Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) – Operational Reviews and User Access

Office of ScienceOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy

http://www.science.doe.gov/bes/

Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) – Nanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs) – Operational Reviews and User AccessOperational Reviews and User Access

Dr. Altaf H. CarimDr. Altaf H. CarimScientific User Facilities DivisionScientific User Facilities DivisionOffice of Basic Energy SciencesOffice of Basic Energy Sciences

Basic Energy Sciences Advisory CouncilBasic Energy Sciences Advisory Council

Bethesda, MDBethesda, MD February 22, 2008February 22, 2008

A. H. CarimA. H. CarimBasic Energy SciencesBasic Energy Sciences 2

OutlineOutline

Introduction and backgroundIntroduction and background

User access – policies and resultsUser access – policies and results

Operations reviews – process and outcomesOperations reviews – process and outcomes


Research facilities for synthesis, processing, analysis, and Research facilities for synthesis, processing, analysis, and characterization of nanoscale materialscharacterization of nanoscale materials

Provide specialized equipment, unique tools, and dedicated Provide specialized equipment, unique tools, and dedicated scientific and support staff that are difficult for individual scientific and support staff that are difficult for individual institutions to put in place and maintaininstitutions to put in place and maintain

Operated as user facilities and available to all. Access Operated as user facilities and available to all. Access determined by peer review of proposals. No cost for determined by peer review of proposals. No cost for precompetitive, non-proprietary work leading to publication; cost precompetitive, non-proprietary work leading to publication; cost recovery for proprietary work.recovery for proprietary work.

Co-located at DOE National Laboratories with existing major user Co-located at DOE National Laboratories with existing major user facilities (synchrotron radiation light sources, neutron scattering facilities (synchrotron radiation light sources, neutron scattering facilities, other specialized facilities) to provide complementary facilities, other specialized facilities) to provide complementary characterization and analysis capabilitiescharacterization and analysis capabilities

Nanoscale Science Research Center characteristicsNanoscale Science Research Center characteristics


The five NSRCs are in operations and serving usersThe five NSRCs are in operations and serving users


NSRCs provide new kinds of capabilitiesNSRCs provide new kinds of capabilities

Unique instruments to study Unique instruments to study individual nanostructuresindividual nanostructuresQuantitative structure, strain, Quantitative structure, strain, orientation imagingorientation imagingSensitive trace element and chemical Sensitive trace element and chemical state analysisstate analysis

X-Ray Synchrotron BeamlinesX-Ray Synchrotron Beamlineswith Nanoscale Resolutionwith Nanoscale Resolution

““Discovery Platforms”:Discovery Platforms”:modular micro-laboratoriesmodular micro-laboratories

for nanosciencefor nanoscienceStandardized and batch fabricatedStandardized and batch fabricatedAccess to a range of diagnostic and Access to a range of diagnostic and characterization toolscharacterization tools

Microfluidic SynthesisMicrofluidic Synthesis

Cantilever ArrayCantilever Array


Users are researchers who propose and conduct peer-reviewed Users are researchers who propose and conduct peer-reviewed experiments at a scientific facility.experiments at a scientific facility.

• • The primary type of user is a The primary type of user is a Badged UserBadged User, i.e., a researcher who , i.e., a researcher who conducts experiments within the facility.conducts experiments within the facility.

• • There are two other types of users who conduct experiments:There are two other types of users who conduct experiments:(1)(1) Remote User Remote User - a researcher who has been granted authority to - a researcher who has been granted authority to

remotely produce data (this excludes persons who can “look remotely produce data (this excludes persons who can “look at data”); andat data”); and

(2) (2) Off-Site UserOff-Site User - a researcher to whom the facility provides - a researcher to whom the facility provides custom-manufactured materials, tools, or devices that the custom-manufactured materials, tools, or devices that the facility has unique or unusual capabilities to fabricate (only facility has unique or unusual capabilities to fabricate (only applies to NSRCs; starting 2007).applies to NSRCs; starting 2007).

For both types of these users, only one user is to be counted per For both types of these users, only one user is to be counted per proposal regardless of the number of co-investigators, and proposal regardless of the number of co-investigators, and only if no individual is counted in any of the other user only if no individual is counted in any of the other user categories under the same proposal.categories under the same proposal.

• • For annual totals, an individual is counted as 1 user at a particular For annual totals, an individual is counted as 1 user at a particular facility no matter how often or how long the researcher conducts facility no matter how often or how long the researcher conducts experiments at the facility during the fiscal year. experiments at the facility during the fiscal year.

Definitions of usersDefinitions of users


User statistics to dateUser statistics to date

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2006 2007

Fiscal Year

Total Users

CNM at ANL

CINT at SNL/LANL

Foundry at LBNL

CNMS at ORNL

Numbers of unique users, including badged users, remote users, Numbers of unique users, including badged users, remote users, and, starting FY 2007, off-site users. FY 2006 data is partial-year and, starting FY 2007, off-site users. FY 2006 data is partial-year as three NSRCs began operations in mid-FY. Totals, FY 2007:as three NSRCs began operations in mid-FY. Totals, FY 2007:

• • Badged Users: Badged Users: 626626

• • Remote Users:Remote Users:4040

• • Off-Site Users:Off-Site Users:108108


User accessUser access

General UsersGeneral Users Access based on peer merit review of submitted proposal, evaluated by external Access based on peer merit review of submitted proposal, evaluated by external

Proposal Review Committee or equivalentProposal Review Committee or equivalent

Includes on-site (badged), remote, and off-site usersIncludes on-site (badged), remote, and off-site users

Partner UsersPartner Users Access based on peer merit review of submitted proposal, evaluated by external Access based on peer merit review of submitted proposal, evaluated by external

Proposal Review Committee and/or by Scientific Advisory CommitteeProposal Review Committee and/or by Scientific Advisory Committee

Enhance capabilities of and/or contribute to operation of facility, with benefits to Enhance capabilities of and/or contribute to operation of facility, with benefits to the general user communitythe general user community

Defined and limited period of reserved time or preferential accessDefined and limited period of reserved time or preferential access

Large majority of time must remain available to general usersLarge majority of time must remain available to general users

A very limited amount of time may be allocated directly at the A very limited amount of time may be allocated directly at the discretion of the NSRC Director or management for rapid accessdiscretion of the NSRC Director or management for rapid access

Collaboration with facility scientists is an important potential benefit Collaboration with facility scientists is an important potential benefit to users, but is not required. Facility staff may provide input on to users, but is not required. Facility staff may provide input on feasibility and time needed but do not select or approve proposals.feasibility and time needed but do not select or approve proposals.


User agreements, authorities, User agreements, authorities, intellectual property, and related issues intellectual property, and related issues extensively discussed among DOE-extensively discussed among DOE-BES, DOE-General Counsel, and NSRCsBES, DOE-General Counsel, and NSRCs

Existing authorities and types of user Existing authorities and types of user agreements available for:agreements available for: Non-proprietary, essentially non-collaborative Non-proprietary, essentially non-collaborative

workwork

Proprietary, non-collaborative work (full cost Proprietary, non-collaborative work (full cost recovery)recovery)

New authority and user agreement New authority and user agreement template developed for pre-competitive template developed for pre-competitive (non-proprietary), collaborative work(non-proprietary), collaborative work

Existing authorities available on case-Existing authorities available on case-by-case basis for proprietary, by-case basis for proprietary, collaborative work (CRADAs, WFO, etc.)collaborative work (CRADAs, WFO, etc.)

User agreements and intellectual propertyUser agreements and intellectual property


NSRC operations review processNSRC operations review process

Review date determined and charge letter sent to facility DirectorReview date determined and charge letter sent to facility Director

Facility prepares Review Documents (RDs) and submits to BES; Facility prepares Review Documents (RDs) and submits to BES; additions/revisions if necessaryadditions/revisions if necessary

Reviewers selected by BES and sent charge letter and RDsReviewers selected by BES and sent charge letter and RDs

Agenda drafted by facility and finalized with input from BESAgenda drafted by facility and finalized with input from BES

On-site reviewOn-site review

Reviewers’ individual, written reports received and collated by BESReviewers’ individual, written reports received and collated by BES

Program Manager debriefs BES managementProgram Manager debriefs BES management

Review results communicated to facility Director:Review results communicated to facility Director: Letter with discussion of findings, BES observations, recommendations, and/or Letter with discussion of findings, BES observations, recommendations, and/or

action items.action items.

Attached BES summary of reviewer reportsAttached BES summary of reviewer reports

Attached verbatim (anonymized) full text of reviewer reportsAttached verbatim (anonymized) full text of reviewer reports

Formal facility response to review results and recommendationsFormal facility response to review results and recommendations


Operations and Review Schedules for NSRCsOperations and Review Schedules for NSRCs


NSRC operations budgetsNSRC operations budgets

The graph below includes facility operations resources, not The graph below includes facility operations resources, not “project” funds from the line-item efforts to create the centers or “project” funds from the line-item efforts to create the centers or “jump-start” funds which were extensions of existing research “jump-start” funds which were extensions of existing research programs.programs.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2007 2008

Fiscal Year

$M

CFN at BNL

CNM at ANL

CINT at SNL/LANL

Foundry at LBNL

CNMS at ORNL

Facilities operations Facilities operations includes capital includes capital equipment as well; equipment as well; NSRCs have been NSRCs have been offered considerable offered considerable latitude in defining latitude in defining how much of their how much of their annual budget is annual budget is allocated to capital allocated to capital equipment in these equipment in these early transitional early transitional years.years.


Requests for additional capital for large itemsRequests for additional capital for large items

BES entertained requests in FY 2007 for additional capital funds for BES entertained requests in FY 2007 for additional capital funds for relatively large, specific equipment items (at $0.2M - $2M each) relatively large, specific equipment items (at $0.2M - $2M each) based on science that would be enabled and on value to users. based on science that would be enabled and on value to users. Funds available permitted two such requests to be supported: an Funds available permitted two such requests to be supported: an automated nanoparticle synthesizer at the Molecular Foundry automated nanoparticle synthesizer at the Molecular Foundry (LBNL), and a 160-node computational cluster at CNMS (ORNL). (LBNL), and a 160-node computational cluster at CNMS (ORNL). These requests and their consideration were distinct from the These requests and their consideration were distinct from the operational reviews.operational reviews.

160 node computational cluster(left + right racks)

Automated inorganic nanoparticle synthesizer



Review date determined and Review date determined and charge lettercharge letter sent to facility Director sent to facility Director













BES reviews operating facilities on a three year cycleBES reviews operating facilities on a three year cycle

( )

On-site meeting; individual On-site meeting; individual evaluations submitted byevaluations submitted byexternal peer reviewers (7-10)external peer reviewers (7-10)

Additional evaluations of Review Additional evaluations of Review Documents by mail reviewers (1-5)Documents by mail reviewers (1-5)

Fundamental review criteria (from Fundamental review criteria (from charge letter to facility):charge letter to facility):

Same review criteria stated in charge Same review criteria stated in charge letters to reviewersletters to reviewers

For the NSRCs:For the NSRCs:




Facility prepares Facility prepares Review DocumentsReview Documents (RDs) and submits to BES; (RDs) and submits to BES; additions/revisions if necessaryadditions/revisions if necessary












A companion document entitled “Review Policies for the A companion document entitled “Review Policies for the Nanoscale Science Research Centers: Criteria, Process, and Nanoscale Science Research Centers: Criteria, Process, and Documentation” was supplied to each NSRC as an attachment to Documentation” was supplied to each NSRC as an attachment to the charge letterthe charge letter

A summary Review Document is required for Facilities Operation A summary Review Document is required for Facilities Operation and Overview; a template is provided as part of the above and Overview; a template is provided as part of the above document. This includes (as major sections):document. This includes (as major sections): Executive SummaryExecutive Summary

Facility OverviewFacility Overview

Instruments and LaboratoriesInstruments and Laboratories

User AccessUser Access

ImpactImpact

Future DirectionsFuture Directions

BES annual data submissions and survey results for prior 3 fiscal yearsBES annual data submissions and survey results for prior 3 fiscal years

Additional Review Documents are required for each existing or Additional Review Documents are required for each existing or proposed scientific thrust area, following BES guidance at: proposed scientific thrust area, following BES guidance at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/Guide_for_Lab_Rev_Docs.pdfhttp://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/Guide_for_Lab_Rev_Docs.pdf

Review DocumentsReview Documents





ReviewersReviewers selected by BES and sent charge letter and RDs selected by BES and sent charge letter and RDs











reviewer affiliations

20 10

22

academic

National Lab

other government

industry/consultant

44 total reviews received44 total reviews receivedfrom 34 distinct reviewersfrom 34 distinct reviewers Three reviewers served on threeThree reviewers served on three

of the four review committeesof the four review committees

Four reviewers served on twoFour reviewers served on twoof the four review committeesof the four review committees

Overlap assisted in comparisonsOverlap assisted in comparisonsand providing contextand providing context

Some reviewers also participated recently or concurrently in Some reviewers also participated recently or concurrently in reviews of research programs supported by other Divisions of BES reviews of research programs supported by other Divisions of BES at the same lab, and were asked specifically to comment on at the same lab, and were asked specifically to comment on program distinctness and duplicationprogram distinctness and duplication

33 of the reports were from on-site reviewers; the remaining 11 33 of the reports were from on-site reviewers; the remaining 11 were based on evaluation of the Review Documents by mailwere based on evaluation of the Review Documents by mail

All reviewers were asked to comment on ES&H, but reviewers with All reviewers were asked to comment on ES&H, but reviewers with specific expertise were included and asked to focus on this areaspecific expertise were included and asked to focus on this area

ReviewersReviewers


Recognizing that this is an initial (baseline) review of a new facility that has only been in operations for approximately a year, we would like each reviewer to provide an individual evaluation addressing the following issues:

Quality and quantity of the research performed at the facility in terms of number and impact of research publications, presentations, and other outputs.

Appropriateness and quality of the facility staff research and development (R&D) program.

Satisfaction of the user community with the facility support and staff.

Overall availability of quality instrument time and capabilities to the user community.

What is the user demand at the facility?

Evaluate the proposal review process for effectiveness and fairness in the allocation of time and resources.

Evaluate the fairness in the distribution of time and capabilities among users (i.e., facility staff vs. outside users).

Evaluate the appropriateness of the instrumentation to satisfy the present and future needs of the user community.

Evaluate the performance and cost effectiveness of the operation of major capabilities (i.e. cost of operating a specific signature instrument or cluster of related instruments in relation to its demand by users and its scientific productivity).

Evaluate what is an appropriate level of research and development funding for efforts related to improving operations, instrumentation, sample preparation, upkeep, etc.

How does the facility see its role in the nanoscience community as a whole, and in the scientific community at large?

What is the expected future capability of the facility?

Questions and issues reviewers were asked to considerQuestions and issues reviewers were asked to consider






AgendaAgenda drafted by facility and finalized with input from BES drafted by facility and finalized with input from BES










Plenary talks

Breakouts, small groups, tours, posters

Executive session

Typical operations review agenda (2.5 days for NSRCs)Typical operations review agenda (2.5 days for NSRCs)










Review resultsReview results communicated to facility Director: communicated to facility Director: Letter with discussion of findings, BES observations, recommendations, and/or Letter with discussion of findings, BES observations, recommendations, and/or






Quality (and quantity) of scienceQuality (and quantity) of science• Research accomplishments and output• Number and nature of thrusts

User programUser program• Number of users• Diversity of users: new users, non-host lab, geographical• Accessibility, ease-of-use, and user satisfaction

Environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) aspectsEnvironmental, safety, and health (ES&H) aspects

Management and organizationManagement and organization• Present management• Management structure

Overlap/interaction with other BES, DOE, and non-DOE programsOverlap/interaction with other BES, DOE, and non-DOE programs• Subject matter overlap• Staff sharing• Utilization by programs at lab• Collocated user facilities

Advisory committeesAdvisory committees

Some major areas of interest in review of the NSRCsSome major areas of interest in review of the NSRCs


Quality (and quantity) of scienceQuality (and quantity) of science

Assessments of quality of individual scientific thrust areas and Assessments of quality of individual scientific thrust areas and NSRC programs as a whole were largely positive, but did vary NSRC programs as a whole were largely positive, but did vary considerably. No concerns were expressed about quantity of considerably. No concerns were expressed about quantity of output, though several comments noted that it was “too early to output, though several comments noted that it was “too early to tell.” Sample quotes from reviews:tell.” Sample quotes from reviews:

““In my view, the quality of the research is simply stellar.”In my view, the quality of the research is simply stellar.”

““High-quality research… impressive record of publications in High-quality research… impressive record of publications in prestigious journals”prestigious journals”

““Overall, this is an exciting research theme involving outstanding Overall, this is an exciting research theme involving outstanding scientists working on cutting-edge research problems.”scientists working on cutting-edge research problems.”

““The general ideas are in the main stream of research, without major The general ideas are in the main stream of research, without major novel ideas being advanced”novel ideas being advanced”

““Being realistic it seems that at some moment the decision will have to Being realistic it seems that at some moment the decision will have to be made which areas to strengthen and which to abandon”be made which areas to strengthen and which to abandon”


H2

PdPd

Electron flow

Some examples of NSRC scienceSome examples of NSRC science

Using DNA to guide Using DNA to guide controlled 3-D controlled 3-D crystallization of crystallization of nanoparticles (CFN)nanoparticles (CFN)

Assembly of and charge Assembly of and charge transport in quasi-1D transport in quasi-1D nanocrystal arrays (CNM)nanocrystal arrays (CNM)

O2

cap

basemiddle subunits

(reduced)Producing defined Producing defined protein nanotubes protein nanotubes (Foundry)(Foundry) 80 nm (~20 mer)


In general the user programs reviewed extremely well. Processes In general the user programs reviewed extremely well. Processes and demand were found to be robust, and access was regarded as and demand were found to be robust, and access was regarded as fair and straightforward. A few reviewers were concerned, at some fair and straightforward. A few reviewers were concerned, at some sites, about the low number of non-collaborative users thus far. sites, about the low number of non-collaborative users thus far. Some sample quotes:Some sample quotes:

““The review process is clear, fair and credible. The user program is The review process is clear, fair and credible. The user program is first-rate.”first-rate.”

““(The) staff is dedicated to providing a productive environment for the (The) staff is dedicated to providing a productive environment for the user community... It will be important to pay close attention to both the user community... It will be important to pay close attention to both the efficiency of… staff as the user workload increases and ability of users efficiency of… staff as the user workload increases and ability of users to operate in a more independent, less collaborative mode”to operate in a more independent, less collaborative mode”

““There appears to be relatively little user program activity beyond the There appears to be relatively little user program activity beyond the collaborative model… staff believe that users who simply want a collaborative model… staff believe that users who simply want a particular material or device to be produced will increase sharply in the particular material or device to be produced will increase sharply in the near future”near future”

““I am more than a little concerned about the establishment of a "club" I am more than a little concerned about the establishment of a "club" atmosphere.”atmosphere.”

User programsUser programs


Environmental, safety, and health aspectsEnvironmental, safety, and health aspects

In most reviews, had considerable focus In most reviews, had considerable focus on ES&H from a reviewer specifically on ES&H from a reviewer specifically tasked with this.tasked with this.

Overall very strongly positive, with many Overall very strongly positive, with many specific positive remarks on, e.g.:specific positive remarks on, e.g.: adherence to Integrated Safety Management adherence to Integrated Safety Management

principlesprinciples

ES&H supportES&H support

documentationdocumentation

administrative controlsadministrative controls

implementation of DOE P 456.1 and the implementation of DOE P 456.1 and the NSRCs' Approach documentNSRCs' Approach document

Remaining issues largely concern off-Remaining issues largely concern off-hours activities and ease and uniformity of hours activities and ease and uniformity of training, with a few other very specific training, with a few other very specific comments at individual centerscomments at individual centers


Management and organizationManagement and organization• NSRC Directors and management teams were widely praised in all reviews.• For several NSRCs, concerns about management or other organizational

structure were raised.• Organizational changes are underway to respond to these concerns.

Overlap/interaction with other BES, DOE, and non-DOE programsOverlap/interaction with other BES, DOE, and non-DOE programs• The NSRCs employ a variety of different staffing models. Review results

included an emphasis on most NSRC staff having a large commitment (e.g., fraction of their time) in the center, to maximize ownership and clarify priorities. Adjustments have been made or are underway where necessary.

• Subject matter and/or staff overlap between the NSRC and other BES-supported research programs was an issue in some limited cases; these are being addressed by BES-SUF, the BES research divisions, and laboratories as needed.

Advisory committeesAdvisory committees• Proposal Review Committees and equivalents were functioning well.• In some cases, Scientific Advisory and/or other management-level

Committees were underutilized or disengaged; BES accordingly recommended actions to remedy this.

Review outcomes in other areasReview outcomes in other areas


Scientific thrust areas of NSRCs (at time of review)Scientific thrust areas of NSRCs (at time of review)

CNMSCNMS(ORNL)(ORNL)

• Nanomaterials theory institute

• Bio-inspired nanomaterials

• Macro-molecular systems

• Magnetism, transport, & scanning probes

• Structure/dynamics: neutrons, electrons,x-rays

• Catalysis & nano-building blocks

• Functional nanomaterials

FoundryFoundry(LBNL)(LBNL)

• Theory of nanostructured materials

• Biological nanostructures

• Organic nanostructures

• Imaging and manipulation of nanostructures

• Nanofabrication• Inorganic

nanostructures

CINTCINT(SNL/LANL)(SNL/LANL)

• Theory & simulation

• Soft, biological, & composite nanomaterials

• Nano-electronics, mechanics, systems

• Nanophotonics & optical nanomaterials

CNMCNM(ANL)(ANL)

• Theory & modeling

• Nano-Bio interfaces

• Electronic & magnetic materials & devices

• X-ray imaging• Nanofabrication• Nanophotonics

CFNCFN(BNL)(BNL)

• Theory & computation

• Biological and soft nanomaterials

• Electronic nanomaterials

• Nanocatalysis


Summary of NSRC review results to dateSummary of NSRC review results to date

A reminder: these were initial baseline reviews, undertaken in some A reminder: these were initial baseline reviews, undertaken in some cases before the facility reached full operations and certainly before cases before the facility reached full operations and certainly before any NSRC was fully staffed or had reached steady-state operations.any NSRC was fully staffed or had reached steady-state operations.

As expected, scientific thrusts varied in strength and coherence As expected, scientific thrusts varied in strength and coherence within each NSRC and across NSRCs. The facilities were strongly within each NSRC and across NSRCs. The facilities were strongly encouraged to constrain scope and focus efforts where necessary.encouraged to constrain scope and focus efforts where necessary.

User programs are off to a strong start across the board, with User programs are off to a strong start across the board, with enthusiastic and productive users at all facilities. Oversubscription enthusiastic and productive users at all facilities. Oversubscription rates (proposal declinations) are moderate now but steadily rising, rates (proposal declinations) are moderate now but steadily rising, and management of community expectations in this transitional and management of community expectations in this transitional environment is challenging.environment is challenging.

Each NSRC has taken concrete steps to address review recommen-Each NSRC has taken concrete steps to address review recommen-dations, some complete and others still underway. Response to the dations, some complete and others still underway. Response to the prior review is one explicit component of each triennial review.prior review is one explicit component of each triennial review.