Reported EHS funding also rose as a percentage of total NNI funding  during this period, ending up at about 5 percent in 2010. We also  identified several reporting problems related to the continued absence of  detailed guidance on how agencies should report funding for their  nanotechnology research, raising concerns about the quality of EHS  funding data reported. EHS Research Funding by NNI Member Agencies More Than Doubled From 2006 to 2010 and Amounted to About 5 Percent of Total NNI Funding in 2010

From fiscal years 2006 to 2010, NSTC reported more than a doubling of  NNI member agencies’ funding for nanotechnology EHS research in the  NNI Supplements to the President’s Budget––from approximately $38  million to $90 million.reported to be by NSF, NIH, and EPA, and the largest increases in  reported EHS research funding over this period were at NIH and EPA. Effect of Recent NNI Criteria for Agencies’ Prioritization of Nanomaterials Is Not Yet Clear

NNI has not prioritized nanomaterials for EHS research, but the 2011 NNI  EHS research strategy outlines criteria to assist its member agencies in  doing so. However, because the criteria were  published in October 2011, it is too soon to tell how they will influence  NNI member agencies’ decisions about which nanomaterials to prioritize. Furthermore, it is unclear if the information needed to use the NNI criteria  is available. NNI Member Agencies Have Collaborated Extensively on Nanotechnology EHS Research

The NNI member agencies have collaborated extensively with each other  and nonfederal stakeholders on EHS research and strategies. NNI Member Agencies Have Collaborated to Develop Joint Strategies

NNI member agencies have collaborated through the NSTC to develop  joint EHS research strategies. Nonfederal Stakeholders We Surveyed Benefited from NNI Collaboration but Identified Some Challenges

The 138 nonfederal stakeholders who responded to our questionnaire  reported that they benefited from collaboration with NNI member  agencies but faced some challenges. When asked to rate the 2011 NNI EHS research strategy, most of those  responding rated this strategy as somewhat or very effective at  addressing nanotechnology EHS research needs. As described in table 4, we found, when reviewed as a whole, that the  strategy documents address or partially address all of the desirable  characteristics of a national strategy. Elements of these  characteristics that are included in the documents are providing a clear  statement of purpose, defining key terms, delineating what major  functions or mission areas are covered, discussing problems with the  current understanding of EHS implications of nanotechnology, and the  quality of currently available data, among others. The NNI strategy documents contain  detailed research needs for nanotechnology EHS and report the annual  funding of EHS research and the number of projects supported for  selected years, but the documents do not prioritize among these needs or  include outcome-related performance measures, targets, or time frames  that allow for monitoring and reporting on progress toward meeting the  research needs. However, the documents do not include  some elements of the characteristics, which could make it more difficult for  federal agencies and other stakeholders to implement the strategy and  achieve the identified results. In addition, the NNI  strategy documents do not include estimates of the costs and types of  resources associated with these goals and research needs. Providing cost estimates related to the NNI  EHS research needs would allow the NNI member agencies,  policymakers, and stakeholders to assess if investments are  commensurate with costs of the identified needs. Recommendations for Executive Action

To better offer policymakers and implementing agencies a management  tool that can help ensure accountability and more effective results, we are  making two recommendations to the Director of OSTP:  We recommend that the Director of OSTP coordinate development by the  NNI member agencies of performance measures, targets, and time  frames for nanotechnology EHS research that align with the research  needs of the NNI, consistent with the agencies’ respective statutory  authorities, and include this information in publicly available reports. OSTP and the agencies neither  agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our review examines (1) changes in federal funding for nanotechnology  environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research from fiscal years 2006  to 2010; (2) the nanomaterials that National Nanotechnology Initiative  (NNI) member agencies focused on in their EHS research in fiscal year  2010; (3) the extent to which NNI member agencies collaborate with  stakeholders on nanotechnology EHS research and related strategies;  and (4) the extent to which NNI strategy documents address desirable  characteristics of national strategies. In those instances,  we assessed whether at least some of the project was primarily directed  at EHS. We also reviewed our 2008 report in this area,  which found that 22 of 119 fiscal year 2006 projects reported as EHS  research were miscategorized, and recommended that the Director of the  Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in consultation with the  Directors of the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office and OMB,  provide better guidance to agencies on how to report nanotechnology  EHS research.
Why GAO Did This Study

Nanotechnology involves the ability to control matter at approximately 1 to 100 nanometers. Worldwide trends suggest that products that rely on nanotechnology will be a $3 trillion market by 2020. However, some of the EHS impacts of nanotechnology are unknown. The NSTC coordinates and oversees the NNI, an interagency program that, among other things, develops national strategy documents for federal efforts in nanotechnology.
In this context, GAO examined: (1) changes in federal funding for nanotechnology EHS research from fiscal years 2006 to 2010; (2) the nanomaterials that NNI member agencies EHS research focused on in fiscal year 2010; (3) the extent to which NNI member agencies collaborate with stakeholders on this research and related strategies; and (4) the extent to which NNI strategy documents address desirable characteristics of national strategies. GAOs review included seven NNI agencies that funded 93 percent of the EHS research dollars in fiscal year 2010. This report is based on analysis of NNI and agency documents and responses to a questionnaire of nonfederal stakeholders.

What GAO Found

From fiscal years 2006 to 2010, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) reported more than a doubling of National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) member agencies funding for nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety (EHS) researchfrom approximately $38 million to $90 million. Reported EHS research funding also rose as a percentage of total nanotechnology funding over the same period, ending at about 5 percent in 2010. However, GAO identified several reporting problems that raise concerns about the quality of EHS funding data reported. For example, for 18 percent of the 2010 projects GAO reviewed that were reported as EHS research, it was not clear that the projects were primarily directed at EHS risks. In addition, NNI member agencies did not always report funding using comparable data. The absence of detailed guidance on how agencies should report funding for their nanotechnology research has contributed to these problems, as GAO also reported in 2008 and made a related recommendation.
In 2010, EHS research at the NNI member agencies GAO reviewed most frequently focused on carbon nanotubes, nanosilver, and nanoscale titanium dioxide. NNI has not prioritized nanomaterials for EHS research, but NNIs 2011 EHS research strategy outlines criteria for NNI member agencies to use in doing so. It is too soon to tell how these criteria will influence NNI member agencies decisions about which nanomaterials to prioritize, and it is unclear if information needed to use the NNI criteria is available.
The NNI member agencies have collaborated extensively on EHS research and strategies. They have collaborated through the NSTC to develop joint EHS research strategies and have initiated numerous formal collaborative EHS research projects. Nonfederal stakeholders who responded to GAOs web-based questionnaire on nanotechnology EHS research told GAO that they benefited from collaboration with the NNI member agencies but identified some challenges, including a lack of funding and limited awareness of collaboration opportunities, among others. Most respondents rated the 2011 NNI EHS research strategy as somewhat or very effective at addressing nanotechnology EHS research needs.
NNI strategy documents for EHS research issued by the NSTC address two and partially address the other four of the six desirable characteristics of national strategies identified by GAO that offer a management tool to help ensure accountability and more effective results. For example, the NNI strategy documents provide a clear statement of purpose, define key terms, and discuss the quality of currently available data, among others. However, they do not include performance informationsuch as performance measures, targets, and time frames for meeting those measuresthat would allow stakeholders to evaluate progress towards the goals and research needs of the NNI. In addition, the documents do not include, or sufficiently describe, estimates of the costs and resources needed for the strategy. Without this information, it may be difficult for agencies and stakeholders to implement the strategy and report on progress toward achieving the research needs and assess if investments are commensurate with costs of the identified needs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which administers the NSTC, (1) coordinate development of performance information for NNI EHS research needs and publicly report this information; and (2) estimate the costs and resources necessary to meet the research needs. OSTP and the seven included agencies neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations.