The preceding sections provide an overview of the research activity taking place around the world. To gain insight into the areas of opportunity, the NNAP members believe that it is also useful to assess the disciplines and industry sectors in which that activity is occurring.

　

 A review of the ISI database of research publications reveals that by far the largest number of articles related to nanotechnology published from 1981 to 2001 was on the subject of semiconductors (Zucker and Darby 2005). More recently, however, the number of articles related to nanotechnology and biology, medicine, chemistry, and multidisciplinary categories have grown substantially. According to Zucker and Darby, the number of publications about nanotechnology in relation to information technology also has grown.

　

　

 Based on a search of the USPTO database (Huang et al. 2004), the total number of nanotechnology-related patents increased by 217% from 1996 to 2003, contrasting with an overall increase in patents during the same period of 57%. From 1976 to 2003, about 30% of nanotechnology patents were in the chemical/catalysts/pharmaceuticals industries, 15% were in the electronics industry, and about 10% were in the materials industry. From 1997 to 2003, the chemical/catalysts/pharmaceutical sectors were observed to have the most significant growth of nanotechnology patenting activity.

　

　

 In 2003, four of the five top assignees for nanotechnology patents in 2003 were electronics companies, although the field of chemistry (molecular biology and microbiology) had the greatest number of nanotechnology patents both in 2003 and in previous years. Other technological fields that experienced rapid growth in patenting activity in 2003 were those relating to transistors and other solid-state devices, semiconductor device manufacturing, optical waveguides, and electric lamp and discharge (Huang et al. 2004).

　

 More recently, according to an EmTech Research (2005) survey of approximately 600 companies involved in R&D, manufacture, sale, or use of nanotechnology, the top three companies based on the number of nanotechnology-related patents issued were IBM, Intel, and L'Oreal. Other companies that ranked highly were large, technology-based businesses.

　

 It seems reasonable to expect that the private sector would invest in nanotechnology R&D in those areas in which relatively near-term commercial applications are forthcoming. According to the EmTech Research survey of nanotechnology suppliers (EmTech Research 2005), the two largest target industries are biomedical/life sciences (including drug diagnosis, analysis, delivery, and discovery; medical tools and materials; and genomics and proteomics research) and materials (including metals). If chemicals, plastics and films are also counted as materials, this is the single largest area. Despite strong activity in biotechnology and materials, the diversity of business activity-ranging from energy to consumer products-is just as notable.

　

 The companies included in Figure 5 range in size, with the largest number being either very small (<10 employees) or large (>1000 employees). Small companies depend on funding from both public and private sources, including venture capital. A separate survey by Lux Research estimates that the distribution of approximately $1.1. billion in venture capital funding for nanotechnology invested between 1998 and 2004 has been predominantly in electronics and semiconductors (41%) and nanobiotechnology (40%). Other sectors include specialty chemicals and nanomaterials (14%) and instrumentation (5%) (Lux Research Inc. 2004).

　

 As part of its review, the NNAP surveyed its TAG members to gain insight into what areas of research those experts thought were likely to yield high impact advances. Below is a selection of the near-, mid-, and long-term areas in which TAG members felt nanotechnology would make a significant impact.

　

Near-term (1-5 years)

Mid-term (5-10 years)

Long-term (20+ years)

 The opportunities identified by the TAG suggest the group's enthusiasm about the potential for technologies that will improve the quality of life for all by providing clean water, affordable energy, and better healthcare.

　

 An additional concern worth mentioning when considering U.S. leadership in nanotechnology, and one that PCAST has studied extensively over the past year, is the relative decline in the number of U.S. undergraduate and graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. PCAST's June 2004 Report, Sustaining the Nation's Innovation Ecosystem: Maintaining the Strength of Our Science and Engineering Capabilities (PCAST 2004) outlines data that raise serious concerns about the pace at which other countries, particularly industrialized Asian nations, are educating their citizens in STEM-related fields.

　

 For example, in China over 39% of undergraduate degrees in 2001 were in engineering, compared with 5% in the United States. The numbers indicate that China is producing over three times as many trained engineers as the United States. Similarly, at the post-graduate level, the number of Asian citizens awarded degrees in natural science and engineering is significantly increasing, whereas the number of comparable U.S. degrees has declined in recent years. The increase in STEM talent, especially in Asia, coupled with significantly lower wage structures, threatens to lead to greater pressure, not only on U.S.-based high-tech manufacturing, but even on leading-edge R&D. While it is unclear how this shift will impact nanotechnology specifically, it is worth taking steps to ensure that the pool of U.S. nanotechnology researchers and technical workers remains strong. In fact, nanotechnology experts from the TAG who are currently engaged in university-based nanotechnology research particularly emphasized the need for high-quality U.S. students to carry out future nanotechnology research.

　

 By reviewing the history of nanotechnology R&D funding, it is clear that the United States has been the leader in nanotechnology up to this point. Early recognition of the potential benefits of a coordinated nanotechnology R&D initiative, along with strong financial commitment across the Federal agencies, has enabled the United States to establish this leadership position. Measures of research output in the form of patents and publications further demonstrate U.S. leadership.

　

 Despite the optimistic numbers, the trends in all categories-investment, publications, and patents-show steady erosion in the percentage lead of the United States over time. The Federal budget for nanotechnology R&D has begun to level, whereas the cumulative investment worldwide continues to grow. The NNAP notes that programmatic investments in a given area such as nanotechnology, whether by the United States or by other nations, cannot indefinitely continue their rapid increase. The significant increases in nanotechnology funding recently made by many other nations (and regions) may reflect efforts to catch-up to the United States. Nevertheless, the NNI should monitor worldwide investment and activities and remain cognizant of the U.S. competitive position; the NNAP certainly will continue to do so. And in any event, if the United States is to maintain its leadership in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology within current tight fiscal constraints, as well as to capitalize on the resulting innovations to achieve economic and other benefits, the NNI must continue to ensure that every dollar is well spent.