Boise State University has emerged as the pivotal regional leader for semiconductor education and workforce development in the Pacific Intermountain region through its designation as the lead institution in the National Network for Microelectronics Education (NNME). This prestigious appointment, announced during a campus press conference, spotlights Boise State as a cornerstone in the national strategy to address critical workforce shortages in the semiconductor sector, directly influenced by the CHIPS and Science Act’s emphasis on revitalizing microelectronics manufacturing across the United States.

Funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (NSF TIP) in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the NNME initiative represents a nationwide response to the escalating demand for highly skilled semiconductor professionals. As semiconductor technology drives innovation in virtually every modern industry—from consumer electronics to automotive and defense systems—the need for a robust, well-educated workforce has become paramount. Boise State’s role as the regional hub means it will lead efforts in shaping educational curricula, fostering industry partnerships, and coordinating workforce development programs to cultivate a pipeline of talent ready for semiconductor careers.

The semiconductor industry forecasts a staggering shortfall of up to one million workers by 2030, particularly in manufacturing, engineering, and technical support sectors. This workforce gap presents a formidable barrier to the industry’s continued expansion and U.S. leadership in microelectronics technology. Regional nodes like the one led by Boise State are designed to provide localized solutions tailored to the unique needs of their respective geographies, bridging the divide between academic training and employer requirements. The Pacific Intermountain Network will integrate K-12 outreach to cultivate early interest, community college programs for foundational skills, and university-level advanced technical education to produce highly capable professionals.

Boise State University’s selection was underpinned by its robust engineering programs, cutting-edge laboratory facilities, and established relationships with semiconductor manufacturers and technology enterprises throughout the region. These assets empower the university to implement hands-on learning experiences utilizing industry-standard equipment, an indispensable component of microelectronics education. Additionally, the program aims to facilitate internship opportunities that immerse students in real-world semiconductor production environments, thus enhancing their practical skills and employability upon graduation.

This initiative underscores the importance of accessible and inclusive education pathways that accommodate students from diverse backgrounds. The NNME program’s holistic approach addresses barriers to entry and retention in STEM fields, ensuring that equal opportunities exist for underrepresented populations within the semiconductor workforce. By fostering collaboration among educational institutions, industry, and workforce organizations, the network seeks to build a sustainable ecosystem where innovation and talent development reinforce one another.

Jennifer Ellis, Director of the NNME, emphasized the coalition’s unique ability to unify stakeholders across sectors to form a “talent engine” capable of responding to the semiconductor industry’s dynamic labor needs. Meanwhile, Shari Liss, Vice President of Workforce Development at SEMI, articulated the strategic significance of establishing Regional Nodes as foundational elements of the national microelectronics workforce infrastructure. These nodes serve as critical points of convergence, linking national priorities with regional execution.

Boise State’s commitment extends beyond educational programming; it aligns with broader regional economic development goals by attracting semiconductor industry investment and enhancing technological innovation capacity. As microelectronics continues to infiltrate emerging fields like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced sensing, an adept workforce becomes not only a driver of economic growth but also a safeguard for technological sovereignty. The university’s increased focus on doctoral and master’s programs in engineering signifies a strengthening of research capabilities that complement workforce training initiatives.

The strategic collaboration between NSF TIP, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the NNME, and the SEMI Foundation illustrates a comprehensive approach to reviving American competitiveness in microelectronics. The SEMI Foundation’s role in workforce development—working across companies and institutions to streamline career pathways—complements Boise State’s educational leadership. Together, these efforts aim to address the semiconductor talent gap while supporting inclusive economic opportunity and sustainable industry growth.

The Pacific Intermountain Network for Education in Semiconductors is more than a regional initiative; it is a critical node within a national fabric dedicated to securing the future of microelectronics innovation. By integrating education, workforce preparedness, and industry engagement, Boise State University exemplifies how academic institutions can serve as catalysts for resolving complex workforce challenges. Their leadership reinforces the emerging paradigm that meeting 21st-century technological demands requires coordinated, multi-sector collaboration and investment in human capital.

For those seeking detailed information about Boise State’s efforts within the NNME framework or to explore opportunities in semiconductor education and workforce development, resources are available at boisestate.edu/microelectronics. The university’s proactive stance ensures that the Pacific Intermountain region will remain an influential contributor to the national semiconductor workforce ecosystem, helping to drive continued advancements in technology and economic vitality.

Subject of Research: Semiconductor workforce development and microelectronics education
Article Title: Boise State University Named Lead Institution for Pacific Intermountain Semiconductor Education Network
News Publication Date: Not specified in the source content
Web References: boisestate.edu/microelectronics, nsf.gov/tip/latest
References: National Science Foundation Award No. OTA-25Z2966
Image Credits: Boise State University
Keywords: semiconductor education, workforce development, microelectronics, semiconductor industry, STEM education, NSF TIP, National Network for Microelectronics Education, SEMI Foundation, semiconductor workforce shortage, Pacific Intermountain region

Last August, the Trump administration issued an executive order intended to fundamentally alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had made the US a scientific superpower, peer reviewers rated the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies used these ratings to determine which grants got funded. Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers.

In the interim, the administration has lost many court cases because it turns out that issuing executive orders doesn't circumvent legal requirements, and the orders can be vacated if they lack strong justification. To avoid that same fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has decided to merge the executive order with other administration priorities and send it through the formal federal rulemaking process.

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn't in the "national interest." The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

Read full article

Comments

Last August, the Trump administration issued an executive order intended to fundamentally alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had made the US a scientific superpower, peer reviewers rated the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies used these ratings to determine which grants got funded. Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers.

In the interim, the administration has lost many court cases because it turns out that issuing executive orders doesn't circumvent legal requirements, and the orders can be vacated if they lack strong justification. To avoid that same fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has decided to merge the executive order with other administration priorities and send it through the formal federal rulemaking process.

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn't in the "national interest." The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

Read full article

Comments

Last August, the Trump administration issued an executive order intended to fundamentally alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had made the US a scientific superpower, peer reviewers rated the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies used these ratings to determine which grants got funded. Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers.

In the interim, the administration has lost many court cases because it turns out that issuing executive orders doesn't circumvent legal requirements, and the orders can be vacated if they lack strong justification. To avoid that same fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has decided to merge the executive order with other administration priorities and send it through the formal federal rulemaking process.

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn't in the "national interest." The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

Read full article

Comments

Last August, the Trump administration issued an executive order intended to fundamentally alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had made the US a scientific superpower, peer reviewers rated the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies used these ratings to determine which grants got funded. Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers.

In the interim, the administration has lost many court cases because it turns out that issuing executive orders doesn't circumvent legal requirements, and the orders can be vacated if they lack strong justification. To avoid that same fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has decided to merge the executive order with other administration priorities and send it through the formal federal rulemaking process.

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn't in the "national interest." The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

Read full article

Comments

Last week, the US government announced $2 billion in investments in quantum computing companies, allocating $100 million each to a range of startups in exchange for equity in the companies. Those could be make-or-break investments for many companies that are likely years away from a product that could see widespread use. But a member of the US Congress is now arguing that those deals are illegal, as Congress did not allocate the money for this purpose—instead, it was meant to support public research in semiconductors.

But the biggest chunk of money would go to a company that likely wouldn't exist if it weren't for the government's backing. Anderon will be set up with a billion dollars each from IBM and the government and will inherit personnel and IP from IBM. It will serve as a foundry for fabricating quantum processing units and will contract its services out to IBM and any other company that wants access to cutting-edge hardware.

Is any of this legal?

Zoe Lofgren (D–Calif.), the ranking member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, made it clear that she is not happy with how the government is using its money to support this technology.

Read full article

Comments

Almost 2000 scientists have signed an open letter criticising planned redundancies at the University of Nottingham in the UK. The signatories, which includes six Nobel laureates, call on the university to reverse its plan to reduce the number of staff members in the physics department from 71 to 51.

News of the possible job losses emerged on 12 May, when 2700 Nottingham staff were sent letters saying they were at risk of redundancy as part of plans to slash more than 600 academic posts throughout the university. The university says it is making the move because it could otherwise run out of money within the next five years.

Nottingham is a member of the “Russell Group” of 24 leading, research-intensive universities in the UK, with its school of physics and astronomy ranking seventh out of 44 UK physics departments in the most recent REF assessment. It is famous for its work on magnetic resonance imaging, through the contributions of the Nottingham Nobel-prize-winning physicist Peter Mansfield.

From the 2700 staff receiving letters, 56 are in physics and represent academic and technical staff across all levels. Antonio Padilla, a particle theorist at Nottingham, told Physics World that putting almost all members of physics staff at risk is an “act of academic sabotage”.

It takes years of dedication to build up a world-class reputation. I worry that it can be destroyed much more quickly

Antonio Padilla, University of Nottingham

“This is a school brimming with creativity and innovation,” he says. “There is excellence in all areas of physics, from particles to astronomy, from condensed matter to medical imaging. It takes years of dedication to build up a world-class reputation. I worry that it can be destroyed much more quickly.”

The open letter created by researchers at Nottingham in response to the cuts says that the proposals will cause “long-lasting damage” to what they claim is a “globally respected physics department”. It urges senior leaders at Nottingham to work with the University and College Union (UCU) to create “a more sustainable vision for physics and astronomy at the university”.

Stating that the job cuts will lead to fewer students applying to the university due a “decline in its reputation”, as well as a loss of student income, the letter has so far been signed by six physics Nobel laureates – Andre Geim, Andrea Ghez, Konstantin Novoselov, Roger Penrose, Didier Queloz and Brian Schmidt. Geim was once a postdoc at Nottingham.

“Physics underpins current and future economic developments; from AI, through quantum technologies to new medical imaging techniques,” the letter states. “Cutting the university’s strength in these areas is a short-sighted move that will deprive Nottingham students and the East Midlands of the capability to take advantage of these opportunities for growth.”

The university should exhaust every option to make the department sustainable before resorting to compulsory redundancies; shrinking it now is shortsighted

Catherine Heymans, Astronomer Royal for Scotland

Catherine Heymans, Astronomer Royal for Scotland, who has signed the letter, says that the UK needs “strong, geographically distributed physics departments” to help diversify the economy away from just a few centres. “The university should exhaust every option to make the department sustainable before resorting to compulsory redundancies; shrinking it now is shortsighted,” she says.

Those comments are echoed by Jim Wild, president of the Royal Astronomical Society, who urges Nottingham to reconsider the short-sighted cuts. “Reducing staff capacity by this magnitude will irreparably damage a world-class department, severely harming both its international reputation and its capacity to deliver high-quality education,” he says.

A ‘more careful approach’

Padilla, who is UCU representative for Nottingham’s physics and astronomy department, says that “a more careful approach” is required to protect staff at the university. He points out that the UCU has proposed an alternative financial model for the university that “doesn’t set fire to our academic reputation”.

After two decades in which the UK university sector has boomed, there are now fears that the problems at Nottingham could be replicated elsewhere. “What happens at Nottingham now matters for the rest of the sector,” adds Padilla. “This isn’t just make or break for physics at Nottingham – it matters for science everywhere in the UK and beyond.”

Philip Moriarty, another at-risk Nottingham physicist, says that the UCU offer, which he says has been “carefully considered, costed and modelled” has been “rejected, out of hand, with no justification by the university”. Senior management at the university, he adds, “have provided no evidence to support their strategy, including, in particular, their university-wide 18-22 student-staff ratio target”.

On 18 May all affected staff across the university were sent an e-mail to participate in a “supporting you during change” programme that involves two 90-minute online webinars “to help you consider the proposed changes that have been announced and to help you plan for what you may wish to do next”.

“Nauseatingly, even the provision of ‘support’ for staff during this process has been outsourced to an external consultancy company,” adds Moriarty. “Alongside the complete disregard for data and evidence, it’s the disingenuousness and dishonesty that rankle most. Their repeated claims that they care about staff are baseless.”

In a statement, a spokesperson at the University of Nottingham noted that “doing nothing is not an option” given the “significant financial challenges” the university faces.

“We know that change of this scale is not easy, and we do not underestimate what it means for many of our colleagues and students. We will be doing everything we can to support our people through the next few months,” the statement says. “These are really difficult decisions and we have not taken them lightly. It is vital that we respond to the changing sector demands to ensure we are sustainable for future generations and continue to deliver world leading teaching and research and an excellent student experience.”

The post Nottingham physics redundancies ‘an act of academic sabotage’, warn scientists appeared first on Physics World.