research and development laboratory

By continuing, you will be directed to a site intended only for residents of the United States and Canada. We are called MSD everywhere, except in the United States and Canada where we are known as Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.

The link you have selected will take you to a third-party website, owned and operated by AgileOne. Our company does not control, and is not responsible for, the accuracy, content, practices, or standards of the pharmatempjobs.com website and/or AgileOne.

Research & Development

The journey to invention and discovery is guided by science—and inspired by patients, job spotlights in r&d, global clinical trial operations, global medical & scientific affairs, quantitative pharmacology & pharmacometrics, r&d medical doctors & physicians, regulatory affairs, data science & advanced analytics, global project and alliance management (gpam), how we invent for life, our r&d process, purposeful work, cardiovascular, infectious diseases, postdoctoral research fellow program, learn more about our research and development locations, explore all our divisions, lorem ipsum, join our talent community today..

Receive updates on career opportunities tailored to you.

Connect with us on social

Beware of hiring scams. review our applicant notice ..

What can we help you find?

We run to, not from, the world’s biggest health challenges.

The journey to discovery is guided by science – and inspired by patients

We use the power of leading-edge science to save and improve lives around the world. The path to discovery is often unclear, but we are tireless in seeking solutions for some of the world’s most difficult health challenges.

Our work in numbers

people employed in research and development

invested in R&D in 2023

Our areas of focus

We focus on scientific innovation to deliver medicines and vaccines that may help millions of people around the world.

Our team of researchers and scientists are pushing the boundaries of cancer research to discover more effective anticancer therapies.

Our work in oncology

Vaccines are one of the greatest public health success stories – and we’ve been discovering, developing, supplying and delivering vaccines to help prevent disease for over 130 years.

Our work in vaccines

Infectious diseases

Our focus has always been on the prevention and treatment of diseases that threaten people and communities around the world.

Our work in infectious diseases

Cardio-metabolic disorders

We have a long history of making an impact in cardio-metabolic disorders, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Our work in cardio-metabolic disorders

Discovery & development

We follow the science where we can make the greatest difference, now and in the future.

More about discovery and development

We address the world’s most difficult health challenges, following leading-edge science

Step inside Merck Research Laboratories (MRL) where our quest to save and improve lives through research and development begins

We’re focused on inventing new medicines and vaccines to help more people

Our focus on breakthrough science is working

Clinical trials

Our progress is due in large part to the important and tough scientific questions we set out to answer with our trials and collaborations. We are grateful to the thousands of volunteers who participate in our clinical trials — making this all possible.

Our commitment to patients is unwavering

As long as there are still patients in hospitals, doctors and nurses desperate to add years to the lives of their patients, and a world where treatments aren’t accessible to all, we will be here, fighting with all we have to deliver more, sooner.

Discovery starts here

Our scientists are applying the latest groundbreaking research technologies and revolutionizing how we discover and develop medicines and vaccines

Vaccine inventors, creators and innovators

Dr. Maurice Hilleman was among the pioneering scientists who made strides in vaccine history and the fight against infectious disease

Next: Vaccine inventors, creators and innovators

Vaccines: Our history, our legacy

We've been working to discover and develop vaccines for more than a century

Next: Vaccines: Our history, our legacy

Our Q1 2024 earnings report

Merck’s (NYSE: MRK) Q1 2024 results reflect continued strong growth in oncology and vaccines. Our company announced Q1 worldwide sales of $15.8 billion, an increase of 9% from Q1 2023. “Merck has begun 2024 with continuing momentum in our business. We are harnessing the power of innovation to advance our deep pipeline and are maximizing […]

Next: Our Q1 2024 earnings report

A new foundation for future talent

We’re partnering with America’s largest HBCU to launch a collaborative biotechnology learning center

Next: A new foundation for future talent

Humans, animals and the environment – our health is all connected

Why the One Health approach is important now more than ever

Next: Humans, animals and the environment – our health is all connected

Safety and quality go hand in hand

Protecting animal health

Our Animal Health business is dedicated to preserving and improving the health, well-being and performance of animals and the people who care for them.

Related links

Business development & licensing

We work with many partners, from early-stage science to clinical-stage programs, to deliver life-changing therapies.

Find our latest financials, events & presentations, news, stock information, and contacts

We aspire to be the premier research-intensive biopharmaceutical company.

Forward-looking statement of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J., USA

This website of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J., USA (the “company”) includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of the company’s management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. There can be no guarantees with respect to pipeline candidates that the candidates will receive the necessary regulatory approvals or that they will prove to be commercially successful. If underlying assumptions prove inaccurate or risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results may differ materially from those set forth in the forward-looking statements. Risks and uncertainties include but are not limited to, general industry conditions and competition; general economic factors, including interest rate and currency exchange rate fluctuations; the impact of pharmaceutical industry regulation and health care legislation in the United States and internationally; global trends toward health care cost containment; technological advances, new products and patents attained by competitors; challenges inherent in new product development, including obtaining regulatory approval; the company’s ability to accurately predict future market conditions; manufacturing difficulties or delays; financial instability of international economies and sovereign risk; dependence on the effectiveness of the company’s patents and other protections for innovative products; and the exposure to litigation, including patent litigation, and/or regulatory actions. The company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Additional factors that could cause results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements can be found in the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023 and the company’s other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) available at the SEC’s Internet site (www.sec.gov). No Duty to Update The information contained in this website was current as of the date presented. The company assumes no duty to update the information to reflect subsequent developments. Consequently, the company will not update the information contained in the website and investors should not rely upon the information as current or accurate after the presentation date.

You are leaving Merck.com

Welcome to merck.com.

By continuing, you will be directed to a site intended only for residents of the United States and Canada. We are called MSD everywhere, except in the United States and Canada where we are known as Merck & Co Inc, Rahway, NJ USA.

How To Design an R&D Lab

If you are in the process of designing a research and development (R&D) lab, there are a number of key factors you will need to consider. Here at OnePointe Solutions, we specialize in helping clients from virtually every industry to design and build custom laboratory solutions that fit their exact needs and have partnered with countless manufacturers, researchers, designers, and experts to create some of the best labs in the country.

Here, we’re sharing a few basic tips for what to consider when designing an R&D lab and offering our advice for the best solutions to common R&D needs.

What Is An R&D Lab?

An R&D lab is any laboratory where research and development work is undertaken. Many industries employ R&D to innovate and create new products, technologies, and other advances in their field.

During the post-WWII corporation boom in the US, R&D labs were often very large and incorporated into companies as those companies’ research divisions. Today, many R&D labs are independent and the researchers who work there are able to sell their work on the open market. 

R&D labs are found in many industries. These include the chemical industry, the communications industry, the manufacturing industry, the materials science industry, the medical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the software industry, and the technology and nanotechnology industry.

Each of these industries requires different things from their R&D labs. Chemistry, materials science, and the pharmaceutical industry all typically require higher biosafety standards due to the volatility of the compounds and other research materials used in these industries.

Manufacturing and technology R&D labs often require highly specialized mechanical tools. If you’re not sure what all your lab will require, feel free to contact us – at OnePointe Solutions, we’ve worked with leaders across numerous industries and can help you determine exactly what your laboratory needs for success.

Ideal Lab Location

An R&D lab can be built as a standalone building, or take space in an existing building. The type of R&D lab you build can determine what space is suitable: an R&D lab that works on nanotechnology or communications can work in numerous locations, but R&D labs that work with volatile chemicals will need to be in a space with fans and intake blowers for ventilation. 

The ideal laboratory location meets the following criteria:

• Good lighting
• Comfortable environmental controls, like a thermostat
• Access to water 
• Adequate electrical service
• Enough space to work on large projects

Modifying your existing space for a lab is quite possible, and whether you’re starting from scratch or planning to renovate, OnePointe Solutions has the experience and lab design team necessary to complete any lab building project. We have designed labs for many diverse purposes, including materials science R&D , animal research , and volatile organic compound testing ; we are well-versed in the design language of labs built not just for innovation but also for safety and efficiency.

We are happy to help turn your space into a functional research and development laboratory.

R&D labs are highly customizable based on your needs, and there is no one setup that all R&D labs must-have. An R&D lab that contributes to the materials science industry will look incredibly different from one that deals with technology.

Because of this, you shouldn’t think in terms of set patterns for how your lab should be designed. Instead, you should optimize ergonomics and workflow in your space, and you should build options for flexibility and expansion into your lab.

Lean Design

Regardless of your lab’s specific purpose, leaning into Lean Design is one way to ensure that your lab serves its purpose and runs easily and efficiently. Lean Design principles have been widely adopted by designers of facilities in every industry since their introduction in the 1990s.

Lean Design facilities are designed with the goal of reducing mistakes and increasing efficiency and productivity, with the efficient use of resources at the core of these principles.

The success of Lean Design is measured with the use of the ‘Magic Triangle’, whose three corners represent quality, resources, and time. These should all be balanced for optimum laboratory design and results.  

In essence, Lean Design aims at eliminating wasted steps and redundancies to improve workflow. Implementing Lean lab techniques can help you to produce more consistent lab results, increase productivity, reduce costs, and help your lab attain successful results.

You also must consider the needs of the people working in your lab. A good R&D lab encourages collaboration and discussion amongst researchers, and this can be built into the design of your lab itself.

Adding quality of life upgrades like comfortable breakrooms or coffee areas, ergonomic workstations , lighting designed to reduce eyestrain, and other such features can elevate your R&D lab and improve your technicians’ and researchers’ experience. 

Design for Flexibility

While some educational labs remain the same for years, most R&D facilities change the work they do and how they do it frequently. A lab may go from sequencing DNA to testing food products in just a few months and must be able to make the transition from one to the other without needing a full remodel.

Flexible, easily modified labs can keep up with changing needs, techniques, and workflow. 

One of the easiest ways to increase the flexibility of your laboratory is to include modular furniture in your design. At OnePointe Solutions, many of our laboratory furniture options include modular features and add ons that make them readily adaptable to changes in your facility.

Items like our lab islands include adjustable height options, modular shelving, and locking and rolling casters for easy reconfiguration of the space.

Safety Precautions

If your R&D lab deals with biological specimens or volatile chemicals, you will need fume hoods , HEPA filters, and at least one lead-lined sink. All R&D labs require a lot of computational power, which means that they will draw a lot of electric power– most wiring will require 110 volts.

Having your lab’s wiring done by professional electricians is an absolute must. An emergency generator should be available to operate essential equipment during power outages. You should maintain battery backups on all essential computer equipment.

Lab Equipment

The equipment needed for an R&D lab is complex and often must be made custom to your lab’s specifications. Some of the most important equipment you will need is computer workstations.

No matter what your lab’s purpose is, you will need stations where researchers can analyze results, as well as stations with design technology and other field-specific software and equipment. 

Chemistry, Medical, and Pharmaceutical R&D Labs

Chemistry, medical, and pharmaceutical R&D labs can be thought of as “wet” labs , as they deal with many similar materials and safety procedures. Chemistry R&D labs require equipment that can handle caustic chemicals and protect the lab’s users from fumes and negative effects.

The same is true of pharmaceutical labs; many of the raw chemicals used to produce new drugs can have negative effects upon human contact. Medical R&D labs, which may use pathological biological material, also have this concern for protection.

As such, these types of labs have many similarities in what kinds of equipment they need. This equipment may include, but is not limited to the following: 

• Analytical equipment
• Beakers, Erlenmeyer flasks, Florence flasks, test tubes, and other lab glassware
• Bunsen burners
• Centrifuges
• Chemical storage
• Eyewash stations
• Freezer storage
• Graduated cylinders
• Laminar flow hoods
• Mass spectrometer
• Ring stands, rings, and clamps
• Tongs and forceps
• Thermometers
• Precision balances
• Refrigerated storage
• Safety goggles and safety equipment
• Watch glasses
• Volumetric flasks

Manufacturing and Materials Science R&D Labs

Manufacturing and materials science R&D labs have many similarities in what they require in terms of equipment. Depending on the materials being tested or the manufacturing processes being developed, highly specialized equipment may be required.

However, as a general rule you can expect to need the following equipment in your manufacturing or materials science R&D lab :

• Analytical equipment of various types
• Exhaust hoods or laminar flow hoods
• Hand tools, both powered and unpowered
• Machine press
• Mass spectrometers
• Rapid prototype devices like 3D printers and CDC mills
• Raw materials storage
• Rotary hand tools
• Rotary saws
• Safety equipment 
• Welding benches

Programming R&D Labs: Communications and Software R&D

R&D labs that work on innovative programming require a different kind of lab setup. There is less physical work in these types of labs, as the innovation is all done on computers.

As such, the sort of equipment you can expect to see in these labs includes the following:

• Computer workstations with diverse operating systems
• Computer hardware and peripherals
• Debugging software
• Programming guides
• Mobile devices

Technology and Nanotechnology R&D Labs

Technology and nanotechnology labs are largely differentiated by the size of the equipment they work with. The equipment these labs require is incredibly precise.

This equipment may include, but is not limited to the following:

• Air conditioning systems for micro and nanotechnology
• AS-Micro thermal annealing machines 
• Analytical balances
• Anti-static wristbands and other grounding devices
• Arbitrary waveform generators
• Atomic force microscopy and Raman analysis machines
• Atomic layer deposition machine
• ESD Workbenches
• Laminar hoods
• Laser cutters
• Machine Press
• Potientostats

Need Help With Your R&D Lab?

At OnePointe Solutions, we are experts at building custom casework , lab countertops , lab tables , fume hoods , and other lab equipment that will improve your lab’s workflow and efficiency. Additionally, OnePointe Solutions is a leading laboratory construction and design firm, scientific furniture manufacturer, and lab builder.

Our project history ranges from classrooms to Biosafety Level 3 and 3+ enhanced labs. No lab project is too small or too large for our expert design team. Give us a call at 866-612-7312 to speak to a lab design specialist today!

Questions? Concerns? Want to start today? Get in touch. 866.612.7312

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

National Laboratories

The National Laboratories conduct scientific research and development in areas related to energy and technology.

Find an office near you

• Ames Laboratory
• Argonne National Laboratory
• Brookhaven National Laboratory
• Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
• Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research
• Idaho National Laboratory
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• Los Alamos National Laboratory
• National Energy Technology Laboratory
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory
• Oak Ridge National Laboratory
• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
• Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
• Sandia National Laboratory
• Savannah River National Laboratory
• SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
• Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

Have a question?

Ask a real person any government-related question for free. They will get you the answer or let you know where to find it.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Research and Development?

• Understanding R&D
• Types of R&D
• Pros and Cons
• Considerations
• R&D vs. Applied Research
• R&D Tax Credits

The Bottom Line

• Business Essentials

What Is Research and Development (R&D)?

Investopedia / Ellen Lindner

Research and development (R&D) is the series of activities that companies undertake to innovate. R&D is often the first stage in the development process that results in market research product development, and product testing.

Key Takeaways

• Research and development represents the activities companies undertake to innovate and introduce new products and services or to improve their existing offerings.
• R&D allows a company to stay ahead of its competition by catering to new wants or needs in the market.
• Companies in different sectors and industries conduct R&D—pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and technology companies generally spend the most.
• R&D is often a broad approach to exploratory advancement, while applied research is more geared towards researching a more narrow scope.
• The accounting for treatment for R&D costs can materially impact a company's income statement and balance sheet.

Understanding Research and Development (R&D)

The concept of research and development is widely linked to innovation both in the corporate and government sectors. R&D allows a company to stay ahead of its competition. Without an R&D program, a company may not survive on its own and may have to rely on other ways to innovate such as engaging in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) or partnerships. Through R&D, companies can design new products and improve their existing offerings.

R&D is distinct from most operational activities performed by a corporation. The research and/or development is typically not performed with the expectation of immediate profit. Instead, it is expected to contribute to the long-term profitability of a company. R&D may often allow companies to secure intellectual property, including patents , copyrights, and trademarks as discoveries are made and products created.

Companies that set up and employ departments dedicated entirely to R&D commit substantial capital to the effort. They must estimate the risk-adjusted return on their R&D expenditures, which inevitably involves risk of capital. That's because there is no immediate payoff, and the return on investment (ROI) is uncertain. As more money is invested in R&D, the level of capital risk increases. Other companies may choose to outsource their R&D for a variety of reasons including size and cost.

Companies across all sectors and industries undergo R&D activities. Corporations experience growth through these improvements and the development of new goods and services. Pharmaceuticals, semiconductors , and software/technology companies tend to spend the most on R&D. In Europe, R&D is known as research and technical or technological development.

Many small and mid-sized businesses may choose to outsource their R&D efforts because they don't have the right staff in-house to meet their needs.

Types of Research and Development (R&D)

There are several different types of R&D that exist in the corporate world and within government. The type used depends entirely on the entity undertaking it and the results can differ.

Basic Research

There are business incubators and accelerators, where corporations invest in startups and provide funding assistance and guidance to entrepreneurs in the hope that innovations will result that they can use to their benefit.

M&As and partnerships are also forms of R&D as companies join forces to take advantage of other companies' institutional knowledge and talent.

Applied Research

One R&D model is a department staffed primarily by engineers who develop new products —a task that typically involves extensive research. There is no specific goal or application in mind with this model. Instead, the research is done for the sake of research.

Development Research

This model involves a department composed of industrial scientists or researchers, all of who are tasked with applied research in technical, scientific, or industrial fields. This model facilitates the development of future products or the improvement of current products and/or operating procedures.

The largest companies may also be the ones that drive the most R&D spend. For example, Amazon has reported $1.147 billion of research and development value on its 2023 annual report.

Advantages and Disadvantages of R&D

There are several key benefits to research and development. It facilitates innovation, allowing companies to improve existing products and services or by letting them develop new ones to bring to the market.

Because R&D also is a key component of innovation, it requires a greater degree of skill from employees who take part. This allows companies to expand their talent pool, which often comes with special skill sets.

The advantages go beyond corporations. Consumers stand to benefit from R&D because it gives them better, high-quality products and services as well as a wider range of options. Corporations can, therefore, rely on consumers to remain loyal to their brands. It also helps drive productivity and economic growth.

Disadvantages

One of the major drawbacks to R&D is the cost. First, there is the financial expense as it requires a significant investment of cash upfront. This can include setting up a separate R&D department, hiring talent, and product and service testing, among others.

Innovation doesn't happen overnight so there is also a time factor to consider. This means that it takes a lot of time to bring products and services to market from conception to production to delivery.

Because it does take time to go from concept to product, companies stand the risk of being at the mercy of changing market trends . So what they thought may be a great seller at one time may reach the market too late and not fly off the shelves once it's ready.

Facilitates innovation

Improved or new products and services

Expands knowledge and talent pool

Increased consumer choice and brand loyalty

Economic driver

Financial investment

Shifting market trends

R&D Accounting

R&D may be beneficial to a company's bottom line, but it is considered an expense . After all, companies spend substantial amounts on research and trying to develop new products and services. As such, these expenses are often reported for accounting purposes on the income statement and do not carry long-term value.

There are certain situations where R&D costs are capitalized and reported on the balance sheet. Some examples include but are not limited to:

• Materials, fixed assets, or other assets have alternative future uses with an estimable value and useful life.
• Software that can be converted or applied elsewhere in the company to have a useful life beyond a specific single R&D project.
• Indirect costs or overhead expenses allocated between projects.
• R&D purchased from a third party that is accompanied by intangible value. That intangible asset may be recorded as a separate balance sheet asset.

R&D Considerations

Before taking on the task of research and development, it's important for companies and governments to consider some of the key factors associated with it. Some of the most notable considerations are:

• Objectives and Outcome: One of the most important factors to consider is the intended goals of the R&D project. Is it to innovate and fill a need for certain products that aren't being sold? Or is it to make improvements on existing ones? Whatever the reason, it's always important to note that there should be some flexibility as things can change over time.
• Timing: R&D requires a lot of time. This involves reviewing the market to see where there may be a lack of certain products and services or finding ways to improve on those that are already on the shelves.
• Cost: R&D costs a great deal of money, especially when it comes to the upfront costs. And there may be higher costs associated with the conception and production of new products rather than updating existing ones.
• Risks: As with any venture, R&D does come with risks. R&D doesn't come with any guarantees, no matter the time and money that goes into it. This means that companies and governments may sacrifice their ROI if the end product isn't successful.

Research and Development vs. Applied Research

Basic research is aimed at a fuller, more complete understanding of the fundamental aspects of a concept or phenomenon. This understanding is generally the first step in R&D. These activities provide a basis of information without directed applications toward products, policies, or operational processes .

Applied research entails the activities used to gain knowledge with a specific goal in mind. The activities may be to determine and develop new products, policies, or operational processes. While basic research is time-consuming, applied research is painstaking and more costly because of its detailed and complex nature.

R&D Tax Credits

The IRS offers a R&D tax credit to encourage innovation and significantly reduction their tax liability. The credit calls for specific types of spend such as product development, process improvement, and software creation.

Enacted under Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code, this credit encourages innovation by providing a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax obligations. The eligibility criteria, expanded by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015, now encompass a broader spectrum of businesses. The credit tens to benefit small-to-midsize enterprises.

To claim R&D tax credits, businesses must document their qualifying expenses and complete IRS Form 6765 (Credit for Increasing Research Activities). The credit, typically ranging from 6% to 8% of annual qualifying expenses, offers businesses a direct offset against federal income tax liabilities. Additionally, businesses can claim up to $250,000 per year against their payroll taxes.

Example of Research and Development (R&D)

One of the more innovative companies of this millennium is Apple Inc. As part of its annual reporting, it has the following to say about its research and development spend:

In 2023, Apple reported having spent $29.915 billion. This is 8% of their annual total net sales. Note that Apple's R&D spend was reported to be higher than the company's selling, general and administrative costs (of $24.932 billion).

Note that the company doesn't go into length about what exactly the R&D spend is for. According to the notes, the company's year-over-year growth was "driven primarily by increases in headcount-related expenses". However, this does not explain the underlying basis carried from prior years (i.e. materials, patents, etc.).

Research and development refers to the systematic process of investigating, experimenting, and innovating to create new products, processes, or technologies. It encompasses activities such as scientific research, technological development, and experimentation conducted to achieve specific objectives to bring new items to market.

What Types of Activities Can Be Found in Research and Development?

Research and development activities focus on the innovation of new products or services in a company. Among the primary purposes of R&D activities is for a company to remain competitive as it produces products that advance and elevate its current product line. Since R&D typically operates on a longer-term horizon, its activities are not anticipated to generate immediate returns. However, in time, R&D projects may lead to patents, trademarks, or breakthrough discoveries with lasting benefits to the company. 

Why Is Research and Development Important?

Given the rapid rate of technological advancement, R&D is important for companies to stay competitive. Specifically, R&D allows companies to create products that are difficult for their competitors to replicate. Meanwhile, R&D efforts can lead to improved productivity that helps increase margins, further creating an edge in outpacing competitors. From a broader perspective, R&D can allow a company to stay ahead of the curve, anticipating customer demands or trends.

There are many things companies can do in order to advance in their industries and the overall market. Research and development is just one way they can set themselves apart from their competition. It opens up the potential for innovation and increasing sales. However, it does come with some drawbacks—the most obvious being the financial cost and the time it takes to innovate.

Amazon. " 2023 Annual Report ."

Internal Revenue Service. " Research Credit ."

Internal Revenue Service. " About Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities ."

Apple. " 2023 Annual Report ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

America's Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science (2006)

Chapter: 1 introduction, history, and definition of laboratories, 1 introduction, history, and definition of laboratories.

Science laboratories have been part of high school education for two centuries, yet a clear articulation of their role in student learning of science remains elusive. This report evaluates the evidence about the role of laboratories in helping students attain science learning goals and discusses factors that currently limit science learning in high school laboratories. In this chap-

ter, the committee presents its charge, reviews the history of science laboratories in U.S. high schools, defines laboratories, and outlines the organization of the report.

CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE

In the National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368, authorizing funding for fiscal years 2003-2007), Congress called on NSF to launch a secondary school systemic initiative. The initiative was to “promote scientific and technological literacy” and to “meet the mathematics and science needs of students at risk of not achieving State student academic achievement standards.” Congress directed NSF to provide grants for such activities as “laboratory improvement and provision of instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance the quality of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology instruction” (P.L. 107-368, Section 8-E). In response, NSF turned to the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies. NSF requested that the NRC

nominate a committee to review the status of and future directions for the role of high school science laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students. This committee will guide the conduct of a study and author a consensus report that will provide guidance on the question of the role and purpose of high school science laboratories with an emphasis on future directions…. Among the questions that may guide these activities are:

What is the current state of science laboratories and what do we know about how they are used in high schools?

What examples or alternatives are there to traditional approaches to labs and what is the evidence base as to their effectiveness?

If labs in high school never existed (i.e., if they were to be planned and designed de novo), what would that experience look like now, given modern advances in the natural and learning sciences?

In what ways can the integration of technologies into the curriculum augment and extend a new vision of high school science labs? What is known about high school science labs based on principles of design?

How do the structures and policies of high schools (course scheduling, curricular design, textbook adoption, and resource deployment) influence the organization of science labs? What kinds of changes might be needed in the infrastructure of high schools to enhance the effectiveness of science labs?

What are the costs (e.g., financial, personnel, space, scheduling) associated with different models of high school science labs? How might a new vision of laboratory experiences for high school students influence those costs?

In what way does the growing interdisciplinary nature of the work of scientists help to shape discussions of laboratories as contexts in high school for science learning?

How do high school lab experiences align with both middle school and postsecondary education? How is the role of teaching labs changing in the nation’s colleges and universities? Would a redesign of high school science labs enhance or limit articulation between high school and college-level science education?

The NRC convened the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision to address this charge.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The committee carried out its charge through an iterative process of gathering information, deliberating on it, identifying gaps and questions, gathering further information to fill these gaps, and holding further discussions. In the search for relevant information, the committee held three public fact-finding meetings, reviewed published reports and unpublished research, searched the Internet, and commissioned experts to prepare and present papers. At a fourth, private meeting, the committee intensely analyzed and discussed its findings and conclusions over the course of three days. Although the committee considered information from a variety of sources, its final report gives most weight to research published in peer-reviewed journals and books.

At an early stage in its deliberations, the committee chose to focus primarily on “the role of high school laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students.” The committee soon became frustrated by the limited research evidence on the role of laboratories in learning. To address one of many problems in the research evidence—a lack of agreement about what constitutes a laboratory and about the purposes of laboratory education—the committee commissioned a paper to analyze the alternative definitions and goals of laboratories.

The committee developed a concept map outlining the main themes of the study (see Figure 1-1 ) and organized the three fact-finding meetings to gather information on each of these themes. For example, reflecting the committee’s focus on student learning (“how students learn science” on the concept map), all three fact-finding meetings included researchers who had developed innovative approaches to high school science laboratories. We also commissioned two experts to present papers reviewing available research on the role of laboratories in students’ learning of science.

At the fact-finding meetings, some researchers presented evidence of student learning following exposure to sequences of instruction that included laboratory experiences; others provided data on how various technologies

FIGURE 1-1 High school science laboratory experiences: Role and vision. Concept map with references to guiding questions in committee charge.

contribute to student learning in the laboratory. Responding to the congressional mandate to meet the mathematics and science needs of students at risk of not achieving state student academic achievement standards, the third fact-finding meeting included researchers who have studied laboratory teaching and learning among diverse students. Taken together, all of these activities enabled the committee to address questions 2, 3, and 4 of the charge.

The committee took several steps to ensure that the study reflected the current realities of science laboratories in U.S high schools, addressing the themes of “how science teachers learn and work” and “constraints and enablers of laboratory experiences” on the concept map. At the first fact-finding meeting, representatives of associations of scientists and science teachers described their efforts to help science teachers learn to lead effective labora-

tory activities. They noted constraints on laboratory learning, including poorly designed, overcrowded laboratory classrooms and inadequate preparation of science teachers. This first meeting also included a presentation about laboratory scheduling, supplies, and equipment drawn from a national survey of science teachers conducted in 2000. At the second fact-finding meeting, an architect spoke about the design of laboratory facilities, and a sociologist described how the organization of work and authority in schools may enable or constrain innovative approaches to laboratory teaching. Two meetings included panel discussions about laboratory teaching among groups of science teachers and school administrators. Through these presentations, review of additional literature, and internal discussions, the committee was able to respond to questions 1, 5, and 6 of the charge. The agendas for each fact-finding meeting, including the guiding questions that were sent to each presenter, appear in Appendix A .

The committee recognized that the question in its charge about the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of science (question 7) is important to the future of science and to high school science laboratories. In presentations and commissioned papers, several experts offered suggestions for how laboratory activities could be designed to more accurately reflect the work of scientists and to improve students’ understanding of the way scientists work today. Based on our analysis of this information, the committee partially addresses this question from the perspective of how scientists conduct their work (in this chapter). The committee also identifies design principles for laboratory activities that may increase students’ understanding of the nature of science (in Chapter 3 ). However, in order to maintain our focus on the key question of student learning in laboratories, the committee did not fully address question 7.

Another important question in the committee’s charge (question 8) addresses the alignment of laboratory learning in middle school, high school, and undergraduate science education. Within the short time frame of this study, the committee focused on identifying, assembling, and analyzing the limited research available on high school science laboratories and did not attempt to do the same analysis for middle school and undergraduate science laboratories. However, this report does discuss several studies of student laboratory learning in middle school (see Chapter 3 ) and describes undergraduate science laboratories briefly in its analysis of the preparation of high school science teachers (see in Chapter 5 ). The committee thinks questions about the alignment of laboratory learning merit more sustained attention than was possible in this study.

During the course of our deliberations, other important questions emerged. For example, it is apparent that the scientific community is engaged in an array of efforts to strengthen teaching and learning in high school science laboratories, but little information is available on the extent

of these efforts and on their effectiveness at enhancing student learning. As a result, we address the role of the scientific community in high school laboratories only briefly in Chapters 1 and 5 . Another issue that arose over the course of this study is laboratory safety. We became convinced that laboratory safety is critical, but we did not fully analyze safety issues, which lay outside our charge. Finally, although engaging students in design or engineering laboratory activities appears to hold promising connections with science laboratory activities, the committee did not explore this possibility. Although all of these issues and questions are important, taking time and energy to address them would have deterred us from a central focus on the role of high school laboratories in promoting the teaching and learning of science for all students.

One important step in defining the scope of the study was to review the history of laboratories. Examining the history of laboratory education helped to illuminate persistent tensions, provided insight into approaches to be avoided in the future, and allowed the committee to more clearly frame key questions for the future.

HISTORY OF LABORATORY EDUCATION

The history of laboratories in U.S. high schools has been affected by changing views of the nature of science and by society’s changing goals for science education. Between 1850 and the present, educators, scientists, and the public have, at different times, placed more or less emphasis on three sometimes-competing goals for school science education: (1) a theoretical emphasis, stressing the structure of scientific disciplines, the benefits of basic scientific research, and the importance of preparing young people for higher education in science; (2) an applied or practical emphasis, stressing high school students’ ability to understand and apply the science and workings of everyday things; and (3) a liberal or contextual emphasis, stressing the historical development and cultural implications of science (Matthews, 1994). These changing goals have affected the nature and extent of laboratory education.

By the mid-19th century, British writers and philosophers had articulated a view of science as an inductive process (Mill, 1843; Whewell, 1840, 1858). They believed that scientists engaged in painstaking observation of nature to identify and accumulate facts, and only very cautiously did they draw conclusions from these facts to propose new theories. British and American scientists portrayed the newest scientific discoveries—such as the laws of thermodynamics and Darwin’s theory of evolution—to an increas-

ingly interested public as certain knowledge derived through well-established inductive methods. However, scientists and teachers made few efforts to teach students about these methods. High school and undergraduate science courses, like those in history and other subjects, were taught through lectures and textbooks, followed by rote memorization and recitation (Rudolph, 2005). Lecturers emphasized student knowledge of the facts, and science laboratories were not yet accepted as part of higher education. For example, when Benjamin Silliman set up the first chemistry laboratory at Yale in 1847, he paid rent to the college for use of the building and equipped it at his own expense (Whitman, 1898, p. 201). Few students were allowed into these laboratories, which were reserved for scientists’ research, although some apparatus from the laboratory was occasionally brought into the lecture room for demonstrations.

During the 1880s, the situation changed rapidly. Influenced by the example of chemist Justus von Liebig in Germany, leading American universities embraced the German model. In this model, laboratories played a central role as the setting for faculty research and for advanced scientific study by students. Johns Hopkins University established itself as a research institution with student laboratories. Other leading colleges and universities followed suit, and high schools—which were just being established as educational institutions—soon began to create student science laboratories as well.

The primary goal of these early high school laboratories was to prepare students for higher science education in college and university laboratories. The National Education Association produced an influential report noting the “absolute necessity of laboratory work” in the high school science curriculum (National Education Association, 1894) in order to prepare students for undergraduate science studies. As demand for secondary school teachers trained in laboratory methods grew, colleges and universities began offering summer laboratory courses for teachers. In 1895, a zoology professor at Brown University described “large and increasing attendance at our summer schools,” which focused on the dissection of cats and other animals (Bump, 1895, p. 260).

In these early years, American educators emphasized the theoretical, disciplinary goals of science education in order to prepare graduates for further science education. Because of this emphasis, high schools quickly embraced a detailed list of 40 physics experiments published by Harvard instructor Edwin Hall (Harvard University, 1889). The list outlined the experiments, procedures, and equipment necessary to successfully complete all 40 experiments as a condition of admission to study physics at Harvard. Scientific supply companies began selling complete sets of the required equipment to schools and successful completion of the exercises was soon required for admission to study physics at other colleges and universities (Rudolph, 2005).

At that time, most educators and scientists believed that participating in laboratory experiments would help students learn methods of accurate observation and inductive reasoning. However, the focus on prescribing specific experiments and procedures, illustrated by the embrace of the Harvard list, limited the effectiveness of early laboratory education. In the rush to specify laboratory experiments, procedures, and equipment, little attention had been paid to how students might learn from these experiences. Students were expected to simply absorb the methods of inductive reasoning by carrying out experiments according to prescribed procedures (Rudolph, 2005).

Between 1890 and 1910, as U.S. high schools expanded rapidly to absorb a huge influx of new students, a backlash began to develop against the prevailing approach to laboratory education. In a 1901 lecture at the New England Association of College and Secondary Schools, G. Stanley Hall, one of the first American psychologists, criticized high school physics education based on the Harvard list, saying that “boys of this age … want more dynamic physics” (Hall, 1901). Building on Hall’s critique, University of Chicago physicist Charles Mann and other members of the Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teaching launched a complete overhaul of high school physics teaching. Mann and others attacked the “dry bones” of the Harvard experiments, calling for a high school physics curriculum with more personal and social relevance to students. One described lab work as “at best a very artificial means of supplying experiences upon which to build physical concepts” (Woodhull, 1909). Other educators argued that science teaching could be improved by providing more historical perspective, and high schools began reducing the number of laboratory exercises.

By 1910, a clear tension had emerged between those emphasizing laboratory experiments and reformers favoring an emphasis on interesting, practical science content in high school science. However, the focus on content also led to problems, as students became overwhelmed with “interesting” facts. New York’s experience illustrates this tension. In 1890, the New York State Regents exam included questions asking students to design experiments (Champagne and Shiland, 2004). In 1905, the state introduced a new syllabus of physics topics. The content to be covered was so extensive that, over the course of a year, an average of half an hour could be devoted to each topic, virtually eliminating the possibility of including laboratory activities (Matthews, 1994). An outcry to return to more experimentation in science courses resulted, and in 1910 New York State instituted a requirement for 30 science laboratory sessions taking double periods in the syllabus for Regents science courses (courses preparing students for the New York State Regents examinations) (Champagne and Shiland, 2004).

In an influential speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1909, philosopher and educator John Dewey proposed a solution to the tension between advocates for more laboratory

experimentation and advocates for science education emphasizing practical content. While criticizing science teaching focused strictly on covering large amounts of known content, Dewey also pointed to the flaws in rigid laboratory exercises: “A student may acquire laboratory methods as so much isolated and final stuff, just as he may so acquire material from a textbook…. Many a student had acquired dexterity and skill in laboratory methods without it ever occurring to him that they have anything to do with constructing beliefs that are alone worthy of the title of knowledge” (Dewey, 1910b). Dewey believed that people should leave school with some understanding of the kinds of evidence required to substantiate scientific beliefs. However, he never explicitly described his view of the process by which scientists develop and substantiate such evidence.

In 1910, Dewey wrote a short textbook aimed at helping teachers deal with students as individuals despite rapidly growing enrollments. He analyzed what he called “a complete act of thought,” including five steps: (1) a felt difficulty, (2) its location and definition, (3) suggestion of possible solution, (4) development by reasoning of the bearing of the suggestion, and (5) further observation and experiment leading to its acceptance or rejection (Dewey, 1910a, pp. 68-78). Educators quickly misinterpreted these five steps as a description of the scientific method that could be applied to practical problems. In 1918, William Kilpatrick of Teachers College published a seminal article on the “project method,” which used Dewey’s five steps to address problems of everyday life. The article was eventually reprinted 60,000 times as reformers embraced the idea of engaging students with practical problems, while at the same time teaching them about what were seen as the methods of science (Rudolph, 2005).

During the 1920s, reform-minded teachers struggled to use the project method. Faced with ever-larger classes and state requirements for coverage of science content, they began to look for lists of specific projects that students could undertake, the procedures they could use, and the expected results. Soon, standardized lists of projects were published, and students who had previously been freed from rigid laboratory procedures were now engaged in rigid, specified projects, leading one writer to observe, “the project is little more than a new cloak for the inductive method” (Downing, 1919, p. 571).

Despite these unresolved tensions, laboratory education had become firmly established, and growing numbers of future high school teachers were instructed in teaching laboratory activities. For example, a 1925 textbook for preservice science teachers included a chapter titled “Place of Laboratory Work in the Teaching of Science” followed by three additional chapters on how to teach laboratory science (Brownell and Wade, 1925). Over the following decades, high school science education (including laboratory education) increasingly emphasized practical goals and the benefits of science in everyday life. During World War II, as scientists focused on federally funded

research programs aimed at defense and public health needs, high school science education also emphasized applications of scientific knowledge (Rudolph, 2002).

Changing Goals of Science Education

Following World War II, the flood of “baby boomers” strained the physical and financial resources of public schools. Requests for increased taxes and bond issues led to increasing questions about public schooling. Some academics and policy makers began to criticize the “life adjustment” high school curriculum, which had been designed to meet adolescents’ social, personal, and vocational needs. Instead, they called for a renewed emphasis on the academic disciplines. At the same time, the nation was shaken by the Soviet Union’s explosion of an atomic bomb and the communist takeover of China. By the early 1950s, some federal policy makers began to view a more rigorous, academic high school science curriculum as critical to respond to the Soviet threat.

In 1956, physicist Jerrold Zacharias received a small grant from NSF to establish the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) in order to develop a curriculum focusing on physics as a scientific discipline. When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics launched the space satellite Sputnik the following year, those who had argued that U.S. science education was not rigorous enough appeared vindicated, and a new era of science education began.

Although most historians believe that the overriding goal of the post-Sputnik science education reforms was to create a new generation of U.S. scientists and engineers capable of defending the nation from the Soviet Union, the actual goals were more complex and varied (Rudolph, 2002). Clearly, Congress, the president, and NSF were focused on the goal of preparing more scientists and engineers, as reflected in NSF director Alan Waterman’s 1957 statement (National Science Foundation, 1957, pp. xv-xvi):

Our schools and colleges are badly in need of modern science laboratories and laboratory, demonstration, and research equipment. Most important of all, we need more trained scientists and engineers in many special fields, and especially very many more competent, fully trained teachers of science, notably in our secondary schools. Undoubtedly, by a determined campaign, we can accomplish these ends in our traditional way, but how soon? The process is usually a lengthy one, and there is no time to be lost. Therefore, the pressing question is how quickly can our people act to accomplish these things?

The scientists, however, had another agenda. Over the course of World War II, their research had become increasingly dependent on federal fund-

ing and influenced by federal needs. In physics, for example, federally funded efforts to develop nuclear weapons led research to focus increasingly at the atomic level. In order to maintain public funding while reducing unwanted public pressure on research directions, the scientists sought to use curriculum redesign as a way to build the public’s faith in the expertise of professional scientists (Rudolph, 2002). They wanted to emphasize the humanistic aspects of science, portraying science as an essential element in a broad liberal education. Some scientists sought to reach not only the select group who might become future scientists but also a slightly larger group of elite, mostly white male students who would be future leaders in government and business. They hoped to help these students appreciate the empirical grounding of scientific knowledge and to value and appreciate the role of science in society (Rudolph, 2002).

Changing Views of the Nature of Science

While this shift in the goals of science education was taking place, historians and philosophers were proposing new views of science. In 1958, British chemist Michael Polanyi questioned the ideal of scientific detachment and objectivity, arguing that scientific discovery relies on the personal participation and the creative, original thoughts of scientists (Polanyi, 1958). In the United States, geneticist and science educator Joseph Schwab suggested that scientific methods were specific to each discipline and that all scientific “inquiry” (his term for scientific research) was guided by the current theories and concepts within the discipline (Schwab, 1964). Publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1962) a few years later fueled the debate about whether science was truly rational, and whether theory or observation was more important to the scientific enterprise. Over time, this debate subsided, as historians and philosophers of science came to focus on the process of scientific discovery. Increasingly, they recognized that this process involves deductive reasoning (developing inferences from known scientific principles and theories) as well as inductive reasoning (proceeding from particular observations to reach more general theories or conclusions).

Development of New Science Curricula

Although these changing views of the nature of science later led to changes in science education, they had little influence in the immediate aftermath of Sputnik. With NSF support, scientists led a flurry of curriculum development over the next three decades (Matthews, 1994). In addition to the physics text developed by the PSSC, the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) created biology curricula, the Chemical Education Materials group created chemistry materials, and groups of physicists created Intro-

ductory Physical Science and Project Physics. By 1975, NSF supported 28 science curriculum reform projects.

By 1977 over 60 percent of school districts had adopted at least one of the new curricula (Rudolph, 2002). The PSSC program employed high school teachers to train their peers in how to use the curriculum, reaching over half of all high school physics teachers by the late 1960s. However, due to implementation problems that we discuss further below, most schools soon shifted to other texts, and the federal goal of attracting a larger proportion of students to undergraduate science was not achieved (Linn, 1997).

Dissemination of the NSF-funded curriculum development efforts was limited by several weaknesses. Some curriculum developers tried to “teacher proof” their curricula, providing detailed texts, teacher guides, and filmstrips designed to ensure that students faithfully carried out the experiments as intended (Matthews, 1994). Physics teacher and curriculum developer Arnold Arons attributed the limited implementation of most of the NSF-funded curricula to lack of logistical support for science teachers and inadequate teacher training, since “curricular materials, however skilful and imaginative, cannot ‘teach themselves’” (Arons, 1983, p. 117). Case studies showed that schools were slow to change in response to the new curricula and highlighted the central role of the teacher in carrying them out (Stake and Easley, 1978). In his analysis of Project Physics, Welch concluded that the new curriculum accounted for only 5 percent of the variance in student achievement, while other factors, such as teacher effectiveness, student ability, and time on task, played a larger role (Welch, 1979).

Despite their limited diffusion, the new curricula pioneered important new approaches to science education, including elevating the role of laboratory activities in order to help students understand the nature of modern scientific research (Rudolph, 2002). For example, in the PSSC curriculum, Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Jerrold Zacharias coordinated laboratory activities with the textbook in order to deepen students’ understanding of the links between theory and experiments. As part of that curriculum, students experimented with a ripple tank, generating wave patterns in water in order to gain understanding of wave models of light. A new definition of the scientific laboratory informed these efforts. The PSSC text explained that a “laboratory” was a way of thinking about scientific investigations—an intellectual process rather than a building with specialized equipment (Rudolph, 2002, p. 131).

The new approach to using laboratory experiences was also apparent in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study. The study group drew on the developmental psychology of Jean Piaget to integrate laboratory experiences with other forms of instruction in a “learning cycle” (Atkin and Karplus, 1962). The learning cycle included (1) exploration of a concept, often through a laboratory experiment; (2) conceptual invention, in which the student or

TABLE 1-1 New Approaches Included in Post-Sputnik Science Curricula

teacher (or both) derived the concept from the experimental data, usually during a classroom discussion; and (3) concept application in which the student applied the concept (Karplus and Their, 1967). Evaluations of the instructional materials, which were targeted to elementary school students, revealed that they were more successful than traditional forms of science instruction at enhancing students’ understanding of science concepts, their understanding of the processes of science, and their positive attitudes toward science (Abraham, 1998). Subsequently, the learning cycle approach was applied to development of science curricula for high school and undergraduate students. Research into these more recent curricula confirms that “merely providing students with hands-on laboratory experiences is not by itself enough” (Abraham, 1998, p. 520) to motivate and help them understand science concepts and the nature of science.

In sum, the new approach of integrating laboratory experiences represented a marked change from earlier science education. In contrast to earlier curricula, which included laboratory experiences as secondary applications of concepts previously addressed by the teacher, the new curricula integrated laboratory activities into class routines in order to emphasize the nature and processes of science (Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport, 1983; see Table 1-1 ). Large meta-analyses of evaluations of the post-Sputnik curricula (Shymansky et al., 1983; Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworth, 1990) found they were more effective than the traditional curriculum in boosting students’ science achievement and interest in science. As we discuss in Chapter 3 , current designs of science curricula that integrate laboratory experiences

into ongoing classroom instruction have proven effective in enhancing students’ science achievement and interest in science.

Discovery Learning and Inquiry

One offshoot of the curriculum development efforts in the 1960s and 1970s was the development of an approach to science learning termed “discovery learning.” In 1959, Harvard cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner began to develop his ideas about discovery learning as director of an NRC committee convened to evaluate the new NSF-funded curricula. In a book drawing in part on that experience, Bruner suggested that young students are active problem solvers, ready and motivated to learn science by their natural interest in the material world (Bruner, 1960). He argued that children should not be taught isolated science facts, but rather should be helped to discover the structures, or underlying concepts and theories, of science. Bruner’s emphasis on helping students to understand the theoretical structures of the scientific disciplines became confounded with the idea of engaging students with the physical structures of natural phenomena in the laboratory (Matthews, 1994). Developers of NSF-funded curricula embraced this interpretation of Bruner’s ideas, as it leant support to their emphasis on laboratory activities.

On the basis of his observation that scientific knowledge was changing rapidly through large-scale research and development during this postwar period, Joseph Schwab advocated the closely related idea of an “inquiry approach” to science education (Rudolph, 2003). In a seminal article, Schwab argued against teaching science facts, which he termed a “rhetoric of conclusions” (Schwab, 1962, p. 25). Instead, he proposed that teachers engage students with materials that would motivate them to learn about natural phenomena through inquiry while also learning about some of the strengths and weaknesses of the processes of scientific inquiry. He developed a framework to describe the inquiry approach in a biology laboratory. At the highest level of inquiry, the student simply confronts the “raw phenomenon” (Schwab, 1962, p. 55) with no guidance. At the other end of the spectrum, biology students would experience low levels of inquiry, or none at all, if the laboratory manual provides the problem to be investigated, the methods to address the problem, and the solutions. When Herron applied Schwab’s framework to analyze the laboratory manuals included in the PSSC and the BSCS curricula, he found that most of the manuals provided extensive guidance to students and thus did not follow the inquiry approach (Herron, 1971).

The NRC defines inquiry somewhat differently in the National Science Education Standards . Rather than using “inquiry” as an indicator of the amount of guidance provided to students, the NRC described inquiry as

encompassing both “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 23) and also students’ activities that support the learning of science concepts and the processes of science. In the NRC definition, student inquiry may include reading about known scientific theories and ideas, posing questions, planning investigations, making observations, using tools to gather and analyze data, proposing explanations, reviewing known theories and concepts in light of empirical data, and communicating the results. The Standards caution that emphasizing inquiry does not mean relying on a single approach to science teaching, suggesting that teachers use a variety of strategies, including reading, laboratory activities, and other approaches to help students learn science (National Research Council, 1996).

Diversity in Schools

During the 1950s, as some scientists developed new science curricula for teaching a small group of mostly white male students, other Americans were much more concerned about the weak quality of racially segregated schools for black children. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education was in violation of the U.S. Constitution because it provided black students with “separate but equal” education. Schools in both the North and the South changed dramatically as formerly all-white schools were integrated. Following the example of the civil rights movement, in the 1970s and the 1980s the women’s liberation movement sought improved education and employment opportunities for girls and women, including opportunities in science. In response, some educators began to seek ways to improve science education for all students, regardless of their race or gender.

1975 to Present

By 1975, the United States had put a man on the moon, concerns about the “space race” had subsided, and substantial NSF funding for science education reform ended. These changes, together with increased concern for equity in science education, heralded a shift in society’s goals for science education. Science educators became less focused on the goal of disciplinary knowledge for science specialists and began to place greater emphasis on a liberal, humanistic view of science education.

Many of the tensions evident in the first 100 years of U.S. high school laboratories have continued over the past 30 years. Scientists, educators, and policy makers continue to disagree about the nature of science, the goals of science education, and the role of the curriculum and the teacher in student

learning. Within this larger dialogue, debate about the value of laboratory activities continues.

Changing Goals for Science Education

National reports issued during the 1980s and 1990s illustrate new views of the nature of science and increased emphasis on liberal goals for science education. In Science for All Americans , the AAAS advocated the achievement of scientific literacy by all U.S. high school students, in order to increase their awareness and understanding of science and the natural world and to develop their ability to think scientifically (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989). This seminal report described science as tentative (striving toward objectivity within the constraints of human fallibility) and as a social enterprise, while also discussing the durability of scientific theories, the importance of logical reasoning, and the lack of a single scientific method. In the ongoing debate about the coverage of science content, the AAAS took the position that “curricula must be changed to reduce the sheer amount of material covered” (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989, p. 5). Four years later, the AAAS published Benchmarks for Science Literacy , which identified expected competencies at each school grade level in each of the earlier report’s 10 areas of scientific literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993).

The NRC’s National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) built on the AAAS reports, opening with the statement: “This nation has established as a goal that all students should achieve scientific literacy” (p. ix). The NRC proposed national science standards for high school students designed to help all students develop (1) abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry and (2) understandings about scientific inquiry (National Research Council, 1996, p. 173).

In the standards, the NRC suggested a new approach to laboratories that went beyond simply engaging students in experiments. The NRC explicitly recognized that laboratory investigations should be learning experiences, stating that high school students must “actively participate in scientific investigations, and … use the cognitive and manipulative skills associated with the formulation of scientific explanations” (National Research Council, 1996, p. 173).

According to the standards, regardless of the scientific investigation performed, students must use evidence, apply logic, and construct an argument for their proposed explanations. These standards emphasize the importance of creating scientific arguments and explanations for observations made in the laboratory.

While most educators, scientists, and policy makers now agree that scientific literacy for all students is the primary goal of high school science

education, the secondary goals of preparing the future scientific and technical workforce and including science as an essential part of a broad liberal education remain important. In 2004, the NSF National Science Board released a report describing a “troubling decline” in the number of U.S. citizens training to become scientists and engineers at a time when many current scientists and engineers are soon to retire. NSF called for improvements in science education to reverse these trends, which “threaten the economic welfare and security of our country” (National Science Foundation, 2004, p. 1). Another recent study found that secure, well-paying jobs that do not require postsecondary education nonetheless require abilities that may be developed in science laboratories. These include the ability to use inductive and deductive reasoning to arrive at valid conclusions; distinguish among facts and opinions; identify false premises in an argument; and use mathematics to solve problems (Achieve, 2004).

Achieving the goal of scientific literacy for all students, as well as motivating some students to study further in science, may require diverse approaches for the increasingly diverse body of science students, as we discuss in Chapter 2 .

Changing Role of Teachers and Curriculum

Over the past 20 years, science educators have increasingly recognized the complementary roles of curriculum and teachers in helping students learn science. Both evaluations of NSF-funded curricula from the 1960s and more recent research on science learning have highlighted the important role of the teacher in helping students learn through laboratory activities. Cognitive psychologists and science educators have found that the teacher’s expectations, interventions, and actions can help students develop understanding of scientific concepts and ideas (Driver, 1995; Penner, Lehrer, and Schauble, 1998; Roth and Roychoudhury, 1993). In response to this growing awareness, some school districts and institutions of higher education have made efforts to improve laboratory education for current teachers as well as to improve the undergraduate education of future teachers (National Research Council, 2001).

In the early 1980s, NSF began again to fund the development of laboratory-centered high school science curricula. Today, several publishers offer comprehensive packages developed with NSF support, including textbooks, teacher guides, and laboratory materials (and, in some cases, videos and web sites). In 2001, one earth science curriculum, five physical science curricula, five life science curricula, and six integrated science curricula were available for sale, while several others in various science disciplines were still under development (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 2001). In contrast to the curriculum development approach of the 1960s, teachers have played an important role in developing and field-testing these newer

curricula and in designing the teacher professional development courses that accompany most of them. However, as in the 1960s and 1970s, only a few of these NSF-funded curricula have been widely adopted. Private publishers have also developed a multitude of new textbooks, laboratory manuals, and laboratory equipment kits in response to the national education standards and the growing national concern about scientific literacy. Nevertheless, most schools today use science curricula that have not been developed, field-tested, or refined on the basis of specific education research (see Chapter 2 ).

CURRENT DEBATES

Clearly, the United States needs high school graduates with scientific literacy—both to meet the economy’s need for skilled workers and future scientists and to develop the scientific habits of mind that can help citizens in their everyday lives. Science is also important as part of a liberal high school education that conveys an important aspect of modern culture. However, the value of laboratory experiences in meeting these national goals has not been clearly established.

Researchers agree neither on the desired learning outcomes of laboratory experiences nor on whether those outcomes are attained. For example, on the basis of a 1978 review of over 80 studies, Bates concluded that there was no conclusive answer to the question, “What does the laboratory accomplish that could not be accomplished as well by less expensive and less time-consuming alternatives?” (Bates, 1978, p. 75). Some experts have suggested that the only contribution of laboratories lies in helping students develop skills in manipulating equipment and acquiring a feel for phenomena but that laboratories cannot help students understand science concepts (Woolnough, 1983; Klopfer, 1990). Others, however, argue that laboratory experiences have the potential to help students understand complex science concepts, but the potential has not been realized (Tobin, 1990; Gunstone and Champagne, 1990).

These debates in the research are reflected in practice. On one hand, most states and school districts continue to invest in laboratory facilities and equipment, many undergraduate institutions require completion of laboratory courses to qualify for admission, and some states require completion of science laboratory courses as a condition of high school graduation. On the other hand, in early 2004, the California Department of Education considered draft criteria for the evaluation of science instructional materials that reflected skepticism about the value of laboratory experiences or other hands-on learning activities. The proposed criteria would have required materials to demonstrate that the state science standards could be comprehensively covered with hands-on activities composing no more than 20 to 25 percent

of instructional time (Linn, 2004). However, in response to opposition, the criteria were changed to require that the instructional materials would comprehensively cover the California science standards with “hands-on activities composing at least 20 to 25 percent of the science instructional program” (California Department of Education, 2004, p. 4, italics added).

The growing variety in laboratory experiences—which may be designed to achieve a variety of different learning outcomes—poses a challenge to resolving these debates. In a recent review of the literature, Hofstein and Lunetta (2004, p. 46) call attention to this variety:

The assumption that laboratory experiences help students understand materials, phenomena, concepts, models and relationships, almost independent of the nature of the laboratory experience, continues to be widespread in spite of sparse data from carefully designed and conducted studies.

As a first step toward understanding the nature of the laboratory experience, the committee developed a definition and a typology of high school science laboratory experiences.

DEFINITION OF LABORATORY EXPERIENCES

Rapid developments in science, technology, and cognitive research have made the traditional definition of science laboratories—as rooms in which students use special equipment to carry out well-defined procedures—obsolete. The committee gathered information on a wide variety of approaches to laboratory education, arriving at the term “laboratory experiences” to describe teaching and learning that may take place in a laboratory room or in other settings:

Laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models, and theories of science.

This definition includes the following student activities:

Physical manipulation of the real-world substances or systems under investigation. This may include such activities as chemistry experiments, plant or animal dissections in biology, and investigation of rocks or minerals for identification in earth science.

Interaction with simulations. Physical models have been used throughout the history of science teaching (Lunetta, 1998). Today, students can work

with computerized models, or simulations, representing aspects of natural phenomena that cannot be observed directly, because they are very large, very small, very slow, very fast, or very complex. Using simulations, students may model the interaction of molecules in chemistry or manipulate models of cells, animal or plant systems, wave motion, weather patterns, or geological formations.

Interaction with data drawn from the real world. Students may interact with real-world data that are obtained and represented in a variety of forms. For example, they may study photographs to examine characteristics of the moon or other heavenly bodies or analyze emission and absorption spectra in the light from stars. Data may be incorporated in films, DVDs, computer programs, or other formats.

Access to large databases. In many fields of science, researchers have arranged for empirical data to be normalized and aggregated—for example, genome databases, astronomy image collections, databases of climatic events over long time periods, biological field observations. With the help of the Internet, some students sitting in science class can now access these authentic and timely scientific data. Students can manipulate and analyze these data drawn from the real world in new forms of laboratory experiences (Bell, 2005).

Remote access to scientific instruments and observations. A few classrooms around the nation experience laboratory activities enabled by Internet links to remote instruments. Some students and teachers study insects by accessing and controlling an environmental scanning electron microscope (Thakkar et al., 2000), while others control automated telescopes (Gould, 2004).

Although we include all of these types of direct and indirect interaction with the material world in this definition, it does not include student manipulation or analysis of data created by a teacher to replace or substitute for direct interaction with the material world. For example, if a physics teacher presented students with a constructed data set on the weight and required pulling force for boxes pulled across desks with different surfaces, asking the students to analyze these data, the students’ problem-solving activity would not constitute a laboratory experience according to the committee’s definition.

Previous Definitions of Laboratories

In developing its definition, the committee reviewed previous definitions of student laboratories. Hegarty-Hazel (1990, p. 4) defined laboratory work as:

a form of practical work taking place in a purposely assigned environment where students engage in planned learning experiences … [and] interact

with materials to observe and understand phenomena (Some forms of practical work such as field trips are thus excluded).

Lunetta defined laboratories as “experiences in school settings in which students interact with materials to observe and understand the natural world” (Lunetta, 1998, p. 249). However, these definitions include only students’ direct interactions with natural phenomena, whereas we include both such direct interactions and also student interactions with data drawn from the material world. In addition, these earlier definitions confine laboratory experiences to schools or other “purposely assigned environments,” but our definition encompasses student observation and manipulation of natural phenomena in a variety of settings, including science museums and science centers, school gardens, local streams, or nearby geological formations. The committee’s definition also includes students who work as interns in research laboratories, after school or during the summer months. All of these experiences, as well as those that take place in traditional school science laboratories, are included in our definition of laboratory experiences.

Variety in Laboratory Experiences

Both the preceding review of the history of laboratories and the committee’s review of the evidence of student learning in laboratories reveal the limitations of engaging students in replicating the work of scientists. It has become increasingly clear that it is not realistic to expect students to arrive at accepted scientific concepts and ideas by simply experiencing some aspects of scientific research (Millar, 2004). While recognizing these limitations, the committee thinks that laboratory experiences should at least partially reflect the range of activities involved in real scientific research. Providing students with opportunities to participate in a range of scientific activities represents a step toward achieving the learning goals of laboratories identified in Chapter 3 . 1

Historians and philosophers of science now recognize that the well-ordered scientific method taught in many high school classes does not exist. Scientists’ empirical research in the laboratory or the field is one part of a larger process that may include reading and attending conferences to stay abreast of current developments in the discipline and to present work in progress. As Schwab recognized (1964), the “structure” of current theories and concepts in a discipline acts as a guide to further empirical research. The work of scientists may include formulating research questions, generat-

ing alternative hypotheses, designing and conducting investigations, and building and revising models to explain the results of their investigations. The process of evaluating and revising models may generate new questions and new investigations (see Table 1-2 ). Recent studies of science indicate that scientists’ interactions with their peers, particularly their response to questions from other scientists, as well as their use of analogies in formulating hypotheses and solving problems, and their responses to unexplained results, all influence their success in making discoveries (Dunbar, 2000). Some scientists concentrate their efforts on developing theory, reading, or conducting thought experiments, while others specialize in direct interactions with the material world (Bell, 2005).

Student laboratory experiences that reflect these aspects of the work of scientists would include learning about the most current concepts and theories through reading, lectures, or discussions; formulating questions; designing and carrying out investigations; creating and revising explanatory models; and presenting their evolving ideas and scientific arguments to others for discussion and evaluation (see Table 1-3 ).

Currently, however, most high schools provide a narrow range of laboratory activities, engaging students primarily in using tools to make observations and gather data, often in order to verify established scientific knowledge. Students rarely have opportunities to formulate research questions or to build and revise explanatory models (see Chapter 4 ).

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The ability of high school science laboratories to help improve all citizens’ understanding and appreciation of science and prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers is affected by the context in which laboratory experiences take place. Laboratory experiences do not take place in isolation, but are part of the larger fabric of students’ experiences during their high school years. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 describes recent trends in U.S. science education and policies influencing science education, including laboratory experiences. In Chapter 3 we turn to a review of available evidence on student learning in laboratories and identify principles for design of effective laboratory learning environments. Chapter 4 describes current laboratory experiences in U.S. high schools, and Chapter 5 discusses teacher and school readiness for laboratory experiences. In Chapter 6 , we describe the current state of laboratory facilities, equipment, and safety. Finally, in Chapter 7 , we present our conclusions and an agenda designed to help laboratory experiences fulfill their potential role in the high school science curriculum.

TABLE 1-2 A Typology of Scientists’ Activities

TABLE 1-3 A Typology of School Laboratory Experiences

Since the late 19th century, high school students in the United States have carried out laboratory investigations as part of their science classes. Since that time, changes in science, education, and American society have influenced the role of laboratory experiences in the high school science curriculum. At the turn of the 20th century, high school science laboratory experiences were designed primarily to prepare a select group of young people for further scientific study at research universities. During the period between World War I and World War II, many high schools emphasized the more practical aspects of science, engaging students in laboratory projects related to daily life. In the 1950s and 1960s, science curricula were redesigned to integrate laboratory experiences into classroom instruction, with the goal of increasing public appreciation of science.

Policy makers, scientists, and educators agree that high school graduates today, more than ever, need a basic understanding of science and technology to function effectively in an increasingly complex, technological society. They seek to help students understand the nature of science and to develop both the inductive and deductive reasoning skills that scientists apply in their work. However, researchers and educators do not agree on how to define high school science laboratories or on their purposes, hampering the accumulation of evidence that might guide improvements in laboratory education. Gaps in the research and in capturing the knowledge of expert science teachers make it difficult to reach precise conclusions on the best approaches to laboratory teaching and learning.

In order to provide a focus for the study, the committee defines laboratory experiences as follows: laboratory experiences provide opportunities for students to interact directly with the material world (or with data drawn from the material world), using the tools, data collection techniques, models, and theories of science. This definition includes a variety of types of laboratory experiences, reflecting the range of activities that scientists engage in. The following chapters discuss the educational context; laboratory experiences and student learning; current laboratory experiences, teacher and school readiness, facilities, equipment, and safety; and laboratory experiences for the 21st century.

Abraham, M.R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education . London, England: Kluwer Academic.

Achieve. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts . (The American Diploma Project.) Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans . Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy . Washington, DC: Author.

Arons, A. (1983). Achieving wider scientific literacy. Daedalus , 112 (2), 91-122.

Atkin, J.M., and Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention? The Science Teacher , 29 , 45-51.

Bates, G.R. (1978). The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics , 83 , 165-169.

Bell, P. (2005). The school science laboratory: Considerations of learning, technology , and scientific practice . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/July_12-13_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html .

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2001). Profiles in science: A guide to NSF - funded high school instructional materials . Colorado Springs, CO: Author. Available at: http://www.bscs.org/page.asp?id=Professional_Development|Resources|Profiles_In_Science [accessed Sept. 2004].

Brownell, H., and Wade, F.B. (1925). The teaching of science and the science teacher . New York: Century Company.

Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education . New York: Vintage.

Bump, H.C. (1895). Laboratory teaching of large classes—Zoology. [Letter to the editor]. Science, New Series , 1 (10), 260.

California Department of Education. (2004). Criteria for evaluating instructional materials in science, kindergarten through grade eight . Available at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/sc/cf/documents/scicriteria04.pdf [accessed Nov. 2004].

Champagne, A., and Shiland, T. (2004). Large-scale assessment and the high school science laboratory . Presentation to the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June_3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed Jan. 2004].

Davies, K. (2001). Cracking the genome: Inside the race to unlock human DNA . New York: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1910a). How we think . Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.

Dewey, J. (1910b). Science as subject-matter and method. Science, New Series , 31 , 122, 125.

Downing, E.R. (1919). The scientific method and the problems of school science. School and Society , 10 , 571.

Driver, R. (1995). Constructivist approaches to science teaching. In L.P. Steffe and J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 385-400). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science . Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.

Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science , 17 , 397-434.

Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21 (1), 49-58.

Duschl, R. (2004). The HS lab experience: Reconsidering the role of evidence, explanation, and the language of science . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, July 12-13, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/July_12-13_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed Nov. 2004].

Gould, R. (2004). About micro observatory . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Available at: http://mo-www.harvard.edu/MicroObservatory/ [accessed Sept. 2004].

Gugliotta, G. (2004). Space sugar a clue to life’s origins. The Washington Post , September 27.

Gunstone, R.F., and Champagne, A.B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 159-182). London, England: Routledge.

Hall, G.S. (1901). How far is the present high-school and early college training adapted to the nature and needs of adolescents? School Review , 9 , 652.

Harvard University. (1889). Descriptive list of elementary physical experiments intended for use in preparing students for Harvard College . Cambridge, MA: Author.

Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1990). Overview. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum . London, England: Routledge.

Herron, M.D. (1971). The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 79, 171-212.

Hilosky, A., Sutman, F., and Schmuckler, J. (1998). Is laboratory-based instruction in beginning college-level chemistry worth the effort and expense? Journal of Chemical Education , 75 (1), 103.

Hofstein, A., and Lunetta, V.N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education , 88 , 28-54.

Hollis, J.M., Jewell, P.R., Lovas, F.J., and Remijan, J. (2004, September 20). Green Bank telescope observations of interstellar glycolaldehyde: Low-temperature sugar. Astrophysical Journal , 613 , L45-L48.

Hull, D. (1988). Science as a process . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Karplus, R., and Their, H.D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science . Chicago: Rand McNally.

Klopfer, L.E. (1990). Learning scientific enquiry in the student laboratory. In E. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 95-118). London, England: Routledge.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Linn, M. (2004). High school science laboratories: How can technology contribute? Presentation to the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision. June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June_3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed April 2005].

Linn, M.C. (1997). The role of the laboratory in science learning. Elementary School Journal , 97 (4), 401-417.

Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Longino, H. (1994). The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F.F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 135-158). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Lunetta, V. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching . In B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 249-262). London, England: Kluwer Academic.

Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science . New York: Routledge.

Merton, R.K., and Barber, E. (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mill, J.S. (1963). System of logic, ratiocinative and inductive. In J.M. Robson (Ed.), Collected works of John Stuart Mill . Toronto: University of Toronto Press (Original work published 1843).

Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science . Paper prepared for the Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, June 3-4, National Research Council, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/June3-4_2004_High_School_Labs_Meeting_Agenda.html [accessed April 2005].

National Education Association. (1894). Report of the Committee of Ten on secondary school studies . New York: American Book Company.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards . National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium . Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation, Center for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation. (1957). Annual report . Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1957/annualreports/start.htm [accessed Nov. 2004].

National Science Foundation. (2004). An emerging and critical problem of the science and engineering workforce . Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsb0407/start.htm [accessed Sept. 2003].

Penner, D.E., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences , 7 , 429-449.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy . London, England: Routledge.

Roth, W.M., and Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 30 , 127-152.

Rudolph, J.L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education . New York: Palgrave.

Rudolph, J.L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education , 87 , 64-79.

Rudolph, J.L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of the “scientific method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly , 45(2), 341-376.

Schwab, J.J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In P.F. Brandwein (Ed.), The teaching of science (pp. 1-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schwab, J.J. (1964). The structure of the natural sciences. In G.W. Ford and L. Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 31-49). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.B., and Woodworth, G. (1990). A re-assessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curriculum of the sixties on student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20 , 387-404.

Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., and Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 20 , 387-404.

Stake, R.E., and Easley, J.A. (1978). Case studies in science education . Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation and Committee on Culture and Cognition. Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne.

Thakkar, U., Carragher, B., Carroll, L., Conway, C., Grosser, B., Kisseberth, N., Potter, C.S., Robinson, S., Sinn-Hanlon, J., Stone, D., and Weber, D. (2000). Formative evaluation of Bugscope: A sustainable world wide laboratory for K-12 . Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Special Interest Group on Advanced Technologies for Learning, April 24-28, New Orleans, LA. Available at: http://bugscope.beckman.uiuc.edu/publications/index.htm#papers [accessed May 2005].

Tobin, K. 1990. Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics , 90 (5), 403-418.

Welch, W.W. (1979). Twenty years of science education development: A look back. Review of Research in Education , 7 , 282-306.

Whewell, W. (1840). Philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history . London, England: John W. Parker.

Whewell, W. (1858). The history of the inductive sciences, from the earliest to the present time (3rd edition). New York: Appleton.

White, B.Y., and Frederiksen, J.R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction , 16 (1), 3-118.

Whitman, F.P. (1898). The beginnings of laboratory teaching in America. Science , New Series , 8 (190), 201-206.

Woodhull, J.F. (1909). How the public will solve the problems of science teaching. School Science and Mathematics , 9 , 276.

Woolnough, B.E. (1983). Exercises, investigations and experiences. Physics Education , 18 , 60-63.

Laboratory experiences as a part of most U.S. high school science curricula have been taken for granted for decades, but they have rarely been carefully examined. What do they contribute to science learning? What can they contribute to science learning? What is the current status of labs in our nation�s high schools as a context for learning science? This book looks at a range of questions about how laboratory experiences fit into U.S. high schools:

• What is effective laboratory teaching?
• What does research tell us about learning in high school science labs?
• How should student learning in laboratory experiences be assessed?
• Do all student have access to laboratory experiences?
• What changes need to be made to improve laboratory experiences for high school students?
• How can school organization contribute to effective laboratory teaching?

With increased attention to the U.S. education system and student outcomes, no part of the high school curriculum should escape scrutiny. This timely book investigates factors that influence a high school laboratory experience, looking closely at what currently takes place and what the goals of those experiences are and should be. Science educators, school administrators, policy makers, and parents will all benefit from a better understanding of the need for laboratory experiences to be an integral part of the science curriculum—and how that can be accomplished.

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.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Healthy & Resilient Communities Research Webinar

Join us at our June 11th webinar from 3:00 -4:00 p.m. ET to hear from an EPA researcher about geospatial model development and applications in cumulative impacts research.

Register here

Science is the foundation

EPA is one of the world’s leading environmental and human health research organizations. 

The Office of Research and Development is EPA's scientific research arm. On this page you can access our products, tools, and events, and learn about grant and job opportunities.

Research Topics

EPA does research on many different topics, including air, water, climate, and more. 

Publications

Read the latest scientific publications, reports, articles, and more. 

Funding & Career Opportunities

Find research funding opportunities, small business grants, jobs, and ways to license EPA’s technology. 

Upcoming Events

See what webinars and events EPA researchers are hosting, presenting at, or attending. 

Stay Connected

Keep up to date with the latest Science Matters newsletter, social media posts, and press releases. 

About Our Research

Learn about EPA’s research organization, research facilities, and the research planning process. 

Research Tools

EPA Science Models and Research Tools (SMaRT) Search is a searchable inventory of freely available models, tools, and databases from EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).

In Your Community

See how EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) engages and collaborates with states , including tools and other resources available to states.

• Design Objectives
• Building Types
• Space Types
• Design Disciplines
• Guides & Specifications
• Resource Pages
• Project Management
• Building Commissioning
• Operations & Maintenance
• Building Information Modeling (BIM)
• Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS)
• Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)
• VA Master Specifications (PG-18-1)
• Design Manuals (PG-18-10)
• Department of Energy
• General Services Administration
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of State
• Course Catalog
• Workforce Development
• Case Studies
• Codes & Standards
• Industry Organizations

Research Laboratory  

by Daniel Watch and Deepa Tolat Perkins + Will

Within This Page

Building attributes, emerging issues, relevant codes and standards, additional resources.

Research Laboratories are workplaces for the conduct of scientific research. This WBDG Building Type page will summarize the key architectural, engineering, operational, safety, and sustainability considerations for the design of Research Laboratories.

The authors recognize that in the 21st century clients are pushing project design teams to create research laboratories that are responsive to current and future needs, that encourage interaction among scientists from various disciplines, that help recruit and retain qualified scientists, and that facilitates partnerships and development. As such, a separate WBDG Resource Page on Trends in Lab Design has been developed to elaborate on this emerging model of laboratory design.

A. Architectural Considerations

Over the past 30 years, architects, engineers, facility managers, and researchers have refined the design of typical wet and dry labs to a very high level. The following identifies the best solutions in designing a typical lab.

Lab Planning Module

The laboratory module is the key unit in any lab facility. When designed correctly, a lab module will fully coordinate all the architectural and engineering systems. A well-designed modular plan will provide the following benefits:

Flexibility —The lab module, as Jonas Salk explained, should "encourage change" within the building. Research is changing all the time, and buildings must allow for reasonable change. Many private research companies make physical changes to an average of 25% of their labs each year. Most academic institutions annually change the layout of 5 to 10% of their labs. See also WBDG Productive—Design for the Changing Workplace .

• Expansion —The use of lab planning modules allows the building to adapt easily to needed expansions or contractions without sacrificing facility functionality.

A common laboratory module has a width of approximately 10 ft. 6 in. but will vary in depth from 20–30 ft. The depth is based on the size necessary for the lab and the cost-effectiveness of the structural system. The 10 ft. 6 in. dimension is based on two rows of casework and equipment (each row 2 ft. 6 in. deep) on each wall, a 5 ft. aisle, and 6 in. for the wall thickness that separates one lab from another. The 5 ft. aisle width should be considered a minimum because of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) .

Two-Directional Lab Module —Another level of flexibility can be achieved by designing a lab module that works in both directions. This allows the casework to be organized in either direction. This concept is more flexible than the basic lab module concept but may require more space. The use of a two-directional grid is beneficial to accommodate different lengths of run for casework. The casework may have to be moved to create a different type or size of workstation.

Three-Dimensional Lab Module —The three-dimensional lab module planning concept combines the basic lab module or a two-directional lab module with any lab corridor arrangement for each floor of a building. This means that a three-dimensional lab module can have a single-corridor arrangement on one floor, a two-corridor layout on another, and so on. To create a three-dimensional lab module:

• A basic or two-directional lab module must be defined.
• All vertical risers must be fully coordinated. (Vertical risers include fire stairs, elevators, restrooms, and shafts for utilities.)
• The mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems must be coordinated in the ceiling to work with the multiple corridor arrangements.

Lab Planning Concepts

The relationship of the labs, offices, and corridor will have a significant impact on the image and operations of the building. See also WBDG Functional—Account for Functional Needs .

Do the end users want a view from their labs to the exterior, or will the labs be located on the interior, with wall space used for casework and equipment?

Some researchers do not want or cannot have natural light in their research spaces. Special instruments and equipment, such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) apparatus, electron microscopes, and lasers cannot function properly in natural light. Natural daylight is not desired in vivarium facilities or in some support spaces, so these are located in the interior of the building.

Zoning the building between lab and non-lab spaces will reduce costs. Labs require 100% outside air while non-lab spaces can be designed with re-circulated air, like an office building .

Adjacencies with corridors can be organized with a single, two corridor (racetrack), or a three corridor scheme. There are number of variations to organize each type. Illustrated below are three ways to organize a single corridor scheme:

Single corridor lab design with labs and office adjacent to each other.

Single corridor lab design with offices clustered together at the end and in the middle.

Single corridor lab design with office clusters accessing main labs directly.

• Open labs vs. closed labs. An increasing number of research institutions are creating "open" labs to support team-based work. The open lab concept is significantly different from that of the "closed" lab of the past, which was based on accommodating the individual principle investigator. In open labs, researchers share not only the space itself but also equipment, bench space, and support staff. The open lab format facilitates communication between scientists and makes the lab more easily adaptable for future needs. A wide variety of labs—from wet biology and chemistry labs, to engineering labs, to dry computer science facilities—are now being designed as open labs.

Flexibility

In today's lab, the ability to expand, reconfigure, and permit multiple uses has become a key concern. The following should be considered to achieve this:

Flexible Lab Interiors

Equipment zones—These should be created in the initial design to accommodate equipment, fixed, or movable casework at a later date.

Generic labs

Mobile casework—This can be comprised of mobile tables and mobile base cabinets. It allows researchers to configure and fit out the lab based on their needs as opposed to adjusting to pre-determined fixed casework.

Mobile casework

Mobile base cabinet Photo Credit: Kewaunee Scientific Corp.

Flexible partitions—These can be taken down and put back up in another location, allowing lab spaces to be configured in a variety of sizes.

Overhead service carriers—These are hung from the ceiling. They can have utilities like piping, electric, data, light fixtures, and snorkel exhausts. They afford maximum flexibility as services are lifted off the floor, allowing free floor space to be configured as needed.

Flexible Engineering Systems

Lab designed with overhead connects and disconnects allow for flexibility and fast hook up of equipment.

Labs should have easy connects/disconnects at walls and ceilings to allow for fast and affordable hook up of equipment. See also WBDG Productive—Integrate Technological Tools .

The Engineering systems should be designed such that fume hoods can be added or removed.

Space should be allowed in the utility corridors, ceilings, and vertical chases for future HVAC, plumbing, and electric needs.

Building Systems Distribution Concepts

Interstitial space.

An interstitial space is a separate floor located above each lab floor. All services and utilities are located here where they drop down to service the lab below. This system has a high initial cost but it allows the building to accommodate change very easily without interrupting the labs.

Conventional design vs. interstitial design Image Credit: Zimmer, Gunsul, Frasca Partnership

Service Corridor

Lab spaces adjoin a centrally located corridor where all utility services are located. Maintenance personnel are afforded constant access to main ducts, shutoff valves, and electric panel boxes without having to enter the lab. This service corridor can be doubled up as an equipment/utility corridor where common lab equipment like autoclaves, freezer rooms, etc. can be located.

B. Engineering Considerations

Typically, more than 50% of the construction cost of a laboratory building is attributed to engineering systems. Hence, the close coordination of these ensures a flexible and successfully operating lab facility. The following engineering issues are discussed here: structural systems, mechanical systems, electrical systems, and piping systems. See also WBDG Functional—Ensure Appropriate Product/Systems Integration .

Structural Systems

Once the basic lab module is determined, the structural grid should be evaluated. In most cases, the structural grid equals 2 basic lab modules. If the typical module is 10 ft. 6 in. x 30 ft., the structural grid would be 21 ft. x 30 ft. A good rule of thumb is to add the two dimensions of the structural grid; if the sum equals a number in the low 50's, then the structural grid would be efficient and cost-effective.

Typical lab structural grid.

Key design issues to consider in evaluating a structural system include:

• Framing depth and effect on floor-to-floor height;
• Ability to coordinate framing with lab modules;
• Ability to create penetrations for lab services in the initial design as well as over the life of the building;
• Potential for vertical or horizontal expansion;
• Vibration criteria; and

Mechanical Systems

The location of main vertical supply/exhaust shafts as well as horizontal ductwork is very crucial in designing a flexible lab. Key issues to consider include: efficiency and flexibility, modular design, initial costs , long-term operational costs , building height and massing , and design image .

The various design options for the mechanical systems are illustrated below:

Shafts in the middle of the building

Shafts at the end of the building

Exhaust at end and supply in the middle

Multiple internal shafts

Shafts on the exterior

See also WBDG High Performance HVAC .

Electrical Systems

Three types of power are generally used for most laboratory projects:

Normal power circuits are connected to the utility supply only, without any backup system. Loads that are typically on normal power include some HVAC equipment, general lighting, and most lab equipment.

Emergency power is created with generators that will back up equipment such as refrigerators, freezers, fume hoods, biological safety cabinets, emergency lighting, exhaust fans, animal facilities, and environmental rooms. Examples of safe and efficient emergency power equipment include distributed energy resources (DER) , microturbines , and fuel cells .

An uninterruptible power supply (UPS) is used for data recording, certain computers, microprocessor-controlled equipment, and possibly the vivarium area. The UPS can be either a central unit or a portable system, such as distributed energy resources (DER) , microturbines , fuel cells , and building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) .

See also WBDG Productive—Assure Reliable Systems and Spaces .

The following should be considered:

• Load estimation
• Site distribution
• Power quality
• Management of electrical cable trays/panel boxes
• User expectations
• Illumination levels
• Lighting distribution-indirect, direct, combination
• Luminaire location and orientation-lighting parallel to casework and lighting perpendicular to casework
• Telephone and data systems

Piping Systems

There are several key design goals to strive for in designing laboratory piping systems:

• Provide a flexible design that allows for easy renovation and modifications.
• Provide appropriate plumbing systems for each laboratory based on the lab programming.
• Provide systems that minimize energy usage .
• Provide equipment arrangements that minimize downtime in the event of a failure.
• Locate shutoff valves where they are accessible and easily understood.
• Accomplish all of the preceding goals within the construction budget.

C. Operations and Maintenance

Cost savings.

The following cost saving items can be considered without compromising quality and flexibility:

• Separate lab and non-lab zones.
• Try to design with standard building components instead of customized components. See also WBDG Functional—Ensure Appropriate Product/Systems Integration .
• Identify at least three manufacturers of each material or piece of equipment specified to ensure competitive bidding for the work.
• Locate fume hoods on upper floors to minimize ductwork and the cost of moving air through the building.
• Evaluate whether process piping should be handled centrally or locally. In many cases it is more cost-effective to locate gases, in cylinders, at the source in the lab instead of centrally.
• Create equipment zones to minimize the amount of casework necessary in the initial construction.
• Provide space for equipment (e.g., ice machine) that also can be shared with other labs in the entry alcove to the lab. Shared amenities can be more efficient and cost-effective.
• Consider designating instrument rooms as cross-corridors, saving space as well as encouraging researchers to share equipment.
• Design easy-to-maintain, energy-efficient building systems. Expose mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems for easy maintenance access from the lab.
• Locate all mechanical equipment centrally, either on a lower level of the building or on the penthouse level.
• Stack vertical elements above each other without requiring transfers from floor to floor. Such elements include columns, stairs, mechanical closets, and restrooms.

D. Lab and Personnel Safety and Security

Protecting human health and life is paramount, and safety must always be the first concern in laboratory building design. Security-protecting a facility from unauthorized access-is also of critical importance. Today, research facility designers must work within the dense regulatory environment in order to create safe and productive lab spaces. The WBDG Resource Page on Security and Safety in Laboratories addresses all these related concerns, including:

• Laboratory classifications: dependent on the amount and type of chemicals in the lab;
• Containment devices: fume hoods and bio-safety cabinets;
• Levels of bio-safety containment as a design principle;
• Radiation safety;
• Employee safety: showers, eyewashes, other protective measures; and
• Emergency power.

See also WBDG Secure / Safe Branch , Threat/Vulnerability Assessments and Risk Analysis , Balancing Security/Safety and Sustainability Objectives , Air Decontamination , and Electrical Safety .

E. Sustainability Considerations

The typical laboratory uses far more energy and water per square foot than the typical office building due to intensive ventilation requirements and other health and safety concerns. Therefore, designers should strive to create sustainable , high performance, and low-energy laboratories that will:

• Minimize overall environmental impacts;
• Protect occupant safety ; and
• Optimize whole building efficiency on a life-cycle basis.

For more specific guidance, see WBDG Sustainable Laboratory Design ; EPA and DOE's Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) , a voluntary program dedicated to improving the environmental performance of U.S. laboratories; WBDG Sustainable Branch and Balancing Security/Safety and Sustainability Objectives .

F. Three Laboratory Sectors

There are three research laboratory sectors. They are academic laboratories, government laboratories, and private sector laboratories.

• Academic labs are primarily teaching facilities but also include some research labs that engage in public interest or profit generating research.
• Government labs include those run by federal agencies and those operated by state government do research in the public interest.
• Design of labs for the private sector , run by corporations, is usually driven by the need to enhance the research operation's profit making potential.

G. Example Design and Construction Criteria

For GSA, the unit costs for this building type are based on the construction quality and design features in the following table   . This information is based on GSA's benchmark interpretation and could be different for other owners.

LEED® Application Guide for Laboratory Facilities (LEED-AGL)—Because research facilities present a unique challenge for energy efficiency and sustainable design, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has formed the LEED-AGL Committee to develop a guide that helps project teams apply LEED credits in the design and construction of laboratory facilities. See also the WBDG Resource Page Using LEED on Laboratory Projects .

The following agencies and organizations have developed codes and standards affecting the design of research laboratories. Note that the codes and standards are minimum requirements. Architects, engineers, and consultants should consider exceeding the applicable requirements whenever possible.

• 29 CFR 1910.1450: OSHA "Occupational Exposures to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories"
• ANSI/ASSE/AIHA Z9.5 Laboratory Ventilation
• ANSI/ISEA Z358.1 Emergency Eyewash and Shower Equipment
• Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) Standards
• Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) 5th Edition , Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health.
• GSA PBS-P100 Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service
• Guidelines for the Laboratory Use of Chemical Carcinogens , Pub. No. 81-2385. National Institutes of Health
• NIH Design Requirements Manual , National Institutes of Health
• NFPA 30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code
• NFPA 45 Fire Protection for Laboratories using Chemical
• Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) —organized by MasterFormat™ divisions, are for use in specifying construction for the military services. Several UFGS exist for safety-related topics.

Publications

• Building Type Basics for Research Laboratories , 2nd Edition by Daniel Watch. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2008. ISBN# 978-0-470-16333-7.
• CRC Handbook of Laboratory Safety , 5th ed. by A. Keith Furr. CRC Press, 2000.
• Design and Planning of Research and Clinical Laboratory Facilities by Leonard Mayer. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.
• Design for Research: Principals of Laboratory Architecture by Susan Braybrooke. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1993.
• Guidelines for Laboratory Design: Health and Safety Considerations , 4th Edition by Louis J. DiBerardinis, et al. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013.
• Guidelines for Planning and Design of Biomedical Research Laboratory Facilities by The American Institute of Architects, Center for Advanced Technology Facilities Design. Washington, DC: The American Institute of Architects, 1999.
• Handbook of Facilities Planning, Vol. 1: Laboratory Facilities by T. Ruys. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1990.
• Laboratories, A Briefing and Design Guide by Walter Hain. London, UK: E & FN Spon, 1995.
• Laboratory by Earl Walls Associates, May 2000.
• Laboratory Design from the Editors of R&D Magazine.
• Laboratory Design, Construction, and Renovation: Participants, Process, and Product by National Research Council, Committee on Design, Construction, and Renovation of Laboratory Facilities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.
• Planning Academic Research Facilities: A Guidebook by National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1992.
• Research and Development in Industry: 1995-96 by National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 1998.
• Science and Engineering Research Facilities at Colleges and Universities by National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. Arlington, VA, 1998.
• Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) —Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, Labs21 is a voluntary program dedicated to improving the environmental performance of U.S. laboratories.

WBDG Participating Agencies

National Institute of Building Sciences Innovative Solutions for the Built Environment 1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700 | Washington, DC 20005-4950 | (202) 289-7800 © 2024 National Institute of Building Sciences. All rights reserved. Disclaimer

Laboratory Directed Research & Development

Developing new technologies through directed research, national security depends on science and technology. the united states relies on los alamos national laboratory for the best of both. no place on earth pursues a broader array of world-class scientific endeavors..

America is currently facing energy, security, and environmental challenges that, in their scope and complexity, are perhaps unparalleled in the nation’s history. The national laboratories are charged with providing scientific breakthroughs needed to develop long-term solutions to those challenges.

In 1992, Congress authorized Los Alamos and the other national laboratories to initiate the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program. The program was set up to foster a research environment conducive to scientific innovation and provide critical financial support necessary to execute world-class science and engineering.

Investing in Science and Technology

The LDRD program is a prestigious source of research and development (R&D) funding awarded through a rigorous and highly competitive peer-review process.

As the sole source of discretionary R&D funding at the Laboratory, LDRD resources are carefully invested in high-risk, potentially high-payoff activities that build technical capabilities and explore ways to meet future mission needs.

As a result, many of the Laboratory’s most exciting innovations—from energy security to large-scale infrastructure modeling and from actinide science to nuclear nonproliferation and detection—can be traced to LDRD investment.

Return on Investment

Funded with approximately 6 percent of the Laboratory’s budget, the LDRD program yields an exceptional return on a relatively small investment. The technical output of LDRD researchers—patent disclosures, peer-reviewed publications, and publications cited by other authors—typically accounts for fully one-quarter of the Laboratory’s total.

More important, LDRD gives the Laboratory the means to recruit and retain the finest scientific talent. The program traditionally supports more than half of the postdocs at the Laboratory and more than half of the conversions from postdoc to regular full-time staff member.

It is the role of the national laboratories, and especially the national security laboratories, to advance the science that will form the foundation of tomorrow’s technology. Through our robust LDRD program, Los Alamos will be able to sustain the scientific workforce required to meet the nation’s long-term national security science needs.

• ANAB Accreditation
• Forensic Anthropology
• Missing Persons

Research and Development

News and Media

Submission Forms

Michael Coble | CHI Executive Director

Dr. Michael (Mike) Coble earned his PhD in Genetics from The George Washington University in 2004. After receiving his doctorate, he was an NRC Postdoctoral Fellow and, later, a Research Biologist in the Biotechnology Division of the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He then spent four years as the Research Section Chief at the U.S. Department of Defense's Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL), where he assisted on numerous identifications, including the widely publicized positive identification of two of the children of Tsar Nicolas II and his wife Alexandra. After eight additional years as a Forensic Biologist for NIST, Dr. Coble joined the Center for Human Identification as Associate Director in 2018, and was appointed acting Executive Director on February 1, 2022.

Dr. Coble's research focuses on issues associated with DNA mixture interpretation and he, literally, wrote the book on probabilistic genotyping. Other areas of research include haploid marker systems for forensic testing (mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome testing), and non-traditional marker systems to gather genetic information from challenged and deteriorated samples (X-chromosomal STRs, insertion-delete markers, etc.).

While at CHI, Dr. Coble has been instrumental in furthering efforts to reduce human trafficking and identify missing persons by assisting on a grant from the U.S. State Department to train and outfit forensic labs in Central America. He has also assisted the Texas Department of Public Safety Forensic DNA Laboratory, providing analysts with supplemental training in likelihood ratios and probabilistic genotyping.

Dr. Coble serves as a commissioner for the Texas Forensic Science Commission and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He is a member of the International Society of Forensic Genetics, an invited guest at the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (SWGDAM), and serves as an affiliate of the OSAC Human Biology Subcommittee.

https://experts.unthsc.edu/en/persons/michael-coble

August Woerner | Assistant Professor

Dr. August Woerner received his PhD in Genetics from the University of Arizona in 2016, and has a PhD minor and M.S. in Computer Science (CS) from the same institution. August worked for a dozen years as the lead bioinformaticist in Dr. Michael Hammer's population genetics/genomics research group, all whilst completing undergraduate and graduate CS coursework. August considers himself to be a biologist who codes (instead of a computer scientist who interacts with biology). In general, he is interested in practical solutions to open problems in multi-omics, genomics, and forensic genetics. August has many research interests that vary from better computational approaches, to read mapping and DNA sequence alignment, to the application of machine learning models to make better predictions from the genome, as well as like models that reduce the appearance of noise in such systems.

August also cares deeply about fostering and teaching computational techniques to the next generation of biologists. Biologists are becoming ever-forced into handling, interpreting and understanding large datasets. Working with big data is challenging (as a matter of both practice and principle). He is an open proponent of borrowing from techniques in data science, especially data science as found in Hadley Wickham's tidyverse ( https://www.tidyverse.org/ ), to make big data more tractable. With such approaches, rather than spending years honing one's computational and programming skills, less effort can be spent to obtain results that are correct (easy to say, hard to do), that scale to "big data", and are reproducible. While the theoretical ceiling of such approaches can be limited, the immediate benefits (a few months of training to get ~80% of what a proper undergraduate and graduate degree in CS might give) make for an excellent tradeoff between investment (time) and reward (real insight into one's experiment).

August also has open interests in purely computational problems, such as techniques for context-specific alignment (read-mapping), machine learning and introducing machine learning techniques that apply to datasets that are not "rectangular" and perhaps are even non-numeric (i.e., to data that are opaque).

https://experts.unthsc.edu/en/persons/august-woerner

Jennifer Churchill Cihlar | Assistant Professor

Jennifer received her Bachelor of Science degree in Biochemistry from Texas A&M University. Her undergraduate research at Texas A&M involved the application of molecular genetic technologies to the study of population and conservation genetics of the North American bison. Jennifer earned her PhD in Biomedical Sciences, specializing in Human and Molecular Genetics, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UT Health Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. Her dissertation work focused predominantly on the use of linkage and next-generation sequencing technologies to identify novel autosomal dominant Retinitis Pigmentosa genes.

Jennifer currently works with the Research and Development Unit at HSC's Center for Human Identification. Her research focuses on the development and application of human identification genetic marker analyses with massively parallel sequencing technologies, including the validation and implementation of massively parallel sequencing for mitochondrial DNA analysis into CHI's Missing Persons Unit.

https://experts.unthsc.edu/en/persons/jennifer-cihlar

Benjamin Crysup | Research Assistant Professor

Benjamin Crysup obtained BS degrees in Chemical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Texas. He then followed them up with a PhD in Scientific Computation from Florida State University, by doing methods development to speed up molecular dynamics simulations. Being a computational chemist might make him the odd man out in the lab, but a collection of interesting computational questions both draws his interest and leverages his talents. When he's not coding, he's writing, running, making mead/melomel, or working on one of his many side projects.

Xuewen Wang | Research Scientist

Xuewen Wang received his Ph.D in Molecular Genetics from King's College London, University of London, United Kingdom, and obtained his Master's and Bachelor's degrees from College of Life Science at Peking University, China. He then conducted post-doctoral research at the University of Georgia. He worked as a leading scientist and leader of the China Tobacco Gene Center for National Tobacco Genome Project, a principle investigator at the Chinese Academy of Science, and later worked at an adjunct position with the University of Georgia and US Department of Agriculture for Genomics and Bioinformatics Research Service. He joined the Center of Human Identification at UNTHSC in June of 2021.

Dr. Wang's research focuses on bioinformatics and genomics at a large data scale with high performance computing facilities. He has rich experiences in next generation (2 nd e.g. Illumina and 3 rd , e.g. PacBio) sequencing (NGS) data analysis, especially for genome assembly, graph pan-genome, variants discovery, sequence comparison, population or single cell genomics, gene-trait associate, and integrated omics analysis of transcriptomes and metabolomes. He also developed many bioinformatic pipelines and several novel bioinformatic software, e.g. GMATA, to facilitate NGS data analysis and applied genomics. He has published more than 50 high impact research articles at Nature Biotech and Nature Communications etc., and his articles have been cited worldwide. He serves as an active reviewer and editor of more than 50 peer-reviewed academic journals.

He is currently working on projects that apply state-of-art technologies in bioinformatics and genomics to develop novel software and technology, to advance the research and service in human DNA identification with high-throughput sequencing, and to solve challenging problems in forensic science.

• Google Scholar

Meng Huang | Research Scientist

Meng Huang is a Quantitative Genetics Scientist with experience in the research fields of human genetics, animal breeding, and plant breeding. His research interests focus on the development of novel statistical analysis software, parallel computing, and big dataset analysis.

Jonathan King | Research Laboratory Director

Jonathan King is originally from North Carolina, but has lived in Texas long enough to be considered a naturalized Texan. He received his MS from Tarleton State University in 2009 with a research focus in capturing novel polymorphic InDels from agricultural pathogens. He has been the laboratory manager for the research and development lab since March 2011. Jonathan currently serves on the ISFG-recognized scientific working group (STRAND) and the editorial board of Forensic Science International: Reports. Jonathan's current research projects include bioinformatics, massively parallel sequencing, small amplicon markers, mitochondrial DNA sequencing, microbial forensics, and molecular medicine, just to name a few. When he is not working, Jonathan enjoys photography, gardening, and the culinary arts.

Melissa Muenzler | Senior Research Associate

Melissa is originally from Austin, TX, and received her BS in Biology from Texas Tech University. She has no free time, due to her three children, but can quote the entirety of all four Toy Story movies. She enjoys working at the lab bench and takes great joy in a well-prepared library.

Jessica Broner | Research Specialist

Jessica Broner received her MS in Pharmaceutical Science with a concentration in Forensic DNA and Serology from the University of Florida and received her BS in Biology from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. She is originally from North Little Rock, Arkansas. Her research interests include forensic biology testing techniques dealing with degraded samples, next-generation sequencing, and low-copy number typing and applications. In her free time, she enjoys reading mystery novels, watching anime, attending concerts, traveling, and spending time with her family.

Muyi Liu | Postdoctoral Research Associate

Dr. Muyi Liu received his bachelor's degree from the Computer Science Department at Tsinghua University, China. He graduated from both Biological Sciences Department and Computer Science Department at Purdue University, with Ph.D. and M.S. degrees, with a further two years of postdoctoral research training in the School of Medicine at Indiana University.

He has more than five years of experience in Single Cell Genomics, including RNA-Seq, ATAC-Seq, Spatial, genomics alignments, annotations, and gene differential expression analysis. He is also an expert on graph mining FSM, clustering algorithms, and NP problem reductions to Modern SAT solvers.

• Center for Human Identification
• CBH, 6th Floor | 3400 Camp Bowie Boulevard | Fort Worth, TX 76107
• Local Number: 817-735-5175 | Fax: 817-735-0553 | Toll-Free: 1-800-763-3147 | Toll-Free Fax: 1-800-221-3515
• Research & Development Lab
• Media Contact

© 2024 The University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth

• Texas Veterans Portal
• Mental Health Services
• Report sexual or behavioral misconduct
• Minors on Campus
• UNTHSC Trust Line
• Report Fraud, Waste or Abuse
• Non Discrimination
• Privacy Policy

• Skip to Content
• Skip to Main Navigation
• Skip to Search

IUPUI IUPUI IUPUI

• Past Projects
• Rumi Agent Project
• Presentations
• News & Media

IUPUI CyberLab

CyberLab is a research and entrepreneurship laboratory located on the campus of Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) . The CyberLab is one of the research centers under the Purdue School of Engineering and Technology at IUPUI . The lab provides research and intellectual support for the design, development, and implementation of innovative educational technology. It also builds connections between the university and industries to transfer research outcomes into practice.

Faculty, project coordinators, researchers, and student interns from diverse academic backgrounds staff the CyberLab. Staff members come from diverse backgrounds, such as education, information technology, and computer science and engineering. 

Since it was first established in 1996, the CyberLab has been leading the development of innovative and successful online technologies. Past projects include Oncourse, ANGEL Learning, and Epsilen. Currently, CyberLab is providing research and instructional design support for the design, development, and commercialization of the academic, social networking site, CourseNetworking (CN) .

Our Mission

The mission of the CyberLab at IUPUI is to prepare IUPUI students for their future career through engaging them in real-world projects, and at the same time, to provide academic support for and innovative talent to industry to ensure productivity and business success.  To fulfill this mission, the CyberLab conducts applied research in education and technology to enhance understanding of learning needs and to foster best practices in the application of new educational technologies. As a connector between the academy and industry, the CyberLab actively encourages students to apply their scholastic knowledge and skills in real-world innovation and production work. 

Lab History

The CyberLab, previously called WebLab, opened at IUPUI in 1996 and serves as a research and development laboratory on the IUPUI campus, employing personnel directed by Computer Information Technology professor, Ali Jafari . In the past, the CyberLab developed products such as  Oncourse ;  ANGEL Learning ; and  Epsilen . The CyberLab's current focus is supporting the development of CN and offering instructional design and pedagogical support to faculty in launching online courses, hybrid courses, and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) hosted on CN.

IUPUI CyberLab social media channels

• Research and Development (R&D) | Overview & Process

Featured in:

Companies often spend resources on certain investigative undertakings in an effort to make discoveries that can help develop new products or way of doing things or work towards enhancing pre-existing products or processes. These activities come under the Research and Development (R&D) umbrella.

R&D is an important means for achieving future growth and maintaining a relevant product in the market . There is a misconception that R&D is the domain of high tech technology firms or the big pharmaceutical companies. In fact, most established consumer goods companies dedicate a significant part of their resources towards developing new versions of products or improving existing designs . However, where most other firms may only spend less than 5 percent of their revenue on research, industries such as pharmaceutical, software or high technology products need to spend significantly given the nature of their products.

© Shutterstock.com | Alexander Raths

In this article, we look at 1) types of R&D , 2) understanding similar terminology , 3) making the R&D decision , 4) basic R&D process , 5) creating an effective R&D process , 6) advantages of R&D , and 7) R&D challenges .

TYPES OF R&D

A US government agency, the National Science Foundation defines three types of R&D .

Basic Research

When research aims to understand a subject matter more completely and build on the body of knowledge relating to it, then it falls in the basic research category. This research does not have much practical or commercial application. The findings of such research may often be of potential interest to a company

Applied Research

Applied research has more specific and directed objectives. This type of research aims to determine methods to address a specific customer/industry need or requirement. These investigations are all focused on specific commercial objectives regarding products or processes.

Development

Development is when findings of a research are utilized for the production of specific products including materials, systems and methods. Design and development of prototypes and processes are also part of this area. A vital differentiation at this point is between development and engineering or manufacturing. Development is research that generates requisite knowledge and designs for production and converts these into prototypes. Engineering is utilization of these plans and research to produce commercial products.

UNDERSTANDING SIMILAR TERMINOLOGY

There are a number of terms that are often used interchangeably. Thought there is often overlap in all of these processes, there still remains a considerable difference in what they represent. This is why it is important to understand these differences.

The creation of new body of knowledge about existing products or processes, or the creation of an entirely new product is called R&D. This is systematic creative work, and the resulting new knowledge is then used to formulate new materials or entire new products as well as to alter and improve existing ones

Innovation includes either of two events or a combination of both of them. These are either the exploitation of a new market opportunity or the development and subsequent marketing of a technical invention. A technical invention with no demand will not be an innovation.

New Product Development

This is a management or business term where there is some change in the appearance, materials or marketing of a product but no new invention. It is basically the conversion of a market need or opportunity into a new product or a product upgrade

When an idea is turned into information which can lead to a new product then it is called design. This term is interpreted differently from country to country and varies between analytical marketing approaches to a more creative process.

Product Design

Misleadingly thought of as the superficial appearance of a product, product design actually encompasses a lot more. It is a cross functional process that includes market research, technical research, design of a concept, prototype creation, final product creation and launch . Usually, this is the refinement of an existing product rather than a new product.

MAKING THE R&D DECISION

Investment in R&D can be extensive and a long term commitment. Often, the required knowledge already exists and can be acquired for a price. Before committing to investment in R&D, a company needs to analyze whether it makes more sense to produce their own knowledge base or acquire existing work. The influence of the following factors can help make this decision.

Proprietariness

If the nature of the research is such that it can be protected through patents or non-disclosure agreements , then this research becomes the sole property of the company undertaking it and becomes much more valuable. Patents can allow a company several years of a head start to maximize profits and cement its position in the market. This sort of situation justifies the cost of the R&D process. On the other hand, if the research cannot be protected, then it may be easily copied by a competitor with little or no monetary expense. In this case, it may be a good idea to acquire research.

Setting up a R&D wing only makes sense if the market growth rate is slow or relatively moderate. In a fast paced environment, competitors may rush ahead before research has been completed, making the entire process useless.

Because of its nature, R&D is not always a guaranteed success commercially. In this regard, it may be desirable to acquire the required research to convert it into necessary marketable products. There is significantly less risk in acquisition as there may be an opportunity to test the technology out before formally purchasing anything.

Considering the long term potential success of a product, acquiring technology is less risky but more costly than generating own research. This is because license fees or royalties may need to be paid and there may even be an arrangement that requires payments tied to sales figures and may continue for as long as the license period. There is also the danger of geographical limitations or other restrictive caveats. In addition, if the technology changes mid license, all the investment will become a sunk cost. Setting up R&D has its own costs associated with it. There needs to be massive initial investment that leads to negative cash flow for a long time. But it does protect the company from the rest of the limitations of acquiring research.

All these aspects need to be carefully assessed and a pros vs. cons assessment needs to be conducted before the make or buy decision is finalized.

BASIC R&D PROCESS

Foster Ideas

At this point the research team may sit down to brainstorm. The discussion may start with an understanding and itemization of the issues faced in their particular industry and then narrowed down to important or core areas of opportunity or concern.

Focus Ideas

The initial pool of ideas is vast and may be generic. The team will then sift through these and locate ideas with potential or those that do not have insurmountable limitations. At this point the team may look into existing products and assess how original a new idea is and how well it can be developed.

Develop Ideas

Once an idea has been thoroughly researched, it may be combined with a market survey to assess market readiness. Ideas with true potential are once again narrowed down and the process of turning research into a marketable commodity begins.

Prototypes and Trials

Researchers may work closely with product developers to understand and agree on how an idea may be turned into a practical product. As the process iterates, the prototype complexity may start to increase and issues such as mass production and sales tactics may begin to enter the process.

Regulatory, Marketing & Product Development Activities

As the product takes shape, the process that began with R&D divides into relevant areas necessary to bring the research product to the market. Regulatory aspects are assessed and work begins to meet all the criteria for approvals and launch. The marketing function begins developing strategies and preparing their materials while sales, pricing and distribution are also planned for.

The product that started as a research question will now be ready for its biggest test, the introduction to the market. The evaluation of the product continues at this stage and beyond, eventually leading to possible re-designs if needed. At any point in this process the idea may be abandoned. Its feasibility may be questioned or the research may not reveal what the business hoped for. It is therefore important to analyze each idea critically at every stage and not become emotionally invested in anything.

CREATING AN EFFECTIVE R&D PROCESS

A formal R&D function adds great value to any organization. It can significantly contribute towards organizational growth and sustained market share. However, all business may not have the necessary resources to set up such a function. In such cases, or in organizations where a formal R&D function is not really required, it is a good idea to foster an R&D mindset . When all employees are encouraged to think creatively and with a research oriented thought process, they all feel invested in the business and there will be the possibility of innovation and unique ideas and solutions. This mindset can be slowly inculcated within the company by following the steps mentioned below.

Assess Customer Needs

It is a good idea to regularly scan and assess the market and identify whether the company’s offering is doing well or if it is in trouble. If it is successful, encourage employees to identify reasons for success so that these can then be used as benchmarks or best practices. If the product is not doing well, then encourage teams to research reasons why. Perhaps a competitor is offering a better solution or perhaps the product cannot meet the customer’s needs effectively.

Identify Objectives

Allow your employees to see clearly what the business objectives are. The end goal for a commercial enterprise is to enhance profits. If this is the case, then all research the employees engage in should focus on reaching this goal while fulfilling a customer need.

Define and Design Processes

A definite project management process helps keep formal and informal research programs on schedule. Realistic goals and targets help focus the process and ensures that relevant and realistic timelines are decided upon.

Create a Team

A team may need to be created if a specific project is on the agenda. This team should be cross functional and will be able to work towards a specific goal in a systematic manner. If the surrounding organizational environment also has a research mindset then they will be better prepared and suited to assist the core team when ever needed.

Whenever needed, it may be a good idea to outsource research projects. Universities and specific research organizations can help achieve research objectives that may not be manageable within a limited organizational budget.

ADVANTAGES OF R&D

Though setting up an R&D function is not an easy task by any means, it has its unique advantages for the organization. These include the following.

Research and Development expenses are often tax deductible. This depends on the country of operations of course but a significant write-off can be a great way to offset large initial investments. But it is important to understand what kind of research activities are deductible and which ones are not. Generally, things like market research or an assessment of historical information are not deductible.

A company can use research to identify leaner and more cost effective means of manufacturing. This reduction in cost can either help provide a more reasonably priced product to the customer or increase the profit margin.

When an investor sets out to put their resources into any company, they tend to prefer those who can become market leaders and innovate constantly. An effective R&D function goes a long way in helping to achieve these objectives for a company. Investors see this as a proactive approach to business and they may end up financing the costs associated with maintaining this R&D function.

Recruitment

Top talent is also attracted to innovative companies doing exciting things. With a successful Research and Development function, qualified candidates will be excited to join the company.

Through R&D based developments, companies can acquire patents for their products. These can help them gain market advantage and cement their position in the industry. This one time product development can lead to long term profits.

R&D CHALLENGES

R&D also has many challenges associated with it. These may include the following.

Initial setup costs as well as continued investment are necessary to keep research work cutting edge and relevant. Not all companies may find it feasible to continue this expenditure.

Increased Timescales

Once a commitment to R&D is made, it may take many years for the actual product to reach the market and a number of years will be filled with no return on continued heavy investment.

Uncertain Results

Not all research that is undertaken yields results. Many ideas and solutions are scrapped midway and work has to start from the beginning.

Market Conditions

There is always the danger that a significant new invention or innovation will render years of research obsolete and create setbacks in the industry with competitors becoming front runners for the customer’s business.

It is important for any business to understand the advantages and disadvantages of engaging in Research and Development activities. Once these are studied, then the step can be taken towards becoming and R&D organization.

In the meanwhile, it is good practice to inculcate a research mind set and research oriented thinking within all employees, no matter what their functional area of expertise. This will help bring about new ideas, new solutions and an innovative way of approaching all business problems, whether small or large.

Comments are closed.

Related posts

Adaptive insights | interview with its founder & chairman – rob hull.

In Palo Alto (CA), we meet Founder and Chairman of Adaptive Insights, Rob Hull. Rob shares his …

A Complete Guide to Mastermind Groups

In this article, we provide you with 1) a brief introduction to mastermind groups, 2) a list of …

The Wonderful World of Difficult Clients

Ah yes! The horror of difficult clients follows us through our careers. We know the feeling. …

408,000 + job opportunities

Not yet a member? Sign Up

join cleverism

Find your dream job. Get on promotion fasstrack and increase tour lifetime salary.

Post your jobs & get access to millions of ambitious, well-educated talents that are going the extra mile.

First name*

Company name*

Company Website*

E-mail (work)*

Login or Register

Password reset instructions will be sent to your E-mail.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Alert: Due to extended maintenance, NSF.gov will be unavailable from 11:00 PM on 5/31 to 2:00 AM on 6/1. Most other NSF systems, including Research.gov, will be unavailable from 11:00 PM on 5/31 to 1:00 PM on 6/1. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE)

• Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Home
• Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (BCS)
• About NCSES
• Explore Data
• Surveys & Analysis
• Schedule of Release Dates
• Corrections
• Social and Economic Sciences (SES)
• SBE Office of Multidisciplinary Activities (SMA)
• Get NCSES Email Updates Get NCSES Email Updates Go
• NCSES RSS Feed What is RSS?
• Contact NCSES
• Research Areas
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Send as Email

Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers

Information on this list is current as of February 2024. Changes from the previous edition are noted below; decertified, closed, or renamed FFRDCs are listed in "Historical Notes."

View the Master Government List by grouping or download the list (56 KB)

• Sponsoring agency
• Administrator type
• Activity type
• General Notes
• Historical Notes
• Prior Lists
• Aerospace Federally Funded Research and Development Center   Administrator: The Aerospace Corporation Location: El Segundo, CA Sponsor: Department of Defense , Department of the Air Force
• Ames Laboratory   Administrator: Iowa State University Location: Ames, IA Sponsor: Department of Energy
• Argonne National Laboratory   Administrator: UChicago Argonne, LLC Location: Argonne, IL Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 1 January 2007, the Argonne National Laboratory acquired a new university administrator (UChicago Argonne, LLC). The previous administrator was the University of Chicago.
• Arroyo Center   Administrator: RAND Corp. Location: Santa Monica, CA Sponsor: Department of Defense , Department of the Army
• The following portions of the RAND Corporation are FFRDCs: National Defense Research Institute (formerly Defense/Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Project Air Force, and the Arroyo Center.
• Brookhaven National Laboratory   Administrator: Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC Location: Upton, NY Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 1 March 1998, Brookhaven National Laboratory acquired a new nonprofit administrator (Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC). The previous administrator was a university consortium.
• Center for Advanced Aviation System Development   Administrator: MITRE Corp. Location: McLean, VA Sponsor: Department of Transportation , Federal Aviation Administration
• Center for Communications and Computing   Administrator: Institute for Defense Analyses Location: Alexandria, VA Sponsor: Department of Defense , National Security Agency/Central Security Service
• Center for Enterprise Modernization   Administrator: MITRE Corporation Location: McLean, VA Sponsor: Department of the Treasury , Internal Revenue Service ; Department of Veterans Affairs ; Social Security Administration ; Department of Commerce
• On 26 August 2022 the Department of Commerce was designated a co-sponsor of the Center for Enterprise Modernization (CEM). In July 2018, the Social Security Administration was designated a co-sponsor of the CEM. In 2013, the Department of Treasury assumed primary sponsorship, with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) having formal delegation to manage, administer, and execute the CEM agreements on behalf of Treasury. On 1 October 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs was designated a co-sponsor of the CEM. In August 2001, the IRS Federally Funded Research and Development Center was renamed the Center for Enterprise Modernization. In 1998, the IRS established the IRS Federally Funded Research and Development Center.
• Center for Naval Analyses   Administrator: The CNA Corporation Location: Arlington, VA Sponsor: Department of Defense , Department of the Navy
• The Center for Naval Analyses relocated from Alexandria, VA, to Arlington, VA, in 2014.
• Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses   Administrator: Southwest Research Institute Location: San Antonio, TX Sponsor: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• CMS Alliance to Modernize Healthcare   Administrator: MITRE Corp. Location: Baltimore, MD Sponsor: Department of Health and Human Services , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
• On 15 August 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Federally Funded Research and Development Center changed its name to the CMS Alliance to Modernize Healthcare. On 27 September 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Federally Funded Research and Development Center was created.
• Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory   Administrator: Fermi Research Alliance, LLC Location: Batavia, IL Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 1 October 2006, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory acquired a new university administrator (Fermi Research Alliance, LLC). The previous administrator was Universities Research Association, Inc.
• Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research   Administrator: Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc. Location: Frederick, MD Sponsor: Department of Health and Human Services , National Institutes of Health
• On 27 September 2013, the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research's administrator changed names from SAIC-Frederick, Inc., a subsidiary of Science Applications International Corp. to Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc. On 28 February 2012, the National Cancer Institute at Frederick (NCI-Frederick) changed its name to the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research. On 26 September 2008, NCI-Frederick acquired a single industrial firm administrator: SAIC-Frederick, Inc., a subsidiary of Science Applications International Corp. The previous administration was conducted under a system of four industrial firm contractors: SAIC-Frederick, Inc., a subsidiary of Science Applications International Corp.; Charles River Laboratories, Inc.; Data Management Services, Inc.; and Wilson Information Services, Inc. In 2001, the name of this FFRDC was changed from Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center to the National Cancer Institute at Frederick.
• Green Bank Observatory   Administrator: Associated Universities, Inc. Location: Green Bank, WV Sponsor: National Science Foundation
• On 1 October 2016, Green Bank Observatory was split out from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory; both retained FFRDC status.
• Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center   Administrator: RAND Corp. Location: Arlington, VA Sponsor: Department of Homeland Security , Science and Technology Directorate
• In 2019, the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center relocated from Crystal City, VA, to Pentagon City, VA. On 15 September 2016, the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center was created.
• Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute   Administrator: MITRE Corp. Location: McLean, VA Sponsor: Department of Homeland Security , Science and Technology Directorate
• On 5 March 2009, the Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute was created. This new FFRDC together with the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute replaced the Homeland Security Institute.
• Idaho National Laboratory   Administrator: Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC Location: Idaho Falls, ID Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 1 February 2005, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory was renamed the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). At the same time, INL's administrator, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, was replaced by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC.
• Jet Propulsion Laboratory   Administrator: California Institute of Technology Location: Pasadena, CA Sponsor: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory   Administrator: University of California Location: Berkeley, CA Sponsor: Department of Energy
• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory   Administrator: Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC Location: Livermore, CA Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 1 October 2007, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory acquired a new industrial firm administrator (Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC). The previous administrator was the University of California.
• Lincoln Laboratory   Administrator: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Location: Lexington, MA Sponsor: Department of Defense , Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
• On 1 February 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics was split into two offices, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. After the split, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering became the sponsor for the Lincoln Laboratory. On 25 April 2011, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics became the sponsor of the Lincoln Laboratory. The previous sponsor was the Department of the Air Force.
• Los Alamos National Laboratory   Administrator: Triad National Security, LLC Location: Los Alamos, NM Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 9 June 2018, Los Alamos National Laboratory acquired a new industrial firm administration (Triad National Security, LLC). Between June 2006 and June 2018, Los Alamos National Laboratory was administered by Los Alamos National Security, LLC. Prior to June 2006, the administrator was the University of California.
• National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center   Administrator: Battelle National Biodefense Institute Location: Frederick, MD Sponsor: Department of Homeland Security , Science and Technology Directorate
• National Center for Atmospheric Research   Administrator: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Location: Boulder, CO Sponsor: National Science Foundation
• National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence   Administrator: MITRE Corp. Location: Rockville, MD Sponsor: Department of Commerce , National Institute of Standards and Technology
• On 19 September 2014, the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence was created.
• National Defense Research Institute   Administrator: RAND Corp. Location: Santa Monica, CA Sponsor: Department of Defense , Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
• On 1 February 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics was split into two offices, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. After the split, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment became the sponsor for the National Defense Research Institute. On 25 April 2011, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics became the sponsor of the National Defense Research Institute. The previous sponsor was the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
• National Radio Astronomy Observatory   Administrator: Associated Universities, Inc. Location: Charlottesville, VA Sponsor: National Science Foundation
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory   Administrator: Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Location: Golden, CO Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 29 July 2008, National Renewable Energy Laboratory acquired a new nonprofit administrator (Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC).
• National Security Engineering Center   Administrator: MITRE Corp. Location: Bedford, MA, and McLean, VA Sponsor: Department of Defense , Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
• On 1 February 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics was split into two offices, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. After the split, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering became the sponsor for the National Security Engineering Center. On 25 April 2011, C3I Federally Funded Research and Development Center changed its name to the National Security Engineering Center, and it changed its sponsor from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
• National Solar Observatory   Administrator: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. Location: Boulder, CO Sponsor: National Science Foundation
• In 2015, the National Solar Observatory relocated its headquarters from Sunspot, NM to Boulder, CO. On 1 October 2009, the National Solar Observatory split from the National Optical Astronomy Observatory; both retained FFRDC status.
• NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory   Administrator: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. Location: Tucson, AZ Sponsor: National Science Foundation
• On 1 October 2019, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory was renamed NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory. The new laboratory also incorporates operations of the International Gemini Observatory and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory. On 1 October 2009, the National Solar Observatory split from the National Optical Astronomy Observatory; both retained FFRDC status. Between February 1984 and September 2009, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory included three former FFRDCs: Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, Kitt Peak National Observatory, and the National Solar Observatory (formerly Sacramento Peak Observatory).
• Oak Ridge National Laboratory   Administrator: UT-Battelle, LLC Location: Oak Ridge, TN Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 1 April 2000, Oak Ridge National Laboratory acquired a new nonprofit administrator (UT-Battelle, LLC). The previous administrator was the industrial firm Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp.
• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory   Administrator: Battelle Memorial Institute Location: Richland, WA Sponsor: Department of Energy
• Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory   Administrator: Princeton University Location: Princeton, NJ Sponsor: Department of Energy
• Project Air Force   Administrator: RAND Corp. Location: Santa Monica, CA Sponsor: Department of Defense , Department of the Air Force
• Sandia National Laboratories   Administrator: National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC Location: Albuquerque, NM Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 1 May 2017, Sandia National Laboratories acquired a new administrator (National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc.). The previous administrator was Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corp.
• Savannah River National Laboratory   Administrator: Battelle Savannah River Alliance, LLC Location: Aiken, SC Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 22 December 2020, Savannah River National Laboratory acquired a new nonprofit administrator, Battelle Savannah River Alliance, LLC. The previous administrator, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, continues to administer the Savannah River Site. On 1 August 2007, Savannah River National Laboratory acquired a new industrial firm administrator (Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC).
• Science and Technology Policy Institute   Administrator: Institute for Defense Analyses Location: Washington, DC Sponsor: National Science Foundation
• On 1 December 2003, RAND Corp. was replaced by the Institute for Defense Analyses as the administrator of the Science and Technology Policy Institute.
• SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory   Administrator: Stanford University Location: Menlo Park, CA Sponsor: Department of Energy
• On 15 October 2008, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center was renamed the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.
• Software Engineering Institute   Administrator: Carnegie Mellon University Location: Pittsburgh, PA Sponsor: Department of Defense , Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
• On 1 February 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics was split into two offices, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. After the split, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering became the sponsor for the Software Engineering Institute. On 25 April 2011, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. became the sponsor of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI). The Office of the Secretary of Defense was the sponsor between 28 April 2010 and 24 April 2011. The Department of the Army was the sponsor between December 2004 and 27 April 2010. The Office of the Secretary of Defense was the sponsor between June 1997 and December 2004. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was the sponsor from 1984 to June 1997.
• Systems and Analyses Center   Administrator: Institute for Defense Analyses Location: Alexandria, VA Sponsor: Department of Defense , Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
• On 1 February 2018, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics was split into two offices, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. After the split, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment became the sponsor for the Systems and Analyses Center. On 11 June 2013, the Studies and Analyses Center changed its name to the Systems and Analyses Center. On 25 April 2011, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics became the sponsor of the Studies and Analysis Center. The previous sponsor was the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
• Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility   Administrator: Jefferson Science Associates, LLC Location: Newport News, VA Sponsor: Department of Energy

Department of Commerce

National institute of standards and technology, department of the air force, department of the army, department of the navy, national security agency/central security service, office of the under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, office of the under secretary of defense for research and engineering, department of energy, centers for medicare and medicaid services, national institutes of health, science and technology directorate, internal revenue service, federal aviation administration, department of veterans affairs, national aeronautics and space administration, national science foundation, nuclear regulatory commission, social security administration.

• Center for Enterprise Modernization   Administrator: MITRE Corporation Location: McLean, VA
• National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence   Administrator: MITRE Corp. Location: Rockville, MD

Department of Defense

• Aerospace Federally Funded Research and Development Center   Administrator: The Aerospace Corporation Location: El Segundo, CA
• Project Air Force   Administrator: RAND Corp. Location: Santa Monica, CA
• Arroyo Center   Administrator: RAND Corp. Location: Santa Monica, CA
• Center for Naval Analyses   Administrator: The CNA Corporation Location: Arlington, VA
• Center for Communications and Computing   Administrator: Institute for Defense Analyses Location: Alexandria, VA
• National Defense Research Institute   Administrator: RAND Corp. Location: Santa Monica, CA
• Systems and Analyses Center   Administrator: Institute for Defense Analyses Location: Alexandria, VA
• Lincoln Laboratory   Administrator: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Location: Lexington, MA
• National Security Engineering Center   Administrator: MITRE Corp. Location: Bedford, MA, and McLean, VA
• Software Engineering Institute   Administrator: Carnegie Mellon University Location: Pittsburgh, PA
• Ames Laboratory   Administrator: Iowa State University Location: Ames, IA
• Argonne National Laboratory   Administrator: UChicago Argonne, LLC Location: Argonne, IL
• Brookhaven National Laboratory   Administrator: Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC Location: Upton, NY
• Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory   Administrator: Fermi Research Alliance, LLC Location: Batavia, IL
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory   Administrator: University of California Location: Berkeley, CA
• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory   Administrator: Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC Location: Livermore, CA
• Los Alamos National Laboratory   Administrator: Triad National Security, LLC Location: Los Alamos, NM
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory   Administrator: Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Location: Golden, CO
• Oak Ridge National Laboratory   Administrator: UT-Battelle, LLC Location: Oak Ridge, TN
• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory   Administrator: Battelle Memorial Institute Location: Richland, WA
• Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory   Administrator: Princeton University Location: Princeton, NJ
• SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory   Administrator: Stanford University Location: Menlo Park, CA
• Sandia National Laboratories   Administrator: National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC Location: Albuquerque, NM
• Savannah River National Laboratory   Administrator: Battelle Savannah River Alliance, LLC Location: Aiken, SC
• Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility   Administrator: Jefferson Science Associates, LLC Location: Newport News, VA
• Idaho National Laboratory   Administrator: Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC Location: Idaho Falls, ID

Department of Health and Human Services

• CMS Alliance to Modernize Healthcare   Administrator: MITRE Corp. Location: Baltimore, MD
• Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research   Administrator: Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc. Location: Frederick, MD

Department of Homeland Security

• Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center   Administrator: RAND Corp. Location: Arlington, VA
• Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute   Administrator: MITRE Corp. Location: McLean, VA
• National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center   Administrator: Battelle National Biodefense Institute Location: Frederick, MD

Department of the Treasury

Department of transportation.

• Center for Advanced Aviation System Development   Administrator: MITRE Corp. Location: McLean, VA
• Jet Propulsion Laboratory   Administrator: California Institute of Technology Location: Pasadena, CA
• Green Bank Observatory   Administrator: Associated Universities, Inc. Location: Green Bank, WV
• NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory   Administrator: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. Location: Tucson, AZ
• National Center for Atmospheric Research   Administrator: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Location: Boulder, CO
• National Radio Astronomy Observatory   Administrator: Associated Universities, Inc. Location: Charlottesville, VA
• National Solar Observatory   Administrator: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. Location: Boulder, CO
• Science and Technology Policy Institute   Administrator: Institute for Defense Analyses Location: Washington, DC
• Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses   Administrator: Southwest Research Institute Location: San Antonio, TX

Industrial Firms

Nonprofit institutions other than universities and colleges, universities and colleges, including university consortia, district of columbia, massachusetts, pennsylvania, south carolina, west virginia, research and development laboratories, study and analysis centers, systems engineering and integration centers, definitions.

The following Department of Defense definitions were used to classify the centers:

Research and development laboratories fill voids where in-house and private sector research and development centers are unable to meet agency core area needs. Specific objectives for these FFRDCs are to: (1) maintain over the long-term a competency in technology areas where the Government cannot rely on in-house or private sector capabilities, and (2) develop and transfer important new technology to the private sector so the Government can benefit from a wider, broader base of expertise. R&D laboratories engage in research programs that emphasize the evolution and demonstration of advanced concepts and technology, and the transfer or transition of technology.

Study and analysis centers deliver independent and objective analyses and advise in core areas important to their sponsors in support of policy development, decision making, alternative approaches, and new ideas on issues of significance.

System engineering and integration centers provide required support in core areas not available from sponsor's in-house technical and engineering capabilities to ensure that complex systems meet operational requirements. The centers assist with the creation and choice of system concepts and architectures, the specification of technical system and subsystem requirements and interfaces, the development and acquisition of system hardware and software, the testing and verification of performance, the integration of new capabilities, and continuous improvement of system operations and logistics. They often play a critical role in assisting their sponsors in technically formulating, initiating, and evaluating programs and activities undertaken by firms in the for-profit sector.

Source of definitions: FFRDC Management Plan , effective May 1, 1996, Department of Defense, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, pp. 2-3.

General Guidelines

National science foundation role in ffrdc administration, data availability.

Federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) have evolved from research facilities established to meet the special needs of World War II. Until 1967, the centers were called "federal contract research centers." In that year, the Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) set criteria for the newly named "federally funded research and development centers."

The FCST Memorandum of 1 November 1967 included the following:

In general, all of the following criteria should be met by an institutional unit before it is to be included in the category "Federally Funded Research and Development Center."

• (a) Primary activities include one or more of the following: basic research, applied research, development, or management of R&D; specifically excluded are organizations engaged primarily in: routine quality control and testing, routine service activities, production, mapping and surveys, and information dissemination.
• (b) Constitute a separate organizational unit within the parent organization or is organized as a separately incorporated organization.
• (c) Performs actual R&D or R&D management either upon direct request of the Government or under a broad charter from the Government, but in either case under the direct monitorship of the Government.
• (d) Receives its major financial support (70% or more) from the Federal Government, usually from one agency.
• (e) Has or is expected to have a long-term relationship with its sponsoring agency (about five years or more), as evidenced by the specific obligations it and the agency assume. [1]
• (f) Most or all of the facilities are owned or funded for in the contract by the Government.
• (g) Has an average annual budget (operating and capital equipment) of at least $500,000. [2]

In 1984, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy amended the criteria to read as follows:

Effective 1 February 2010, Federal Acquisition Regulations criteria for FFRDCs were updated as follows:

• (2) An FFRDC meets some special long-term research or development need which cannot be met as effectively by existing in-house or contractor resources. FFRDCs enable agencies to use private sector resources to accomplish tasks that are integral to the mission and operation of the sponsoring agency. An FFRDC, in order to discharge its responsibilities to the sponsoring agency, has access, beyond that which is common to the normal contractual relationship, to Government and supplier data, including sensitive and proprietary data, and to employees and installations equipment and real property. The FFRDC is required to conduct its business in a manner befitting its special relationship with the Government, to operate in the public interest with objectivity and independence, to be free from organizational conflicts of interest, and to have full disclosure of its affairs to the sponsoring agency. It is not the Government's intent that an FFRDC use its privileged information or access to installations equipment and real property to compete with the private sector. However, an FFRDC may perform work for other than the sponsoring agency under the Economy Act, or other applicable legislation, when the work is not otherwise available from the private sector.
• (3) FFRDCs are operated, managed, and/or administered by either a university or consortium of universities, other not-for-profit or nonprofit organization, or an industrial firm, as an autonomous organization or as an identifiable separate operating unit of a parent organization.
• (4) Long-term relationships between the Government and FFRDCs are encouraged in order to provide the continuity that will attract high-quality personnel to the FFRDC. This relationship should be of a type to encourage the FFRDC to maintain currency in its field(s) of expertise, maintain its objectivity and independence, preserve its familiarity with the needs of its sponsor(s), and provide a quick response capability. [3]

In 1990, NSF was given new responsibilities under the Federal Acquisition Regulations as recorded in the Federal Register:

"35.017-6 Master list of FFRDCs.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) maintains a master Government list of FFRDCs. Primary sponsors will provide information on each FFRDC, including sponsoring agreements, mission statements, funding data, and type of R&D being performed, to the NSF upon its request for such information." [3]

Thus, NSF maintains the Master Government List of FFRDCs but does not decide which organizations meet the FFRDC criteria. Rather, NSF adds each FFRDC to the list when the head of the sponsoring agency notifies NSF in writing that he or she has approved a new FFRDC. [3]

NSF reports data on FFRDCs annually in the following series: Federal Funds for Research and Development (obligations for R&D and for R&D plant reported by federal agencies) and FFRDC R&D Expenditures (FFRDC-reported data).

NSF also reports data on the demographic characteristics, research fields, and sources of support of postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) employed at FFRDCs in the annual series Postdocs at Federally Funded R&D Centers .

[1] In practice, agencies review their need for each FFRDC at least once every 5 years. The period of performance for FFRDC contracts ranges from 1 to 5 years.

[2] Hornig DF. 1967. Memorandum to members of Federal Council for Science and Technology. Subject: Federally funded research and development centers. Unpublished memorandum from the Federal Council for Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, Washington DC, 1 November.

[3] General Services Administration. 2017. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Effective 19 January 2017. http://www.acquisition.gov/?q=browsefar

Decertifications, closures and renaming, and other associated notes.

• by Sponsoring agency
• Analytic Services, Inc. Administrator:   ANSER Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Air Force Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1977.
• Appalachia Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Applied Physics Laboratory Administrator:   Johns Hopkins University Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Navy Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1978.
• Applied Physics Laboratory Administrator:   University of Washington Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Navy Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1974.
• Applied Research Laboratory Administrator:   Pennsylvania State University Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Navy Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1978.
• Army Mathematics Research Center Administrator:   University of Wisconsin Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Army Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1970.
• Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission Administrator:   National Academy of Sciences Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Phased out as FFRDC in April 1975.
• Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory Administrator:   Westinghouse Electric Corp. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in October 1992.
• C3I Federally Funded Research and Development Center Administrator:   MITRE Corp. Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics Renamed the National Security Engineering Center 25 April 2011.
• Cambridge Electron Accelerator Administrator:   Harvard University and MIT Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Closed down in 1974.
• Center for Educational Policy Research Administrator:   Stanford Research Institute Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for Enterprise Modernization Administrator:   MITRE, Corp. Sponsor:   Department of the Treasury , Internal Revenue Service , Department of Veteran Affairs , Social Security Administration , Department of Commerce On 26 August 2022 the Department of Commerce was designated a co-sponsor of the Center for Enterprise Modernization (CEM). In July 2018, the Social Security Administration was designated a co-sponsor for the CEM. In 2013, the Department of the Treasury assumed primary sponsorship, with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) having formal delegation to manage, administer, and execute the CEM agreements on behalf of Treasury. On 1 October 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs was designated a co-sponsor of the Center for Enterprise Modernization.
• Center for Research and Development for Learning and Re-Education Administrator:   University of Wisconsin Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for Research and Development in Higher Education Administrator:   University of California Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for Research in Social Systems Administrator:   American University Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Army Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1970.
• Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration Administrator:   University of Oregon Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for the Study of Social Organization of Schools and the Learning Process Administrator:   Johns Hopkins University Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for the Study of the Evaluation of Instructional Programs Administrator:   University of California Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for Urban Education Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Central Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Central Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory Sponsor:   National Science Foundation Became part of National Optical Astronomy Observatories in 1984.
• Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility Administrator:   Southeastern Universities Research Association, Inc. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Renamed Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in May 1996.
• Cooperative Educational Research Laboratory, Inc. Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Coordination Center for the National Program in Early Childhood Education Administrator:   University of Illinois Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Critical Technologies Institute Sponsor:   National Science Foundation Renamed the Science and Technology Policy Institute 1 October 1998.
• Eastern Regional Institute for Education Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Educational Development Center, Inc. Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Electromagnetic Compatibility Analysis Center Administrator:   IIT Research Institute Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Air Force Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1972.
• Energy Technology Engineering Center Administrator:   Rockwell International Corp. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Closed out in November 1995.
• Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center Administrator:   Science Applications International Corp.; Charles River Laboratories, Inc.; Data Management Services, Inc.; Wilson Information Services, Inc. Sponsor:   Department of Health and Human Services , National Institutes of Health Renamed the National Cancer Institute at Frederick in 2001.
• Green Bank Observatory Administrator:   Associated Universities, Inc. Sponsor:   National Science Foundation On 1 October 2016, Green Bank Observatory was split out from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory; both retained FFRDC status.
• Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory Administrator:   Westinghouse Hanford Co. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in October 1992. Hanford included the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor program beginning in December 1971.
• Holifield National Laboratory Administrator:   Union Carbide Corp. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Renamed Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1976.
• Homeland Security Institute Administrator:   Analytic Services, Inc. Sponsor:   Department of Homeland Security , Science and Technology Directorate The Homeland Security Institute (HSI) was operational from 26 April 2004 to 25 April 2009. On 5 March 2009, the HSI was replaced by two new FFRDCs: the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute and the Homeland Security Systems Engineering Development Institute.
• Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute Administrator:   Analytic Services, Inc. Sponsor:   Department of Homeland Security , Science and Technology Directorate The Homeland Security Systems Engineering Development Institute was operational from 5 March 2009 until it was phased out on 31 October 2016.
• Hudson Laboratories Administrator:   Columbia University Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Navy Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Human Resources Research Office/Organization Administrator:   George Washington University Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Army Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Administrator:   Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Renamed Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on 1 February 2005. Also, INL's administrator, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, was replaced by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, in February 2005. As of 1 October 1999, Lockheed Martin was replaced by Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, as the administrator.
• Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Administrator:   Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Renamed Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in spring 1997.
• Inhalation Technology Research Institute Administrator:   Lovelace Institutes Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in May 1996.
• Institute for Advanced Technologies Administrator:   University of Texas Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Army Phased out as FFRDC November 1993.
• Institute for Defense Analyses Communications and Computing Administrator:   Institute for Defense Analyses Sponsor:   Department of Defense , National Security Agency/Central Security Service In FY 2009, the name was changed to the Center for Communications and Computing to avoid confusion between the two Department of Defense FFRDCs administered by the Institute for Defense Analyses. Although the Institute for Defense Analyses Communications and Computing has been in existence since 1956, the Department of Defense did not add it to the Master Government List of FFRDCs until October 1995.
• Institute for Defense Analyses Studies and Analyses Administrator:   Institute for Defense Analyses Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Office of the Secretary of Defense In FY 2009, the name was changed to the Studies and Analysis Center to avoid confusion between the two Department of Defense FFRDCs administered by the Institute for Defense Analyses.
• Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Federally Funded Research and Development Center Administrator:   MITRE, Corp. Sponsor:   Department of the Treasury , Internal Revenue Service Renamed the Center for Enterprise Modernization August 2001.
• Judiciary Modernization Engineering Center Administrator:   MITRE, Corp. Sponsor:   United States Courts , Administrative Office of the United States Courts Decertified as FFRDC 31 January 2021
• Kitt Peak National Observatory Sponsor:   National Science Foundation Became part of National Optical Astronomy Observatories in 1984.
• Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Administrator:   General Electric Co. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in October 1992.
• Learning Research and Development Center Administrator:   University of Pittsburgh Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Liquid Metal Engineering Center Administrator:   Rockwell International Corp. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Became Energy Technology Engineering Center in FY 1980.
• Logistics Management Institute Administrator:   Logistics Management Institute Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Office of the Secretary of Defense Decertified as FFRDC 24 September 1998.
• Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Mound Laboratory Administrator:   Monsanto Chemical Co. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1982.
• National Accelerator Laboratory Administrator:   Universities Research Association, Inc. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Renamed Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 11 May 1974.
• National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center Administrator:   Cornell University Sponsor:   National Science Foundation Decertified as FFRDC 1 October 2011.
• National Cancer Institute at Frederick Administrator:   SAIC-Frederick Inc., a subsidiary of the Science Applications International Corp. Sponsor:   Department of Health and Human Services , National Institutes of Health Renamed the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research 28 February 2012.
• National Laboratory for Higher Education Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• National Optical Astronomy Observatory Administrator:   Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. Sponsor:   National Science Foundation On 1 October 2019, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory was renamed NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory. The new laboratory also incorporates operations of the International Gemini Observatory and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory. On 1 October 2009, the National Solar Observatory split from the National Optical Astronomy Observatory; both retained FFRDC status. Between February 1984 and September 2009, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory included three former FFRDCs: Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, Kitt Peak National Observatory, and the National Solar Observatory (formerly Sacramento Peak Observatory).
• National Reactor Testing Station Administrator:   Aerojet Nuclear Corp. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Renamed Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in 1974.
• National Solar Observatory/Sacramento Peak Observatory Sponsor:   National Science Foundation Became part of National Optical Astronomy Observatories in 1984. On 1 October 2009, the National Solar Observatory split from the National Optical Astronomy Observatory; both retained FFRDC status.
• NCI Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center Administrator:   Science Applications International Corp.; Advanced BioScience Laboratories, Inc.; Charles River Laboratories, Inc.; Data Management Services, Inc. Sponsor:   Department of Health and Human Services , National Institutes of Health Renamed National Cancer Institute at Frederick in FY 2001.
• Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Administrator:   Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Inc. Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in February 1999.
• Ordnance Research Laboratory Administrator:   Pennsylvania State University Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Navy Renamed Applied Research Laboratory in 1973.
• Policy Research Center Administrator:   Syracuse University Research Corporation Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Princeton-Pennsylvania Proton Accelerator Administrator:   Princeton University and University of Pennsylvania Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1971.
• Regional Educational Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Renamed National Laboratory for Higher Education in FY 1971.
• Research Analysis Corporation Administrator:   Research Analysis Corporation Sponsor:   Department of Defense , Department of the Army Phased out as FFRDC 1 September 1972.
• Research and Development Center in Educational Stimulation Administrator:   University of Georgia Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Research and Development Center in Teacher Education Administrator:   University of Texas Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Research for Better Schools, Inc. Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Rocky Mountain Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Savannah River Technology Center Administrator:   Westinghouse Savannah River Co. Sponsor:   Department of Energy Renamed Savannah River National Laboratory 8 December 2005.
• Solar Energy Research Institute Administrator:   Midwest Research Institute Sponsor:   Department of Energy/Atomic Energy Commission Renamed National Renewable Energy Laboratory in September 1991.
• South Central Regional Educational Laboratory Corporation Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Southeastern Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Space Radiation Effects Laboratory Administrator:   College of William and Mary Sponsor:   National Aeronautics and Space Administration Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs List in FY 1979.
• Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching Administrator:   Stanford University Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Tax Systems Modernization Institute Administrator:   IIT Research Institute Sponsor:   Department of the Treasury , Internal Revenue Service Replaced by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Federally Funded Research and Development Center in October 1998.
• The Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Upper Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc. Administrator:   National Institute of Education Sponsor:   Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.

Office of the Secretary of Defense

Office of the under secretary of defense for acquisitions, technology and logistics, department of energy/atomic energy commission, office of education, department of veteran affairs, administrative office of the united states courts.

• Center for Enterprise Modernization Administrator:   MITRE, Corp. On 26 August 2022 the Department of Commerce was designated a co-sponsor of the Center for Enterprise Modernization (CEM). In July 2018, the Social Security Administration was designated a co-sponsor for the CEM. In 2013, the Department of the Treasury assumed primary sponsorship, with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) having formal delegation to manage, administer, and execute the CEM agreements on behalf of Treasury. On 1 October 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs was designated a co-sponsor of the Center for Enterprise Modernization.
• Analytic Services, Inc. Administrator:   ANSER Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1977.
• Electromagnetic Compatibility Analysis Center Administrator:   IIT Research Institute Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1972.
• Army Mathematics Research Center Administrator:   University of Wisconsin Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1970.
• Center for Research in Social Systems Administrator:   American University Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1970.
• Human Resources Research Office/Organization Administrator:   George Washington University Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Institute for Advanced Technologies Administrator:   University of Texas Phased out as FFRDC November 1993.
• Research Analysis Corporation Administrator:   Research Analysis Corporation Phased out as FFRDC 1 September 1972.
• Applied Physics Laboratory Administrator:   Johns Hopkins University Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1978.
• Applied Physics Laboratory Administrator:   University of Washington Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1974.
• Applied Research Laboratory Administrator:   Pennsylvania State University Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1978.
• Hudson Laboratories Administrator:   Columbia University Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Ordnance Research Laboratory Administrator:   Pennsylvania State University Renamed Applied Research Laboratory in 1973.
• Institute for Defense Analyses Communications and Computing Administrator:   Institute for Defense Analyses In FY 2009, the name was changed to the Center for Communications and Computing to avoid confusion between the two Department of Defense FFRDCs administered by the Institute for Defense Analyses. Although the Institute for Defense Analyses Communications and Computing has been in existence since 1956, the Department of Defense did not add it to the Master Government List of FFRDCs until October 1995.
• Institute for Defense Analyses Studies and Analyses Administrator:   Institute for Defense Analyses In FY 2009, the name was changed to the Studies and Analysis Center to avoid confusion between the two Department of Defense FFRDCs administered by the Institute for Defense Analyses.
• Logistics Management Institute Administrator:   Logistics Management Institute Decertified as FFRDC 24 September 1998.
• C3I Federally Funded Research and Development Center Administrator:   MITRE Corp. Renamed the National Security Engineering Center 25 April 2011.
• Savannah River Technology Center Administrator:   Westinghouse Savannah River Co. Renamed Savannah River National Laboratory 8 December 2005.
• Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission Administrator:   National Academy of Sciences Phased out as FFRDC in April 1975.
• Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory Administrator:   Westinghouse Electric Corp. Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in October 1992.
• Cambridge Electron Accelerator Administrator:   Harvard University and MIT Closed down in 1974.
• Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility Administrator:   Southeastern Universities Research Association, Inc. Renamed Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in May 1996.
• Energy Technology Engineering Center Administrator:   Rockwell International Corp. Closed out in November 1995.
• Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory Administrator:   Westinghouse Hanford Co. Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in October 1992. Hanford included the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor program beginning in December 1971.
• Holifield National Laboratory Administrator:   Union Carbide Corp. Renamed Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1976.
• Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Administrator:   Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company Renamed Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in spring 1997.
• Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Administrator:   Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC Renamed Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on 1 February 2005. Also, INL's administrator, Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, was replaced by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, in February 2005. As of 1 October 1999, Lockheed Martin was replaced by Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC, as the administrator.
• Inhalation Technology Research Institute Administrator:   Lovelace Institutes Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in May 1996.
• Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Administrator:   General Electric Co. Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in October 1992.
• Liquid Metal Engineering Center Administrator:   Rockwell International Corp. Became Energy Technology Engineering Center in FY 1980.
• Mound Laboratory Administrator:   Monsanto Chemical Co. Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in FY 1982.
• National Accelerator Laboratory Administrator:   Universities Research Association, Inc. Renamed Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 11 May 1974.
• National Reactor Testing Station Administrator:   Aerojet Nuclear Corp. Renamed Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in 1974.
• Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Administrator:   Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Inc. Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs in February 1999.
• Princeton-Pennsylvania Proton Accelerator Administrator:   Princeton University and University of Pennsylvania Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1971.
• Solar Energy Research Institute Administrator:   Midwest Research Institute Renamed National Renewable Energy Laboratory in September 1991.
• Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center Administrator:   Science Applications International Corp.; Charles River Laboratories, Inc.; Data Management Services, Inc.; Wilson Information Services, Inc. Renamed the National Cancer Institute at Frederick in 2001.
• NCI Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center Administrator:   Science Applications International Corp.; Advanced BioScience Laboratories, Inc.; Charles River Laboratories, Inc.; Data Management Services, Inc. Renamed National Cancer Institute at Frederick in FY 2001.
• National Cancer Institute at Frederick Administrator:   SAIC-Frederick Inc., a subsidiary of the Science Applications International Corp. Renamed the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research 28 February 2012.

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

• Appalachia Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for Educational Policy Research Administrator:   Stanford Research Institute Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for Research and Development for Learning and Re-Education Administrator:   University of Wisconsin Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for Research and Development in Higher Education Administrator:   University of California Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for Urban Education Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration Administrator:   University of Oregon Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for the Study of Social Organization of Schools and the Learning Process Administrator:   Johns Hopkins University Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Center for the Study of the Evaluation of Instructional Programs Administrator:   University of California Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Central Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Central Midwestern Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Cooperative Educational Research Laboratory, Inc. Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Coordination Center for the National Program in Early Childhood Education Administrator:   University of Illinois Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Eastern Regional Institute for Education Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Educational Development Center, Inc. Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Learning Research and Development Center Administrator:   University of Pittsburgh Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Michigan-Ohio Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• National Laboratory for Higher Education Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Policy Research Center Administrator:   Syracuse University Research Corporation Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Regional Educational Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia Administrator:   National Institute of Education Renamed National Laboratory for Higher Education in FY 1971.
• Research and Development Center in Educational Stimulation Administrator:   University of Georgia Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Research and Development Center in Teacher Education Administrator:   University of Texas Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Research for Better Schools, Inc. Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Rocky Mountain Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• South Central Regional Educational Laboratory Corporation Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1969.
• Southeastern Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching Administrator:   Stanford University Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• The Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Upper Midwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc. Administrator:   National Institute of Education Phased out as FFRDC at end of FY 1972.
• Homeland Security Institute Administrator:   Analytic Services, Inc. The Homeland Security Institute (HSI) was operational from 26 April 2004 to 25 April 2009. On 5 March 2009, the HSI was replaced by two new FFRDCs: the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute and the Homeland Security Systems Engineering Development Institute.
• Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute Administrator:   Analytic Services, Inc. The Homeland Security Systems Engineering Development Institute was operational from 5 March 2009 until it was phased out on 31 October 2016.
• Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Federally Funded Research and Development Center Administrator:   MITRE, Corp. Renamed the Center for Enterprise Modernization August 2001.
• Tax Systems Modernization Institute Administrator:   IIT Research Institute Replaced by Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Federally Funded Research and Development Center in October 1998.
• Space Radiation Effects Laboratory Administrator:   College of William and Mary Removed from the Master Government List of FFRDCs List in FY 1979.
• Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory Became part of National Optical Astronomy Observatories in 1984.
• Critical Technologies Institute Renamed the Science and Technology Policy Institute 1 October 1998.
• Green Bank Observatory Administrator:   Associated Universities, Inc. On 1 October 2016, Green Bank Observatory was split out from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory; both retained FFRDC status.
• Kitt Peak National Observatory Became part of National Optical Astronomy Observatories in 1984.
• National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center Administrator:   Cornell University Decertified as FFRDC 1 October 2011.
• National Optical Astronomy Observatory Administrator:   Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. On 1 October 2019, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory was renamed NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory. The new laboratory also incorporates operations of the International Gemini Observatory and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory. On 1 October 2009, the National Solar Observatory split from the National Optical Astronomy Observatory; both retained FFRDC status. Between February 1984 and September 2009, the National Optical Astronomy Observatory included three former FFRDCs: Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, Kitt Peak National Observatory, and the National Solar Observatory (formerly Sacramento Peak Observatory).
• National Solar Observatory/Sacramento Peak Observatory Became part of National Optical Astronomy Observatories in 1984. On 1 October 2009, the National Solar Observatory split from the National Optical Astronomy Observatory; both retained FFRDC status.

United States Courts

• Judiciary Modernization Engineering Center Administrator:   MITRE, Corp. Decertified as FFRDC 31 January 2021
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2024 Other web product | February 20, 2024
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2023 Other web product | February 17, 2023
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2022 Other web product | February 16, 2022
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2021 Other web product | March 4, 2021
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2020 Other web product | March 23, 2020
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2019 Other web product | May 3, 2019
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2018 Other web product | July 31, 2018
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2017 Other web product | March 30, 2017
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2016 Other web product | June 23, 2016
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2015 (A) Other web product | July 10, 2015
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2014 (A) Other web product | May 28, 2014
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2013 (A) Other | May 31, 2013
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2012 (A) Other | July 13, 2012
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2011 (A) Other | June 22, 2011
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2010 (A) Other | May 3, 2010
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2009 (A) Other | SRS 09-402 | August 13, 2009
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers (A) Special Reports | NSF 06-316 | May 24, 2006
• Master Government List of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers: FY 2005 (A) Special Reports | NSF 05-306 | March 2, 2005
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2004 (A) Special Reports | NSF 04-309 | March 25, 2004
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2003 (A) Special Reports | NSF 03-308 | January 27, 2003
• Annotated List of 36 Federally Funded R&D Centers (FFRDCs): FY 2002 (A) Special Reports | NSF 02-317 | March 24, 2002
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2002 (A) Special Reports | NSF 02-302 | October 29, 2001
• Annotated List of 36 Federally Funded R&D Centers (FFRDCs): FY 2001 (A) Special Reports | NSF 01-304 | November 22, 2000
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2001 (A) Special Reports | NSF 01-303 | November 22, 2000
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 2000 (A) Special Reports | NSF 00-305 | December 1, 1999
• Annotated List of Federally Funded R&D Centers (FFRDCs): March 1999 (A) Special Reports | NSF 99-334 | April 21, 1999
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 1999 (A) Special Reports | NSF 99-308 | November 23, 1998
• Annotated List of Federally Funded R&D Centers (FFRDCs): March 1998 (A) Special Reports | NSF 98-310 | March 1, 1998
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 1998 (A) Special Reports | SRS 98-403 | March 1, 1998
• Annotated List of Federally Funded R&D Centers (FFRDCs): November 1996 (A) Special Reports | SRS 97-401 | November 1, 1996
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 1997 (A) Special Reports | SRS 97-402 | November 1, 1996
• Annotated List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: 1995 (A) Special Reports | SRS 96-404 | June 1, 1996
• Master Government List of Federally Funded R&D Centers: FY 1996 (A) Special Reports | SRS 96-403 | May 1, 1996

Can't Find What You Are Looking For?

• Search NCSES to find data and reports or browse the Publication Index .
• See permissions for reuse of NCSES material.

Last Updated: February 2024

• Go to US Navigation
• Go to 3M United States Navigation
• Go to Page Content
• Go to Search
• Go to Contact Information
• Go to Site Map
• 3M United States
• Research and Development

3M Research & Development

Designed to be a LEED Certified building

100+ 3M products used in the construction

Under the parking lot is a 640,000 gallon storm water retention system (size of an Olympic Pool).

We are a new group, working on new products for new markets – like optical films that can go into augmented-reality wearable devices. It’s exciting that we are investing in higher-risk, higher-reward innovation. – Susan Kent

I am working on an adhesive for a new dry erase surface with my counterparts in the New Platform group, who were in another building. Now, I can see them face-to-face and collaborate much easier. This fits perfectly into 3M’s core culture. –Ying-Yuh Lu

This space represents an opportunity to work differently. Sometimes that’s enough to cause you to think in a different way. Just like visiting customers, you see things in new ways. We don’t know yet what can happen. – Lee Stanek

This building is beautiful and future-oriented. This is the ideal environment to brainstorm together and with our customers. We will work on solutions to reduce emissions, improve safety lighting and develop advancements for automotive. – Terry Ceulemans

There are 414 trees, 2,730 shrubs and 4,366 perennials planted on the site

Technologies

The company owns 51 technology platforms, which range from adhesives and abrasives, to ceramics and nanotechnology. Our scientists around the world share and combine these technologies across all our businesses to invent and manufacture cutting-edge products. Roughly one-third of 3M’s sales come from products introduced in the last five years.

3M R&D at a Glance

Wanted: insatiable curiosity. 3M’s work – with integrity, collaboration and innovation at its core – changes lives, homes and businesses in real ways every day. Here, you can explore your talents and reinvent your career – all with one company.

3M applies science to life around the world. The Carlton Society is our science hall of fame, honoring the very best among our scientific community for extraordinary work as scientists and mentors.

Science in Action

• Investor Relations
• Partners & Suppliers
• Sustainability / ESG
• Equity and Community
• Ethics & Compliance
• News Center
• Press Releases
• SDS, RDS, More Regulatory & Compliance Information
• Transport Information Search
• CPSIA Certification Search
• Lithium Battery UN 38.3 Test Summary Search
• Transparency in Supply Chains and Modern Slavery Disclosures
• US Ingredient Communication
• Product Recalls
• Help Center
• Where to Buy

• UB Directory
• Office of the Provost >
• Resources >

Drug Discovery, Development and Evaluation Hub Welcomes New Faculty to Fuel Innovation

By Rebecca Brierley

Published May 21, 2024

The University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences’ (UB SPPS) Drug Discovery, Development and Evaluation (DDDE) Hub , a leading research engine in the fields of pharmaceutical research and translational sciences , is proud to announce the following strategic news hires who will launch and lead critical components of the DDDE Hub. These renowned faculty hires signify the university’s and the school’s commitment to drug discovery, development and the evaluative sciences as well as its dedication to fostering a culture of innovation and research excellence.

Gary Pollack, PhD, UB SPPS Dean envisioned the construct of the DDDE Hub and was confident it was a key next step in advancing the school’s research trajectory and transdisciplinary collaborations. Pollack states “These new faculty bring a wealth of experience, creative leadership and novel approaches which will not only move the school’s research programs forward at an accelerated rate but will also create a highly unique environment to catalyze contemporary drug discovery and therapeutic research."

DDDE Hub New Faculty

Yanan (Nancy) Zhao, MD, PhD

Professor, Pharmacy Practice Division of Clinical and Translational Therapeutics Start: March 2024

Dr. Zhao is an internationally recognized infectious disease and antimicrobial researcher leading high-impact federally funded research in drug discovery and development. 

Research Focus: Development of preclinical antimicrobial drugs and the molecular diagnosis of various infectious diseases and drug resistance mechanisms including federally funded projects to develop antibody-drug conjugates to combat drug-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections. Expertise in drug development, including compound synthesis, in vitro screening, in vivo PK/PD and efficacy evaluation, GLP tox screen, and pre-IND studies in non-human primates. 

Areas of Excellence: A renowned expert in molecular diagnostics, Zhao developed rapid diagnostic tests for important drug-resistant bacterial and fungal infections, such as KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae , azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus , echinocandin-resistant C. glabrata and C. auris.

She invented an FDA-EUA approved diagnostic test, which at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, played a significant role in rapidly implementing clinical laboratory testing for over 10,000 patients. Zhao also created a high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 variant screening platform that was integrated into the NJDOH COVID surveillance program to facilitate local epidemiological monitoring and played a key role in the Metropolitan Antiviral Drug Accelerator program, a $65+M NIAID funded project to provide research and produce treatments for anti-viral threats.  

Liang Chen, MD, PhD

Dr. Chen is an internationally recognized infectious disease and antimicrobial researcher leading studies in bacterial genomics utilizing rapid molecular detection and complex genomic platforms. 

Research Focus:  Bacterial genomics and genetics, with particular focus on Multi-Drug Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli (MDRGNB), Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and multiresistant mycobacteria. He uses genomic sequencing together with informatics tools and clinical epidemiology to tackle the menace of emerging bacterial resistance.

Areas of Excellence: Chen's research on carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae (CRKp) superbug led to the discovery of the epidemic CRKp ST258 being a hybrid strain that originated from a large chromosomal recombination and has also identified significant diversification in this superclone, primarily due to the recombination of the capsular polysaccharide synthesis (cps) region and plasmid acquisition.

In addition to uncovering the epidemiology of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, Chen also focuses on understanding the molecular mechanisms behind emerging resistance to novel antimicrobials and its impact on clinical detection and therapy along with the inner workings of mobile genetic elements (MGEs) to uncover their role in antibiotic resistance and pathogenesis. 

He utilizes rapid molecular detection and genomic platforms to track and curb the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria using ‘plasmid epidemiology’ to gain a deeper understanding of the complexities between bacterial hosts and plasmids. His research group has established cutting-edge techniques, including comparative genomic analysis, RNAseq transcriptomics, transposon mutagenesis and sequencing (TnSeq), CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing and plasmid curing, CRISPR interference, and fluorescent tagging platforms.

"We are thrilled to welcome these exceptional individuals to our school and research hub," says Brian Tsuji, PharmD, associate dean, clinical and translational sciences. "Drs. Zhao and Chen, along with the other new hires, expertise and passion for innovative research and discovery will undoubtedly contribute to our mission of developing the future of novel therapeutics to address multiple health care needs."

Bhaskar Das, PhD

Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences Head, Division of Drug and Biotherapeutic Discovery Start: June 2024

Dr. Das is a leading expert in the development of new therapeutic and diagnostic agents focused on brain development and diseases.

Research Focus: Boron based small molecules design and synthesis and the use of these compounds as potential therapeutic and diagnostic agents for various diseases. These new reactions are used globally to synthesize different organic compounds and new compounds are utilized as potential therapeutic and diagnostic agents for different diseases areas. Das also collaborates with academic and industry colleagues in their drug discovery programs to design and synthesize novel pharmacological agents.

Areas of Excellence: Das’ research focuses on new methodologies for carbon-boron bond formation to synthesize boron-containing unnatural amino acids for use in cancer therapy and synthesis of chemical libraries of boron-containing agents to treat brain cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. His work also focuses on development of chemical libraries of PET and SPECT imaging agents for non-invasive diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and brain cancer along with development of new therapeutic and diagnostic agents for brain cancer, prostate cancer, obesity and cardiovascular diseases. 

Sasmita Das, PhD

Research Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences Division of Drug and Biotherapeutic Discovery Start: June 2024

Dr. Das is a classically trained organic chemist with extensive experience in drug and diagnostic discovery.

Research Focus: Das focuses on the development of novel technologies, utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML), to support drug discovery and development for obesity and obesity related diseases (neuropathy and retinopathy), focusing on the design and synthesis of small-molecular and natural product-based probes. These probes are used to identify new biomarkers and develop new therapeutic and diagnostic agents, targeting mitochondrial oxidative stress and metabolic pathways.

Zhenjia Wang, PhD

Associate Professor of Empire Innovation, Pharmaceutical Sciences Division of Drug Delivery and Biopharmaceutical Engineering Start: June 2024

Dr. Wang is a preeminent expert in the development of neutrophil-based therapeutics to improve therapies for cancer and inflammatory diseases.

Research Focus: Address fundamental questions in drug delivery pertaining to blood vessel barriers. Development of neutrophil-based therapeutics to improve the therapies for cancer and inflammatory diseases utilizing molecular biology, immunology, pharmaceutical sciences and bioengineering to understand and devise neutrophil-based therapeutics.

Areas of Excellence: The Wang Lab is a pioneer in developing neutrophil-based drug delivery systems to overcome blood vessel barriers in nanomedicines and designed nanoparticles that can selectively target neutrophils in vivo, thus neutrophils transport nanoparticles across blood vessel barriers for improved drug delivery efficiency. Development of seminal scholarship regarding the translational potential of nanoparticle formulations to treat cancer and inflammatory diseases and the development of a wide range of in vivo imaging tools to address basic questions in nanomedicines.  

Philip Lazarus, PhD

Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences Head, Division of Quantitative Molecular Biosciences Start: July 2024

Dr. Lazarus is recognized as an expert authority in how individual genetic variants play a role in cancer risk and drug toxicity and effectiveness. 

Research Focus: The Lazarus lab was one of the first to study gene-environment interactions and their role in head and neck as well as lung cancer risk. He has performed numerous studies on nicotine metabolism and addiction and has performed seminal studies focusing on the role of cannabinoids and marijuana in drug-drug interactions and drug metabolism. In addition, his laboratory has studied the pharmacogenetics of breast cancer agents including serum estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors.

Areas of Excellence: Lazarus is a leader in studies of the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase family of phase II metabolizing enzymes and has numerous papers studying their regulation and their role in cancer risk and drug addiction along with federal funding to study the body’s ability to keep tobacco smoke components from causing cancer. 

Anne Talkington, PhD

Assistant Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences Division of Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Systems Pharmacology Start: January 2025

Dr. Talkington is currently completing a National Research Council Fellowship at the National Institute of Standards and Technology focusing on pharmacokinetics, applied mathematics and mathematical modeling. 

Research Focus: Her research focuses on leveraging modeling and simulation to improve drug design and delivery strategies along with opportunities to integrate techniques from model learning and optimization with innovative developments in therapeutic design.

“The Drug Discovery Research Hub is dedicated to pushing the boundaries of translational, biotherapeutic and pharmacologic research forward to accelerate the discovery and development of novel therapeutics," states Donald Mager, PharmD, PhD, chair, department of pharmaceutical sciences. "With the addition of these new hires, the Hub aims to strengthen its position as a global leader in drug discovery research and experimental therapeutics.“

The initiation of the DDDE Hub is predicated on UB SPPS decades long research leadership in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and systems pharmacology. This long history, along with recent significant school-wide research growth [26% growth in year-to-date research funding per American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy FY 2023 research data], will provide a strong foundation for the school and faculty to continue pioneering research in drug discovery, development and evaluative science. 

For over 135 years, the University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences has continually been a leader in the education of pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists, renowned for innovation in clinical practice and research. The school is accredited by the American Council of Pharmaceutical Education and is the No. 1 ranked school of pharmacy in New York State and No. 19 in the United States by U.S. News & World Report.

Do you have questions or comments for the Office of the Provost? Let us know your thoughts and we’ll be happy to get back to you.

PhD Excellence Initiative

A campus-wide, student-centric effort to ensure that UB’s PhD programs remain among the strongest in the world.

Recent University News

• 5/24/24 Semiconductor advance could lead to improved electronic devices
• 5/24/24 UB partnership receives $1.8 million grant to accelerate security for AI adoption in U.S. Department of Defense
• 5/23/24 Conference at UB to address youth mental health crisis
• 5/23/24 UBIT partners with Cybersecurity Club

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
• 15 May 2024

‘Quantum internet’ demonstration in cities is most advanced yet

• Davide Castelvecchi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

A quantum network node at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. Credit: Marieke de Lorijn for QuTech

Three separate research groups have demonstrated quantum entanglement — in which two or more objects are linked so that they contain the same information even if they are far apart — over several kilometres of existing optical fibres in real urban areas. The feat is a key step towards a future quantum internet , a network that could allow information to be exchanged while encoded in quantum states.

Together, the experiments are “the most advanced demonstrations so far” of the technology needed for a quantum internet, says physicist Tracy Northup at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. Each of the three research teams — based in the United States, China and the Netherlands — was able to connect parts of a network using photons in the optical-fibre-friendly infrared part of the spectrum, which is a “major milestone”, says fellow Innsbruck physicist Simon Baier.

How to build a quantum internet

A quantum internet could enable any two users to establish almost unbreakable cryptographic keys to protect sensitive information . But full use of entanglement could do much more, such as connecting separate quantum computers into one larger, more powerful machine. The technology could also enable certain types of scientific experiment, for example by creating networks of optical telescopes that have the resolution of a single dish hundreds of kilometres wide.

Two of the studies 1 , 2 were published in Nature on 15 May. The third was described last month in a preprint posted on arXiv 3 , which has not yet been peer reviewed.

Impractical environment

Many of the technical steps for building a quantum internet have been demonstrated in the laboratory over the past decade or so. And researchers have shown that they can produce entangled photons using lasers in direct line of sight of each other, either in separate ground locations or on the ground and in space.

But going from the lab to a city environment is “a different beast”, says Ronald Hanson, a physicist who led the Dutch experiment 3 at the Delft University of Technology. To build a large-scale network, researchers agree that it will probably be necessary to use existing optical-fibre technology. The trouble is, quantum information is fragile and cannot be copied; it is often carried by individual photons, rather than by laser pulses that can be detected and then amplified and emitted again. This limits the entangled photons to travelling a few tens of kilometres before losses make the whole thing impractical. “They also are affected by temperature changes throughout the day — and even by wind, if they’re above ground,” says Northup. “That’s why generating entanglement across an actual city is a big deal.”

The three demonstrations each used different kinds of ‘quantum memory’ device to store a qubit, a physical system such as a photon or atom that can be in one of two states — akin to the ‘1’ or ‘0’ of ordinary computer bits — or in a combination, or ‘quantum superposition’, of the two possibilities.

The quantum internet has arrived (and it hasn’t)

In one of the Nature studies, led by Pan Jian-Wei at the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) in Hefei, qubits were encoded in the collective states of clouds of rubidium atoms 1 . The qubits’ quantum states can be set using a single photon, or can be read out by ‘tickling’ the atomic cloud to emit a photon. Pan’s team had such quantum memories set up in three separate labs in the Hefei area. Each lab was connected by optical fibres to a central ‘photonic server’ around 10 kilometres away. Any two of these nodes could be put in an entangled state if the photons from the two atom clouds arrived at the server at exactly the same time.

By contrast, Hanson and his team established a link between individual nitrogen atoms embedded in small diamond crystals with qubits encoded in the electron states of the nitrogen and in the nuclear states of nearby carbon atoms 3 . Their optical fibre went from the university in Delft through a tortuous 25-kilometre path across the suburbs of The Hague to reach a second laboratory in the city.

In the US experiment, Mikhail Lukin, a physicist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his collaborators also used diamond-based devices, but with silicon atoms instead of nitrogen, making use of the quantum states of both an electron and a silicon nucleus 2 . Single atoms are less efficient than atomic ensembles at emitting photons on demand, but they are more versatile, because they can perform rudimentary quantum computations. “Basically, we entangled two small quantum computers,” says Lukin. The two diamond-based devices were in the same building at Harvard, but to mimic the conditions of a metropolitan network, the researchers used an optical fibre that snaked around the local Boston area. “It crosses the Charles River six times,” Lukin says.

Challenges ahead

The entanglement procedure used by the Chinese and the Dutch teams required photons to arrive at a central server with exquisite timing precision, which was one of the main challenges in the experiments. Lukin’s team used a protocol that does not require such fine-tuning: instead of entangling the qubits by getting them to emit photons, the researchers sent one photon to entangle itself with the silicon atom at the first node. The same photon then went around the fibre-optic loop and came back to graze the second silicon atom, thereby entangling it with the first.

Pan has calculated that at the current pace of advance, by the end of the decade his team should be able to establish entanglement over 1,000 kilometres of optical fibres using ten or so intermediate nodes, with a procedure called entanglement swapping . (At first, such a link would be very slow, creating perhaps one entanglement per second, he adds.) Pan is the leading researcher for a project using the satellite Micius , which demonstrated the first quantum-enabled communications in space, and he says there are plans for a follow-up mission.

“The step has now really been made out of the lab and into the field,” says Hanson. “It doesn’t mean it’s commercially useful yet, but it’s a big step.”

Nature 629 , 734-735 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01445-2

Knaut, C. M. et al. Nature 629 , 573–578 (2024).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Liu, J. L. et al. Nature 629 , 579–585 (2024).

Stolk, A. J. et al. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.03723 (2024).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

The AI–quantum computing mash-up: will it revolutionize science?

• Quantum physics
• Quantum information

Entanglement of nanophotonic quantum memory nodes in a telecom network

Article 15 MAY 24

Wavefunction matching for solving quantum many-body problems

Creation of memory–memory entanglement in a metropolitan quantum network

An atomic boson sampler

Article 08 MAY 24

Professor, Division Director, Translational and Clinical Pharmacology

Cincinnati Children’s seeks a director of the Division of Translational and Clinical Pharmacology.

Cincinnati, Ohio

Cincinnati Children's Hospital & Medical Center

Data Analyst for Gene Regulation as an Academic Functional Specialist

The Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn is an international research university with a broad spectrum of subjects. With 200 years of his...

53113, Bonn (DE)

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

Recruitment of Global Talent at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

The Institute of Zoology (IOZ), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), is seeking global talents around the world.

Beijing, China

Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

Full Professorship (W3) in “Organic Environmental Geochemistry (f/m/d)

The Institute of Earth Sciences within the Faculty of Chemistry and Earth Sciences at Heidelberg University invites applications for a   FULL PROFE...

Heidelberg, Brandenburg (DE)

Universität Heidelberg

Postdoctoral scholarship in Structural biology of neurodegeneration

A 2-year fellowship in multidisciplinary project combining molecular, structural and cell biology approaches to understand neurodegenerative disease

Umeå, Sweden

Umeå University

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

Quick links

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