Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Science and research policy at the end of Moore’s law

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 05 February 2018

This article has been updated


The integrated circuit is today synonymous with the concept of technological progress. In the seven decades since the invention of the transistor at Bell Labs, relentless progress in the development of semiconductor devices — Moore’s law — has been achieved despite regular warnings from industry observers about impending limits. Here, drawing on technical and organizational archival work and oral histories, we argue that the current technological and structural challenges facing the industry are unprecedented and undermine the incentives for continued collective action in research and development, which has underpinned the past 50 years of transformational worldwide economic growth and social advance. We conclude by arguing that the lack of private incentives, due in part to a splintering of technology trajectories and short-term private profitability of many of these new splinters, creates a case for greatly increased public funding and the need for leadership beyond traditional stakeholders.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Total sales of US semiconductor firms and share of sales to Federal Government, 1955–1968.
Fig. 2: Annual sales of US semiconductor firms by technology type.
Fig. 3: R&D expenditures for major US-based integrated semiconductor manufacturers, 1980–2014.
Fig. 4: SRC membership by membership type, 1983–2013.

Change history

  • 05 February 2018

    In the version of this Perspective originally published, in the penultimate paragraph 'Office for Nuclear Regulation' should have read 'Office of Naval Research'. This has now been corrected.


  1. Rosenberg, N. & Trajtenberg, M. A General-purpose technology at work: the Corliss steam engine in the late-nineteenth-century United States. J. Econ. Hist. 64, 61–99 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jorgenson, D. W. Information technology and the U.S. economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 91, 1–32 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jorgenson, D. W. & Vu, K. Information technology and the world growth resurgence. Ger. Econ. Rev. 8, 125–145 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. The news of Radio: two new shows on CBS will replace ‘Radio Theatre’ during the summer. New York Times 46 (1 July 1948).

  5. Watzinger, M., Fackler, T. A., Nagler, M. & Schnitzer, M. How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree (2017);

  6. Early, J. M. Maximum rapidly-switchable power density in junction triodes. IRE Trans. Electron Devices 6, 322–325 (1959).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldey, J. & Ryder, R. Are transistors approaching their maximum capabilities? in 1963 IEEE Int. Solid-State Circuits Conf. Digest of Technical Papers VI, 20–21 (1963).

  8. Wallmark, J. & Marcus, S. Minimum size and maximum packing density of nonredundant semiconductor devices. Proc. IRE 50, 286–298 (1962).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson, E. Physical limitations on frequency and power parameters of transistors. IRE Int. Convention Record 13, 27–34 (1965).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Morton, J. & Pietenpol, W. The technological impact of transistors. Proc. IRE 6, 955–959 (1958).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Holbrook, D. Government support of the semiconductor industry: diverse approaches and information flows. Bus. Econ. Hist. 24, 133–165 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moore, G. E. Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38, 114–117 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dennard, R. H., Gaensslen, F. H., Rideout, V. L., Bassous, E. & LeBlanc, A. R. Design of ion-implanted MOSFETs with very small physical dimensions. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits 9, 256–268 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moore, G. E. Progress in digital integrated electronics. 1975 Int. Electron Devices Meeting Technical Digest 21, 11–13 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Baccarani, G., Wordeman, M. R. & Dennard, R. H. Generalized scaling theory and its application to a 1/4 micrometer MOSFET design. IEEE Trans. Electron. Devices 31, 452–462 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ouchi, W. G. Political and economic teamwork: the development of the microelectronics industry of Japan. Calif. Manage. Rev. 26, 8 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Burger, R. M. Cooperative Research: The New Paradigm (2000);

  18. Browning, L. D. & Shetler, J. C. SEMATECH: Saving the U.S. Semiconductor Industry (Texas A&M Univ. Press, Texas, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Spencer, W. J. & Grindley, P. SEMATECH after five years: high-technology consortia and US competitiveness. Calif. Manag. Rev. 35, 9–9 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grindley, P., Mowery, D. C. & Silverman, B. SEMATECH and collaborative research: Lessons in the design of high-technology consortia. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 13, 723–758 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Macher, J. T., Mowery, D. C. & Hodges, D. A. Reversal of fortune? The recovery of the U.S. semiconductor industry. Calif. Manag. Rev. 41, 107–136 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Carayannis, E. G. & Alexander, J. Strategy, structure, and performance issues of precompetitive R&D consortia: insights and lessons learned from SEMATECH. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag 51, 226–232 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Macher, J. T., Mowery, D. C. & Di Minin, A. in U.S. Industry in 2000: Studies in Competitive Performance (ed. Mowery, D. C.) 245–286 (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 1999).

  24. Macher, J. T. & Mowery, D. C. Vertical specialization and industry structure in high technology industries. Adv. Strateg. Manag. 21, 317–355 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Angel, D. P. New firm formation in the semiconductor industry: elements of a flexible manufacturing system. Reg. Stud. 24, 211–221 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kapoor, R. Persistence of integration in the face of specialization: how firms navigated the winds of disintegration and shaped the architecture of the semiconductor industry. Organ. Sci. 24, 1195–1213 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lim, K. The many faces of absorptive capacity: spillovers of copper interconnect technology for semiconductor chips. Ind. Corp. Change 18, 1249–1284 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mowery, D. C. & Rosenberg, N. Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rosenbloom, R. S. & Spencer, W. J. (eds) Engines of Innovation: U.S. Industrial Research at the End of an Era (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996).

  30. Schaller, R. R. Technological Innovation in the Semiconductor Industry: A Case Study of the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS). PhD thesis, George Mason Univ. (2004).

  31. Mollick, E. Establishing Moore’s Law. IEEE Ann. Hist. Comput. 28, 62–75 (2006).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Gargini, P. in 22nd Annual IEEE Gallium Arsenide Integrated Circuits Symp. Technical Digest 2000 3–5 (2000).

  33. Spencer, W. J. & Seidel, T. E. in Productivity and Cyclicality in Semiconductors: Trends, Implications, and Questions — Report of a Symposium 135 (NRC, 2004).

  34. National Research Council Securing the Future: Regional and National Programs to Support the Semiconductor Industry (The National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2003);

  35. Packan, P. A. Pushing the limits. Science 285, 2079–2081 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Thompson, N. The economic impact of Moore’s Law: evidence from when it faltered. SSRN Electron. J. (2017).

  37. National Research Council. The Future of Computing Performance (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ho, M. S., Jorgenson, D. W. & Samuels, J. D. Information technology and U.S. productivity growth: evidence from a prototype industry production account. J. Product. Anal. 36, 159–175 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors 2.0 (ITRS, 2016);

  40. Natarajan, S. et al. A 14 nm logic technology featuring 2nd-generation FinFET, air-gapped interconnects, self-aligned double patterning and a 0.0588 µm2 SRAM cell size. 2014 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting 3.7.1–3.7.3 (2014);

  41. Horowitz, M. 1.1 Computing’s energy problem (and what we can do about it). IEEE Int. Solid-State Circuits Conf. Digest of Technical Papers 57, 10–14 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Huang, W., Rajamani, K., Stan, M. R. & Skadron, K. Scaling with design constraints: predicting the future of big chips. IEEE Micro 31, 16–29 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cutress, I. Intel’s ‘Tick-Tock’ seemingly dead, becomes ‘process-architecture-optimization’. AnandTech (22 March 2016).

  44. Hruska, J. Nvidia deeply unhappy with TSMC, claims 20 nm essentially worthless. ExtremeTech (23 March 2012).

  45. Bohr, M. Technology Leadership (2017);

  46. Zeng, W. et al. First quantum computers need smart software. Nature 549, 149–151 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS, 2001);

  48. International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS, 2003);

  49. Zhirnov, V. V., Cavin, R. K., Hutchby, J. A. & Bourianoff, G. I. Limits to binary logic switch scaling — a gedanken model. Proc. IEEE 9, 1934–1939 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Galatsis, K. et al. Nanoelectronics research gaps and recommendations: a report from the International Planning Working Group on Nanoelectronics (IPWGN) [Commentary]. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 34, 21–30 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  52. PCAST. Report to the President: Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership in Semiconductors (Executive Office of the President, Washington DC, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Chen, A., Hutchby, J., Zhirnov, V. V. & Bourianoff, G. Emerging Nanoelectronic Devices (Wiley Blackwell, Hoboken, 2015).

  54. Merritt, R. China’s SMIC, Q’comm in 14 nm deal. EETimes (23 June 2015).

  55. Flemish Government increases financial support of imec IMEC (21 February 2017);

  56. Brillouet, M. et al. Regional, national, and international nanoelectronics research programs: topical concentration and gaps. Proc. IEEE 98, 1993–2004 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Powell, W. W. & Grodal, S. in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (eds Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C. & Nelson, R. R.) 56–85 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2005).

  58. Nelson, R. R. Uncertainty, learning, and the economics of parallel research and development efforts. Rev. Econ. Stat. 43, 351 (1961).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Scherer, F. M. Parallel R&D Paths Revisited (Harvard Kennedy School of Governemnt, Harvard, 2011).

  60. Gargini, P. Industrial Research Institute — Concept. Presentation to SIA TSC (14 January 2004).

  61. Levin, R. C. in Government and Technical Progress : A Cross-Industry Analysis (ed. Nelson, R. R.) (Pergamon, Oxford, 1982).

  62. ICE. Status of Integrated Circuits Reports, 1970–1997. Integrated Circuit Engineering Archives at National Museum of American History (Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Standard & Poor’s. Complete Financial Statements: Advanced Micro Devices Inc, Intel Corporation, International Business Machines Corp., Micron Technology, Inc., Texas Instruments Inc. from Compustat Database (Retrieved 14 May 2013).

Download references


We thank the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program, the NIST (award no. 28994.1.1080278) and the NSF’s Science of Science and Innovation Policy Program (award no. 28935.1.1121844) for funding this research. We also thank the 50 individuals from across industry, academia and government who agreed to oral histories, the many individuals around the industry who took the time to provide feedback, and the Semiconductor Research Corporation for granting us access to their archives.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



H.N.K. was involved in all aspects of writing the paper including project development, data collection, data analysis, discussion and writing. D.H. was involved in project planning, development, data collection, data analysis, discussion and writing. E.R.H.F. was involved in project initiation, planning, development, data analysis, discussion and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erica R. H. Fuchs.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A correction to this article is available online at

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, H.N., Hounshell, D.A. & Fuchs, E.R.H. Science and research policy at the end of Moore’s law. Nat Electron 1, 14–21 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

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

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing