Nanomanufacturing could rival the digital revolution’s effect on society and the economy. That’s one of the findings from a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

But the report also outlines challenges the U.S. faces in the global market place – and it’s of particular interest in North Carolina where industry and universities are seeking to exploit nanotechnology opportunities.

The GAO prepared “Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health” GAO prepared the report in response to a letter of request from the chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

“The entry of nanotechnology into manufacturing has been compared to the advent of earlier technologies that have profoundly affected modern societies, such as plastics, semiconductors, and even electricity,” the document says. “Applications of nanotechnology promise transformative improvements in materials performance and longevity for electronics, medicine, energy, construction, machine tools, agriculture, transportation, clothing, and other areas. Many technologically sophisticated products today (for example, smartphones, tablet computers, and targeted therapeutic drugs, among many others) already benefit from nanotechnology or some innovative nano-enabled process—as do other products that are not typically conceptualized as “high tech” (such as textiles, lubricants, and athletic gear)

“However, the path to greater benefits—whether economic, social, or environmental—from nanomanufactured goods and services is not yet clear. Although many view the United States as the world’s premier nanotechnology research and development (R&D) nation, some are concerned about our national ability to efficiently and effectively capture value from our collective investments, whether through intellectual property development, licensing and commercialization, manufacturing goods at scale, or delivering new services.”

Multiple North Carolina Nanotech Connections

The reported added that concerns persists about environmental, health, and safety implications. A North Carolina State University report last fall, for example, found that people want labeling on food products including nano-related products. they would even be prepared to pay more for those products in order to include labeling.

But promise of nanotech is also found in a five-year, $18.5 million grant awarded NCSU by the National Science Foundation in 2012 to lead efforts into research and development of wearable devices that would measure an individual’s health.

Nanomanufacturing is a fast-growing part of North Carolina’s technology and life sciences sector. Research Triangle Park-base Liquidia Technologies was founded on the nanotechnology research of Joseph DeSimone, a UNC chemistry professor who developed a way to manufacture nanoparticles customized in particular sizes and shapes. Liquidia has pursued the technology to improve vaccine delivery, reaching partnerships including a deal with GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE:GSK). Xanofi, a Raleigh startup spun out of N.C. State University, has developed a proprietary method of manufacturing nanofibers.

Nurturing the nanotech industry’s growth in the state is the mandate of the Center Of Innovation for Nanobiotechnology, or COIN. COIN, which has undergone a restructuring in the last year, is now led by new Executive Director Joseph Magno.

A host of reports from WRALTechWire linked with this report further document North Carolina’s nanotech connections – from “nanoflowers” and nanofibers at NCSU to greater use of solar power as advanced by UNC-Chapel Hill and NCSU.

Additionally, there is the Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering at N.C. A&T and UNC-Greensboro.

Challenges, Emerging Threat

GAO, under the leadership of the Comptroller General of the United States and in partnership with what it calls “key experts,” convened a strategic forum in last July to explore participants’ views concerning nanomanufacturing and U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing.

Nanotechnology is typically defined as the control or restructuring of matter at the atomic and molecular levels in the range of about 1-100 nanometers (nm); 100 nm is about 1/1000th the width of a hair.

GAO said that the limited data on international investments made comparisons difficult. But participants in its forum viewed the U.S. as likely leading in nanotechnology R&D today.

They also identified several challenges to U.S. competitiveness in nanomanufacturing, such as:

  • Inadequate U.S. participation and leadership in international standard setting
  • The lack of a national vision for a U.S. nanomanufacturing capability
  • Some competitor nations’ aggressive actions and potential investments
  • Funding or investment gaps in the United States, which may hamper U.S. innovators’ attempts to transition nanotechnology from R&D to full-scale manufacturing.

“Taken together, these challenges can represent an emerging threat to the United States’ ability to realize a level of future economic benefits commensurate with its investments,” the report says.

Forum participants said these challenges could be addressed by updating innovation-related policies and programs; promoting U.S. innovation in manufacturing through public-private partnership;, and designing a strategy for attaining a holistic vision for U.S. nanomanufacturing.

Those who represented environmental, health and safety interests (EHS) said that more research is needed to understand risks associated with nanomaterials.