current research topics in materials science and engineering

• MSE Strategic Plan 2023
• Undergraduate Programs
• Graduate Programs

Research Topics

• Research Groups
• Research Videos
• Research Professionals
• Graduate Students
• MSE Advisory Council
• Awards and Honors
• Position Openings in MSE
• Collaborative Facilities Across Campus
• Alumni Spotlights
• Distinguished Alumni Award
• Class Photos
• Giving Opportunities
• Recruit Students
• MSE Newsletters
• Experience and Employment
• Graduate Services and Activities
• Forms & Checklists
• Identity, Health, Wellness
• Graduate TAs for Current Semester

The field of Materials Science & Engineering is evolving dramatically as we enter the 21st Century. What began as the study of metals and ceramics in the 1960s has broadened in recent years to include semiconductors and soft materials. With this evolution and broadening of the discipline, current research projects span multiple materials classes and build on expertise in many different fields. As a result, current research in Materials Science and Engineering is increasingly defined by materials systems rather than materials classes.

At Cornell, the Department of Materials Science & Engineering (MS&E) has adopted this new systems-based vision of the field by defining four strategic areas which are considered to be critical for today’s emerging research. The four strategic research areas are Energy Production and Storage, Electronics and Photonics, Bioinspired Materials and Systems, and Green Technologies.

Materials Science & Engineering is an exciting and vibrant interdisciplinary research field. Cornell MS&E draws upon its world-class faculty, innovative researchers, state-of-the-art facilities and highly collaborative research environment to respond to challenging technological and societal demands both in the present and the future.

Energy Production and Storage

Energy research will prove to be the most prosperous growth area for the department, the College and the University. The inevitability of an energy crisis and global climate change has intensified efforts in alternative energy research around the world. The excitement building around this sector is reminiscent of the early years of the information technology revolution. Among the many possible sources of alternative energy, the following areas are particularly aligned with the current materials research at Cornell as they play to our existing strengths:  photocatalysis, photovoltaics, thermoelectrics, phononics, batteries  and  supercapacitors .

Relevant Research Areas: 

• Energy Systems
• Advanced Materials Processing
• Materials Synthesis and Processing
• Nanotechnology
• Nonlinear Dynamics
• Polymers and Soft Matter
• Semiconductor Physics and Devices

Electronics & Photonics

The use of semiconductor devices and circuits will continue to play a major role in modern life. Therefore electronics and photonics are considered premier growth areas. As feature sizes decrease, incremental research based on current methods and materials is unlikely to enable Moore's Law to continue. New materials and processing techniques are needed. Advances in nanoscale fabrication have led to recent advances in this field. We have targeted the following areas: oxide semiconductors, 3D integration, materials beyond silicon, high K and low K dielectrics, plasmonics, spintronics, and multiferroics.

• Computational Mechanics
• Computational Solid Mechanics
• Condensed Matter and Material Science
• Surface Science

Bioinspired Materials and Systems

Scientists and engineers are increasingly turning to nature for inspiration. The solutions arrived at by natural selection are often a good starting point in the search for answers to scientific and technical problems. Designing and building bioinspired devices or systems can tell us more about the original animal or plant model. The following areas are particularly aligned with the current materials research at Cornell:  bioinspired composites, engineered protein films for adhesion, lubrication and sensing applications , molecular tools for in-vitro and in-vivo imaging (C-Dots, FRET), as well as biomaterials for tissue engineering and drug delivery.

• Biomedical Engineering
• Biomechanics and Mechanobiology
• Biomedical Imaging and Instrumentation
• Biotechnology
• Drug Delivery and Nanomedicine
• Mechanics of Biological Materials
• Nanobio Applications

Green Technologies

The 21st century has been called the "century of the environment." Neither governments nor individual citizens can any longer assume that social challenges such as pollution, dwindling natural resources and climate change can be set aside for future generations. Strategies for clean and sustainable communities need to be established now, community by community. A dawning era of creativity and innovation in "green technology" (also known as "clean technology") is bringing the promise of a healthier planet (as well as the prospect of growing businesses) that can sustain its health.  We have targeted green composites and new systems for CO2 capture and conversion as areas of future growth .

Hot Topics in Material Science

Maria Burke and Jon Evans

In this, the first of two special reports, science writers Maria Burke and Jon Evans provide their insights into the hottest research topics in materials science by looking through the publication data provided by Scopus and SciVal.

In this new report, Hot Topics in Material Science, the authors derive insights into the current state and future prospects of materials research, by drawing on data provided by Scopus and SciVal, part of Elsevier’s research intelligence suite. The report covers eight classes of materials: biomedical; ceramics; drug related materials; energy materials; electronic, optical and magnetic (EOM) materials; metals and alloys; nanomaterials; and polymers and plastics. For each material class, the authors use the wealth of data provided by Scopus and SciVal to uncover trends in research activity. They identify the topics and technologies within each material class that are receiving most interest from researchers, and the countries producing the largest volume of research and the most influential research, which is very often not the same. They also reveal how this has changed over the past few years. To investigate commercial interest in these research activities, they also looked at industrial collaborations and patent citations. All this analysis is backed up by a host of informative tables and graphs. Finally, they bring all these analyses together to provide a snapshot of the current state of materials research, revealing which are the ‘hottest’ topics. To add expert opinion, they also conducted interviews with the editors-in chief of some of Elsevier’s high-impact materials journals, who gave their personal views on the current state of materials research and its future development.

A summary of this report has been published as The wonderful world of materials: Perspectives on the materials research landscape  in the journal Materials Today . Volume 22, January–February 2019, Pages 1-2.

Share this page

Periodical concentration of surface plasmon polaritons by wave interference in metallic film with nanocavity array, materialism podcast - episode 62: publishing in scientific journals, experimental progress on the emergent infinite-layer ni-based superconductors, scientists uncover the story behind ‘oobleck’.

Scientists have uncovered the mechanisms that cause a mixture of cornstarch and water known as ‘oobleck’ to switch between a liquid and a solid.

Biodegradable plastics: from product to end-of-life

Korean researchers investigate degradation of commercial materials in soil and seawater

Special Issue on Nanomaterials and Nanomedicine - Call for Papers - Materials Today Advances

Recent approaches for enhancing the performance of dissolving microneedles in drug delivery applications, highly adaptable sei/cei interfacial layers enabling remarkable performance of high-nickel solid-state batteries.

• University of Connecticut

College of Engineering

Materials science and engineering, research topics.

The Materials Science and Engineering faculty maintain a large array of active programs and specialized facilities in seven key areas of advanced materials research:

Biomaterials

Ceramic and polymer-ceramic composite materials for orthopedic and dental implants, bone repair, delivery of bone-regenerative drugs, and coatings for titanium-based implants.

Electronic Materials

Ferroelectric materials and thin film devices, dielectric and piezoelectric ceramics, high-energy density capacitors, gate dielectrics, conducting oxides, and photonic crystals.

Materials in Energy and the Environment

Design and development of materials and structures for solid oxide and PEM fuel cell, photovoltaic, hydrogen storage, and energy transduction applications.

Materials Synthesis and Processing

Particle growth by soft chemical and solution crystallization methods, thin film growth by metal-organic decomposition and pulsed laser deposition, solid free form fabrication and joining of ceramics, deformation processing of amorphous metal alloys, metal alloy casting and solidification processes, ion implantation and laser processing of metals and ceramics.

Materials Theory

First-principles calculations of interfacial phenomena in semiconductors, insulators and composite materials, constitutive modeling of coupled interactions in graded thin film and multilayer ferroic heterostructures, thermodynamic theory of transformational phenomena and microstructure evolution in ferroelectrics and related materials.

Nanostructured Materials

Nanolithography, nanofabrication, and nanomanipulation of materials, high temporal resolution scanning probe microscopy measurements of materials properties at the nanoscale, assembly of low dimensional nanostructured materials including quantum dots, nanowires and other novel structures, studies of defects, interfaces, and related nanoscale phenomena in metals, ceramics and semiconductors using analytical and high-resolution electron microscopy techniques.

Structural Materials

Properties of conventional and super alloys, bulk metallic glasses, thermal barrier coatings, radomes, and materials for active structural control.

A-Z Index   UConn Home   Accessibility   Disclaimers, Privacy, & Copyright   © 2024 University of Connecticut

Materials Science & Engineering 25 King Hill Road University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-3136 Phone: (860) 486-4620 Email: [email protected]

Research Areas

Materials Science Research

Materials Science focuses on a fundamental understanding of the different types of materials and the interrelationship between processing, structure, and materials properties. Research areas include biomaterials, ceramics, metals, polymers, composites, electronic materials, energy materials, and thin films.

Brown University’s Materials Science program provides a framework for the discovery and exploitation of the new materials that will enable the transformative technologies that are required to meet current critical challenges in areas such as energy, infrastructure, and security.  Materials science and engineering is concerned with the development of materials with new properties and improved performance through an understanding of the relationships between processing, the atomic-scale mechanisms that build specific microstructures, and how these new and modified materials achieve specific performance goals. In short, materials science dictates the pace of innovation.

The materials research program at Brown is vibrant with faculty in the materials group contributing to, or leading, programs in mechanical behavior of materials, electronic materials and processing, bio-materials and more. State-of-the-art facilities in materials processing and characterization combined with a highly collaborative research culture are among the strengths of our materials research group.

• Materials Science Faculty

Recent News

The secret to longer lasting batteries might be in how soap works, new study says, brown launches new initiative to galvanize research in sustainable energy technology, padture awarded $1.5 million grant from department of energy, new material could pave way for better, safer batteries, 'molecular glue' makes perovskite solar cells dramatically more reliable over time, researchers develop new graphene nanochannel water filters.

• Research & Faculty
• Offices & Services
• Information for:
• Faculty & Staff
• News & Events
• Contact & Visit
• About the Department
• Message from the Chair
• Quick Facts
• Mission, Vision, & Core Values
• Undergraduate Study
• Materials Science and Engineering (BS)
• Curriculum & Requirements
• Areas of Concentration
• ABET Objectives & Outcomes
• Minor in Materials Science
• Combined BS/MS Program
• Student Awards
• Hilliard Awards
• Outstanding MatSci Junior Award
• Outstanding MatSci Sophomore Award
• Meister Summer Awards
• Awards Application Information
• Special Programs
• Student Organizations
• Graduate Study
• Master of Science in Materials Science and Engineering
• Materials Science and Engineering (PhD)
• Financial Aid
• Admitted Students
• Previous Course Listings
• Areas of Research
• Art Conservation Science
• Biomaterials
• Magnetic Materials
• Materials for Electronics & Photonics
• Materials Synthesis and Processing
• Materials Theory, Computation, & Design
• Nanomaterials
• Self-Assembly
• Surfaces & Interfaces
• Affiliated Centers & Institutes
• Core Faculty
• Affiliated Faculty
• Research Faculty
• Emeritus Faculty
• Teaching Faculty
• Advisory Board
• Faculty Awards
• National Awards
• Northwestern Awards
• Professional Awards
• In Memoriam
• News Archive
• Colloquia & Seminars
• John E. Dorn Lecture
• John E. Hilliard Lecture & Symposium
• Morris E. Fine Lecture
• Dow Lecture
• Future Leaders Seminar Series
• Past Events
• Giving to MSE
• Department Resources
• Academic Resources
• Reimbursements & Travel
• Procurement & Purchasing
• Research Professor (Open Rank)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee
• Student Groups
• Past DEI Committee Members
• Future Leaders Program
• Current FLP Cohort
• Northwestern Engineering

Research Areas of Research

The interests of department faculty span most areas of specialization at the forefront of materials science research, including:

• Materials for Electronics and Photonics
• Materials Synthesis & Processing
• Materials Theory, Computation, and Design
• Surfaces and Interfaces

More in this section

• Engineering Home
• MSE Department

Related Links

• Research at McCormick
• Meet Our Faculty
• Northwestern Research Overview

Contact Info

Department of Materials Science and Engineering McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science 2220 Campus Drive,  Room 2036 Evanston, IL 60208 Phone: 847-491-3537 Fax: 847-491-7820 Email Department

The Ohio State University

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

Research Topics

The department's more than 30 faculty members conduct a broad scope of research within the fields of materials science and engineering and welding engineering. Click to view faculty associated with a topic.

• Biomaterials Biomaterials focuses on the development of materials to replace or augment human tissues. Advances in tissue engineering integrate discoveries from biochemistry, cell and molecular biology, and materials science to produce three-dimensional structures that enable us to replace or repair damaged, missing or poorly functioning biological components.
• Ceramic Science and Engineering The MSE department has high profile research programs in ceramics, with an emphasis on functional ceramics (such as sensors, fuel cells, batteries, catalysis, photovoltaics and superconductors), spanning their processing, characterization, and properties. While most of the work carried out in the department focuses on metal oxides, there is also interest in carbides, sulfides, and other advanced ceramic materials within the several areas of research.

Extensive facilities for characterizing the properties and structure of materials are available to our students and faculty. This includes the capability to test both existing and theoretical materials for qualities such as strength, plasticity, and hardness as well as explore the microstructure that leads to these properties. 

At the core of this effort is the Center for Electron Microscopy and Analysis (CEMAS) . CEMAS is the preeminent materials characterization hub for business and academia. The Center brings together multidisciplinary expertise to drive synergy and amplify our characterization capabilities, and thus challenge what is possible in electron microscopy. CEMAS is revolutionizing teaching and learning of advanced characterization techniques for students and researchers.

• Computational Materials Science and Engineering   Computational Modeling of Materials researches how advances in computing power and software offer the potential to design, synthesize, choose, characterize and test the expected performance of materials in a virtual setting. These capabilities enable accelerated development and optimization of new materials across a range of applications. This vision has produced one of the leading programs in computational materials science and engineering.  
• Corrosion Corrosion, the environmental degradation of materials, is a major area of research in materials science and engineering. In the MSE department, research conducted at the Fontana Corrosion Center (FCC) focuses on the study of corrosion in our effort to develop better methods to protect materials from the adverse impacts of the environment. 
• Electronic, Photonic, and Magnetic Materials With an ever-growing range of important applications, and need for an expanding palette of functionalities and properties, there is substantial interest in the synthesis, processing, and characterization of new electronic, optical/photonic, and magnetic materials. The Department of Materials Science and Engineering, often in cross-disciplinary collaboration, is taking the lead in developing a wide variety of these advanced materials, as well as the novel devices and systems that make use of them.

Energy Materials Energy is a central aspect of our daily lives, as well as a critical lynch pin in everything from climate change to the economy to national security. Materials science and engineering research plays a truly enabling role in the creation, understanding, and application of new and advanced materials for clean and renewable energy generation, storage, and efficient use.

• Mechanical Properties of Materials Research into the mechanical properties of materials includes testing both existing and theoretical materials for qualities such as strength, plasticity and hardness. Current programs range from simulating and modeling a variety of forming operations for metals to studying the wear behavior of composites. These investigations employ experimental techniques ranging from the atomic to industrial scale and their use in manufacturing operations. 

The demands of modern methods of transportation, structural systems, and manufacturing all require innovative alloys and processes of production. Our department, in collaboration with others at OSU and beyond, is uniquely structured to address these demands.

Our   materials modeling   capabilities, coupled with the advanced characterization facilities found in the   Center for Electron Microscopy and Analysis (CEMAS) , allows for a drastic reduction in the concept-to-application timeframe for new alloys. The world-renowned   Fontana Corrosion Center (FCC)   predicts and studies the degradation of materials systems. The   Welding Engineering   program and the   Center for Design and Manufacturing Excellence (CDME)   help industry meet production challenges found with the application of advanced metals.

Polymers Polymers research at The Ohio State University spans multiple departments. In the Materials Science and Engineering and Welding Engineering programs the study of polymers involves two broad areas, biomaterials and polymers joining. Our biomaterials faculty research the use of polymers as they interact with living systems. This can involve such applications as polymer mesh as scaffolds for living cells, flexible electronics, drug delivery systems, and more. Polymers joining is part of our Welding Engineering program and explores new and efficient means of bonding different polymers, as well as, how to join to non-polymers.

Processing and Manufacturing Expertise in materials science goes well beyond understanding the properties of materials and how those properties can be applied. Materials scientists must also be adept at developing cost-effective techniques to synthesize, process and fabricate advanced materials that can meet the demands of a rapidly changing commercial marketplace.

Sensor Materials and Technologies Working from the successes of the NSF   Center for Industrial Sensors and Measurements   (CISM), a wide range of on-going activity in sensor materials and devices is carried out in our department spanning ceramic, polymers, and biomaterials sensor technologies.  Research in the field of Sensor Materials and Technologies includes such topics as electrochemical sensors for environmental and high-temperature applications, bulk, nanowires, and heterostructures, chemical sensors for breath and skin, implantable biosensors, devices for artificial olfaction, and much more.

• Welding Engineering Welding Engineering is a complex engineering field requiring sound knowledge of a wide variety of engineering disciplines.  Following successful completion of standard engineering prerequisite courses, Welding Engineer students begin their welding engineering coursework. The broad range of topics covered include welding metallurgy of ferrous and non-ferrous alloys, fundamental principles of industrial welding processes including Solid-State, Laser, Resistance, Electron Beam, and Arc Welding, computational modelling, heat flow, residual stress and distortion, fracture mechanics, weld design for various loading conditions, and non-destructive testing methods.  Welding Engineering graduates are well-prepared for solving complex problems and making critical engineering decisions. The highly sought-after graduates take jobs in a wide variety of industry sectors including nuclear, petrochemical, automotive, medical, ship building, aerospace, power generation, and heavy equipment manufacturing.

Materials science and engineering : Discover, browse, read

Browse our materials science journals for new research.

Discover more journal titles on BrowZine!

Easily find, read, and monitor thousands of scholarly journals available from Stanford Libraries and Open Access publishers.

Browse our e-books for more info on a topic

• Cambridge core "Cambridge Core, a brand new platform for Cambridge University Press's academic content. Our book and journal content has been brought together for the first time on Cambridge Core: a sophisticated, high-performance replacement for Cambridge Journals Online and Cambridge Books Online and a number of additional online products and platforms."
• CRCnetBASE An online collection of scientific books and reference materials published by CRC Press, Auerbach, and Chapman & Hall. Covers a wide range of areas of scientific research from toxicology, engineering, chemistry to neuroscience, mathematics and others.
• Knovel Knovel provides access to reference materials in the fields of engineering and applied sciences. Subject areas covered include: chemistry and chemical engineering, plastics and rubbers, semiconductors, advanced materials, and safety, health and hygiene.
• SpringerLink Online collection of Springer e-book titles, as well as titles from other publishers. Subjects include: life sciences, chemical sciences, environmental sciences, geosciences, computer science, mathematics, medicine, physics, astronomy, engineering, and economics.
• Next: Expand your search >>
• Discover, browse, read
• Expand your search
• Automate your search
• Manage your citations

• Last Updated: Aug 14, 2023 4:12 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/mse

School of Materials Science and Engineering

Research overview.

The School of Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) has a research portfolio that focuses on all classes and forms of materials, including metals, ceramics, polymers, fibers, textiles, composites, nanostructures, and bio-enabled/biomimetic materials.

Faculty Research Overview

As illustrated in the figure below, the process-structure-property-performance paradigm is the core that integrates the various research activities aimed at addressing a multitude of functionalities from structural load-bearing applications to energy storage and harvesting; and electronic, photonic, and opto-electronic devices to drug delivery and biomedical implants.

Advances in technology require materials with multiple functionalities, prescribed forms, and properties customized for specific applications and performance requirements. Individual and interdisciplinary research projects involve developing methodologies to stretch the limits of performance of existing materials, or envisioning, predicting, designing, and developing new materials for performance specific applications utilizing sustainable processes and strategic use of materials.

Environment

Environmental concerns have been at the forefront of limiting technological advances in various industry sectors. In addition to climate change issues associated with waste gas emissions from automobiles and factories, access to and development of clean water, consumption and waste of raw materials during primary/secondary materials refining/separation processes are all important environmental issues that scientists and engineers are actively trying to resolve. Materials based solutions being researched by MSE faculty include advancements in filters, sensors, and catalysts, modifications of materials processing approaches with significantly improved yield or conversion efficiency or increased recycling, as well as light-weighting of devices and vehicles for overall reduction in use of such materials as well as reduced energy consumption.

Materials play a major role in augmenting concerns about security in the homeland and on the battle field. From X-ray machines and metal detectors to safety glasses, and advanced composites for airframes or soft and hard armor for protection of personnel and vehicles to structural barricades for buildings, material scientists are constantly researching and developing new materials for these applications. This is a major area of research being pursued by MSE faculty. It involves advancing the fundamental understanding of the materials response under extreme conditions of high stress, strain, and strain rate; learning lessons from nature to design materials for various types of diagnostic devices, sensors, and protection systems; fabrication of soft and hard light-weight armor materials; as well as developing batteries and other powering sources for various portable devices.

Transportation

Transportation of today is dictated by the ability to achieve high speed, maximum vehicle safety, minimum energy utilization, and low cost, none of which can be compromised. The challenge therefore, is the conflicting characteristics that are often required in materials to meet these demands. Advancements in air/water/land based transportation are consequently limited by the time it takes from development to deployment of materials that satisfy the demanding performance requirements. This is one of the challenges where research guided by the Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) has the potential to make a significant impact. MSE faculty are actively pursuing research in various aspects of materials for transportation, leveraging the MGI program paradigm. Some of the efforts include developing materials for sensors, batteries, fuel cells; as well as light-weight Al- and Mg-based alloys and high-performance third-generation steels for automobiles; high-strength fibers and composites for airplanes and automobiles, and blast resistant alloys for ship hulls.

The generation, conservation, and distribution of energy, is one of the most daunting challenges facing the world today. The United States is the 2nd largest consumer of energy, with average per-capita consumption being about 334 million BTUs per person. Materials play a critical role in the design and development of next generation fuel cells, batteries, super-capacitors, solar devices, gas generators and nuclear reactors, and in power distribution grids. Research in the so-called “Energy” materials is being actively pursued by MSE faculty for many of these applications. The focus spans from developing new materials for electrodes used for energy storage and conversion, characterizing and modeling interactions across various interfaces, and generating the fundamental understanding of the effects of structure and defects on transport and electrical properties.

Infrastructure

The aging of infrastructure and the effects from natural disasters, accidents, and terrorist threats, makes this a grand challenge for society as a whole. Not only is the repair of infrastructure following major disasters cost prohibitive, so is its maintenance due to aging. Materials play an important role in terms of designing cost-effective and sustainable solutions from which the infrastructure is built, while ensuring environmental, energy, and aesthetic considerations, as well as for developing methods that ensure prevention, diagnostics, and repair of failed systems. Corrosion of infrastructure materials, such as in gas pipelines, power plants, as well as in paper (and other materials) manufacturing industries, design of novel construction materials and methodologies, understanding of aging and life cycle prediction from various mechanisms of failure of infrastructure materials, and development of coatings, sensors, and monitoring systems to prevent catastrophic failure, are some of the research areas being pursued by MSE faculty.

Human Welfare

Health care and human welfare in general, may well be one of the most discussed and hotly debated issues for the next ten years. Better food safety, vaccination delivery methods, general medical supplies, implants and limb replacements are all items that will need constant improvements and advancements for the foreseeable future.

Ceramics representing inorganic, non-metallic materials have been researched at Georgia Tech since 1924 with the advent of the kaolin industry in Georgia. Increasing attention focused on ceramics in the 1960s to meet the needs of materials capable of withstanding the extreme environments in nuclear reactors and space-crafts. Today, research in ceramics is vital for advances in electronics and telecommunications, devices for energy conversion, storage and harvesting, catalysts and sensors, vehicle and personnel armor, as well as for ferro/piezo-electric devices, micro-mechanical systems, permanent magnets, automobile engines, and biomedical applications. Much work on various aspects of oxide and non-oxide ceramics in the form of nanoparticles, coatings, and bulk solids for a variety of structural and (multi)functional applications under ambient and extreme environment is being pursued by MSE faculty. Ceramics form the basis of two start-up companies led by MSE faculty, and a number of centers and multi-disciplinary research programs have ceramic materials as their core.

Synthetic and natural polymers which play an essential and ubiquitous role in everyday life have seen the dawn of a new era in recent years, due to the ability to tune their functionality for use in a wide range of electronic applications, their formability and recyclability permitting use for a multitude of structural applications, and their inert response necessary for use in the health and medical industry. We have one of the largest polymer research portfolios amongst MSE programs in the US, with strengths in topologically-complex, functional, nanostructured, and shape-memory and bio-polymers, conjugated oligomers, supra-molecular and block-copolymers, as well as negative Poisson’s ratio polymers and nematic liquid crystals. Faculty research in polymers is focused on all aspects of synthesis, processing, recycling, characterizing, testing, modeling and computing, for advancing the understanding of process/structure/property relations needed for performance-specific design with polymers.

From carbon-nanotube (CNT) based composite fibers to photonic crystal based optical fibers, MSE faculty are pursuing research in this area which is at the cutting edge of technology. The CNT based fibers are of interest not only as reinforcements in structural materials with extremely high specific strength and modulus, but also due to their enhanced multi-functionality for use in paper, textiles, and other platforms. Such fibers are currently being researched in the multi-million dollar fiber manufacturing facility in MSE at Georgia Tech. Photonic crystal and other optical fibers are also providing opportunities for use as diagnostic probes as well as for other innovative applications in the telecommunications industry.

Textiles constitute amongst the oldest form of material which has been researched at Georgia Tech dating back to the days of the cotton-based manufacturing technology more than a hundred years ago, which resulted in graduates who went on to run successful textile businesses in the state. The advent of synthetic materials revolutionized the field of textiles, but negatively influenced the US textile industry. Today, research in advanced textiles is at par with any other form of advanced material. From textiles employing antimicrobial technologies for use in medical applications and sweat-resistant weave architecture for athletic apparel, to intelligently-designed wearable smart shirt, carpets, and sports turf, research in this area continues to be actively pursued by MSE faculty.

Composite materials integrating various ceramics, fibers, metals, and polymer forms are being investigated for practically every conceivable application in aerospace, automotive, electronic packaging, orthopedic implants, energy storage, permanent magnets, household/sports equipment, wind turbines, etc. Research in various forms of composite materials by MSE faculty is geared towards their synthesis/processing/fabrication, characterization of constituent structure and interface characteristics, determination of function-specific properties, and computations and modeling from constituent-level aspects to the prediction of system performance of composite materials used in the form of linings or bulk forms, and ultra-light-weight foams or cellular or tensegrity-inspired structures. The Composites Research and Education Center provides a campus-wide interdisciplinary forum in this area.

Nanostructured materials in the form of nano-particles, nano-rods, nano-tubes, nano-foams, nano-pillars, nano-layers, nano-flakes, nano-coatings, and nano-devices have dominated the research arena in the past two decades. It has increased awareness of materials in the community and been a topic of much interest even amongst chemists, physicists, and other scientists and engineers, because of the potential applications that can be exploited due to the possibility of attaining unusual properties, as well as the new science that can be understood in terms of material behavior due to nano-scale structures. Current research in MSE involves studies of nanostructured materials for medical applications such as imaging/diagnosing/ treating disease and bio-barrier coatings that prevent attack of implants; energy harvesting and storage applications including batteries, fuel cells, and supercapacitors; electronic/optoelectronic and photonic devices based on organic/inorganic metamaterials, quantum dots, and liquid crystals; as well as characterizing, determining, and computing the unique biological, chemical, mechanical, and physical properties of various forms of nanostructured materials.

Research in biomolecular-solids and biomaterials such as lipids, proteins, nucleic and fatty acids, DNA, hydrogels, folic acid, beta-carotene, etc., is aimed at controlling, creating, and manipulating their form and function for solutions to issues and problems related to the environment, agriculture, energy, industry, food production, biotechnology and medicine. From their use as medical implants and markers, to sensing and drug delivery applications, to studies of bio-inspired and bio-enabled synthesis and formation of new materials for a variety of applications, the field of biomaterials is a rich area of research being actively pursued by a number of our faculty. It is the basis of one of the start-up companies led by an MSE faculty, and also the central theme of the BIONIC Air Force Center of Excellence.

Metals have been an active area of research in MSE at Georgia Tech from the early days of the development of alloying theories, to casting and forming of advanced aluminum alloys for the aerospace industry, to the understanding of their mechanical behavior under monotonic/cyclic/dynamic loading for automotive and defense applications, and their use in corrosive (paper/petrochemical) and other extreme environments. Today, metals and alloys continue to be studied by MSE faculty with the process/structure/property paradigm at the core of developing alloys with designer nano/micro/single/poly-crystalline or amorphous structures for properties needed in applications relevant to biomedical, chemical, energy, electronic, photonic, structural, and other applications. Research in this area is the basis of major efforts in Integrated Computational Materials Engineering, which include IUCRC and MURI programs, as well as the extensive Mechanical Properties Research Laboratory which serves as a campus wide user facility.

Search form

An inexpensive, diy setup recycles precious liquid helium in the lab, ucsd researchers recently showed off a system for small labs to conserve helium used to cool sensitive equipment., mrsec director elected to national academy of engineering, 3d-printed ‘living material’ could clean up contaminated water, new video showcases the value and benefit of the mrsec program, the program serves as a platform for scientists to collaborate and problem solve., shared instrumentation facilities, benefiting researchers and universities, and sustaining research excellence, strength in numbers, how nsf's materials research facilities network helps bolster the field of materials science and engineering., a collective collaboration, how nsf’s decades-long materials science program has fostered partnerships across scientific fields., recent program highlights, rapid generation and screening of complex polymer morphologies.

Block copolymers, with their complex morphologies, are widely used in many applications. A grand challenge associated with these materials is accelerating their design and discovery.

Superlubricious Hydrogels from Oxidation Gradients

Hydrogels are hydrated three-dimensional networksof hydrophilic polymers that are commonly used in the biomedical industry due to their mechanical and structural tunability, biocompatibility, and s

High-entropy engineering of the crystal and electronic structures in a Dirac material

Quantum materials have the potential to revolutionize technologies ranging from sensing to telecommunication and computation. However, advancement has been limited by the development of topological and Dirac materials. IRG2 researchers demonstrated a novel and widely applicable strategy to engineer relativistic electron states to develop such materials through a high-entropy approach.

MRSEC Education Resources and Opportunities

MRSECs support interdisciplinary materials research and education of the highest quality while addressing fundamental problems in science and engineering that are important to society. Read about how MRSECs function along with opportunities they offer in research, collaboration, and outreach and professional development.

• Read more about MRSEC Education Resources and Opportunities

MRSEC Program Overview

Welcome to the internet hub of the Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC), a network of  Centers located at academic institutions  throughout the United States, funded by the  National Science Foundation . This website provides organized connections to information and resources at the various MRSECs for the international scientific, industrial, and educational materials research and development communities.

• Read more about MRSEC Program Overview

• Request new password

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Search, reuse and sharing of research data in materials science and engineering—A qualitative interview study

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Virtual Vehicle Research GmbH, Graz, Austria

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing

• Bettina Suhr, 
• Johanna Dungl, 
• Alexander Stocker

• Published: September 15, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239216
• Reader Comments

Open research data practices are a relatively new, thus still evolving part of scientific work, and their usage varies strongly within different scientific domains. In the literature, the investigation of open research data practices covers the whole range of big empirical studies covering multiple scientific domains to smaller, in depth studies analysing a single field of research. Despite the richness of literature on this topic, there is still a lack of knowledge on the (open) research data awareness and practices in materials science and engineering. While most current studies focus only on some aspects of open research data practices, we aim for a comprehensive understanding of all practices with respect to the considered scientific domain. Hence this study aims at 1) drawing the whole picture of search, reuse and sharing of research data 2) while focusing on materials science and engineering. The chosen approach allows to explore the connections between different aspects of open research data practices, e.g. between data sharing and data search. In depth interviews with 13 researchers in this field were conducted, transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed using content analysis. The main findings characterised research data in materials science and engineering as extremely diverse, often generated for a very specific research focus and needing a precise description of the data and the complete generation process for possible reuse. Results on research data search and reuse showed that the interviewees intended to reuse data but were mostly unfamiliar with (yet interested in) modern methods as dataset search engines, data journals or searching public repositories. Current research data sharing is not open, but bilaterally and usually encouraged by supervisors or employers. Project funding does affect data sharing in two ways: some researchers argue to share their data openly due to their funding agency’s policy, while others face legal restrictions for sharing as their projects are partly funded by industry. The time needed for a precise description of the data and their generation process is named as biggest obstacle for data sharing. From these findings, a precise set of actions is derived suitable to support Open Data, involving training for researchers and introducing rewards for data sharing on the level of universities and funding bodies.

Citation: Suhr B, Dungl J, Stocker A (2020) Search, reuse and sharing of research data in materials science and engineering—A qualitative interview study. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0239216. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239216

Editor: Marco Lepidi, University of Genova, ITALY

Received: February 27, 2020; Accepted: September 1, 2020; Published: September 15, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Suhr et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: This study presents qualitative research in conducting interviews with scientists from the authors’ professional network. All participants provided written consent to use their answers in an research paper and were asked to authorise the usage of direct quotes in this paper. In this setting, it is not possible to publish the interview transcripts as suggested by the PLOS ONE research data policy. Even in anonymised transcripts, it could be possible to identify single participants, due to their personal connection to the authors or when the participants talk about specific data, their research focus or project funding. Moreover, to publish such anonymised transcripts would violate the written consent obtained from the participants and thus would not be in accordance with European General Data Protection Regulation. Due to these restrictions, the authors of this study will share only the used interview guideline and a summary of all used quotes as supplemental material to this paper.

Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge funding of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) for the project ORD 85-VO: An Open Data Pilot for the validation of Discrete Element Models. The publication was written at Virtual Vehicle Research GmbH in Graz and partially funded by the COMET K2 – Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies Programme of the Federal Ministry for Climate Action (bmk), the Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs (bmdw), the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG), the Province of Styria and the Styrian Business Promotion Agency (SFG). https://www.v2c2.at/ . The funder provided support in the form of salaries for all authors, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The roles of all authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

Competing interests: BS, JD, and AS are employed by Virtual Vehicle Research GmbH. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on data and materials sharing.

Introduction and motivation

The availability of research data affects the work of every researcher to a greater or lesser extent. In 2014, one of the authors of this paper, B. Suhr, with background in mathematics started working in a new field, granular materials, and faced the problems arising from the lack of openly available data. In the literature, both experimental and computational data was published in processed form, but it was the raw data, which would have facilitated the own scientific work. As a consequence of unavailable research data, experiments were panned, conducted and paid for. The idea of Open Data, to make data findable, available, integrable and reusable (known as the F.A.I.R. principle), is currently receiving much support from politics and funding agencies, e.g. the European Union. In 2016, the national funding agency Austrian Science Funds (FWF) initiated the pilot programme “Open Research Data (ORD)” in order to create role models for the openness of research data. From the author’s experiences, this funding scheme was very attractive, and a project was funded, which included to generate and share all research data needed for a specific purpose: the validation of Discrete Element Models for granular materials. The project team had to deal intensively with non-technical aspects, such as research data management and sharing, which is rather unusual in comparable research projects in this domain. In the granted project, it was decided to publish research (experimental) data accompanied with classical research articles to minimise the needed work for the description of the data (experiments). Up to now, three article/data set pairs are published [ 1 – 6 ], including 3D scan data or direct shear tests and uniaxial compression tests of two types of railway ballast.

For the publication of the datasets zenodo.org was chosen, as here the long-term availability is ensured and all datasets can be part of a so-called “Community Collection”, possibly increasing the findability of the datasets.

As part of the project, open research data practices of scientists in the authors’ scientific domain, materials science and engineering were studied. Open research data practices are understood to include the following aspects: generation of data, search for data, reuse of data and data sharing. The chosen approach allows to study connections between the single aspects of open research data practices and, as one author is member of the investigated domain, to gain deep insights into domain specific features. A qualitative interview study was preferred to a survey and was identified as the most sensible approach for this research, the exploration of (open) research data practices in the field of materials science and engineering. During interviews respondents can tell their story freely and naturally, which leads to more detailed insights and a more comprehensive picture on the subject of investigation. In the formulation of research questions, the first point was to carefully examine the characteristics of research data in the field of materials science and engineering, leading to the first research question:

• RQ1 What are the characteristics of research data needed in materials science and engineering?

The second research question was aimed at finding out which scientists generated their own data (of what type) and how this data was stored. Only those scientists, who generated their own research data, had the option to share this data.

• RQ2 What types of research data are generated by the researchers and how is this data stored?

Data reuse is essential for researchers without the possibility of own data generation, but may also be interesting for those who generate their own data. Therefore, the next research question dealt with the topic of data reuse, including the researchers general attitude towards data reuse, their data search strategies and actual reuse behaviour.

• RQ3 What is the current state of data reuse in materials science and engineering?

Those researchers, who generate their own research data, do principally have the option to share this data. The fourth research question was formulated to find out if data is shared and the reasons why it is done or not.

• RQ4 How do researchers in materials science and engineering share their research data? Why/why not?

The next research question involved all researchers and their views on incentives and obstacles for data sharing.

• RQ5 What are incentives and obstacles for data sharing perceived by researchers within the materials science and engineering domain?

Research data practices are the subject of intensive research, which is reflected by a rich body of literature dealing with these different aspects. A brief literature review will be given in the following section. However, the materials science and engineering domain was not in focus in published research on research data practices. Obviously, research data practices will vary strongly among scientific disciplines, as e.g. climate research or genetics will be very limited without data sharing while e.g. health related research faces legal restrictions protecting the privacy of participants/patients. Hence, it is to be examined, how the materials science and engineering domain perceives the concept of open (research) data in general, which is in the focus of the sixth research question.

• RQ6 How established is the concept of Open Data in the field of materials science and engineering?

The investigation of these six research questions will provide a more complete picture of the current state of open research data practices in the field of materials science and engineering. The chosen approach allows to study the connections between the different aspects of open research data practices, e.g. how data characteristics complicate reuse and sharing. As one of authors is a member of the investigated domain, this insight will be furthermore used to gain a deeper understanding of obstacles and incentives for data sharing or reuse. The obtained results are the basis for a derivation of precise actions, which could support Open Data, and to formulate obstacles which will remain in the view of the authors.

This remaining paper is organised as follows: The next section gives a brief literature review on the different aspects of research data sharing. The methods used in this qualitative interview study are outlined in the following section. The next two sections contain the obtained results and their discussion. In the last section, conclusions are drawn, including potentials and obstacles for Open Data in the investigated field.

Literature review

The possibility to share, search and reuse research data is a rather new concept, [ 7 ]. Researchers might benefit if they can reuse data generated by other researchers, but they are also affected by additional work resulting from data sharing, which can be required by funding agencies or publishers of certain journals. Moreover, it might be difficult for researchers to keep up with new developments both on technological side, e.g. dataset search engines, or on scientific publisher’s sides, e.g. data journals. Here, some key findings of studies dealing with the different aspects of research data practices will be summarised. Purely domain specific studies, e.g. [ 8 ] investigated data sharing of geophysicists or [ 9 ] investigated data sharing among environmental scientists, will not be discussed.

The mandatory prerequisite of data reuse is the search for research data. In [ 10 ], literature on data retrieval practices is presented. For selected disciplines, similarities in how users search for research data are identified. In [ 11 ], the same group of authors investigate the search for research data from a socio-technical perspective by combining results from the literature with conducted interviews.

A very recent phenomenon is the development of dataset search engines. Google started the beta version of “Google Dataset Search” in 2018. Considering the importance of “Google Scholar” for the search of classical research papers, “Google Dataset Search” could have a high potential to make finding datasets easier. More details as well as a discussion of pros and cons can be found in [ 12 ]. As dataset search engines are a very recent phenomenon, little research was published yet on researcher’s usage of such dataset search engines, e.g. [ 10 ] did not address the topic.

Another modern method to both search for/access data and share is the use of data journals. There exist pure data journals, which publish exclusively data papers, but also mixed ones, where also classic research articles are published. While many data journals are specific to a research domain/topic, among the three biggest (w.r.t. number of articles) are two data journals, which are open to all fields: Elsevier’s “Data in Brief” and Springer’s “Scientific Data”. The change in this area is addressed in [ 13 ], where the current state is compared to the one described in [ 14 ] from 2015. The number of data journals grows slower today, while the number of published data papers increases fast. However, the number of data papers in 2019 (11500) represents roughly 0.4% of all research publications in 2017, [ 13 ]. Although data journals introduce a peer-review process to the publication of data, this process is not as mature as it is for classical research articles, [ 15 ].

In 2013, [ 16 ] investigated the data sharing and reuse in the “long tail of science”. While the reported sharing and reuse practices can be expected to have changed over time, the used definitions big/small science will be adopted in the current work. [ 16 ] describe that “Data from big science (large teams, long-term projects, extensive instrumentation) may be great in volume but usually are consistent in structure.” In contrast, in “the long tail of science, individuals and small teams collect data for specific projects. These data tend to be small in volume, local in character, intended for use only by these teams, and are less likely to be structured in ways that allow data to be transferred easily between teams or individuals.” [ 16 ] provide also references that small science “constitute the major portion of scientific funding”.

In 2015, Tenopir et al. [ 17 ] used big surveys to compare the state of data sharing and reuse perceptions with the results they obtained in 2011, [ 18 ]. They found that researchers’ data sharing behaviour is increasing but there are also perceived risks and barriers that might slow down this process. Investigating differences across age, geographic, and discipline-based groups they found that relevant issues were based more on cultural and discipline-based differences than on age. So, researchers “who work with human subjects were significantly less willing to share their data than respondents other disciplines. This may be attributable to the sensitive nature of protected health information with which they work”, [ 17 ]. In [ 19 ] data reuse is considered exclusively. The authors investigated the relation of researchers’ attitudes towards data reuse and their actual reuse behaviour. A greater reuse was found to correspond to the perceived importance of data reuse as well as its perceived efficacy and efficiency. “Expressed lack of trust in existing data and perceived norms against data reuse were not found to be major impediments for reuse contrary to our expectations”, [ 19 ]. In [ 20 ], a multilevel analysis was combined with an integrated theoretical framework to investigate discipline-based differences in researchers’ data reuse behaviour by “considering their disciplinary environments and individual motivations together.” It was stated that researchers’ intended reuse behaviour was influenced through their disciplinary environments, e.g. the availability of data repositories, as well as individual motivation: perceived usefulness, perceived concern and the availability of internal resources. For a further facilitation of data reuse three steps are suggested: “Educating scientists, providing internal supports, and providing external resources and supports such as data repositories”, [ 20 ].

In 2019, Chawinga and Zinn, [ 7 ], published an extensive literature review on data sharing behaviour, including more than 100 papers. They investigated which factors either supported or hinder data sharing on an individual, institutional or international level. At the individual level three main factors were reported to restrict data sharing: lack of time (for data preparation, description and actual sharing), researchers’ interest to remain control over “their” data and researcher’s fear of data misuse. At institutional level, three factors for supporting data sharing were identified: training of researchers in data sharing, compensation for data sharing (e.g. similar to compensations for classical research papers) and organisational policies encouraging data sharing. At international level data sharing policies of funding agencies and journal publishers can positively influence researchers’ data sharing behaviour. As an example, [ 21 ], Federer et al. investigated the PLOS ONE journal and the effect of its policy requiring researchers to share the data used in their publication. In the considered time period (between 2014 and 2016) the number of papers including a data availability statement increased but only 20% of all paper did share their data in a repository, which is the preferred method. Federer et al. suggest more stringent policies to further increase data sharing.

The citation of datasets remains an evolving issue with some open points. For example, in [ 22 ], Silvello addresses three problems. First, identification, e.g. of single, subsets or aggregated resources. Second, completeness, e.g. citing extracted data of large, evolving databases. Third, fixity, i.e. to guarantee access to the cited data. Apart from such problems, the questions is if researchers do formally cite the datasets, which they use. In an empirical investigation, Zhao et al. [ 23 ], analysed dataset mentions and citations in 600 publications in PLOS ONE. Unsurprisingly, big variations between different scientific fields were found, regarding dataset generation, reference and curation. It was stated that for most papers, there was a free access to the data, but “formal ways of data attribution such as DOIs and data citations were used in a limited number of articles”, [ 23 ]. From the results presented in [ 23 ], it seems that some researchers might miss to correctly cite the datasets they reused (although this can hardly be quantified in such an analysis). One possibility to solve this problem is presented in [ 24 ], where scientists develop a framework, which allows to find links between papers and datasets, identifying cases where a data citations might be missing. Moreover, a standard for measuring and displaying data user metrics is worked on. In [ 25 ], Parsons et al. review the history and future of data citations. “We know how to cite most data in research publications. We must only accelerate the implementation, and there does appear to be movement in that direction”, [ 25 ].

The literature review has revealed that there is already broad scientific knowledge on various aspects of open research data practices, also related to search, reuse and sharing of open data. There are many scientific publications that deal in depth with examining one or more of these practices applying different research methods. However, there is a lack of knowledge when it comes to exploring the awareness of open research data and (open) research data practices within specific domains on a more comprehensive level, which especially is true for the materials science and engineering domain.

Study design

To investigate open research data practices in the field of materials science and engineering, a qualitative research approach was chosen including semi-structured interviews. The study design was developed according to the “Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups”, [ 26 ]. For conduction of the interviews, the authors developed an interview guideline, see the supplemental material provided with this work. A. Stocker, who has a PhD in Information Science, reviewed the literature on open research data practices. B. Suhr has a PhD in Mathematics, works in materials science and engineering and contributed practical experience in research data search and reuse. This knowledge was synthesised into the interview guideline. The guideline started with questions regarding the researcher’s scientific background, career stage etc. and then explored research data needs, search for research data and research data usage. The next important points were data generation, collection and sharing practices of the researchers. The interview guideline concluded with questions regarding research data management and knowledge/attitudes towards Open Data and Open Science in general. The interview guideline was formulated using several open-ended questions, to encourage a detailed discussion on the topic. Also, the researcher’s understanding of the term “research data” was subject of the interview. A pilot interview was conducted to test the interview guide and small adaptations were made. The pilot interview was not included in the analysis.

Study participants and recruitment

The recruitment of researchers for the interviews was not easy. In the field of materials science and engineering, scientists rarely come into contact with qualitative interview studies. The authors of this study considered it unlikely to be able to convince strangers to take part in an one hour interview. Therefore, it was decided to contact researchers from the professional network of B. Suhr and ask for participation in this study. Out of 20 contacted researchers, 13 agreed to take part in the interviews. The choice of the participants was independent from their opinion towards data sharing. Researchers with negative views/no experience on the topic were particularly encouraged by the authors to take part in the interview, which was not successful in one case. In this way, the authors aimed at getting a more complete view on data sharing practices and attitudes within the domain, despite the small number of conducted interviews. The Open Data topic is often investigated using surveys of thousands of researchers, e.g. [ 17 , 27 ]. As it is criticised in [ 28 ], such studies could possibly suffer from selection bias. [ 28 ] states “Researchers who are not concerned with the promotion of data access would logically be more likely to skip this survey, thus skewing the results in the direction of increased favourability towards sharing.” This problem is not easily addressed, no matter whether big surveys are conducted or small-scale interviews with detailed discussions. In both cases, the knowledge on structural problems should be integrated in the interpretation of obtained results. Other researchers, who chose not to participate in the interview, either named a lack of time as a reason or did not answer to two mails with the interview invitation.

Details on the interviewed researchers are summarised in Table 1 . From the 13 interviews conducted, 12 participants were male and one female. The interviewed researchers had between 4 and 30 years of experience and their scientific career stage varied from PhD-student to university professor. Four researchers were employed at research centres and nine at universities. They were located in five different European counties (Austria, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom) and one in China. The educational background from the interviewees showed quite a big range, with the majority of participants having a degree in Engineering (including Civil, Geophysical, Industrial, Chemical and Mechanical Engineering). Two researchers had a degree in Materials Science and one in Mathematics. As the interviewees were chosen from the authors’ professional network, the educational background is not included in Table 1 to avoid the identifiability of single persons. The spectrum of educational background shows that the characterisation of the scientific domain is not easy. Most of the researchers work with granular materials, which is part of materials science and engineering.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239216.t001

In qualitative interview studies, the purposeful sampling technique, as described in [ 29 ], is frequently applied. This technique is a non-probabilistic sampling method, which ensures that different characteristics are covered by the interview participants. Due to the described problems with recruitment, this method could not be applied. However, the participants’ characteristics cover the complete range of scientific career stages and years of experience. Also, both universities and research centers are present as employer. It was clearly not possible to cover both genders, due to the low number of women being part of the professional network and working in the field of materials science and engineering. The authors would have preferred to cover a wider range in the country of employment, but at least five European countries are present and also China. Thus, although no purposeful sampling could be applied, most characteristics are well covered by the participants. The choice of the sample size is always difficult for qualitative interview studies, as no standard exists. The question of sample size is frequently connected with the term of saturation. Initially, [ 29 ] introduced theoretical saturation in the approach of grounded theory with a precise meaning. As mentioned in [ 30 ], this concept was later termed data/thematic saturation in other qualitative methods and here its meaning in less developed. According to [ 30 ], saturation is sometimes understood that data should be continuously collected until nothing new is generated. After a discussion of related problems, [ 30 ] concluded that “adopting saturation as a generic quality marker is inappropriate”. In [ 31 ], the concept of information power is introduced for choosing sample size in qualitative interview studies. When the sample holds more information, which are relevant for the current study, than less participants are needed, according to this concept. A model including five influential factors was developed, which indicate if a sample size should be rather large or rather small (not indicating absolute sample sizes but as recommendation for systematic recruitment). In our study, 13 interviews were conducted. Applying the information power influence factor model of [ 31 ], three factors reduce the needed sample size: the study’s aim was narrow (dealing with a special scientific discipline only), the sample specificity was dense (“participants who belong to the specified target group while also exhibiting some variation within the experiences to be explored”, [ 31 ]) and the quality of dialogue was strong (all interviews were conducted by J. Dungl, whose scientific background is communication studies). One factor of the information power model indicated that a rather large sample size is needed: the cross-case analysis strategy. The last factor is the application of established theory, which is ambiguous for this study: for the sampling no established theory could be applied (due to the problems described above), while this was the case for the analysis. With three factors indicating a smaller sample size, one factor indicating a larger sample size and one ambiguous factor, the literature was searched to check the sample sizes of comparable qualitative interview studies on (aspects of) open data practices of researchers of a specific domain. Seven works were found in the literature: data sharing of natural resources and environmental scientists was investigated in [ 9 ] with six interviews, data sharing of crop scientists was studied in [ 32 ] with seven interviews, 13 interviews were conducted with researchers of a special funding scheme in [ 33 ], also 13 interviews were conducted in [ 34 ] to study data reuse of social scientists, data practices of agricultural scientists were investigated with 14 interviews in [ 35 ], 20 interviews were conducted with researchers working in “small science” interested in data management or sharing in [ 36 ], and data reuse in archaeology was studied with 22 interviews in [ 37 ]. With the presented theoretical basis for choosing the sample size and the sample sizes of comparable studies ranging from six to 22, the sample sizes of 13 of the current study is considered as justified.

Data collection and analysis

All interviews were conducted by J. Dungl, whose scientific background is communication studies. She had no former established contact with the participants apart from scheduling the interview. All interviews took place in June and July 2019. The interviews were conducted either in person or via telephone and the typical interview time was about an hour. All participants received oral and written information from the interviewer about the research aim and procedures and provided written informed consent. As already mentioned, the interview guideline contained several open-ended questions to encourage detailed discussions, e.g. “How do you identify organisations or people that may have data that could be useful to you?”. Moreover, the interviews were semi-structured, which allowed the participants to bring up own points in the interviews. In addition to this, also several closed questions were part of the interview, to investigate if researchers were familiar with certain aspects, e.g. “Do you use dataset search engines (e.g. Google Dataset Search)?”. All interviews were audio recorded and from this a transcript was written using the software “Transcriber”. The obtained transcripts were loaded in the qualitative data analysis software “QDA Miner Lite” for coding and analysis. Following qualitative analysis methods, see e.g [ 38 ], data was reduced and displayed before conclusions could be drawn. After all interviews were conducted, the interviewer developed a first coding scheme. This coding scheme was thoroughly discussed with all authors. In an iterative approach, the coding was adapted until a consensus on the used coding was reached. The results section contains also four figures, where used codes and categories can be seen. All quotes presented in this work were send to the interviewees for authentication.

Results RQ1: Domain specific needs for research data

The interviewees were asked, which data they need to conduct their research. The answers could be classified as experimental data and/or computational data , which is in agreement with classifications used in [ 10 ].

Only a few of the interviewed researchers stated that they need computational data to conduct their research. This notion was not always explained in more detail, one researcher stated to need

“ these data in order to validate or to calibrate the theoretical model ” P5

while another one referred to material parameters in general and knowledge on algorithms used in computations. Thus, it seems for the notion of computational data some standardisation of the word itself might be needed.

All of the interviewed researchers stated to need experimental data, but the data they named was very diverse, including recorded forces, paths, velocities as well as images, and depended strongly on the research focus of the interviewees. For demonstration, two example types of data will be named, which were mentioned by four researchers each, all of them working on granular materials.

• geotechnical tests for the characterisation of the mechanical bulk behaviour of the granular material, i.e. triaxial tests, direct shear tests, oedometric tests
• data on the shape of single grains, e.g. 3D meshes derived through 3D laser scanning, computer tomography or X-ray

The geotechnical tests are traditional measurements used for decades for this purpose. Although for some of them technical norms exist, describing the experimental conduction, e.g. [ 39 ], there exist no standardised way for measurement data description, i.e. no metadata standard. Compared to the geotechnical tests, research on grain shape is a more recent phenomenon, which is due to availability/development of measurement devices and computational resources. Most likely new research trends will generate/need different types of research data, possibly measured using newly developed devices. It can be expected that this will provide a big challenge for a research domain, which seems to be slow in developing standardised data description methods. Although these data description standards do not exist, researchers state the importance of a detailed description of the measurement situation. One big problem is missing information, which is addressed by two researchers:

“ I would really need the raw data, actually, to really compare it (to my research), but many a times it is not only the data that is missing, but also the how the experiments were performed .” P2

“ In order for such a thing to be really useful for future research, one would have to describe the origin of this data much more precisely, which is not done. So while it’s the type of experiment that’s been described, but as exactly as the samples are being processed and initial states, these are the quantities that, in my experience and my observation, are often missing .” P11

Another important aspect, which makes a detailed data description mandatory, is the reproducibility of results.

“ The circumstances and conditions that led to the data, if this is not somehow clearly shown or the experimenter himself did not think carefully and planned or even supervised, then you just have any data as a result and the next one does the same experiment with the same material and there comes out something completely different .” P11

In the field of materials science and engineering, reproducibility of experimental data is also an intrinsic problem, as it can arise from variation of measurement methods:

“ Even if you measure the same material (from same provider) in two different labs using the same device, the results might not be even close. Or sometimes the same type of device from different manufacturers will also give you data variation on the same material… ” P8

Results RQ2: Researchers as data generators

During their daily work, researchers take different roles, as they generate, reuse, or share research data. To take this into account, the interviewed researchers were asked, whether they generate research data, which is seen as a prerequisite to the analysis of data sharing practices. From the interviewees, six researchers stated to generate their own experimental data. In four cases, researchers contracted a third person for data generation. These cases are included, as it is assumed that this data could possibly be shared. One researcher explained:

“ We try to get the material characterised ourselves. Either we can do it locally or we have to visit someone, visit some labs to do experiments there or we have to send the material really to a company who does this job ” P8

Moreover, 11 said to generate also computational data, e.g. the output files from conducted simulations.

The researchers were asked if their employer has a data management policy, prescribing them how to store their generated research data. This was the case for seven researchers, two of them stated to write data management plans for their generated data. On the contrary, four researchers stated that in absence of a data management policy they decide alone how to store their data.

Results RQ3: Researchers as data reusers

In the conducted interviews, a positive attitude towards data reuse is found, as all but one researcher stated to intend to reuse research data. The methods, which researchers use to search for data or gain access to data, are shown in Fig 1 in bar charts. Fig 1A summarises the use of methods, which the authors classify as traditional search methods (the numbers in the bars correspond to the number assigned to each participant). Most frequently used is the literature search. Two researchers mentioned to use software tools for data extraction from shown plots and two mentioned raw data provided as supplemental material. The remaining traditional search methods include gaining access bilaterally via the professional network, contacting people at conferences, contacting authors of journal papers or research data are provided by project partners.

A: used methods for search for/get access to research data (traditional). B: usage/knowledge on further methods for search for data (modern).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239216.g001

In the interviews, the researchers were explicitly asked if they use any search method/resource, which the authors would name as modern search methods, see Fig 1B . These include public data repositories, dataset search engines and data journals. Public repositories were known or used by five researchers. In detail, three of them knew the “Zenodo.org” repository, one researcher actively searched at “Zenodo.org”, one downloaded data from an university repository and one used “Mendeley Data” to access data. Thus, less than the half of the interviewees were familiar with public data repositories at all. Out of 13 conducted interviews, only one researcher had heard of “Google Dataset Search”, but never used it. The concept of dataset search engines was unfamiliar to all other researchers. None of the interviewed researchers were aware of the existence of data journals.

In spite of the will of interviewees to reuse research data, there were several obstacles mentioned. As the needed data is very specific, findability is a big problem:

“ I think you need to take a lot of time to find the exact data that you need .” P10

“ It’s very rare actually to find the data you can use .” P6

Another aspect is the lack of standard repositories:

“ In this community, it’s not like there is a standard library or database, you just go there you can get all the information—it is like it is scattered everywhere. Everyone is measuring different things based on the interest and there is no common database for you to just search .” P8

Moreover, as the data generator often collects data for specific projects, the dataset might be incomplete for the usage for another purpose.

“ The problem is always that, there is often a lack of data that the dataset is complete and useful for my work .” P11

Due to the lack of standardised descriptions of research data, research data can be unusable because information were forgotten in the description:

“ Even if one finds one or the other in the literature, it is so that certain quantities are missing and if you ask then, of course, you will not find them after a few years, which is a pity ” P11

Despite the fact that most researchers search in the literature to find research data, it was striking that 10 out of 13 interviewed researchers stated they had never seen a dataset citation. From the three researchers, who had seen data citations, two said that they were very rare.

Results RQ4: Data sharing practices

The interviewees were asked if they share the research data, which they generate. The answers are grouped with respect to the type of data, i.e. experimental data, computational data or computer code, and are summarised in Fig 2 . Experimental data is currently shared only bilaterally. Two researchers stated they share in direct contacts with known persons, two stated they had shared data to contacts from conferences, one stated to have shared data via “Researchgate” and one shared with a contact per email. Thus, both the search for research data and the sharing is mostly organised via personal contacts. This trend might change, as three participants state that they plan to share experimental data in near future (as supplemental material to a journal article, or via an university repository). These participants stated to be affected by their funder’s data sharing policy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239216.g002

Four researchers do not share their experimental data. The reason two of them gave was that until now nobody had asked them to do so. Probably these two see no fundamental problems in data sharing and might share their data, if asked by other researchers, publisher or funding bodies. In contrast, two researchers stated that they do not share their data, because they are not allowed and they do not want to share it. For researchers in this domain, legal restrictions for data sharing often arise from corporation with industry. One researcher also expressed additional concerns, e.g. fear of misuse/misinterpretation:

“ We always block that data because we do not want that anyone does anything with this data without any control. This is a must to avoid “nonsense production”. So I think that’s a bit dangerous .” P12

Regarding computational data, one researcher stated to share generated data soon in a public repository. This researcher also declared to be affected by the funder’s data sharing policy. Two researchers stated that their generated computational data (e.g. output files of computer simulations) is not of interest for others. Thus, they do not share it. This could actually be the case for more than two interviewees, as it was not separately asked for generated computational data, but for generated data in general.

Three researchers stated that computer code was an output of their scientific work. These three share their code, either bilaterally or as open source code. The positive attitude towards code sharing might be linked with the longer tradition of code sharing.

Results RQ5: Incentives and obstacles to share research data

The participating researchers were asked what is (might be) an incentive to share their research data, see Fig 3A for a summary. Remarkably, all six researchers, who share their research data or computer code in any form, were encouraged to do so by their supervisor or employer. This encouragement was also the most frequently mentioned answer. Five interviewees, respectively, named an increase in their visibility as a researcher and being cited (either traditional or dataset citations) as possible motivation. General career benefits were possible incentives for four researchers. The following points were mentioned by three researchers each: facilitation of research in general, encouragement by funding agency, getting feedback on the own work and possible formation of new collaborations.

A: Incentives. B: Obstacles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239216.g003

In the current study, the most frequently mentioned obstacle to share research data is the high amount of time needed to prepare, check and describe the data adequately, compare Fig 3B .

“ You need to spend time to prepare them in a way so that other people can understand what they are. Because raw data is usually messy, you need to label it, you need to make it tidy that other people can understand what is going on in your big data and sometimes we don’t have that time to spend and tidy up our data .” P4

Four researchers named a lack of rewards as an obstacle to share their data. Different aspects were mentioned:

“ I need to report my progress and these things to my line manager and to the university. I’m not sure if this (data sharing) is something I can report .” P4

“ (The) funding agency is again giving you funds when they look at your CV: how many papers you have published and so on. The criteria…They would promote the open data project, but at the same time they are looking how many papers you have published .” P2

“ It (data sharing) would also have to be rewarded in that respect (…) If they (data) are published in such a way that they are provided with a publication number, as on the level of a paper and that e.g. he can use it in his reference list and also in his list of publications, which is also credited him, in a dissertation—well, there is the PhD-thesis, but if he did it properly, this documentation of the data, then this is an additional effort and I would say, this should be rewarded .” P11

Legal restrictions were also named by four interviewees: as research projects were partly funded by industry, researchers saw an obvious conflict of interest to data sharing. Three researchers stated that a standard library or data sharing platform is missing for their scientific domain. This is a problem for data sharing, as well as for data search and reuse, as it was already discussed in the previous Sections. However, as the generated research data is very diverse, to find or create such a standard platform might not be easy.

A lack of awareness was named by three researchers as an obstacle to data sharing.

“ But I think the point is these things are never reaching to the most researchers. (…) And also, the point is, normally you should be reached supervisor level. If the supervisor doesn’t know, normally, the student will never know .” P8

Two researchers express serious concerns about Open Data regarding the competition between researchers.

“ The competition has such a high level now that people are more interested in doing science, but in a closed room, in a closed laboratory, they do not want to really, maybe, some of them, they do not really want to share too much their information, too much their data .” P2

“ On the one hand, we want to publish, what do I know, open to the public the models that we develop, also open to the public data that we generate, so that we parametrise the models. That’s all legitimate and sounds very well. On the other hand, we too, and everyone at the university, I believe, is in some competition with others. And there I have my fundamental problem. I’m not sure, if I want to do everything Open Access. Because I say we build know-how, over many years, skills. Do I want to share everything? ” P3

While competition between researchers is inevitable, a clarifying discussion what exactly should be shared, e.g. measured data, developed models, methods or algorithms, could improve the acceptance of the Open Data idea among researchers.

The lack of metadata standards was already discussed with respect to data reuse, and obviously it hinders also data sharing, as it was stated by two researchers.

“ Again, that would need such a clear definition, a given structure, where somebody simply copies the data into the corresponding file and does not have to think about it oneself, because if he himself starts, somehow setting up a database structure for his data and everybody has a different one, then that’s too much of an effort to use that .” P11

As a last point, two researchers mentioned a particular need to do extra checks for correctness of their data before publishing (which then again is time consuming). With the data openly available, researchers might feel more exposed to criticism on their work.

Results RQ6: Open Data concept—Familiarity, pro and contra

When asked if the terms Open Data and Open Science meant anything to them, three out of 13 researchers said they were not really familiar with them. Eight researchers said they had heard the terms before or had an idea what they meant, which could be attributed to the fact that most researchers are likely to make the connection to open access, even though they may have not come across the term before.

With regard to how researchers defined open data, it was interesting to see that they took different perspectives. While some thought of open data in terms of making their own data openly available, others viewed data sharing as something other researchers do that could potentially benefit them. 6 researchers said that open data was about “making data openly available”, “sharing data for free” etc. Some researchers added different aspects such as Open Data

“ generating added value for, maybe in other contexts too .” P1

“ These FAIR arguments that it has to be freely accessible, like it has metadata to understand the data ” P7

“ Save a lot of money and a lot of time .” P10

“ The data should be accessible without every time you have to ask the author for the data .” P8

What was striking was that although the term had a positive connotation for most researchers, there was one researcher who stated that open data meant that “people I do not know can access my fundamental data”, i.e. the term had a negative connotation.

Towards the end of the interview, researchers were asked for arguments in favour or against Open Data, see Fig 4 . From the positive aspects, seven researchers mentioned that Open Data can reduce duplicate efforts for measurements/data generation. Other aspects, mentioned by two researchers each were the possibility to compare the own work with those from other researchers, an increase in transparency, the possibility to analyse published raw data with respect to other aspects and that sharing is a basic principle of science. Mentioned by one researcher each was that data will be available for a long time, that Open Data supports researchers in countries with fewer resources and a general usefulness.

A: Pro. B: Contra.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239216.g004

Regarding negative aspects, the most frequently mentioned argument is the need for a detailed description of a dataset. As already addressed in the Section on data reuse, without sufficient context information shared research data is useless. The time needed for this detailed description was also the most frequently mentioned obstacle for data sharing. Three researchers stated that they do not trust datasets, when there is no review process. Some data might be too specific to justify the high amount of time needed for the preparation and description, as two researchers said. They suggested, this data might better be shared bilaterally. Several aspects were mentioned only once in the interviews: so could dataset citations distort citation metrics, lack of completeness of datasets might cause problems, generating dataset should not be seen as achievement per se and fear of data misuse was expressed. Moreover, concerns were raised that Open Data could produce a general “data overload”, have a negative effect on competitiveness or will drive companies away.

Discussion RQ1: Diversity of domain specific research data does challenge open data

In the considered scientific domain, researchers stated they need mostly experimental data to conduct their research. This data is very diverse: used types of experiments and measured quantities strongly depend on the research focus. A detailed description of the experiments/devices/conditions under which data was generated is crucial for the reuse of this data and to ensure reproducibility of results. However, standardisations for such descriptions do not exist, not even for long used types of experiments. Most likely new research trends will generate/need different types of research data, possibly measured using newly developed devices. It can be expected that this will provide a big challenge for a research domain, which seems to be slow in developing standardised data description methods. The findings above fit well to the description of “small science” or the ‘‘the long tail’’ of science as described in [ 16 ].

Discussion RQ2: Need for data management policies

11 out of 13 interviewees stated they generate research data , either experimental (including contracting third persons for measurements) or computational. Only those researchers, who generate their own research data, do have the possibility to share data. Seven interviewees were affected by data management policies of their employer, while four said that storage or their generated data is left to themselves. Even if these universities/research centres do not encourage data sharing, the danger of loosing data should motivate them to install data management policies.

Discussion RQ3: Data findability might increase—Obstacles for reuse remain

Data reuse is intended by all but one interviewed researcher. The methods used to search for data or accessing data could be named as traditional: they include literature research as well as getting access bilaterally via the professional network, contacting people at conferences, contacting authors of journal papers or data being provided by project partners. Thus, in these search methods a direct contact between data reuser and data generator exist. These results are in accordance with findings of [ 10 ], who conducted a large scale domain specific analysis of search methods. Closest to the domain considered here might be the subject “Earth and Environmental science” where journals and personal exchanges are the two most frequently used methods.

Among search methods, which could be called modern, public data repositories are known to only five researchers (thus less than the half of the interviewees). [ 10 ] mentioned repositories and databases as the third most frequently used search methods of scientists in “Earth and Environmental science”. Thus, the investigated scientific domain might have some catch-up potential regarding repositories.

As already mentioned, dataset search engines a a very recent development. In the current study, one out of the 13 interviewees knew “Google Dataset Search” but never used it. Thinking of the important role of “Google Scholar” for searching traditional publications, “Google Dataset Search” might have a big potential to increase the findability of shared datasets across different storage possibilities.

Data journals are also a rather modern method both to search for or share data, but in the current study, none of the interviewees had ever heard of data journals. This was surprising for the authors, as for example Elsevier as a big publisher promotes co-submission between their data journal “Data in Brief” and approximately 1400 regular journals.

Although nearly all interviewed researchers had not heard of dataset search engines and data journals, several of them showed spontaneous interest and stated to check on these possibilities in the future. These interested researchers covered the whole range of the interviewees regarding age and career stage. As one researcher put it:

“ I am learning a lot in this interview .” P9

This could be an indication that methods used for research data search within this domain could change if information/teaching was provided. However, due to the small amount of conducted interviews the presented findings would need further validation. In general, the researchers’ positive attitude towards data reuse is in agreement with findings from [ 19 ]: “Expressed lack of trust in existing data and perceived norms against data reuse were not found to be major impediments for reuse contrary to our expectations.” Concerns as found in [ 20 ] “This study shows that scientists’ concerns about data reuse (e.g., misinterpretation and infringement) can negatively impact their reuse behaviours.”, were not expressed by the interviewees. Despite this positive attitude, several problems in data reuse remain. One big challenge is the findability of data, which might be overcome, e.g. by using dataset search engines. A second big challenge is the lack of standard repositories, which was mentioned related to data reuse but also as an obstacle for data sharing. Moreover, some more domain specific aspects can hinder data reuse. In the interviews, it was addressed that the data generator usually collects data/conducts measurements for a specific project. The data reuser might have a (slightly) different research focus, such that the data is incomplete for this purpose. Due to the lack of standardisation in the data description, data can be unsuitable for reuse, as some details are missing in the description. Also, this lack of a standardised data description also increases the time needed for data sharing, which is the most frequently mentioned obstacle for sharing data.

Despite the fact that most researchers search in the literature to find research data, it was striking that 10 out of 13 interviewed researchers stated they had never seen a dataset citation. From the three researchers, who had seen data citations, two said that they were very rare. These findings are in agreement with those of [ 23 ]. Training for scientists might help to improve this situation. When all reused datasets are cited correctly, this is likely to be an additional incentive to share research data.

Discussion RQ4: Bilateral data sharing dominates currently—Influence of project funding rising

The data sharing behaviour of the interviewed researchers differed depending on the type of data. Experimental data is currently shared only bilaterally (in different forms). Thus, a personal contact between data generator and data reuser is ensured. However, three researchers stated to share their experimental data openly in the near future (as supplemental material to an article or in a university repository). These researchers were affected by their funder’s data sharing policy. This finding could be in contrast to [ 40 ], who found it very difficult to recover data that are required by the funder to be shared. However, this (possible) change in the sharing behaviour of researchers is too new to be assessed finally. From the researchers, who do not share their experimental data, two stated they never shared their data. These two seem to be undetermined, saying nobody ever asked for their data, such that it might be possible to convince them to share their data. On the contrary, two researchers stated that they are both not allowed to share their data and they do not want to share it. These aspects might need to be addressed in the literature in more detail. Many studies mention legal restrictions in scientific domains, which work with data from human subjects, e.g. [ 7 , 17 , 27 ]. In these scientific domains, training of the researchers on legal aspects (such as informed consent of the participants) could enable data sharing. In materials science and engineering, legal restrictions often arise from corporations with industry. Thus, in materials science and engineering it seems unlikely to overcome this restriction for data sharing. For the interviewed researchers, the project funding had a big influence: whether they plan to share their data openly (due to funding body policies) or whether sharing was in conflict with the interest of the industry involved in the funding.

Additional to the mentioned aspects, the two researchers mention explicitly that they do not want to share their data. In the literature, the big survey studies rely on the researchers willing to participate. Those, who have no interest in data sharing can be expected to be more likely to skip such surveys, [ 28 ]. This could be a key problem in obtaining results representative for all researchers. Moreover, in conducted surveys options like “I do not want to share my data” or “data sharing is not in my interest” are usually not provided, [ 17 , 27 ]. This point could add interesting insights in future research.

Regarding the sharing of computational research data, one researcher stated to share data soon via a public repository, as he is affected by his funders data sharing policy. Two researchers stated that their generated computational data (output files of computer simulations) was not of interest for other researchers and therefore the data is not shared. This could be the same for more researchers, as 11 from them generate computational data, but only three of them commented on (not) sharing it. In the interviews, the question of data sharing was not asked separately for each type of data. The sharing of experimental data and computational data does not seem to obtain the same amount of attention from the researchers. A deeper discussion if or which shared computational data could be of interest for reuse could be needed.

All of the three researchers, which stated to generate computer code, do share their code: either bilaterally or as open source code. The positive attitude towards code sharing might be linked with the longer tradition of code sharing.

Discussion RQ5: Encouragement is the best incentive and lack of time the biggest obstacle for data sharing

Regarding incentive to data sharing it is striking that all six researchers, who share their research data or computer code in any form, were encouraged to do so by their supervisor or employer. Some of the other named incentives were rather abstract and hard to quantify, e.g. increased visibility, career benefits or general facilitation of research. More concrete incentives were getting (dataset) citations, encouragement by funding agency, getting feedback on the own work and the possibility of new collaborations. In this study, encouragement of the supervisor, employer or funding agency is seen as the most successful tool for data sharing, as it is reported by those researchers who share already or plan to share their data soon. In the literature, incentives seem to receive slightly less attention than obstacles. For example, in Spinger’s whitepaper [ 27 ], challenges are explicitly investigated, incentives are not. To name another big and well cited study, [ 17 ], address possible incentives only in the literature review but not in their research questions. In the extensive literature review on data sharing, [ 7 ], named motivating factors are scientific progress, data sharing policies of funding agencies, reduction of costs, data sharing policies of publishers and safeguards against scientific fraud. Thus, the most frequently given incentive in the current study, encouragement by the supervisor or employer, is not present. In [ 41 ], publishers’ data sharing policies of 28 engineering journals were investigated. While most publishers supported data sharing, only few had strong policies, which make data sharing mandatory. As none of our interviewees mentioned journal data sharing policies as an incentive for data sharing, it seems that in the field of materials science and engineering publishers still have potential to further promote data sharing.

In this study, frequently mentioned obstacles to data sharing are high amount of time needed for a detailed data description, lack of rewards, legal restrictions, lack of a standard data sharing platform and lack of awareness. As mentioned before, the lack of a standard data sharing platform reduces the findability of data and a detailed data description is mandatory for data reuse, due to data diversity. The named obstacles are in accordance with findings of the literature review, [ 7 ]. Interestingly, [ 7 ] mentioned two other obstacles to be important. The need to have control over ones data, was not expressed explicitly in this study and the fear of data misuse was mentioned only by one interviewee of this study. Instead, interviewees also named competitiveness, lack of metadata standards and the need for an extra check of correctness as obstacles, which seems not to be reflected in the literature according to [ 7 ]. To promote Open Data, training on data sharing could help to remove the lack of awareness, as frequently mentioned in the literature, [ 7 ]. The lack of a specialised data sharing platform could be overcome, if the findability of datasets increase with the usage of dataset search engines. Data could be stored in general repositories and still be found, reused and cited. The mentioned lack of rewards is a more difficult topic: here universities could credit researchers/PhD students for shared data, but also funding agencies would need to honour the effort made by data sharing when deciding whose project gets funded. Obstacles which cannot be overcome are the amount of time needed for a proper description of research data, legal restrictions, competitiveness and lack of metadata standards. These obstacles will remain and can restrict the amount of shared data notedly.

Discussion RQ6: Training on Open Data is crucial for acceptance

The Open Data concept was known to most of the interviewed researchers, only three of them stated to be unfamiliar with the term. The others could not precisely define the concept but mostly understood Open Data as making the own research data openly available for others. As discussed in the previous paragraph, training on data sharing would be very helpful for most scientists and might also clarify the meaning of the term Open Data for some attendees. The scientists saw as most positive aspect in Open Data that it has the potential to reduce duplicate efforts in data generation. Other positive aspects, such as an increase of transparency or using data for multiple purposes were mentioned by only one or two interviewees. When asked for negative aspects of Open Data, researchers stated that a simple sharing of raw data is not useful in their point of view. They stress that the data needs to be well documented, providing enough context, together with a review process for rating data as trustworthy are crucial for successful reuse of data. Two researchers believe that some data might be too specific to be shared. Other negative aspects are mentioned only once. The scientists’ need for precise data documentation and some verification (e.g. a review process) is well understandable. There are several ways how these points could be met: First, research data can be shared as supplemental material to a journal article, thus including the detailed description of experiments and providing a review process. Second, research data can be shared in a data journal (possibly accompanied by a classical research article in a partnering journal), in this way also a detailed description of the data and a review process is present. Third, when a classical research article is published (including the details on the experiments), the corresponding research data can be shared on a public repository. In this way, the additional effort for data description is reduced and the general scientific work is reviewed (although not the data itself). All these points could be addressed in a training on data sharing, which was already found a useful action before.

Conclusions and outlook

In this study, detailed interviews were conducted on the current state of open research data practices of 13 researchers in the field of granular materials, which is part of materials science and engineering. The research data in this scientific field was found to be very diverse and often generated for a specific research focus. The interviewees stated that openly accessible research data would help them with their work, but they needed detailed descriptions on the data and the complete data generation process. According to [ 16 ], this is a typical case for “small science”, where “data tend to be small in volume, local in character, intended for use only by these teams, and are less likely to be structured in ways that allow data to be transferred easily between teams or individuals.” In current open research data practices, the interviewees mentioned problems regarding the findability of data. The lack of a standard library was seen as a problem, but this would be difficult to set up, given the diversity of the data. Researchers employed traditional search methods and were mostly unaware of dataset search engines, data journals or searching public data repositories. Thus, the findability of data might increase, when the mentioned methods are applied, but will meet its limits regarding the diversity of the generated and needed data. As mentioned above, a successful reuse is possible only when the data is described in high detail. The time needed for describing research data is again the main obstacle to data sharing. At this state, some of the interviewed researchers share their data bilaterally (but not openly) and all of them were encouraged to do so by their supervisor/employer or funding body. Some researchers stated to share their research data openly in near future, as they were affected by their funding body’s data policy. Those researchers who don’t share named the lack of the following as obstacles: time (for data description), rewards, awareness, and data publishing platform/standard library. Two researchers pointed out that not only legal restrictions prevent them from data sharing, but they do not want to share their data. These researchers mentioned competitive aspects and fear of data misuse as reasons. While open research data practices in general are subject of intense research, researchers who see data sharing contrary to their own interests might be underrepresented in many studies. Limitations of the current study are seen in the small number of interviewees as well as in the choice of interviewees from the authors’ professional network (as it was not possible to apply a purposeful sampling technique). Moreover, it was not possible to interview enough women to investigate gender related aspects. The obtained results are not transferable to different scientific domains.

From the described results and conclusions the following measures are suggested to promote Open Data.

Actions to support Open Data

• find datasets more easily
• correctly reuse data via dataset citation, thus making data sharing attractive through getting citations
• the effort for data description is minimised
• others judge their data as trustworthy (e.g. because of review process)
• long term accessibility of data is ensured and FAIR principles are met
• install a data management plan to prevent research data from being lost
• think of rewarding scientists for data sharing, possibly similar as rewards for research papers
• encourage supervisors and students to get training in open data practices
• install a data sharing policy
• provide training/information on open data practices
• consider installing stronger data sharing policies
• further promote data sharing via data journals

Remaining restrictions on Open Data (in this scientific domain)

The investigated scientific domain is materials science and engineering and is seen as an example of “small science”, [ 16 ]: the generated research data is very diverse, generated for a specific purpose and difficult to transfer between researchers. In “small science” Open Data most probably will stay less common than in “big science”, where “Data from big science (large teams, long-term projects, extensive instrumentation) may be great in volume but usually are consistent in structure.”, [ 16 ], and thus easier to transfer between researchers. In addition to this, in materials science and engineering legal restrictions for data sharing often arise when the funding of research projects involve industry. These legal restrictions can be expected to remain no matter which action researchers, universities or funding bodies take.

To give an example of the challenges in Open Data in materials science and engineering, imagine “researcher A” needs a specific dataset for his/her work. To avoid spending time and money for experiments, “researcher A” can consider reusing existing research data. The first question is, if another “researcher B” did generate exactly the needed data, as data is very diverse in this scientific domain. If so, “researcher B” must be allowed to share his/her data (i.e. no legal restrictions apply) and also be willing to share (little incentives exist). If so, “researcher B” must have the time to precisely describe how the data was generated (no metadata standard exists). If so, “researcher B” must choose a way for sharing the data, e.g. in a repository (no standard library exists and there is a lack of training for data sharing). If so, “researcher A” must find this dataset, due to the high diversity of data, the lack of a standard library and lack of training in dataset search, findability is a problem. If “researcher A” found the dataset, he/she must judge it as trustworthy, check the documentation for completeness such that the dataset can be reused for his/her own work. This scenario is not impossible, but it is clearly less likely than in other fields of research, e.g. in genomics or other “big sciences”.

Two further restrictions mentioned by the interviewees were independent from the scientific domain. First, the lack of time to share research data is an important obstacle for data sharing, as also described in the literature, [ 7 ]. Even if the effort for data description can be reduced if data is published alongside classical research papers, still time is needed for data preparation and description. Researchers need to give lectures, supervise students, engage in university administration, apply for research funding on top of the actual research, thus finding the time for data sharing might be difficult. The second restriction mentioned by two interviewees is that they do not want to share their research data. Although it is admittedly hard, the aspects that make scientists choosing not to share their research data might need to be investigated more thoroughly in future works.

Supporting information

S1 text. interview guideline..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239216.s001

S2 Text. Collection of used quotes in this paper.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239216.s002

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Suhr B, Six K. Compression tests and direct shear test of two types of railway ballast [Data set]; 2018. Zenodo. Available from: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1423742 .
• 4. Suhr B, Six K, Skipper WA, Lewis R. 3D scans of two types of railway ballast including shape analysis information; 2020. Zenodo. Available from: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3689592 .
• 6. Suhr B, Butcher TA, Lewis R, Six K. Cyclic friction tests of ballast stones interfaces under varying vertical load; 2020. Zenodo. Available from: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3893842 .
• 13. Schöpfel J, Farace D, Prost H, Zane A. Data papers as a new form of knowledge organization in the field of research data. In: 12eme Colloque international d’ISKO-France: Donnees et megadonnees ouvertes en SHS: de nouveaux enjeux pour l’etat et l’organisation des con-naissances? ISKO France, Oct 2019, Montpellier, France.; 2019.
• 15. Kong L, Xi Y, Lang Y, Wang Y, Zhang Q. A Data Quality Evaluation Index for Data Journals. In: Li J, Meng X, Zhang Y, Cui W, Du Z, editors. Big Scientific Data Management. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. p. 291–300.
• 27. Stuart D, Baynes G, Hrynaszkiewicz I, Allin K, Penny D, Lucraft M, et al. Whitepaper: Practical challenges for researchers in data sharing; 2018. Available from: https://figshare.com/articles/Whitepaper_Practical_challenges_for_researchers_in_data_sharing/5975011/1 .
• 37. Faniel I, Kansa E, Whitcher Kansa S, Barrera-Gomez J, Yakel E. The Challenges of Digging Data: A Study of Context in Archaeological Data Reuse. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. JCDL 2013. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2013. p. 295–304. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/2467696.2467712 .
• 38. Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt; 2014. Available from: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173 .
• 39. Schulze D. Standard shear testing technique for particulate solids using the Jenike shear cell: edited by The Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, UK, 1989; 1990.

Advancing Materials Research (1987)

Chapter: current topics in materials research, ensuring contributions to materials science from small-, intermediate-, and large-scale science, introduction.

HERBERT H.JOHNSON

Materials is not to be thought of as a single discipline, but rather as a broad and vital field of knowledge and techniques that constitute an essential foundation stone of modern technological societies. In that respect, materials resembles other sprawling fields such as energy, communications, and medical science, each of which encompasses several disciplines and is characterized by intellectual ferment and enormous impact on society.

The several cultures of materials research are a distinguishing feature of the field, a primary source of its intellectual richness and organizational diversity. In contrast to many disciplines the materials field in its present form is relatively new. The materials community has evolved rapidly from separate disciplinary bases in the past quarter century. This process of integration has brought a welcome, but still partial, coherence to the field. It is unlikely, however, that the materials community will ever coalesce into a single discipline. The intellectual and factual breadth of the field is simply too great to be confined within the boundaries of a single disciplinary structure.

It is inevitable, then, that the materials field will on occasion appear disorganized, even turbulent, when compared with more tightly focused and hierarchical fields such as high-energy physics.

Materials also differs from high-energy physics and astronomy, again to use them as examples, in the scale of instrumentation required for experi-

mental research. Advances in fundamental problems in high-energy physics and astronomy require complicated and expensive instruments such as accelerators, storage rings, and telescopes (optical, radio, and orbiting). It is intrinsic to these fields that many experiments require large teams of researchers and a scale of coordinated effort that is absent in most other areas, including materials.

Frontier materials research is, in fact, at present carried out in several modes. Small group research is prominent throughout the materials spectrum in universities as well as in industrial and government laboratories, and small group research continues as a vital source of forefront discoveries. In recent years interdisciplinary research directed toward specific goals, as pioneered by the Materials Research Laboratories (MRL) program, has become increasingly important, as complex materials problems have required the coordinated talents of several investigators. The MRL program has demonstrated the impressive results that can ensue when interdisciplinary groups work toward specific goals with the support of well-developed central laboratory facilities. Finally, a small but growing number of materials investigators are working at large machines, especially synchrotron radiation facilities, obtaining invaluable results that could not be obtained in any other way. This is small group research carried out in a big-science facility and context.

These multiple research modes have arisen because of the increasing complexity of many frontier research problems in materials. Progress often requires the use of several techniques and the associated instrumentation. Interdisciplinary groups become an effective organizational strategy for tackling multifaceted problems. The development of centralized laboratory facilities is essential to minimize equipment costs and to maximize the use of expensive equipment, which should not and cannot be duplicated in every investigator’s laboratory. Each research mode makes a distinctive contribution to the overall strength of the materials field.

Instrumentation will remain a major problem for the universities, not only for research, but for graduate education. The proper training of graduate students requires instrumentation that does not lag in quality and sophistication too far behind the equipment used in industrial and government laboratories. This is essential if new graduates are not to founder in their early professional careers. The cost of the necessary equipment continues to rise rapidly, placing a growing burden on university research groups. Unless present trends can be reversed, the number of universities with comprehensive and high-quality materials research programs will surely decrease in the years ahead.

The conditions for funding of materials research have become increasingly tight and complicated in recent years. There has been a clear trend toward larger grants on more sharply focused topics, at the perceived cost of support to small university groups built around a single professor and his or her

graduate students. Agency program managers appear to be under increasing pressure to turn over their programs in shorter time periods. They sometimes assume an active role in local program decisions, apparently again under pressure to produce specified results over a predetermined period.

This perceived micromanagement of research has put the university system of small group research under additional strain. The time scale in which funding agencies expect significant research results is now equal to or less than the time required for a student to carry out a graduate thesis. This situation has made it much more difficult for faculty members to fund and manage their individual research groups. As a consequence, the university small research group appears to many to be an endangered species!

Problems Facing Small-Science Research in Materials

WILLIAM D.NIX

The quality of materials research depends directly on the quality of the people doing it, whether it is done on a small, intermediate, or large scale. Thus, it is most important, and clearly in the national interest, to attract the brightest and the best to the field. The small-science research group is the basic unit around which graduate education programs are built, and from that perspective it is essential to the entire materials research and development area.

Small-scale research groups typically have close contact with students who are not yet involved in research, so these groups carry the primary responsibility for recruiting for the field. The best candidates sometimes look for ways to be unique and to stand out. They are often idealistic and yet want to do something outstanding that will bear their name. Graduate education through the small-science research group route gives them the opportunity not only to develop their research capability, but also, and of equal importance, to develop intellectually and to prepare themselves for leadership in the field. For this reason alone, small group research is of central importance to the entire field.

A major problem facing small research groups is the escalating need for instrumentation and associated support. The need for modern research instrumentation has been much discussed, is now widely recognized, and is being addressed through various instrumentation programs. Nevertheless, formidable problems remain, especially in the smaller universities. Some universities with substantial past accomplishments can no longer compete in top-rank materials research because of inadequate facilities.

An equally formidable, even more expensive, problem is the need for vastly improved laboratory space and facilities to house future materials research programs. This problem is endemic across the science and engineering fields. Many universities are forced to put modern research programs into space that was constructed many years ago, usually for undergraduate instruction.

The need for greatly expanded and improved facilities and the inability to generate the necessary funds through conventional sources have led some universities to approach the Congress directly for specific appropriations. The concomitant end run around the peer review system has generated a storm of controversy, which shows no sign of abating. It has also surely damaged the financial health of the programs approved through the peer review system.

The universities are not well structured to handle the new instrumentation that is essential for advanced research in all fields of engineering and the physical sciences. Funds are generally not available for new or upgraded laboratory space, for service contracts, or for permanent staff to maintain and operate the increasingly complex new equipment. As a consequence, equipment is often operated at neither optimum specifications nor maximum efficiency. Of course, it is the formal responsibility of the universities to provide funds for these purposes, but they have been slow to realize that modern graduate research programs require new administrative and support structures and sources of funds. The problem is not handled well, even at major institutions.

The Materials Research Laboratories program and the Materials Research Group (MRG) program, both administered by the National Science Foundation, have been a great help in this connection at the universities where these programs exist, but they provide only a small fraction of the help that is needed. It is sometimes suggested that principal investigators at universities should voluntarily include support personnel in their individual research budgets or apportion their research funds to take care of these needs. However, the system contains strong forces that make this suggestion impractical. Research funds for individual principal investigators are limited. Department heads and deans often expect faculty members to generate as much of their salary as possible from contract funds and also to support as many graduate students as possible. The keen competition for funds causes principal investigators to reserve their research funds for only those things that contribute directly to the scientific output of a given project. It is almost invariably counterproductive to individual programs to allocate funds to general support services.

A generally acceptable solution to this problem is not yet evident. It may eventually be necessary to require major research universities to allocate a

reasonable fraction of their funds to research support as a condition for receiving external support.

Strong forces are operating to move university researchers away from the small-science mode and toward a team concept of research. These forces include (1) the need for instrumentation, (2) the necessity for sharing instrumentation, and (3) the increasing complexity of many advanced materials research problems. In addition, the funding agencies appear to be under steady pressure to justify their programs in terms of short answers to application-oriented problems.

This trend has positive features, but it surely has a negative effect on the intellectual development of graduate students. The team concept does prepare students for some forms of industrial research, and it allows them to be associated with high-visibility projects. However, team research also very much restricts the opportunity for intellectual growth during thesis research, as the opportunities for exploratory and original research are usually limited. The planning and goal setting associated with team projects can on occasion reduce a graduate student’s role to that of a cog in a large machine.

Prospective employers invariably ask about the originality shown by graduate students in their thesis research. They rarely ask about students’ ability to fit into a team, except in the context of their ability to get along with people. Originality is best developed and displayed in an unstructured environment. Students must have the opportunity to explore their own ideas and, on occasion, to fail. All evidence suggests that employers of graduate students are interested in people who have been encouraged to think independently and creatively and who are prepared for independent work.

The MRLs and MRGs provide in their interdisciplinary thrust programs a satisfactory compromise between small-scale and team research. Often it is possible to develop a major thrust in a chosen area by clustering groups that operate in a small-science mode. The success of such groups depends on the personalities and interactive chemistries of the people involved. It is a satisfactory experience when it works well but a disaster when done poorly. The most successful collaborations are those that arise spontaneously.

Continuity of support is becoming an increasingly serious problem for university researchers who work in the small-science mode. The research is conducted primarily by graduate students who take between 4 and 5 years to complete their studies, including the thesis. The time scale for this process has not changed significantly in 40 years and is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Yet, the availability of grants or contracts that extend beyond 1 or 2 years is rare in today’s fast-paced world. It is not uncommon to see graduate students shifted from one project to another several times in the course of their studies. This is inefficient at best, and in some cases even destructive to the student involved. Small-scale research thrives on stable

support that extends over the thesis lifetimes of several students. Most university researchers believe strongly that they have been most productive (as judged by significant papers published or doctoral degrees granted per dollar) in research programs for which support was provided over an extended period of time.

It is often suggested in informal discussions that the development of a new idea in materials science takes a minimum of two graduate-student lifetimes. The first student explores the idea or effect, and the second brings it to fruition and develops the application. However, because the second part of the process depends on the success of the first, some projects would be expected to extend over several student lifetimes.

In spite of the need for stable support, many funding agencies are not able to provide support over an extended period. This may be because of limited total funds, or perhaps because of a perceived need for rapid turnover in the subject matter in an agency program. In any event, their attention span is all too often much shorter than the characteristic time constant for small-science research. In some cases this means that the most pressing problems of the agencies are not addressed by the most gifted and productive university research groups.

Academic materials research is supported almost wholly by the federal government; industry has not been a stable source of long-term funding. This may change as a result of rapidly growing interest in university-industry interactions. However, current university research is directed primarily to basic problems that are of interest to the federal government. This may occasionally lead to neglect of areas that are important to national economic strength. For example, the materials community has played a relatively minor role in the area of microelectronic materials. Magnetic materials is another area that has been neglected by the academic community. The increasing industrial interest in academic materials research may in time lead to a more balanced national materials program.

To the university practitioners of small-scale science, it appears that support for small-scale science is being continually eroded in favor of big science. The reasons for this are both political and sociological. First, it must be acknowledged that many exciting problems in science require large facilities for their solution. However, it is also true that major projects and big science come naturally to the attention of policymakers in the top ranks of government, especially when they are presented by a persuasive and prestigious group of scientists. Furthermore, the big-science communities are considerably more cohesive, essentially because their research progress depends critically upon the development and operation of large facilities. Hence, there is a strong internal driving force that leads big-science communities to develop a tightly focused set of priorities and to present a united front in the never-ending quest for funds.

In contrast, small-science communities such as materials are inherently more decentralized, for the availability of large facilities is not the primary determinant of research success. In materials there are many areas where exciting research progress is possible; some require extensive instrumentation and some do not. Consequently, materials programs appear throughout the budgets of the agencies, but only rarely at a level that attracts the attention of top policymakers. Furthermore, there is no single widely acknowledged organization that can speak for the materials field and convey an authoritative sense of its prospects, accomplishments, and needs. Indeed, researchers in small-science communities are more commonly critical of their colleagues than supportive. This is a problem that the materials community must address.

Basic Research Supported by Mission Agencies

MILDRED S.DRESSELHAUS

A problem that affects all of the scientific communities, including materials, is the question of how to maximize the effectiveness of the basic research programs supported by the mission-oriented agencies. Independent and persuasive studies indicate that the cost of research has been increasing consistently by about 65 percent more than the Consumer Price Index, independent of what the Consumer Price Index is doing at any instant in time. When that fact is considered in relation to the budgeting trends in federal agencies, the only conclusion that can be reached is that there will shortly be a decline in the number of people who will have the privilege of pushing the frontiers of materials science forward.

The materials research community for the first 25 years of the Materials Research Laboratory program has operated on the premise that the federal establishment would continue to provide support on a more-or-less one-way basis. There is of course a different approach, one in which the research community takes the initiative and provides a much more comprehensive rationale for supporting basic research. The following suggestion has less to do with small science, intermediate science, or big science, individually, than it does with the entire research community and the way in which it should relate to the larger technological enterprise.

The suggestion is to place funding of basic science more on a basis of mutual benefit. The core idea of the proposal comes from an experience that most researchers have had at one time or another—consulting for private industry if they are university faculty members or interacting with university

faculty members if they work in industry. Similar relationships hold for staff members of the federal research laboratories.

The proposal is to encourage senior investigators, selected from among the basic research grantees, to visit appropriate groups in the mission agency laboratories for a few days each year to share the experience and expertise gained from years of research in the field. The senior investigators participating in the proposed program would normally be university professors. Many would have significant experience as consultants to private industry; their interaction with the R&D groups in the mission agency would be similar to that of consultants. Participation in this program would of course be voluntary, although in the aggregate it might be expected that about 40 percent of the qualified investigators would participate after receiving research funds from the mission agency for an extended time, perhaps 5 years. Young investigators with less than 10 years of professional experience would normally not be expected to participate. The program might be especially attractive to “elder statesmen” of science, or people who have gone far enough in their careers that they can afford to spend a week or more per year in this kind of activity.

The proposed program has essentially three objectives. The first is to enhance the cost-effectiveness of all programs—the university programs and the programs at the government laboratories, whether they be DOD, DOE, or other federally funded laboratories. There would be a clear gain if this program would enhance the cost-effectiveness of the R&D activities of the laboratories where most of the expenditures of the mission agencies are directed. In this way the basic research programs would gain leverage, and there would be a stronger justification for the expenditures necessary to maintain an effective basic research program in each agency. An expanded justification is desirable, as the cost of research continues to increase, while rapid scientific and technological breakthroughs continue to expand the opportunities for exciting basic research.

The second objective is to develop much stronger bridges of communication between the basic research community and the mission agencies. The benefits of the proposed program would flow in both directions. The results of basic research would be brought in a timely and effective way to the development efforts. At the same time, contact with applied programs often leads to a recognition of new and exciting areas of basic research that are ripe for exploitation. An important additional benefit is that research scientists would be much more aware of the activities in the mission laboratories. This knowledge is important and useful in providing advice to students about the scientific challenges and opportunities that careers in the mission agencies can provide.

The third objective is to broaden understanding and appreciation of the role of basic research, and in this way to accomplish two things: the first is

simply to increase the total amount of resources going into basic research by making it more cost-effective; the second is to buttress the role of basic research so that it can provide even more effective contributions to the technological strength of the nation.

To implement this proposal a pilot program with a small number of participants should be established to evaluate the concept and to learn from early experience. If that evaluation shows that the program would be viable on a national scale and of mutual benefit to enough members of the research and development community, then the program should be enlarged and extended to all who wish to participate.

The Two Domains of Materials Science

ALBERT M.CLOGSTON

Materials science is a highly interdisciplinary field consisting of diverse specialties, including physical metallurgy, solid-state physics, solid-state chemistry, ceramic science, polymer science, materials preparation, and materials analysis. Other individuals would no doubt construct somewhat different lists, depending on their perspective, but that is an indicator of the richness and diversity of the field.

However, these specialties tend to divide into two separate domains, the microscopic and the macroscopic. The microscopic view is concerned mainly with atoms and molecules and the electromagnetic forces that bind them. There is a strong emphasis on such topics as electronic structure, lattice vibrations, and the many interactions of radiation and particles with condensed matter. The macroscopic point of view focuses on the properties of matter in bulk, with typical topics such as microstructure, phase transitions, continuum behavior, and mechanical properties.

These two ways of thinking about materials tend to be vertically integrated with respect to measurements performed, instrumentation used, phenomena studied, and the technologies to which they lead. It is also true that few researchers cross the boundary between these two domains, although those who do often make strong contributions.

In the microscopic domain, which includes solid-state physics, the materials and phenomena studied, and the kinds of instrumentation and measurements required, tend to be associated with what are often described as high-technology industries and materials. With some exceptions these materials are used for their electronic, magnetic, or optical properties. In contrast, research at the microstructure or continuum level leads to technologies

that use high-performance materials, developed primarily for their mechanical properties, often under a wide variety of rigorous operating conditions.

There are tremendous opportunities to advance the science of materials by horizontally integrating studies of the phenomena that are of interest in the microscopic and macroscopic domains. The integration that has occurred over the past quarter century is impressive, but the full potential of the field has not yet been realized. For example, physical metallurgy and solid-state physics have much to say to each other about such topics as interactions at surfaces, fracture, dislocation physics, and electronic materials. Many other examples could be cited. Both physical metallurgy and solid-state physics would derive vast benefits from closer interaction with solid-state chemistry.

As the previous discussion indicates, there is a close connection between materials science and basic materials technology. This tight coupling is one of the striking characteristics of materials science, and certainly one of its greatest strengths. It is the reason why materials science has been the source of major contributions to other sciences and, perhaps even more importantly, to industrial innovation, and why it has such potential for future contributions.

The strong coupling of materials science and technology leads to a second major point, which is the critical role played by basic technology as a link between research and development. This somewhat unconventional view of the research and development process is nevertheless the view of research and development held, at least implicitly, by most of the major industrial laboratories, and also in a formal way by the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. Basic research as defined by those agencies, for example, can be read to include not only the increase of basic knowledge, but also the increase and enlargement of the technology base for exploratory and advanced development. Basic technology should be recognized as an important research activity, and as the critical link between research and development.

This leads to the proper place for materials research in the overall research and development process. Basic materials science and basic materials technology should both be regarded as research activities in the research and development process. They couple to basic science and basic technologies coming from other sources to make possible the exploratory and advanced development of systems of all kinds, including systems for communications, energy, national security, and transportation.

It is important that basic technology be recognized as a legitimate research activity. It is carried out by the same kinds of people who do basic research for new knowledge. They use the same kinds of instrumentation and the same research methodologies. They are the people who, in industry, do basic research one day and basic technology the next.

New Demands on Materials Science

PRAVEEN CHAUDHARI

Materials science, drawn from studies at the scale of atoms to macroscopic bodies, encompasses much of what we know about the physical world. To cite two examples: the laws of thermodynamics have proved useful not only in designing engines but also in understanding chemical reactions, and quantum mechanics is essential to understanding many scientific phenomena as well as the operation of the silicon transistor.

Materials science is characterized further by the role of empiricism in the practical use of knowledge. It is sometimes believed that if perfect understanding were available, then and only then could a perfect device, or mechanism, or structure be built. However, as those who are knowledgeable about industry know, technology is often at the same level of advancement as science, and occasionally is ahead of it. Thus, scientific understanding and the building of new devices may go hand in hand, with a substantial assist from empiricism.

The interdisciplinary nature of materials science gives rise to the broad scope of its activities and to its importance. This is also true of other interdisciplinary fields such as medical science and computer science. There are also differences between these fields that must be recognized.

In medical science the issues of purpose are well recognized by society. For instance, no one would dispute that to find a cure for cancer is a worthy goal. There is broad and intense interest in knowing how the brain or the human body functions. There is also a sense of immediacy in the medical sciences: a cure for cancer or AIDS is an urgent need.

Computer science differs from medical and materials sciences. It stands in relation to its future much as materials science did before the laws of thermodynamics were discovered. The laws for computer science are still being discovered. It is a nascent, exciting science that will evolve with all of the complexity that is found in materials science.

Materials science is sufficiently complex that to one unfamiliar with the field it appears diffuse and aimless. There are no specific goals and no sense of urgency. Materials researchers need to articulate their role in society. We at the Research Division in IBM have attempted to do this. In so doing we have found it useful to divide scientific work into two categories, called area science and general science.

In area science, scientists and technologists jointly study a particular technology and extract the key technical issues for today and for the future. Those key technical issues are then examined to extract what is called essential, or generic, science—the knowledge that is needed to develop or evolve tech-

nology. Thus, there are two key elements in the process: first, to identify the technical issues and, second, to identify the generic science.

Using this approach, we have found that continuing progress in electronic devices—from data storage to the central processing unit of a computer— depends crucially upon materials and processing sciences. By processing of materials we mean, for example, adding or removing atoms where and when desired. There are many ways to add atoms, including crystal growth, chemical vapor deposition, vacuum deposition, molecular beam epitaxy, sputtering, and electroplating.

There are also many processes by which atoms can be removed. Let us use an etching process as an example of how generic science issues are developed in a given area of science. In the electronics industry, reactive ion etching, an emerging process that is attracting much attention, illustrates the complex demands placed on materials science by advanced technology. Reactive ion etching consists of applying a voltage across charged species in a plasma to accelerate ions, which hit the surface of a substrate. By shielding various areas of the substrate with a “resist,” the substrate can be etched in a directional fashion. Structures can then be constructed by selective deposition of materials into the cavities formed by the original etching treatment.

The density of the plasma used in reactive ion etching lies between the density of matter in intergalactic space and that in nuclear fusion. The chemical and physical properties of the plasma of interest in reactive ion etching are not well known. Moreover, the radicals that exist in these plasmas are not well identified. Until recently, techniques for identifying the chemical species both spatially and temporally were not available.

After the radicals have been identified, the next problem is to investigate the mechanism by which they interact with the substrate. Why is a particular material etched more efficiently than another? Why do polymers behave differently from metals? Why does p-type silicon behave differently from n-type silicon?

The etching reaction occurs not only on the surface of the substrate but also beneath the surface. In fact, the atoms penetrate below the surface. They can be found tens to hundreds of angstroms deep, depending on how the process is carried out. It is important to understand this process in detail, for not only is it desirable to have very clean substrates on which to deposit a substance in a controlled way, but it is also important to be able to produce damage-free regions near the surface of a semiconductor material.

One can ask the following question: If an atom or molecule hits a surface, how does it lose its energy? This question leads to many more detailed questions. What are the modes of energy transfer that apply here? Is there chemisorption or physisorption? How do atoms diffuse near a surface when

a charge is present? Such questions transform a mundane, practical process into a series of questions of fundamental scientific interest.

To go a step further, there are many processes other than reactive ion etching that require understanding a great deal about surfaces and about particle interactions with them. Such understanding is important not only to the computer and electronics industries but also to processes ranging from electroplating, to catalysis, to the evolution of hydrogen in the universe from the atomic to the molecular state.

The study of complex phenomena and processes in industrial technology suggests two important points. The first is that within a given area of science there must be a spectrum of activities that proceed from science to technology. These activities should be evaluated on the basis of their value to society, not on the basis of some arbitrary criterion by which “basic science” is deemed more acceptable than “applied science.” Moreover, distinctions between big science and small science are irrelevant when studying a problem as complex and important as reactive ion etching. Both kinds of science are frequently needed in modern industrial research. In the case of reactive ion etching, many of the modern techniques of materials research are necessary. These include Rutherford backscattering, ion scattering, synchrotron radiation, various surface spectroscopies, nuclear resonance, and transmission electron microscopy.

An important point that cannot be taken for granted or emphasized enough is that the research enterprise of the nation requires an infrastructure that nurtures general science, or science that cannot be identified at present with any particular area of application. This provides the freedom to move freely in a spectrum of specific activity according to the merit of the question being pursued. In materials science three recent developments illustrate the importance of such freedom. The first is the scanning tunneling microscope, which evolved from a desire to improve understanding of the uniformity of dielectrics. When it was shown, however, that atomic resolution could be achieved, the research was redirected into much broader areas of atomic and electronic structure of surfaces. The second example is the quantum Hall effect, which is leading to a better understanding of the behavior of electrons in matter, especially in lower-dimensional systems with various degrees of disorder. The third is the discovery of quasicrystals, which may or may not represent a new structural state of matter but must surely be studied and understood.

Perspectives on Facilities and Instrumentation for Materials Research

DEAN E.EASTMAN

In the past few decades, materials research in the United States has emerged as a large national effort vital to our technological and economic welfare. Materials research is interdisciplinary and is carried out through important programs in the university, government, and industrial sectors. Facilities and instrumentation, an essential element of these research programs, are becoming more sophisticated and costly. This chapter presents several perspectives on that element of materials research programs.

Large-Scale Facilities for Materials Research

MARTIN BLUME

Many of the large facilities and the large-scale aspects of materials research originated at Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories many years ago. The quintessential large facilities are, of course, the high-energy physics facilities. In materials research and in other areas with a strong tradition of small science, these large-scale laboratories evolved gradually; in fact, the first were not built as materials research facilities. They were supported with funds designated for neutron scattering research, for example, from reactor programs.

As a result, there was no problem with funding arrangements until a decade ago, when such facilities started to turn up in materials research budgets. The national laboratories, of course, had their own problems and research programs connected with atomic energy in the days of the Atomic Energy Commission. Thus, DOE not only had these internal programs, but became an agency that also provided large research facilities to universities and, more recently, to the industrial community as well.

The synchrotron light source at the Brookhaven National Laboratory is an example of the large facilities available for materials research. The research carried out at these facilities, as opposed to the high-energy physics facilities, remains basically in the small-science mode and in effect provides research opportunities similar to those in the small laboratories.

For neutron scattering, a fair number of research facilities are available: the intense pulsed neutron source at Argonne, the pulsed source at Los Alamos, and the reactors at Brookhaven and Oak Ridge. In synchrotron radiation the DOE-supported facilities are at Stanford and Brookhaven, with National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported facilities at the University of Wisconsin, Cornell University, and elsewhere. In addition, an electron microscope facility is available at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, a high-magnetic-field facility is available at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and there are others.

All of these large research facilities are open to users, and pressures for their use have grown in the last decade. These pressures have had to be responded to by the agencies that fund research in materials science, as opposed to other areas. In the past, materials scientists were accustomed to working parasitically on either a high-energy physics facility or a reactor facility.

The pressures for increased use of synchrotron radiation sources arise from the relatively simple fact that for many generations, x-ray tubes provided more or less the same intensity. With the advent of synchrotron radiation sources, however, came an exponential increase in the intensity of electromagnetic radiation available for research.

Brookhaven has two synchrotron radiation storage rings—an ultraviolet ring that runs at 750 million electron volts (MeV) and provides radiation up to the soft x-ray part of the spectrum, and a high-brightness x-ray ring that runs at 2.5 billion electron volts (GeV) and provides the harder part of the radiation. There are 16 ports for radiation on the ultraviolet ring, each of which is capable of providing up to four experimental beam lines. Similarly, there are 28 ports with perhaps three experimental beam lines possible on each of those ports.

Thus, it is possible to carry out many experiments simultaneously. This provides important advantages, social as well as scientific, but at the same time produces tremendous problems.

The operation of a facility like this differs considerably from that of a high-energy physics facility (where there is only one primary user of the beam) in

that two or three experiments may be going on at one time. How is such a facility organized? How are all of those beam lines built? One way is for the laboratory itself to provide all of the experimental beam lines and then take proposals from each of the users. A difficulty with this approach is that it engenders a large bureaucracy and is counter to the way in which materials science researchers as well as biologists, chemists, and others who use the facility are accustomed to working. The bureaucracy also tends to eliminate spontaneity in the conduct of research. (This is one of the major advantages of having an x-ray source in your basement laboratory. You can go down there without having to ask a committee to use it at a particular time; you can make mistakes and try new things.)

The management of concurrent research at Brookhaven is of interest because it involves a different organizational method—having users build and operate the beam lines. The compromise adopted at Brookhaven is to ask for the organization of participating research teams. These are groups that propose to place instruments at the facility. If a team’s proposal is accepted, the instruments are installed and the Department of Energy provides the photons for research. In return for those photons, the research team makes this instrumentation available one quarter of the time to small users who just want to come in and do a single experiment.

This mode of operation has worked very well. The participating research teams are left to themselves to organize and to carry out their own experiments. A further advantage is that industry is investing in this instrumentation—something that is strongly encouraged. Thus, a system that amounts to time-sharing has succeeded in attracting a fair amount of money and instrumentation expertise.

Many institutions, including governmental laboratories, corporations, and universities, have taken part in this system through the participating research teams. All of them are involved in beam lines at various places. Many of these are beam lines that have been installed by Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs) and are used as parts of the MRLs. Many of the MRLs located near to one another, including those at the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University, have been actively involved in this way.

Some corporations participating in the Brookhaven system are not known for basic research. Indeed, assistance had to be provided to researchers at some of these corporate research laboratories to enable them to make even a relatively small investment in this equipment outside their own institutions. Thus, some of the corporate research centers have been opened up to basic research. There has also been a good deal of “marriage brokering” to bring together joint university and corporation programs.

Despite the large number of participants in research at Brookhaven, the facility still functions like a small-science facility. It is as if all of the experiments that

required electric power had to be done right at the power plant. Thus, from a research activity viewpoint, facilities like Brookhaven should be viewed not as extremely large single units, but as impressive concatenations of many different facilities and many different types of science. At Brookhaven, for instance, chemists and biologists sit together as members of participating research teams at that early stage. It is important, however, not to overlook the large core cost associated with such a large facility.

Despite the size and complexity of the facility, the operating cost for individual experiments is relatively low. The cost of a shift on one of the beam lines is $80 an hour just for the photons. Although overall operating costs of $14 million per year are not particularly low, the number of beam lines in use is relatively high.

In addition to the participating research teams, many small groups use the facility. For instance, it is not uncommon to see a single professor and a graduate student using one of the beam lines. These small groups can come in at a relatively low initial cost and do this kind of research. Brookhaven has the possibility of providing for travel grants, although this presents one important difficulty—such grants are very useful for small groups, but they can distort the research agenda. They create the possibility that a small group with a good idea but unable to get a research grant will push its efforts in directions dictated by the availability of these facilities.

This important question needs careful attention. This is one reason why it is important to avoid what might be described as “giving away lollipops” with each of the experiments that is funded. It is important not to make research at large facilities (such as Brookhaven) so desirable that people will distort their research in this direction. Balance must be maintained overall in the research program.

It is unfortunate that the funds that are necessary to operate these large facilities often are not fully realized. Consequently, there often is strong pressure to cut back on internal small-science programs at the host laboratory and to use that money for the operation of the large facility. As a consequence of this, at Brookhaven virtually all of the internal research is now based on large facilities.

National Commitment to Facilities and Instrumentation for Materials Research

C.PETER FLYNN

Most university and national laboratory materials research is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) through its Division of Materials Research (DMR) and by the Department of Energy (DOE) through the Di-

vision of Materials Sciences (DMS) in Basic Energy Sciences. These two agencies have “grown up” as the field of materials science has come into being over the past two decades. Together they are responsible for about $300 million of yearly materials science funding. This approaches half the annual total in materials research funding for the nation, including that provided from the Department of Defense, industry, the National Bureau of Standards, and so on.

The relevant point for present purposes is that both DMR and DMS commit roughly 25 to 30 percent of their yearly resources to the support of various types of facilities. The details differ in the two cases. Most DOE facility support passes into major Centers for Collaborative Research in such areas as neutron scattering, synchrotron radiation, and electron microscopy, which are established at institutions (both university and governmental) in the DOE Laboratories Program. NSF also supports major centers for synchrotron radiation, microscopy, and so on. Through its Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs), Materials Research Groups (MRGs), and Instrumentation programs, it also funds smaller-scale facilities on a number of university campuses. While the details differ, a massive commitment to the support of facilities is evident in both agencies. Still further facilities for materials research are operated by other organizations, including the National Bureau of Standards and the weapons laboratories at Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia.

It is a contemporary phenomenon that such a large portion of research funds is directed to facilities. At the time the MRLs were founded in the early 1960s, there were far fewer facilities, of which neutron sources operated by the Atomic Energy Commission constituted the major part. Without question, the current prominence of facilities funding is in direct recognition of the important role that research facilities play in modern materials science and of the unique research avenues that they open to the enterprising researcher.

Such growth in difficult times has naturally caused tension in funding decisions at both NSF and DOE. A further growth of facilities expenditures by a factor of two to 50 to 60 percent of the total appears unlikely, at least without major new resources, because facilities only contribute to a portion of the entire materials field. To help judge whether the present balance is appropriate, one must be familiar with the level of marginal declinations of research proposals in non-facility-related areas and with the level of marginal research supported by facilities-related programs. The decisions are complex and involve many considerations. These include the fact that facilities are justified in part by the finest work to which they give rise, the long time scales required to establish facilities, the cumulative distortion of the research field and the funding patterns they produce downstream, and many others. These are complex issues on which opinions differ.

Despite the current large investment in materials research, the United States lacks desirable research facilities in a number of areas. At the same time, the marginal rejections of research proposals at both NSF and DOE are alarmingly high in the materials sciences, and the ability to fund new proposals from the brightest young scientists entering the field is dangerously low. The competition between these factors presents a critical dilemma in the disposition of available resources.

In the following brief commentary on the roles that research facilities play, the different types of facilities are referred to as infrastructure, research facilities, and collaborative research centers.

The term infrastructure refers to durable, shareable equipment established in a given research environment for use by several or many researchers to whose work the equipment is, to some degree, beneficial. Examples of such environments might be a campus or department. Equipment typically costs between $100,000 and $300,000. It might consist of a VAX computer, mechanical testing equipment, fairly simple x-ray systems, or a robust scanning electron microscope. Such equipment can be kept up and used to mutual benefit by a number of scientists whose main research directions differ, provided that means for maintenance and occasional expert consultation are available.

To be well used, infrastructure equipment must nevertheless exist inside an organizational framework. If there is an MRL or similar organization on campus, these matters are easily handled. The MRGs—surely a much-needed funding initiative—can bring a leadership structure to many other campuses. Organization is required for maintenance and replacement of infrastructure equipment. A maintenance contract on a computer costs perhaps 10 percent of its purchase price per year, and on an electron microscope perhaps 3 percent. These and other operating costs must generally be defrayed by a system of usage charges. In general, few research universities lack instrumentation of this type, although what exists may not be optimal.

The term research facilities refers to instrumentation that is more specialized, more fragile, and much more expensive than infrastructure equipment. Often these are commercial systems that perform the primary research itself. Examples are high-resolution transmission electron microscopes, surface science systems, machines for advanced materials synthesis, as in molecular beam epitaxy or microfabrication, and complexes of laser equipment. One machine may cost a million dollars. The facility may consist of a single instrument or several. It may be operated by an organization, such as an MRL, or it may be separately funded. Examples of larger complexes are the electron microscopy facilities operated by DOE at Argonne, the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Illinois, and Oak Ridge, and by NSF at Arizona State University, and the NSF surface science facility at Montana State University. These are generally identified with user programs that draw investigators from an extended geographical region.

Research facilities face a number of organizational difficulties. Local expertise at an advanced research level is generally needed to justify the expense. Costs for maintenance, operating, and technical assistance may be considerable. Again, the need to have experts maintain fragile equipment for nonexpert users raises obvious problems. Yet, these questions must be faced. In electron microscopy, for example, the United States still is not self-sustaining in the training of research talent, despite the major role these instruments have played in revealing the structure of solids on the scales of 1 micron to a few angstroms.

Social factors enter into the operation of a research facility and can influence its effectiveness. Because an expert’s involvement is essential, the instruments tend to become captive rather than appropriately accessible. To maintain such equipment at the state of the art can become a funding burden that inhibits other new initiatives. The peer review system has not easily adapted to decisions about organizations with the complexity of MRLs or surface science facilities. The task of handling research facility funding in the best interest of the nation is both delicate and vital.

The third category of facilities is collaborative research centers . These facilities include neutron sources for spectroscopy and synchrotron radiation sources (one or two electron microscope centers with uniquely engineered instruments could possibly be included). Research centers involve large-scale, complex engineering and have price tags of at least $50 million for synchrotron radiation and an order of magnitude more for neutrons. When instrumented, the facilities accommodate 10 to 100 independent projects simultaneously, often operating around the clock.

Collaborative research centers provide the nation with research opportunities that would otherwise be inaccessible. Neutron scattering, for example, has revealed much that is known about phonons in crystals and about magnetic structure. Synchrotron radiation is heir to both x-ray and ultraviolet spectroscopies and has played a key role in the contemporary development of surface science. Existing U.S. neutron reactors at Brookhaven, the National Bureau of Standards, and Oak Ridge are powerful and well used but aging; new facilities are needed. Institut Laue-Langevin in Europe has become a center of activity. The past decade has seen new synchrotron radiation centers built at Brookhaven, Stanford, and Madison to join existing sources. None is yet fully developed. At least two more are planned for special production of hard x rays and high-intensity ultraviolet. Although recent U.S. investment in these areas is more evident than in neutron reactors, these developments only keep us abreast of comparable advances abroad.

Materials science has emerged as a field only over the past two and a half decades—the same period over which the MRLs have existed. A significant part of this self-identification in the United States has occurred in concert with the Division of Materials Research at NSF and the Division of Materials Sciences at DOE. These agencies and the field now face a critical problem:

How can we channel more funds into new research facilities when the funding criteria in other areas of the field are already unrealistically high? Either choice will damage existing programs and cause major research opportunities to be lost.

There are two points to be made. First, the field of materials science is not yet organized so that decisions of this type can be made in the context of the overall national program. Second, the field is not well organized to present its needs appropriately in the national arena.

One major deficiency of the field is the lack of a forum for national consensus. This is not a surprising problem for a field that has drawn itself together from the diverse disciplines of metallurgy, ceramics and polymers, solid-state physics, and chemistry. The National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences have sponsored symposia on materials science topics and organized bodies such as the Solid State Sciences Committee of the National Research Council. These efforts contribute to the broad exchange of information at a level at least comparable with that of the professional societies in the several areas of materials science. It seems clear, however, that a further ingredient is needed to ensure that representational factors in this diverse field are correctly balanced in the consensus. The funding agencies have charted these difficult waters for a decade or more and have operated representative committees. Their experience is now needed in pulling together an appropriate forum in which national issues in materials science can be discussed and collective decisions can be made in the best interests of the field as a whole.

A representative body of this type would not, of course, eliminate the difficulties mentioned above. The debate over major facility developments would still have charismatic leaders urging decisions that are to their own benefit, and laboratories would still seek to have their own machine concepts funded. Small science would still feel threatened by the encroachment of large machines onto the funding base. The advantage lies in having the debate focused in an arena of continuing, rational discussion. Recommendations could be fitted into a logical pattern in which commitments and priorities evolve hand in hand. It would be possible to consider the way infrastructure, research facility, and collaborative research center funds balance with each other and with science issues unrelated to facilities; whether facilities are in fact paid for substantially with “extra” funds that would not otherwise be available to the field; and whether DOD, industry, and others should contribute more to facility costs to ease the burden on the NSF and DOE materials sciences programs. The best interests of the field are not served by having different bodies recommending solutions to each problem separately.

Materials science could reap a final major benefit from organizing a representational body. By doing so it would identify its own voice in the public debate over funding priorities. Authoritative statements could be made about

the needs of materials science and about the consequences of their neglect. After all, materials science plays as critical a role in national defense and in improving the quality of life as it does in the nation’s industrial well-being and its intellectual progress. The problems of the field are not so much in the division of funds between science and facilities as in the fact that $600 million annually is much too small a national investment in this ubiquitous and still youthful branch of science. Materials scientists need to organize so that this viewpoint becomes recognized and accepted in the national debate.

Instrumentation for Materials Research

J.DAVID LITSTER

Questions of instrumentation for materials research are addressed in the recent report Financing and Managing University Research Equipment, a study carried out under the supervision of the Association of American Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and the Council on Governmental Relations. With support from six government funding agencies and the Research Corporation, a three-member field research team, of which I was a member, visited 23 universities, government laboratories, and industrial research laboratories and spoke with approximately 500 people. Recognizing that the existence of a problem in research instrumentation in universities had been well documented by previous studies, we asked the following questions: What changes in federal and state regulations and policies would help solve the problem? What changes should universities make? What changes in tax and other laws might help? What can be accomplished by alternative or creative methods of financing?

Changes can be made in all of these areas to improve the efficiency of university acquisition and management of research equipment. The problem is so large, however, that its solution requires substantial and sustained investment from all available sources.

Let me begin by reviewing the nature of the problem, drawing heavily upon work carried out by the National Science Foundation in its survey of academic research instrumentation in 1982 and 1983.

More than 70 percent of the departments surveyed reported that lack of equipment prevented crucial experiments. About 20 percent of the equipment in their inventory was obsolete. Of the equipment in use, about 22 percent was more than 10 years old; only about 50 percent of the equipment in use is in excellent condition. The report stresses that maintenance and operation of equipment is as serious a problem as getting the money for its initial

Federal expenditures for R&D in universities and colleges from 1965 to 1983. The solid line shows expenditures in current dollars, and the dashed line is corrected to current dollars using the Consumer Price Index relative to 1972. The dotted line shows expenditures in current dollars corrected for inflation in the cost of scientific equipment.

purchase. With respect to infrastructure, about 50 percent of the departments reported inadequate or nonexistent support facilities.

A further, important ingredient in the problem is the high start-up cost for new projects and for new faculty members. There has been a 78 percent decline in bricks-and-mortar expenditures in real dollars since 1968. This decline also affects instrumentation, since new facilities generally come equipped with instrumentation. Finally, there is the increased sophistication and cost of research equipment in all fields, not just in materials science.

Data in the figure (see above) from the report give a quantitative picture of the research equipment problem. The figure shows the total federal R&D spending in colleges and universities from 1965 to 1983 in current dollars and corrected to constant dollars using the Consumer Price Index. The best data I could find on the proper rate of inflation for costs of research equipment come from an unpublished study by Robert Melcher, a scientist and manager at IBM’s Thomas J.Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York. Melcher examined the costs of the type of research equipment purchased by

IBM between 1976 and 1981 and found a rate of inflation 1.7 times that of the Consumer Price Index. I have applied Melcher’s correction for inflation and show the results as the dotted line in the figure. This gives an overly pessimistic view of the overall support of research, since most research costs probably increase at a rate closer to the Consumer Price Index. However, it underestimates the seriousness of the problem for research instrumentation, because over most of the period represented in the figure the federal agencies and the universities were reducing the fraction of research dollars that were spent on equipment.

What can be done about this problem? It is important to keep in mind where the resources come from—well over 50 percent of funding for research equipment in materials science is provided by federal agencies; industrial support, which has never been large, accounts for 3 to 5 percent; the universities themselves have been the second major funder of research equipment and have paid for approximately 30 percent of the cost of equipment in use.

What can these various parties do to ease the problem? Federal agencies, for instance, could interpret their regulations, rules, and policies in a consistent way. The present situation tends to make universities unnecessarily conservative in their management practices. It is sometimes difficult to spread the costs of major equipment across Fiscal Year boundaries and certainly across grant boundaries, but frequently this would help. Numerous administrative barriers increase the viscosity of the systems: for example, excessive inventory requirements and the Defense Industry Plant Equipment Center screening for DOD contracts.

In many cases, realistic depreciation allowances for equipment would help, providing that the funds so generated were put toward the purchase of new equipment. This is not a cure-all, of course, because universities can depreciate only the share of equipment that they paid for themselves.

The policies of state agencies raise similar problems because state regulations are frequently more troublesome than those of the federal government. State agencies can help by improving or removing burdensome regulations. In addition, they can help with tax-exempt financing, although it is not clear whether this will be possible if the current proposed federal legislation goes through. In fact, many universities are now seeking to float tax-exempt bonds just to put money in the bank so they will have it in a year or two. Finally, the states could set up agencies to promote science and industry, as North Carolina has already done.

What can the universities do? First, they should recognize that university research differs from that in industry or government laboratories. University research tends to be much more decentralized than it is in industry or government, and significant funding originates from individual principal investigators within the university. However, it is important that, if universities use creative forms of debt financing to acquire equipment, they must not go

into debt in a decentralized fashion. Therefore, it seems likely that resource allocation and planning will become more centralized in universities. Of course, this has its undesirable side effects, and universities will have to make some hard decisions.

Universities will have to cut back on some programs to provide the increased support necessary to maintain the health of others. Each university must investigate its individual potential for university-supported maintenance and repair facilities and perhaps limited inventories of research equipment that could be shared. Iowa State University, for example, has an excellent equipment-sharing program called REAP, elements of which could perhaps be adopted by other universities. In our survey, the field research team investigated carefully the issue of sharing research equipment: Is there enough sharing going on? Should there be more? Are instruments sitting unused? A considerable amount of sharing is already going on in universities, much of which is made possible by the Materials Research Laboratories.

We did find, however, that not in all cases did the universities properly prepare for the realistic costs of operation and maintenance when they were buying research equipment. The universities should try harder to recover realistic depreciation costs. These will, of course, either increase the indirect cost base or increase the direct costs of doing research. Nevertheless, these are real costs that must be met in some way.

We found a further need to work with funding agencies to find an incentive for investigators to transfer equipment to other investigators who might make good use of it, perhaps in other universities. There is little incentive to do that now.

Our overall conclusion was that in the last 10 or 15 years, universities have supported research by supporting people, not instrumentation. Funding by the National Institutes of Health for permanent equipment declined from about 12 percent in 1966 to about 3 percent in 1985, which is clearly too low. Similarly, NSF support for equipment went through a minimum in the period between 1969 and 1976 and has since come back up as the agency recognized the problem.

In summary, an effective and balanced national research program requires that a larger percentage—probably greater than 20 percent—of our resources be devoted to instrumentation, and this must be done on a sustained basis. It will probably be necessary also to increase the size of grants in order to provide this support and to meet the increased costs of operating and maintaining this more sophisticated equipment. If there is no increase in total funding, it may be necessary to reduce the number of grants and the number of investigators supported.

Materials Research and the Corporate Sector

ARDEN L.BEMENT, JR.

Many of us have been witness to the increasingly vital force of materials science in the enhancement of U.S. industrial technological potential over the past 25 years. The emergence of new technologies over this period has created demands for advanced materials. Likewise, the development of new materials systems has accelerated advances in new technologies.

This synergistic process has occurred throughout history but never with the intensity apparent today. The major reason for this intensity is our growing ability to devise entirely new materials systems of engineering significance. Examples include the synthesis of diamond and other ultrahard compounds, semiconductor lasers, ultrapure optical wave guides, high-energy-density magnetic materials, high figure-of-merit piezoelectrics, high-modulus fibers, high-purity ultrafine ceramic powders, semiconductor superconductor superlattice and supermatrix devices, polymer blends, and so on.

The establishment of the Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs) was an inspired achievement. The problems faced by the Coordinating Committee for Materials Research and Development 25 years ago are the same problems facing universities today, namely, how to acquire modern research facilities and how to foster cross-disciplinary research efforts to address the more complex problems in materials science. However, the MRLs have achieved much more over the years than the solution to these problems. These labo-

ratories have demonstrated that peer interactions among graduate students brought together from different disciplines to share facilities can intensify the environment for creativity and greatly broaden the learning experience.

Unfortunately, industry’s exposure to the work of the MRLs has been, by and large, indirect, partly because the focus of the MRLs has been considerably upstream conceptually from that of industry. With the exception of a handful of outstanding industrial research laboratories, most companies do not seek out common interfaces with the MRLs. Moreover, interaction with industry was not designed into the MRL model at the outset, certainly not to the extent that it has been included in more recent NSF programs such as the Engineering Research Centers and the Presidential Young Investigators programs.

However, the existing NSF models for industry-university interaction are still far more concerned with leveraging the funding inputs than with leveraging the technology transfer outputs. Since technology transfer is best achieved through personal interactions, the potential for improving the effectiveness of these interactions through collaborative research, scientist exchanges, internships, and the like is far greater than has been realized to date.

Finally, although the United States enjoys a comparative advantage over the rest of the world because of its strong materials science base, this is not enough in the face of growing worldwide competition. We must also be comparatively effective in strengthening our science base and in exploiting it to add greater value to our industrial products. We all share a vital interest in the success of this enterprise because future investment in the national science and technology base will depend directly upon a strong and growing economy. We must find ways to increase the dividends from such investment if we are to build the university research infrastructure that we believe is needed.

While the key to global industrial competitiveness is not science and technology alone, nations that have a strong science and technology base will have a decided advantage in providing new products and services at the highest quality and lowest cost.

This chapter addresses these and other issues centering on the role of materials research in relation to current and future needs, opportunities, and threats in selected industries.

An Automotive Industry Viewpoint of Materials Research

JULIUS J.HARWOOD

The Materials Research Laboratories and the many associated events that have taken place in the materials field since 1960 are in large part responsible for our recognition today that advanced materials are key to many future

industrial innovations and growth in advanced propulsion systems, microelectronics, energy conversion, and a broad range of engineered and manufactured products. Accordingly, advanced materials technology has emerged as one of the major thrusts of national policy planning and programs throughout the industrial world, and particularly in the United States and Japan. Materials technology shares the spotlight with next-generation computers, biotechnology, very-large-scale integrated circuits, robotics, automation, and artificial intelligence.

In the past several years, there has been a shift not only in technological thrust in the United States, but also in the debate and philosophical discussion related to national materials policy. Our concerns have changed from vulnerability of strategic materials and mineral resources to issues related to industrial innovations in advanced materials and research and development priorities associated with these issues.

The debate between high-technology and smokestack industries is over. New technology and knowledge-based industrial activities have emerged as the keys for the future—new technology serving both the core of new entrepreneurial high-technology industries and rejuvenating established industrial sectors. There is a growing awareness that the United States’ materials competitiveness and industrial innovation potential in transportation, communication and information systems, and manufacturing rest more upon the development and application of advanced materials and less critically upon the problems besetting the traditional minerals and commodity industries.

All of this has led to a remarkable intensity of research and development activity and technological developments in advanced materials (worldwide) and the emergence of new materials industries. Also, it is becoming clear that traditional patterns and segmentation of industrial production are not so readily compatible with accelerated and aggressive industrial exploitation of these new materials technologies. New, innovative industrial coalitions, fresh organizational structures, intercompany cooperation, and information sharing in R&D are becoming more and more evident in this country, as are new modes of industry financing and investment, e.g., R&D limited partnerships. These changes hold profound implications for the development of future industrial infrastructures.

This may be particularly true in the commodity materials industries, in which traditional strength in a single or limited range of materials product classes is giving way to a diversified materials character. This transition is markedly evident in the changing industrial scope and activity of several of our large, formerly single-commodity-oriented companies. One sees a growing integration trend in these companies in becoming, as well, producers and suppliers of fabricated end-item components and consumer products for the higher value-added of engineered products in the marketplace.

In like manner, far-reaching changes are taking place in the automotive industry in its all-out attempt to survive the onslaught of foreign competition. New technology has been pinpointed as one of the industry’s keys to survival, and materials technology has been assigned a paramount role in this enterprise. The automotive industry is a voracious consumer of materials and increasingly, unlike in the past, the industry is becoming a key arena in which new high-technology materials and manufacturing methods are being translated into large-scale industrial practice.

In the near term, say by 1990, the automobile may outwardly resemble what is on our roads today, but how that car is manufactured and assembled, the materials from which it is manufactured, and how its functions are controlled are undergoing remarkable changes.

The basic technologies that used to be indigenous to the automotive industry also are changing. Not too many years ago, Ford research was aggressively pushing the development of onboard computers for feedback loop control systems to control engine operations and emissions. In retrospect, it is interesting to recall the debates with the conventional engineering community who preferred to opt for electromechanical hardware, rather than electronic devices, for reliable control systems. Yet, probably the most aggressive in-house training program under way today in the automotive industry is the conversion of mechanical engineers into electronic and electrical engineers to meet the new challenges to the industry. Obviously, as is the case almost throughout the U.S. industrial system, computer scientists and engineers, software analysts, information systems specialists, electronic engineers, and computer personnel of all types are the most sought-after technologists to support design, engineering, development, and manufacturing operations across the board.

Following are a few examples of the newer materials technologies that will exert important influences on the automobile and on the industry.

ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION MATERIALS

The automobile in a true sense is becoming a communication center on wheels. The impact of electronics and information control systems on driving, engine, braking, suspension and ride quality, transmission, accident avoidance, and driver information operations is only in its infancy. While the automotive industry may not take a leadership role in developing advanced electronic materials, microelectronics, fiber optics, and electro-optical and memory devices, we certainly can expect to see their fast translation and exploitation for automotive vehicle use. In a real sense, the automotive industry will be right on the heels of the electronics and information materials industries, eager to adapt the benefits of photonics, fiber optics, better semiconductor chips, smart sensors, and the like. Semiconductor materials, sensor

materials, and information (electro-optical) materials will become as basic to the automotive industry as were conventional structural materials.

STRUCTURES PLASTICS AND FIBER-REINFORCED PLASTIC COMPONENTS

Over the next 10 years there will be a remarkable change in the use of basic materials in motor vehicles. As is already evident from some of the recent announcements, plastics will play a more and more important role. While the current emphasis still is focused on their use for non-load-bearing exterior panel applications, aggressive application programs are under way to prove out their potential as structural materials candidates. There are experimental vehicles “on the road” that are predominantly plastic cars, with rather exciting performance characteristics.

Even though weight saving will probably always be an important objective, the primary impetus for the use of structural plastics and fiber-reinforced composites does not lie in their weight-saving and fuel-economy potential. Rather, it is the opportunities they provide for low manufacturing investment, lower manufacturing costs, and the ability to be flexible and responsive to changing market conditions and more rapid entry into the marketplace with differentiated and diversified vehicles.

A third technology, which has emerged as a potentially important automotive class of materials, is advanced ceramics. Much is heard today about “ceramics fever,” denoting the intense efforts and national programs both in the United States and in Japan. Depending upon the sources one prefers, it has been claimed that the total advanced ceramics effort constitutes between $50 million and $100 million per year. Although the predominant current use and projected near-term markets for the new advanced ceramics lie in electronic applications (such as integrated circuit substrates, packages, capacitors, sensors, and dielectrics), the real driving force for the national focus on structural ceramics both in the United States and in Japan, and more recently in Western Europe, is their potential application in advanced automotive heat engines or power plants. It is the potential automotive engine market that drives the large national investments and the remarkable degree of industrial activity that is evident, particularly in companies that heretofore were not involved in traditional ceramic sectors. Dramatic progress has been made in the engineering of new ceramic materials classes and in fabrication processing for shape making.

It is anticipated that ceramic applications in adiabatic diesels and in associated engine applications will be in production vehicles within the next

5 to 10 years. Nissan has already announced the use of ceramic turbocharger rotors in some of its 1986 vehicles and Isuzu talks about having an all-ceramic engine by the 1990s. Ceramic gas turbines also are in development at Ford and General Motors under contracts with the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. There is no question that the application of ceramics for low heat-rejection engines (e.g., the adiabatic diesel) and the implications for superior fuel economy represent a major thrust and a new technology for the automotive industry.

NONEQUILIBRIUM MATERIALS: RAPID SOLIDIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

Most lists of important materials technologies for the future would include rapid solidification technology (RST). It is interesting to note that the largest application of RST in the near term will be in the United States. Ironneodymium-boron high-performance magnets made by melt spinning for automotive starter motors will represent the first major, truly high-volume application of RST materials. In fact, one of the giants of the automotive industry will become one of the largest producers of rapidly solidified materials in the United States. The use of these new high-performance magnets enables a reduction of about 50 percent in motor size and weight compared with conventional wire-wound starter motors. Here, then, is a model example of how an industry that is geared to the exploitation of high technology can rapidly adapt itself to the development and application of a new materials technology and become a leader in the field.

MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY AND NEAR NET-SHAPE FABRICATION PROCESSING

A radical transformation is taking place in the design, manufacture, and assembly of automotive vehicles. Manufacturing technology and, in particular, near net-shape fabrication processing are a key underpinning of advanced materials technology in the automotive industry.

The automotive industry frequently has been called a chip-making operation because of the large volume of machining operations. Any innovation that minimizes or eliminates machining operations and finishing steps has an obvious impact upon production cost and productivity increase. The development of near net-shape fabrication processing has become a major thrust of manufacturing R&D programs. A strong linkage has emerged between materials technology and manufacturing technology, with the knowledge that the success of a new material, device, or hardware concept depends inherently upon a processing innovation or improvement that did not exist previously.

Information technologies obviously are driving the recognition that man-

ufacturing, in essence, is data technology and information flow. Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) and computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM) have already demonstrated greater potential for improving manufacturing capability and productivity than has been shown by all other types of advanced manufacturing technologies combined.

SURFACE-MODIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

The ability to transform and control the surface composition, surface structure, and surface properties of materials is emerging as a powerful technological tool. The use of plasma processes such as chemical vapor deposition, physical vapor deposition, sputtering, ion implantation, and laser processing has already demonstrated their inherent power. Fifty percent of all carbide cutting tools are now coated to improve life and performance, and it has been predicted that more than half of all machine tools for cutting and forming will be surface coated before the end of the decade. Surface-modification technology involves highly sophisticated equipment. Our better understanding of surface behavior during the deposition and transformation of nonequilibrium and disordered surface structures, which include gradient, layered, and composite films, offers exciting new approaches for the development of novel materials in addition to more efficient uses of materials.

Clearly, other thrusts in materials science and technology could be cited, but the above half dozen are indicative of the new thrusts in automotive materials technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Since this volume celebrates a quarter century of contributions by the Materials Research Laboratories and their predecessors, a few observations about the Materials Research Laboratories are in order. From a research viewpoint—and the automotive industry is a major employer of researchers— the Materials Research Laboratories and associated faculty research activities have contributed to the industry a major intellectual resource and the people to carry out research. They have fostered new attitudes and new ways of thinking that have spurred the growth of materials technology in the automotive industry.

The Materials Research Laboratories and their cousins on campuses probably will have an even more important future role to play with respect to industrial interaction. As our U.S. industries become more mission oriented and less research oriented because of the pressures of international competition and the constraints of economic and other problems, the next generation of research findings in materials science will probably become the almost exclusive domain of universities and research centers like the Materials Re-

search Laboratories. Except for the few companies that can maintain a respectable scientific research establishment, the industrial structure in the United States increasingly will depend on university research for new scientific ideas. Industrial research and development will concentrate on transforming those ideas into technological progress and applications.

Yet we can note a growing trend in academia, particularly in state-supported colleges and universities, to extend their traditional public service role to become key players in state and regional programs to promote industrial revitalization and technological growth. The new, adaptive industry-oriented mission roles of universities bring some concern about the distribution of university activities and resources between pure research and support for industry technology and growth.

Universities also are developing new, innovative modes of interaction and linkage with industry, including the formation of university sponsored venture capital and entrepreneurial companies. These are providing a new academic proving ground for a new breed of technologists and scientists who can take their place in this coming age of entrepreneurship, as described by Peter Drucker in his recent book Innovation and Entrepreneurship—Practice and Principles . For an industry such as the auto industry, this is all to the good. The automotive industry in its changing mode needs not only technologists who know technology, but technologists who have the instincts, attitudes, and drive to use science and technology in an entrepreneurial fashion.

Materials for the Electrical and Electronics Industry

JOHN K.HULM

Materials research and development at the Westinghouse Electric Corporation are a vital part of the corporation’s business strategy. Westinghouse probably typifies the needs of the electrical and electronic industries for specialized materials. It manufactures electrical and electronic equipment in three general areas:

Electric Power Systems Distribution equipment, nuclear plants

Industrial Equipment Electric motors, controls, instruments, robots, elevators, escalators, electric transportation systems

Defense Equipment Power systems, space, airborne and groundbased radar systems, sonar, missile launching systems

Most of these products make extensive use of advanced materials. About

40 percent of the total effort of the Westinghouse Research and Development Center is devoted directly to work on materials. This includes not only the development of new materials but also the characterization, testing, and evaluation of materials for specific applications. Also included are new methods of manipulating materials—for example, the cutting, drilling, cladding, and joining of materials using lasers.

In Westinghouse laboratories the pressures of product maintenance and improvement and new product development are such that most materials work is highly applied. Currently only 10 to 15 percent of Westinghouse’s effort is devoted to basic or exploratory effort—this mainly constitutes tackling basic problems that stand in the way of advancement of the applied work.

In this climate, Westinghouse relies heavily upon university departments of chemistry, physics, and materials science, as well as the MRLs, for new information on materials, new properties, new methods of preparation and characterization, and so forth. It has joined some cooperative research programs, where the fee is modest. It uses university consultants extensively and bids jointly with various universities on government contracts. Needless to say, many of the materials personnel at Westinghouse were trained in the MRLs or equivalents.

It is not possible to discuss all of the materials research relevant to the diverse group of products that Westinghouse manufactures. Instead, this discussion focuses on two particular questions: (1) What emerging materials will have the greatest effect on our industry in the next 15 years? (2) Which industrial requirements pose the greatest challenge to materials research over the next 15 years?

In my view, the materials affecting Westinghouse to the greatest extent in the next several decades will be those underlying the current revolution in electronics, computers, and communication. Thus, a few of the most important materials functions that directly affect Westinghouse businesses and where there is continuing, rapid change of technology are

Sensor materials

Integrated-circuit materials

Microwave amplifier materials

Surface acoustic wave materials

Optical fibers

Laser materials

Electro-optic materials

Acousto-optic materials

This pace probably will not slow down before the turn of the century. Indeed, it will probably accelerate, particularly the evolution of the higher-frequency and optical end of the spectrum.

FIGURE 1 Schematic diagram of vibration monitor using a quartz bar to sense movement of the end turns in large turbine generators.

The need for these detection and signal-processing functions for Westinghouse radar and sonar businesses will be obvious. But what do such materials and components have to do with large power plants?

The answer is simply that for the first time in history we have the capability of equipping large machines—such as reactors, turbines, and generators— with first-class nervous systems. We use advanced sensors to detect temperature rise, vibration, electric discharge noise, and chemical emissions. Fiber-optic or acoustic waveguides provide ideal signal output channels where high electrical voltages are present. Data from a variety of sensors can be combined in a probabilistic fashion to diagnose incipient faults. Corrective action can often be taken before the condition becomes serious and forces a plant shutdown, resulting in serious economic loss.

Three examples of new sensors already in experimental use in power systems are vibration monitors that use a quartz bar to sense movement of the end turns in large turbine generators ( Figure 1 ); optical instrument transformers, which measure the current in a high-voltage power line by using the Faraday rotation of polarized light in an optical fiber ( Figure 2 ); and the use of acousto-optic materials to build spectrum analyzers for both military and industrial use. The principle of the third example is that microwave signals from hostile radar sources are converted into acoustic waves in an

acousto-optic cell. The key material in the cell has a high photoelastic coupling coefficient, so that the optical refractive index is modulated by the acoustic wave. This sets up a diffraction grating through which monochromatic laser light is passed. The diffracted light represents a Fourier transform of the original radar signal, producing a power-frequency spectrum that is the basis for applying countermeasures.

Essentially this same device is shortly to be used in an industrial application to analyze gases emitted during combustion in power plants, steel mills, and

FIGURE 2 Schematic diagram of an optical instrument transformer that uses the Faraday rotation of polarized light in an optical fiber for measuring the current in a high-voltage power line.

FIGURE 3 Schematic diagram of a spectrum analyzer using an acousto-optic tunable filter (AOTF) to analyze combustion products in industrial applications.

the like ( Figure 3 ). This particular device works in the infrared, and it necessitated development of a new acousto-optical crystal, thallium arsenic selenide.

I see a growing demand for new crystalline materials with special properties as more and more signal conversion and processing are done in the infrared and optical ranges. More complex crystals will have to be grown and new techniques of crystal growth will be needed to better control impurities, stoichiometry, defects, and so on. Even the quality of the electronics workhorse, silicon, is still being improved in the area of device quality, particularly in large power devices for power conversion.

Marching in step with the crystalline explosion is the rapidly growing use of thin films. Improved high-vacuum technology, and techniques such as molecular beam epitaxy (MBE), make it possible to enter a hitherto inaccessible world of new, thin crystalline materials with specially tailored electronic properties.

Westinghouse set up an MBE system that is used to develop thin-film superconductors for Josephson junctions to be applied in high-speed signal processing. The research team has been able to grow single-crystal films of both A15 and B1 superconductors by epitaxial growth on a variety of substrates.

Passive films will play almost as crucial a role as active films, with all gradations in between. New film deposition methods will be needed for glasses, ceramics, and organic materials that will be used as insulators and dielectrics, as well as hermetic encapsulants.

Although the question of where emerging materials will have the greatest impact on Westinghouse has been partially answered, the materials base of electrical energy production and conversion, the so-called energy materials, has not been mentioned. These materials are discussed in relation to the second question, that is, what industrial requirements pose the greatest challenge to materials research over the next 15 years?

Two classes of needs are evident in the materials technology of present-day power plants, reactors, turbines, and generators. The first class includes solutions to long-standing problems of conventional materials— corrosion, stress corrosion, crack growth, insulation aging, and radiation damage. Improvements in this area have been incremental and are likely to remain so. The second class of needs is related to such new materials as amorphous magnetic alloys, fiber-reinforced composites, and superconductors. Here, advances are likely to be more radical but may not be used. For example, U.S. development of superconducting generators is almost at a standstill.

There is always a set of materials problems that are never completely solved. Often these problems are bound up more with plant operation than with basic defects in the materials themselves. In this connection, the extension of plant life has become very important, and nondestructive methods for evaluation of materials are essential.

Defects must be looked for in finished industrial materials. Included are a wide variety of surface and interior defects ( Figure 4 ). Such investigations must often be done under extremely hostile conditions, particularly in nuclear plants, where robotics and remote control are needed.

Various inspection methods have become extremely useful ( Figure 5 ). Most of these have now combined with computer systems to generate complete three-dimensional images of the defect under study. Take, for example, a pitting defect in a tube of a nuclear steam generator—the images may be made from the inside of the tube using two different methods, ultrasonics and eddy currents.

In electric energy technology the turbine generator set is unlikely to be displaced in the next 50 years as the primary method of utility power generation. Coal-fired stations might shift to fluidized bed boilers, and efforts will be made to remove sulfur before it reaches the stack and has to be scrubbed out. One may also view the problem of removing sulfur from coal as a materials problem.

We are likely to see the onset of new auxiliary power sources, even in the next 15 years. The fuel cell, invented around 1820, now seems near industrial deployment because of advances in materials technology. There are several candidates. The phosphoric acid cell has been used in multi-megawatt experimental plants. The solid oxide cell is also coming along rapidly.

FIGURE 4 Examples of surface and interior defects and conditions affecting the performance of materials. Redrawn, with permission, from New Science Publications, London.

FIGURE 5 Examples of nondestructive testing and inspection methods, many of which are now combined with computer techniques to generate three-dimensional images of defects in materials. Redrawn, with permission, from New Science Publications, London.

FIGURE 6 Schematic diagram of solid oxide cell, a high-efficiency, all-solid-state power generating device with about 50 percent efficiency.

The solid oxide cell is probably the only high-efficiency, all-solid-state power generating device ( Figure 6 ). The key element is a yttria-zirconia alloy that conducts oxygen ions at 900°C. Gaseous fuel is applied to one side of the tube and air to the other. Oxygen ions migrate through the ceramic and react with the fuel, releasing electrons as they do so. The device thus generates power. It may reach about 50 percent efficiency, exceeding the 42 percent efficiency of a coal-fired plant.

In this area of technology there is a lot of room for research in ionic conduction in solids, and better conductors at lower temperatures would be a great help.

This discussion has focused on the near-term electric energy technologies. Obviously, there are many, more long-term developments, such as fusion, magnetohydrodynamic power, and geothermal power, where the limitations of present high-temperature materials are one of the principal barriers to progress—an area in which future materials research should be concentrated.

Materials Science Research and Industry

HAROLD W.PAXTON

In 1972, when the National Science Foundation (NSF) took over administration of the Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs) from the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), there were some interesting discussions with the directors, not always totally amicable, on what should be done in the MRLs to differentiate them from the more conventional NSF programs. From those discussions arose the concept of “thrust areas,” where emphasis was placed on bringing several different talents to bear on significant problems of a university’s own choosing. So, in a recent informal survey of my colleagues in industry, my first question, loosely translated, was what have the MRLs done for you lately?

Unfortunately, the answers that came back stated that they could not think of anything that the MRLs were doing that had sufficiently influenced their present concerns.

The experiment was conducted again at a meeting of the Industrial Research Institute (IRI). The IRI is essentially the vice presidents for research and technology from 270 of the nation’s industrial companies. Between them, they spend about 85 percent of the dollars allocated for industrial research.

Members were asked the question approximately as follows: how have the MRLs influenced your research program in the last few years? The question was addressed to representatives from manufacturing companies—ranging from automobile and off-road vehicle manufacturers to chemical companies active in the polymer business, and to others as the occasion arose.

The results were uniform, if not very comforting. MRLs had to be explained to a number of these people, and even after that explanation, no one could be found who could think of any difference the MRLs had made.

I discussed these results with a very respected friend of mine who runs a large materials laboratory at a large corporation. Earlier I had deliberately not asked him or any members of his group because I was sure the MRLs would not only be recognized, but the contributions they could make would be well known to him and his colleagues. He replied, “Not necessarily; I am sure I have a lot of people working for me who have no close association with the MRLs.”

Now, what does this tell us or what should we hope to learn from this admittedly imperfect poll? Please note that it does not tell us that the MRL program is not worthwhile or not doing first-class research and turning out new concepts and the people to introduce these concepts into industry.

What it does tell us is that there is a clear gap in communication between the MRLs and at least a substantial and significant number of U.S. industries. In our present set of concerns with industrial competitiveness on a world

scale, this is a problem we should address. It cannot be dismissed because many of the industries that were informally surveyed have been in the first wave of international difficulty.

We have seen that a succession of industries of increasing sophistication are now facing heavy weather in being competitive internationally. Thus, we have in the MRL system a national asset that is not having the effect it might have.

Industry has to worry a great deal about markets and providing service to our customers. “Know your customers” is the watchword. It would be interesting to know if MRL members think their real customers are at the National Science Foundation or perhaps in a broader arena, such as industry, where their ideas would be picked up and used.

Good coupling between MRLs and many of the process industries will not be easy. Any time we are dealing in commodities—and these days that means not only sheet steel but also silicon wafers and integrated circuits— the large measure of competitive problems is often developmental engineering and good systems management.

In summary, in no way has it been implied that in any way the programs at the MRLs are other than first class. It is, however, difficult to find out what the programs are, and so, at the very minimum, a “highlights” booklet should be prepared each year to be given broad circulation. The extent of knowledge of MRL programs among many industries in the United States is not what it could be and probably not what it should be. The question is, do we want to do anything about it and, if so, what can we do? As a long-time friend of MRLs, I hope we can find some way of getting even more mileage out of this valuable research program, and I would be willing to work with any group that has ideas on doing something about this.

Materials and the Information Age

ALAN G.CHYNOWETH

The term “Information Age” might sound more abstract, less tangible, than “Industrial Age,” more associated with mental processes than physical ones, but it is based just as firmly on materials science and engineering.

True, the Information Age is heavily dependent upon software. But just as sheet music is rather lifeless without the hardware of musical instruments, so also is software useless without integrated circuits for its implementation.

In contrast to the structural, mechanical, and electrical technologies of the Industrial Age, the Information Age makes relatively modest demands on raw material resources and energy and is usually benign in its interaction

with the environment. On the other hand, the communications, computer, and control technologies, the “three Cs” of the Information Age, are probably the most complex, sophisticated, and demanding technology systems yet devised by mankind. They are rich in invention and added value resulting from intensive, often very large and expensive research and development programs.

INNOVATION IN COMPLEX TECHNOLOGIES

So complex are the Information Age technologies that, except for the occasional and unpredicted but vital discoveries in pure research, the lone scientist or engineer is usually ineffective or powerless to foster technological advances on his own. Such advances need groupings of scientists and engineers, each person bringing different knowledge, experience, skills, and expertise to bear on a common interest or scientific or technological objective. Much as we might wish to have individual “compleat” scientists and engineers, it simply is not possible. Even teams of individuals in a given discipline are usually insufficient. Overall technological progress and innovation require interdisciplinary endeavors pursuing a systems approach on a mission that captures the imagination of all involved. Indeed, just as scientific progress often occurs primarily as a result of almost chance encounters between individuals from different scientific backgrounds, so technological innovation requires more deliberate interactions between such individuals and groups of individuals. Thus, by encouraging the cross-fertilization and synergy that can come from such encounters, research laboratories and centers in industry or academia can achieve extraordinary discoveries, results, and progress. Perhaps one of the most important contributions of the Materials Research Laboratories on the university campuses has been fostering greater appreciation of the vital importance of effective interdisciplinary collaboration both among those who stay on the university campus and among those who leave it to join mission-oriented laboratories.

In industry, the necessity of relatively large research and development efforts to achieve critical mass and make technological and business progress in risky and competitive industries runs up against the harsh realities of the marketplace. There are two particularly important approaches for helping to achieve this critical mass in research and development. The first is to provide financial incentives to corporations, particularly through such mechanisms as research tax credits. The continuation of these credits is a factor in improving this country’s technological prowess and competitive position.

The second is through corporate collaboration in research and development. Thanks to the Cooperative Research Act of 1984, we are seeing more of this. I myself am now employed by what may be the world’s largest research and development consortium, Bell Communications Research, or Bellcore,

formed by the seven regional fragments of the former Bell System. Another consortium, the Microelectronics and Computer Consortium, started from the opposite condition—traditionally separate corporations sharing a common interest in meeting the challenge from overseas in the push toward supercomputers.

These and other consortia may well be critical to ensuring this country’s technological progress, but they are not without problems. Perhaps chief among these is when and how to draw the line between shared and proprietary research and development, between cooperation and competition. There are no easy answers to this question. It affects not only research collaboration among industrial companies but also cooperative interaction between universities and industry. The issue needs close attention since its resolution can have a major impact on the prosperity and international competitiveness of this country’s industries.

CHALLENGES TO MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES

The seminal event usually regarded as the start of the Information Age was the discovery of the transistor, itself an outcome of intensive studies of the basic electronic properties of semiconducting materials. And ever since, progress in the three C’s has been largely paced by the rate of progress in the science and technology of electronic and photonic materials, and this is likely to persist for many years.

A long list of scientific and technical challenges and problems can readily be developed, but the first one that I would emphasize is the continued importance of supporting basic research in materials. On this depends the continued discovery of new materials and processes for synthesis and structure fabrication. Such research has always been at the root of technological progress, and we have surely not explored all the opportunities that nature has waiting for us. Recent examples of such new research opportunities include two-dimensional or layered materials, conducting organic compounds, and magnetic semiconductors. A common theme in this research is putting the process-structure-property relationships on a sound theoretical footing. Perhaps the ultimate proof of the mastery of this science will be the routine use of computer-aided design to discover and create new materials with the necessary properties to meet specific needs.

Second, the Information Age is primarily based on electronic devices and materials. Chief among these is the silicon integrated circuit, which is vital in the areas of signal processing, logic, and short-term storage. We are approaching the limits of what can be achieved in terms of fine lines and component density in two dimensions on a silicon chip. Further advances call for mastering the processes necessary for proceeding to the third di-

mension, along with finding clever ways to minimize or facilitate the heat removal problem.

Third, for signal transport, the world is turning increasingly to glass fibers instead of copper wires, to photons instead of electrons. But compared with electronic components, photonic components are still in their infancy. The rate at which the universal communications vision of the Information Age can be turned into reality is still largely determined by the rate at which materials problems can be solved. We need advances in the science and technology of various compound semiconductor materials, of nonlinear optical materials and fibers, and of fluoride or other infrared fiber materials for ultralong-distance, repeaterless transmission. We need advances in optical switching devices, in packaging and interconnection techniques for optical components and for mating these with electronic components, and in fabricating high-speed integrated optoelectronic components.

All these potential advances in electronics and photonics portend the era of truly universal wideband communications—voice, data, facsimile, image, and video. In turn, this will put ever-greater demands on information-storage technology. Unfortunately, we still seem to be in the relative dark ages of rotating machinery—involving discs or tapes, magnetic and optical—when it comes to storing enormous amounts of information. With all the wideband transmission and processing technology coming along, mass storage may well become a bottleneck. Thus, the fourth challenge to materials science and engineering in information technologies is the need for advances in the materials aspects and technologies for mass storage.

Fifth, underlying all of the above materials problems is the relentless trend to smallness—cramming more and more information processing and storage capability into a smaller and smaller volume. This trend has various implications. For one, as dimensions get smaller, the processing and diagnostic equipment needed gets larger and more expensive. Whereas a $10 hacksaw and file might have sufficed to prepare a sample in the early days of physical metallurgy, we now need million-dollar molecular beam equipment and electron microscopes to prepare and study samples on the atomic scale. Although these equipment needs are not of the same extent as those in high-energy physics, they are nonetheless real, multiple, and significant, and demand attention, especially at the universities, where the availability of such equipment can have enormous consequences for improving this country’s competitive position.

Smallness also usually brings with it more vulnerability to damage, corrosion, and other changes on the atomic scale. Ruggedness and reliability may set practical limits on the component density of integrated circuits. Therefore, study of the physical and chemical stability of surfaces and interfaces becomes more critical than ever.

Though information technology is usually regarded as relatively benign

environmentally, one particular facet perhaps needs more emphasis. Many exotic chemicals are used in the manufacturing processes, some of which can be quite hazardous if mishandled. Thus, sixth, toxicity effects, chemical hazards, and ways to avoid or minimize them need more scientific and technical attention.

HUMAN-MACHINE INTERFACE CHALLENGES

The Information Age usually connotes immense information bases on every subject and extensive information transport in various media in all directions before finally contributing to modern society’s information overload. We desperately need improved technologies to handle input and output of information, and today’s computer terminals have very limited capabilities. We need more touch-sensitive displays and direct voice interaction rather than keyboards for entering data. We need machines with artificial intelligence to digest masses of information and computer graphics and to help us understand it. Other major challenges in this arena include pattern recognition, and encryption to ensure privacy. Another need is for portability and ubiquitous availability of information services; this, in turn, depends on better materials for electric batteries. All these challenges will need to be met before the terminal can really begin to be regarded as convenient and useful for sophisticated applications. In fact, the technologies at the interface between humans and machines may set the pace for the Information Age.

BEYOND THE INFORMATION AGE

Topics such as interactive displays and artificial intelligence are beginning to go hand in hand. This is a particularly noteworthy combination of hardware and software, the synergy between which we have hardly begun to address. It perhaps heralds the beginning of the next age—one that we might think of as the age of the intelligent robot or even the Humanoid Age, in which the brawn expanders of the Industrial Age combine with the brain expanders of the Information Age to begin to simulate simple human abilities. Where this combination will lead is for anyone to imagine, but this vision reminds us of a major challenge that continues to mock our relatively puny achievements—the human body, brain, and nervous system. The functioning of all these aspects of human beings is again based on materials, the properties of which we still understand but little. To understand and emulate nature’s success and to develop a robust, often self-healing materials-based system for creating, storing, retrieving, processing, and transmitting information will pose extraordinary challenges to materials scientists and engineers, in collaboration with information scientists and engineers, as far into the future as I, for one, can contemplate.

Contributors

This list includes principal authors of the chapters presented in Parts 1 and 2 of this volume and members of the panels whose remarks appear in Part 3 .

WILLIAM O.BAKER retired as chairman of the board of Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., in 1980. Dr. Baker received his Ph.D. degree in physical chemistry from Princeton University. He joined Bell Laboratories in 1939 and became head of polymer research and development in 1948. In 1955 he became vice-president of research and for the next 25 years had overall responsibility for research programs at Bell Laboratories. Dr. Baker’s extensive service in national science policymaking includes presidential appointments to the President’s Science Advisory Committee, the National Science Board, the Regents of the National Library of Medicine, and the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board. Dr. Baker is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

ARDEN L.BEMENT, JR., is vice-president of technical resources at TRW Inc. Dr. Bement was deputy under secretary of defense for research and engineering from 1979 to 1981 and director of the Materials Science Office of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency from 1976 to 1979. He was professor of nuclear materials at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1970 to 1976 and was organizer and principal investigator of the MIT Fusion Technology Program. Dr. Bement is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and has published extensively in materials

science and solid-state physics. He received his Ph.D. in metallurgical engineering from the University of Michigan in 1963.

MARTIN BLUME is deputy director at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and part-time professor of physics at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Dr. Blume received his B.S. degree in physics from Princeton University and his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from Harvard University. He joined the Brookhaven National Laboratory in 1962. Dr. Blume’s research interests include theoretical solid-state physics, theory of magnetism, phase transitions, slow neutron scattering, and synchroton radiation. He is a member of the National Research Council Committee on Materials Science and Engineering, of which he is vice-chairman of the Panel on Research Resources in Materials Science and Engineering.

WILLIAM F.BRINKMAN is vice-president of research, Organization 1000, at Sandia National Laboratories, where he directs research in solid-state physics, pulsed power, engineering, systems, materials science, and process science. Dr. Brinkman joined Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1966 and was director of the Physical Research Laboratory from 1981 to 1984, when he moved to Sandia National Laboratories. Dr. Brinkman has worked on theories of condensed matter and spin fluctuation in metals and other highly correlated Fermi liquids. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has chaired the Solid State Sciences Committee and the Physics Survey Steering Committee of the National Research Council. Dr. Brinkman received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from the University of Missouri.

JOHN W.CAHN is Senior NBS Fellow in the Center for Materials Science of the National Bureau of Standards. He was professor of materials science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1964 to 1978 and a research associate in the General Electric Metallurgy and Ceramics Department Research Laboratory in Schenectady, New York, from 1954 to 1964. Dr. Cahn is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and is on the editorial boards of the NBS Journal of Research, the Journal of Statistical Physics, and Phase Transitions . Dr. Cahn holds a B.S. degree in chemistry from the University of Massachusetts and a Ph.D. degree in physical chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley.

PRAVEEN CHAUDHARI is vice-president for science at the IBM Corporation’s Thomas J.Watson Research Center. Dr. Chaudhari received the bachelor of technology degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India, in 1961 and the Ph.D. degree in physical metallurgy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1966. He was a member of the research staff at MIT from 1966 to 1980, before assuming his current position

in the IBM Corporation. Dr. Chaudhari’s research interests include amorphous solids, defects in crystalline solids, crystal plasticity, and electron localization.

ALAN G.CHYNOWETH is vice-president of applied research at Bell Communications Research, Inc. He is responsible for research in the physical, mathematical, computer, information, and communications sciences and engineering related to new technology and service capabilities of telecommunications networks in the Bell Operating Companies. Dr. Chynoweth received the Ph.D. degree in physics in 1950 from the University of London, King’s College. He was on the staff of the National Research Council of Canada from 1950 to 1976 and was director of materials research from 1973 to 1976 when he joined the Bell Laboratories. He was survey director for the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Survey of Materials Science and Engineering (COSMAT).

ALBERT M.CLOGSTON became chairman of the Center for Materials Science at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1982 after retiring from the Bell Telephone Laboratories. Dr. Clogston joined the Bell Laboratories in 1946. His early research interests included the physics of electron tube devices, such as magnetrons and traveling wave tubes. His later work included research in solid-state physics, magnetism, and superconductivity. In 1965 he became director of the Physical Research Laboratory and in 1971 was named vice-president for research at Sandia Laboratories, a subsidiary of Western Electric. He returned to the Bell Laboratories in 1973. Dr. Clogston is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and currently serves on the governing board of the National Research Council. He received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

MORRIS COHEN is Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has been on the faculty since 1937. His fields of interest are materials science and engineering, materials policy, physical metallurgy, phase transformations, and strengthening mechanisms. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. He chaired the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Survey of Materials Science and Engineering (COSMAT) and was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Carter. Dr. Cohen received the Ph.D. degree in metallurgy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

FRANCIS J.DI SALVO, JR., is head of Solid State and Physics of Materials Research Department at AT&T Bell Laboratories. After receiving the Ph.D.

degree in applied physics from Stanford University in 1971, Dr. Di Salvo joined Bell Laboratories as a member of the technical staff. He became research head of the Chemical Physics Research Department in 1978 and head of the Solid State Chemistry Research Department in 1981. His primary research interests include electrical and magnetic properties, high-energy-density battery materials, materials synthesis, and physical and chemical properties of solid-state compounds.

MILDRED S.DRESSELHAUS is one of 12 active Institute Professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Dresselhaus received her Ph.D. degree from the University of Chicago in 1958. She joined the staff of MIT Lincoln Laboratory in 1960 and was named to the Abby Rockefeller Mauzé Chair in the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in 1967. Her recent research interests include modification of electronic materials and graphite fibers by intercalation and implantation. Dr. Dresselhaus is a member of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering and is a member of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

DEAN E.EASTMAN is director of development and product assurance for the IBM Corporation’s Systems Technology Division. Dr. Eastman joined the IBM Research Division as a research staff member in 1963. His research interests include condensed-matter physics and surface science. He has contributed to the development of new photoemission spectroscopy techniques and their application to study of the electronic structure of solids and surfaces. Dr. Eastman is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He received B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

C.PETER FLYNN is professor of physics and director of the Materials Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois. Dr. Flynn serves on the oversight committee for the National Science Foundation Division of Materials Research and has served on various National Research Council committees that deal with solid-state physics and materials science. Dr. Flynn is a fellow of the American Physical Society. He received a Ph.D. degree in physics from Leeds University in England.

BERTRAND I.HALPERIN is professor of physics at Harvard University. Dr. Halperin received the Ph.D. degree in physics from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1965. Before coming to his current position in 1976, Dr. Halperin was for 10 years a member of the technical staff at Bell Laboratories. Dr. Halperin serves on numerous scientific committees and

panels. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the American Physical Society.

JULIUS J.HARWOOD is vice-president of Energy Conversion Devices, Inc., and president of its subsidiary, Ovonic Synthetic Materials Company. Mr. Harwood retired from a 23-year career with Ford Motor Company in 1983 as director of the Materials Sciences Laboratory. He had served as director of physical sciences, manager of research planning, and assistant director of materials sciences at Ford. He headed the Metallurgy Branch of the Office of Naval Research from 1946 to 1960, and during that period served on a special assignment to the Advanced Research Projects Agency to help establish the Interdisciplinary Materials Sciences University Laboratory Program. Mr. Harwood is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He holds an M.S. degree in metallurgy from the University of Maryland.

JOHN P.HIRTH is professor of materials science and metallurgical engineering at Ohio State University. Dr. Hirth received his Ph.D. in metallurgy in 1958 from the Carnegie Institute of Technology, where he served as an assistant professor from 1958 to 1961. He joined the faculty at Ohio State in 1961 as Mershon Associate Professor of Materials Science and Metallurgical Engineering. He was named to his present post in 1964. Dr. Hirth’s research and teaching interests include nucleation and growth processes, dislocation theory, and physical metallurgy, and he is the author or coauthor of two books and more than 200 articles in these fields. Dr. Hirth is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

JOHN D.HOFFMAN is director of the Michigan Molecular Institute. After receiving his Ph.D. degree in physical chemistry from Princeton University in 1949, Dr. Hoffman joined the General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York, as a research associate. In 1956 he moved to the National Bureau of Standards as chief of the Dielectrics Section. He was named chief of the Polymers Division in 1964, director of the Institute for Materials Research in 1968, and director of the National Measurement Laboratory in 1978. Dr. Hoffman is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

JOHN K.HULM is director of corporate research and R&D planning at the Westinghouse Research and Development Center in Pittsburgh. Dr. Hulm received his Ph.D. degree in physics from Cambridge University in 1949. He is also a graduate of the Advanced Management Program, Harvard Business School. Dr. Hulm was a research fellow and professor at the University of Chicago from 1949 until 1954 when he joined Westinghouse. There he has served as director of cryogenics, director of solid-state research, and

manager of the Chemistry Research Division. Dr. Hulm has published widely on superconductivity, ferroelectrics, magnetic materials, and semiconductors.

HERBERT H.JOHNSON is professor of materials science and engineering at Cornell University. Dr. Johnson joined the Cornell faculty in 1960 and was director of the Materials Science Center from 1974 to 1984. His research interests include hydrogen in metals, phase stability, thermodynamics of solids, and corrosion. He has served on numerous industry and government advisory committees on materials science issues and consults extensively in the field. Dr. Johnson received his B.S. degree in physics and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physical metallurgy from the Case Institute of Technology.

J.DAVID LITSTER is professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, since 1983, director of the Center for Materials Science and Engineering. Dr. Litster received his Ph.D. degree in physics in 1965 at MIT and joined the faculty in 1966. Prior to his current position, he was head of the Division of Condensed Matter, Atomic and Plasma Physics in the Department of Physics at MIT from 1979 to 1983. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and has worked as a consultant to various corporate, governmental, and academic organizations.

WILLIAM D.NIX is professor of materials science at Stanford University. After receiving his Ph.D. degree in materials science from Stanford in 1963, Dr. Nix joined the faculty. He was director of the Center for Materials Research at Stanford from 1968 to 1970 and is currently associate chairman of the Department of Materials Science. Dr. Nix has conducted research on the mechanical properties of solids and is principally concerned with the relation between structure and the mechanical properties of metals and alloys at high temperatures.

HAROLD W.PAXTON recently retired as vice-president for corporate research and technology assessment for the United States Steel Corporation to become United States Steel Professor of Metallurgy and Materials Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Paxton received his Ph.D. degree from the University of Birmingham, England, in 1952. He joined the faculty of Carnegie Institute of Technology in 1953, and in 1966 became head of Carnegie Mellon’s Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science and director of the Metals Research Laboratory. Between 1971 and 1973 he served as the first director of the Division of Materials Research at the National Science Foundation. Dr. Paxton is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

E.WARD PLUMMER is professor of physics at the University of Pennsylvania. Prior to his current position he was assistant section chief for surface physics at the National Bureau of Standards. Dr. Plummer’s research interests include field emission, angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy, and high-resolution inelastic electron scattering applied to surfaces. He is a member of the editorial board of Physical Review B and is a consulting editor of Chemical Physics . He received his Ph.D. degree in physics from Cornell University in 1968.

CALVIN F.QUATE is professor of applied physics and electrical engineering at Stanford University and a senior research fellow at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. Dr. Quate received his Ph.D. degree in physics from Stanford University in 1950. He was on the staff of Bell Telephone Laboratories from 1949 to 1958 and of Sandia Corporation from 1959 to 1961, when he joined the faculty of Stanford University. Dr. Quate is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. His research interests include linear and nonlinear properties of acoustic waves in the microwave region, imaging, scanning electron microscopy, and new concepts for data storage.

LYLE H.SCHWARTZ is director of the Institute for Materials Science and Engineering, National Bureau of Standards. The Institute carries out research on metals, ceramics, polymers, and composites leading to the development of new measurement techniques and standards. Dr. Schwartz was a member of the faculty of Northwestern University’s Materials Science and Engineering Department from 1964 to 1984 and director of the Materials Research Center from 1979 to 1984. Dr. Schwartz has published in physical and mechanical metallurgy, catalysis, x-ray and neutron diffraction, and Mössbauer spectroscopy. Dr. Schwartz received his Ph.D. in materials science in 1963 from Northwestern University.

JOHN H.SINFELT is a senior scientific advisor in the Corporate Research Science Laboratories of Exxon Research and Engineering Company. Dr. Sinfelt joined the scientific staff of the Exxon Research and Engineering Company in 1954 and was named to his current position in 1979. His principal area of research is heterogeneous catalysis, including bimetallic cluster catalysis, and the application of catalysts in petroleum refining. Dr. Sinfelt received the National Medal of Science in 1979 for work that led to the development of new catalyst systems for the efficient production of low-lead gasoline. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. Dr. Sinfelt received his Ph.D. degree in chemical engineering from the University of Illinois in 1954.

ROBERT L.SPROULL is president emeritus and professor of physics at the University of Rochester. Dr. Sproull received his Ph.D. degree in experimental physics from Cornell University in 1943. He joined the Cornell faculty in 1946 and was named director of the Materials Science Center in 1960. From 1963 to 1965 he directed the Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. Sproull moved to the University of Rochester in 1968 and served as president from 1970 to 1975. His research and teaching interests include thermionic electron emission, microwave radar, and experimental solid-state physics.

ALBERT R.C.WESTWOOD is director of the Martin Marietta Laboratories. In 1956, after receiving the Ph.D. degree in physical metallurgy from the University of Birmingham, England, Dr. Westwood joined the research department of Imperial Chemical Industries, Metals Division, in Birmingham. He joined the scientific staff of the Research Institute for Advanced Studies, Martin Marietta Corporation, in 1958 and became associate director and head of the Materials Science Department in 1964. He was named to his current position in 1974. Dr. Westwood is a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

GEORGE M.WHITESIDES is professor of chemistry at Harvard University. Prior to his current position he was Hudson and Dewey Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research interests include reaction mechanisms, organometallic chemistry, applied biochemistry, surface chemistry catalysis, and materials science. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Whitesides received his Ph.D. degree from the California Institute of Technology in 1964.

Adhesion promoters for multilayer substrates, 211–212

isolated, 284 , 288

surface studies of, 288 , 297–298 , 302–304

Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), establishment of IDLs, 35 , 37

iron-carbon, 73

nanoscale examination of, 73

osmium-copper, 193–197

polycrystalline, 72 , 78–79

ruthenium-copper, 191 , 193–194 , 198

Aharanov-Bohm effect, 141

Aircraft, polymer composites in, 271

Allied Corporation, solid-state extrusion of polymers, 253

aluminum base, 11–12 , 56 , 62 , 78–79 , 125 , 138 , 231

amorphous, 92–95

brittle fracture in, 121–122

ceramic-stiffened, 231–233

cobalt-chromium, 65 , 90

copper-cobalt, 96

corrosion-resistant, 59–61 , 90

crystalline, 57 , 77–78

design of, 122–123 , 126

ductile fracture in, 120–121

ductile ordered, 78–84

face-centered (fcc) cubic systems, 96–97

flow properties of, 79–80 , 118–120

germanium-silicon, 293

hardening of, 123 , 126 , 157–158

homogeneous glassy, 77–78

to increase ductility of ceramic solids, 225

ion implantation in, 62–66

iron-nickel, 102

magnetic, 91–95

metal, as catalysts, 189–191

monocrystalline, 67–68 , 78

multicomponent, self-reinforced ceramic, 242

nickel base, 11 , 74–75 , 97 , 189–191

polycrystalline, 78–79

polymer, 271–273

problem areas in, 123

refinement of second-phase precipitates in, 61

RSP, 56–61 , 123

shear instability in, 120–121

single-crystal processing of, 67–68

strengthening of, 68–69 , 78–83

super, 57 , 61–62 , 67–70

supermodulus effect in, 74–75

superplasticity in, 69–71

titanium, stress corrosion cracking of, 125

toughness/toughening of, 68–69 , 103 , 120 , 122 , 126 , 231

transition-metal, 75 , 94–95 ;

see also specific alloys

vapor-deposited compositionally modulated, 74–75

XD, 232–233

yttria-zirconia, 361

see also Aggregates; Bimetallic catalysts; Steels

dislocation barriers in, 114

impurities in, 212

incorporation of zirconium oxide into, 235

microelectronics applications, 211

porous, biomedical applications, 239

Aluminosilicates as catalysts, 199–200

Aluminum oxide reinforced with SiC whiskers, 236–238

Aluminum, modulus of, 255–256

American Ceramic Society, 225

American Chemical Society, 20 , 166

American Physical Society, 278

Angle-dependent inverse photoemission, 301

Angle-resolved photoemission, 283–284 , 289 , 298–299

Aperiodic tilings, 155–156

Artificial intelligence, 367

AT&T Holmdel Laboratories, 18

Atom scattering, theoretical effort required to study, 285

Atomic and molecular state changes, advances in, 18–19

Atomic Energy Commission, role in establishing MRLs, 27–29 , 36

Auger electron microscopy, applications, 123 , 189

Automobiles

ceramic-metal composites in, 212 , 351–352

high-strength low-alloy steels in, 54 , 56

polymer composites in, 275 , 351

Automotive industry

computer-aided and computer-integrated manufacturing in, 353

electronic and information materials applications in, 350–351

near net-shape fabrication processing in, 352

Bainite formation theory, 104–105

Baker, William O., 29 , 37

Ball milling to produce SiC fibers, 236

Band-gap engineering, 168–169 , 292

Bernstein-Kearsley-Zapas theory, 280

Bimetallic catalysts

aggregates of immiscible components as, 191–193

characterization of, 193

complication in studying, 189

highly dispersed clusters, 193–199

osmium-copper supported on silica, 193–197

platinum-iridium dispersed on alumina, 197–199

platinum-rhenium, 199

Bioglass, 239

Biology, role in future of materials science, 220–222

Biomaterials, examples of, 221

Biomedical materials

applications of, 216–217

see also Prosthetics, materials used in

Block copolymers

applications, 273

processing and properties of, 45 , 271–273

Bock, H., 12

Boron, effect on ductility and strength of polycrystalline alloys, 78–79

Brillouin spectroscopy, 303–304

Brillouin zone, 75 , 302–303 , 309

Brittle fracture

in alloys, 121–122

hydrogen role in, 124

problems in studying, 125

Brookhaven National Laboratories

management of concurrent research at, 337–338

operating costs for experiments at, 338

synchrotron radiation equipment, 336

Brooks, Harvey, 28

Brown University, 45 , 46

Bulk materials

methods for studying order in, 138

new phenomena in, 162–166

Calcium phosphates, biomedical applications, 239

California Institute of Technology, 47

Carbon fiber

applications, 15–17

modulus of, 15 , 256

production, 207–208

Carnegie Mellon University, 5 , 45

Case Western Reserve University, 45

Cast iron, modulus of, 256

in ceramics processing, 205

heterogeneous, 177–178

homogeneous, 177

materials applications of, 215

materials research in, 177–201

outlook for, 201

in petroleum production, 181 , 191 , 199–200

progress in, 177

specificity in, 178 , 191

at surface of a solid, 177–178

bismuth molybdate systems, 200

cobalt molybdate systems, 200

definition, 177

industrial use, 177

oxides as, 180 , 200

surface study applications in, 293

types of materials used as, 178 , 180 , 191 , 193 , 200–201

zeolites, 200

see also Aluminosilicates as catalysts; Bimetallic catalysts; Metal catalysts; Transition metals

Catalytic processes

dehydrogenation of cyclohexane to benzene, 191–194

economical, 217

Houdry cracking, 200

hydrogenolysis of ethane to methane, 178–179 , 191–194

oxidation of ethylene, 178

selective inhibition of Group VIII metal, 191–192

steps in, 177

Centre Nationale de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), 165

Ceramic particles, vapor-phase reactions to produce, 230–231

advances in, 225–227

alloys to increase ductility of, 225

applications in chemistry, 227

automotive applications, 237–239 , 351–352

chemical syntheses in, 227–231

cost-effectiveness, 231

electronics applications, 240

fibers incorporated in, 236

mechanical engineering role in, 234–239

medical applications, 239 , 242

metallurgical applications, 231–233

in microelectronic devices, 211–213

notch brittleness in, 225 , 234

oxide-based, 228

polymeric precursors to, 210 , 214 , 266–267

single-crystal form, 240

transformation toughening of, 117 , 122 , 234–239

whiskers incorporated in, 236–237

Ceramics processing

opportunities for chemists in, 204–205

for oxide-based ceramics, 229

Cerevital, 239

Chalcogenides, layered transition-metal, 137

Charge-density waves, discovery, 163

Chemical fuels production, 215

Chemical industry

contributions to materials science, 203 , 215

environmentally acceptable processing methods, 217

Chemical processes, molecular control of, 217

Chemical vapor deposition

applications, 167 , 213

understanding of, 217

Chemicals, high purity in, 217

Chemisorption measurements

of metal dispersion in catalysts, 182 , 185

see also Hydrogen chemisorption

areas in which new synthetic materials will emerge, 219

areas of high activity in, 216–218

ceramics applications in, 227–228

contributions in materials processing, 217

in fabricating microelectronic devices, 212–213

in materials science, 203–222

opportunities in, 211

organosilicon, 208–210

strengths of, 205–206

vectorial, 222

antireflective, 312–317

antistatic, 229

biomedical, 239

ceramic, 237

polymers used as, 246 , 266

Collapse transition, 277–278

Committee on the Survey of Materials Science and Engineering (COSMAT), report on materials research concept, 4 , 6 , 38–39

in aircraft, 274–275

carbon-fiber-reinforced, 207–208

carbon-polymer, 15–16 , 213

ceramic-metal for automobile engines, 212

failure mode of, 208

fiber-reinforced, 86–87 , 209 , 351

in situ precipitated, 233

metal-matrix, 84–88 , 231–233

multiphase ceramic, 211–212

optimum size of, 126

piezoelectric, 241

polymer-matrix, 16 , 45 , 86 , 274–277

problems with, 275–276

self-assembling, 217–219 , 251 , 272

silicon carbide-silicon nitride fibers, 267

submicron, 46

tailoring high-performance multilayer structures, 212 , 240–241

toughening of, 126 , 234–236

see also Alloys

Computer simulations

to describe atom interactions, 114

of dislocation motions, 119

of freezing of a liquid, 156

of molecular dynamics of gas-surface interactions

of scattering processes, 296

see also Models/modeling

Condensed-matter physics, connections with materials research, 131–147

Condon, E.U., 26

Conduction electrons, mass in heavy-electron compounds, 132

organic, 163 , 216 , 219

polymeric, 163 , 214

superionic, 138

Conference on the Mechanical Properties of Engineering Ceramics, 225

Coordinating Committee on Materials Research and Development (CCMRD), role in establishing IDLs, 29 , 35–36

Core-hole decay, study of dynamics of, 300

Core-level photoelectron spectroscopy, 284 , 299–300

Cornell University, 44–46 , 336

Corning Glass Works, biomedical applications of ceramics, 239

Coupling agents, failure of, 211–212

Crack nucleation, 122

Crack propagation

of brittle cracks, 121

in Nicalon fiber, 267

problems in understanding, 118 , 125

process, 120–121

resistance of materials to, 117

Crack tip screening

by surrounding dislocations, 117

toughening of ceramic by, 122

Crack tips, hydrogen enhancement of bond breaking at, 124

Cracks/cracking

brittle cleavage, 117

causes, 226

configurations, 117

J integral for, 117

nonpropagating, 122

perfectly brittle, 117 , 118

problems in studying, 118

retardants, 235

solvability of problems with, 125

strain energy release rate, 117

Crystallization of liquids, rate-limiting factor in, 157

Crystallography

on electron microscope, 158–159

x-ray, contribution to polymer studies, 266

x-ray diffraction scattering in, 153

acousto-optical, 358

calculation of equilibrium shape of, 153

ceramic, 114

commercial demand for, 358

composite (twins or multiple twins), 153

deviations from periodicity, 153–154

different forms of, 153

distorted icosahedra in, 156

identification of, 153

interfaces with disordered materials, 292

internal structure of, 153

modulated structures, 154–155

nonlinear optical, 45

organic, 45

plastic, 138

vibrational spectroscopy of surfaces of, 301–304

see also Liquid crystals; Quasi-periodic crystals; Single-crystal processing

Dammel, R., 12

Delamination of fiberglass-reinforced epoxy circuit boards, 211

Dendrites, 138

Dienes, G.J., 29

Dip coating, application, 229

Disclinations, 126

Dislocation arrays

examples of, 112 , 116

in fcc metals, 114

Dislocations

barriers to motions of, 114

bulk, modeling of, 114 , 116

crack tip screening by, 117 , 123

double-kink nucleation and growth, 114

elastic field calculations for, 114

elastic theory of, 112

elimination of in semiconductor devices, 126

flips, origin of, 113

glide plane and bow-out of, 119–120

interphase interfaces, 114

lattice theory of, 112–114

loop approximation, circular, 117

loops encircling particles, 120

multiple, calculations of, 114–116

nonlinear elastic theory applied to, 116

partial, 114

pileups, 225–226

pileup theory, 118

problems in studying, 114–117

reduction of in metallic and semimetallic surfaces, 10

role of, 114 , 117

screw, 112 , 124

solutes interacting with, 119

solvability of problems of, 125

techniques for studying, 114

vector field theory for, 112

see also Grain boundary dislocations

Disordered electron systems

metal-insulator transitions in, 139

quantum interference effects in, 139–147

Dispirations, 126

Distribution transformers, use of amorphous alloy cores in, 92

modulation of semiconductors, 169

of polymers, 265

Dow Corning, polymeric precursor development by, 267

Downer, M., 19

Ductile tensile fracture, 120–121 , 124

Ductile-to-brittle transition temperature (DBTT), 121–123

Duwez, Pol, 157

Electric power industry, materials needs in, 359

Electrical conduction

finite-size effects of, 139

in ultrasmall structures, 139–147

Electrical energy storage, polymer applications in, 214

Electrical resistances of superconductors, 134–135

Electrical/electronics industry, materials for, 354–360

Electron charge-density wave structures, 137

Electron energy-loss spectroscopy, 302–303

Electron microscope/microscopy

crystallography on, 158–159

dark-field, 158

direct lattice resolution, 114

dislocation interactions studied with, 114

facility, 336

of metal dispersion in platinum-alumina catalyst, 183

in polymer science, 255

weak-beam technique, 114

see also Scanning tunneling microscope

Electron spectroscopy

for chemical analysis, 299

see also Synchrotron radiation sources

Electron-beam lithography, fabrication of superconducting line, 142

Electronics

automotive applications, 350–351

multilayer substrates for, 211–212

sensors in power systems, 356–358

Embrittlement

of alloys, 57

of amorphous polymers, 263

hydrogen, 66 , 124–125

of ionic solids, 225

role of impurities in, 123

of steels, 54 , 66 , 123–124

Energy conversion

in biological systems, 222

chemistry contributions to, 214–215

fuel cells, 359 , 361

Engineering

contributions to materials science, 205–206

see also Band-gap engineering; Materials science and engineering

Engineering Research Centers

economic potential of, 8

need addressed by, 8 , 48

strained-layer, 168

see also Heteroepitaxy, definition and applications; Homoepitaxy, definition and applications; Molecular beam epitaxy

Epremian, Edward, 28

Etch processes, applications in microelectronics, 212

Europe, synthesis of solid-state compounds in, 164 , 172

Excitation processes on surfaces, 284 , 289 , 300–301

Extended x-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS), 184–187 , 193–198 , 284 , 300

f -Electron materials, properties of, 133

Federal Council for Science and Technology

creation of, 20 , 29

role in establishing IDLs, 36

Federov, E.S., 156

Fermi degeneracy temperatures of heavy-electron compounds, 132

Fermions, heavy, discovery of, 163

Field-ion microscopy, applications, 158 , 292 , 294

barium titanate, 229

Langmuir-Blodgett-like self-assembling monolayer, 217

metallic, 87

passive, 358

quarter-wave interference, 316

see also Ultrathin films

Fluorescence spectroscopy, 304–305

Fork, R., 19

Fractional quantized Hall effect

discovery of, 169

occurrence, 136

plateaus in Hall resistance, 136–137

Fracture of matter, cost of efforts to contain, 11

France, materials research status in, 164–165

Frank, F.C., 155

Frauenfelder, Hans, 18

for basic science, 327–328

block, feasibility on campuses, 39 , 48

for IDL program (FY 1969), 38

for large-scale facilities, 336 , 338–339 , 342

for materials research equipment, 345–346

for MBE research, 170

of MRL thrust groups, 42–43

needs for solid-state syntheses, 166

small-science trends in, 322–326

sources for university and national laboratory materials research, 338 , 339

for U.S. metal-matrix program, 84

Geballe, Theodore H., 4

Gels, tungstate and vanadium pentoxide, 229

Geodesic domes, 156

Germany, materials research status in, 164

Gibbs, J.W., 153

Glass fibers, modulus of, 255–256

Glass transition in polymers, 257 , 259–260 , 262–263

Glass-ceramic materials, processing, properties, and uses, 310–314

borosilicate, 228

lead borosilicate, 240

lead-iron phosphate, 227 , 228

lithium aluminosilicate, 236–237

metallic, 56–57 , 77 , 92–93

spin, 45 , 163

Graham, Thomas, 228

Grain boundary dislocations

nonuniform spacings of, 114

role of, 114

in type 304 stainless steel, 115

Ground state, periodicity of, 156–157

Hall resistance, definition, 136

Hall-Petch relation, 55 , 73 , 118

Harvard University, 5 , 44 , 46

Heavy-electron compounds, properties, 132–135

Hebb, M.E., 29

Helium-beam spectroscopy, 301–303

Herring, William Conyers, 5

Heteroepitaxy, definition and applications, 168

High-magnetic-field facility, 336

Hollomon, J. Herbert, 28 , 29

Homoepitaxy, definition and applications, 168

Howe, J.P., 29

Hyaluronic acid, 221

Hydrogen chemisorption

on Group VIII metals, 182

on nickel-copper alloy catalysts, 189–190

on platinum-on-alumina catalysts, 182–183

on ruthenium-copper aggregates, 191

Hydrogen embrittlement, 66 , 124–125

Hydrogen storage interstitials, discovery, 163

IBM Corp., ceramics applications by, 240–241

Icosahedral molecules and packing units, 155

Icosahedral quasicrystals

in Al-Mn alloys, 138 , 151–152

decagonal and dodecagonal point groups, 159

diffraction patterns, 151–152

growth of, 159

symmetry, 11 , 154 , 158–159

tools for studying, 158–159

see also Quasi-periodic crystals

IDL program

budget (FY 1971), 41

degrees awarded through, 38

effectiveness in increasing graduate education in materials research, 39

faculty/student participation in, 38 , 41

funding for (FY 1969), 38

papers published, 38

research project subject areas, 38

transfer to NSF, 40–42

see also Interdisciplinary Laboratories (IDLs); MRL program; Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs)

Incommensurate structures, 137 , 292

Inelastic atom scattering, 285

Inelastic electron scattering, 285 , 301

Inelastic helium scattering, 289

Information storage

need for advances in, 366

organic materials applied to, 216

Infrared spectroscopy

surface studies via, 303

to study organic polymers, 247

Integral quantized Hall effect, 136–137

Integrated circuits

interconnect failure in, 88–89

thin-film metallurgy of, 88–91

see also Very-large-scale integrated (VLSI) devices

Intercalation compounds

discovery, 163

incommensurate structures in, 137

interdisciplinary research on, 44–45

Interdisciplinary Laboratories (IDLs)

establishment of, 29 , 35–39

purpose of, 37–38

quality of education at universities where established, 39

scope of interdisciplinary activities at, 39

universities operating, 36

years of operation of, 36

see also IDL program; Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs); MRL program

chemical modification of, 216

crystal, with disordered materials, 292

energies, 288

equipment and techniques for studying, 45

fiber-matrix, 87

incommensurate, 292

martensitic, 100–102

semiconductor-metal, 291

semiconductor-semiconductor, 136 , 291–292

solid-liquid, 292 , 304

solid-solid, 291

Intergranular fracture, role of impurities in, 123 , 124

Inverse photoemission, surface studies via, 284 , 300–301

Ion fragmentation, study of, 300

Ion implantation, metallurgical applications, 62–66 , 89–90

Ion scattering

advantages in surface studies, 294 , 295–298

experiments, 283 , 285

measurement of angular distribution of backscattered flux, 296

Ionization, core-hole, 299–300

Iowa State University, equipment-sharing program, 346

automotive applications of ceramics, 351

solid-state materials synthesis in, 165–166 , 170

Johnson, Roy, 29

Josephson coupling energy, 145

Kepler, J., 156

Kevlar 49 ,

modulus of, 256 , 274

Keyworth, George A., II, 8

Killian, James R., 20 , 29

Kincaid, John F., 29

Knight shift, 188

Kondo effect in heavy-electron compounds, 135

Kyocera Corporation, single-crystal sapphire applications, 239

Landau theory, use to predict crystallization of a liquid, 156

role in surface processing, 63–66 , 306

surface studies with, 285 , 303–306

Lattice mismatch, effect on epitaxial growth, 168

Lattice-trapping barrier, 117

Levine, D., 12

Libby, Willard, 28 , 29

Light-scattering spectroscopy, 303–304

Liquid crystals

areas needing study, 126

formation, 260

induced order in, 138

MRL research on, 44

smectic, hexatic phase of, 138

Lithium niobate, 45

Local-density functional theory, applications, 286–289 , 291

Loose aggregate structures, 138

Low-energy electron diffraction (LEED), 294 , 295 , 297–298

Lower-dimensionality materials, research accomplishments in, 44

Magnetic ordering in heavy-electron compounds, 133

Magneto-optical recording of information, 94

Magnetoresistance

of drawn platinum wire, 141–142

of evaporated aluminum film, 139–141

on one-dimensional ring, 142–143

applications, 94

large coercive force, 163

permanent, development of alloys for, 93–94 , 352

Martin Marietta Laboratories, alloy development, 231–232

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 5 , 45–46 , 230–231 , 336

Materials research

automotive industry applications, 350

condensed-matter physics and, 131–147

ensuring scientific contributions to, 321–323

equipment costs, 340–341 , 344–345

facility types and corresponding equipment, 340–341

financial incentives for, 364

industrial collaboration in, 364–365

instrumentation requirements, 321–323 , 329 , 343–346

large-scale facilities for, 335–338 , 340–341

national commitment to, 19 , 338–343

national policy on, 349

new federal funding patterns in, 47 , 324 , 342–343

priorities in, 9

role of chemistry in, 204–207

small-group, 322–327

social factors in, 341

synthesis loop in, 164

Materials Research Groups, 47–48 , 324 , 340

Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs)

accomplishments of, 38–39 , 43–46 , 347–348

block funding in, 40

character of research at, 44

contributions on university campuses, 365

contributions to industrial research programs, 362–363

establishment of, 35

interactions with industry, 348–353 , 364–365

new-materials synthesis at, 165

NSF budget for, 43

quality of research at, 44

time-sharing of equipment, 43 , 337 , 346

universities operating, 36 , 43

see also IDL program; Interdisciplinary Laboratories (IDLs); MRL program; Thrust groups

Materials Research Society, role of, 19

Materials science and engineering

arrangements and opportunities for advancing, 13–18 , 330

deficiencies in, 342

domains of, 329–330

importance of chemistry to, 203 , 219

interconnections of physical and life sciences relative to, 7

new frontiers, 11–12 , 365–367

products and processes attributable to, 6–7 , 10

relations to global resources and uses of matter, 6

Materials synthesis and processing, new techniques for, 307–317

Melt crystallization of organic polymers, 247 , 249 , 255 , 261–262

Metal catalysts

carbides, nitrides, and borides of transition metals as, 201

chemisorption measurements of metal dispersion, 182–184

composition of, 180

in gasoline production, 181 , 191

most commonly used, 178

NMR characterization of, 187–189

platinum-on-alumina, 182

rate of reaction, 181

ratio of surface atoms to total atoms, 181–184

refractory material used with, 180

silver, 178

supported, 180–184

typical application of, 181

x-ray absorption spectroscopic characterization of, 184–187

see also Bimetallic catalysts

Metal insulator transitions, discovery, 162–163

Metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs)

diagram of, 88–89

electrical resistance in, 139–140

electron micrograph of, 146

fractional quantization experiments on, 136

Metallurgical processing

ion implantation and laser-beam processing, 62–66

at nanostructural level, 71–74

single-crystal processing, 67–68

steel refining, 53–54

applications in ceramics, 231–233

costly gaps in knowledge, 52

microstructural refinements in, 68–78 , 87

research opportunities in, 73 , 75 , 78 , 84 , 88–89 , 95 , 103–105

special metallic systems for structural purposes, 78–88

thin-film, of integrated circuits, 87–91

amorphous, 126

barriers to dislocation motions in, 114

biomedical applications, 269–270

evaporation-condensation processing of, 71–74

future prospects with, 125–126

hydrogen embrittlement of, 124

impurities in, 123–124

microstructure and mechanical properties of, 71 , 73–74 , 111–127

nanocrystalline, 71–74

nonstructural applications, 88–95

stress corrosion cracking of, 124–125

usefulness, 52–53

see also Alloys; Bimetallic catalysts; Metal catalysts; Organic metals, accomplishments in; specific metals

Metastable phases

creation through rapid solidification, 56 , 61 , 66 , 157–158

transformation to improve toughness of alloys, 75 , 120–122

Michigan Molecular Institute, 277

Michigan State University, 277

Michigan Technological University, 277

Microbiology, advances in, 220–222

Microelectronic devices/components

ceramics for, 211

packaging problems, 211–212

problems in fabricating, 211 , 213 , 217

role of chemistry in, 212

Microwave resonators, high-dielectric-constant, 163

Mission agencies, basic research supported by, 327–329

Mixed-valence compounds, discovery, 163

Models/modeling

of bulk dislocations, 114

of coherent surface nucleation, 262

of crack propagation, 122

of mixed-mode cracking, 118

pair-potential, 290

of reptation, 260–262 , 280

of superplasticity, 70–71

three-dimensional, of dislocations, 123

Modulated structures, properties and processing of, 74–78 , 87 , 91

Modulus enhancement for fine metallic-layer structures, 75 , 126

Molecular beam epitaxy (MBE)

discovery, 167

equipment requirements, 170

future of, 169–172

gas-source, 167

structures produced by, 168 , 292

uses, 136 , 309 , 358

Molecular control of chemical processes, 217–219

Molecular genetics, practical applications, 220

Molecular science, new materials, processes, and strategies from, 215–218

Molecular-beam laser-probed experiments, 290

Mössbauer spectroscopy, 71

MRL program

accomplishments of, 38–39 , 46

awards from, 32–33 , 43

budget, 41–43

current status of, 43

deficiencies in, 39

degrees awarded through, 43

faculty/student participation in, 13 , 43

history and development of, 3–5 , 20–21 , 27–30

impetus for, 5–8 , 12 , 19–20 , 27–29

NSF assumption of, 37 , 40–42 , 362

peer review process, 43

purpose of, 9–10 , 21–22 , 161

qualification for core support by, 40

reasons for successes of, 30–33

scientific setting for, 25–26

seed projects, 43 ;

see also Thrust groups

small-group research support by, 324

successfulness of, 30–33

see also Interdisciplinary Laboratories (IDLs); IDL program; Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs)

Multibeam nonlinear spectroscopy, 304

Multilayer multichip module (MMC), description, 240–241

Multilayer substrates, problems in fabricating, 211

National Academy of Sciences, 4 , 6 , 28 , 38–39

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 36 , 277

National Bureau of Standards, 12 , 277

National Institutes of Health, funding for equipment, 346

National Magnet Laboratory, 170

National Science Foundation (NSF)

materials research funding, 338–339 , 341–342

transfer of IDL program to, 37 , 40–42 , 362

Neutron scattering

research facilities, 9 , 336 , 341

use to study organic polymers, 247

Nicalon fiber, 266–267

in alloys, 11 , 74–75 , 97 , 102 , 189–191

as a catalyst, 181

crystallization from melt, 157

Nippon Carbon Co., Nicalon fiber process, 266–267

Nondestructive examination, 276 , 306 , 359–360

Nonequilibrium structures characterized as novel forms of structural order, 138

Nonlinear laser spectroscopy, 304

Nonlinear optical phenomena, study of, 286 , 290 , 305

Nonlinear viscoelastic theory, 279

Northwestern University, 20 , 44–46

Nuclear energy

ceramics applications in, 242

materials needs in, 359

Nuclear magnetic resonance

metal catalyst characterization by, 187–189

spin echo technique, 187

autocatalytic, 99–100

heterogeneous, 99–100

homogeneous, 96–99

mechanism in glass-ceramics, 311

theory, 247

Office of Naval Research, role in establishing MRLs, 13 , 27 , 28

Optical communications, organic materials applied to, 216

Optical instrument transformer, 356–357

Optical waveguides, 229 , 240 , 356

Optically responsive materials, 216 , 219 , 356–358

Organic chemistry, strengths of, 206

Organic materials

disadvantages of, 206

optically responsive systems applications, 216

Organic metals, accomplishments in, 44–45

Organic polymer chains

behavior in solution, 277–278

folding in, 247–249 , 251–252 , 254

regularity, 258

Organic polymers

amorphous, 257–263

applications, 15–18 , 246 , 263–270 , 351

blends, 218 , 271–274

chirality, 257–258

commercial importance, 248–249 , 265

crystalline, 126 , 246–258

desirable properties of, 206

doping of, 265

embrittlement of, 263

extruded, 253 , 255

fractions, 249

future uses of, 270 , 277

glass transition in, 257 , 259–260 , 262–263

high-strength fibers, 252–255

impact strength, 257 , 271–272

international advances in, 252

lamellar spherulitic structures in, 249–252 , 254–255

modulus, 255–256 , 259–260

morphology and properties, 246–263

piezoelectric, 264–266

as precursors for ceramics, 210 , 214 , 266–267

problems with, 256 , 275–276

processing of, 247 , 249 , 251–256

reptations in, 257 , 260–262 , 280

shish kebab structures in, 252–255

in silicon chip technology, 268–269

single-crystal, 247–248

spherulites in, 249–252

tacticity of, 257–258

thermoplastic, 271–272 , 275

unusual behavior of, 246 , 259–260 , 270 , 278–279

waste disposal of, 256

see also Polymers

Orowan-Friedel expression for breakaway of a dislocation from pinning particles, 118

Ostwald ripening, 58 , 97

Ostwald, Wilhelm, 177

Partially ordered systems, study areas in, 138

Particle-assisted deposition processes, fabrication of microelectronic devices, 213

Pauli paramagnetic susceptibilities, of heavy-electron compounds, 132

Peierls stress and energy, calculation of, 112

Pennsylvania State University, 47

Penrose, Richard A.F., 156

Pfann, William G., 10

Phase transformations, solid-state

displacive-diffusional, 103–105

heterogeneous nucleation, 99–100

homogeneous nucleation, 96–99

martensitic, 98–105

plasticity and toughening induced by, 102–103

thermoelastic and nonthermoelastic, 100–102

Phase transitions

MRL-related research accomplishments in, 44–45

within a single molecule, 277–278

removal from steels, 54

Photoacoustic spectroscopy, 304

Photodesorption spectroscopy, 304

advances in, 366

ceramics contributions to, 240 , 242

Photoresist technology, polymer applications in, 212 , 268–269

Photothermal spectroscopy, 304

Physics, contributions to materials science, 205–206

crack tip screening by, 117

enhancement of crack nucleation through, 122

Planarity of slip, hydrogen enhancement of, 124

Plastics, engineering, 221

as a catalyst, 181 , 185 , 187–189

diamagnetic compounds, 188

x-ray absorption spectrum for, 184–185

Pohl, Herbert A., 18

Pohl, Robert Wichert, 26

Polybenzthiazole, 217

Polydisilylazane, 267

Polyether ether ketone (PEEK), pathway from crude oil to, 207–208

Polyethylene

applications, 249 , 269–270

commercial value, 257

discovery, 245

glass transition in, 259

modulus of, 255–256

molecular weights, 249–250

negative aspects of, 256

shish kebab structures in, 253–254

single crystals, 247

solid-state extrusion of, 253–255

spherulites in, 249–252 , 255

structure, 247–248

Polyhydroxybutyrate/propionate, 221

Polylactic acid, 221 , 239

Polymer melts, unusual behavior of, 278–280

Polymer science

involvement of other fields in, 280–281

newer theories of, 277–281

biologically derived, 221

electrical energy storage applications, 214

electronic components from, 213

glassy, 126

interest in developing, 216

rigid-rod, 217

thermal degradation of, 229–230

see also Organic polymers

Polypropylene

solid-state extrusion of, 256–257

structure, 257–259

Polysaccharides, 220–221

Polystyrene, 259 , 271–272

Polytechnic Institute of New York, 47

Polyvinyl fluoride

applications, 265

molecular chain formations, 264–265

statistical mechanics approach to structural transitions in, 45

Powders, nanoscale, production of, 71–72

Power transformers, use of amorphous alloys in, 93

Precipitation hardening of alloys, 157–158

Precursor state, 290

Prepregnated tape, production of, 208

Princeton University, 5

Prosthetics, materials used in, 239 , 242 , 269–270

Purdue University, 45 , 46

Quantized Hall effect, 135–136 , 333 ;

see also Fractional quantized Hall effect; Integral quantized Hall effect

Quantum chemical molecular theory, 287

Quantum interference effects

in disordered electron systems, 139–147

experimental configuration for studying, 141–142

Quartz crystallization from melt, 157

Quasi-periodic crystals

developments in related fields, 154–157

discovery of, 151–153 , 333

production through RSP, 56 , 61

symmetry of, 11–12 , 126 ;

see also Icosahedral quasicrystals

Quasi-periodic structures, 155–156

Quasiparticles, 137

Raman scattering spectroscopy, 19 , 303–305

Rapid solidification processing (RSP)

in alloy production, 123

automotive applications, 352

creation of metastable phases through, 56 , 61 , 66 , 157–158

grain-growth inhibition, 57–58

refinement of dendritic structures, 57

second-phase refinement by, 58–59 , 61

Reactive ion etching, 332–333

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 47

Reptation, polymer movement by, 257 , 260–262

Reynolds, Richard A., 9

Roy, Rustum, 9

Rutgers University, 231

Rutherford backscattering, 295–296

Sapphire, single-crystal, biomedical applications, 239

Scanning tunneling microscope

operation of, 292–293

problem with, 293

surface studies with, 283 , 289 , 292–294 , 333

Scattering experiments to study surface atomic structure, 285 , 289 , 292 , 294–298

Schottky barrier in, 291

Science Advisory Committee, 3

Screw dislocations

in body-centered cubic crystal, 112

double-kink nucleation on, 124

Second-harmonic generation, probing of surfaces by, 305

Seitz, Frederick, 5 , 26 , 28

Self-assembling systems, development of, 217–219

Semiconductors

band-gap engineering in, 168–169 , 308

elimination of dislocations in, 126

energy gaps, 291

gallium arsenide, 167 , 169 , 170 , 213 , 268

heterojunctions in, 136 , 291

methods for producing, 167

modulation-doped, 169 , 170

from molecular precursors, 213

organometallic precursors to, 213

passivating layers on, 292

photoelectrochemical solar cells based on, 214

quaternary, 46

refining of materials for, 10

semimagnetic, 46

silicon preparation for, 208

from strained-layer superlattices, 307–310

surface studies, 284 , 286–288 , 291 , 304

Shank, C., 19

Shechtman, Daniel S., 12 , 151 , 153–154 , 158

Shockley, William, 26

Shyamsunder, E., 18

Silane, 209

Silica gel, 228

advances with, 13–16

chemistry of derivatives of, 209

epitaxial growth of metallic silicon compounds on, 13 , 288 , 291

preparation for semiconductor devices, 208

reconstruction of cleaved (111) surface of, 287

study of energy bands of, 289

Silicon chip technology

polymers in, 268–269

research opportunities in, 366

Silicon oxide fibers, applications, 13–15 , 229

Silicon tetrachloride conversion to triethoxypropylaminosilane, 209

Silicon-carbide fibers

route to development of, 209 , 229–230 , 236 , 266

use in ceramics, 236–239

Single-crystal processing, 67–68

Sintering to produce SiC fibers, 236

Slater, J.C., 5

Smyth, C.P., 5

Solar energy systems, chemistry contributions to, 214–215

Solid-state extrusion of polymers, 253–254 , 256

Solid-state synthesis

equipment needs for, 166

industrial materials research in, 165

trends in, 164

Solidification

in welding, 45

see also Rapid solidification processing (RSP)

crack propagation by, 117

creation and motion of pairs, 114

Solution crystallization of polymers, 251–252 , 254

Solution-to-gelation process

applications, 229

compounds used in, 314–315

for controlled-porosity materials, 314–317

hydrolysis of metal alkoxides, 229–230

MRL contributions to, 45

problems with, 229

for producing colloidal dispersions, 229

steps in, 228–229 , 315–316

for synthesis of ceramic powders, 212

Solvents, theta, 277

Specific heats of heavy-electron compounds, 132–134

Spherulitic structure, 249–252 , 254

Spin degrees of freedom, contribution to specific heats in heavy-electron compounds, 133–134

Spin-polarized photoemission, 299

Spinodal decomposition, 76 , 138

applications, 167

ion yields in, 291

Stanford University, 45–46 , 336

austenitic stainless, 103 , 124

controlled rolling of, 54–55

embrittlement of, 54 , 66 , 123–124

feritic, 124

hydrogen degradation of, 66 , 124

modulus of, 256

nickel-chromium, 123–124

oxidation-resistant, 61

processing responsible for unusual properties of, 53–54 , 61 , 157

refining of, 53–54

stress corrosion cracking of, 124

transformation toughening of, 103

Steinhardt, P.J., 12

Stevens, Donald K., 28 , 29

Strategic materials, synthesis of, 8–9

Stress-induced crystallization, 253–254

Structural order, novel forms of, 11–12 , 137–139

Substrates, multilayer, for electronics, 211–212

Sulfur in steel, reduction of, 53–54

Superconductivity

effects of quantum mechanical fluctuations on, 145

resistance transition of SNS junctions, 143–145

single and triplet, 133

Superconductors

Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer, 134

current vs. voltage of tungsten-rhenium line, 142–144

electrical resistances of, 134–135

heavy-electron compounds as, 133 , 134

high-field, 163

high-temperature, 169

magnetic, 163

micrograph of square array of SNS junctions, 145 , 146

organic, 216

technologically developed films, 163

Superlattices

single-crystal, of magnetic and nonmagnetic metals, 169–170

strained-layer, 126 , 307–310

Superplasticity, behavior characteristics, 69–71

Surface electron spectroscopy, uses of, 283–284

Surface science, progress in, 283–306

Surface theory

advances in, 285–292

interface studies contributing to, 291–292

kinematics at surfaces, 290–291

total energy calculations, 286–289

charge transfer at, 291

chemical reactions at, 290

coincident experiments on, 301

diffraction intensity calculations, 288–289

diffraction of monoenergetic atomic helium beams from, 288

equipment and techniques for examining, 45 , 283–306

excitation processes on, 284 , 289 , 300–301

experimental probes of, 288–290

gas interactions at, 290

kinetics of, 290–291 , 303

laser probing of, 304–306

melting at, 297

metallic screening at, 297

modification of, 62–66 , 353

novel forms of order in phases as, 138

periodic structures, 286–287

phonon spectra, 285 , 289 , 302

processing of, 306

Rydberg-like states, 284

scattering experiments on, 294–298

single-crystal, 290

spectroscopic fingerprinting of, 290

spectroscopic tools for studying, 298–301

static characterization of, 291

step densities on, 297

tools for determining atomic structure of, 290 , 292–294

vibrational states, 285 , 288 , 289 , 301–305

Surfaces, crystal

reduction of dislocations in, 10

vibrational spectroscopy of, 301–304

Synchrotron radiation facilities, 9 , 283 , 336 , 341

Synchrotron radiation sources

surface studies with, 45 , 138 , 283–284 , 289 , 294–296 , 298–300

undulators on, 284 , 299

Synthetic Rubber Program, 4 , 6

Tanenbaum, Morris, 29 , 32

Temperatures, ultralow, research accomplishments in, 44

Tetrathiofulvalene-tetracyanoquinodimethane (TTF-TCNQ), 44

Thrust groups

accomplishments of, 44–46

budget for, 43

collaborative use of major equipment facilities, 43

formation of, 42

funding for, 42–43 , 47

importance of, 41

interaction among, 43

small-science research by, 325

Transformation toughening

of alloys, 126

of ceramics, 117

Transition metal oxides, development of, 45

Transition metals

in alloys, 75 , 94

carbides, nitrides, and borides as catalysts, 201

Transmission electron microscope, applications, 158

Triethoxypropylaminosilane, conversion of silicon tetrachloride to, 209

Trisodium phosphate, biomedical applications, 239

Tungsten, low-temperature reconstruction of, 287–288

Ultrasmall structures, electrical conduction in, 139–147

Ultrathin films

discontinuous coarsening in, 89–90

grain growth in, 89–90

metastable crystal structures in form of, 169

novel forms of order in, 138

single-crystal, 358

status of technology for preparing, 166–167 , 358

Ultraviolet spectroscopy, development of, 45

United States

interest in synthesis of solid-state compounds, 164–165 , 171–172

research effort in artificially structured compounds, 171

structure of university departments in, 165

United States Department of Defense (DOD), role in developing MRL program, 29 , 35

United States Department of Energy, materials research facility funding, 338–339

Universities

chemical research motivations of, 215–216

composites research in, 277

degrees awarded by materials-designated and engineering departments, 40

equipment acquisition by, 345–346

federal R&D expenditures in, 344

interaction with industry, 354 , 355

trends in titles of materials departments at, 37

years of establishment and termination of IDLs/MRLs at, 36

see also specific universities

University of California at Santa Barbara, 277

University of Chicago, 45 , 46

University of Delaware, 277

University of Frankfort, 12

University of Illinois, 5 , 46

University of Massachusetts, 45 , 46 , 277

University of Pennsylvania, 12 , 20 , 44–46

University of Texas at Austin, 47

Uranium oxide spheres, production of, 229

Valence-band angle-resolved photoemission, 298–299

van der Waals forces, 246

Van Vleck, J.H., 5

VanVechten, J., 19

Vapor-phase reactions to produce ceramic particles, 230

Very-large-scale integrated (VSLI) devices

ceramics for packaging, 240–242

diffusion barriers in, 91

metallization of, 88–91

problems with, 91 , 126 , 212

Vibrational spectroscopy of crystal surfaces, 301–304

Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 277

Vitalium metal, 269–270

Void nucleation, 120 , 124

von Klitzing, Klaus, 135–136 , 169

von Neumann, John, 28

Washington University, 277

Waveguide devices, 229 , 240 , 356

Weak localization, 140–142

Westinghouse Electric Corp., materials research at, 354–360

White House Office of Science and Technology, 3 , 20

Wigner, Eugene, 5 , 26

Williams, John W., 20 , 29

Wires, ultrathin, 142

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 277

Wulff, G., 153

X-ray diffraction glancing-incidence, 138

X-ray diffraction scattering

in crystallography, 71 , 153

in surface studies, 283 , 294 , 296–298

X-ray emission spectroscopy, minimum volume size for chemical analyses, 158

X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, 299

York, Herbert, 29

Yost, Charles, 29

Z-phase, 158

Zeolites, use in catalytic cracking, 200

Zirconium oxide, partially stabilized (PSZ), incorporation into ceramics, 235 , 239 , 241

Zone refining, 10

There was a problem loading page 392.

There was a problem loading page 393.

There was a problem loading page 394.

There was a problem loading page 395.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

From steel engineering to ovarian tumor research

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

Ashutosh Kumar is a classically trained materials engineer. Having grown up with a passion for making things, he has explored steel design and studied stress fractures in alloys.

Throughout Kumar’s education, however, he was also drawn to biology and medicine. When he was accepted into an undergraduate metallurgical engineering and materials science program at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay, the native of Jamshedpur was very excited — and “a little dissatisfied, since I couldn’t do biology anymore.”

Now a PhD candidate and a MathWorks Fellow in MIT’s Department of Materials Science and Engineering, and a researcher for the Koch Institute, Kumar can merge his wide-ranging interests. He studies the effect of certain bacteria that have been observed encouraging the spread of ovarian cancer and possibly reducing the effectiveness of chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

“Some microbes have an affinity toward infecting ovarian cancer cells, which can lead to changes in the cellular structure and reprogramming cells to survive in stressful conditions,” Kumar says. “This means that cells can migrate to different sites and may have a mechanism to develop chemoresistance. This opens an avenue to develop therapies to see if we can start to undo some of these changes.”

Kumar’s research combines microbiology, bioengineering, artificial intelligence, big data, and materials science. Using microbiome sequencing and AI, he aims to define microbiome changes that may correlate with poor patient outcomes. Ultimately, his goal is to engineer bacteriophage viruses to reprogram bacteria to work therapeutically.

Kumar started inching toward work in the health sciences just months into earning his bachelor's degree at IIT Bombay.

“I realized engineering is so flexible that its applications extend to any field,” he says, adding that he started working with biomaterials “to respect both my degree program and my interests."

“I loved it so much that I decided to go to graduate school,” he adds.

Starting his PhD program at MIT, he says, “was a fantastic opportunity to switch gears and work on more interdisciplinary or ‘MIT-type’ work.”

Kumar says he and Angela Belcher, the James Mason Crafts Professor of biological engineering, materials science and of the Koch Institute of Integrative Cancer Research, began discussing the impact of the microbiome on ovarian cancer when he first arrived at MIT.

“I shared my enthusiasm about human health and biology, and we started brainstorming,” he says. “We realized that there’s an unmet need to understand a lot of gynecological cancers. Ovarian cancer is an aggressive cancer, which is usually diagnosed when it’s too late and has already spread.”

In 2022, Kumar was awarded a MathWorks Fellowship. The fellowships are awarded to School of Engineering graduate students, preferably those who use MATLAB or Simulink — which were developed by the mathematical computer software company MathWorks — in their research. The philanthropic support fueled Kumar’s full transition into health science research.

“The work we are doing now was initially not funded by traditional sources, and the MathWorks Fellowship gave us the flexibility to pursue this field,” Kumar says. “It provided me with opportunities to learn new skills and ask questions about this topic. MathWorks gave me a chance to explore my interests and helped me navigate from being a steel engineer to a cancer scientist.”

Kumar’s work on the relationship between bacteria and ovarian cancer started with studying which bacteria are incorporated into tumors in mouse models.

“We started looking closely at changes in cell structure and how those changes impact cancer progression,” he says, adding that MATLAB image processing helps him and his collaborators track tumor metastasis.

The research team also uses RNA sequencing and MATLAB algorithms to construct a taxonomy of the bacteria.

“Once we have identified the microbiome composition,” Kumar says, “we want to see how the microbiome changes as cancer progresses and identify changes in, let’s say, patients who develop chemoresistance.”

He says recent findings that ovarian cancer may originate in the fallopian tubes are promising because detecting cancer-related biomarkers or lesions before cancer spreads to the ovaries could lead to better prognoses.

As he pursues his research, Kumar says he is extremely thankful to Belcher “for believing in me to work on this project.

“She trusted me and my passion for making an impact on human health — even though I come from a materials engineering background — and supported me throughout. It was her passion to take on new challenges that made it possible for me to work on this idea. She has been an amazing mentor and motivated me to continue moving forward.”

For her part, Belcher is equally enthralled.

“It has been amazing to work with Ashutosh on this ovarian cancer microbiome project," she says. "He has been so passionate and dedicated to looking for less-conventional approaches to solve this debilitating disease. His innovations around looking for very early changes in the microenvironment of this disease could be critical in interception and prevention of ovarian cancer. We started this project with very little preliminary data, so his MathWorks fellowship was critical in the initiation of the project.”

Kumar, who has been very active in student government and community-building activities, believes it is very important for students to feel included and at home at their institutions so they can develop in ways outside of academics. He says that his own involvement helps him take time off from work.

“Science can never stop, and there will always be something to do,” he says, explaining that he deliberately schedules time off and that social engagement helps him to experience downtime. “Engaging with community members through events on campus or at the dorm helps set a mental boundary with work.”

Regarding his unusual route through materials science to cancer research, Kumar regards it as something that occurred organically.

“I have observed that life is very dynamic,” he says. “What we think we might do versus what we end up doing is never consistent. Five years back, I had no idea I would be at MIT working with such excellent scientific mentors around me.”

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Ashutosh Kumar
• Department of Materials Science and Engineering
• MathWorks Fellowship

Related Topics

• Graduate, postdoctoral
• Health sciences and technology
• Artificial intelligence
• Bioengineering and biotechnology
• Materials science and engineering

Related Articles

A biomedical engineer pivots from human movement to women’s health

Computational imaging researcher attended a lecture, found her career

A. Michael West: Advancing human-robot interactions in health care

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Janabel Xia: Algorithms, dance rhythms, and the drive to succeed

Read full story →

Jonathan Byrnes, MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics senior lecturer and visionary in supply chain management, dies at 75

Researchers develop a detector for continuously monitoring toxic gases

The beauty of biology

Navigating longevity with industry leaders at MIT AgeLab PLAN Forum

Jeong Min Park earns 2024 Schmidt Science Fellowship

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

What fire ants can teach us about making better, self-healing materials

Research explores how ant 'rafts' bind together to survive flooding.

Fire ants form rafts to survive flooding, but how do those bonds work? And what can we learn from them? A Binghamton University, State University of New York professor is researching those questions to expand our knowledge of materials science.

When flooding hits a region where fire ants live, their survival response is to latch together to form a buoyant "raft" that floats and keeps the colony united. Think of it like a condensed, adaptive material where the building blocks -- individual ants -- are actually alive.

Binghamton University Assistant Professor Rob Wagner led research as part of the Vernerey Soft Matter Mechanics Lab at University of Colorado Boulder in which they investigated the adaptive response of these living rafts. The goals are to understand how they autonomously morph and change their mechanical properties, and then incorporate the simplest and most useful discoveries into artificial materials.

"Living systems have always fascinated me, because they achieve things that our current engineered materials cannot -- not even close," he said. "We manufacture bulk polymeric systems, metals and ceramics, but they're passive. The constituents don't store energy and then convert it to mechanical work the way every single living system does."

Wagner sees this storage and conversion of energy as essential to mimicking the smart and adaptive behaviors of living systems.

In their most recent publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Wagner and his co-authors at University of Colorado investigated how fire ant rafts responded to mechanical load when stretched, and they compared the response of these rafts to dynamic, self-healing polymers.

"Many polymers are held together by dynamic bonds that break, but can reform," Wagner said. "When pulled slowly enough, these bonds have time to restructure the material so that -- instead of fracturing -- it flows like the slime our kids play with, or soft-serve ice cream. When pulled very fast, though, it breaks more like chalk. Since the rafts are held together by ants clinging onto one another, their bonds can break and reform. So, my colleagues and I thought they'd do the same thing."

But Wagner and his collaborators discovered that no matter what speed they pulled the ant rafts, their mechanical response was nearly the same, and they never flowed. Wagner speculates that the ants reflexively tighten and prolong their holds when they feel force because they want to stay together. They either turn down or turn off their dynamic behavior.

This phenomenon of bonds that grow stronger when force is applied to them is called catch bond behavior, and it likely enhances cohesion for the colony, which makes sense for survival.

"As you pull on typical bonds with some amount of force, they're going to let go sooner, and their lifetime goes down -- you're weakening the bond by pulling on it. That is what you see in almost any passive system," Wagner said. "But in living systems, because of their complexity, you can sometimes have catch bonds that hold on for longer durations under some range of applied force. Some proteins do this mechanistically and automatically, but it's not like the proteins are making a decision. They're just arranged in such a way that when a force is applied, it reveals these binding sites that latch or 'catch'."

Wagner believes that mimicking these catch bonds in engineered systems could lead to artificial materials that exhibit autonomous, localized self-strengthening in regions of higher mechanical stress. This could enhance the lifetimes of biomedical implants, adhesives, fiber composites, soft robotics components and many other systems.

Collective insect aggregations like fire ant rafts already are inspiring researchers to develop materials with stimuli-responsive mechanical properties and behaviors. A paper in Nature Materials earlier this year -- led by the Ware Responsive Biomaterials Lab at Texas A&M and including contributions from Wagner and his former thesis advisor, Professor Franck J. Vernerey -- demonstrates how ribbons made of special gels or materials called liquid crystal elastomers can coil due to heating, and then entangle with each other to form condensed, solid-like structures that were inspired by these ants

"A natural progression of this work is to answer how we can get the interactions between these ribbons or other soft building blocks to 'catch' under load like the fire ants and some biomolecular interactions do," Wagner said.

• Invasive Species
• Insects (including Butterflies)
• Biotechnology and Bioengineering
• Materials Science
• Engineering and Construction
• Civil Engineering
• Thermodynamics
• Materials science
• Bird intelligence
• Fire fighting

Story Source:

Materials provided by Binghamton University . Original written by Chris Kocher. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Robert J. Wagner, Samuel C. Lamont, Zachary T. White, Franck J. Vernerey. Catch bond kinetics are instrumental to cohesion of fire ant rafts under load . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2024; 121 (17) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2314772121

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Life Expectancy May Increase by 5 Years by 2050
• Toward a Successful Vaccine for HIV
• Highly Efficient Thermoelectric Materials
• Toward Human Brain Gene Therapy
• Whale Families Learn Each Other's Vocal Style
• AI Can Answer Complex Physics Questions
• Otters Use Tools to Survive a Changing World
• Monogamy in Mice: Newly Evolved Type of Cell
• Sustainable Electronics, Doped With Air
• Male Vs Female Brain Structure

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 20 December 2023

Reimagining undergraduate teaching in materials science and engineering

• Joseph Choy   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6282-9437 1 ,
• Kiera Peltz   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0006-5929-8536 2 ,
• Zehra Sayers 3 ,
• Nicola A. Spaldin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0709-9499 4 &
• Mary A. Wells   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0734-9013 5  

Nature Reviews Materials volume  9 ,  pages 95–99 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1469 Accesses

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Institutions

Incorporating in the curriculum active learning and project-based teaching, assuming minimal prior knowledge and emphasizing the real-world relevance of the covered topics result in better learning outcomes and help engage a more diverse group of students. In this Viewpoint, five educators who have been involved in reimagining undergraduate teaching in materials science and engineering share their insights and perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Montalto, F. How tackling real-world problems transformed my teaching and research. Nature 621 , 659 (2023).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Theobald, E. J. et al. Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 6476–6483 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K. & Kestin, G. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 19251–19257 (2019).

Davis, A. Women push for places on UCL engineering course after it dropped need for physics and maths A-level. The Standard https://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/women-push-for-places-on-ucl-engineering-course-after-it-dropped-need-for-physics-and-maths-alevel-10195690.html (2015).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering, Baltimore, MD, USA

Joseph Choy

The Coding School, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Kiera Peltz

Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey

Zehra Sayers

Department of Materials, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Nicola A. Spaldin

Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Mary A. Wells

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Joseph Choy , Kiera Peltz , Zehra Sayers , Nicola A. Spaldin or Mary A. Wells .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology: https://www.abet.org/about-abet/

Canadian Engineering Grand Challenges: https://engineeringdeans.ca/en/project/cegc/

Core curriculum courses at Sabanci University: https://scienceofnature.sabanciuniv.edu/universitycourses.html

Engineering IDEAs Clinic: https://uwaterloo.ca/engineering-ideas-clinic/

ETH Zurich Bachelor of Science curriculum: https://mat.ethz.ch/studies/bachelor.html

GoCodeGirl – Ontario Network of Women in Engineering: https://www.onwie.ca/programs/go-code-girl/

GoEngGirl – Ontario Network of Women in Engineering: https://www.onwie.ca/programs/go-eng-girl/

Hopkins Engineering Applications & Research Tutorials: https://engineering.jhu.edu/education/undergraduate-studies/heart-courses/

Indigenous and Black Engineering Technology PhD Project: https://ibetphd.ca/

Nicola Spaldin’s blog: https://occamstypewriter.org/nicolaspaldin/

REU programme of the Johns Hopkins Institute for NanoBioTechnology: https://inbt.jhu.edu/nanobio-reu/

The Coding School: https://the-cs.org/

The contributors

Joseph Choy is a Materials Science and Engineering PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University, where his research focuses on in vivo biomaterials cellular engineering. He leads course development for new graduate and post-doctoral instructors in the Whiting School of Engineering, is the graduate student representative for the Johns Hopkins Teaching Academy Advisory Council, and facilitates sessions for JHU’s Teaching Institute — a multi-day intensive teaching workshop that annually attracts 150+ participants across North America. Joseph has been recognized by the Society for Biomaterials’ education special interest group for his work in investigating biomaterials pedagogy.

Kiera Peltz is the Founder and CEO of The Coding School , an international nonprofit organization focused on emerging technology education and workforce development. To date, The Coding School has trained over 50,000 individuals — including students from kindergarten to university, educators and members of the workforce — from 125+ countries in subjects such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence and data science. Kiera is a graduate of Brown University and holds master’s degrees from the University of Cambridge and Tsinghua University, and was included in the 2023 Forbes 30 Under 30 list for the Social Impact category.

Zehra Sayers is Professor Emeritus at Sabancı University, where she was the Director of Foundations Development (Core Curriculum) Program between 2010 and 2019 and the interim President in 2018. During this time, she developed an interdisciplinary curriculum for science teaching. From 2002 to 2018, she also co-chaired the Scientific Advisory Committee of Synchrotron-Light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East (SESAME). Among other recognitions, Zehra shared the AAAS’s 2019 award for Science Diplomacy and was included in the BBC list of 100 most inspiring and influential women of 2019.

Nicola A. Spaldin is the Professor of Materials Theory at ETH Zurich. She is best known for her development of the class of materials known as multiferroics, which combine simultaneous ferromagnetism and ferroelectricity. She is a passionate science educator, coordinator of her department’s curriculum revision programme, “The Materials Scientist 2030, Who is She?”, and holder of the ETH Golden Owl Award for excellence in teaching. When not trying to make a room-temperature superconductor, Nicola can be found playing her clarinet, or skiing or climbing in the Alps.

Mary A. Wells is Dean of Engineering at the University of Waterloo. On top of her career as professor of materials engineering, she served as the Associate Dean of Outreach for Waterloo Engineering between 2008 and 2017 and chaired its Women in Engineering committee and the Ontario Network of Women in Engineering for many years, leading initiatives to improve gender diversity in engineering. Among other recognitions, Mary is a Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering and Engineers Canada and was chosen as one of Canada’s Most Powerful Women: Top 100 Award Winners for 2023.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Choy, J., Peltz, K., Sayers, Z. et al. Reimagining undergraduate teaching in materials science and engineering. Nat Rev Mater 9 , 95–99 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-023-00621-6

Download citation

Accepted : 25 October 2023

Published : 20 December 2023

Issue Date : February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-023-00621-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Frontiers in Food Science and Technology
• Food Process Design and Engineering
• Research Topics

Food Powders and Grains

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

The field of food particle technology is diverse, encompassing a wide range of food products processed or handled in granular or powdered forms. These range from raw agricultural grains to highly sophisticated formulated products such as functional powders and encapsulated nutraceuticals. Understanding the physicochemical characteristics of these products is crucial, as these characteristics significantly influence their handling during manufacturing and storage. The behavior of these powdered or granular products—how they flow, disperse, dissolve, and form clumps—is technologically crucial, profoundly impacting product quality and production efficiency. As global demand for versatile, safe, and sustainable food options increases, the role of food powders and grains in food science and technology becomes more essential. With advances in processing technologies, characterization methods, and applications, there is a growing need to consolidate research efforts and foster innovative developments in this field. The primary goal of this research collection is to serve as a dedicated platform for the dissemination of cutting-edge research, review articles, and case studies focused on the science and technology of food powders and grains. This topic aims to highlight the latest advancements and explore future directions in the manufacturing, processing, and application of these materials in food science. By bridging the gap between academic research and industrial application, the section will facilitate the exchange of ideas and foster collaborations that drive innovation and progress in the field. Ultimately, this Research Topic will provide invaluable information for food scientists and technologists across various food industries who are involved in developing and optimizing both formulations and production processes, aiming to maximize product performance for a given cost. The “Food Powders and Grains” Research Topic will cover a broad spectrum of themes, including but not limited to: • Manufacturing Techniques: Innovations in the production of food powders and grains, including methods such as spray drying, freeze-drying, size reduction, agglomeration, tabletting, and encapsulation. • Characterization Methods: Advanced techniques for analyzing the physical, chemical, and functional properties of food powders and grains to better understand their behavior under various processing and storage conditions. • Applications in Product Development: Utilization of food powders and grains in developing new products or enhancing existing ones, with an emphasis on improving nutritional profiles, functional properties, and consumer acceptability. • Storage and Stability: Studies on the stability of powdered products over time and under different environmental conditions, including moisture content, temperature, and packaging technologies. • Innovative Technologies and Equipment: Exploration of new technologies and equipment designed to optimize the processing and quality of food powders and grains. • Health and Nutritional Aspects: Research into the health implications and nutritional benefits of consuming food in powdered form, including impacts on bioavailability, digestibility, and overall health.

Keywords : Grains, Cereals, Powder Technology, Drying, Encapsulation, Food Powders

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, submission deadlines, participating journals.

Manuscripts can be submitted to this Research Topic via the following journals:

total views

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.