeginning of the 15th century. Perhaps the leading fig-ure in establishing this all-important connection wasPrince Henry of Portugal, who was the first to applybasic scientific knowledge to the technology of seafar-ing. In 1420, Henry established what today would becalled a multidisciplinary, mission-oriented researchcenter near Sagres in southern Portugal. There, he col-lected mathematicians, astronomers, and geographerswho provided basic knowledge to navigators, sea cap-tains, shipwrights, coopers, sailmakers, and other crafts-men. It was this work that made the rapid explorationof the world possible in the following century [1].

The French Experience

The contributions of French scientists have beenespecially important in the development of new knowl-edge through basic research, with a subsequent appli-cation to the enhancement of military strength. Napo-leon Bonaparte, as an artillery officer, knew firsthandthe valuable contribution of technology toward victory.What was more important, he cultivated friendshipswith the very best scientists of the day, including JeanBaptiste Joseph Fourier and Pierre Simon Laplace.Bonaparte also left a legacy that has had far-reachingconsequences—a system of military education that re-sulted in the creation of a generation of distinguishedscientists and mathematicians. Probably the most emi-nent early product of this system was Augustin LouisCauchy.

France also led in the introduction of aeronauticaltechnology to warfare. The Montgolfier Brothers in-

vented the hot air balloon in the last years of the 18thcentury. At the battle of Fleurs in Maubeuge in 1794,the French used balloons for surveillance of the battle-field for the first time. Their employment proved de-cisive in this engagement, and since then air power hasbecome a major factor in war [2].

New Areas of Basic Research

During a recent meeting with the Defense ScienceBoard, which is a senior advisory committee to the Sec-retary of Defense on basic research and technology, Ioutlined the following four areas in which I thoughtthat more research was needed.

1. Strange Molecules

In the past decade, a number of complex molecularstructures have been discovered that were not antici-pated. There is, for example, the molecule containing60 carbon atoms in a spherical structure called the“bucky ball.” The discoverers of this molecule andothers of this kind were awarded the Nobel Prize inChemistry in 1996 [3]. Perhaps even more importantthan the bucky balls are nanotubes, long tubular struc-tures of carbon atoms that have cage-like walls formedwhen two-dimensional sheets of carbon atoms (calledgraphene) are rolled into a tube. The tubes have diam-eters that range from 1 to 10 nm and can be either con-ductors or semiconductors, depending on that diam-eter. These structures may provide the way out of thequantum limits on silicon devices and allow compo-nents of one to two orders of magnitude smaller thanpresent limits. This would have obvious military ap-plications in guidance of small arms munitions, un-manned microaircraft, microspacecraft, andmicrosensors [4].

2. Chaos or Complexity Theory

About a century ago, the distinguished French math-ematician Jules Henri Poincaré was the first to identifyevidence of chaotic behavior in deterministic systems.He examined the proof given by Laplace of the stabil-ity of the solar system and found that it was not rigor-ous because Laplace had used a Fourier series that was


19

only conditionally convergent. Poincaré went furtherand showed that even though the solar system wasgoverned by deterministic equations, these some-times had solutions that exhibited chaotic behavior[5]. Later, it was established that this is a generalproperty of nonlinear systems, and we are just be-ginning to understand chaotic behavior. It is hopedthat complete understanding will allow developmentof a theory with both descriptive and predictivepower [6]. Because all systems are ultimately non-linear, an understanding of this behavior will likelyhave the broadest possible application. In terms ofmilitary applications, these will probably range fromimproving weather predictions to guiding tacticaldecisions on the battlefield.

3. Software Development

Almost all advanced weapons systems depend oncomputers to guide and control them. These com-puters are in turn controlled by operating systemsthat depend on the construction of appropriate “soft-ware.” Problems in developing software for thesecomputers have in recent years been responsible toa large extent for the delays and cost growths expe-rienced in the development of advanced weapons.The question is whether new techniques for creat-ing software could be developed to alleviate theseproblems. Developments are being studied todaythat might make it possible for large computers topartially program themselves in an evolutionary orDarwinian manner. It is possible that these tech-niques could lead to automation in the area of com-puter programming, just as the manufacturing ofhard goods has been automated by the applicationof computer-controlled robots. Once again, theachievement of practical results of importance to themilitary will depend on fundamental research in thisarea [7]. The hope is that by automating softwaredevelopment, some of the costly problems that havebeen encountered in many complex weapons pro-grams can be reduced or eliminated.

4. High-Power Electrical Devices

The computer revolution was generated by theapplication of quantum mechanics to solid statephysics. Almost all of the applications that resultedfrom the detailed understanding of the solid stateresulted in new devices that involved low electricalpower levels. This situation has now changed; we

are entering an era in which new understandings ofhigh-temperature plasmas and nonlinear materialsthat can handle very-high power densities haveopened up new vistas. This is the new knowledgethat we are attempting to apply in the developmentof electromagnetic guns. There is every reason tobelieve, in my opinion, that such weapons will comeinto existence in the first decade or two of the nextcentury and that they may have decisive militaryeffects [8]. New high-energy laser weapons, bothairborne and space based, require a detailed under-standing of the behavior of high-density plasmaflowing in supersonic jets. In addition, optical sys-tems that can handle very-high intensity light beamsand still retain extremely accurate dimensional tol-erances are necessary. Weapons of this kind are nowunder development and will, I believe, also be deci-sive in future conflicts.

Role of the Universities in Basic Research

The modern research university, which evolvedin Europe during the 19th century, is today the mosteffective institution for the creation of new knowl-edge. In the United States, the Department of De-fense sponsors basic research in many universities.This work is supported by a system of grants andcontracts that has been in place for almost half acentury, with the research subject to normal aca-demic review to assure quality. The classic exampleof work of this kind was the discovery of fission in1938 by two German professors, Otto Hahn and FritzStrassmann, working at the University of Berlin [9].Seven short years later, this discovery led to thenuclear weapon used at Hiroshima that brought aboutthe end of the Second World War. That this devel-opment was achieved in such a short time was duein large part to a number of American professorsincluding J. Robert Oppenheimer and Ernest O.Lawrence of the University of California, Berkeley,who initiated fundamental research in nuclear phys-ics during the 1930s.

Another good example of a decisive military de-velopment was radar, a British invention shared withU.S. scientists in 1940. A group of U.S. scientistsat the Massachusetts Institute of Technology fur-thered the development of radar such that small androbust units could be placed on ships and airplanes.This proved to be decisive in many naval and airengagements during the Second World War.

Following the end of the war, U.S. research uni-

20

versities were encouraged by the Department ofDefense to establish research institutes in order toconcentrate resources and focus the research on top-ics that are most likely to be of interest to the mili-tary. Examples of these institutions include theApplied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins Uni-versity sponsored by the Navy, the Lincoln Labora-tory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technologysponsored by the Air Force, and the Institute forAdvanced Technology at the University of Texas atAustin sponsored by the Army. These research in-stitutes are able to draw on the very best scientifictalent in some of the most outstanding research uni-versities in the United States. In addition, many ofthe brightest young people are drawn into scientificresearch that could affect our military posture.

The results that have been obtained in such insti-tutions have had far-reaching consequences. Radar,lasers, solid state electronic devices, novel opticalfire control systems, and various other technologiesof this kind would not exist were it not for the workdone at many U.S. universities. Thus, the system ofuniversity-based research that has been developedhas been proven effective. It is a most importantcomponent that helps to ensure the national secu-rity of the United States.

Concluding Remarks

It is essential that the U.S. military continues toreceive the best possible scientific advice. The De-partment of Defense will continue to support basicresearch and will encourage the Defense ResearchBoard to concentrate on such issues in the future.

References

[1] C. Raymond Beazley, Prince Henry the Navi-gator, G.P. Putnam and Sons, New York, N.Y.,1911.

[2] Hans Mark, “Warfare in Space,” AmericaPlans for Space, National Defense UniversityPress, Washington, D.C., June 1986, pp. 13-32.

[3] The 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry wasawarded to Robert F. Curl, Jr., Sir Harold W.Kroto, and Richard E. Smalley for their dis-covery of fullerenes.

[4] M. Meyyappan and Jie Han, “Buckytubes in aNanoworld,” Prototyping Technology Interna-tional, December 1998.

[5] Jules Henri Poincaré, Les Méthodes Nouvellesde la Mécanique Céleste, Gauthier-Villiers,Paris, 1892-99.

[6] Henri D.I. Abarbanel, Analysis of ObservedChaotic Data, Springer-Verlag Inc., NewYork, N.Y., 1996.

[7] Stephanie Forrest, “Genetic Algorithms,” ACMComputing Surveys, Vol. 28, No. 1, March1996, pp. 77-80.

[8] Harry D. Fair, “Electromagnetic Launch: AReview of the U.S. National Program,” IEEETransactions on Magnetics, Vol. 33, No. 1,January 1997.

[9] Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman, “Concern-ing the Existence of Alkaline Earth MetalsResulting from the Neutron Irradiation ofUranium,” Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 27,No. 11, 1939.

Perspectives from the National Institute of Standards and Technology

Raymond G. KammerDirector, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Technology AdministrationU.S. Department of Commerce

Program (ATP, which supports cost-shared work onhigh-risk technologies), the Manufacturing ExtensionPartnership (a series of local resources to support tech-nology application in small manufacturers), and theMalcolm Baldrige National Quality Program. TheMSL programs in areas relevant to condensed-matterand materials physics (CMMP) are funded at an an-nual level of $100 million out of a total budget of $285million, while ATP awards in these areas have pro-

Materials and NIST: Today and Tomorrow

The primary mission of the National Institute ofStandards and Technology (NIST) is to promote U.S.economic growth by working with industry to developand apply measurements, standards and technology, andrelated scientific research areas. We do this throughthe Measurement and Standards Laboratories (MSLs,performing internal R&D), our Advanced Technology

21

vided R&D funding of more than $200 million out of$1,390 million since the beginning of the program.Thus, NIST has a large investment in the area ofCMMP, reflecting the central role that materials re-search plays in the future of the modern high-technol-ogy economy.

CMMP-related research at NIST is performed invirtually all areas of the MSLs, including the Physics,Chemical Science and Technology, Materials Scienceand Engineering, Building and Fire Research, and Elec-tronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratories. Theresearch projects are quite varied, covering a wide rangeof materials and dimensions, with an increasing em-phasis on soft materials and materials-by-design efforts.Several NIST scientists have recently been recognizedfor their work in this area, including William Phillipswho in 1997 was awarded a share of the Nobel Prize inPhysics for his work on laser cooling of atoms (workinstrumental in the production of Bose-Einstein con-densation); John Cahn, who this year was awarded theNational Medal of Science for his seminal work onquasi crystals and spinodal decomposition; and CharlesHan who this year was awarded the High Polymer Prizeof the American Physical Society. Some examples ofNIST internal research will help to convey this breadth.

The NIST Polymers Division is the oldest and likelythe best polymer research center in the federal govern-ment. The scientists of this division conduct a broadrange of research in polymers, including measurementsof the properties of polymer blends, which are the keyto high-performance plastics with tailored properties.As one example, they study mixing, isotropic struc-ture formation, and the effects of shear fields on phaseequilibria in real time, using neutron, x-ray, and light-scattering and microscopy techniques. The informa-tion obtained is critical in understanding the industrialprocessing of these important materials. NIST re-searchers are also heavily involved in semiconductormetrology—an increasingly important activity as de-vice size is decreased. In addition to producing Stan-dard Reference Materials, we are developing atomic-scale measurements in which electrical measurementsare conducted on test structures made in single crystalsilicon, which are then referenced to atomic layers. Thiswill allow development of extremely well-calibratedline width measurements, directly traceable to NISTstandards. As a final example of an area of in-houseresearch, NIST researchers are heavily involved inmagnetic effects, especially at the nanometer scale. Asmagnetic storage density is pushed ever higher, theability to perform such measurements will become in-

creasingly important. For example, NIST has recentlyconstructed a low-temperature (2 K) scanning tunnel-ing microscope with both high magnetic field capabil-ity and in situ molecular epitaxy capability for metalsand semiconductors. This instrument will allow au-tonomous atom-by-atom assembly of nanostructuresfor research use. On a larger scale, NIST also has aspecial role in materials for civil infrastructure, includ-ing concrete. For example, we have a strong compe-tence in computational materials science of concreteand provide about 20 analytical software programs forconcrete on a Web site that is visited by over 1,000users per month. Among the computational models isone that is used to calculate the rate of migration ofsalt used on bridges to the reinforcing steel in the con-crete.

In addition to this in-house work, the ATP, since itsinception, has supported a number of important mate-rials projects in industries (often with university par-ticipation). This support has always come with ap-proximately equal contributions from the participants.With support from ATP, Non-Volatile Electronics, Inc.,has developed and demonstrated giant magnetoresis-tance computer memory cells, which will form the ba-sis for nonvolatile computer memories. Motorola andothers are helping to commercialize this application.Texas Instruments has worked with Nanopore, Inc., asmall New Mexico company, to incorporate xerogelinsulation into an integrated chip and used that alongwith copper wires to develop a new microchip fabrica-tion technology with very exciting possibilities. In yetanother project supported by ATP, Aastrom Bio-sciences, Inc., of Ann Arbor, Michigan, has developeda desktop-sized bioreactor that grows stem cells rap-idly, thus markedly reducing the number of stem cellsthat must be extracted (painfully) from the donors. Thisdevice is now in clinical trials and promises to cut costsas well as reduce donor pain.

NIST also provides a number of research tools forresearchers and operates them as national facilities. TheNIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) is the bestand most cost-effective neutron facility in this coun-try, serving more than one-half the total number ofneutron users. In 1998, the facility had more than 1,500participants (over 800 of whom actually came to NIST)from 50 companies, 90 universities, and 30 other gov-ernment laboratories and agencies. CMMP-relatedmeasurements performed at the NCNR include thestructures of superconductors and colossal magne-toresistance materials, the structures of lipid bilayersand chemical films, motions of molecules and mac-

22

and interest in soft materials, including biomaterials,for applications from medicine to computation.Another clear trend for the future is the move to thenanometer scale in many different areas of technol-ogy. Magnetic phenomena will continue to grow inimportance. To ensure that the necessary measure-ment capabilities and standards are available whenthey are needed, we must remain at the forefront ofresearch in all of these areas. Many of these newopportunities will require the best possible researchfacilities, both large and small, and NIST will con-tinue to develop, build, and operate those where wehave a special role. In planning our future, the in-sights contained in this report will inform and guideour choices.

romolecules in catalysts and solutions, Standard Ref-erence Material certification of zeolites and aero-space alloys, and phase transitions in polymer andmagnetic thin films. NIST intends to continue toimprove and operate the NCNR for at least the next25 years to meet critical national measurementneeds. NCNR scientists will also help in the devel-opment of the instrumentation at the new SpallationNeutron Source now being designed and constructedat the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

For the future, NIST research will continue inmany of the areas highlighted in the report on Con-densed-Matter and Materials Physics that this fo-rum of the Solid State Sciences Committee has in-troduced. We foresee a growing industrial use of

Perspectives from the National Science Foundation

Robert A. EisensteinAssistant Director, Mathematical and Physical Sciences

National Science Foundation

Materials Research and Education at NSF:Materials in a New Era

Cautioning that many changes are currently beingconsidered and are under way, Eisenstein listed theDirectorates and Research Offices at the National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF). These include Biology; Com-puter and Information Science and Engineering; Edu-cation and Human Resources; Engineering; Geo-sciences; Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS),Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences; and theOffice of Polar Programs. There are currently threeNSF-wide budget themes: Knowledge and DistributedIntelligence, Life and Earth’s Environment, and Edu-cation of the Future.

The Division of Materials Research (DMR), whichfunds a large portion of solid state science and materi-als research, is one of the divisions in MPS; the othersare Astronomical Sciences, Chemistry, MathematicalSciences, and Physics. MPS also contains an Office ofMultidisciplinary Activities, which has been quite suc-cessful in promoting and dealing with cross-disciplin-ary research. The MPS $792 million request for fiscalyear 1999 is the largest within NSF, with Educationsecond at $683 million. NSF’s responsibility in edu-cational matters is large and growing. In an effort tobetter justify and explain its mission to the public, MPShas formulated a “portfolio” that includes Fundamen-tal Mathematics, Origins of the Universe, the Quan-

tum Realm, Molecular Connections, and DiscoveringScience, the last focused on education. Research withinMPS spans an enormous range of length scales, from10-28 cm during the “big bang” through protons, at-oms, viruses, and astronomical systems to the universeat 1028 cm. A particularly important aspect of this,described by Moore’s Law, is the exponentially increas-ing density of information storage with time and theconcommitant reduction of length scales associatedwith current technologies. We are rapidly approach-ing fundamental limits set by quantum mechanics. Thisvery exciting science has clear relevance to technol-ogy. So, what’s the problem?

The NSF budget has doubled within the past de-cade, between 1988 and 1998. In contrast, the budgetfor MPS has increased only by 60 percent. Put differ-ently, the share of the NSF budget devoted to math-ematical and physical sciences plus materials researchin engineering decreased from 29.1 percent in 1986 to21.9 percent in 1998. Clearly, MPS has not kept upwith the rest of the Foundation. Where has all themoney gone? It has gone to engineering, biology, edu-cation, and computer science. It is essential that weshow that MPS research has a direct impact on thesefields. Eisenstein quoted Frederick Seitz, PresidentEmeritus of the Rockerfeller University, who wrote in1987 in Advancing Materials Research, “Perhaps whatis most significant about materials research through-out its history is that . . . it tended to be a major limit-

23

ing factor in determining the rate at which civiliza-tion could advance.”

Eisenstein called attention to the National ScienceFoundation Web site, http://www.nsf.gov/, which con-tains extensive and detailed information about the NSF.He then quickly summarized some of it. Materials re-search at NSF is funded as follows: 63 percent throughDMR, 14 percent each through other divisions within MPSand in the Engineering Directorate, and 9 percent else-where in the Foundation. The $300 million devoted tomaterials research is approximately 10 percent of the to-tal NSF budget, $230 million of it awarded through theDirectorate of MPS. Within DMR, 48 percent, or roughlyone-half the budget goes to research projects, 31 percentto centers, and the remaining 21 percent to instrumenta-tion and facilities. Eisenstein provided additional detailedinformation on the allocation of funds during fiscal year1998 among subunits of DMR—namely, the various dis-ciplinary subprograms, the Materials Research Scienceand Engineering Centers (MRSECs), the Science andTechnology Centers, the national facilities, and the In-strumentation for Materials Research Program. He alsoprovided a list of MRSECs as well as the winners of themost recent competition. Information was also providedregarding DMR partnerships with industry and business,other agencies, government, international projects, and

professional societies. The Division of Materials Researchsupports a sizable number of people, ranging from seniorscientists to undergraduate students, as well as teachersat the precollege level and students in educational out-reach programs. DMR is involved in educational issuesthroughout its activities at all levels, including K-12.These activities range from those in the MRSECs to thosein science and education modules.

Regarding the future, Eisenstein quoted Antoine deSaint-Exupery, “As for the future your task is not to fore-see it but to enable it.” He listed a number of interestingtopical workshops that have been held, as well as interna-tional materials workshops involving participation in vari-ous combinations by U.S., Canadian, Mexican, European,Pan American, Asia-Pacific, and African representatives.Various facilities are under discussion; a major new fa-cility, the Spallation Neutron Source, is currently underconstruction.

Neal Lane was quoted, “It is necessary to involvematerials scientists in a new role, undoubtedly an awk-ward one for many of them, that might be called the ‘civicscientist.’ This role is one in which science shares indefining our future.” Eisenstein closed with the follow-ing message, “Materials research has been and will con-tinue to be an essential part of the MPS and NSF scien-tific and engineering enterprise.”

25

II. Materials R&D in a Changing World

Report of the Committee on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics

Venkatesh NarayanamurtiHarvard University

Chair, Committee on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics

Condensed-matter and materials physics (CMMP)plays a central role in many of the scientific and tech-nological advances that have changed our lives so dra-matically in the last 50 years. CMMP gave birth to thetransistor, the integrated circuit, the laser, and low-lossoptical fibers so important to the modern computer andcommunication industries. The years ahead promiseequally dramatic advances, making this an era of greatscientific excitement for research in the field. Com-municating this excitement and ensuring furtherprogress are the main goals of the CMMP report.

Over the decade since the last major assessment ofthe field, important results and discoveries have comerapidly and often in unexpected ways. These advancesrange from development of new experimental tools foratomic-scale manipulation and visualization, to creationof new synthetic materials (such as bucky balls andhigh-temperature superconductors), to discovery of newphysical phenomena such as giant magnetoresistanceand the fractional quantum Hall effect.

An enormous increase in computing power hasyielded qualitative changes in visualization and simu-lation of complex phenomena in large-scale many-atomsystems. Progress in synthesis, visualization, manipu-lation, and computation will continue to have an im-pact on many areas of research spanning different lengthscales from atomic to macroscopic. Strong impactmay also be expected in “soft” condensed-matterphysics, particularly at the interfaces with biologyand chemistry.

The priorities of society are shifting from militarysecurity to economic well-being and health. Changingsocietal priorities, in turn, create shifting demands onCMMP. Among these growing demands are improv-ing public understanding of science, allowing bettereducation of scientists and engineers for today’s em-ployment marketplace, and making new contributionsto the nation’s industrial competitiveness.

The key challenges facing condensed-matter andmaterials physics are the following:

• Nurturing the intellectual vitality of the field—particularly the facilitation of the research ofindividual investigators and small teams in ar-eas that cross disciplinary boundaries;

• Providing the facilities infrastructure for re-search—for example, creation of laboratory-scale microcharacterization facilities at univer-sities and large-scale facilities at national labo-ratories;

• Enhancing efforts in research universities toimprove integration of CMMP education andresearch, particularly at the boundaries of dis-ciplines, and to prepare flexible and adaptablephysicists for the future; and

• Developing new modes of cooperation amonguniversities, colleges, government laboratories,and industry to ensure the connectivity of thefield with the needs of society and to preservethe fertile, innovative climate of major indus-trial laboratories, which have played a domi-nant role in CMMP research.

The different modes of research—benchtop experi-ments, larger collaborations, and so on—are evolvingsteadily. The work that is carried on in these variedvenues is complex and diverse, and the committee haspaid special attention to describing the forefronts ofresearch in terms of a small number of research themes.These themes, listed in Box 1, are discussed in somedetail in the Overview of the CMMP report and reap-pear in each of the chapters of the report.

One of the themes that has captured the imagina-tion of theorists and experimenters alike is the struc-ture and properties of materials at reduced dimension-ality—for example, in planar structures. Large-scaleintegrated circuits depend on understanding the behav-ior of semiconductors in such configurations, so thepotential for impact is apparent.


26

BOX 1: Research Themes in CMMP

• The quantum mechanics of large, interacting sys-tems

• The structure and properties of materials at re-duced dimensionality

• Materials with increasing levels of compositional,structural, and functional complexity

• Nonequilibrium processes and the relationship be-tween molecular and mesoscopic properties

• Soft condensed matter and the physics of largemolecules, including biological structures

• Controlling electrons and photons in solids on theatomic scale

• Understanding magnetism and superconductiv-ity

A number of actions are required to maintain and enhancethe productivity of the field of condensed-matter and materi-als physics. These actions involve each level of the hierarchyof research modalities and the interactions among the vari-ous levels and the various performers. The principal recom-mendations of the cmmittee are summarized as follows:

• The National Science Foundation (NSF), the De-partment of Energy (DOE), and other agenciesthat support research should continue to nurturethe core research that is at the heart of condensed-matter and materials physics. The researchthemes listed in Box 1 provide a guide to theforefronts of this work.

• The agencies that support and direct research inCMMP should plan for increased investment in

Materials R&D in Industry

Cherry A. MurrayBell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies

The Changing Role for Physical ScienceResearch in Industry in the “Information Age”

Today industry funds about two-thirds of total U.S.R&D, amounting to nearly $130 billion in 1997. TheU.S. government supplies the remaining one-third ofthe funds spent on R&D in the United States (nearly

$65 billion). Of federal funding in 1997, about 35 per-cent (roughly $23 billion) went directly to industry, 28percent to national laboratories, 22 percent to univer-sities, and the remainder to federally funded R&D cen-ters and nonprofit organizations. Today, total federalfunding of industrial R&D has declined to about three-fifths of its high point of a decade ago. “Blue sky”corporate research has declined sharply in this decadein all economic sectors, to about one-tenth to one-thirdof its 1988 extent, depending on the company. Also


modernization of the CMMP research infrastruc-ture at universities and government laboratories.

• The NSF should increase its investment in state-of-the-art instrumentation and fabrication capabilities,including centers for instrumentation R&D,nanofabrication, and materials synthesis and pro-cessing at universities. The DOE should strengthenits support for such programs at national laborato-ries and universities.

• The gap in neutron sources in the United Statesshould be addressed in the short term by upgradingexisting neutron-scattering facilities and in the longerterm by moving forward with the construction ofthe Spallation Neutron Source.

• Support for operations and upgrades at synchrotronfacilities, including research and development onfourth-generation light sources, should be strength-ened.

• The broad utilization of synchrotron and neutronfacilities across scientific disciplines and sectorsshould be considered when agency budgets are es-tablished.

• Federal agencies should provide incentives for for-mation of partnerships among universities and gov-ernment and industry laboratories that carry out re-search in condensed-matter and materials physics.

• Universities should endeavor to enhance their stu-dents’ understanding of the role of knowledge inte-gration and transfer as well as knowledge creation.In this area, experience is the best teacher.

Action on these issues will allow us to capture theopportunities for intellectual progress and technologicalimpact that continue to emerge in condensed-matter andmaterials physics.

27

companies are attempting to measure and monitor moreclosely the output of both research and development,linking both to new product development. I define“blue sky” research as research that is not linked inany way to a possible product or is at least 15 yearsaway from becoming a product. An emerging trend inthe last several years that offsets this bleak picture forthe future of industrial research is the recently renewedsupport for long-term research in the information tech-nology (IT) sector. I define long-term research as thatwhich could be at least 5 to15 years out but can belinked to possible future potential products of interestto the company.

R&D spending in the United States varies dramati-cally by economic sector: About 20 percent of corpo-rate revenues are spent for R&D in the pharmaceuticalsector, from 15 percent to 18 percent in the IT soft-ware sector, from 10 percent to 15 percent in the IThardware sector, about 5 percent in the chemical/ma-terials sector, at most 5 percent in the automotive/trans-portation sector, and only 1 to 2 percent in the energy/power sector of the economy. In this article, I willfocus on the fast-growing IT sector, whose revenuesconstitute about 10 percent of the current gross domesticproduct. This includes U.S.-based companies such asAT&T, IBM, Motorola, Lucent, General Electric, Intel,Lotus Development, Microsoft, Silicon Graphics, BayNetworks, Adobe Systems, Tandem Computers, andso on. In this sector in 1967, hardware products ac-counted for 89 percent of the revenues; software, 2.6percent; and services, 8 percent. Over the years, thosepercentages have dramatically changed, with the cur-rent balance more strongly favoring faster-growingsoftware and services over hardware: In 1996, 50 per-cent of the revenues were related to hardware, 20 per-cent to software, and 30 percent to services. IT corpo-rations have reacted by rebalancing their hardware(physical sciences) versus software and services (math-ematics and computer science) research mix. For ex-ample, at Bell Laboratories, the central corporate re-search has evolved from a traditional hardware:software70:30 split in the 1970s to closer to 50:50 today.

Some of the trends in corporate research in the ITsector can be summarized as follows:

The years of the 1970s and 1980s were the era ofthe Cold War, the last of Vannevar Bush’s “New Fron-tier,” and the age of the hardware near-monopolies (theBell System, IBM, GE, and so on). The justificationof corporate research could be characterized as “just incase.” Blue sky research in the physical sciences flour-ished in industry. During the mid-1980s to the1990s,

the Cold War ended; monopolies such as AT&T, IBM,and GE broke apart; software grew in importance; manycorporations retrenched; and major U.S. consortia suchas Sematech, SRC, MONET, and NSIC were formedin an attempt to pool resources for precompetitive re-search and involve universities, as well as to train atechnical work force necessary for development andmanufacturing. The justification for corporate researchcan be characterized in this era as “just in time.” Manycorporate central research laboratories were broken upand distributed to the various business units and fo-cused on shorter-term product development. In manyaccounts, this created fears of the existence of a “val-ley of death” for research on products that are 5 to 10years in the future: Companies were focusing most oftheir efforts on the period 0 to 5 years out, and univer-sities and government laboratories were focusing onthe period beyond 10 years out. In the silicon inte-grated circuit industry, this has been the justificationfor the formation of industry-university-federal labo-ratory consortia such as MARCO (the Microelectron-ics Advanced Research Consortium) to fill this gap.

In the late 1990s into 2000, because of the techno-logical advances of this sector of the economy, we haveentered the “Information Age”: Corporations are glo-bal, there is exponential growth in both technology andprofits for the IT sector, there is strong competition inhardware while new monopolies emerge in softwareand speed-to-market is essential, and the gap is clos-ing between research and products while hardware in-formation technologies are approaching their funda-mental limits. Now, because of the exponential trendsin all information technology, devices are becomingsmaller and faster and, acquiring more functionality,all at lower cost, and are rapidly approaching real fun-damental limits. The justification for corporate physi-cal sciences research for much of the hardware IT sec-tor is that it is “just indispensable.” If the corporationwants to be a technology leader, being first to marketis viewed as critical. This speed-to-market requires amuch tighter coupling of research to products combinedwith a longer-term in-house research effort—allowingthe fastest innovation to occur while avoiding beingblindsided by competitors.

We will be approaching some fundamental limitsin the next 20 years (around the year 2010). For ex-ample, silicon device scaling will produce metal-ox-ide semiconductor field-effect transistors with gateoxide thickness of less than 5 atoms, magnetic datastorage spot sizes will approach the paramagnetic limit,and transmission of optical pulses through optical fi-

28

als research paid off, causing a factor of two increasein logarithmic slope in the technology “Moore” plotsfor magnetic data storage and optical networking, re-spectively, are the invention and development of giantmagnetoresistance materials in magnetic read-heads byIBM research and the development of the Er-dopedoptical amplifier by Bell Laboratories research. Thereare also many other examples where long-term indus-trial research has resulted in a paradigm shift in tech-nology and business opportunity for the parent com-pany because it was the first to get products out on themarket.

In the 1980s, the chain from physical sciences re-search to products in industry was either nonexistent(blue sky research) or linear—from applied researchin the corporate research organization handing off to adevelopment organization handing off to a manufac-turing organization who would eventually create a prod-uct and be in contact with the customers. At everyhandoff along the way, there were roadblocks andbottlenecks—the entire process could take as long as 5to 10 years, with a relatively low success rate of get-ting through the whole process and little communica-tion along the way.

That approach no longer is a viable way of innova-tion. In a typical corporate research group, there are atleast four types of research:

1. Long-term research in areas related to future tech-nology needs, often in consultations with cus-tomers and marketing;

2. Cooperative long-term research with federallaboratories and/or universities not directly re-lated to near-term future products;

3. Cooperative short- and long-term R&D withother companies in joint development agree-ments; and

4. A “massively parallel” approach to marketing,research, development, and manufacturing thatbrings a closely knit team of people from all or-ganizations together to produce a product from aresearch concept in as little time as months to afew years, maintaining close customer contactand competitor awareness at all times.

In summary, industrial R&D is what has created the“Information Age.” IT corporate research has evolvedover the decades, but physical sciences research is asessential as ever for leading-edge high-technology com-panies.

bers will be approaching the Shannon informationtheory limit. Many companies in the hardware IT sec-tor are actually increasing their support of internal long-term research as a result.

Why do companies spend money on internal R&D?If they are in the leading-edge technology market forthe long haul and have evolved past the startup phase,they must maintain critical competencies in house,maintain an infusion of new technology, stimulate in-novation, fuel growth and business development, ex-tend their product horizons, and recruit top people. Itis difficult to accomplish these objectives by fundingexternal research at a university or within a consor-tium or by buying small companies. Companies spendmoney on external or cooperative R&D to leverage theirinternal R&D efforts, develop new applications forexisting technology, make use of facilities and equip-ment that are too costly to develop internally, and ac-quire access to a skilled work force in the technologiesrelevant to their products. The major problems encoun-tered by corporations in carrying out external or coop-erative R&D at universities or government laborato-ries are the complications in intellectual property own-ership and licensing, the relatively slow cycle times,and the focus on process rather than product that isnatural for universities and government laboratories.A 1999 Battelle R&D magazine survey of all indus-tries found that a large majority of respondents, 37 per-cent, used joint development agreements with othercompanies for external R&D and 23 percent purchasedservices from commercial laboratories. Only about 26percent of respondents used academia for external R&Dand about 3.5 percent used federal laboratories.

Why do companies spend money on internal long-term research? There are many reasons, depending onthe competitive environment and growth of the eco-nomic sector. First, internal research stimulates inven-tion leading to innovation. It provides insurance—itallows a company to maintain a breadth of technologi-cal expertise to make use of when it is suddenly needed.When integrated into the R&D community, long-termresearch can broaden horizons and provides a futurebeyond several product cycles. Often an internal re-search organization can be useful in recruiting toppeople into the business, enthralling customers, andchallenging competitors. Internal research also allowscompanies to keep trade secrets and create a strongintellectual property portfolio, which is essential tobecome and stay a technology leader.

Two examples where physical science and materi-

29

Changing Roles for Research Universities

J. David LitsterMassachusetts Institute of Technology

MIT: A University in Transition

David Litster discussed the changing environmentfor research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy (MIT). He pointed out that MIT is in some waysunique among the top 20 research universities in theUnited States. Of this group, it receives the largestamount of industrial research support and was amongthe lowest in self-support of research. For these rea-sons, he warned that one must be careful not to gener-alize the observations that he made.

The overall federal funding picture, excluding theNational Institutes of Health (NIH), is that of flat ordecreasing budgets. The Department of Defense(DOD), which supported some 65 percent of materialsengineering research between 1993 and 1995, has ex-perienced an overall decrease in funding throughoutthe 1990s. Its funding for research has not been sparedand has fallen from about $16 billion in 1989 to about$9 billion in 1999. DOD-sponsored research at MIThas fared somewhat better, remaining relatively levelat about $35 million (in 1993 dollars).

The flat or declining budgets of the federal agen-cies has put enormous pressure on overhead recoveryrates at MIT. Between 1980 and 1990, the amount ofindirect costs at MIT covered by the federal govern-ment hovered around 50 to 56 percent, whereas theamount covered by internal MIT sources was between32 and 38 percent (the remainder was picked up bystate sources). Since then, the proportion of the indi-rect costs borne by MIT has climbed steadily while thefederal share has plummeted. The change was so rapidthat by 1996 MIT was covering about 52 percent of thecosts and the funding agencies were covering only about36 percent—a complete reversal of roles.

Furthermore, during the 1980s, the federal govern-ment cut its financial aid for students. This trend istrue for all schools that continue a need-blind admis-sion policy. In 1980, MIT supplied about 50 percentof the financial aid to students. By 1990, MIT’s sharehad grown to about 80 percent and has remained theresince.

One thing MIT has done to counter these trends isto engage in partnerships with industry. Industrial part-

ners who support research at MIT include Amgen, FordMotor Company, Merck, and Merrill Lynch.

MIT Research Support Industrial Partnerships arelong term (5 to 10 years). The support provided bythese partners amounts to about $3 million per year. Ajoint committee of MIT and industry representativesallocates $2.5 million of this. The remaining $0.5 mil-lion is a “discretionary” fund.

The normal MIT policies on research support arefollowed in these partnerships. This means that theresearch should be of intellectual interest to the princi-pal investigator on the project. The principal investi-gator is responsible for directing the project, whichshould provide some mix of thesis opportunities forstudents, the advancement of knowledge, or advance-ment of the state of the art. Any visiting scholars onthe project are chosen by the faculty and are expectedto make significant contributions to the research project.Ideally, these industrially sponsored research projectsshould balance MIT’s educational purposes and thesearch for knowledge to meet the needs of industry.

The results of these partnership projects must befreely published—this is a requirement for MIT tomaintain its tax-exempt status. Thus the results areavailable to anyone, regardless of the source of the re-search support. There is no delay in giving studentsacademic credit for the work; however, to protect patentrights, publication of the results may be delayed by asmuch as 30 days (60 days in extreme circumstances).

The industrial sponsor approves any thesis proposaland agrees in advance that anything falling within theproposal can be freely published. The sponsor has 30days to review the thesis and publications to ensurethat they contain no proprietary information.

MIT retains title to all intellectual property devel-oped by employees of MIT using significant funds orfacilities administered by the university. All researchsponsorship agreements at MIT are negotiated by theuniversity and, regardless of the sponsor, transfer therights to intellectual property to MIT. The university,in turn, licenses the intellectual property to encouragetechnology transfer for development by industry in thepublic interest. Intellectual property that is developedby visiting scholars also belongs to MIT.

If products produced under license from MIT are tobe sold in the United States, then MIT requires a sub-stantial amount of the manufacturing of that product to

NOTE: This article was prepared from notes taken by astaff member of the Board on Physics and Astronomy.

30

be carried out in the United States. The royalty splitis one-third to the inventor before expenses; the re-maining after-expense income is divided equallybetween the inventor’s department or laboratory andthe central administration of MIT.

The sponsor may have a nonexclusive royalty-free license to these inventions for internal use. Thesponsor may also obtain exclusive commercial rights

and pay royalties to MIT, or the sponsor may obtaina nonexclusive commercial license in exchange forpaying the patent maintenance costs, or the sponsormay waive all rights and receive 25 percent of theafter-expense income from the patent. If MITchooses not to file a patent, then the sponsor has theright to do so in MIT’s name. The sponsor mustthen choose from the four options listed above.

Changing Roles for Government Laboratories

John P. McTagueVice President (retired), Ford Motor Company

John McTague, in introducing his subject, declaredthat he would focus primarily on trends within the De-partment of Energy (DOE) laboratories, a focus sharp-ened by the perspectives that he has gained as co-chairof the Secretary of Energy’s Laboratory OperationsBoard. He noted that the DOE laboratory complex hasreceived considerable criticism over recent years, pri-marily in two areas: (1) for alleged, or perceived, du-plication of effort within the laboratories; and (2) forthe laboratories’ tendency (in view of ever-tighteningbudgets and decreasing programmatic support in someof their traditional areas) toward “mission creep.”Laboratories invent new missions—in particular, theformerly popular and politically correct mission of “in-dustrial competitiveness,” which many of the DOElaboratories embraced as the Cold War came to an endand as the defense-driven support for R&D began towane.

These criticisms and the associated perception ofDOE’s inefficient management of its laboratories werehighlighted in the Galvin Commission Report of 1994.McTague noted that the aforementioned critics are atleast somewhat off the mark in the sense that the labo-ratories do not have missions from Congress—it is theDepartment of Energy that has the missions. The labo-ratories are premiere among the DOE’s resources toexecute its missions. Therefore, it is the Departmentof Energy’s job to bring the laboratories, universities,and other R&D providers to bear, both collectively andindividually, to accomplish its missions.

A challenge that has been gaining increasing accep-tance and discussion in recent years is how to get thelaboratories to operate as a true system and, more gen-erally, how laboratories and other partners can workmore effectively together to attack problems of nationalimportance. In attempting to address this question,

McTague described four examples of more-or-less suc-cessful orchestration of the suites of instruments rep-resented by these laboratories and their partners.

The first example is the Center of Excellence forthe Synthesis and Processing of Advanced Materials.It is a virtual center, directed by George Samara ofSandia National Laboratories, and involves 12 DOElaboratories, as well as several industries and some in-dustrial partners. The idea is, with a modest incremen-tal investment of only about $2.5 million a year, to pro-vide value-added, enhanced coupling among projectsof related natures that are already taking place withinthese many laboratories. Selective projects from withintheir suite of capabilities are coordinated and joinedtogether, so that the whole exceeds the sum of the parts.This has been a very successful enterprise, andMcTague identified some key elements of that successthrough the example of aluminum alloy formability.

In the auto industry, which worldwide producessomething like two vehicles per second, a small ad-vance can have a huge integrated impact. The centerhas achieved such an advance in this highly leveragedapplication. Similar opportunities arise in the areas ofjoining and welding, and McTague described some ex-amples of using a transparent welding analog wherethe effect of weld freeze rates on joint shapes can bedirectly observed.

One important attribute of this center’s approach isthat it is multidimensional in the sense that the numberof component projects is large enough that statisticallya reasonable number of them will succeed, and the suc-cess of the whole project does not depend on everysingle element being successful on its own. This fairlyloose coupling among the projects minimizes, there-fore, the chances of overall failure and gives high le-verage to the added value of the investment in affect-

31

ing the coupling.McTague’s second example is “The Partnership for

a New Generation of Vehicles,” an extremely largeproject costing approximately $600 million a year. Itinvolves USCAR (a consortium of the Big Threeautomakers in the United States) and a Department-of-Commerce-led government consortium of the De-partments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Transpor-tation, and Interior, as well as the Environmental Pro-tection Agency, the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, and the National Science Foundation(NSF). Industry has a very large influence on how thegovernment participants allocate their resources in thiscase. The good news of this project is the high paral-lelism of interest among all the partners in reachingthe stated goal of achieving a 300 percent increase infuel efficiency in the next generation of vehicles.

The specific goals are stated as outcomes, but thepaths to those outcomes are not specified. So, for ex-ample, the flywheel approach has been tried and aban-doned. Fuel cells, on the other hand, look consider-ably more promising. The bad news is that there is anextremely high overhead as a result of working togetherbecause there are so many players. Indeed, it took 18months to get the detailed agreements and working re-lationships in place for this collaboration. Neverthe-less, it represents a collaboration at an interagency level,involving many of the Department of Energy laborato-ries and funding from several of the agencies. It is agood example of the kind of orchestration that is re-quired for large advances in technology.

The third example is the Spallation Neutron Sourceproject. This $1.3 billion facility, to be built at OakRidge National Laboratories, involves a collaborationamong five DOE laboratories. The major risk and dis-advantage of this project, aside from its considerableexpense and complexity, is that it is “one-dimensional.”Every single element, from the source through theaccelerator, to the accumulator ring to the target sta-tion to the laboratory instruments is in series. The over-all project can succeed if, and only if, every one of theelements, namely every one of the laboratories, doesits job 100 percent correctly.

It is questionable whether proper orchestration ofsuch an effort is really possible given the current struc-ture of the laboratories and the Department of Energy.This project lacks what McTague would call the “sta-tistical safety” of his first two examples. It is verymuch an open and important question as to whetherthe five DOE laboratories in this case can operate as asystem. The answer is that they simply have to. The

question remains, can they?The fourth example is a major new initiative in in-

formation technology. “Information Technology forthe 21st Century,” or IT², adds approximately $150million to the research portfolio—primarily in the NSF,but with additional funding for several of the other agen-cies as well. The idea is to push forward the develop-ment of distributed and highly interconnected comput-ing capabilities. It is very important because it mightlead to a revolution in engineering and product devel-opment, including safety, through the use of more re-alistic simulations.

McTague mentioned, as an aside, that at the FordMotor Company, simulation has become an integralpart of design and also product worthiness. Indeed thecompany is now at point where the simulation of anautomobile crash can be “more accurate than the ex-periment” in the sense that in the simulation you cankeep track, reproducibly and quantitatively, of everyelement of the vehicle and the event, whereas an ex-periment must typically be repeated many times with-out assurance that the exact initial conditions are re-produced or that measurements are done in sufficientdetail. The IT² initiative resembles the DOE’s majorsimulation advances in the Accelerated Strategic Com-puting Initiative Program and the Strategic ScienceInitiative. Even within the DOE, those two projectsare really not being coordinated.

The involvement of the DOE with the NSF and otheragencies in this major IT² initiative is still incompletelyformed. Indeed the ownership and leadership of thewhole IT² enterprise are still unsettled. Even with thesecaveats, though, McTague felt that the prospects forsuccess are reasonable because the project is multidi-mensional. In other words, the success of the wholeenterprise does not depend on the success of everysingle element working to perfection. The elements inthis case are not catastrophically interdependent.

McTague concluded by noting that he felt cautiouslyoptimistic that the agencies and the laboratories woulddevelop more coherent and fully orchestrated ways ofworking together and that they might in fact evolvefrom a collection to a system in the foreseeable future.

During the questions following his talk, DavidLitster of MIT noted that the DOE’s problems includehaving a number of “associate conductors” in their or-chestra in the form of program managers within theheadquarters and also at the field offices. McTague’scomment was that the DOE often lacks the necessaryin-house technical expertise among its managers, andtherefore it is not managing the laboratories as a sys-

32

tem. The Laboratory Operations Board has been ex-amining the question of laboratory governance fora couple of years now, and a report on this is beingprepared with a set of recommendations. At present,the preliminary grade is no better than a C+ in im-proving the systems approach to laboratory manage-ment by the DOE, and the rate of progress has beenslow.

Murray Gibson of the University of Illinois askedabout the notion of “corporatization” of the labora-tories, as suggested by the Galvin Report.McTague’s response was that the Galvin Report re-ally indicated that it was the management dynamicsof the laboratories that is poor, which stems fromthe government’s tendency to focus on inputs asmetrics rather than on outcomes. The Galvin Re-port suggested strongly that this emphasis is back-ward. Industry measures outputs and outcomes inorder to determine its success. The most easilymeasured is the bottom line in the profit and lossstatement. But McTague also noted that the idea ofindustrial or good business practices in managementwas the original basis for the concept of the govern-ment-owned, contractor-operated approach to thenational laboratories. The question with respect tothe DOE laboratories then becomes, “Is the pathfrom the present input and compliance-driven fo-

cus to output and performance-driven focus adia-batically reversible?” The Galvin Report suggeststhat the answer is “no,” and the Laboratory Opera-tions Board is trying to figure out ways to approachthe answer in the affirmative.

Jack Rush raised concerns about the DOE rulesthat impute increasing liability to the maintenanceand operation contractors for the laboratories, im-plying that these rules inhibit the performance ofexisting contractors or the participation of new con-tractors who would do a good job at running the labo-ratories. McTague’s answer was that the DOE“mega rule” allows the nonprofit maintenance andoperation contractors to get relief from these in-creased liability concerns, but because for-profitcontractors generally get large fees to run the labo-ratories, they are expected to address the liabilities.It remains unclear whether the shift of liability bur-den to the contractor is actually improving perfor-mance and lowering costs. He suggested that weneed to have more data to examine the cost/benefitanalysis of this “mega-rule” approach. Although itis clear that the costs to manage the laboratories havegone up, particularly for environmental safety andhealth concerns, it is not clear whether the healthand safety of the environment in the laboratorieshave increased correspondingly.

A panel discussion was held at the end of the firstday. The panelists were asked to comment on thefuture of condensed-matter and materials physics re-search. There was a general discussion aboutchanges in research funding during the previousdecade and how the community can cope with them,the need for improved education at all levels, andthe future directions of the field.

Skip Stiles pointed out that Congress will be liv-ing under spending caps for the next 2 fiscal yearsand that there will be no additional money until then

unless Congress lifts the caps. Harlan Watson con-curred with Stiles and said that he sees little likeli-hood that the caps will be lifted—at least in the nearterm.

According to Watson, the Administration’s out-year projections for Department of Energy (DOE)research funding will remain flat for the next fewyears. To meet the flat budgets, the major DOE re-search facilities may need to cut costs by reducingtheir operating hours.

Thomas Weber pointed out that funding in hisdivision has also been flat. He postulated that if theNSF were a mission agency it would: (1) strengthen

NOTE: This article was prepared from notes taken by astaff member of the Board on Physics and Astronomy.

Panel Discussion of the Future of Materials R&D

Moderator: Tom Russell, Chair, Solid State Sciences Committee

Panel: Cherry A. Murray, Committee on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics; Venkatesh Narayanamurti,Chair, Committee on Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics; Skip Stiles, House Science Committee MinorityStaff; William Oosterhuis, Department of Energy; Harlan Watson, House Science Committee Majority Staff;Thomas Weber, National Science Foundation

33

the physical infrastructure, (2) integrate research andeducation, and (3) promote partnerships.

Weber said that, despite some resistance amongprogram managers at first, he sees funding of educa-tion as a win-win situation for his division. VenkateshNarayanamurti pointed out that the NSF is one of themajor stakeholders in the field and that although wehave come a long way in preparing students to work ininterdisciplinary teams, there is still much room forimprovement.

Cherry Murray pointed out industry’s need forhighly skilled people and that university training is akey to the success of domestic and global industries.She said that industry often presents a “problem-rich”environment, with exciting science, and pointed outthat condensed-matter and materials physics (CMMP)has applications that can be important for the Depart-ment of Defense (DOD), the National Science Foun-dation (NSF), DOE, or industry.

Stiles said that the CMMP community can make acompelling argument for increased funding but that themoney will go to other needs unless the university andindustrial communities present a unified case to Con-gress on a continuing basis. He pointed to The Physicsof Materials as a document with the right tone and shapefor Congress and said that much more along that lineneeds to be done.

Narayanamurti expressed a note of caution regard-ing changes at the DOE. He was concerned that thebalance in the number of laboratories is very delicate.He said that if the DOE tries to fund too many labora-tories, then rivalry between laboratories working in thesame area will drag down the system and that, on theother hand, if the DOE funds too few laboratories, thenthere will not be enough interaction between them tostimulate progress. In his view, a key component inmaintaining this balance is strong technical leadership.

Weber was concerned about the need he sees to pro-mote international collaboration without giving awayour advantages in research. He sees the main chal-lenges of the future as making links to biologically in-spired materials, inventing and improving microscopesand other instruments, making sense of complex phe-nomena, and producing students interested in science.

William Oosterhuis reminded the audience that sci-entists are involved in CMMP because of the stimulat-ing questions that can be attacked using modern in-struments and techniques. He would like to see astrengthening of the neutron infrastructure and newexperimental techniques using them. He is concernedwith how we can best study the growing array of self-

organizing materials. He claimed that one techniqueis to combine the Scientific Simulation Initiative withcombinatorial chemistry to fine-tune the computations.He believes that this combination will allow DOE-funded researchers to do things never before possiblein modeling complex materials.

Following the panel discussion, the panelists re-ceived several questions from the audience.

Question: We are in danger of losing a cadre ofexcellent young researchers. How can this be addressedin an era of flat or declining budgets?

Narayanamurti replied that more Young Investiga-tor awards need to be funded. NSF and the Office ofNaval Research are funding some, but more needs tobe done. Oosterhuis said that the DOE is interested infunding young people but there needs to be a formalprogram set up at the agency for funding them. Webersaid that the NSF has established the Faculty EarlyCareer Development (CAREER) program and that al-though his division has no formal program, he has setaside a small pool of money to fund a competitive pro-gram geared toward a diverse pool of applicants doingrisky research.

Question: We all heard a lot about DOD’sdownsizing. Agencies used to look around and say,“If someone else is funding research in topic X, thenwe don’t need to.” Now there are areas that are notbeing investigated at all. Should agencies get moneyto pick up the areas that are not being adequatelyfunded?

Stiles responded that under the current conditions, sci-ence has virtually no voice in Congress. He said that thescience community needs to step up and help Congressset its priorities for funding and that it must be an ongo-ing process. Watson countered that Congress is not theright body to make these decisions. He said that thePresident’s budget submission is where these prioritiesare set and the Office of Science and Technology Policy(OSTP) is probably the place to start.

Question: The scientific community is fairly effec-tive at pointing out the benefits of doing research inparticular fields. Is it less effective at pointing out theconsequences of not funding certain research?

Stiles replied that if the community were prepared,it could help get more money for research, but the

34

groundwork must be done. Furthermore, he said thatthe funding does not need to be tied to a particular cri-sis.

Question: Does the scientific community need alobby to put pressure on Congress and OSTP?

According to Stiles, members of Congress do notneed to have a deep understanding of the field. Hesaid that what matters to them is how it touches thelives of people in their districts. Weber reiterated thatthe community should not focus all of its attention onCongress but should talk to the executive branch be-cause it makes the initial budget proposal.

Question: We have heard many times that CMMPcontributes to prosperity. How can we get the messageacross that if our government invests in CMMP, our so-ciety will get the largest return on the investment?

Stiles asked, “How is Congress getting this message?”He said that someone has to tell people in Congress on anindividual level and inform public policy structure—andthat information needs to be consistent. Judy Franz, Ex-ecutive Officer of the American Physical Society, pointedout that the American Physical Society has worked hardto get the message out and that grassroots lobbying is thebest way to do this. She added, however, that to be effec-tive it has to be done continuously and making this hap-pen is difficult because the community does not see thisactivity as an essential part of the life of a scientist.

Weber warned that the community needs to be care-ful in making economic arguments. He said that it is notpossible to say how today’s funding of research will im-pact the economy of the future.

Stiles advised the community to stay close to Con-gress because Congress can do things by accident thatcan harm the community, for example, the recent provi-

sion that makes data available to the public. He observedthat research is becoming a commodity—we are goingfrom a system of grants to one of contracts. Watson addedthat there is no free lunch in research and that most re-searchers get their money from the federal government.

Question: What are the statistics on collaborations?Is this a way to get federal funding?

Oosterhuis replied that research on significant prob-lems needs to done by teams. He believes that the prob-lems we currently face are more difficult and requireinput from diverse sources. He is trying to encouragecollaboration at DOE laboratories in areas where itmakes sense to do so. He pointed out that the DOE hasthe PAIR program to encourage these interactions.Weber called attention to the GOALI program at theNSF as an example of a program that encourages col-laborations.

Question: How can we convert S. 1305 from anauthorization bill to an appropriations bill?

Stiles replied that S. 1305 is a good organizing toolbut will not produce more money for science. He saidthat in the short term, only having Congress declare anemergency or lift the budget caps will accomplish that.He urged the community to ensure that the subcom-mittees that fund the community’s work get all the fund-ing they need. Watson responded that the requests needto get into the Administration’s budget request; other-wise, it will be difficult to get the requests into the fi-nal budget. He said that Congress can only “tweak”the numbers around the edges. Furthermore, he saidthat the community should bear in mind that there arehuge numbers of claimants for any pot of money. Be-cause one Congress cannot bind future Congresses, hethinks a large effort at passing “feel-good” legislationis a waste of time and effort.

35

III. Materials Education and Infrastructure

Materials Education for the 21st Century

Robert P.H. ChangNorthwestern University

ence of materials science and engineering (MSE). Thislack of awareness may be largely attributed to the al-most total absence of MSE at the precollege level. Evenat the college level, MSE programs number onlyslightly more than 100, out of the 4,000 colleges anduniversities in the United States. Only 45—fewer thanone-half—of those 100 programs have materials sci-ence and engineering departments.

Despite its low profile, materials science and engi-neering is an extremely important field for at least tworeasons. First, MSE involves interdisciplinary teach-ing, drawing on concepts from engineering, biology,chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Second, thesebasic disciplines, through materials science and engi-neering, have countless industrial applications that ben-efit society. From seat belts and computers to items asbasic and mundane as coffee filters, materials scienceand engineering contributes to the creation of productsthat allow us to perform daily tasks more safely andefficiently.

Its connection to real-world applications makesMSE a desirable field for many students, who realizethat a degree in MSE can secure them a good job. Infact, about 90 percent of students in MSE programswill ultimately work in industry. Only about 10 per-cent of graduate students in MSE, on the other hand,will pursue careers as serious researchers. Within thepast several years, more and more students have beentransferring from science departments into MSE or havebeen doing materials-related research.

The graduate curriculum in MSE has also changedwith the times. Specifically, the focus of study hasshifted from areas like metallurgy to the study of elec-tronic, polymeric, and biomolecular materials. Giventhese trends, the hiring of new faculty has been gearedtoward the recruitment of those with expertise in thestudy of new materials and in the study of materials atthe atomic/molecular level, rather than at the macro-scopic level.

One of the most significant sources of support formaterials science and engineering is the National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF). The NSF funds 28 MaterialsResearch Science and Engineering Centers, all of whichpromote MSE’s multidisciplinary approach to research

The current state of affairs in U.S. education, al-though not altogether negative, should certainly giveus pause. Over 90 percent of students now graduatefrom high school; 67 percent of them enroll in college.Approximately 14 million students were enrolled incolleges and universities in 1996. The number of stu-dents who enter college is not, however, commensu-rate with the number of degreed graduates. Indeed,the graduation rate of students attending NCAA Divi-sion I institutions in 1996 was a mere 56 percent. Atthe cost of approximately $10,000 per student per yearin a public university, the college dropout rate meansthat taxpayers are suffering significant losses in bothhuman and financial resources. Particularly in the ar-eas of science and mathematics, students in the UnitedStates are lagging behind their international counter-parts. The reasons for poor performance in mathemat-ics and science include a dearth of teachers trained inthe subject that they teach (only an estimated 30 per-cent of science and mathematics teachers actually ma-jored in the subject that they are certified to teach) andstudents’ failure to see the connections between scien-tific and mathematical principles and the world aroundthem. Given students’ lagging interest in science andthe fact that there are states, Illinois, for instance, thatrequire high school students to take no more than 2years of science, it is hardly surprising that science andengineering programs are now facing declining enroll-ments.

In assessing the current state of education, we shouldalso consider the changing population in the UnitedStates. Within the next 50 years, groups that are cur-rently in the minority will become the majority. Ifmembers of minority groups are not able to receive atop-quality education, then our entire economy willsuffer.

As we enter the next century, we find ourselves facedwith the challenge of improving our educational sys-tem overall. Those of us invested in materials educa-tion also face some formidable obstacles. Most im-portantly, the general public is not aware of the exist-


36

velopment/teacher training.The desire to provide teachers with the tools to spark

their students’ interest in science, mathematics, andtechnology, along with the wish to link university re-search to precollege education, led to the creation ofthe Materials World Modules (MWM). Developedwith the support of a grant from the National ScienceFoundation, the Materials World Modules are hands-on, inquiry-based modules that focus on various topicsin materials science. The modules have been designedto supplement middle and high school science, math-ematics, and technology courses. Each module beginswith a teacher demonstration that piques the students’interest. Next, students complete a series of inquiry-based activities, simulating the work that scientists do.Finally, each module culminates in two design chal-lenges, where students simulate the work of engineers.

Materials World Modules is a total materials edu-cational program that also offers services such as work-shops for teachers, an interactive CD-ROM, and a Website where teachers can access help and resources online. To date, MWM has been introduced in 450 schoolsnationwide and used by approximately 9,000 studentsand 450 teachers. At 16 hub sites in 14 states, teachershave been trained in MWM workshops. The next stepfor the Materials World Modules program will beMWM-2002, a delivery system via the Internet thatwill enable teachers to order and purchase customizedmodules on line and to receive teaching developmentand support services via an interactive Web site.

In addition to the Materials World Modules pro-gram, Northwestern University has recently embarkedon a collaborative effort with the Intel corporation topromote student participation in science fairs at sevensites in six states. This “Winning with Inquiry” initia-tive will involve the use of Materials World Modules,introducing students to materials science and technol-ogy.

At the college level, Northwestern offers the Re-search Experience for Undergraduates and MinorityStudents Programs. Begun in 1986, these programsprovide the opportunity for undergraduates fromschools across the country to participate in research atNorthwestern. These programs encourage promisingundergraduates to pursue graduate studies in MSE byenabling them to experience interdisciplinary materi-als research under the direction of faculty advisors.

Northwestern’s Research Experience for ScienceTeachers allows high school teachers, and some col-lege professors as well, to work with university pro-fessors during the summer on research projects related

and education. In addition, 4 of the 24 Science andTechnology Centers that are sponsored by the NSF areadministered through the Division of Materials Re-search. Finally, a number of NSF-sponsored Engineer-ing Research Centers also do materials-related research.

It is clear, when one looks at the state of educationgenerally, as well as materials education specifically,from the earliest grades up through college and gradu-ate school, that the precollege level requires the mostattention. Elementary, middle, and high schools con-stitute the foundation of our educational system. Sta-tistics show that as students progress through thesegrades, their proficiency scores on science tests dropdramatically. Fourth graders in the United States, forinstance, scored an average of 565 out of 600 points ona science proficiency test, whereas 12th graders earnedonly 461 points. Additionally, U.S. students performless competitively as they progress in school. Althoughthe 4th graders placed second only to Japanese 4th grad-ers, the 12th graders trailed students from all other coun-tries in the study.

In light of such findings, we can see that high schoolin particular is a crucial time for science education.Many high school students lose interest and then findthemselves ill-prepared to face the rigors of college-level science courses. Why does this happen? Is therea big difference in the approaches to education, and inparticular science education, between high school andcollege? Can we hold students’ insufficient prepara-tion in high school responsible for the high dropoutrate among college students? Most importantly, howcan materials science education help to bridge this gapbetween high school and college, particularly in sci-ence and engineering?

All materials education initiatives must undertaketo:

• Foster greater awareness of the importance ofMSE in society and among the general public;

• Introduce materials science and technology atthe precollege level to enhance mathematicsand science education; and

• Get teachers involved in materials science edu-cation and research.

Many universities and centers have embarked onworthy initiatives to reach these goals. NorthwesternUniversity has programs for precollege materials sci-ence and technology education, for undergraduates (es-pecially minority students) who are interested in mate-rials science and engineering, and for professional de-

37

to their subject area.At the college and graduate level, we must expand

materials programs to more colleges and universities, in-volve college and university professors in materials-re-lated research and teaching, and work toward the collec-tive development of materials courses among science andengineering departments. Industry should also have asignificant input in course design for MSE. Finally, atthe college and graduate level, we can aim to set up inter-active video linkage to other universities—especiallyminority institutions—whose students can then take ad-vantage of existing courses, seminars, and research col-laborations from MSE programs. Northwestern, for in-stance, is currently in the process of developing interac-tive video linkage to minority institutions.

Northwestern is also piloting a master’s degree inMaterials Technology and Education. This degree pre-

pares students to teach technicians in community col-leges. The requirements include at least three coursesin the School of Education, as well as real classroomand research experience.

At the global level, the United States has the op-portunity to set itself up as a role model for other coun-tries wishing to improve and expand materials educa-tion at all levels of education and among the generalpublic. International collaboration will also help toensure greater success for all countries striving to at-tain these goals. To foster greater collaboration andcommunication, a series of workshops has been heldand will continue to be held in preparation for build-ing a Materials World Network for Education, Re-search, and Technology. Four NSF-sponsored work-shops have already taken place, and a fifth is plannedin Africa for the year 2000.

Meeting the Challenge in Neutron Science

Thom MasonScientific Director, Spallation Neutron Source

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Thom Mason discussed the development of neutron-scattering research and the opportunities for new sci-ence presented by the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS).The development of neutron scattering has always de-pended on the availability of new, more powerfulsources and techniques. Although the neutron was dis-covered in 1932, it was not until the late 1940s—afterthe first reactors were constructed—that sufficient neu-tron fluxes were available for diffraction experiments.These first experiments, performed by Ernest Wollanand Clifford Shull at the Oak Ridge Graphite Reactor,demonstrated the importance of neutron scattering fordetermining the atomic-scale structure and magneticbehavior of materials.

In 1957, the National Research Universal reactorbecame operational in Canada. This reactor design wasspecifically optimized for neutron production. The in-creased flux and lower background enabled the devel-opment of neutron spectroscopy—the use of inelasticneutron scattering to determine the dynamical proper-ties of atoms in materials. Bertram Brockhouse ledthe development of neutron spectroscopy and, togetherwith Shull, shared the 1994 Nobel Prize in Physics forthe development of neutron-scattering techniques forstudies of condensed matter.

The development of cold neutron sources and neu-tron guides in the 1970s stimulated applications of neu-

tron scattering to studies of large-scale structures in-cluding polymers, macromolecular systems, and bio-logical structures. Cold sources shift the spectrum ofreactor neutrons from a peak temperature of approxi-mately 300 K (corresponding to a wavelength of 1.7Å) to 25 K or lower. This greatly increases the num-bers of longer wavelength neutrons in the range from 2to 20 Å, corresponding to important length scales inpolymer chains, large molecules, and membranes.Neutron guides efficiently transport neutrons awayfrom the reactor to experimental halls where back-ground levels are greatly reduced. These developments,implemented first on a large scale at the Institut LaueLangevin in France, opened new areas of science andsensitivity to neutron scattering.

Today, we sit at another threshold in the develop-ment of neutron scattering. Pulsed spallation neutronsources, based on neutrons produced by bombardingheavy metal atoms with high-energy protons, are dem-onstrating exceptional promise in neutron scatteringfrom studies of superconductivity to nondestructivemeasurements of internal stresses in turbine engines.These neutron sources produce intense pulses of neu-trons at repetition rates of 10 to 60 pulses per second.The neutrons are moderated and transmitted throughbeam guides to experiments surrounded by hundredsof detectors. The pulsed time structure and large num-

38

Toward a Fourth-Generation Light Source

David E. MonctonAssociate Laboratory Director, Advanced Photon Source

Argonne National Laboratory

ber of detectors result in enormous data rates for manyimportant scattering experiments, resulting in increasedsensitivity and sample throughput.

The neutron is a weakly interacting, nonperturbingprobe of matter with simple, well-understood couplingto atoms and spins. The high penetrating power ofneutrons means that extreme sample environments canbe easily accommodated by passing the neutron beamthrough the walls of cryostats, furnaces, or pressurevessels. It also means that the interior of bulk samplesand manufactured components can easily be probedwith neutrons. Unlike x-rays, neutron-scattering crosssections are similar across the periodic table, makinglight and heavy elements equally visible. In addition,neutron-scattering cross sections are isotope specific,making it possible to distinguish hydrogen from deu-terium, for example, in specially prepared samples.This sensitivity to light elements and isotopes makesneutrons particularly useful in determining the loca-tion and behavior of hydrogen and other low-Z ele-ments in materials. The energies and wavelengths ofneutrons are well matched to atomic and molecularlength scales and excitation energies in materials, mak-ing the neutron an outstanding probe of structure anddynamics in superconductivity, magnetism, phase tran-sitions, electronic properties, nonequilibrium phenom-ena, and macromolecular systems.

The Spallation Neutron Source, presently under de-velopment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, will bethe world’s most powerful pulsed neutron source. TheSNS is being constructed by a collaboration of Argonne,Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, and OakRidge national laboratories. Scheduled for completionat the end of 2005, the SNS will provide the nationwith unprecedented capabilities in neutron scattering,satisfying a long-recognized scientific need. The SNSwill be a 1 MW source, easily upgraded to 4 MW, sup-porting over 40 instruments. An initial complement of

10 instruments surrounding a target station operatingat 60 pulses per second is currently being developed,and a second target station and additional instrumentsare in the planning stage. More than 2,000 scientistsfrom universities, industry, and government laborato-ries are expected to perform neutron-scattering researchat the SNS each year.

The SNS will enable new science in engineeringmaterials, surfaces and interfaces, magnetic and super-conducting systems, macromolecular science and bio-logical structures, real space imaging of living systems,and many other areas of condensed-matter sciencewhere increased peak fluxes, signal-to-noise ratios, anddata rates contribute to improved sensitivity. In stud-ies of engineering materials, the SNS will provide sub-millimeter resolution for nondestructive measurementsof strain, composition, texture, and plastic deforma-tion history inside bulk materials and components.Neutron reflectrometry will provide monolayer sensi-tivity for investigations of thin magnetic films andmolecular transport studies across biological mem-branes. Complex, interacting systems such as low-di-mensional magnets and charge and spin ordering insuperconductors will become increasingly accessibleto fundamental study at the SNS. In biological systems,the SNS will help establish the link between structureand function by enabling studies in solution, by locatingfunctional subunits within larger assemblies, and by ex-ploiting hydrogen-deuterium contrast to locate hydrogenin biological molecules. New developments in imagingscience are expected based on using the tunability of neu-tron energies to enhance sensitivity for selected nuclei inliving systems. With these and other unique capabilities,the SNS represents the future of neutron scattering—afield that is providing much of our current understandingof condensed matter including magnetism, superconduc-tivity, complex fluids and polymers, and the structure anddynamics of materials.

Historically, x-ray research has been propelled bythe existence of urgent and compelling scientific ques-tions and by the push of powerful and exquisite source


technology. These two factors have gone hand-in-handsince Roentgen discovered x-rays. Here we review theprogress being made with existing third-generationsynchrotron-radiation light sources and the prospectsfor a fourth-generation light source with dramaticallyimproved laser-like beam characteristics.

The central technology for high-brilliance x-ray

39

beams is the x-ray undulator, a series of alternating-pole magnets situated above and below the particlebeam. When the particle beam is oscillated by the al-ternating magnetic fields, a set of interacting and in-terfering wave fronts is produced, which leads to an x-ray beam with extraordinary properties. Third-genera-tion sources of light in the hard x-ray range have beenconstructed at three principal facilities: the EuropeanSynchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in France; theSuper Photon Ring 8-GeV (or Spring-8) in Japan; andthe Advanced Photon Source (APS) in the UnitedStates. Undulator technology is also used on a numberof low-energy machines for radiation in the ultravioletand soft x-ray regimes.

At the APS, these devices exceed our original ex-pectations for beam brilliance, tunability, spectralrange, and operational flexibility. Figure 1 presentsthe tuning curves of the first few harmonics, showingx-ray production from a few kiloelectronvolts to betterthan 40 keV. High-brilliance radiation extends to over100 keV.

Figure 1. Tuning curves for the on-axis brilliance,first three odd harmonics of APS undulators.

The new science coming from the APS depends onits unique beam characteristics. A very high degree ofcollimation makes it possible to monochromate 20 keV

x-ray beams to ~1 meV. These beams can be used fortriple-axis inelastic scattering studies of lattice dynam-ics that had previously been the sole province of neu-tron scattering. But the most important aspect of x-rayinelastic scattering will be in charge excitations ratherthan in lattice dynamical excitations. Beautiful workin that respect is ongoing at the ESRF and beginning atthe APS.

Although the x-ray beams from undulators are notsubstantially coherent, their extreme brilliance allowsone to extract a small coherent fraction, which con-tains a significant number of photons. Recently, x-rayphoton correlation spectroscopy methods have beendeveloped to exploit this coherence for measuring thedynamics of fluid systems.

The unique characteristics of undulator radiationhave recently been applied to macromolecular crystal-lography. The results have been spectacular. It is nowpossible, with a good crystal, to get a data set for astructure determination in well under 1 hour. In somecases, 15 or 20 minutes are adequate to collect all ofthe data necessary for structure determination. The x-ray step in a structure determination is no longer therate-limiting step. The current ability to do structuresat synchrotron x-ray sources would seem to be an idealsolution to determining the better than 100,000 struc-tures whose codes are contained in the human genome.Such a “structural genomics” enterprise has generatedconsiderable excitement.

But structural biologists will be able to go beyondstatic structures. X-ray beams from the APS undulatorsare so intense, one can acquire a high-quality diffrac-tion pattern in a single pulse. These pulses are on theorder of 100 ps long, and each of them contains enoughphotons to get a reasonable diffraction pattern from agood biological crystal. That capability opens the pos-sibility of studying the time evolution of a molecularstructure, for example, by using a laser to initiate achemical reaction.

Very simple developments in instrumentation can havea profound scientific impact. Because the beam fromAPS undulators exhibits a high degree of brilliance andcollimation, Fresnel zone plate lenses work extremely wellto provide very-high-quality focal characteristics. Withour most successful Fresnel lenses, we are able to achievefocal spots down to 100 nm and to preserve very highoptical efficiency (in the 10 percent to 30 percent range).That small focal spot can be used for studying how theproperties of materials vary on the submicrometer lengthscale. In another application, we propose to mount a num-ber of Fresnel lenses on a chip. We would use these lenses

40

The technology for this next-generation lightsource is based on undulators just like those at theAPS, but with significant interaction between thehigh-density particle beam generated in the linac andthe electromagnetic field it generates. It is this in-teraction that produces the lasing action. There aredifferent ways to achieve that lasing action in anFEL; but in the x-ray range, we will rely on self-amplified spontaneous emission. If the electrondensity is high enough, then the field that it pro-duces causes an interaction that creates a lasing ac-tion. The undulator has to be long in order for thatinteraction to build up. At the APS, our undulatorsare typically a few meters long and produce beamswhich, 20 m away from the source, are on the orderof ~1 mm in size. The new facility will haveundulators that are ~100 m long and its beam willbe on the order of 1/10 mm in size at 100 m.

Of the many scientific opportunities associatedwith this new facility, a few are extremely compel-ling. One is the large quantitative improvement incoherence. We expect significant advances in im-aging structures using x-ray holographic methods,which could revolutionize structural chemistry andbiology. And since this fully coherent beam will beonly 100 fs long rather than the 100 ps at the APS,there will be opportunity for significant improve-ment in time-resolved measurements in what isclearly a very important time regime. But the ad-vance that can potentially change the paradigm forx-ray research in the next century will be a 1010 to1012 increase in photon degeneracy. It will enablethe multiphoton methods that are not possible withthird-generation sources, permit the study of x-raynonlinear processes in matter, and perhaps opensome new regimes of fundamental high-field phys-ics, a very recent idea.

To have this major fourth-generation user facil-ity ready by the year 2010, an aggressive R&D pro-gram must begin now. Fourth-generation light-source technology development represents a biggerstep than did third-generation light-source technol-ogy. But existing linear accelerators, including thoseat Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven Na-tional Laboratory, and the Stanford SynchrotronRadiation Laboratory, offer a cost-effective way toreduce technical risk and begin to explore the ex-traordinary scientific possibilities that lie ahead.

to simultaneously probe a number of microsamples de-posited on a second chip that have gradients in their chemi-cal composition or in their preparation parameters andthus obtain data in a highly parallel fashion.

The sample chips could be used for x-ray diffractionexperiments or x-ray microscopy experiments. Thosesame samples could be put into other instruments thatwould measure their physical properties, such as specificheat or conductivity. Thus, one can develop methodolo-gies for accumulating very large databases, which will bevery useful for studying complex materials problems, suchas high-critical-temperature superconductors.

Concurrent with developing new applications for third-generation light sources, the community is thinking aboutthe fourth generation of light sources (Figure 2) based onx-ray free-electron lasers (FELs). The most compellingparameter associated with this technology will be peakbrilliance. It now appears possible to obtain a beam withpeak brilliance 10 orders of magnitude higher than wehave in APS today. That beam will also have a time-average brilliance higher by six orders of magnitude anda time-average flux higher by two orders of magnitude.Any new facility must serve a broad clientele, so R&D isunder way to develop superconducting linacs, whichshould be capable of serving multiple (~100) beamlinessimultaneously. It also appears possible to design a sourcethat could serve the entire spectral range, from the infra-red to the hard x-ray regime, in order to eliminate theneed for different energy machines for different regionsof the electromagnetic spectrum.

Figure 2. Comparison of technical parameters forthird- and fourth-generation x-ray sources.

41

Smaller Facilities—Opportunities and Needs

J. Murray GibsonUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Argonne National Laboratory

Smaller-scale facilities often fall through the largecrack that lies between the laboratory of an individualprincipal investigator and the large-scale facilities suchas synchrotrons or neutron sources. Although the capi-tal equipment investment in an individual researcher’slaboratory is typically less than $100,000, the equip-ment in a smaller facility is typically worth between$100,000 and $10 million. A large facility costs morethan $100 million. Such facilities provide capabilitiesthat are far beyond what is available in the laboratoryof an individual researcher. Activities usually involvevisualization, atomic manipulation, materials synthe-sis and processing, and/or materials testing. Smallerfacilities are found at 4 Department of Energy (DOE)national centers, 26 National Science Foundation (NSF)Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers(MRSECs), and about 100 smaller centers throughoutthe United States.

An example of a smaller facility is the DOE-sup-ported Materials Research Laboratory at the Univer-sity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Characterizationcapabilities include Auger electron spectroscopy,Rutherford backscattering, x-ray photoelectron spec-troscopy, transmission electron microscopy, scanningelectron microscopy, atomic force microscopy, second-ary ion mass spectrometry, and x-ray diffraction. Thecapital equipment in the center is worth about $50 mil-lion. Operating costs are approximately $1.5 millionper year. Replacement costs for the capital equipmentaverage about $2.5 million per year.

Many of the techniques found in smaller-scale fa-cilities have improved dramatically over the last de-cade. As an example, the resolution of scanning elec-tron microscopy has improved at the rate parallelingMoore’s law. New characterization techniques havesteadily entered the materials analysis arsenal, result-ing from fundamental advances made in a variety offields.

The accomplishments of characterization techniquesfound in smaller facilities have been very impressivein the 1990s. For example, scanning probemicroscopies have developed and proliferated. Thesetechniques are widely used in furthering understand-ing of thin film growth. It is now possible to watchatoms migrate across surfaces and to image electronicstates from dopants and imperfections in semiconduc-

tors. Surface atoms can now be manipulated, one atomat a time, to make quantum corrals or whimsical atomic-size figures. New magnetic probes have emerged, in-cluding magnetic force microscopy and scanning elec-tron microscopy with polarization analysis. Transmis-sion electron microscopy holography has been used toimage vortices in superconductors. Low-energy elec-tron microscopy was invented decades ago, but recentimprovements have made it considerably more usableand more widely available. Transmission electronmicroscopy was used to discover carbon nanotubes andprobe the physical and electronic structure of interfaces.Interface and surface science studies have elucidatedthe Si surface structure at the Si/SiO2 interface, theyhave provided fundamental information on bonding andadhesion, and they have given insight into catalysis viaparticle characterization and activity and zeolite struc-ture determinations.

Various techniques have probed the relationshipbetween defects and critical currents in high-tempera-ture superconductivity.

Looking to the future, it seems clear that the tech-niques resident in smaller-scale facilities will continueto improve as we seek an ever more detailed view ofthe atomic-scale world. Some of the directions thatappear particularly promising include “smart” tips onscanning probe microscopes that will have the abilityto recognize and locate specific molecular species. Thesemiconductor industry will demand increasinglyhigher sensitivity analysis, particularly of surfaces, asdesign rules continue to shrink. Recent developmentsin microelectromechanical devices and systems raisethe possibility of designing and performing portablemicroexperiments on very small samples, areas, orvolumes. Increases in computational power and theadvent of the Internet offer opportunities for remotecontrol of apparatus and automated data analysis.Thirty years of work on electron optics has paid offwith the development of aberration corrections thatpromise to have tremendous impact on the resolutionobtainable in various electron microscopies, especiallyon the scanning electron microscopy of large samples(e.g., semiconductor wafers). Work on this problemrequired decades of patient investment in research—investment that was not made in the United States butinstead occurred in Europe, particularly in Germany,

42

cilities play—reports of microcharacterization ap-pear in 30 percent of recently published materialsphysics articles and in 45 percent of materials chem-istry articles. Facilities offer the ability to maintainand operate such capabilities efficiently. They alsooffer access to expert advice on the techniques, edu-cational opportunities, and centers for techniquedevelopment. The face of materials research wouldbe unimaginably different without adequately sup-ported facilities of this kind.

and in Asia. A direct ramification of this is that theUnited States is now behind the rest of the world inbeing able to access newly available technology.

Smaller-scale facilities lack the visibility of large-scale facilities or the broad recognition of impor-tance that principal investigator research enjoys.This leads to concerns that such facilities will in-creasingly be caught in a budget squeeze betweenthe two ends of the funding spectrum. It is criticalto realize the important role that smaller-scale fa-

Figure 1. Examples of how major scientific and tech-nological advances have an impact on new products.

43

IV. Materials R&D—A Vision of the Scientific Frontier

The Science of Modern Technology

Paul PeercySEMI/SEMATECH

Electronic, Optical, and MagneticMaterials and Phenomena

We have seen numerous important unexpected dis-coveries in all areas of condensed-matter and materi-als physics in the decade since Physics Through theNineties was published. Although these scientific dis-coveries are extremely impressive, perhaps equallyimpressive are the technological advances based on ourever-increasing understanding of the basic physics ofmaterials along with our increasing ability to tailor thecomposition and structure of materials in a cost-effec-tive manner. Today’s technological revolution wouldnot be possible without the continuing increase in ourscientific understanding of materials and phenomena,along with the processing and synthesis required forhigh-volume, low-cost manufacturing. This article ex-amines selected examples of the scientific and techno-logical impact of electronic, optical, and magnetic ma-terials and phenomena.

Technology based on electronic, optical, and mag-netic materials is driving the information age throughrevolutions in computing and communications. With theminiaturization made possible by the invention of thetransistor and the integrated circuit (IC), enormous com-puting and communication capabilities are becomingreadily available worldwide. These technological ca-pabilities enabled the Information Age and are funda-mentally changing how we live, interact, and transactbusiness. These technologies provide an excellent dem-onstration of the strong interdependence and interplayof science and technology. They have greatly expandedthe tools and capabilities available to scientists and en-gineers in all areas of research and development, rang-ing from basic physics and materials research to otherareas of physics and to such diverse fields as medicineand biotechnology.

Incorporation of major scientific and technologicaladvances into new products can take decades and of-ten follows unpredictable paths. Selected technologiessupported by the foundations of electronic, photonic,

and magnetic phenomena and materials are illustratedin Figure 1 (shown on previous page). These technolo-gies have enabled breakthrough technologies in virtu-ally every sector of the national economy. The two-way interplay between foundations and technology is amajor driving force in this field. The most recent fun-damental advances and technological discoveries haveyet to realize their potential.

The Science of Information Age Technology

The predominant semiconductor technology todayis the silicon-based integrated circuit. The silicon inte-grated circuit is the engine that drives the informationrevolution. For the past 30 years, the technology hasbeen dominated by Moore’s law—the statement thatthe density of transistors on a silicon integrated circuitdoubles about every 18 months. The relentless reduc-tion in transistor size and increase in circuit density haveprovided the increased functionality per unit cost thatunderlies the information revolution. Today’s comput-ing and communications capability would not be pos-sible without the phenomenal 25 to 30 percent per yearexponential growth in capability per unit cost since theintroduction of the integrated circuit in about 1960. Thatsustained rate of progress has resulted in low-cost vol-ume manufacturing of high-density memories with 64million bits of memory on a chip and complex, high-performance logic chips with ~10 million transistors ona chip. This trend is projected to continue for the nextseveral years.

If the silicon integrated circuit is the engine that pow-ers the computing and communications revolution, opti-cal fibers are the highways for the Information Age.Although fiber optics is a relatively recent entrant inthe high technology arena, the impact of this technol-ogy is enormous and growing. It is now the preferredtechnology for transmission of information over longdistances. There are already approximately 30 millionkm of fiber installed in the United States and an esti-mated 100 million km installed worldwide. Due in partto the faster than exponential growth of connections tothe Internet, the installation of optical fiber worldwideis occurring at an accelerated rate of over 20 million


44

km per year—more than 2,000 km/h, or around Mach2. In addition, the rate of information transmission downa single fiber is increasing exponentially at a rate of afactor of 100 every decade. Transmission in excess of1 terabit per second has been demonstrated in the re-search laboratory, and the time lag between laboratorydemonstration and commercial system deployment isabout 5 years.

Compound semiconductor diode lasers provide thelaser photons that are the vehicles that transport infor-mation along the optical information highways. Semi-conductor diode lasers are also at the heart of opticalstorage and compact disk technology. In addition totheir use in very-high-performance microelectronicsapplications, compound semiconductors have proven tobe an extremely fertile field for advancing our under-standing of fundamental physical phenomena. Exploit-ing decades of basic research, we are now beginningto be able to understand and control all aspects of com-pound semiconductor structures, from mechanicalthrough electronic to optical, and to grow devices andstructures with atomic layer control, in a few specificmaterials systems. This capability allows the manu-facture of high-performance, high-reliability, compoundsemiconductor diode lasers that can be modulated atgigahertz frequencies to send information over the fi-ber-optical networks. High-speed semiconductor-baseddetectors receive and decode this information. Thesesame materials provide the billions of light-emitting di-odes sold annually for displays, free-space or short-rangehigh-speed communication, and other applications. Inaddition, very-high-speed, low-power compound semi-conductor electronics play a major role in wireless com-munication, especially for portable units and satellitesystems.

Another key enabler of the information revolution islow-cost, low-power, high-density information storagethat keeps pace with the exponential growth of com-puting and communication capability. Both magneticand optical storage are in wide use. Very recently, thehighest-performance magnetic storage/readout deviceshave begun to rely on giant magnetoresistance (GMR),a phenomenon that was discovered by building on morethan a century of research in magnetic materials. Al-though Lord Kelvin discovered magnetoresistance in1856, it was not until the early 1990s that commercialproducts using this technology were introduced. In thelast decade, the condensed-matter and materials un-derstanding converged with advances in our ability todeposit materials with atomic-level control to producethe GMR heads that were introduced in workstations

in late 1997. It is hoped that, with additional researchand development, spin valve and colossal magnetore-sistance technology may be understood and applied toworkstations of the future. This increased understand-ing, provided in part by our increased computationalability arising from the increasing power of silicon ICs,coupled with atomic-level control of materials, led toexponential growth in the storage density of magneticmaterials analogous to Moore’s law for transistor den-sity in silicon ICs.

Future Directions and Research Priorities

Numerous outstanding scientific and technologicalresearch needs have been identified in electronic, pho-tonic, and magnetic materials and phenomena. If thoseneeds are met, it is anticipated that these technologyareas will continue to follow their historical exponentialgrowth in capability per unit cost for the next few years.Silicon integrated circuits are expected to follow Moore’slaw at least until the limits of optical lithography arereached, transmission bandwidth of optical fibers isexpected to grow exponentially with advances in opti-cal technology and the development of soliton propaga-tion, and storage density in magnetic media is expectedto grow exponentially with the maturation of GMR anddevelopment of colossal magnetoresistance in the nottoo distant future. Although these changes will have amajor impact on computing and communications overthe next few years, it is clear that extensive researchwill be required to produce new concepts and that newapproaches must be developed to reduce research con-cepts to practice if these industries are to maintain theirhistorical growth rate over the long term.

Continued research is needed to advance the fun-damental understanding of materials and phenom-ena in all areas. More than a century of research inmagnetic materials and phenomena has given us anunderstanding of many aspects of magnetism, butwe still lack a comprehensive first-principles under-standing of magnetism. By comparison, the tech-nology underlying optical communication is veryyoung. The past few years have seen enormousscientific and technological advances in optical struc-tures, devices, and systems. New concepts such asphotonic lattices, which are expected to have sig-nificant technological impact, are emerging. We haveevery reason to believe that this field will continueto advance rapidly with commensurate impact oncommunications and computing.

As device and feature sizes continue to shrink in

45

integrated circuits, scaling will encounter fundamentalphysical limits. The feature sizes at which these limitswill be encountered and their implications are not un-derstood. Extensive research is needed to develop in-terconnect technologies that go beyond normal metaland dielectrics in the relatively near term. Longer term,technologies are needed to replace today’s Si field-ef-fect transistors. One approach that bears investigationis quantum state switching and logic as devices andstructures move further into the quantum mechanicalregime.

A major future direction is nanostructures and artifi-cially structured materials, which was a general themein all three areas. In all cases, artificially structuredmaterials with properties not available in nature revealedunexpected new scientific phenomena and led to im-portant technological applications. As sizes continue todecrease, new synthesis and processing technologieswill be required. A particularly promising area is self-assembled materials. We need to expand research inself-assembled materials to address such questionsas how to controllably create the desired one-, two-, and three-dimensional structures.

As our scientific understanding increases and syn-thesis and processing of organic materials systemsmature, these materials are expected to increase in im-portance for optoelectronic, and perhaps electronic,applications. Many of the recent technological advancesare the result of strong interdisciplinary efforts as re-search results from complementary fields are harvestedat the interface between the fields. This is expected tobe the case for organic materials; increased interdisci-plinary efforts, for example between CMMP, chemis-try, and biology, offer the promise of equally impressiveadvances in biotechnology.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we identify a few major scientific andtechnological questions that are still outstanding and call

attention to research and development priorities.

Selected Major Unresolved Scientificand Technology Questions

• What technology will replace normal metals anddielectrics for interconnect in silicon ICs asspeed continues to increase?

• What is beyond today’s field-effect transistor-based Si technology?

• Can we create an all-optical communications/computing network

• Can we understand magnetism on themesoscales and nanoscales needed to continueto advance technology?

• Can we fabricate devices with 100 percent spin-polarized current injection?

Priorities

• Advance synthesis and processing techniques,including nanostructures and self-assembledone-, two-, and three-dimensional structures;

• Pursue quantum state logic;• Exploit physics and materials science for low-

cost manufacturing;• Pursue the physics and chemistry of organic

and other complex materials for optical, elec-trical, and magnetic applications;

• Develop techniques to magnetically detect in-dividual electron and nuclear spins with atomic-scale resolution; and

• Increase partnerships and cross-education/com-munications among industry, university, and gov-ernment laboratories.

46

Novel Quantum Phenomena in Condensed-Matter Systems

Steven M. GirvinIndiana University

The various quantum Hall effects (QHEs) are argu-ably some of the most remarkable many-body phenom-ena discovered in the second half of the 20th century,comparable in intellectual importance to superconduc-tivity and superfluidity. They are an extremely richset of phenomena with deep and truly fundamental theo-retical implications. The fractional effect, for whichthe 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded, hasyielded fractional charge, spin, and statistics, as wellas unprecedented order parameters. There are beauti-ful connections with a variety of different topologicaland conformal field theories studied as formal modelsin particle theory, each here made manifest by the twistof an experimental knob. Where else but in condensed-matter physics can an experimentalist change the num-ber of flavors of relativistic chiral Fermions or set by handthe Chern-Simons coupling that controls the mixing anglefor charge and flux in 2+1D electrodynamics?

Because of recent technological advances in mo-lecular beam epitaxy and the fabrication of artificialstructures, the field continues to advance with new dis-coveries even well into the second decade of its exist-ence. Experiments in the field were limited for manyyears to simple transport measurements that indirectlydetermine charge gaps. However recent advances haveled to many successful new optical, acoustic, micro-wave, specific heat, and nuclear magnetic resonance(NMR) probes, which continue to advance our knowl-edge as well as raise intriguing new puzzles.

The QHE takes place in a two-dimensional electrongas subjected to a high magnetic field. In essence, it isa result of commensuration between the number of elec-trons, N, and the number of flux quanta, NΦ, in theapplied magnetic field. The electrons undergo a seriesof condensations into new states with highly nontrivialproperties whenever the filling factor ν = N/NΦ takeson simple rational values. The original experimentalmanifestation of the effect was the observation of anenergy gap yielding dissipationless transport (at zerotemperature) much like in a superconductor. The Hallconductivity in this dissipationless state is universal,given by σxy = νe2/h independent of microscopic de-

tails. As a result of this, it is possible to make a high-precision determination of the fine structure constantand to realize a highly reproducible quantum mechani-cal unit of electrical resistance, now used by standardslaboratories around the world to maintain the ohm.

The integer quantum Hall effect owes its origin toan excitation gap associated with the discrete kineticenergy levels (Landau levels) in a magnetic field. Thefractional quantum Hall effect has its origins in verydifferent physics of strong Coulomb correlations, whichproduce a Mott-insulator-like excitation gap. In someways, however, this gap is more like that in a super-conductor, because it is not tied to a periodic latticepotential. This permits uniform charge flow of the in-compressible electron liquid and hence a quantized Hallconductivity.

The microscopic correlations leading to the excita-tion gap are captured in a revolutionary wave functiondeveloped by R.B. Laughlin that describes an incom-pressible quantum liquid. The charged quasi particleexcitations in this system are “anyons” carrying frac-tional statistics intermediate between bosons and Fer-mions and carrying fractional charge. This sharp frac-tional charge, which despite its bizarre nature has al-ways been on solid theoretical ground, has recently beendirectly observed two different ways. The first is anequilibrium thermodynamic measurement using anultrasensitive electrometer built from quantum dots.The second is a dynamical measurement using exquis-itely sensitive detection of the shot noise for quasiparticles tunneling across a quantum Hall device.

Quantum mechanics allows for the possibility offractional average charge in both a trivial way and ahighly nontrivial way. As an example of the former,consider a system of three protons forming an equilat-eral triangle and one electron tunneling among the 1Satomic bound states on the different protons. The elec-tronic ground state is a symmetric linear superpositionof quantum amplitudes to be in each of the three dif-ferent 1S orbitals. In this trivial case, the mean elec-tron number for a given orbital is 1/3. This, however,is a result of statistical fluctuations because a measure-ment will yield electron number 0 two-thirds of thetime and electron number 1 one-third of the time. Thesefluctuations occur on a very slow time scale and areassociated with the fact that the electronic spectrum


47

consists of three very nearly degenerate states corre-sponding to the different orthogonal combinations ofthe three atomic orbitals.

The ν = 1/3 QHE has charge 1/3 quasi particles butis profoundly different from the trivial scenario justdescribed. An electron added to a ν = 1/3 systembreaks up into three charge 1/3 quasi particles. If thelocations of the quasi particles are pinned by (say) animpurity potential, the excitation gap still remains ro-bust and the resulting ground state is nondegenerate.This means that a quasi particle is not a place (like theproton above) where an extra electron spends one-thirdof its time. The lack of degeneracy implies that thelocation of the quasi particle completely specifies thestate of the system, that is, implies that these are fun-damental elementary particles with charge 1/3. Be-cause there is a finite gap, this charge is a sharp quan-tum observable that does not fluctuate (for frequenciesbelow the gap scale).

The message here is that the charge of the quasiparticles is sharp to the observers as long as the gapenergy scale is considered large. If the gap were 10GeV instead of 10 K, we (living at room temperature)would have no trouble accepting the concept of frac-tional charge.

Magnetic Order of Spins and Pseudospins

At certain filling factors (ν = 1, in particular) quan-tum Hall systems exhibit spontaneous magnetic order.For reasons peculiar to the band structure of the GaAshost semiconductor, the external magnetic field couplesexceptionally strongly to the orbital motion (giving alarge Landau level splitting) and exceptionally weaklyto the spin degrees of freedom (giving a very smallZeeman gap). The resulting low-energy spin degreesof freedom of this ferromagnet have some rather novelproperties that have recently begun to be probed byNMR, specific heat, and other measurements.

Because the lowest spin state of the lowest Landauis completely filled at ν = 1, the only way to add chargeis with reversed spin. However, because the exchangeenergy is large and prefers locally parallel spins (andbecause the Zeeman energy is small), it is cheaper topartially turn over several spins forming a smooth to-pological spin “texture.” Because this is an itinerantmagnet with a quantized Hall conductivity, it turns outthat this texture (called a skyrmion by analogy withthe corresponding object in the Skyrme model ofnuclear physics) accommodates precisely one extra unitof charge. NMR Knight shift measurements have con-

firmed the prediction that each charge added (or re-moved) from the ν = 1 state flips over several (~ 4 to30 depending on the pressure) spins. In the presenceof skyrmions, the ferromagnetic order is no longer col-linear, leading to the possibility of additional low-en-ergy spin wave modes, which remain gapless even inthe presence of the Zeeman field (somewhat analogousto an antiferromagnet). These low-frequency spin fluc-tuations have been indirectly observed through a dra-matic enhancement of the nuclear spin relaxation rate1/T1. In fact, under some conditions T1 becomes soshort that the nuclei come into thermal equilibrium withthe lattice via interactions with the inversion layer elec-trons. This has recently been observed experimentallythrough an enormous enhancement of the specific heatby more than five orders of magnitude.

Spin is not the only internal degree of freedom thatcan spontaneously order. There has been considerablerecent progress experimentally in overcoming techni-cal difficulties in the MBE fabrication of high-qualitymultiple-well systems. It is now possible for exampleto make a pair of identical electron gases in quantumwells separated by a distance (~ 100 Å) comparable tothe electron spacing within a single quantum well.Under these conditions, strong interlayer correlationscan be expected. One of the peculiarities of quantummechanics is that, even in the absence of tunnelingbetween the layers, it is possible for the electrons to bein a coherent state in which their layer index is uncer-tain. To understand the implications of this, we candefine a pseudospin that is up if the electron is in thefirst layer and down if it is in the second. Spontaneousinterlayer coherence corresponds to spontaneouspseudospin magnetization lying in the XY plane (cor-responding to a coherent mixture of pseudospin up anddown). If the total filling factor for the two layers is ν= 1, then the Coulomb exchange energy will stronglyfavor this magnetic order just as it does for real spinsas discussed above. This long-range transverse orderhas been observed experimentally through the strongresponse of the system to a weak magnetic field ap-plied in the plane of the electron gases in the presenceof weak tunneling between the layers.

Another interesting aspect of two-layer systems isthat, despite their extreme proximity, it is possible tomake separate electrical contact to each layer and per-form drag experiments in which current in one layerinduces a voltage in the other due to Coulomb orphonon-mediated interactions.

Stacking together many quantum wells gives an arti-ficial three-dimensional structure analogous to certain

48

provided a wonderful testing ground for our under-standing of strongly correlated quantum ground statesthat do not fit into the old framework of Landau’s Fermiliquid picture. As such, they are providing valuablehints on how to think about other strongly correlatedsystems such as heavy Fermion materials and high-temperature superconductors.

organic Bechgaard salts in which the QHE has beenobserved. There is recent growing interest in the bulkand edge (“surface”) states of such three-dimensionalsystems and with the nature of possible Anderson lo-calization transitions.

These phenomena and numerous others, which can-not be mentioned because of space limitations, have

Nonequilibrium Physics

James S. LangerUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

Nonequilibrium physics is concerned with sys-tems that are not in mechanical or thermal equilib-rium with their surroundings. Examples includeflowing fluids under pressure gradients, solids de-forming or fracturing under external stresses, andquantum systems driven by magnetic fields. Thesesystems often lead to very familiar patterns such assnowflakes, dendritic microstructures in alloys, orchaotic motions in turbulent fluids. Many of theseare familiar phenomena governed by well-under-stood equations of motion (e.g., the Navier Stokesequation), but in some of the most interesting cases,the implications of these equations are not under-stood.

The Brinkman report (Physics Through the 1990s,National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1986)recognized the significance of the emerging field ofnonequilibrium physics but missed some of the mostimportant topics of current research such as friction,fracture, and granular materials. Notable progresshas been made in the last decade regarding patternsin convecting and vibrating fluids, reaction-diffu-sion systems, aggregation, and membrane morphol-ogy.

The patterns observed in nonequilibrium systemsare especially sensitive to small perturbations.Weather phenomena are a prime example. Long-range weather forecasting requires precise charac-terization of current and past weather conditions.As such characterization becomes more detailed, itis possible to predict future patterns with increas-ing accuracy. One task of nonequilibrium physicsis quantifying the relationship between precision and

predictability.In spite of decades of study, the origin of ductil-

ity in materials remains a key unsolved problem ofnonequilibrium physics. Traditional explanationsbased on dislocations do not explain observationssuch as ductility in glassy materials. We lack a goodtheory of ductile yielding in situations where stressesand strains vary rapidly in space and time.

One of the most important recent observations isthat fast brittle cracks undergo materials-specific in-stabilities leading to roughness on the fracture sur-face. Stick-slip friction is also observed on largescales, for example, in earthquake dynamics. Thenature of these processes, including the issue of lu-bricated friction, is a key problem of nonequilibriumphysics.

Granular materials are an example of a familiarclass of materials of considerable industrial impor-tance that have escaped scrutiny by physicists untilrecently. These materials are highly inelastic in theirinteractions. When granular materials cohereslightly, they can behave like viscous fluids as insaturated soil. If the coherence is strong, then wehave sandstone or concrete, which behaves more likeordinary solids. If complex dynamics are added,we have foams or dense colloidal suspensions. Thenature of lubrication is also relevant to these prob-lems.

These and many other open problems show thatthe frontiers of physics include many very familiarphenomena. In many cases, these problems are ofgreat importance to materials properties and indus-trial processes.

49

Soft Condensed Matter

V. Adrian ParsegianNational Institutes of Health

Adrian Parsegian opened his remarks on soft con-densed matter research with the question, “When wasAmerican poetry born?” He quoted William Saroyan’sresponse, “When people not trained in poetry beganwriting it.” No one can imagine Walt Whitman’s po-etry being written in England or anywhere exceptAmerica. It was “an instantaneous flop” because peopledid not think it was even “poetry.” The clear implica-tion for the field of condensed-matter and materialsphysics is that soft materials physics will flourish onlyafter much initial skepticism and even resistance areovercome.

Advancing our understanding of soft materials re-quires an unprecedented combination of traditionallydistinct, and noninteracting, fields. One of the greatestchallenges is the simple recognition and appreciationof the disparate skills required for attacking problemswith relentlessly increasing levels of complexity. Forexample, as the genome project unfolds, uncoveringseemingly endless genetic information, synthetic chem-ists and physicists face the daunting task of producingand understanding the complex interactions that gov-ern biological function occurring at length scales rang-ing from atomic to supramolecular dimensions. Suchproblems may not succumb to the conventional reduc-tive methods familiar to most physicists. Modern in-strumentation such as third- and even fourth-genera-tion synchrotrons, high-flux neutron sources, and high-resolution nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometersprovide powerful means for exploring these issues.However, are these potent tools the key to uncoveringthe secrets of biology? “What constitutes understand-ing in this business?” asks Parsegian, adding, “An ex-planation that satisfies the physicist may be thoroughlyirrelevant to the gene therapist.” Established ap-proaches toward education and funding and even atti-tudes about industrial interactions must change if thephysics community is to have a demonstrable andmeaningful impact on this burgeoning field.

Many of the macroscopic properties of soft materialsare foreign to the condensed-matter physicist. Softnessis substituted for hardness as a desirable property; mal-leability, extensibility, and compliance replace stiffnessand shape retention; and fragility is often more valuablethan durability. These themes are stimulating a new typeof physics that relies on the same bedrock principles enu-

merated in elementary physics education but must beaugmented by the targeted interdisciplinary studies ofmedicine, food, polymers, and many others.

The field of polymers provides a bridge betweenconventional physics and the biologically oriented sci-ences and engineering. Both natural and syntheticmacromolecules offer numerous research and devel-opment opportunities. Polysaccharides and milk pro-teins are identified by Parsegian as examples of ubiq-uitous and naturally occurring macromolecules thatmay be formulated into novel items of commerce foruse in foods and environmentally benign—even bio-degradable—plastics. Advances in synthetic chemis-try during the past decade have greatly expanded ourability to tailor molecular architecture, even in the sim-plest of polymers known as polyolefins, prepared fromjust carbon and hydrogen. This class of synthetic poly-mers makes up roughly 60 percent of the entire syn-thetic polymer market. Yet the commercial conse-quences of varying the number and length of sidebranches, grafts, and block sequencing on the melt flowproperties, crystallization kinetics, and ultimate me-chanical properties are just now being realized.Dendrimers, precisely and highly branched giant mol-ecules that can assume a nearly perfect spherical to-pology, offer fresh strategies for manipulating poly-mer rheology and may provide ideal substrates for de-livering drugs to the human body.

Parsegian noted that polyelectrolytes are an espe-cially important class of materials, since almost allforms of biologically relevant matter contain macro-molecules with some degree of ionic charging. Yetpolyelectrolytes present some of the toughest chal-lenges to condensed matter physics, convoluting elec-trostatic interactions, self-avoiding chain statistics, andtraditional solution thermodynamics with self-assem-bly into higher-order structures that rely on tertiary andquaternary interactions.

Application of physics to biological problems is nota new phenomenon. Physicists have made significantcontributions to the field of protein folding for nearly35 years. In fact, physicists have defined the “language”of the field and created exquisite tools for simulatingand even “watching” individual molecules. For ex-ample, optical tweezers techniques permit quantifica-tion of the force versus extension relationship of indi-

50

ing) often comes from fundamental advances in phys-ics. Medical doctors and researchers should understandthe origins of their equipment and appreciate the un-derlying principles of operation. Parsegian offered anassortment of recommendations for improving the cur-rent situation. Basic research, which fuels practicaldevelopments in industry and medicine, would benefitfrom the following innovations: (1) grant mechanismsthat encourage interdisciplinary work; (2) special grantsthat circumvent the double jeopardy of being judgedboth as a biologist and a physicist; (3) fellowships forphysicists, including theorists, to work in biologicallaboratories; and (4) maximized contact between uni-versity researchers and industrial scientists, especiallythose from the chemical, medical, and pharmaceuticalindustries.

Changes in education were also prescribed. Newphysics courses must be developed that are targeted atbiologists; and physicists should be trained in chemistry,biochemistry, and molecular biology. Introductory phys-ics courses must begin to emphasize soft systems in ad-dition to the traditional curriculum. There should be “bi-lingual” textbooks, aimed at both physicists and biolo-gists. Summer schools with laboratories for scientists atall stages of their careers and interdisciplinary workshopscan be established. In short, the field of physics shouldspread itself out from the confines of physics departments,while broadening its horizons to encompass the emerg-ing exciting world of soft matter.

vidual biomolecules such as DNA. These studies arenot yet the clinical analysis of protein-folding and prion-related illnesses such as Alzheimer’s and “Mad Cow”disease.

“Why are physicists frequently off the biologicalradar screen? “ asks Parsegian.

“In large part they are seen as insular and paro-chial,” is the response he has received to this question.He points out key differences in how physicists ap-proach problemsolving through a simple example—understanding the force required to separate two inter-acting biomolecules, as might be encountered in celladhesion. This delicate problem depends on the timescale of the experiment as much as the force appliedand the displacement measured. Given enough time,the molecules will disengage without any applied force.Physicists must resist the temptation to connect orreconfigure anything biological into a conventional,solved, physics problem, in this case treating thebiomolecular interactions with traditional static inter-molecular potentials.

Rectifying these shortcomings, that is, makingphysics visible and relevant to the biological sciences,will require education on the part of biologists as wellas physicists. Biologists and medical researchers mustunderstand the utility and importance of physics to theirwork. For example, the sophisticated instrumentationthat is often the source of so many scientific revela-tions (e.g., three-dimensional NMR and x-ray imag-

Fractional Charges and Other Tales from Flatland

Horst StörmerBell Laboratories and Columbia University

Flatland is two-dimensional space. In nature it isfound at surfaces or at interfaces. The quantum Halleffect (QHE) and fractional quantum Hall effect(FQHE) are properties of electrons confined to the in-terface region of semiconductor quantum wells. Theelectrons can move along the two-dimensional surfaceof the interface but are confined in the third direction.A Nobel prize was awarded to Klaus von Klitzing in1985 for the discovery of the QHE, and Störmer, D.C.Tsui, and Robert Laughlin shared the 1998 Nobel Prizein Physics for their discovery of the FQHE. This re-search area continues to be interesting, with many newideas and discoveries.

E.H. Hall discovered in 1878 a transverse voltageVxy when a magnetic field B is imposed perpendicular(z-direction) to the direction of electrical current. The

voltage is proportional to the current Ix in the layer.The ratio Vxy/Ix = Rxy defines the transverse resistance.The QHE is the observation of plateaus in the trans-verse resistance when measured as a function of mag-netic field. These plateaus occur when Landau levelsare completely filled with electrons. During these pla-teaus, the longitudinal resistance (RXX = VXX/Ix) appearsto vanish: It actually declines to a very small value.The plateaus have a value of resistance that are mul-tiples of the fundamental value h/e2 = 258120, where his Planck’s constant and e is the unit of charge. Theplateaus have the same value in each sample. Theyhave become the new international standard of resis-tance.

Störmer, Tsui, and Gossard continued the measure-ments of the Hall effect to very high values of mag-

51

netic field. They discovered additional plateaus in thetransverse resistance. These plateaus occur at valuesthat imply that the Landau levels are fractionally occu-pied: 1/3, 2/5, and so on. The experiments continue,with samples of increasing purity, at lower tempera-ture, and with higher magnetic field. Low-tempera-ture values of the mobility in GaAs/AlGaAs wells arenow µ = 2 × 107 cm2/(Vs). The mean-free-path of theelectrons is on the order of 100 × 10-6 m. In theserecent measurements, the list of fractions is quite large,with unlikely numbers such as 5/23 appearing.

Why are there fractions? The two-dimensional gasof electrons becomes highly correlated. It is difficultto imagine a many-body system that is as simple andas profound. At these high values of magnetic field,the electrons have circular orbits, due to the field, whichhave a small radius. The separation between electronsis much longer then the diameter of the orbits. Theelectrons are becoming localized into a kind of Wignercrystal. However, they have unusual motion, becausethey have no kinetics. Their correlation is entirely dueto their mutual Coulomb interaction. The fractions in-dicate the existence of highly correlated states that oc-cur at these fractional fillings. The topic is fascinatingto theoretical physicists, who try to explain the originof all of these states.

The most important fraction is 1/3. It was discoveredfirst and has a large plateau in the Hall resistance. Each

quantum of flux can be considered to be a vortex in theplane. For the 1/3 state, there are three vortices for eachelectron. The three vortices get attached to the electronand form a quasi particle called a “composite.” For the 1/3 state, it is a “composite Boson,” and the collective stateis due to a Bose-Einstein condensation of these quasi par-ticles. Noise measurements in the resistivity confirm thatthe charge on the current carriers is actually e/3. Theexcitation energy to excite an electron out of the corre-lated state is ∆E = 10 K in temperature units. This energyis large, because the experiments are performed at a smallfraction of a degree.

At the fraction 1/2, the quasi particles are “compos-ite Fermions,” which cannot form a condensate. Thereare no plateaus at this fraction, although it is specu-lated that the Fermions form a superfluid state akin tothe Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer state in a superconduc-tor. This pairing of Fermions is thought to explain thefeatures of the 5/2 state in particular. For fractionswritten as the ratio of two integers q/p, even values ofp are composite Fermions and odd values of p denotecomposite Bosons.

New fractions continue to be discovered. The graphof the transverse resistance appears to be a “devil’s stair-case” of an infinite number of steps of irregular width.Physicists have always been fascinated by the highlycorrelated electron gas. There is no more highly cor-related system of electrons than is found in the FQHE.

53

List of Participants

Raymond Kammer National Institute of Standardsand Technology

Elton N. Kaufmann Argonne National LaboratoryRichard D. Kelley U.S. Department of EnergyRonald L. Kelley Strategic Partners, Inc.Thomas A. Kitchens U.S. Department of EnergyMartha Krebs U.S. Department of EnergyJames S. Langer University of California, Santa

BarbaraBennett C. Larson Oak Ridge National LaboratoryKalle Levon Polytechnic UniversityJ. David Litster Massachusetts Institute of

TechnologyGabrielle G. Long National Institute of Standards

and TechnologyAndrew J. Lovinger National Science FoundationGloria B. Lubkin American Institute of PhysicsGerald D. Mahan University of Tennessee at

KnoxvilleHarris L. Marcus University of ConnecticutErnesto E. Marinero IBM Almaden Research CenterHans Mark U.S. Department of DefenseThom Mason Oak Ridge National LaboratoryRonald H. McKnight U.S. Department of EnergyJohn McTague Ford Motor CompanyDenis McWhan Brookhaven National LaboratoryGary L. Messing Pennsylvania State UniversityJohn W. Mintmire National Science FoundationDavid E. Moncton Argonne National LaboratoryCherry A. Murray Bell Laboratories, Lucent

TechnologiesVenky Narayanamurti Harvard UniversityWilliam Oosterhuis U.S. Department of EnergyCarlo G. Pantano Pennsylvania State UniversityV. Adrian Parsegian National Institutes of HealthPaul S. Peercy SEMI/SEMATECHJulia M. Phillips Sandia National LaboratoriesJames J. Rhyne University of MissouriJames B. Roberto Oak Ridge National LaboratoryLaura Lyman Rodriguez Office of Representative Vernon

EhlersJ. Michael Rowe National Institute of Standards

and TechnologyJohn J. Rush National Institute of Standards

and TechnologyThomas P. Russell University of MassachusettsMyriam P. Sarachik CUNY/City College of New

YorkDale W. Schaefer University of Cincinnati

Reza Abbaschian University of FloridaGabriel Aeppli NEC Research InstituteJohn C. Angus Case Western Reserve Univer-

sityNeil W. Ashcroft Cornell UniversityFrank S. Bates University of MinnesotaInder P. Batra University of Illinois, ChicagoArpad A. Bergh Optoelectronics Industry

Development AssociationFrancois Bertin Embassy of FranceArthur Bienenstock Office of Science and Technol-

ogy PolicyMarvin Cassman National Institute of General

Medical SciencesRobert P.H. Chang Northwestern UniversityYok Chen U.S. Department of EnergyCharles W. Clark National Institute of Standards

and TechnologyMelissa J. Crimp Michigan State UniversityAdriaan M. de Graaf National Science FoundationPatricia M. Dehmer U.S. Department of EnergyAlan L. Dragoo U.S. Department of EnergyRobert A. Eisenstein National Science FoundationNicholas G. Eror University of PittsburghBarry L. Farmer Air Force Research LaboratoryTimothy Fitzsimmons U.S. Department of EnergyPaul A. Fleury University of New MexicoJudy R. Franz American Physical SocietyHans P.R. Frederikse RetiredJ. Murray Gibson University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign and ArgonneNational Laboratory

Steven M. Girvin Indiana University atBloomington

Sharon C. Glotzer National Institute of Standardsand Technology

Henry R. Glyde University of DelawareIrwin Goodwin Physics TodayRobert J. Gottschall U.S. Department of EnergyRobert E. Green, Jr. Johns Hopkins UniversityDale E. Hall National Institute of Standards

and TechnologyCraig S. Hartley U.S. Department of EnergyLance Haworth National Science FoundationJohn R. Hellmann Pennsylvania State UniverstiyBrian C. Holloway College of William and MaryDaryush Ila Alabama A&M UniversityKenneth L. Jewett National Institute of Standards

and Technology

54

Helene Schember Cornell Center for MaterialsResearch

Michael A. Schen National Institute of Standardsand Technology

Lyle H. Schwartz National Institute of Standardsand Technology

Thomas J. Shaffner National Institute of Standardsand Technology

D.W. Shaw University of Texas at DallasLinda L. Slakey University of Massachusetts–

AmherstLeslie E. Smith National Institute of Standards

and TechnologyJohn C.H. Spence Arizona State UniversityVojislav Srdanov University of California, Santa

Barbara

Ellen B. Stechel Ford Motor CompanySkip Stiles U.S. House of Representatives

Science CommitteeHorst Störmer Bell Laboratories and Columbia

UniversityIran Thomas U.S. Department of EnergyMatesh Varma U.S. Department of EnergyHarlan Watson U.S. House of Representatives

Science CommitteeThomas A. Weber National Science FoundationHarold Weinstock Air Force Office of Scientific

ResearchHenry W. White University of MissouriHollis Wickman National Science FoundationDavid M. Zehner Oak Ridge National LaboratoryThomas E. Zipperian Sandia National Laboratories

Materials in a New Era - Physicswilkins/physics/new-materials-nrc.pdf · The 1999 Solid State...

Documents

Transcript of Materials in a New Era - Physicswilkins/physics/new-materials-nrc.pdf · The 1999 Solid State...