Workshop For A Future Nanotechnology Infrastructure .
Report to the National Science Foundation onThe Workshop for a Future NanotechnologyInfrastructure Support ProgramHeld August 18-19, 2014 at the Westin Arlington Gateway Hotel,Arlington, VANSF CoordinatorLawrence GoldbergWorkshop Co-ChairsThomas Theis, IBM/SRCMark Tuominen, University of Massachusetts/AmherstInvited Guest SpeakerSandip TiwariWorkshop ParticipantsDavid Berube, North Carolina State UniversityThomas Bifano, Boston UniversityPratim Biswas, Washington University in St. LouisDawn Bonnell, University of PennsylvaniaOliver Brand, Georgia Institute of TechnologyChristine Broadbridge, Southern Connecticut State UniversityDavid Carroll, Wake Forest UniversityDaniel Herr, University of North Carolina/GreensboroFranz Himpsel, University of WisconsinMichael Hochella, Virginia TechEvelyn Hu, Harvard UniversityJ. Alexander Liddle, NISTJoeseph Marcanio, TouchTek LabsTheresa Mayer, Pennsylvania State UniversityEmilio Mendez, Brookhaven National LaboratoryAbraham Michelen, Hudson Valley Community CollegeDouglas Natelson, Rice UniversityRobert Opila, University of DelawareGary Rubloff, University of MarylandSkip Rung, ONAMIKevin Walsh, University of Louisville1
ContentsIntroduction . 4Commission to Workshop Participants . 5Workshop Agenda and Methodology. 5Questions Posed to Workshop Participants and Key Conclusions from theBreakout Discussions . 7Topic 1: What are the key goals of a future nanotechnology infrastructuresupport program, and how should it be structured to achieve these goals?. 7What are the most critical characteristics of a nanotechnology infrastructuresupport program, and what are possible options to the design of such a program?. 7What is the unique role that NSF can play in serving users from universities, smallcolleges, industry, including small companies and entrepreneurs, andgovernment? . 8How should university user facilities be selected?. 9Should there be a facility or organization which coordinates user services acrossthe various other facilities. If so, how should it function, and how should it beselected? .10Should each user facility be part of a rich research culture at its site? Should thecoordinating facility or organization be similarly connected? .11How important is a broad geographic distribution of facilities? .11Should some smaller facilities be selected, based for example on geographiclocation or competency in a specialized area? .11What are the relations to nanotechnology infrastructure available from othersources? Should coordination be sought with NIST and DOE nanoscale facilities,and how would such coordination be enabled? .11Topic 2: What are the key needs of the user community, and how will theseneeds evolve over the next ten years? . 13What key capabilities in user facilities are needed? How diverse should thesecapabilities be? .13What are the most promising new research opportunities that could be enabledby such capabilities? .14How do we establish interdisciplinary methods that will enable users to explorenew integration processes for tomorrow’s complex nanosystems? .15How can we be more inclusive of less-well-represented user communities inbiosciences, geosciences, and environmental sciences, and of emerging technologyplatforms evolving from nanoscale science and engineering? .152
What are the unmet needs for state-of-the-art tools including computationalmodels and tools? .15What are the barriers to user access, such as geographic proximity, user fees,travel, etc.? .16What is the importance of such a program to student education, training, andoutreach? .16Should there be a coordinated education program? Should there be a coordinatedsociety and ethics program? .17What are the recommended best practices, and what performance metrics areneeded? What staff expertise will be crucial in satisfying user needs? .17Summary of Workshop Conclusions . 193
IntroductionThe National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) 2014 Strategic Plan emphasizes that itis essential for the United States to sustain a dynamic infrastructure and toolset toadvance nanotechnology. The National Science Foundation is in the process of planninga future nanotechnology infrastructure support program that will succeed the NationalNanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN). Over the past decade, NNIN facilitieshave supported users from academia, small and large companies, and government withopen access to leading-edge fabrication and characterization tools, instrumentation, andexpertise within all disciplines of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology. TheFoundation did not go forward with an award in the competition that closed earlier thisyear for a Next Generation NNIN. NSF then sought input from the science andengineering community on a possible successor program through a Dear Colleague Letter(DCL 14-68) released on May 2, 2014, and received responses from over 90 faculty,student, company, and entrepreneur individuals.As the next step in the planning process, The Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI)of the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) proposed to organize an NSFWorkshop for a Future Nanotechnology Infrastructure Support program. The workshopwas held on August 18-19, 2014 at the Westin Arlington Gateway Hotel in Arlington,VA. Key portions of the Workshop were made available to remote participants via webconferencing. Dr. Thomas Theis (IBM Research, on assignment to SemiconductorResearch Corporation as Executive Director, SRC Nanoelectronics Research Initiative)led the effort. Prof. Mark Tuominen (University of Massachusetts, Amherst) served asco-chair with Dr. Theis.The workshop convened recognized national experts to develop a vision of how a futurenanotechnology infrastructure support program could be structured and what the keyneeds for the broad user communities are likely to be over the coming decade. TheWorkshop discussions benefited from many of the thoughtful community responses tothe DCL.This report outlines the needs, the opportunities, and the vision for a futureNanotechnology Infrastructure Support program, as developed by workshopparticipants. It is provided to NSF to assist in planning future programs fornanotechnology infrastructure development.4
Commission to Workshop ParticipantsThe goal of the workshop was to develop and articulate a vision for a FutureNanotechnology Infrastructure Support program that advances science, technologyand education by enabling the research and technical development communities tobring key opportunities of nanotechnology to fruition. Workshop participants werecharged with the following primary objectives:1. Identify the key goals of a nanotechnology infrastructure program andrecommend ways that these goals can be best achieved.2. Identify the key needs of the user community and how these needs areexpected to evolve over the next ten years3. Develop recommendations for the organization and coordination of facilitieswithin the program, and recommend an appropriate selection process andselection criteria.4. Identify the opportunities inherent in a nanotechnology infrastructureprogram for supporting education and outreach activities and study of thesocietal and ethical implications of nanotechnology, including issues ofenvironment, health, and safety.Workshop Agenda and MethodologyThe workshop began with introductory remarks by NSF leaders and the workshopChairs, and self-introductions by workshop participants. Dr. Theis then outlined theCommission to workshop participants. In order to ensure that all panelists werefamiliar with the current NSF-funded nanotechnology infrastructure supportprogram, Cornell University Prof. Sandip Tiwari, a former director of the NationalNanofabrication Infrastructure Network (NNIN) gave an overview of the fundingmodel, metrics, and best practices of NNIN. For completeness, Prof. Emilio Mendez,SUNY Stony Brook and Director of the Center for Functional Nanomaterials atBrookhaven National Laboratory, gave an overview of the Department of Energy’sNanoscale Science Research Centers (NSRCs), including their mission and practices.The NSRCs are comprehensive User facilities available to the national andinternational communities to advance scientific and technical knowledge innanoscale science."The key methodology employed for the remainder of the workshop is evident fromthe Workshop Agenda. (See the Appendix.) Panelists were charged with answeringtwo broad topical questions:Topic 1: What are the key goals of a future nanotechnology infrastructuresupport program, and how should it be structured to achieve these goals?Topic 2: What are the key needs of the user community, and how will theseneeds evolve over the next ten years?5
Each major topic was elaborated and clarified by a list of sub-topical questionswhich were presented to all workshop panelists. Panelists were asked to suggestadditional sub-topical questions to be addressed, and suggested additionalquestions were noted. Panelists were then divided into two breakout groups ofequal size. Group 1 was charged with discussion of Topic 1, while Group 2 wascharged with discussion of Topic 2. After each group had extensively discussed anddeveloped consensus answers to the various questions under its assigned topic, thetwo groups took a break and then switched topics and continued their discussions.The next day, all workshop participants were brought together and representativesof each breakout group presented a concise summary of their group’s conclusionsregarding each Topic. After questions and discussion, the conclusions of eachbreakout group were presented side-by-side and examined and discussed by all.Conclusions under both Topic 1 and Topic 2 were found to generally agree or torepresent complementary points of view. A number of clarifying questions wereasked and discussed, but no major disagreements were noted between theconclusions of the two independent breakout groups.The questions discussed by the breakout groups and the resulting consensusanswers and related recommendations to NSF are found in the following section ofthis report.6
Questions Posed to Workshop Participants and Key Conclusionsfrom the Breakout DiscussionsTopic 1: What are the key goals of a future nanotechnology infrastructuresupport program, and how should it be structured to achieve these goals?What are the most critical characteristics of a nanotechnology infrastructure supportprogram, and what are possible options to the design of such a program?Critical characteristics: The program should provide simple, broad, cost-effective access to a wide rangeof nanofabrication and associated characterization tools. The access shouldinclude thorough training and opportunities for students to learn and use thetechniques and tools. Each facility or site should be built upon excellent local user research expertise,have superb staff dedicated to supporting both internal and external users, andenable users to plan and carry out experiments with a rapid cycle time. Sitetechnical staff should be chosen with an understanding of the essentialeducation, outreach, and workforce enhancement mission. The NSF should give strong consideration to sites that have strong regionalinfluence – sites that can engage other local sites with specific expertise, such asalready-funded centers (ERC, STC, MRSEC, etc.), other schools, communitycolleges, and K-12 outreach. Each site should include significant education, outreach and training activitiesthat build on the research focus of the site. Examples include student training,cross-disciplinary workshops and industry professional development. It is important that the program be able to seed new ideas, respond tounanticipated discoveries (beyond 2015), and revise techniques and equipmentto respond to exciting opportunities, thereby enabling progress into newfrontiers.Options for design of the program: Workshop participants expressed a preference for a federation of individuallyselected sites, rather than a group of sites that competed for selection as a team.Such a program could bring forth the best and timeliest capabilities that the U.S.has to offer. Effective network coordination, regardless of how the individualsites are selected, will provide synergistic value to the overall infrastructureprogram. RECOMMENDATION: Since this is a very different approach to the team-basedcompetition that has characterized the previous network, if sites are to competeindividually, NSF should provide clear guidelines in the solicitation on theexpectations for each site. These include some discussion of how siteeffectiveness will be assessed and how user rates should be justified. Note thatmetrics for evaluating work force development and education activities shouldbe distinct from metrics for evaluating research activities. Although NSF should7
provide guidelines for the solicitation, the actual metrics should ultimately bedeveloped and refined by the organizations forming the federation.RECOMMENDATION: The NSF should consider a hybrid program model thatincludes not only sites with widely used micro- and nanofabrication capabilities,but also some sites offering critical, highly specialized tools and processes, andsupporting important emerging applications. The latter may be found atlocations unable to provide the former. The careful selection of a few morespecialized sites could be a mechanism to promote:o Rapid evolution of aggregated capabilities through inclusion of emergingteams with critical and promising ideas in fabrication technology or inapplications of that technology.o Broader capabilities through inclusion of complementary andincreasingly important domains of fabrication such as bio-directedassembly of nanostructures, wet processing for biological and medicalapplications, atmospheric pressure gas-phase synthesis of nanoparticles,engineered nanomaterials, heterogeneous integration, nanoscale 3Dprinting, high-throughput processing techniques, and other possibilities.o Specialized support for important emerging disciplines or applications,such as the geological and environmental sciences.o Access to unique, valuable, and specialized characterization techniqueslinked to fabrication methods, perhaps provided as a service or by remoteoperation.o A broader geographic distribution of centers, although this should not bea primary criterion for selection. (See also the discussion following thequestion below, “How important is a broad geographic distribution offacilities?”)It is suggested that NSF hold streamlined annual reviews for each site to monitorprogress and assist in development. More detailed reviews would be associatedwith the 5-year renewal.What is the unique role that NSF can play in serving users from universities, smallcolleges, industry, including small companies and entrepreneurs, and government? The unique role of the NSF Nanotechnology Infrastructure Program is tofacilitate broad access to nanofabrication and nanoscience facilities that manycannot otherwise afford.The facilities exist at academic institutions, thereby enabling easy access toacademic users from institutions ranging from Research-I universities tocommunity colleges. This environment also serves users from companies, someof whom are local and many who work closely with academic users, buildingproductive interactions between industry, faculty, and students.The NSF program provides advanced capabilities to a very large user base – notonly experts. The federation of future infrastructure sites should utilize the wellrecognized brand of the NSF to do more to market the capabilities to new users.The federation of infrastructure sites should host a portal website, regularly8
updated, so prospective users can easily find relevant capabilities and expertise.There would be an additional benefit for prospective users if this portal couldalso more broadly integrate or serve as a gateway to similar information fromother potentially relevant sites, such as the DOE and NIST nanocenters, theNational Nanomanufacturing Network, and the nanoHUB .NSF should require workforce development activities as part of the solicitation,but leave it up to proposers how this is best achieved. The educational programsthat promise to have most success and build on the strengths of the site shouldbe supported. Note that workforce development goes beyond activities such asoutreach to community colleges. For example, training of students to use thetools and capabilities of the infrastructure is a very important part of workforcedevelopment. Overall, the panel suggests that the NSF reevaluate the 15% flatallocation for education and consider whether this is too large a commitmentfrom very limited funds.How should university user facilities be selected? Workshop participants expressed a preference for selection of individual sites,rather than selection of multi-site teams, but since this is a different approach tothe team-based competition that has characterized the previous network, moreguidance to the community is needed in preparing proposals (e.g. X proposalsfunded at roughly Y/year will ultimately be selected).The NSF should first solicit white papers to limit the number of full proposalsthat are eventually submitted. In order to ensure the highest-quality proposalsand best use of proposers’ efforts, NSF should establish clear criteria for acompetitive proposal. Strong proposals would demonstrate a track record inseveral of the following areas:1. Understanding and serving the needs of both internal and external users2. Managing a shared user facility.3. Having a rich local (in-house) research community connected to thefacility.4. Having a site accessible to a broad user base.5. Having experience in process integration (or strong commitment tolearn).6. Having broad capabilities in nanofabrication and/or deep expertise in ac
Nanotechnology Infrastructure Support program that advances science, technology and education by enabling the research and technical development communities to bring key opportunities of nanotechnology to fruition. Workshop participants we
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
nanotechnology can provide to breast cancer therapy, nanotechnology may in fact become the panacea for scientists, practitioners, and patients. Workshop 4: Nanotechnology in Cosmetics Nanotechnology is being used today in various aspects of cosmetic manufacturing. It is believed that this new technolo-gy can improve the product quality and .
Nanotechnology in Cancer 15 years Perspective 2020 NSF Nanoscale Science and Engineering Portal Piotr Grodzinski . Number of nanotechnology R01 applications to NCI has been growing rapidly; Alliance Nanotechnology program acted as a seed and enabler to expanding NCI nanotechnology
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största
Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid
LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .
development of nanotechnology over time in the sphere of wastewater treatment, and examines the influence of nanomaterials on human health and environment, while also providing a review of future development trends in nanotechnology. Key words: nanotechnology, wastewater treatment, nanomaterials, nanoparticles, nanofiltration, nanoadsorbents
