Mar. 1, 2006 — Stanford University School of Medicine was named one of the National Cancer Institute’s Centers for Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, according to a news release.

The institute has allotted approximately $20 million over five years to the Stanford-based center, which will be led by professor of radiology and bioengineering Sanjiv Sam Gambhir, who also directs the molecular imaging program at Stanford.

The Stanford center is slated to receive $3.83 million in its first year. It will aim its efforts at imaging diseases in vivo and determining what is going on within patients’ bodies through blood or tissue sample analysis.

Participants at Stanford will include faculty from a variety of disciplines with the intention of combining their expertise to develop new ways to detect cancer and evaluate therapies. UCLA, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, the University of Texas-Austin, General Electric Global Research and Intel Corp will also participate.

Seven other Centers for Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence were announced last October. Each of the eight centers has its own focus in seeking to eliminate suffering and death due to cancer.

– David Forman

The fast changing world of micro and nanotechnology development demands that its businesses focus on their core products and services. At the same time, many of these companies have personnel requirements that demand time and expertise – both often in short supply at startups and small companies.

In some cases, outsourcing vendors that can deliver high service levels and predictable outcomes for non-core business processes provide a solution. With the right outsourcing partners in place, businesses are free to focus on the areas that directly affect the bottom line, such as R&D, manufacturing and quality controls.

In the area of employee and human resources (HR) services, professional employer organizations, or PEOs, can serve as HR outsourcing partners. There are now some 700 PEOs in America serving businesses in all 50 states. Careful selection of a PEO is key. Here are some tips on what to look for in a PEO.

A variety of HR services. PEOs perform functions similar to those assigned to in-house HR departments of large companies. These functions include: payroll preparation and reporting, time and attendance tracking, payroll tax filings, W-2s, garnishments, Internal Revenue Service and state inquiry management, policy and handbook development, unemployment administration and disability management. PEOs also handle all federal and state postings, equal employment opportunity reporting and compliance with workplace legislation. PEOs also manage Workers’ Compensation insurance administration and claims management, Employee Practices Liability Insurance and work site safety assessments.

More choices, more perks. PEOs may bring benefits and economies of scale to their affiliated companies and their employees. Among the benefits PEOs offer are cafeteria plans affording employees choices regarding their medical insurance, dental and vision coverage, options such as flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts and various insurance plans. Investment-related benefits include 401(k) plans and Web-based portfolio administration. Many PEOs offer secure, password protected Web sites for benefits and claims information, and online access for employers.

Under the category of Employee Assistance Programs, PEOs provide their clients with legal assistance, college savings, scholarships and tuition, adoption assistance, addiction and recovery services and wellness programs. Other possible perks: store and health club discounts, movie and theater tickets, travel promotions, transit checks and qualified parking.

Accreditation and other protections. Over the past decade, PEOs have raised the standards within their industry. Exemplifying the heightened emphasis on quality assurance is the Employer Services Assurance Corp. (ESAC). It can be likened to what the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and Security Investors Protection Corp. are to the banking and securities industries, respectively.

ESAC is an independent, non-profit organization designed to protect businesses and employees served by PEOs. It is led by a board of experienced regulatory professionals and is an accreditation and financial assurance governing entity for PEOs. ESAC-accredited PEOs are covered by a $1 million bond held in trust by a national bank and a $4 million umbrella bond to cover any claims in excess of the $1 million bond held for each PEO. Since its formation more than 10 years ago, there have been no defaults by ESAC-accredited PEOs, unresolved claims or litigation.

Many states also have licensing and certifications requirements that firms should inquire about when making a PEO selection.

Read the fine print. PEOs generate approximately $43 billion by providing a wide range of employment services and benefits through a co-employer arrangement wherein the PEO assumes certain responsibilities and risks along with the affiliated business (its client).

As part of the arrangement with a PEO, clients remain responsible for compliance with various laws. For example, they must comply with regulations that require a safe and healthy workplace. They must not violate laws governing discrimination and retaliation. Their PEO will guide and advise them to make sure that they comply with the law.

Charges for the service can vary and are determined by the service agreement negotiated with the PEO. Some PEOs will charge a fixed amount per employee per year, while others will charge a percentage of payroll. A client must make certain that all charges are spelled out clearly in the service agreement.

The service agreement should provide the client with an escape clause for reasonable termination of the arrangement, usually with a 30-day notice. Clients dealing with a PEO that is certified by ESAC are protected by a bond in the event that their PEO fails to meet its financial obligations, including the payment of taxes and health insurance premiums. For more information about ESAC-accredited PEOs, visit www.ESACorp.org. For more information about PEOs, visit: www.napeo.org.

Click here to enlarge image

Barry Shorten is executive vice president of The Alcott Group in Farmingdale, N.Y. He can be reached at [email protected].

Being a numbers person, I’m always looking for meaning in data. The recent IBF Nanotech Investing Forum in California provided new information that begs some analysis.

Here’s the quandary: Venture capital funding for nanotechnology went from $196 million in 2004 to $434 million in 2005, according to analysis by David Forman, Small Times associate editor. Attendance at the investing forum was flat, if not lower than last year. The number of startups looking for cash was dismal.

Dollars up, interest down. If more dollars go into the technology (small tech hit $1 billion in venture investing in 2005), why would interest fall?

The first explanation would be that interest in nano investing isn’t falling, but interest in this specific conference decreased due to factors unrelated to investing drive – poor speakers, disorganization, etc. That would be understandable, but everyone I spoke to thought the conference had been a stellar event in past years. Palm Springs, golf, sunshine, great networking, solid programming – what isn’t there to like?

So, if it wasn’t the conference itself, then we are led down a path many of us would rather not go. Did interest in nanotechnology venture investing already hit its peak? Or is this just an evolutionary trend in which we move from broad technology to specific market applications? Or is this conference just a fluke?

Nano isn’t for the faint-hearted. First, no one can agree on what it is. Is Intel nano or not? What makes a property novel? Second, it is complex. It’s hard enough to understand how things act, react, move and behave in the normal world, let alone try to create products in a realm where those laws no longer apply.

Did I mention that conclusive toxicology studies aren’t available? Who cares if there are thousands of products on the market that are toxic (for example batteries and cleaning supplies) if nano gets a bad public rap like genetically modified foods?

We haven’t talked returns yet. Venture capitalists like big exits. Too bad they are few and far between for nano companies to date and the future prospects are not that hot. On the IPO panel I sat on at the conference, the highest expert projection was four nano IPOs this year. I think we will have to stretch our definition of what is classified as a nano company to get that count.

Time to market doesn’t work in nano’s favor when it comes to venture capital. It takes lots of capital and a commitment to many rounds of financing. Five to seven years is average for most nano companies – with the exception of clinical trial products, which may come to market in our children’s lifetimes. It is a long, long road when Food and Drug Administration approval is thrown in the mix.

We didn’t even tackle the question that gets many people rabid: Is there really a nano market? Or is nano just a platform technology that has no meaning without a vertical industry application. If you are a tool company, you may not care what vertical you are selling into, but only that your prospect is doing nanoscale research or manufacturing that requires processes and equipment unique to the technology. Some venture capitalists say there isn’t enough upside potential in tool companies to make it worth an investment, though.

While I’ve spent most of my column discussing why venture capital isn’t a great fit for nanotechnology, this isn’t a recent conclusion. Our tracking of the space over the years has shown that a very small percentage of companies are venture-backed. This is an area where early hype drove a lot of curiosity and interest. But the players with expertise and risk tolerance have stayed, thus the series of large follow-on rounds in 2005. Many of the interested, but not invested, will move on to the next fad. Can anyone say clean tech?

I wish nano was continuing to be a hot investment trend, but it isn’t surprising that the bloom is fading. Deep vertical venture capitalists will invest in the technology when it makes sense for the industry. Corporate players will invest, acquire and partner with the companies that will best further their long-term goals. And government will continue to feed the valley of death funding for at least the short term.

I’m trying to be realistic about the “bubble” that always seems 18 to 24 months out. Nanotechnology is here to stay. Venture dollars flowing to the space will continue to grow. There are endless applications and opportunities for nanotechnology to improve and revolutionize our lives. However, the growth in “nano” investing as a specialty is reaching its peak. Those who can stomach the ride will remain.

Patti Glaza is vice president and publisher at Small Times. She can be reached at [email protected].

Feb. 28, 2006 – Intematix Corp. of Fremont, Calif., demonstrated what it called a key addition to its customer list by announcing that it will provide its line of phosphors to Taiwan’s Kingbright Electronic Co. Ltd.

The news follows Kingbright’s recent announcement of a licensing agreement that allows Kingbright to manufacture and sell packaged LEDs using Cree’s patented white LED technology.

Intematix vice president of engineering Yi Qun Li said in a prepared statement that the combination of Kingbright’s capabilities, its licensed usage of CREE’s white LED technology, and Intematix’s phosphor technologies can serve the marketplace with high performance and flexible color designs.

Included in the license is Intematix’ White Lightning NY450/NY460 product line which has recently been expanded to include warm white spectral variants.

Feb. 10, 2006 — NanoBio Corp., an Ann Arbor, Mich., biopharmaceutical company developing and commercializing therapies based on proprietary nanoemulsion technology, announced the appointment of David Peralta to the position of vice president and chief financial officer.

Peralta most recently served as vice president and chief financial officer for Arbortext Inc., a venture-backed enterprise software company. While at Arbortext, Peralta played a key role in transforming the company to a fast-growing software business, which ultimately led to Arbortext being acquired in 2005.

Before joining Arbortext, Peralta served for six years as the chief financial officer of Mechanical Dynamics, Inc., a publicly-held engineering software company. Peralta directed all finance and investor relations activities at Mechanical Dynamics during the company’s initial public offering in 1996, and up through the sale of the company in 2002.