The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a measurement standards laboratory and non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce. NIST is known for developing and promoting measurement, standards, and technology to enhance productivity and facilitate trade. Some key responsibilities include cooperating with other governmental agencies, the private sector, and international organizations, encouraging research, conducting technical services, and promoting the use of products and services that adhere to NIST standards.
While NIST plays an important role in developing standards and measurements to drive innovation and support industry, the institute also has some drawbacks. Here are some of the key disadvantages and criticisms of NIST:
Bureaucracy and Slow Adoption of New Standards
As a government agency, NIST can be slow to act and burdened by bureaucracy. The process of developing and establishing new standards can take many years. This means that industry adoption of new standards lags behind the pace of technology innovation. NIST’s lengthy standards development process struggles to keep up with the rapid rate of advancement in many technology fields today.
Focus on Physical Sciences Over Information Technology
Historically, NIST has devoted more resources and attention to physical science and measurement disciplines like physics, nanotechnology and manufacturing. Less emphasis has been placed on information technology, software and cybersecurity standards. As our economy becomes more digitized, NIST plays catchup in developing rigorous standards for critical IT systems, data formats, blockchain, AI and software development.
Perceived Conflicts of Interest
While NIST is intended to be an unbiased, third-party standards body, some believe its close collaboration with industry undermines its objectivity. Critics argue that corporate interests have too much sway over NIST initiatives and standards development. This erodes public trust in the rigor and impartiality of NIST standards.
Underfunding and Brain Drain
NIST has faced budget cuts and hiring freezes in recent years, hampering its standards development efforts. Meanwhile, private technology firms can lure away top NIST talent with lucrative compensation offers. This “brain drain” from the public to the private sector also threatens NIST’s expertise and capabilities.
NIST Bureaucracy Results in Slow Standards Development
One of the most common criticisms leveled at NIST is that as a government entity, it is hampered by red tape and bureaucracy. Developing measurement standards through a deliberative process involving scientists, industry and academia invariably takes time. However, NIST’s pace of developing, testing and establishing new standards is seen by many as lagging unacceptable behind innovation in the private sector.
Hi-tech industries like semiconductor fabrication, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and others are advancing extremely rapidly. They need measurement standards, protocols, test data formats, and other infrastructure to continue to innovate and ensure quality, interoperability and safety. NIST has struggled to keep pace with these demands.
For example, in the semiconductor industry, critics argue that NIST’s semiconductor validation standards are obsolete only a few years after publication. Rapid innovation in chip manufacturing and miniaturization can quickly render measurement and testing protocols outdated. But revising or developing new standards through NIST’s formal process takes too long to match the pace of change in the industry.
Similar concerns plague NIST’s efforts to develop standards for emerging technologies like quantum computing, AI and the Internet of Things (IoT). NIST lacks nimbleness and agility, with proposed new standards subject to lengthy peer review, public comment periods, working group deliberations, and formal approval steps. This bureaucratic inertia causes significant delays before standards are finally adopted.
Many believe NIST needs more flexibility and responsiveness in its standards development process. Steps to accelerate standards development, like pursuing provisional standards on a pilot basis or establishing “fast-track” procedures for priority areas, could help NIST better support innovation. But substantial bureaucracy remains baked into its model as a governmental entity.
Lengthy Standards Development Process
NIST standards projects follow a lengthy sequence of steps:
– Proposal – New standards are proposed to NIST by government, industry, academia or other stakeholders.
– Public comment – Proposals are published in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
– Merit review – NIST assess the merit, need and feasibility of developing the proposed standard.
– Working group – If accepted, a working group of experts is formed to develop the standard.
– Draft release – Working group releases a draft standard for public review and comment.
– Pilot testing – Draft standards are piloted on a trial basis before finalization.
– Final draft – Public feedback is incorporated into a final draft standard.
– Approval – NIST official approves and adopts the final standard.
– Publication – Completed standard is formally published as a NIST Standard.
This iterative, consensus-based process often takes 5 years or longer to complete for a new standard. The extensive deliberation aims to ensure quality and broad acceptance. However, the years-long timeline struggles to support industries innovating at a breakneck pace.
Examples of Delayed Standards Adoption
– Cryptographic standards – AES encryption standard took 5 years to develop, lagging the latest encryption innovations.
– Smart grid standards – 10-year standards development process couldn’t keep up with utility industry advancement.
– Cloud computing standards – Lag of cloud standards impeded interoperability and stakeholder collaboration.
– Fintech standards – NIST still developing baseline fintech standards years after need was identified.
– Blockchain standards – Bitcoin emerged in 2009 but NIST only began blockchain work in 2016.
NIST’s Historical Emphasis on Physical Sciences
Another disadvantage of NIST is its traditional strategic focus on physical science measurement disciplines rather than information technology. As a 100-year-old institution, NIST (formerly the National Bureau of Standards) built its reputation on research and standards for scientific metrology, industrial manufacturing, material sciences and related fields.
For most of its history, NIST has housed world-class physicists, chemists, engineers and other physical scientists working in specialized laboratories. They excelled at precision measurement, atomic clocks, material analysis and foundational scientific research. Accordingly, the bulk of NIST’s standards work centered on document reference materials, tests and calibrations for specialized scientific instruments and industrial equipment.
However, as technology revolutionized transportation, commerce, communications, medicine, entertainment and virtually every aspect of modern life, NIST was slower to adapt and expand into burgeoning fields like software development, telecommunications, biomedicine and information security. Private tech firms led the pack in information technology innovations while NIST lagged behind.
Recognizing this gap, NIST has worked over the past two decades to rapidly build up its programs addressing IT, cybersecurity and other digital technologies. But critics argue it still disproportionately focuses on physical science at the expense of the booming information economy. They contend that NIST must strengthen its computer science and software engineering capabilities to meet national needs. The risks posed by software flaws, data breaches, tech ethics issues and other digital threats oblige NIST to devote more resources to understanding bits, not just atoms.
Historical Timeline
– 1901 – NIST founded as the National Bureau of Standards
– Early focus – Scientific metrology, physical reference materials, lab sciences
– 1990s – NIST expands into IT security with encryption standards
– 2000s – Ramp up of digital security, quantum, AI and other IT research
– 2020s – NIST plays catch up in setting standards for emerging tech fields
Organizational Structure Reflects Physical Sciences Focus
NIST is organized into the following primary laboratory units:
– Material Measurement Laboratory
– Physical Measurement Laboratory
– Engineering Laboratory
– Information Technology Laboratory
– NIST Center for Neutron Research
The first 3 laboratories relate to physical sciences and engineering. IT and cybersecurity programs are consolidated into the Information Technology Laboratory, reflecting their secondary historical importance.
Some specific examples of NIST’s traditional strategic emphasis on physical sciences:
– World-leading atomic clock research
– Nobel Prizes for NIST physicist researchers
– Cutting-edge nanotechnology research
– Pioneering manufacturing and industrial IoT initiatives like Smart Manufacturing
– Precision instrumentation for chemistry, biomedical science, physics and other lab research
Lagging Status of Information Technology Research
In contrast, some examples of lagging IT capabilities and standards:
– Cryptographic standards playing catch-up with commercial encryption
– Cybersecurity framework and standards behind the pace of threats
– Minimal involvement in early Internet standards setting
– Lacking software development standards for security and quality
– Relatively small computer science research programs compared to the National Science Foundation and academia
– Struggling to set baseline standards for emerging technologies like AI, quantum and biotech
Perceived Corporate Influence and Conflicts of Interest
As an unbiased, third-party standards body, NIST must carefully guard its objectivity and independence. However, critics have long argued that corporate interests have excessive influence over NIST’s standards setting activities. They warn that private sector manipulation undermines NIST’s impartiality and public accountability.
NIST necessarily works closely with business and industry to perform its role. Corporate scientists and engineers provide critical data, research access, pilot studies, funding support, facilities access and other resources to help inform NIST’s standards development. NIST relies on this public-private collaboration to carry out its mission.
However, detractors point to instances of corporate dominance steering — and undermining – NIST standards work. While businesses advocate to sway standards in their favor, some morally concerning cases have emerged:
– **Scientific falsification** – Company scientists allegedly falsified safety data furnished to NIST researchers, resulting in dangerous standards.
– **Delay of improved standards** – Claims of businesses obstructing and slowing standards that would benefit public safety but increase costs.
– **Standards dilution** – Companiesmultiply alternative standards to resist regulation, undermine mandatory standards.
– **Revolving door** – Concern over private sector people moving in and out of NIST, creating conflicts of interest.
Such incidents undermine confidence that NIST standards represent unbiased, evidence-based “ground truth”. With corporate influence baked into its collaborative process, critics argue that NIST standards inherently favor industry over consumers, public agencies and other stakeholders.
Corporate Funding of NIST Laboratory Facilities
To supplement limited federal funding, NIST accepts corporate financing to construct new laboratory buildings and facilities. For example:
– Dow Chemical – Dow Materials Research Laboratory
– Boeing – Boeing Metrology Center
– Applied Materials – Nanomanufacturing Lab
Critics contend that naming rights and close partnerships give sponsors undue influence over research agendas and standards in their areas of interest.
Most NIST Standards Committees Led by Industry
A majority of NIST standards developing committees are chaired or co-chaired by corporate representatives.
Examples:
– Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative – co-chaired by GE, Lockheed Martin
– U.S. Resiliency Council – chaired by private sector organizations
– Cybersecurity Working Groups – co-chaired by Google, MITRE Corp
– Blockchain Standards – chaired by Accenture, Commerce Dept
This corporate leadership fuels skepticism.
Underfunding and Workforce Challenges Hamper NIST Capabilities
Many experts argue that chronic underfunding impedes NIST from fully meeting its mission and serving national needs. Its budget has lagged rising demands and national R&D spending growth. Despite taking on added responsibilities, NIST’s purchasing power has actually declined since the 1990s in real inflation-adjusted terms.
Insufficient funding has forced operating cutbacks, hiring freezes, and suspension of important programs. NIST faces challenges recruiting and retaining top scientific talent when unable to offer competitive government salaries. Tightening budgets also mean fewer resources to update aging equipment and facilities.
NIST funding trends:
– Peak funding in 1990s – $750M+ annually
– 2021 budget – $1.04 billion
– Biden FY2023 request – $1.5 billion
– U.S. total R&D budget – $175 billion
NIST’s small fraction of U.S. R&D hampers its programs and standards work. Meanwhile top staff get regularly get hired away by private technology firms that can triple their compensation. This “brain drain” causes continual loss of world-class cryptographers, quantum researchers, cybersecurity experts and other rare talent.
Chronic underinvestment compromises NIST’s standards development, hampering national science and technology progress. More resources are needed to attract specialized skillsets, meet stakeholder demands, proactively safeguard emerging technologies, and keep America globally competitive. An enhanced budget would help NIST acquire capabilities and nimbleness to fulfill its vision and avoid the disadvantages plaguing it today.
Declining Purchasing Power
While NIST’s nominal budget has increased modestly in recent decades, its inflation-adjusted purchasing power peaked in the 1990s and has since declined over 12% according to the American Institute of Physics.
NIST Budget in Millions of Real 2021 Dollars:
1990: $963M
2000: $847M
2010: $584M
2021: $847M
This real-dollar funding decline severely constrains NIST programs.
Key Impacts of NIST Underfunding
– Delayed lab construction and upgrades
– Shortfalls in staff scientists and administrative personnel
– Overstretched cybersecurity resources
– Canceled research programs and standards committees
– Dated technology infrastructure
– Reduced national calibration services
– Higher industry costs from delayed standards
– Growing risk of standards gaps in emerging technologies
Workforce and Brain Drain Issues
NIST workforce declined over 20% from 1990s peak, before recent modest growth. But it struggles to attract and retain specialized talent, losing many experts to private sector jobs offering double or triple the compensation of federal salaries. This brain drain hampers NIST capabilities, especially in specialized IT fields.
Examples of critical skillsets lost:
– Top cryptographers and blockchain engineers
– Quantum computing physicists
– AI and machine learning authorities
– Cybersecurity forensic analysts
– Data scientists
– DNA sequencing experts
Growing private sector demand exacerbates recruitment and retention challenges in advanced tech fields. NIST risks falling further behind without resources to attract world-class talent.
Conclusion
NIST provides invaluable measurement standards, research programs and technological guidance for stakeholders across government, industry and academia. It plays an important role fostering innovation and supporting the economy through its technical outputs and services. However, NIST also faces structural disadvantages as a governmental body that hamper its effectiveness and hold it back from achieving its full potential benefit to society.
The most significant downsides include:
– Lengthy bureaucratic process that delays standards development and adoption
– Historical overemphasis on physical sciences rather than modern information technologies
– Perceived manipulation of standards work by corporate and industry interests
– Insufficient funding levels that undermine capabilities and workforce
Addressing these weaknesses presents an opportunity to improve NIST’s functioning. With reforms and added resources, NIST could accelerate standards development, enhance agility, build up promising new fields, safeguard objectivity, and attract specialized talent. Optimizing NIST’s effectiveness remains an important objective to fully realize its mission.