So who's ever heard of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)? It's probably one of the agrecies that if you've heard of it, then it's not doing a good job.Remember the National Bureau of Standards? It's now the NIST.
Actually it's so important that John F. Sargent Jr. has written this CRS report (updated: 25 February 2020): The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An Appropriations Overview.
Download CRS_Report_NIST_Appropriations_Overview_25Feb2020
Introduction
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a laboratory of the Department of Commerce, is mandated to provide technical services to facilitate the competitiveness of U.S. industry. NIST is directed to offer support to the private sector for the development of precompetitive generic technologies and the diffusion of government-developed innovation to users in all segments of the American economy. Laboratory research is to provide measurement, calibration, and quality assurance techniques that underpin U.S. commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability, manufacturing processes, and public safety.
Concerns about the adequacy of federal funding for physical science and engineering research led to efforts by successive Presidents and Congresses to double funding for the NIST laboratory and construction accounts, together with the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy Office of Science. President Bush’s proposal was to do so over 10 years; the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) set authorization levels consistent with a seven-year doubling and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 set authorization levels consistent with an 11-year doubling. However, appropriations did not keep pace with authorization levels or presidential requests. In addition, the appropriations authorizations for the accounts targeted for doubling lapsed at the end of FY2013. Appropriations for the targeted NIST accounts increased by 42.3% from FY2006 to FY2016.
Funding for NIST extramural programs directed toward increased private sector commercialization has been a topic of congressional debate. Some Members of Congress have expressed skepticism over a “technology policy” based on providing federal funds to industry for development of precompetitive generic technologies. This approach, coupled with pressures to balance the federal budget, led to significant reductions in funding for NIST. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which accounted for over 50% of the FY1995 NIST budget, were subsequently proposed for elimination. In 2007, ATP was terminated and replaced by the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). TIP was subsequently defunded in the FY2012 appropriations legislation. President Trump has proposed the elimination of federal funding for the MEP program in fiscal years 2018 to 2021.
In December 2014, Congress enacted the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (Title VII of Division B of P.L. 113-235), establishing a Network for Manufacturing Innovation (also referred to as Manufacturing USA). The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) directed NIST to use an open competition to select the technological focus areas of industry-driven manufacturing institutes. Upon completion of its first competition, NIST announced its selection of the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL). In total, 14 NNMI institutes have been sponsored by the Department of Defense (DOD, eight institutes), Department of Energy (six institutes), and Department of Commerce (one institute). A new DOD-sponsored instituted is being competed in FY2020. A second NIST-sponsored institute has been requested in the President’s budget.
For FY2020, Congress provided $1,034.0 billion for NIST, including $754.0 million for the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, $162.0 million for the Industrial Technology Services (ITS) account, and $118.0 million for the Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) account. Within the ITS account, Congress provided $146.0 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program and $16.0 million for Manufacturing USA, including ongoing support for NIST’s first institute, the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL), and support for coordination of the Manufacturing USA network.
The President is requesting $737.5 million for NIST in FY2021, a decrease of $296.5 million (28.7%) from the FY2020 enacted appropriation of $1,034.0 million. Included in the FY2021 request is $652 million for the STRS account, a decrease of $102.0 million (13.5%); $25.3 million for the ITS account, down $136.7 million (84.4%); and $60.2 million for the NIST CRF account for FY2020, down $57.8 million (49.0%). Within the ITS account, the request would provide no funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, a reduction of $146.0 million from the FY2020 enacted level. The FY2021 ITS request includes $25.3 million for Manufacturing USA, an increase of $9.3 million (58.1%). Of these funds, $20.0 million would be for the award and initial funding of a second Manufacturing USA institute; and $5.3 million would be for coordination of the Manufacturing USA network. All changes are from the FY2020 enacted levels.
Mission
The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the “lead national laboratory for providing the measurements, calibrations, and quality assurance techniques which underpin United States commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability and manufacturing processes, and public safety.”
By statute, NIST is “to assist private sector initiatives to capitalize on advanced technology; to advance, through cooperative efforts among industries, universities, and government laboratories, promising research and development projects, which can be optimized by the private sector for commercial and industrial applications; and to promote shared risks, accelerated development, and pooling of skills which will be necessary to strengthen America’s manufacturing industries.”
NIST conducts leading-edge research in its seven research laboratories located in facilities in Gaithersburg, MD, and Boulder, CO.3 NIST employs approximately 3,000 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support personnel, and hosts about 3,500 guest researchers and associates from academia, industry, and other government agencies, who collaborate with NIST staff and access user facilities. Research is focused on measurement, standards, test methods, and basic “infrastructural technologies” that enable development of advanced technologies. Infrastructural technologies assist industry in characterizing new materials, monitoring production processes, and ensuring the quality of new product lines. Cooperative research with industry to overcome technical barriers to commercialization of emerging technologies is a major component of NIST’s work.
In addition, NIST manages extramural programs such as the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program and the Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NMI, also referred to as Manufacturing USA). Several other extramural programs previously conducted by NIST have been eliminated or integrated into other NIST activities. These programs are discussed in the next section.
Cutting to the chase....
Concluding Observations
When NBS was renamed NIST under the provisions of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the laboratory was given additional missions and supporting programs. Two of the new programs—the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program—were intended to improve U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness. These programs generated criticism from some policymakers and analysts who objected to them on a variety of grounds, including whether such activities are appropriate for the federal government to undertake; whether they might result in suboptimal choices of technologies, choices better left to market forces; whether certain technologies, companies, or industries might be chosen for support based on criteria other than technical or business merit; and whether tax dollars should be awarded to already-profitable firms.
In contrast, NIST’s historical mission of conducting laboratory research in support of standards and metrics continued to enjoy broad support and faced little controversy. Evidence of this support can be seen in the selection of the STRS account—through which NIST laboratory work is funded—as one of the targeted accounts in the doubling efforts of former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and successive Congresses. However, even with broad support and the absence of controversy, funding for the NIST STRS account did not grow at the pace its advocates supported in presidential budget requests and successive authorizations of appropriations due to tight overall fiscal constraints on the federal budget.
These issues are discussed in more detail below.
Read on and enjoy!
“In the year 1500 AD Europe knew less than Archimedes who died in the year 212 BC.” – Alfred North Whitehead
Recent Comments