Flexible Electronics for
Security, Manufacturing, and
Growth in the United States
Summary of a Symposium
Sujai J. Shivakumar, Rapporteur
Committee on Best Practice in National Innovation Programs
for Flexible Electronics
Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy
Policy and Global Affairs
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street NW Washington DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by: Contract/Grant No. SB1341-12-CQ-0036/13-020, TO #2 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Standards and Technology and Contract/Grant No. DE-DT0000236, TO #28 (base award DE-AM01-04PI45013), between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Energy.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-28501-8
International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-28501-1
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu/.
Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Committee on Best Practice in National Innovation Programs for Flexible Electronics*
Donald Siegel, Co-Chair
Dean and Professor
School of Business
University at Albany, SUNY
Byron C. Clayton
Vice President
Nortech
Nick Colaneri
Director, Flexible Display Center
Arizona State University
Stephen R. Forrest
Vice President for Research
Professor, Departments of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Physics, and Materials Science & Engineering
University of Michigan
A. Michael Andrews, II, Co-Chair
Vice President for Research and
Engineering
Chief Technology Officer
L-3 Communications Corporation
(retired)
Mary L. Good (NAE)
Dean Emeritus, Donaghey College of Engineering and Information Technology
Special Advisor to the Chancellor for Economic Development
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
James Turner
Senior Counsel
Association of Public and Landgrant Universities
PROJECT STAFF
Charles W. Wessner
Program Director
Alan H. Anderson
Consultant
McAlister T. Clabaugh
Program Officer
Sujai J. Shivakumar
Study Director
David S. Dawson
Senior Program Assistant
(through June 2013)
David E. Dierksheide
Program Officer
*As of August 2013.
For the National Research Council (NRC), this project was overseen by the Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy (STEP), a standing board of the NRC established by the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine in 1991. The mandate of the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy is to advise federal, state, and local governments and inform the public about economic and related public policies to promote the creation, diffusion, and application of new scientific and technical knowledge to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the U.S. economy and foster economic prosperity for all Americans. The STEP Board and its committees marshal research and the expertise of scholars, industrial managers, investors, and former public officials in a wide range of policy areas that affect the speed and direction of scientific and technological change and their contributions to the growth of the U.S. and global economies. Results are communicated through reports, conferences, workshops, briefings, and electronic media subject to the procedures of the National Academies to ensure their authoritativeness, independence, and objectivity. The members of the STEP Board* and the NRC staff are listed below:
Paul L. Joskow, Chair
President
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Ernst R. Berndt
Louis E. Seley Professor in Applied Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jeff Bingaman
Former U.S. Senator, New Mexico
U.S. Senate
Ellen Dulberger
Managing Partner
Ellen Dulberger Enterprises, LLC
Alan M. Garber (IOM)
Provost
Harvard University
Ralph E. Gomory (NAS/NAE)
Research Professor
Stern School of Business
New York University
John L. Hennessy (NAS/NAE)
President
Stanford University
William H. Janeway
Managing Director and Senior Advisor
Warburg Pincus, LLC
Richard K. Lester
Japan Steel Industry Professor
Head, Nuclear Science and Engineering
Founding Director, Industrial Performance Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
*As of August 2013.
David T. Morgenthaler
Founder
Morgenthaler Ventures
Luis M. Proenza
President
University of Akron
William J. Raduchel
Independent Investor and Director
Kathryn L. Shaw
Ernest C. Arbuckle Professor of Economics
Graduate School of Business
Stanford University
Laura D'Andrea Tyson
S.K. and Angela Chan Professor of Global Management
Haas School of Business
University of California-Berkeley
Harold R. Varian
Chief Economist
Google Inc.
Alan Wm. Wolff
Senior Counsel
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
STEP Staff
Stephen A. Merrill
Executive Director
Paul T. Beaton
Program Officer
McAlister T. Clabaugh
Program Officer
Aqila A. Coulthurst
Program Coordinator
Charles W. Wessner
Program Director
David S. Dawson
Senior Program Assistant
(through June 2013)
David E. Dierksheide
Program Officer
Sujai J. Shivakumar
Senior Program Officer
Army Applications for Flexible Displays
John Pellegrino, U.S. Army Research Laboratory
The Role of DARPA in Printable Electronics
Devanand Shenoy, Microsystems Technology Office, DARPA
One State’s Initiative: Advancing Flexible Electronics in Ohio
Byron Clayton, NorTech
Panel III: What Is the Rest of the World Doing?
Moderator: Pradeep Fulay, National Science Foundation
Taiwan’s Flexible Electronics Program
Janglin (John) Chen, Display Technology Center, Taiwan
Flexible and Printed Electronics—A Korean Initiative
Changhee Lee, Seoul National University
Flexible electronics refers to technologies that enable flexibility in the manufacturing process as well as flexibility as a characteristic of the final product. Features such as unconventional forms and ease of manufacturability provide important advantages for flexible electronics over conventional electronics built on rigid substrates. Today, examples of flexible electronics technologies are found in flexible flat-panel displays, medical image sensors, photovoltaic sheets, and electronic paper.
According to some industry estimates, the global market for flexible electronics products is expected to grow from a few billion dollars today to $60 billion by the end of the decade, but most experts believe that the United States is not currently poised to capitalize on this opportunity. A recent study commissioned by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research concluded that “the relatively low prevalence of actual manufacturing and advanced systems research and development in the United States has led to an incomplete hybrid flexible electronics R&D scenario for this country.” Furthermore, the report observed that “manufacturing is moving to regions of the world that provide greater investment and commitment to product development. It then becomes questionable as to whether this approach is a healthy one and can be sustained in the long term.”1
Responding to a congressional request, the National Research Council’s Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) is examining and comparing selected innovation programs, both foreign and domestic, and their potential to advance the production of flexible electronics technology. The analysis includes a review of the role of research consortia around the world to advance flexible electronics technology. It seeks to understand their structure, focus, funding, and likely impact, and to determine what appropriate steps the United States might consider to develop a robust flexible electronics industry.
_______________________
1Ananth Dodabalapur et al., “European Research and Development in Hybrid Flexible Electronics,” Baltimore: World Technology Evaluation Center, July 2010.
Statement of Task
An ad hoc committee will examine and compare selected innovation programs, both foreign and domestic, and their potential to advance the production of flexible electronics technology in the United States. The analysis, carried out under the direction of the committee, will include a review of the goals, concept, structure, operation, funding levels, and evaluation of foreign programs similar to major U.S. programs, e.g., innovation awards, science and technology parks, and consortia. To assess these programs, the committee will convene a series of meetings to gather data from responsible officials and program managers and encourage a systematic dissemination of information and analysis as a means of better understanding the transition of flexible electronics research into products and to identify specific recommendations to improve and to develop U.S. programs.
Specifically, the committee will examine the role of research consortia around the world to advance flexible electronics technology, comparing their structure, focus, funding, and likely impact, and determining what appropriate steps the United States might consider to the develop the industry. This review will include the potential of the industry, the possible contributions of a consortium, and other measures contributing to the development of the industry in the United States. The committee will undertake workshops to carry out this analysis, prepare a workshop summary capturing the tacit knowledge expressed, commission additional analyses, and develop findings and recommendations for inclusion in the committee’s final consensus report.
THE CONTEXT OF THIS PROJECT
Since 1991, the National Research Council (NRC), under the auspices of the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, has undertaken a program of activities to improve policy makers’ understandings of the interconnections of science, technology, and economic policy and their importance for the American economy and its international competitive position. The Board’s activities have corresponded with increased policy recognition of the importance of knowledge and technology to economic growth. New economic growth theory emphasizes the role of technology creation, which is believed to be characterized by significant growth externalities. In addition, many economists have recognized the limitations of traditional trade theory, particularly with respect to the reality of imperfect international competition. Public-private partnerships are increasingly recognized for their contributions to the commercialization of state and national investments in research and development (R&D). Such partnerships help address the challenges associated with the transition of research into products ready for the marketplace.
One important element of NRC analysis has concerned the growth and impact of foreign technology programs. U.S. competitors have launched substantial programs to support new technologies, small firm development, innovative production at large companies, and consortia among large and small firms to strengthen national and regional positions in sectors they consider to be strategic for the development of their economies. Some governments overseas have chosen to provide public support to research and the commercialization of that research to overcome the market imperfections apparent in their national innovation systems. They believe that the rising costs and risks associated with new potentially high-payoff technologies, and the growing global dispersal of technical expertise, underscore the need for national R&D programs to support new and existing high-technology firms within their borders.2
THIS REPORT
To launch this study, the STEP Board convened a workshop of business leaders, academic experts, and senior government officials in September 2010 to review challenges, plans, and opportunities for growing a robust flexible electronics industry in the United States. This report includes an introduction that highlights key issues raised at this workshop and a summary of the conference presentations. This workshop summary has been prepared by the workshop rapporteur as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. The planning committee’s role was limited to planning and convening the workshop. The statements made are those of the rapporteur or individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
On behalf of the National Academies, we express our appreciation and recognition for the insights, experiences, and perspectives made available by the participants of this meeting. We are indebted to Alan Anderson for summarizing the proceedings of the meeting.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will
_______________________
2For a comparative review of national policies and programs to advance innovation based competitiveness, see National Research Council, Rising to the Challenge: U.S. Innovation Policy for the Global Economy. C. Wessner and A. Wolff, eds, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012.
assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for quality and objectivity. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Ana Arias, University of California, Berkeley; Miko Cakmak, University of Akron; Pradeep Fulay, West Virginia University; and John West, Kent State University.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the rapporteur and the institution.
Donald Siegel Sujai Shivakumar A. Michael Andrews