Tag Archives: Small Times Magazine

Nanotechnology offers fantastic benefits-but it’s controversial. How should companies producing or integrating it approach marketing?

BY SARAH FISTER GALE

Carolyn Veroni spends every business day educating people about nanotechnology. She’s not a scientist or teacher; Veroni is the director of business development for Dermazone Solutions, a pharmaceutical skin care company that actively promotes the revolutionary nanosphere ingredients in its line of skin care products that are sold primarily to physicians. Dermazone holds patents on a proprietary nanosphere delivery system, called Lyphazome, which uses encapsulate ingredients in plant-based nanospheres to enable the timed-release of the products. The company has used the technology in its products for 15 years.

Despite their longevity in the market, Veroni says there is still a lot of confusion about nanotechnology-but there is also a lot of interest. “When I go out into the field no one knows a thing about nano, but a lot of doctors only want nano,” she says. “They believe it’s a good thing, even if they aren’t sure how it works.”

Veroni acknowledges that the lack of understanding about nanotechnology can cause concerns from consumers. However, that doesn’t prevent Dermazone from actively advertising the nanotech ingredients in its products. “We definitely want to talk about nano and get the word out,” she says. “We would never disguise the fact that we use nano. I think it’s fantastic.”

In response to consumer concerns, however, the company goes to great lengths to use only plant-based materials instead of synthetics, and to operate only in an FDA-certified lab for over-the-counter drugs. It also conducts rigorous testing on the impact of the Lyphazome nanospheres on consumers and the environment and publicly shares the results with its customers.

“We knew early on that nano would take some hits so we took the extra steps necessary to stay above that fray,” she says. “We have a lot of evidence that we show doctors regarding the testing of our products.”

Positives outweigh negatives

Dermazone’s approach to marketing nano is a benchmark for other companies using and marketing nano-based ingredients.

Although the scientific community may be in awe of the amazing things that can be accomplished with nanotechnology, consumers can be more cautious and in some cases even fearful of products “that incorporate nanotechnology, especially those that they consume or come in direct physical contact with.

Click here to enlarge image

“Consumers’ attitudes about nanotechnology comes from their affective or emotional responses to it,” says Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law at Yale Law School. He is also the co-author of the recently released study, Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values, from the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale as part of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. “Once they are exposed to information about nanotechnology they experience a visceral reaction that is strongly influenced by their attitudes toward more-familiar environmental risks, such as those associated with global warming and nuclear power.”

The study suggests that the future of nanotechnology will depend largely on the public’s ability and willingness to balance the potential benefits of nanotechnology with its possible or perceived risks.

This shouldn’t prevent companies from promoting their nanotech ingredients; rather, it should reinforce their need to communicate effectively about their products and address their core market’s opinions well in advance of a product’s launch, says Dave Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnology at the Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington D.C. That includes everything from the naming and labeling of products, to devising educational marketing strategies and sharing information about health and safety testing.

“It’s important for anyone using nano to do risk perception and investigation into the opinions of their target market,” says Rejeski.

Joe Hanafin, president of Advanced Nano Coatings, a producer of compliant epoxy coatings for wood, steel, and concrete (Marlborough, Mass.), believes the positive reaction from his core client base to his company’s name and products is well worth any negative response he gets from anti-nano groups.

While he does occasionally encounter skeptics who think nano is “a marketing scam” and has received pamphlets about the dangers of nano in the workplace, he does a lot of business based purely on clients responding to his company’s name. “I get calls all the time from people who want nano-coatings even though they don’t know what nano does,” he says. “Having nano in our name makes us easy to find.”

Rick Hough, manufacturer of Pureology Nanoworks, a high-end hair-care product line in Carson, Calif., agrees that the connection between the word “nano” and the notion of scientific high performance far outweighs any negative connection consumers may have with nanotechnology-at least so far. He admits to being surprised by negative publicity over products using nanotechnology a few years ago, but says his company has never been challenged. “I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives,” he says. “There’s been a lot more awareness over the last year about what nano is, and we haven’t heard any negative comments during that time.”

Be honest and proactive

If a company is challenged by consumers with concerns relating to nanotechnology, the manufacturer should openly address them right away, says Mike Treder, executive director and co-founder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology in New York. “Most of the public realizes that nanotechnology does hold revolutionary potential, but they are also concerned about the health implications.”

He also urges companies to proactively investigate the health and safety issues of their products before problems arise through pre-market testing, lifecycle evaluation, and the use of third-party researchers to conduct tests. “Companies ought to be seen as promoting and actively supporting investigation into the implications of nanotechnology,” says Treder.

Companies must also communicate clearly and consistently with the public about their efforts and findings and take an open approach to discussing consumer concerns, says Peter Binks, Ph.D., CEO of Nanotechnology Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia. To foster ongoing dialog about nano, his company recently sponsored a podcast called the Implications for Health, Safety and the Environment of the Nanotech Revolution that included speakers from both sides of the nanotechnology debate, including Georgia Miller from Friends of the Earth, a consumer group calling for a moratorium on all products using nanotechnology.

The podcast gives ample opportunity for Miller in particular to discuss her group’s fears, even citing specific examples such as the concerns that the use of silver nano-particles in products pose the risk of damage to brain cells.

“Our sense is that the only way to proceed with this industry is to get everyone involved early on and face the issues that exist,” Binks says of the decision to open the podcast dialog to all sides. “It’s very easy to demonize groups like Friends of the Earth, but many of their concerns are valid. This was an opportunity to have an open neutral dialog in which we listened to everyone’s concerns.”

Rejeski agrees that companies can benefit significantly from openly discussing these issues and taking every chance to educate and communicate with the public. “There is still a low level of awareness about nano, and that’s good. But how we handle this learning moment is critical,” he says. “If companies communicate clear information about their products and testing strategies in simple, consistent language to consumers, then it will increase their confidence in these products.”

Are today’s test-and-measurement tools up to the demands of high-volume small-tech manufacturing?

BY JO MCINTYRE

High-volume production is necessary for commercialization of small-tech products-both nano and micro. Testing, an important production step, is typically time-consuming, so you may ask the following questions: Can today’s test-and-measurement tools keep up with high-volume pressures, or are they draining profits by creating bottlenecks?

To learn the answers, we spoke with some of the industry’s most successful producers. We also heard from a couple of the toolmakers themselves to find out about customer trends and what’s on their horizon.

Trends among tool suppliers

The list of small-tech test-and-measurement equipment vendors is long and growing. It includes suppliers of MEMS test-and-production tools such as SUSS Microtec and EVG, and microscopy manufacturers targeting nanotechnology.

Nano has a way of segueing into micro, according to experts at FEI and Hyphenated Systems, both of which supply metrology tools. These companies report working with device- and materials-development pioneers, hoping theirs will be the instruments of choice when experiments turn into commercially viable products and businesses.

“We work in nano prototyping,” says Bruno Janssens, vice president and general manager for the nano research and industry marketing division of microscope manufacturer FEI Co., in Hillsboro, Ore. “Researchers use our tools to design specific experiments to check out devices people have in mind. We are much more proactively working with pioneers in prototyping than we were three years ago, because we believe at some moment we will be connected to a breakthrough. We want to be very closely connected at a very early process,” adds Janssens.


Hyphenated Systems’ NanoScale Optical Profiler HS-200A advanced white light confocal microscope produced this image of a junction among three microchannels (sample courtesy of Prof. S. Wereley, Purdue University). The same tool generated the images on page 16, with samples courtesy of Sandia National Laboratories (Fig. 3) and Central New Mexico Community College (Fig. 4).
Click here to enlarge image

Terence Lundy, vice president and managing director for metrology toolmaker, Hyphenated Systems, in Burlingame, Calif., says a major trend in the field of microscopy is the creation of systems in which traditional metrology devices are being “stacked,” for instance, to combine light microscopy with probe microscopy, microscopy with spectroscopy, or microscopy with interferometry.

Most inspection systems are compromised because Z-axis information is not sufficiently accurate, too complicated to extract, or too slow to acquire, he explains.

Although Hyphenated Systems is currently focused on nanotechnology, Lundy sees an opportunity for his company in MEMS design and production. “We’re finding the MEMS industry as a whole is a fairly large marketplace for some of our equipment,” he says.

Nano producers

Zyvex Corp., based in Richardson, Texas, produces test equipment as well as nanomaterials. The company measures the raw multi-walled carbon nanotubes that arrive from its supplier, Arkema, in a powder form-expecting 90% of it will be actual nanotubes. “We use tools internally here to verify quality of nanomaterials as they are coming in the door. We typically use SEMs. That doesn’t yield specific numbers: It’s more of a visual check,” says Lance Criscuolo, business manager in Zyvex’ NanoSolve Materials division.

Zyvex treats the tubes to make them functional and puts them into resins and composites. Working with sports equipment makers, the company supplies resins to strengthen bicycle frames, baseball bats, hockey sticks, and golf clubs.

Arkema has a total capacity to produce 50 tons of nanotubes per year. That is a larger volume than most people realize, Criscuolo says. “Single-wall carbon nanotubes, to my knowledge, are not supplied in that volume at this point. That’s probably more of a cost and manufacturing problem than a test-and-measurement issue,” he adds.

Zyvex has a supply-chain certification process that also involves some testing, but it is a relatively tedious process to go through, Criscuolo says. “We look through SEMs to get an idea of small sample sizes’ characteristics,” he says.


A Fresnel zone plate pattern fabricated by direct FIB milling is an example of advanced prototyping using FEI Co.’s Helios NanoLab.
Click here to enlarge image

Raymor Industries, of Quebec, is among the companies working to incorporate nanotubes in different manufactured products and production lines. Through its subsidiary, AP&C Advanced Powders and Coatings, the company makes single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), metallic powders, thermal spray coatings, and a custom net-shape forming process useful for creating specialized high-tech components.

Raymor CEO Stephane Robert and Frédéric Larouche, director of production at Raymor Nanotech, say a large number of well-designed test-and-measurement tools are available. “We usually obtain the quantity [of tools] required, even if time delays [for delivery of equipment] can be long. Obviously, we also need to develop our own tools to satisfy the time and process constraints.”

Robert and Larouche confirm Criscuolo’s hunch about SWCNT production, saying cost is an important factor impeding commercial sale. “However, we believe we are close to a breakthrough with the massive use of single-walled carbon nanotubes, given the arrival of efficient, large-scale production processes as Raymor has developed,” they note.

Another nanomaterials producer, Houston-based Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc., which recently announced its intent to merge with Menlo Park-based Unidym Inc., opted not to pursue its original goal, announced a couple of years ago, of being able to produce 1000 pounds of nanotubes per day. The decision had nothing to do with test and measurement, but rather resulted from a change in strategic direction.

The company sells research-quality, SWCNTs for $375 to $2,000 per gram on its Website, depending upon purity and grade. Its commercial products, available at lower prices in bulk, are used in inks, composites under development, and commercial plastic parts for chip fab plants.

Carbon nanotube grades are defined at three structural levels. At the primary level, spectroscopy allows developers to see different chemical and structural characteristics. At the secondary level, electron microscopy detects how the primary elements pack together. That entails the self-association of nanotubes together into ropes or bundles. The tertiary structure, visible to the unaided eye, can be fluffy like cotton candy, or solid like a hard candy, or powdered.

“We have the analytical equipment we need” to look at all of these levels, says Ken McElrath, vice president for product development.

MEMS makers

MEMS pioneer and entrepreneur Henry J. Klim, managing director at MST Technology Systems in Boston, is a MEMS test equipment expert who is doing testing for start-up LVSI Sensors. Klim started his own company after splitting off from ETEC (which he headed) in Massachusetts, a firm that did pioneering work in MEMS testing.

Standard test-equipment manufacturers offer too many features and options for what MEMS manufacturers require, he says. In his experience, “the magic is not in the test equipment-it’s in the fixturing.”

Klim says that testing-of inertial devices, sensors, and optical devices, for instance-is slow primarily because changes in physical phenomena are often slow (consider, for instance, how long it takes for your oven to heat up). To get around that, testing must be done in parallel, he explains.

There are two common production methods to test MEMS systems: batch and inline flow. In a batch flow, the system is set to one temperature, tested, and then rerun under the next temperature set point. This process is run through many times. With an inline flow product, the MEMS devices enter at one end of the test flow and move through various stations as needed.

Click here to enlarge image

Klim is a proponent of batch flow as opposed to inline flow, since inline systems are most often custom systems and aren’t as reliable as off-the-shelf systems.

Howard Wisniowski is marketing program manager for Norwood, Mass.-based Analog Devices’ MEMS accelerometers and gyroscopes in automotive and consumer products. He is happy with the tools available, he says.

“ADI has settled on Labview PXI for bench and Teradyne for test,” he says. “We are, in fact, getting the quantity of test-and-measurement instruments we need, and our future looks bright with our selections.”

In addition to looking at MEMS devices via microscopy, testing also includes handling processes. “In light of the many emerging high-volume consumer markets using MEMS sensors, ADI’s approach is to maximize the usage of standard handler/tester configurations,” says Wisniowski. “These configurations allow for predictability, increased capacity, and re-use of assets.”

Kurt Petersen, CEO and chairman at SiTime in Sunnyvale, Calif., says, “We’re using off-the-shelf test systems. Usually, you have to customize the hardware a bit, so we do that or have it done.”

SiTime uses a Bosch-licensed process to make ultra-stable mechanical oscillators that are integrated into standard silicon chips. According to Petersen, the oscillator tests are routine electrical tests, so there’s no problem about production slowdowns. As with any other integrated circuit parts, they have to take a lot of data on a lot of parts and make sure the test system is working.

Petersen notes that MEMS test and measurement involves the wafer probe test and the final test of packaging before oscillators are shipped to the customer. Both use standard equipment.

Packaging testing requires a handler-a bowl feeder that moves packages onto a system that then delivers them to where the electrical contacts are made. It’s a routine handler, but SiTime had to customize the system that takes electrical measurements.

“The wafer probe is different,” he says. “We do a complete wafer probe to make sure the MEMS are operating properly.”

Click here to enlarge image

Petersen is a veteran familiar with a range of MEMS products. He says with optical chips, it’s necessary to make sure all the mirrors are working properly. Pressure-sensitive products have to pressure-test sensors on the chip. With sensors it’s hard to guarantee performance over a range of temperatures. And accelerometers have more-severe testing problems than oscillators.

An advantage of single-crystal silicon systems is that they exhibit very predictable, reproducible, and repeatable mechanics over various temperatures. “That’s absolutely critical for a commodity product like our oscillator,” Petersen says. “The quartz industry, which we compete against, has standardized on testing machines that measure frequency over temperature very rapidly.”

Saunders and Associates is a Phoenix, Ariz.-based company that makes quartz-crystal test-and-production machines to do that testing for SiTime.

Developers’ wish lists

The wish list for improvements in test-and-measurement equipment is ambitious.

“We would like to see software that manages and collects data from different tests and measurements, a kind of database,” say Raymor’s Robert and Larouche. Such software would facilitate data collection by automatically importing data files from specified folders. Currently, different instruments support different types of files or presentation formats. A standardized database would be helpful for data interpretation and would provide uniform presentation of plots and tables for records, they say.

Other improvements the Raymor executives would like to see include monitoring tools for nanotube production. Such tools would enable detection of any variation in production quality and prevent important time losses.

On the wish list for SiTime’s Petersen is more-routine use of equipment that probes several chips at the same time. Right now, it takes a long time to probe a single wafer. He’d also like to see faster steppers. Current steppers have to pull up their wires, move to a new location, line up, and measure again for every iteration. “In general, the closer you can have your MEMS part match the standard integrated circuit, the better the testing infrastructure will be. And the lower your costs will be,” says Petersen.

Carbon Nanotechnologies’ McElrath sees a need for new kinds of analytical-and-detection equipment that could speed the process of making very high value grades of nanomaterials. This equipment could separate and identify nanotubes by type, whether metallic or semiconducting.

McElrath says he’s not alone in envisioning his dream instrument: a total analyzer robot. To use it, you’d just insert a sample-and it would report back with details on type, distribution, impurity level, etc. That’s the general wish, he jokes, “but most of us have our feet planted in reality.”

Institutions that teach skills and nurture innovation: A guide for students, researchers, inventors, and CEOs

BY SMALL TIMES’ STAFF

Looking for an education or for a research partner? How about a commercialization cohort? Or perhaps employees for your growing small-tech company?

The micro-nano revolution needs revolutionaries. How will you fit into the picture-or find the people who will help you carry out your mission? To understand what might be the best options for you, you need information about higher-ed institutions focused on micro- and nanotechnology. You came to the right place.

Here is Small Times’ third-annual rankings report, based on the results of a survey conducted with dozens of universities and colleges. Our questionnaire included 26 questions, several of them multi-part, designed to reveal the institutions’ capabilities-so that you can find what you’re looking for. We analyzed the entries to determine relative strength in four key areas: research, education, facilities, and technology commercialization.

To provide a different perspective from what our analysis shows, the questionnaire asked respondents to rank peer institutions. This “academy-awards” type of approach reveals average assessment among academe and also enables us to discuss universities that did not respond-in detail or at all-to our call for entries.

The results of these ranking exercises are summarized in the sidebar, “Top 10, by category,” on p. 30.

The rest of our report is separated into three sections. Beginning on p. 19 we present summary descriptions of the universities that ranked among the top 10 in any category of either our analysis or the peer rankings.

On p. 28 we present information on a handful of community and technical colleges active in micro- and nanotechnologies.

On p. 32 you will find a listing of all the universities that responded to our survey. Here we briefly describe the institution and summarize its centers focused on micro- and nanotechnology research.

We hope the listings and descriptions that follow help you in selecting a university or college for your particular needs.

The University at Albany-SUNY

The University at Albany-SUNY (UAlbany) maintains its lead position in Small Times’ study, especially in terms of education, facilities, and commercialization. UAlbany is proud to say that its College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE) is “the first college in the world that is dedicated to the conception and dissemination of nanoscale know-how.” CNSE oversees and coordinates all of UAlbany’s work in both nano- and microtechnolgies: educational, research and development, technology deployment, and economic outreach.

Launched three years ago, CSNE is widely recognized as a global resource for research, development, workforce education, and economic outreach in nanotechnology and its applications.

CNSE is organized to address four fundamental disciplines-nanoscience, nanoengineering, nanobioscience, and nano-economics-and has arranged these “constellations” as catalysts to encourage cross-disciplinary education and research. Each offers its own doctoral and Masters’ programs. In fact, UAlbany offers more micro- and nano-specific degrees than any other university: six in total, with small-tech minor/emphasis allowed in additional M.S. and Ph.D. degrees. The university offers 100 nano- and micro-focused courses.

CNSE integrates the educational, research, and outreach activities of students and faculty with those of more than 200 international corporate partners. The center has also developed a number of global educational and research partnerships.

UAlbany was awarded more nanotechnology patents (98) than any other respondent in the Small Times’ survey.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Cornell University

Cornell encourages interdisciplinary academic programs and research. Its innovations include its nanofabrication facility and discovery in the field of nanobiotechnology. The university’s mission is to generate new knowledge about micro- and nanoscience and then to transfer that knowledge for the public good.

Among Cornell’s strengths are the following:

  • Molecular transistors and single molecule devices, micro- and nanoscale resonators, growth of complex materials, encapsulated organic dyes for fluorescence applications, and organic electronics;
  • High-resolution surface patterning of biological compounds, microfluidics, engineered DNA-probe constructs, ordered polymer nanofibers, and single molecule detection, observation, and manipulation techniques;
  • Nanomagnetism, nanoelectronics, and nanophotonics, e-beam lithography, and MEMS; and
  • Nanopatterning, (e-beam lithography), pattern transfer (dry etching), nanobiotechnology, and nanofabrication process integration.

Cornell’s micro- and nanoscience programs have strong links to biological and agricultural researchers and have a growing engagement with Weill Cornell Medical College.

Cornell does not offer micro- or nano-specific degrees, nor does it offer engineering or science degrees with a minor in micro- and/or nanotechnology. However, B.S./M.S./Ph.D. students in a number of departments have sufficient offerings to constitute an emphasis in micro- or nanotechnology-and in our survey, Cornell ranked highest among all respondents with regard to undergraduates focusing on MEMS and nano, both separately and together.

Click here to enlarge image

null

University of Michigan

The University of Michigan’s research spans the physics underlying the creation and use of nanostructures, materials, and processes to their practical implementation in both micro- and macroscopic devices and systems. Nearly 100 faculty and more than 700 undergraduate and graduate students are engaged in this research, which is funded with more than $550 million.

Multi-disciplinary research centers devoted to small tech include the Engineering Research Center for Wireless Integrated Microsystems (WIMS ERC), which is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The WIMS ERC develops microsystems that merge micropower integrated circuits, wireless interfaces, advanced wafer-level packaging, and integrated sensors and actuators.

The university’s Solid-State Electronics Laboratory (SSEL) enables work in microelectronics, micromechanics, optoelectronics, and micro- and nanotechnologies based on silicon, compound semiconductor, and organic materials. It operates the Michigan Nanofabrication Facility (MNF), a nanofabrication user facility that consists of 6,500 sq. ft. of class 100/10 cleanroom space. The MNF has been part of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) since its creation in 2004.

All these activities are supported by university-wide facilities for crystallography, mass spectroscopy, electron microscopy, and large-scale computations. The University of Michigan offers three small-tech-specific graduate degrees: Ph.D. in Solid-State Electronics, Ph.D. in Circuits and Microsystems, and M.Eng. in Integrated Microsystems.

Click here to enlarge image

null

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) incorporates more than 16 major centers and laboratories and covers 10 colleges and schools as well as 30 departments. The Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) is the University’s premier center for nanotechnology research, education, and outreach activities. CNST says its strength comes from involving more than 150 faculty members and more than $200 million in micro/nanotechnology resources.

Last year, the Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory (MNTL), a user facility that is one of the nation’s largest and most-sophisticated university-based centers of its kind, underwent an $18 million expansion. UIUC counts among its specialties bioimaging, bionanotechnology, computational nanotechnology, MEMS/NEMS, and a host of other nano-focused disciplines.

UIUC’s micro/nano research has spawned a number of companies in the past, including NanoInk in 2005, and already in fiscal year 2007, two small-tech companies have formed. Each year UIUC hosts events, including the CNST Annual Nanotechnology Workshops (since 2003) involving academia, industry, policy makers, and the general public.

In our survey, UIUC reported the greatest number of professors and the greatest number of grad students doing research in both MEMS and nanotechnology-separately and combined.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Penn State University

Penn State University is a leader in micro/MEMS/nanotechnology education and research. In 1993, Penn State opened the Nanofabrication Facility (NanoFab), a part of the National Nanofabrication Infrastructure Network. Its Center for Nanotechnology Education and Utilization offers one of the nation’s leading nanotechnology workforce development programs.

Many consider Penn State to be first in the country for materials research and second in industrial support of research. The university’s strengths are embodied in collaborative materials research covering a broad range of nanomaterials, and employing expertise from disciplines spanning AgBio through Engineering to basic Materials Chemistry and Condensed Matter Physics. An interdisciplinary graduate degree program in materials brings students and faculty together across these disciplines.

Both local and international industrial collaborations grow out of Penn State’s research. All of the university’s centers and facilities possess a mix of faculty, research associates, undergraduate and graduate students, and industrial partners.

In our survey, Penn State placed second in number of both faculty and graduate students doing research in micro/MEMS technologies. The school also placed second overall in grad students focused on small-tech research-both micro and nano.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Arizona State University

Arizona State’s specialties include nanofabrication, thin film transistors and OLEDs, and silicon nanostructures. To ASU, “the future lies in bringing together organic and biological molecules”-and so the university brings together the experts who study and make them.

The key efforts toward this vision are the Biodesign Institute and the Arizona Institute for Nano-Electronics (AINE): Traditional tools in nanoelectronics and nanoscale analysis combine with expertise in surface, bioconjugate, and organic chemistry. The Biodesign Institute joins these strengths with expertise in bioelectronics, biosensors, and nano-medicine; it incorporates the Center for Applied NanoBioscience, a facility for nanomanufacturing and prototyping.

AINE is a coordinated network of research centers focused on nanoelectronics, including nanophotonics, molecular electronics, nanoionics, and computational nanoscience. AINE’s goal is to strongly impact future technology areas related to ultra-low power/ultra-high speed electronics, and hybrid biomolecular electronics at the interface between the biological and electronics worlds.

In our survey, ASU reported the greatest number of MEMS patents (30) awarded in 2006 to any university.

Click here to enlarge image

null

University of Washington

The research enterprise of the University of Washington (UW) includes top-ranked interdisciplinary programs that span engineering and the physical and biomedical sciences. Over the past 10 years, UW built on these strengths and positioned itself as a leader in micro- and nano research, education, and technology transfer.

In 2001, the UW launched its first Ph.D. program in nanotechnology. Successful completion of the program leads to a dual Ph.D. degree in nanotechnology and a traditional science, engineering, or medicine discipline. Thirty-three students have earned such a Ph.D. since 2001, and 48 are currently enrolled. Established through a $2.7 million NSF award, the program was renewed by the NSF and NIH-NCI at the level of $3.2 million for the 2005-to-2010 period.

Including these doctoral students, more than 600 graduate students, 350 undergrads, and 100 faculty members are engaged in micro/nano research at the UW; their projects involve researchers from bioengineering, biochemistry, physiology, and biophysics; molecular and cellular biology; engineering; chemistry; oceanography; medicine; and more.

Many of the UW’s nanoscale research and educational programs are coordinated through its Center for Nanotechnology (CNT). CNT has actively partnered with North Seattle Community College (NSCC) to develop a new two-year associate degree in nanotechnology.

The university’s NanoTech User Facility (NTUF) was established in 1998; in 2004, it became one of 13 nodes in the U.S. National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network.

Click here to enlarge image

null

North Carolina State University

To coordinate North Carolina State University’s (NCSU) expanding efforts in micro- and nanotechnology, the school is developing a Nanotechnology Institute that will foster interactions among university researchers and enhance nanotechnology education and outreach.

NCSU’s micro- and nanotechnology efforts made impressive advancements during fiscal year 2006. Researchers received eight micro- and 26 nanotechnology patents, as well as 81 intellectual property licenses.

The university is notable for its outreach to industry; NCSU facilities were shared with more than 200 companies last year.

NCSU is actively developing academic programs related to nanotechnology. The Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Department offers a nanotechnology option for B.S. students. Approximately 700 graduate and undergraduate students learn about the subject through courses in various fields: physics, chemistry, engineering, agriculture, education, medicine, and business. For instance, NCSU’s College of Engineering (COE) actively collaborates with the College of Textile’s Nonwovens Cooperative Research Center to address emerging issues in nano fibers and related textile-based technology. And COE researchers in nanomaterials are collaborating with researchers at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and College of Veterinary Medicine to address issues in nanomaterials toxicology.

At the College of Education, researchers are producing nanoscience instructional materials for K-12 teachers and students.

NCSU is a participant in the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network.

Click here to enlarge image

null

University of Maryland

The University of Maryland’s physics and materials community has achieved recognition by exploiting scanning surface nanoprobes for science and developing derivatives of the scanning tunneling microscope (and commercializing some). The university’s Materials Research and Engineering Center (MRSEC) and Center for Superconductivity Research Center have partnered to develop expertise in complex nanomaterial systems. Combinatorial approaches to nanomaterials engineering and discovery have become a strength.

Having made a strategic investment in MEMS research, Maryland now has a strong position in the micro arena. More recently the university assembled a team of leaders in various approaches to nanoparticle synthesis, which supports work in intelligent drug delivery, nanocatalysts, nanosystems assembly, and organics-based electronics. These areas enable the school to add biotech strength in partnership with other institutions.

Across the board Maryland is emphasizing the key issues of nanomanufacturing, in concert with NIST and including its new Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST).

The University of Maryland is located near the largest assortment of federal laboratories in the country, and most faculty members collaborate with one or more. The university boasts major new facilities and seeks to recruit 25 new nanotechnology faculty over the next few years.

In Small Times’ survey, the University of Maryland ranked second only to Cornell in terms of undergraduates focused on MEMS or nanotechnology.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Rice University

Rice is known for its Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, which encompasses the NSF-funded NSEC, Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN), the Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory (CNL), and the Shared Equipment Authority (SEA), and shares support for the Laboratory for Nanophotonics (LANP).

Rice’s strengths include nanotechnology for energy and for health, nanomaterials, carbon nanotubes, computational nanotechnology, nanotechnology for electronics and for photonics, environmental and toxicological nanotechnology, and issues in society, ethics, and economics. With 120 faculty and research faculty across 16 departments as members of the Smalley Institute, Rice guesses it has someone working in every subfield of nano.

Rice also aims to broaden public understanding of nanotechnology and its potential-for instance to children through the NanoKids initiative and to public and corporate audiences with specifically designed courses in the School of Continuing Studies.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Rutgers University

The Institute for Advanced Materials, Devices and Nanotechnology (IAMDN) leads nanoscience and technology research and development at Rutgers. It acts as an oversight organization, helping to coordinate interdisciplinary research, technology transfer, incubation, funding, and education.

IAMDN includes about 100 faculty and their research groups. Rutgers estimates the nano-related facilities used by the IAMDN faculty are worth $100 million; a new building-planned to open in three years-will consolidate the facilities and interaction among faculty members. This year, however, Rutgers is focused on new faculty hires and recently signed on a permanent director for the IAMDN.

The IAMDN has begun coordinating access to the many shared facilities in a dozen centers and laboratories, including the Micro Electronics Research Lab cleanroom and nanofabrication facilities.

Extensive incubator space is located near campus. The Rutgers technology transfer office works to quickly move ideas from research to prototype development.

Nine departments offer micro- and nanotechnology classes. Eight courses focus almost exclusively on nanoscience and technology, and another several dozen have a significant nano component. Rutgers awards degrees with concentration in nanomaterials and nanotechnology, and all electrical engineering degrees include the option of a specialty in micro- and nanoelectronics.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Stanford University

While Stanford does not award micro or nano-specific degrees, minors, or emphases, the university is a leader in small tech as evidenced by the publication of 65 papers in nanotechnology and 37 in microtechnology during the 2006 school year. Stanford says it is committed to supporting the use of micro- and nanotechnologies in non-traditional research applications.

Last year, Stanford received a five-year, $20 million award from the National Cancer Institute to develop nanotechnologies for detecting and treating cancer. In 2005, it opened the Stanford Nanocharacterization Laboratory (SNL), whose mission is to provide high-quality, useful materials characterization data and insight for as wide a range of users as possible.

The Stanford Nanofabrication Facility (SNF) is a shared-equipment, open-use, device fabrication cleanroom. It facilitates the work of researchers from a wide variety of disciplines, such as optics, MEMS, biology, and chemistry, as well as process characterization and fabrication of more-traditional electronics devices. The SNF is supported by the NSF through the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN).

Stanford is a leader in small-tech commercialization.

Click here to enlarge image

null

University of California at Los Angeles

UCLA combines its MEMS and microsystems’ expertise with a number of nano-related centers. The university’s California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) brings together researchers from the sciences, engineering, and medicine faculty to explore the use of nanotechnology to advance information technology, energy production, storage and saving, environmental well-being and diagnosis, and disease prevention and treatment.

To support the research, the $149 million, newly constructed CNSI building provides three floors of core facilities, including both wet and dry laboratories, and imaging and measurement equipment, high-throughput robotics, and class 100 and 1000 cleanrooms.

The Center on Functional Engineered Nano Architectonics (FENA) explores nanotechnology for information processing systems. The Western Institute of Nanoelectronics (WIN) develops advanced research devices, circuits, and nanosystems to exploit the spin property of electrons.

Click here to enlarge image

null

University of Pittsburgh

Pitt’s strength in nanoscience is in the study of nanostructures at the core “essentially nano” level. The university’s Petersen Institute of NanoScience and Engineering aims to solve large, complex scientific and engineering challenges in nanoscience and engineering by facilitating interdisciplinary teams. The Institute comprises more than 50 faculty who form teams for various research topics, covering nanomaterials, devices/systems, and nano-instrumentation. During fiscal year 2006, the institute added nine new nanotechnology faculty.

Pitt’s NanoScale Fabrication and Characterization Facility (NFCF) is a user facility with 4,000 sq. ft. of cleanroom space, and advanced equipment with core nano-level (10nm or below) capability. This facility also enables vertical integration of structures from nano to micro and macro level in conjunction with the facilities existing on campus for micro- and macroscale structures and packaging.

Pitt has ranked the sixth among the U.S. universities in creating spin-off companies-including three in nanotechnology. Pitt offers a certificate in photonics.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Purdue University

Purdue says that the strength of its nanotechnology research and its Birck Nanotechnology Center begins with people. Since 2002, Purdue has hired 16 faculty in various areas of nanotechnology. Faculty membership in the Birck Nanotechnology Center, a shared-use facility, is currently 146, representing 36 departments.

The design of the Birck building follows that of the NIST Advanced Measurement Laboratory in Maryland for the general nanoscale research labs. It boasts low-vibration assets, including a metrology laboratory with NIST-A1 floating mass floor (within a EMI shielded room that is temperature stable to ±0.01°C). The 25,000-sq.-ft. semiconductor nanofabrication cleanroom operates at classes 1, 10, and 100, and the integrated 2,500 sq. ft. bio-pharma cleanroom has separate airflow and personnel gowning. An airlock glove box that allows materials and devices to move between these two cleanroom spaces is the first such arrangement in the nation. The 60Hz electromagnetic fields from building power distribution are below 0.01 milligauss in selected labs and below 0.1 milligauss generally.

More than 350 educational resources-including seminars, tutorials, podcasts, and online nanotechnology simulation tools-are available through nanoHUB, a project of the Purdue-lead Network for Computational Nanotechnology.

Click here to enlarge image

null

University of Louisville

The University of Louisville says the strength of its micro/nano centers lies in the breadth and depth of the processes and services they offer. Over the past 10 years, the university has built collection of multi-user core facilities to serve most disciplines of small-tech research and education, from nanoscale material synthesis to application-specific device prototyping.

The university’s Micro/Nano Technology Cleanroom provides fabrication and design services for numerous MEMS, microelectronic, and nanotechnology applications. The center is housed within two on-campus cleanrooms, the newest of which is a 10,000-sq.-ft., seven-bay, Class 100 facility equipped with $10 million of fabrication and characterization tools. Complementary to the cleanroom are additional dedicated multi-user core facilities for modeling, packaging, and testing.

U of L’s B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical, mechanical, and chemical engineering-as well as chemistry-all allow a small-tech emphasis (as do its B.S. and M.S. degrees in bioengineering and physics).

Click here to enlarge image

null

Louisiana Tech

Louisiana Tech offers several small-tech-specific degrees-more than any other university participating in the survey, save for the University at Albany-SUNY. The degrees include a B.S. in Nanosystems Engineering, an M.S. in Microsystems Engineering, an M.S. in Molecular Science and Nanotechnology, and a Ph.D. in Computational Analysis and Modeling. In addition, all undergraduate engineering degrees allow emphasis in micro/nanosystems, as do Ph.D. degrees in engineering and biomedical engineering.

Louisiana Tech’s Institute for Micromanufacturing (IfM) started more than 15 years ago with a micromanufacturing emphasis. Now, its expanded research and educational efforts cover five main areas: nanotechnology, biotechnology, biomedical nanotechnology, environmental technology, and information technology. The activities carried out through these areas, coupled with the institute’s integrated nanomanufacturing and micromanufacturing resources, have led to the realization of a broad range of research, educational, and commercialization efforts. The institute’s vision is to be a world class resource for the realization of commercially viable micro and nanosystems.

Click here to enlarge image

null

University of Minnesota

The University of Minnesota has a history of strength in the area of novel materials, especially in recent years in nanostructured materials. This has led to the development of facilities for synthesizing and characterizing novel nanostructures. The U of M boasts a well-equipped materials characterization lab; together with the NanoFabrication Center and the Particle Technology Lab, it comprises one of 13 nodes in the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network.

Recently the university founded the Center for Nanostructure Applications, a resource for seeding ideas related to the development of novel active nanodevices based on these nanostructured materials. This multidisciplinary effort crosses boundaries among science, engineering, medicine, energy, and systems to capitalize on the possibilities presented by this new class of materials.

The university offers a Nano Particles Science & Engineering minor (M.S.).

Click here to enlarge image

null

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Rensselaer provides leadership in the areas of hyper integration, integrated circuit (IC) back-end technology, functional nanobuilding blocks, multi-scale modeling, and packaging science. The university’s areas of expertise also include wearable electronics, solid-state lighting, tissue engineering, and bioreactors.

At the core of RPI’s small-tech efforts is the Rensselaer Nanotechnology Center, which provides interdisciplinary research programs and focuses on creating novel materials and devices.

The NSF-funded Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center for Directed Assembly of Nanostructures was founded in September 2001 at RPI, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. It addresses the fundamental scientific issues underlying the design and synthesis of nanostructured materials, assemblies, and devices with dramatically improved capabilities for many industrial and biomedical applications.

Research at the Center for Integrated Electronics is facilitated by Rensselaer’s recently upgraded 10,000-sq.-ft. Class 100 microfabrication cleanroom, which supports three-, five-, and eight-inch wafer fabrication technology.

Recently, RPI announced a $100 million partnership with IBM and New York to create the Computational Center for Nanotechnology Innovations-the world’s most powerful university-based (and a global top 10) supercomputing center. Based on the RPI campus and at its Rensselaer Technology Park in Troy, N.Y., the CCNI will focus on reducing the time and costs associated with designing and manufacturing nanoscale materials, devices, and systems. This center promises to be an important resource for industry.

Click here to enlarge image

Editor’s note: The following universities were chosen by survey respondents as outstanding for their work in micro- and/or nanotechnology. Some did not complete the Small Times’ survey, however, and therefore did not qualify for non-peer rankings.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

“Tiny Technologies” is an umbrella term MIT uses for a number of related areas of research in nano- and micro-scale technologies. Opportunities for study in this area are primarily at the graduate level and in the departments of Materials Science and Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, or Chemical Engineering. Graduate students often arrange to study within one of the MIT laboratories to conduct research.

MIT’s major micro- and nano centers are the Microsystems Technology Laboratories, which provide microelectronics fabrication laboratories, including cleanrooms and design and testing facilities; the U.S. Army Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, which supports bottom-up nanotech research; the Center for Material Science and Engineering, which provides advanced materials characterization tools; and the Microphotonics Center.

Click here to enlarge image

null

University of California at Berkeley

UC Berkeley addresses both micro- and nanotechnology. The university has identified nanoscale science and engineering as a top priority and has allocated seven new faculty positions for the Berkeley Nanosciences and Nanoengineering Institute (BNNI), which was established to expand and coordinate research and educational activities in nanoscale science and engineering. This is in addition to the significant number of new faculty in nanoscale science and engineering that are being recruited by departments. UC Berkeley currently has more than 90 faculty with active research programs in nanoscale science and engineering. The university has a close partnership with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which is also investing heavily in nanoscience though user facilities such as the Molecular Foundry.

The Berkeley Sensor & Actuator Center (BSAC) is the National Science Foundation Industry/University Cooperative Research Center for microsensors and microactuators. The center’s mission is to conduct industry-relevant, interdisciplinary research on micro- and nanoscale sensors, moving mechanical elements, microfluidics, materials, and processes that take advantage of progress made in integrated-circuit, bio, and polymer technologies.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Northwestern University

Northwestern established its Institute for Nanotechnology as an umbrella organization to support meaningful efforts in nanotechnology, house state-of-the-art nanomaterials characterization facilities, and nucleate individual and group efforts aimed at addressing and solving key problems in nanotechnology.

The Center for Nanofabrication and Molecular Self-Assembly, a $34 million, 40,000-sq.-ft. facility that was anchored by a $14 million grant from the Department of Health and Human Services, is one of the first federally funded facilities of its kind in the U.S. and home to the institute’s headquarters.

The multi-million-dollar interdisciplinary nanotechnology research efforts carried out in the Institute of Nanotechnology are supported by grants from government as well as from many industrial and philanthropic organizations.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Georgia Institute of Technology

Georgia Tech won a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant in 1995 to open its Microelectronics Research Center. Today, construction is underway for Georgia Tech’s Nanotechnology Research Center, expected to open in 2008. The 160,000-sq.-ft. center promises to be one of the most sophisticated facilities in the country with 30,000 sq. ft. of cleanroom spaces that support research and instruction in microelectronics, semiconductors, materials, medicine, and pharmaceuticals.

In the meantime, the Center for Computational Materials Science in the School of Physics offers computer simulation and other tools to support research projects in nanotechnology and other fields. And the Georgia Tech Center for Nanostructure Characterization and Fabrication (CNCF) in the School of Materials Science and Engineering offers multi-user nanoscience and nanotechnology research services. Its mission is to provide state-of-the-art nanostructure tools for performing advanced research on a variety of materials.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Harvard University

Harvard’s Center for Nanoscale Systems (CNS) focuses on how nanoscale components can be integrated into large and complex interacting systems. CNS is a member of the NSF’s National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) initiative to create a national network of world-class facilities available to all researchers.

Other centers at Harvard include the Materials Research Science and Engineering Center (MRSEC), an NSF-funded project focused on interdisciplinary research whose participants represent five departments. The Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC) is an NSF-funded collaboration among Harvard, along with other universities worldwide, national labs, and the Museum of Science, Boston.

When the National Cancer Institute awarded $26.3 million to establish seven Centers of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence in 2005 (as part of its $144.3 million five-year initiative for nanotechnology in cancer research), awardees included the MIT-Harvard Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, with Harvard’s Ralph Weissleder, M.D., Ph.D., as a principal investigator.

Click here to enlarge image

null

California Institute of Technology

Caltech hosted the speech by heralded physicist Richard Feynman that envisioned the progress in nanotechnology we are now beginning to realize-and also hosted the unveiling of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2001.

Funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the Kavli Foundation, Caltech supports a long-term program of innovative research in nanoscale science and engineering through the Kavli Nanoscience Institute. It emphasizes efforts that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries, with two principal areas of focus: nanobiotechnology and nanophotonics. The institute’s common methodology in these areas is large-scale integration of nanoscale devices-that is, going beyond the present nanoscience of individual structures to realize interacting systems.

The university’s Microfluidic Foundry provides multi-layer soft lithography fabrication services

Click here to enlarge image

null

Carnegie Mellon University

Carnegie Mellon’s new Center for Nano-enabled Device and Energy Technologies (CNXT) aims to harness diverse nanometer-scale science and engineering work to help solve a few contemporary problems such as energy supply, environmental management, and terrorism. The center draws on expertise from various departments in engineering and science. The overarching goal of these activities is to enable the design of innovative systems. The unifying theme of the center is nanometer-scale materials that are deliberately synthesized, self-assembled, assisted to self-assemble, or structured by engineering know-how to create novel properties, processes, or principles. The current focus of the center is on nano-enabled sensor and energy technologies. Its secondary focus is nano-enabled information technologies, including devices and subsystems for electronic and photonic information manipulation.

Click here to enlarge image

null

University of California-Santa Barbara

The University of California-Santa Barbara is a recognized leader in materials science, optoelectronic and electronic device research, and nanofabrication. Nanotech, UCSB’s nanofabrication facility, is located in the university’s new Engineering Sciences building and is part of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network. It offers 12,700 sq. ft. of Class 100 and Class 1000 cleanroom space and a broad range of tools to support device fabrication for a variety of materials, including InP, GaAs, GaN, SiC, Si, and more.

UCSB partners with UCLA in the California NanoSystems Institute and in the Center for Nanoscience Innovation for Defense. UCSB’s Center for Nanotechnology in Society aims to serve as a national research and education center, a network hub for those concerned with nanotechnologies’ societal impacts, and a resource base for studying those impacts. The UCSB also features a Materials Research Laboratory, which is supported by the NSF.

Click here to enlarge image

null

Dear reader,


May 1, 2007

As we put the finishing touches on our annual university rankings’ issue, the news is filled with reflection on the tragic shootings that took place at the Virginia Tech. And so we dedicate this issue to all those touched by that terrible event.

Proper education of the next generation of small-tech engineers, researchers, and technicians is key to the development of the technology and its applications-and to our nation’s competitiveness long-term. Several recent commercial and policy developments are facilitating our ability to succeed in this endeavor. Last issue we reported on a new generation of microscopes that will, because of their significantly lower price tags, allow more students and others to study micro- and nanoscience (see “Power microscopy for the masses,” Mar/Apr 2007, page 8). And breaking news on our way to print is that a new provision to U.S. competitiveness legislation authorizes use of National Science Foundation grant funds to acquire micro/nanotechnology equipment and software for teaching students in high schools, colleges, and universities.

Education is a top concern among industry players and observers. Another is the ability to process patent applications efficiently. In a recent online exclusive, Small Times’ publisher Patti Glaza reported on a nanotechnology roundtable discussion led by Under Secretary for Technology at the U.S. Department of Commerce Robert Cresanti (see “Cresanti leads nano commercialization roundtable,” at www.smalltimes.com). The report’s coverage of small-tech patent application review frustrations drew a handful of responses-one from Cresanti, himself, and another from John Doll, Commissioner for Patents.

Challenging one particular line in the report, Doll said, “It is not ‘strong union forces,’ but federal law, that makes it harder for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to recruit and retain patent examiners.” He also explained the USPTO’s new use of special law provisions to overcome the shortage of qualified examiners.

Doll then detailed work being done to fast-track patent-application review, including the provision for applicants to request accelerated examination, “guaranteeing a final examiner decision within 12 months in return for adhering to certain requirements.” He said his department knows that more must be done to ensure micro- and nanotechnology developers get decisions on their patent applications more quickly. And in the letter he announced that the USPTO is “seeking solutions from the public and those with a stake in the patent system through a series of town hall meetings and focus groups we will hold later this year.” When Doll and his team finalize plans for these meetings, they will be announced on the USPTO Website.

“We welcome the thoughts and suggestions of readers of Small Times,” Doll concluded. So send your thoughts and suggestions to me at [email protected], and I’ll pass them on to Doll.

Barbara G. Goode is editor-in-chief of Small Times. She can be reached at [email protected].

Small Times introduced its university rankings in 2005, based on a survey sent to research institutions in the United States. After that first publication, we assembled an advisory panel of directors at university-based micro- and nanotech centers to refine the questionnaire, which now includes 26 questions (though some are multi-part and fairly complex). Because education of technicians becomes increasingly important as small tech evolves and grows, this year we also wanted to include technical and community colleges-and so devised a questionnaire for them as well.

University focus

The questionnaire covers the school year beginning August/September 2005 and ending May/June 2006 and is divided into four sections:

  • Infrastructure: This section asks the universities to detail their research facilities, annual facility budgets, access to industry, etc.
  • Tech transfer/university programs: Here, respondents provided measurable proof of success, such as the number of micro- and nanotech patents awarded in FY 2006, the number of companies formed, partnerships with industry, and so on.
  • Engineering and sciences: This section was designed to assess the university’s science and engineering educational and research programs, with an emphasis on micro- and nanotechnology. Questions ranged from the number of science and engineering faculty, undergraduates, and graduate students to the numbers of micro- and nano-specific courses and degrees.

Universities also were asked to provide figures on grant expenditures and papers published in refereed journals and proceedings. Small Times and its advisory panelists agreed that questions dealing with micro- and nano-specific grants and papers would be difficult, if not impossible, to track and report. Consequently, those answers covered all sciences (excluding the social sciences) and engineering.

Respondents also were asked to give their opinion on which universities they considered tops in micro- and nanotech research and commercialization. Their replies were tabulated to create the peer rankings.

  • Index material: This section asked the universities to describe their small-tech programs in 250 words or less.

Responses from the four sections provided the data for a quantitative analysis of each university’s strengths in micro- and nanotech research, education, facilities, industry outreach, and commercialization. If a university responded that data was not available, or left a question blank, it was recorded as 0. Responses were also vetted for misinterpretations.

Some universities did not respond to the survey but appear in the magazine because they were named among the top schools in the peer rankings section. Several other universities expressed an interest in participating but did not meet the deadline for submission.

Technical and community colleges

This year we devised a second, less-complex questionnaire for technical and community colleges. This survey covers the same basic areas as the university survey, but requires less detail-which is appropriate, considering that two-year colleges are just beginning to offer courses and programs in small tech and therefore have less to report at this early stage.

Because this segment of the higher-education community is so new to micro- and nanotechnologies, we received just four community college submissions. Instead of ranking them, then, we summarize their programs in the sidebar, “Community colleges are critical,” on page 28). Don’t dismiss them as less important than the well-established university programs; community and technical college programs will prove essential to the growing list of small-tech developers, who will ultimately need many more technicians than Ph.D.s.

Apr. 30, 2007 — Agilent Technologies is offering a trade-in promotion until Sept. 15, 2007: The company will take 25% off the price of a new 5500 and 5400 atomic force microscope (AFM) for customers in the U.S., U.K., Germany, and Japan who trade in an older AFM. The trade-in system must include a microscope, scanner, and controller/software, but does not need to be in working condition. More information is available on the Agilent site.

Apr. 30, 2007 — The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has completed its Nanoelectronics Standards Roadmap, which establishes a framework for creating standards to help industry transition electronic applications based on nanotechnology from the laboratory to commercial use. The document is posted on the IEEE web site, and the association invites input from interested parties by e-mail. Deadline for comment is June 21, 2007.

The roadmap recommends the initiation of five nanoelectronic standards this year: three for nanomaterials involving conductive interconnects, organic sensor structures, and nano-dispersions; and two for nanodevices involving nanoscale sensors and nanoscale emitting devices. In addition, it targets the start of seven nanomaterial standards and five nano-device standards in 2008.

The IEEE Nanoelectronic Standards Roadmapping Initiative, which began in early 2003, is co-chaired by Evelyn Hirt of Battelle and John Tucker of Keithley Instruments. Its members come from industry, government and academia and from many nations. The roadmap focuses on standards for nanomaterials and devices that promise to yield the highest value in the near-term. It also anticipates standards likely to be needed at higher levels of integration for functional blocks and applications.

“The standards identified in the roadmap are intended to foster industry’s growth by enabling researchers to build on each other’s findings, harmonize best practices, and support manufacturers across the value chain from materials, processing and test equipment to subsystems and systems,” says Edward Rashba, Director, New Business Ventures.

“If the industry concurs with the choice of the five nanoelectronic standards the roadmap targets to start in 2007, we’ll begin work on them this summer or fall,” says Rashba. “These standards will build on the nanoelectronic standards efforts already underway or completed at the IEEE.”

In addition to email feedback, the IEEE plans to gather commentary via a “town-hall”-style meeting on May 22 at the NSTI Nanotech 2007 Conference in Santa Clara, Calif.

One nanoelectronics standard, IEEE 1650, “Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Electrical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes”, has already been completed. This document, the first of its kind, provides a common template for generating reproducible electrical data on nanotubes. The IEEE says that organizations worldwide have aligned their characterization methods with it.

A second standard, IEEE P1690, “Standard Methods for Characterization of Carbon Nanotubes Used as Additives in Bulk Materials” is underway.

Apr. 30, 2007 — A new discovery by a University of Missouri-Columbia research team, now published in Angewandte Chemie (the journal of the German Society of Chemists), allows scientists to manipulate a molecule discovered 50 years ago to exhibit metal-like properties, creating a new, “pseudo” element. The pseudo-metal properties can be adjusted for a range of uses.

Five decades ago, Fred Hawthorne, professor of radiology and director of the International Institute for Nano and Molecular Medicine at MU, discovered an extremely stable molecule consisting of 12 boron atoms and 12 hydrogen atoms. Known as “boron cages,” these molecules were difficult to change or manipulate, and sat dormant in Hawthorne’s laboratory for many years.

Recently, Hawthorne’s scientific team found a way to modify these cages, resulting in a large, new family of nano-sized compounds. In their study, Hawthorne, and Mark Lee, assistant professor at the institute and first author of the study, found that attaching different compounds to the cages gave them the properties of many different metals.

“Since the range of properties for these pseudo-metals is quite large, they might be referred to as ‘psuedo-elements belonging to a completely new pseudo-periodic table,'” Lee said.

Potential applications of this discovery are abundant, especially in medicine. “All living organisms are essentially a grand concert of chemical reactions involving the transfer of electrons between molecules and metals,” Lee said. “The electron transfer properties of this new family of molecules span the entire range of those found within living systems. Because of this, these pseudo-metals may be tuned for use as specific probes in living systems to detect or treat disease at the earliest state.”

In addition, because the compounds possess such a wide range of flexibility, they might have ramifications for nanotechnology and various kinds of electronics.

Apr. 27, 2007 — Sensata Technologies, formerly the Sensors & Controls business of Texas Instruments, has demonstrated several occupant sensing approaches that it says can help engineers design better seat belt alert systems. At the recent SAE World Congress, the company showed a new piezo electric sensor, as well as a current Monocrystalline Silicon Strain Gauge (MSG) force sensor, both of which promise engineers a range of design options.

The new piezo electric sensor solves the problem of traditional weight- only detection systems, which often cannot differentiate between a person or a heavy object such as a bag of groceries, creating annoying false seat belt alerts. A three-position sensor is available for rear seats.

Due to the sensor’s ability to accurately measure weight and passenger position, this technology is also being considered for use with new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 classification air bag deployment systems, providing a single, integrated solution for two important consumer safety issues.

Sensata’s MSG Occupant Weight Sensor (OWS) employs a silicon MEMS strain gauge element glass bonded to a stainless steel diaphragm. Four MSG sensors mounted within a seat structure create accurate weight measures for safe airbag deployment and compliance to FMVSS208. The sensors are available in several designs: an axial or flange rigid sensor; a rigid sensor with a Stress Reduction Component (SRC); or an SRC at flange center style. These options give designers a range of design and mounting flexibility.