However, since nanotechnology is still largely in an early stage of development the U.S. government does not collect this type of data for nanotechnology products. Estimated global annual public investments in nanotechnology, including those of the United States, reached $6.4 billion in 2006, with another $6.0 billion invested by the private sector. In the act, Congress explicitly established global technological leadership, commercialization, and national competitiveness as central goals of the NNI:
The activities of the Program shall include—
...ensuring United States global leadership in the development and application of nanotechnology;
advancing the United States productivity and industrial competitiveness through stable, consistent, and coordinated investments in long-term scientific and engineering research in nanotechnology;
accelerating the deployment and application of nanotechnology research and development in the private sector, including start-up companies; ...and
encouraging research on nanotechnology advances that utilize existing processes and technologies. Accordingly, measures such as revenues, market share, and global trade statistics—indicators often used to assess and track U.S. competitiveness in other technologies and industries—are not available for assessing the U.S. position in nanotechnology. To date, the federal government does not collect data on nanotechnology-related revenues, trade or employment, nor is comparable international government data available. These indicators offer insights into nations' scientific and technological strength which may serve as a foundation for future product and process innovation. However, the long-term value of these investments may be affected by a variety of factors such as: the capability of the scientists and engineers conducting the R&D and the tools available to them; the efficiency of the system (e.g., businesses, supply chains, infrastructure, innovation climate, government policies) for translating R&D results into commercial products; the fields of nanoscience and nanotechnology pursued; the balance in fundamental research, applied research, and development efforts; and balance in R&D directed at exploiting commercial opportunities, meeting societal needs (e.g., health, environment), addressing government missions (e.g., defense, homeland security), and non-directed efforts to expand the scientific knowledge frontier. The U.S. lead was particularly pronounced in biology. Among those concerned about nanotechnology's potential adverse implications for health, safety, and the environment are those who support a more active federal role in funding environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research to better understand, characterize, and regulate nanotechnology, and those who prefer the federal government act to slow the development and commercialization of nanotechnology pending further EHS research. Libertarians generally assert that markets, free from government interventions, are the most effective mechanism for allocating resources to the most promising opportunities. In addition, some experts advocate efforts to create regulatory processes that can keep pace with rapid technological change and help create a more predictable environment for those investing in nanotechnology development and commercialization. Concluding Observations

Nanotechnology is expected by many to deliver significant economic and societal benefits. The United States launched the first national nanotechnology initiative in 2000, but has since been joined by more than 60 other nations. While it has been estimated that there are more than 600 nanotechnology products on the market today, most involve incremental improvements to existing products. The potential implications of nanotechnology, coupled with the substantial sustained investments, have raised concerns and interest in the U.S. competitive position in nanotechnology. By these measures, the United States appears to lead all other nations in nanotechnology, though the U.S. lead in this field may not be as large as it has been in previous emerging technology areas. Some support an active federal approach; others believe that a more limited federal involvement is likely to be more successful and equitable.
The projected economic and societal benefits of nanotechnology have propelled global investments by nations and companies. The United States launched the first national nanotechnology initiative in 2000. Since then, more than 60 nations have launched similar initiatives. In 2006, global public investment in nanotechnology was estimated to be $6.4 billion, with an additional $6.0 billion provided by the private sector. More than 600 nanotechnology products are now in the market, generally offering incremental improvements over existing products. However, proponents maintain that nanotechnology research and development currently underway could offer revolutionary applications with significant implications for the U.S. economy, national and homeland security, and societal well-being. These investments, coupled with nanotechnology's potential implications, have raised interest and concerns about the U.S. competitive position.
The data used to assess competitiveness in mature technologies and industries, such as revenues and market share, are not available for assessing nanotechnology. In fact, the U.S. government does not currently collect such data for nanotechnology, nor is comparable international data available. Without this information, an authoritative assessment of the U.S. competitive position is not possible. Alternatively, indicators of U.S. scientific and technological strength (e.g., public and private research investments, nanotechnology papers published in scientific journals, patents) may provide insight into the current U.S. position and serve as bellwethers of future competitiveness. By these criteria, the United States appears to be the overall global leader in nanotechnology. However, other nations are investing heavily and may lead in specific areas of nanotechnology. Some believe the U.S. leadership position in nanotechnology may not be as large as it has been in previous emerging technologies.
Efforts to develop and commercialize nanotechnology face a variety of challenges—e.g., technical hurdles; availability of capital; environmental, health, and safety concerns; and immature manufacturing technology and infrastructure. Some advocate a more active federal government role in overcoming these challenges, including funding to aid in the translation of research to commercial products; general and targeted tax provisions; incentives for capital formation; increased support for development of manufacturing and testing infrastructure, standards and nomenclature development, and education and training; creation of science, technology, and innovation parks; and efforts to establish a stable and predictable regulatory environment that keeps pace with innovation.
Some support a more limited federal role. Some who hold this view maintain that the market, free from government interventions, is most efficient. They assert that federal efforts can create market distortions and result in the federal government picking "winners and losers" among technologies, companies, and industries. Others oppose federal support for industrial research and applications, labeling such efforts "corporate welfare." Still others argue for a moratorium on nanotechnology R&D until environmental, health, and safety concerns are addressed.