NewNew StudiesStudies InitiatedInitiated byby thethe SSSCSSSC

Spring Meeting of the Board on Physics and Astronomy April 22, 2006 Keck Center, Washington, DC

Natalia Melcer and Tim Meyer BPA Staff CMMPCMMP 20102010 CommitteeCommittee MembershipMembership Millie Dresselhaus Co-Chair, MIT Bill Spencer Co-Chair, SEMATECH

Gabe Aeppli University College London Sam Bader Argonne National Laboratory Bill Bialek Princeton University Dave Bishop Lucent/Bell Labs Tony Cheetham UC Santa Barbara Jim Eisenstein California Institute of Technology Hidetoshi Fukuyama Tohoku University Laura Garwin Harvard University Peter Green University of Michigan Frances Hellman UC Berkeley Randy Hulet Rice University Heinrich Jaeger University of Chicago Steve Kivelson Stanford University Andrea Liu University of Pennsylvania Paul McEuen Cornell University Karen Rabe Rutgers University Tom Theis IBM

2 TaskTask ofof thethe CommitteeCommittee

1. Review recent accomplishments and new opportunities in the field. 2. Identify the potential future impact of CMMP on other scientific fields. 3. Consider how CMMP has contributed and will likely contribute to meeting national societal needs. 4. Identify, discuss, and suggest priorities for construction, purchase, and operation of tools and facilities. 5. Make recommendations on how to realize the full potential of CMMP research. 6. Examine the structure and level of the current research effort in CMMP. Gather information on the performing institutions, different levels of aggregation of researchers, the role of the research community and performing institutions in initiating research, the relationship between research opportunities and the current structure of the research effort.

3 CMMPCMMP 20102010 WorkplanWorkplan

• Three products of the committee – Interim report in late summer – Short document like Physics of Materials – Full committee report • Four committee meetings –1st meeting: February 12-13, 2006 –2nd meeting: May 25-26, 2006 • Town meetings, focus groups • Data collection • Identifying short list of challenges • Target release of approved prepublication draft is spring 2007

4 CMMPCMMP 20102010 DataData Physical Review B Publications by Country 100%

80% Australasia Asia Indian Subcontinent 60% Africa Middle East Eastern Europe Western Europe 40% Latin America Canada US Percentage of PublicationsPercentage of 20%

0%

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year 5 CMMPCMMP 20102010 DataData

Physics Doctorates Awarded by Subfield 500

450

400

350

300 CMMP AMO 250 Elementary particle physics 200 Nuclear physics Plasma physics 150 Number of Doctorates Number of

100

50

0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year

NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates

6 BiomolecularBiomolecular MaterialsMaterials andand ProcessesProcesses CommitteeCommittee MembershipMembership

Arup Chakraborty Chair, MIT

Joanna Aizenberg Lucent/Bell Labs Annelise Barron Northwestern University Ken Dill UC San Francisco Jean Frechet UC Berkeley Sharon Glotzer University of Michigan Yale Goldman University of Pennsylvania Eli Greenbaum Oak Ridge National Laboratory John Kao University of Wisconsin, Madison David Needham Duke University Adrian Parsegian National Institutes of Health Alan Rudolph Adlyfe, Inc. Cyrus Safinya UC Santa Barbara Chuck Stevens Salk Institute David Weitz Harvard University

7 TaskTask ofof thethe CommitteeCommittee

1. Identify the most compelling questions and the emerging scientific opportunities at the interface between biology and condensed matter and materials research—the biomolecular domain.

2. Suggest strategies to best meet the identified opportunities.

3. Consider connections to national priorities including healthcare, security, workforce, economic and other societal needs.

8 BMAPBMAP WorkplanWorkplan

• Three committee meetings –1st meeting: March 16-17, 2006 –2nd meeting: June 18-19, 2006

• Identifying scientific opportunities

• Target release of approved prepublication draft is spring 2007

9 MRSECMRSEC ImpactImpact AssessmentAssessment CommitteeCommittee MembershipMembership Matt Tirrell Chair, UC Santa Barbara Kristi Anseth University of Colorado at Boulder Meigan Aronson University of Michigan David Ceperley University of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign Paul Chaikin New York University Ron Davidson Princeton University Duane Dimos Sandia National Laboratories Francis DiSalvo Cornell University Edith Flanigen UOP Thomas Kuech University of Wisconsin at Madison Bruce Margon Space Telescope Science Institute Andrew Millis Columbia University Venky Narayanamurti Harvard University Ralph Nuzzo University of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign Doug Osheroff Stanford University Stuart Parkin IBM Almaden Research Center Diandra Leslie-Pelecky University of Nebraska Julia Phillips Sandia National Laboratories Lyle Schwartz Air Force Office of Science Research James Williams Ohio State University Eli Yablonovitch UC Los Angeles Neil E. Paton LiquidMetal Technologies (Consultant)

10 TaskTask ofof thethe CommitteeCommittee

1. Assess the performance and impact of the National Science Foundation's Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC) program.

2. On the basis of current trends and needs in materials and condensed matter research, recommend future directions and roles for the program.

11 MRSECMRSEC workplanworkplan (1)(1)

• Goal is to develop analytic metric of MRSEC program impact, examining the areas of –Research – Industry collaboration and tech transfer – Education and public outreach – Management, shared facilities, etc.

• Committee has met twice, conducted numerous phone interviews, and gathered many self-reported facts from MRSECs

12 MRSECMRSEC workplanworkplan (2)(2)

• Assessment task has been quite challenging – Defining what-is-MRSEC-enabled and what-is-not is difficult, and may ultimately limit the power of conclusions – Although centers follow common program guidelines, individual activities are each unique and not well-monitored • Without clear objectives and evaluation methods built in from the start, impact assessment is hard

• Good progress, however, and clear patterns are emerging

• Aim to have draft report for review by Dec 2006

13 History of NSF Funding for MRSECs

$55,000,000 As-Spent $$ FY2000 $$

$50,000,000

$45,000,000 Annual Budget Annual $40,000,000

$35,000,000

$30,000,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

14