Tag Archives: National Nanotechnology Coordination Office

Results in for Generation Nano: Small Science, Superheroes contest

Leave a reply

The Generation Nano: Small Science, Superheroes contest last mentioned in my March 31, 2016 posting has ended and the placement of the winners, in a field of three finalists, announced at the 2016 USA Science and Engineering Festival according to an April 18, 2016 US National Science Foundation news release,

On behalf of the National Science Foundation (NSF), actor Wil Wheaton and legendary superhero creator Stan Lee yesterday announced the winners of the Generation Nano: Small Science, Superheroescompetition, sponsored by NSF and the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).

The competition challenged high school students to think big — or, in this case, small — to create superheroes that harness their powers from nanotechnology.

Wheaton applauded the students’ creative storylines, noting that when he was Wesley Crusher on the TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation, such plots were only imaginary. “It is amazing what is today plausible due to the power of nanotechnonlogy,” he said.

In a video introduction before Wheaton announced top prize winners, Stan Lee said it was “great that I can virtually join you today.” He remarked on the winners’ “creativity, ingenuity and initiative.”

“From one superhero storyteller to the next, congratulations,” Lee said.

The winners

  • First Prize: Eric Liu from Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Virginia, for his “Nanoman,” who fights the malignant crab-monster “Cancer.”
  • Second Prize and the People’s Choice Award: Madeleine Chang from Bergen County Academies in New Jersey, for her superhero “Radio Blitz,” who disposes of local waste.
  • Third Prize: Vuong Mai from Martha Ellen Stilwell School of the Arts in Georgia, for her protector “Nine,” who dons a nanosuit for strength to save a kidnapping victim.

All weekend, the students displayed their superheroes and described the nanoscience behind them to thousands of attendees at the 2016 USA Science & Engineering Festival in Washington, D.C.

“All three finalists immersed themselves in the worlds of nanotechnology and art, told a great story, entertained and educated — all at the same time,” said Lisa Friedersdorf, deputy director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. “Their creations will surely motivate additional students to imagine and learn more about what is possible with nanotechnology.”

Top award winners in this competition show that with imagination and nanotechnology, possibilities abound, said Mihail C. Roco, NSF senior advisor for science and engineering and a key architect of NNI.

“These school students have aimed higher than ever in their lives, pushing their abilities in novel domains where seeds for their high-tech future may germinate,” Roco said. “We need a constant regeneration of new talent to exploit this general purpose science and technology field to its outstanding potential. These students are well on their way.”

Competition details

NSF and NNI challenges students to submit written entries explaining their superhero and nanotechnology-driven gear, along with a one-page comic or 90-second video. A panel of judges from academia and multimedia platforms selected semifinalists and finalists, from which the public selected Madeline Chang as its People’s Choice winner.

Top prizes were determined by judges Elise Lemle, director of special projects at Two Bit Circus; Lizabeth Fogel, director of Education for the Walt Disney Company and Chair of the Board for the Partnership for 21st Century Learning; and James Murday, director of physical sciences at the University of Southern California’s Washington, D.C., office of research advancement.

Visit the Generation Nano competition website for competition details such as eligibility criteria, entry guidelines, timeline, prizes and videos/comics from the finalists and semifinalists. And stay tuned for information on next year’s competition.

Here’s a photo of Wil Wheaton officiating at the ceremony,

Actor, writer and blogger Wil Wheaton hosted the Gen Nano competition award ceremony.

Actor, writer and blogger Wil Wheaton hosted the Gen Nano competition award ceremony. Courtesy of the NSF.

Honestly, this could be anyone but there are videos of the ceremony featuring Wil Wheaton, each of the winner’s pieces, and Stan Lee attending the ceremony virtually (five videos in all).

US Science and Technology Policy Office wants some nanotechnology commercialization success stories

Leave a reply

The US Science and Technology Policy Office published a notice on Feb. 2, 2016 on the US Federal Register, ‘Requests for Information: Nanotechnology Commercialization Success’ (PDF request).

 

For anyone who’d like a little more information before clicking onto the PDF link, here’s more from the US Federal Register notice titled: Nanotechnology Commercialization Success Stories,

The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to seek examples of commercialization success stories stemming from U.S. Government-funded nanotechnology research and development (R&D) since the inception of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in 2001. The information gathered in response to this RFI may be used as examples to highlight the impact of the Initiative or to inform future activities to promote the commercialization of federally funded nanotechnology R&D. Depending on the nature of the feedback, responses may be used to shape the agenda for a workshop to share best practices and showcase commercial nanotechnology-enabled products and services. Commercial entities, academic institutions, government laboratories, and individuals who have participated in federally funded R&D; collaborated with Federal laboratories; utilized federally funded user facilities for nanoscale fabrication, characterization, and/or simulation; or have otherwise benefited from NNI agency resources are invited to respond.

The deadline is Feb. 29, 2016 and they would prefer contact via email,

 Email: NNISuccessStories@nnco.nano.gov. Include [NNI Success Story] in the subject line of the message.

Mail: Mike Kiley, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, ATTN: RFI0116, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Stafford II, Suite 405, Arlington, VA 22230. If submitting a response by mail, allow sufficient time for mail processing.

They also have guidelines for the submission,

Submissions are limited to five pages, one of which
we strongly recommend be an overview slide using the template provided at www.nano.gov/NNISuccessStories. Responses must be unclassified and should not contain any sensitive personally identifiable information (such as home address or social security number), or information that might be considered proprietary or confidential). Please include a contact name, e-mail address, and/or phone number in case clarification of details in your submission is required.

The PDF is five pages and you may wish to review the entire document before making your submission.

Live webcast about data journalism on July 30, 2014 and a webinar featuring the 2014 NNI (US National Nanotechnology Initiative) EHS (Environment, Health and Safety) Progress Review on July 31, 2014

Leave a reply

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars is hosting a live webcast on data journalism scheduled for July 30, 2014. For those us who are a little fuzzy as to what the term ‘data journalism’ means, this is probably a good opportunity to find out as per the description in the Wilson Center’s July 23, 2014 email announcement,

What is data journalism? Why does it matter? How has the maturing field of data science changed the direction of journalism and global investigative reporting? Our speakers will discuss the implications for policymakers and institutional accountability, and how the balance of power in information gathering is shifting worldwide, with implications for decision-making and open government.

This event will be live webcast and you may follow it on twitter @STIPcommonslab and #DataJournalism

Wednesday, July 30th, 2014
10am – 12pm EST
5th Floor Conference Room
[Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza – 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004-3027
T 1-202-691-4000]

Speakers:

Alexander B. Howard
Writer and Editor, TechRepublic and founder of the blog “E Pluribus Unum.” Previously, he was a fellow at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, the Ash Center at Harvard University and the Washington Correspondent for O’Reilly Media.

Kalev H. Leetaru
Yahoo! Fellow at Georgetown University, a Council Member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government, and a Foreign Policy Magazine Top 100 Global Thinker of 2013. For nearly 20 years he has been studying the web and building systems to interact with and understand the way it is reshaping our global society.

Louise Lief (Moderator)
Public Policy Scholar at the Wilson Center. Her project, “Science and the Media” explores innovative ways to make environmental science more accessible and useful to all journalists. She is investigating how new technologies and civic innovation tools can benefit both the media and science.

I believe you need to RSVP if you are attending in person but it’s not necessary for the livestream.

The other announcement comes via a July 23, 2014 news item on Nanowerk,

The National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) will hold a public webinar on Thursday, July 31, 2014, to provide a forum to answer questions related to the “Progress Review on the Coordinated Implementation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy.”

The full notice can be found on the US nano.gov website,

When: The webinar will be live on Thursday, July 31, 2014 from 12:00 pm-1 pm.
Where: Click here to register for the online webcast

While it’s open to the public, I suspect this is an event designed largely for highly interested parties such as the agencies involved in EHS activities, nongovernmental organizations that act as watchdogs, and various government policy wonks. Here’s how they describe their proposed discussions (from the event notice page),

Discussion during the webinar will focus on the research activities undertaken by NNI agencies to advance the current state of the science as highlighted in the Progress Review. Representative research activities as provided in the Progress Review will be discussed in the context of the 2011 NNI EHS Research Strategy’s six core research areas: Nanomaterial Measurement Infrastructure, Human Exposure Assessment, Human Health, the Environment, Risk Assessment and Risk Management Methods, and Informatics and Modeling.

How: During the question-and-answer segment of the webinar, submitted questions will be considered in the order received. A moderator will identify relevant questions and pose them to the panel of NNI agency representatives. Due to time constraints, not all questions may be addressed.  The moderator reserves the right to group similar questions and to skip questions, as appropriate. The NNCO will begin accepting questions and comments via email (webinar@nnco.nano.gov) at 1 pm on Thursday, July 24th (EDT) until the close of the webinar at 1 pm (EDT) on July 31st.

The Panelists:  The panelists for the webinar are subject matter experts from the Federal Government.

Additional Information: A public copy of the “Progress Review on the Coordinated Implementation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy” can be accessed at www.nano.gov/2014EHSProgressReview. The 2011 NNI EHS Research Strategy can be accessed at www.nano.gov/node/681.
– See more at: http://www.nano.gov/node/1166#sthash.Ipr0bFeP.dpuf

Competition, collaboration, and a smaller budget: the US nano community responds

Leave a reply

Before getting to the competition, collaboration, and budget mentioned in the head for this posting, I’m supplying some background information.

Within the context of a May 20, 2014 ‘National Nanotechnology Initiative’ hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the US General Accountability Office (GAO) presented a 22 pp. précis (PDF; titled: NANOMANUFACTURING AND U.S. COMPETITIVENESS; Challenges and Opportunities) of its 125 pp. (PDF version report titled: Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health).

Having already commented on the full report itself in a Feb. 10, 2014 posting, I’m pointing you to Dexter Johnson’s May 21, 2014 post on his Nanoclast blog (on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website) where he discusses the précis from the perspective of someone who was consulted by the US GAO when they were writing the full report (Note: Links have been removed),

I was interviewed extensively by two GAO economists for the accompanying [full] report “Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health,” where I shared background information on research I helped compile and write on global government funding of nanotechnology.

…

While I acknowledge that the experts who were consulted for this report are more likely the source for its views than I am, I was pleased to see the report reflect many of my own opinions. Most notable among these is bridging the funding gap in the middle stages of the manufacturing-innovation process, which is placed at the top of the report’s list of challenges.

…

While I am in agreement with much of the report’s findings, it suffers from a fundamental misconception in seeing nanotechnology’s development as a kind of race between countries. [emphases mine]

(I encourage you to read the full text of Dexter’s comments as he offers more than a simple comment about competition.)

Carrying on from this notion of a ‘nanotechnology race’, at least one publication focused on that aspect. From the May 20, 2014 article by Ryan Abbott for CourthouseNews.com,

Nanotech Could Keep U.S. Ahead of China

WASHINGTON (CN) – Four of the nation’s leading nanotechnology scientists told a U.S. House of Representatives panel Tuesday that a little tweaking could go a long way in keeping the United States ahead of China and others in the industry.

The hearing focused on the status of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a federal program launched in 2001 for the advancement of nanotechnology.

As I noted earlier, the hearing was focused on the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and all of its efforts. It’s quite intriguing to see what gets emphasized in media reports and, in this case, the dearth of media reports.

I have one more tidbit, the testimony from Lloyd Whitman, Interim Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Deputy Director of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology. The testimony is in a May 21, 2014 news item on insurancenewsnet.com,

Testimony by Lloyd Whitman, Interim Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Deputy Director of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the Committee, it is my distinct privilege to be here with you today to discuss nanotechnology and the role of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in promoting its development for the benefit of the United States.

…

Highlights of the National Nanotechnology Initiative

Our current Federal research and development program in nanotechnology is strong. The NNI agencies continue to further the NNI’s goals of (1) advancing nanotechnology R&D, (2) fostering nanotechnology commercialization, (3) developing and maintaining the U.S. workforce and infrastructure, and (4) supporting the responsible and safe development of nanotechnology. …

,,,

The sustained, strategic Federal investment in nanotechnology R&D combined with strong private sector investments in the commercialization of nanotechnology-enabled products has made the United States the global leader in nanotechnology. The most recent (2012) NNAP report analyzed a wide variety of sources and metrics and concluded that “… in large part as a result of the NNI the United States is today… the global leader in this exciting and economically promising field of research and technological development.” n10 A recent report on nanomanufacturing by Congress’s own Government Accountability Office (GAO) arrived at a similar conclusion, again drawing on a wide variety of sources and stakeholder inputs. n11 As discussed in the GAO report, nanomanufacturing and commercialization are key to capturing the value of Federal R&D investments for the benefit of the U.S. economy. The United States leads the world by one important measure of commercial activity in nanotechnology: According to one estimate, n12 U.S. companies invested $4.1 billion in nanotechnology R&D in 2012, far more than investments by companies in any other country.  …

There’s cognitive dissonance at work here as Dexter notes in his own way,

… somewhat ironically, the [GAO] report suggests that one of the ways forward is more international cooperation, at least in the development of international standards. And in fact, one of the report’s key sources of information, Mihail Roco, has made it clear that international cooperation in nanotechnology research is the way forward.

It seems to me that much of the testimony and at least some of the anxiety about being left behind can be traced to a decreased 2015 budget allotment for nanotechnology (mentioned here in a March 31, 2014 posting [US National Nanotechnology Initiative’s 2015 budget request shows a decrease of $200M]).

One can also infer a certain anxiety from a recent presentation by Barbara Herr Harthorn, head of UCSB’s [University of California at Santa Barbara) Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS). She was at a February 2014 meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (mentioned in parts one and two [the more substantive description of the meeting which also features a Canadian academic from the genomics community] of my recent series on “Brains, prostheses, nanotechnology, and human enhancement”). II noted in part five of the series what seems to be a shift towards brain research as a likely beneficiary of the public engagement work accomplished under NNI auspices and, in the case of the Canadian academic, the genomics effort.

The Americans are not the only ones feeling competitive as this tweet from Richard Jones, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation at Sheffield University (UK), physicist, and author of Soft Machines, suggests,

May 18

The UK has fewer than 1% of world patents on graphene, despite it being discovered here, according to the FT –

I recall reading a report a few years back which noted that experts in China were concerned about falling behind internationally in their research efforts. These anxieties are not new, CP Snow’s book and lecture The Two Cultures (1959) also referenced concerns in the UK about scientific progress and being left behind.

Competition/collaboration is an age-old conundrum and about as ancient as anxieties of being left behind. The question now is how are we all going to resolve these issues this time?

ETA May 28, 2014: The American Institute of Physics (AIP) has produced a summary of the May 20, 2014 hearing as part of their FYI: The AIP Bulletin of Science Policy News, May 27, 2014 (no. 93).

ETA Sept. 12, 2014: My first posting about the diminished budget allocation for the US NNI was this March 31, 2014 posting.

RTI and nanotechnology regulation

Leave a reply

This is a classic public relations ploy: RTI is hosting a workshop of experts to discuss nanotechnology regulation at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on May 4, 2011. From the April 28, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

Leading experts will gather at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., May 4 to discuss the challenges of regulating nanotechnologies.

The policy forum, titled Nanotechnology: the Huge Challenge of Regulating Tiny Technologies, will bring together thought leaders who represent public, private and academic communities to discuss the issues, concerns and public policies needed to maximize the benefits of this emerging technology while minimizing the risks and encouraging further development and scientific exploration.

The event, held from 9 to 10:30 a.m., is being hosted by RTI International. Speakers include Michele Ostraat, Ph.D. senior director of the Center for Aerosol and Nanomaterials Engineering at RTI; Sally Tinkle, Ph.D., deputy director, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office; Jim Alwood, Toxic Substances Control Act Nanotechnology Coordinator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Cole Matson, Ph.D., executive director at the Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology at Duke University.

RTI (trade name for Research Triangle Institute) is not a speaker’s agency as you might have thought after reading this item. From RTI’s About page,

RTI International is one of the world’s leading research institutes, dedicated to improving the human condition by turning knowledge into practice. Our staff of more than 2,800 provides research and technical services to governments and businesses in more than 40 countries in the areas of health and pharmaceuticals, education and training, surveys and statistics, advanced technology, international development, economic and social policy, energy and the environment, and laboratory testing and chemical analysis.

This is really quite well done. It’s being held at an impressive venue, the National Press Club, which associates this event with journalism in a subtle way. Three of the speakers are impressive due to their reputations and association with the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Duke University, respectively. Additionally, someone from RTI is moderating the event and one of their senior directors is a speaker so the event is wrapped within the RTI brand. On a personal note, my hat’s off to whoever organized this panel for managing to get gender parity. That can be tough to achieve when it’s a science-related topic.

If you’re curious about the event you can read more about it here at RTI’s website.

A tale of two countries and nanotechnology strategies (part 2 of an occasional series)

1 Reply

The US National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) tenth anniversary celebration titled, Nanotechnology Innovation Summit was announced about a week ago around the same time I received a copy of the documentation outlining the Canadian government’s expenditures on nanotechnology from the fiscal years 2005/6 to 2008/9.

The documentation which was issued in response to a question by Member of Parliament Peter Julian is some 80 pages that’s not organized in a way that makes for easy reading. (I interviewed Peter Julian, New Democratic Party, about his private member’s bill on nanotechnology here in part 1, part 2, and part 3.) Since there is no single nanotechnology funding hub, each ministry or funding agency issues its own records which is usually in the form of spreadsheets and each agency has its own organizing strategy. It’s going to take a little more time before I can make much sense of it but once I do, I’ll try to post it here.

Meanwhile, I found this July 26, 2010 news item about the NNI’s 10 anniversary on Nanowerk,

The Nano Science and Technology Institute (NSTI), in cooperation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), announced today a National Nanotechnology Innovation Summit to mark the 10th anniversary of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to be held December 8-10, 2010 at the Gaylord National Hotel & Convention Center in National Harbor, MD. The event, in cooperation with OSTP and NNCO and organized by NSTI, with key support from the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), will serve as a forum for the nation’s nanotechnology innovators, investors, policy makers and leading corporate developers and integrators.

Since its formal launch in 2001 under President Clinton, the National Nanotechnology Initiative has strategically invested and coordinated over $12 billion in nanotechnology development. [emphasis mine] The NNI Nanotechnology Innovation Summit will spotlight revolutionary technologies from the 10-year NNI funding effort, with a special emphasis on showcasing commercially transformational technologies directly funded or catalyzed by the multi-agency partnership of the NNI. Participants will hear from some of the top researchers, industry leaders, technology investors and visionary policy makers of our time as they speak about the impact of nanotechnology innovation over the past 10 years and look toward the future.

Intriguing, yes? In the US, they can state they’ve spent 12B US over 10 years (I assume they can break those figures down) while in Canada, the figures don’t appear to have been aggregated even on agency by agency basis.

I think it comes down to a basic philosophical difference in how nanotechnology has been approached. In the US (and many other juridictions) it’s been treated as a specialty in and of itself. The approach makes sense since chemistry at the nanoscale is significantly different from chemistry at the macroscale.

In Canada, we seem to have taken the perspective that nanotechnology is a continuation of scientific exploration and while the particulars differ dramatically, nanotechnology itself is a logical progression of the scientific enterprise.

I don’t know that one approach is better than the other but the US approach makes funding questions a lot easier to answer.