Tag Archives: Small Times Magazine

Structural nanomaterials, sensors show promise but providers must prove reliability first

By Genevieve Oger

When artists’ drawings of space elevators built with carbon nanotubes started making their way onto the science pages of local newspapers a few years ago, it seemed like nanotechnology was on the cusp of revolutionizing space exploration and aeronautics. But today such dreams have, well, fallen back to Earth. With reality failing to match the grand expectations, aeronautic industry watchers have become a little more circumspect.

“Technologies flying in space are 10 years behind what is state of the art terrestrially,” said Thomas George, formerly at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a founder of CANEUS, a non-profit organization devoted to increasing the use of micro and nanotechnology in the aerospace industry. “In the 1960s and the Apollo years, space innovations were driving technology forward, but that’s no longer the case.” The main difficulty today, he argues, is that testing is much more expensive in space and that the high cost of airborne missions makes space agencies quite risk averse.

Despite this, the aeronautics industry is actively researching how it can harness the promise of micro and nanotech. And a few firms are managing to do so today.

Swiss-based Colibrys focuses on providing its customers with MEMS and MOEMS components and subsystems – specifically, motion sensors designed to be used in harsh environments to detect tilt, acceleration, inertia, shock and vibration. Such sensors can be used in missiles, drones, small civil aircraft or for other navigational purposes.


No nano: Currently, there are no nanotech applications within Airbus aircraft bodies, according to Henrik Roesner, a structure engineer at Airbus. But, he said he expects that within the next few years there will be some nano-related breakthroughs. Photo courtesy of Airbus
Click here to enlarge image

Colibrys has a staff of 110 in Neuchatel and another 150 in Houston, Texas. Its customers include British defense and aerospace company BAE Systems and French defense and electronics company Sagem, as well as other defense contractors.

Colibrys’ business has been growing 30 percent a year, in part because its products can be used by the military. “The process is trying to take technology that has been qualified in cars or industry, (and cause it) to be adopted by the military and then aeronautics,” said Sean Neylon, chief executive. “After that confidence building, the people who work in space will use it.”

Satellite companies are also experimenting with micro and nanotech solutions. European aerospace group Alcatel Alenia Space has been testing RF MEMS. They have the potential to improve communications between a satellite and its base by ensuring better quality transmission with less power drain. The company has taken part in different European-Union-funded research programs focused on the technology, but so far, it hasn’t been able to use it in their products.

“It will be a long time before we can use RF MEMS in commercial satellites, though I am confident they will be used one day,” said Augustin Coello-Vera of Alcatel Alenia Space. “Those customers want to see them in orbit for several years before they are used widely, so we must use piggy-back demonstrators,” he added, referring to the practice of testing new technologies by adding them as auxiliary payload.

Satellite makers whose customers are mostly non-commercial, such as Colorado-based Microsat Systems, have had an easier time integrating micro and nanotech innovations in their products. The company, which is under contract with the General Services Administration (GSA), the U.S. federal government’s procurement agency, has used micro and nanotechnology to build a 220-pound micro-satellite.

“We embedded the electronics and power storage of the satellite into a composite material, turning it into a multifunctional material,” said Mohan Misra, the company’s CEO. In addition, the solar panels that power the satellite were placed on light-weight plastic instead of silicon. “We also used micro and nanoscale devices and mechanisms,” Misra said. “Combining all these things, we were able to reduce the weight ten-fold.”

Generally speaking, the aeronautics business remains extremely conservative and risk averse, making it difficult for micro and nanotech applications to be integrated into new products.

This is even more so in the case of civil aircraft makers like Europe’s Airbus. Automobiles and trains might crash every day, but any commercial airliner accident or malfunction makes headlines around the world. “Currently, there exists no nanotechnology applications in our aircraft,” said Henrik Roesner, a structure engineer at Airbus. “But we expect that within the next few years, we will have some breakthroughs.”

Airbus is particularly interested in harnessing the power of micro and nanotech to assess the structural health of aircraft, much in the way the body’s central nervous system allows a person to feel the pain that causes him to give attention to a specific body part. For example, the company is exploring at the laboratory stage the idea of developing piezoelectric paint made of lead-zirconate-titanate nanopowder. On a plane, such a piezo-active surface could behave like a very precise sensor, capable of generating electric information about possible vibrations, defects or impacts on an aircraft surface.

Roesner stresses that micro and nanotech offers great promises, but that the aircraft industry operates in unique conditions – carrying human beings – and that puts extreme demands on qualifying new technologies. “The material really needs to be better,” he said. “And we need to ensure that the material will maintain these properties in extreme conditions and on a long-term basis.”

Around the next bend: 2007


November 1, 2006

Unpacking the year’s micro/nano agenda before the trip even begins

By Charles Choi

The past is so, well, over. But 2007 is just a few holidays away. What should you expect for the coming year? How about a global ramp of nanotube production, the first big test of alternative electronics manufacturing, and a pitched battle over nano patent rights, to name just a few items. Read on for an advance peek at these and other tiny tech trends expected to drive micro/nano commercialization in the year ahead.

Call it the year of the multiwall tube. Experts say to expect a rapid increase in multiwall carbon nanotube commercialization efforts next year.

The floodgates are opening because pioneering nanotube maker Hyperion Catalysis’ foundational patents on multiwall tubes have expired. As a result, said Sean Murdock, the executive director of trade group NanoBusiness Alliance, “We should see a broader-based experimentation with multiwall carbon nanotubes and a growth in applications that use them.”

That will enable a gaggle of competitors to start cranking out multiwall tubes for all manner of applications, and the increased supply could create some price competition. But, experts say, carbon nanotubes are hardly all alike – and the differences in quality could cause production of commoditized multiwall tubes to shift to low-cost locations.

Bayer AG in Germany and Arkema in France have been very aggressive in entering the multiwall carbon nanotube space, with Bayer showing price leadership, said Matthew Nordan, president and research director at market research firm Lux Research. CNT Co. in Korea has also ramped up production, he said. Meanwhile, Paul Glatkowski, vice president of engineering at Franklin, Mass.-based carbon nanotube firm Eikos, pointed to Mitsubishi and Mitsui in Japan as leading suppliers.

Regardless of who the premier suppliers will be and how much they can produce, said Wasiq Bokhari, a managing partner at emerging tech advisory firm Quantum Insight, the multimillion dollar question is what the demand for carbon nanotubes will look like.

Many of the exciting device opportunities – such as in computer memory, video displays or medical diagnostics – demand single-wall tubes. “Unless really interesting high-value applications are found,” Bokhari said, “I’d say they (the multiwall tube providers) will follow a commodity path for cents per pound as filler materials – for instance, in car tires – which means most of the multiwall carbon nanotube companies will close down starting next year and multiwall carbon nanotube scale-up will move to Asia to do it cheaply.”

Not everyone agrees with that assessment, however. While Hyperion and other entrenched suppliers will no doubt see a slew of new competitors, Murdock and other experts say they are, at worst, likely to see only a limited erosion in price and market share.

It’s different from the dynamic that plays out when drugs go off patent, say experts. All the knowledge the original company developed for processing the product and integrating it into supply chains helps it maintain a leadership position despite the new players and the open playing field.

“It’s very, very difficult to get consistency of morphology and purity as you go through a (manufacturing) run, and other companies that can and will scale their production will have to go through the same learning curve we’ve already experienced,” said Michael Laine, director of business development at Hyperion.


Different nanotubes, different markets: The two types of carbon nanotube at left are both single-wall but have different properties due to their chirality, or “twist”. They are generally sought after for high-value applications like electronics. The multiwall tube on the right often serves more mundane purposes, such as for additives in tires and sporting equipment. Illustration by Bryan Bandyk and Paul Manz
Click here to enlarge image

At the same time, he argues, high-value applications may be gaining a foothold. Hyperion is currently substituting multiwall carbon nanotubes for carbon black in electronic applications such as in hard drives or wafer handling – applications that are considerably higher up in the value chain than automotive tires. In addition, “a lot of new processes in the electronics industry are demanding chemical or heat resistance while keeping the natural performance of a polymer, so multiwall carbon nanotubes can be used there for higher-end uses,” said Laine.

Certainly other high-value applications remain on the horizon. For example, new applications could emerge from the nanotube yarns developed by researcher Ray Baughman at the University of Texas at Dallas and his colleagues.

“You could imagine making a sandwich material there that could be incredibly stiff and strong for a construction material, and talking about millions of pounds of nanotubes needed per month,” said Bokhari. High value, meet high volume.

Manufacturing gets on a roll

Nanotubes won’t be the only newcomers claiming more space on the factory floor. Printed electronics and solar power cells will also begin to enter mass production in 2007 via roll-to-roll manufacturing innovations.

“In 2007, we’ll start to see a lot of companies start addressing how to take printed electronics out of the lab and into high volumes,” said Raghu Das, chief executive officer of printed electronic and RFID analyst firm IDTechEx in Cambridge, England.

A case in point is Nanosolar Inc. After raising more than $75 million in funding in 2006, the Palo Alto, Calif., firm will begin constructing a roll-to-roll printing plant in the San Francisco Bay area in 2007 that it says could produce more than 200 million solar cells a year – or an output of 430 megawatts – using nanoparticle ink. Nanosolar also aims to build a plant in Germany to assemble those cells into what it claims could be more than a million solar panels a year.

Nanosolar’s technology is based on thin films of the semiconductor material copper indium gallium diselenide, or CIGS. The company plans to pursue the solar farm market as well as the housing and commercial building market with roofing, walling and windows that have integrated solar energy collection.

A number of other solar cell companies are pursuing high-throughput methods as well, but not necessarily roll-to-roll printing. Halfmoon, N.Y.-based DayStar Technologies plans to produce 20 megawatts of its CIGS cells by the end of 2007 using roll-to-roll sputtering, according to Terry Schuyler, DayStar’s vice president of sales and marketing. HelioVolt, based in Austin, Texas, intends to begin construction on a factory in 2007 to produce nanomaterial-based CIGS cells based off its proprietary field assisted simultaneous synthesis and transfer (FASST) process. The company declined to disclose the volumes it intended to manufacture.


The big test of roll-to-roll processing: Nanosolar of Palo Alto, Calif., says it intends to use a major cash infusion from 2006 to begin building a processing plant for solar cells in the San Francisco Bay area next year. Photos courtesy of Nanosolar
Click here to enlarge image

It is hardly a U.S.-centric trend. NanoIdent of Linz, Austria, is also investigating printable solar cells and producing devices via roll-to-roll fabrication. “They have been quietly but effectively establishing themselves as a leader in printed semiconductors for more than four years,” said Bokhari. NanoIdent was co-founded by Franz Padinger, the former chief technology officer of Konarka Austria, and has on its scientific advisory board Niyazi Sariciftci at Johannes Kepler University in Linz, a colleague of Alan Heeger, the Nobel Laureate discoverer of organic semiconductors.

In 2007, Bokhari said he expects NanoIdent to commercialize its first product, a printable organic semiconductor-based photodetector. Next year, he added, the company may also debut a printable fingerprint reading photosensor through its subsidiary Biometrics GmbH, as well as a photosensor printable onto microfluidic lab-on-a-chip devices through its subsidiary BioIdent Technologies in Menlo Park. He expected NanoIdent to have a working photovoltaic cell in 2008 that could be ready for commercialization in 2009.

By late 2007, PolyIC, a German joint venture between Siemens AG and Leonhard Kurz GmbH, should begin trials of roll-to-roll printed RFID transistor circuits with companies, IDTechEx analyst Das said. He added that Colorado Springs-based OrganicID is also going after roll-to-roll printing of RFIDs, and was recently acquired by Weyerhaeuser of Federal Way, Wash., an international paper company. “We should see a lot of packaging and paper and board companies get involved in printed electronics,” such as Stora Enso in Finland and Tetra Pak in Sweden, he said.

The field of printed electronics also needs to bring more printing companies in, said Motorola’s director of printed electronics, Daniel Gamota. He said the International Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (iNEMI) will unveil a roadmap for printed and organic electronics around February 2007, and will recruit more printers into the field as well as establish goals for the technologies over the course of next year.

Legal eagles start duking it out

All the micro/nano action won’t be happening on the factory floor, however. Some of it will take place in the courtroom. Experts have long pointed to single-wall carbon nanotubes as an area where overlapping patent claims will lead to a courtroom showdown but nanopharma may get there first.

The lawsuit expected to draw attention in 2007 is that between Irish drug maker Elan and Los Angeles-based competitor Abraxis Bioscience. Elan filed suit in July 2006 against Abraxis for infringing on two of its patents regarding nanoparticle formulations of anticancer drugs with Abraxane, the first nanoparticle drug approved by the FDA.

In 2005, Abraxis posted $134 million in Abraxane sales, a reformulation of the breast cancer drug paclitaxel. It promotes the drug with AstraZeneca. Abraxis denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim against Elan, challenging the validity of their patents and requesting a jury trial.

“People will want to watch that because there is a big, big thicket of intellectual property surrounding nanocrystalline drugs. There are some 30 companies involved, and a lot of key intellectual property goes way, way back,” said Lux’s Nordan. “For instance, Drug Delivery Services (DDS) in Germany had a milling process to produce drug nanocrystals, and is now owned by SkyePharma, which licenses the technology to Baxter. SkyePharma also purchased RTP Pharma for its nanocrystalline drug reformulation technology in 2001.”

What’s more, the case could kick off a trend. “This case is very interesting because I think it’s the start of a big wave of new patent infringement cases dealing with nanotechnology, as more patents in nanotechnology accumulate and more products reach the market,” said William Prendergast, an intellectual property lawyer at Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione in Chicago. “The patents at issue here with Elan, assuming they’re valid, are broad enough to cover other nanoparticle formulations of drugs that Abraxis or others might have in the pipeline.”

Nano financial markets go global

For most micro/nano companies today, patenting is a global phenomenon. So, apparently, is finance.

Startups have always had problems making it past the valley of death, that difficult stage between proof-of-concept and the marketplace. It’s an especially acute problem for micro and nanotech since the extensive R&D often required can drain coffers and turns away prospective investors. As a growing number of startups have discovered, there is another nasty surprise awaiting those that make it across the valley and become a public company: the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, which was passed in light of financial scandals at corporations such as Enron, Tyco and WorldCom. Compliance with the demanding legislation can require millions of dollars.

Now London is calling. In the last year startups have reported brokers approaching them regarding the prospect of going public on the London Stock Exchange’s Alternative Investment Market for small companies, or AIM, in order to skip the burden of Sarbanes-Oxley.

“It’s like a water balloon – if you squeeze one place, it all goes somewhere else. I would expect more nanotech companies to appear on the AIM in the next six to 12 months,” said Gabor Gabai, chair of Foley & Lardner’s private equity and venture capital practice. “There has been a tremendous amount of interest and brokers who have been talking to clients of mine about doing an AIM deal.”

Micro and nanotech startups are growing increasingly mature, and their investors are looking to cash in before their stakes get diluted by new investors. “A lot of companies are not interested in going public on American stock exchanges and subjecting themselves to all the extra expense that Sarbanes-Oxley and other rules demand of them,” Gabai said. “So they’re looking at alternative markets, and the AIM is certainly one of those.”

Beside the AIM, Gabai noted other markets in the European Union, such as Frankfurt, as well as ones in Asia could be promising. “Even central European countries are starting to have reasonably good markets. I don’t think nanotech companies will go to central Europe, but they might want to do two markets or more at the same time in Europe.”

Foreign markets not only offer less restrictive regulations, but also alternative investors. “You hear a lot of talk about a cabal of only 40 institutional investors in the United States now willing to look at nanotech companies,” Gabai said. “But there is a lot of foreign money out there a company could reach to get around this cabal.”

“No small company can afford Sarbanes-Oxley. We’re all getting driven out. And this year London’s been trolling the waters,” echoed Paul Glatkowski, Eikos’ vice president of engineering. “They’d love to bring in all that high tech. Our company and a large number of others have been courted to go IPO there. And it’s tempting. The London Stock Exchange is killing Nasdaq in IPOs, with almost twice as many IPOs in 2005.”

The challenge will be whether companies can maintain investor interest after going out on an alternative exchange. “It’s not clear yet how stable these are, how likely investors in those markets are to hold their shares and have an appetite for follow-on offerings, (or) whether you can get analysts to follow your company,” said Gabai.

Acronym of the year: EHS

In short, it’s not clear whether such markets pose a healthy alternative. But there are other health concerns on the horizon: 2007 is the year experts say ordinary people will realize nanotechnology is entering their lives in everyday things like food. And public interest groups will grow increasingly coordinated to shape popular opinion of it. EHS – or environment, health and safety – will be a major theme.

Press coverage, said David Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, will begin “moving out of technical magazines and the science section of The New York Times and into broadcast and popular magazines.” There was a story in Elle magazine in 2006, he said, and more mainstream coverage is likely to come. “We’ll probably get more pieces in fashion magazines, and those will reach millions of people, or in Consumer Reports or local newspapers, and reach whole new segments of society it never did before.”

At the same time, 2007 will also see “an explosion of NGO (non-governmental organization) activity on the national, local and international levels regarding nanotechnology, and not just in the environmental groups, but the public health and labor NGOs as well,” Rejeski said.

“The crosstalk between public interest groups has increased dramatically on this,” said Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. “Plans are beginning to get made, reaching common ground on what we want to see, what information we think the public should have, what kinds of restrictions we want on the pace of nanotechnology, or if not restrictions, increases in health and safety testing.”


Kristen Kulinowski
Click here to enlarge image

Kristen Kulinowski, director of the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON), said consumer advocates will demand more oversight. “You’ll see consumer groups get interested in 2007 and start to test manufacturer claims for whether or not nanomaterials are in certain products.” ICON develops and disseminates information about potential environmental and health risks of nanotechnology. It is managed by Rice University’s Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology.

Ironically, some corners of industry will retreat from the fray. Food and personal care companies, for example, are likely to stay quiet regarding nanotech, “either halting nanotechnology research programs or pursuing them but making the word banned within their organizations,” said Lux’s Nordan. “I know of at least two personal care companies that have delivered the message from on high explicitly not allowing the words ‘nanotechnology,’ ‘nano-engineered,’ ‘nano-capsule,’ or anything else like them.” But it may remain a peculiarly western phenomenon. Nordan says nano-terminology in products is increasingly promoted and embraced in eastern Asia.

Companies like L’Oreal, Colgate and Palmolive have very strong customer relationships with nano-encapsulation companies like NutraLease in Israel or nanoparticle companies like Salvona in Dayton, N.J., “but you never hear about it,” Nordan said.

Some businesses are going out of their way to say they don’t use nanotech. Seven cosmetics companies, including Aveda, told Alternative Medicine magazine in May they have specifically chosen not to use nanoparticles in their products. “I think you may see next year that once nanotechnology reaches food, it will touch the third rail. I don’t think the nano community has any idea how much voltage there is there,” Rejeski said. “A lot of savvy NGOs are waiting for that to come out.”

The NanoBusiness Alliance’s Murdock thinks industry will “absolutely, unequivocally” increase efforts at outreach and education of the public next year. “We’re considering forums open to the public to reach a broader group, and creating a network of experts to talk about specific topics of interest, and more frequent webcasts and information online,” he said.

Murdock also said the Alliance is conferring with its members to determine whether best practices in nanotech labs and plants could be used to establish a baseline, a process he said would be formalized in 2007. Michael Laine of Hyperion Catalysis said the company already works with federal agencies on best practices for industry, and activities are underway to develop best practices for characterization, handling and monitoring of nanomaterials.

Expectations are mixed when it comes to government activity. The NanoBusiness Alliance’s Murdock expects to see the rollout of the basic level of EPA’s voluntary stewardship program in 2007, under which manufacturers would alert officials about the nano-products they are producing and tests they are running on them to understand the materials.

“I think you’ll see relatively good adoption of it,” Murdock said. The United Kingdom began its voluntary reporting scheme for industry and research organizations regarding nano-products in September.

However, Kulinowski said the relevance of the voluntary program may be challenged by reviews of 15 nanomaterials the EPA has conducted during the last two years that were reported via pre-manufacturing notices (PMNs). They ruled that one of those nanomaterials, a carbon nanotube, had unique properties that made it different from its bulk counterpart and that it therefore required more testing.

“When you look at the ruling on the carbon nanotube, you see 80 pages of absolutely nothing. It’s all been redacted – information on the specific compound, the company, the types of tests performed, and so on,” Kulinowski said. “It’s impossible to ascertain the level of scrutiny this compound underwent.”

That could turn out to be another major item on the agenda. Kulinowski pointed out that the EPA is only going to get more submissions for review of nanomaterials. Greater transparency into the EPA review process, she maintained, would benefit all the stakeholders from the public at large to the actual researchers and developers of nanomaterials and nano-enabled products.

Two bills seek to change patent rules but they may be too different to reconcile

By Richard Acello

As Congress prepares for a new session in January, House and Senate committees are at loggerheads over key provisions of patent law reform. The proposed changes could have an impact on the value of certain technology patents and have an effect on the best strategies for companies looking to commercialize nanoscale innovations.

In the House, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio, Texas) is sponsor of a bill that would change the standard for receiving a patent from “first to invent” to “first to file,” a move that would bring U.S. law in line with most other nations. The Smith bill also severely curtails the availability of injunctive relief – the ability of a company that says its rights have been infringed to stop another company from selling an allegedly infringing product.

The Senate has countered with its own patent reform bill authored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s intellectual property subcommittee, and Pat Leahy (D.-Vt.), a member of the subcommittee. The Senate bill also contains “first to file,” but leaves available the remedy of injunctive relief. The Senate bill does limit the amount of damages for winners of infringement suits, by basing the royalties owed by infringers solely on the value of the “novel and non-obvious features” of the patent, rather than on the value of the product as a whole.

Meanwhile, a lobbying group called the Coalition for Patent Fairness is arguing in support of the infringement limits, as well as for a “post grant opposition” preceding that allows the validity of a patent to be challenged in an administrative proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rather than in expensive, time-consuming cases in federal court. The group includes major tech firms like Apple Computer and Intel among its backers.

The Senate version also requires a court to award attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in most circumstances. “This shifts the risk of litigation to the plaintiff, because it makes it easier for a successful defendant to recoup attorney fees,” says Julian Zegelman, an intellectual property attorney with the Catalyst Law Group in San Diego. The Senate bill also seeks to limit the number of patent application continuances that can be filed.


Steve Maebius
Click here to enlarge image

Some experts say they believe the two bills contain too many ideas to be worked into one passable piece of legislation. “I’m concerned that there are too many changes at one time,” says Steve Maebius, a member of the advisory board of the NanoBusiness Alliance and leader of the Foley & Lardner law firm’s nanotech industry team. “It’s difficult to get a broad base of support for all those concepts, but there’s a lot of support for first to file….Tinkering with damages invites a lot more debate.”

Maebius says the post grant opposition process is especially important to nanotech companies whose viability may hinge on the value and protection of their intellectual property.

“We need a way to weed out bad patents without resorting to litigation, which can run five years and millions of dollars,” Maebius explained.

Steve Jensen, a partner in the Orange County, Calif., office of Knobbe, Martens, Olson and Bear, agrees that the effort needs focus but sees different priorities.

“There were so many private interests that wanted particular changes to the bill to impact something specific to their industry and now there’s too much baggage” in the bills, Jensen says. “I think there’s widespread support for post-grant opposition of some kind, but not as much support for first to file which is thought to favor larger companies that have greater resources.” Plus, the injunction issue will have to be decided, Jensen adds.

Provisions of the Senate bill were meant to discourage opportunistic people who intend to derive most of their income from the results of patent litigation, says Scott Harris, a partner with Fish & Richardson in San Diego.

“The curb on damages is meant to discourage patent trolls,” says Harris, “but it also gives me a headache because if people can say I’m going to infringe on your patent, and I’m not going to have to pay you on the value of the total product, it waters down the protection.”


Catalyst Law Group
www.catalystlaw.com

Coalition for Patent Fairness
www.patentfairness.org

Fish & Richardson
www.fr.com

Foley & Lardner
www.foley.com

Knobbe, Martens, Olson and Beara
www.kmob.com

NanoBusiness Alliance
www.nanobusiness.org

The map and the charts below comprise the third installment of our ongoing series that ranks the U.S. states for their micro- and nanotechnology development.

The category presented here – research – is one of five categories used to generate a state’s overall score. In the previous two issues, analyses of venture capital investment and micro and nanotech density were presented. A compilation of the current series of individual categories is scheduled for the July/August 2007 issue of Small Times magazine.


The third category – research – of our state rankings shows consistency among the top-ranked states in year-over-year performance. All of the states in this year’s top-10, except for Michigan and Virginia, were also in the top-10 in the research category last year.
Click here to enlarge image

null

1. California

Due to its sheer size and the diversity of its economy, California took the lead not only in the overall research category, but also in three out of the four micro- and nanotech-specific measures evaluated in the charts on the facing page.

However, California’s third-place slot in the measure that compares each state’s number of micro-nano grants to its overall number of grants may well be the most impressive showing. Ohio and Virginia edged out California for the top spot in that category, virtually tying. But their overall grant figures – both in number of grants and dollars awarded – are a mere fraction of that of the Golden State. The fact that California has a sizeable percent of its grant money going toward micro- and nanotech is an impressive achievement given the size of the state.

2. Illinois

Illinois stepped up a notch in the research category this year, moving from the third to the second slot, just barely nudging its way past Massachusetts. It did so on the basis of a strong, balanced showing across the board. It was in the top-five in all four of the micro- and nanotech-specific categories, and was in the top-two in one of them. By contrast, most other states had more checkered performances. In addition, Illinois benefited from strong overall expenditures on research relative to its gross state product.

3. Massachusetts

Massachusetts also moved up one rung from last year in the research category, shifting from fourth to third. The Bay State took a hit in the measure that compares the number of micro-nano grants to the state’s overall grants, just barely missing the top-10 while other, smaller states made the list. But it was second only to California for its share of micro-nano dollars compared to the country’s overall allocations, and its plethora of micro- and nano-related research centers pushed it up further, enough to overtake New York by a comfortable margin.

4. New York

Illinois and Massachusetts had closely trailed New York state in the research category of the 2005 state rankings but they got a leg up over the Empire State this year. Like Massachusetts, New York takes a hit for having a big economy, and it also just missed a top-10 slot in the measure that compares the number of micro-nano grants to a state’s overall grants. However, top-four performances in all the other categories made it a solid fourth, just ahead of Pennsylvania.

5. Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania benefited from a high density of micro-nano grant activity compared to its overall grants. It was third in the measure that evaluates both number of grants and dollars compared to the U.S. as a whole. A mixed bag of industry, clusters both in eastern and western Pennsylvania, and a burgeoning biotech hub in the east are fueling the effort.

6. Texas

Texas made strong strides, moving to the number six slot from ninth in the research category last year. The state posted strong results in all the micro- and nanotech-specific categories.

7. Maryland

Maryland fell from the fifth slot in 2005 to the seventh slot this year. Though it wasn’t in the top-10 in two out of the four categories shown, in both cases it was just shy of the list. Moreover, strong expenditures on R&D relative to the state’s gross state product helped it pull ahead of Michigan even though Michigan fared better in most of the micro- and nano-specific categories.

8. Michigan

Michigan moved onto the top-10 in the research category by eking into the top-10 in all four of the categories presented here, though it never scored better than eighth in any individual measure.

9. Ohio

Ohio managed to top one of the measures used to compute the research category score by besting California in the category that compares a state’s number of micro-nano grants to its overall number of grants. It posted strong showings in the two measures that evaluate a state’s performance as a percent of overall U.S. activity, but it suffered in the research center tally, where it didn’t make the top-10. Nevertheless, it moved to ninth in research from tenth last year.

10. Virginia

Virginia followed Ohio with a strong showing in its number of micro-nano grants relative to overall grant activity. That, and an eighth-place showing in one of the other categories, helped it creep into the top-10.
– David Forman


Four micro- and nano-specific measures are used to generate the research scores reflected in the map. Individual scores for the top-10 in each measure are reflected in the charts below.

In addition to the four measures below, data on overall academic, federal and industrial R&D expenditures are also factored into a state’s final score in the research category. These data are compared to a state’s gross state product.

The final scores on the map are calculated by taking the average of the four scores shown here as well as a final score for the overall R&D expenditures (not shown), then normalizing the result on a 100-point scale.

Comparison of number of micro-nano grants to state’s overall grants


This score is calculated from the ratio of a state’s number of grants that were for micro or nanotechnology in 2005 to the state’s total number of grants. The raw scores were normalized on a 100-point scale.
Click here to enlarge image

null

Comparison of state’s dollars from micro-nano grants to total U.S. dollars


This score is calculated from the ratio of a state’s total money raised through grants that were for micro or nanotechnology in 2005 to the total (U.S.) money allocated through micro/nano grants. The raw scores were normalized on a 100-point scale.
Click here to enlarge image

null

Comparison of number of micro-nano grants to total U.S. micro-nano grants


This score is calculated from the ratio of a state’s number of grants that were for micro or nanotechnology in 2005 to the total (U.S.) number of micro/nano grants. The raw scores were normalized on a 100-point scale.
Click here to enlarge image

null

Comparison of state’s number of research centers to total U.S. centers


This score is calculated from the ratio of a state’s number of micro and nanotechnology research centers to the total number of such centers in the U.S. The raw scores were normalized on a 100-point scale.
Click here to enlarge image

null

Sources: Small Times uses proprietary data for each state’s individual micro-nano activities, in addition to data from the National Science Foundation and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Government, researchers and industry disagree over best approaches to environment, health and safety oversight

By Andreas von Bubnoff

With three reports, one Congressional hearing, and the FDA holding a major public meeting on regulating nanotech products, this fall saw a lot of discussion about the safety of nanotechnology. As more nanotech products are entering the market, pressure on governmental agencies to study and regulate their safety is growing rapidly.

And the nanotech products keep coming. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Wilson Center updated its inventory of nanotech products in October. It has tracked more than 320 consumer products whose manufacturers claim to be using some form of nanotechnology, said project director David Rejeski. He said a new Japanese directory contains more than 200 nanotech products, 87 of which are cosmetics. Cosmetics are the largest group in both inventories.

“This is a global phenomenon,” Rejeski said. He and others argue that not enough is being done to deal with health and safety concerns, while some in industry and government maintain current efforts are sufficient.

At a September 21 Congressional hearing, the House Science Committee criticized federal agencies for being late to deliver a report on priorities for governmental nanotech safety research. The report was prepared by a working group of the agencies that are part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, or NNI, the U.S. government program that coordinates nanotech research and development. It was expected to be completed in the spring, but was delivered just in time for the hearing.

Not only was the report late, complained committee members, but it did not contain the expected research priorities. “It doesn’t fully set priorities, never mind assign them,” said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who chairs the committee. “What essentially we have is a basic inventory.” Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) said he was “very disappointed,” and, addressing the report’s authors, called it a “very juvenile piece of work, given the time that you have had to work on this.”

“All of us have other jobs,” said Norris Alderson, associate commissioner for science at the FDA and chair of the interagency working group that prepared the report.

Boehlert also said that governmental safety research is under-funded. The government’s own numbers indicate that it spent almost $40 million between October 2005 and September 2006 on nanotech safety related research. But Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor for the Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, said his analysis found the government spent only about $11 million in 2005. At the hearing, Maynard called for at least $100 million over the next two years for “targeted risk research.”

More safety research was also one of the recommendations of the National Research Council’s triennial assessment of the NNI. The Congressionally mandated report, released on September 25, calls the results of safety studies “inconclusive,” and states that there are too few studies that address the effects of nanomaterials in vitro and in vivo.

But the lack of safety studies is not the only problem. Another challenge is to regulate the safety of nanotech products. The FDA, in charge of the safety of many of the products that use nanotechnology, may lack the tools and the resources to regulate them, according to a report released by the Wilson Center in October. “The key conclusion is that the FDA is not fully prepared to handle what’s coming,” said Michael Taylor, the report’s author, himself a former FDA official and now a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

For example, he said, the FDA doesn’t have access to company safety data for products such as cosmetics before they enter the market. For now, the agency should at least request voluntary submission of safety data, the report recommends, but ultimately it suggests Congress should give the FDA the legal authority to request the data under certain circumstances.

But while legal tools are important, the FDA is in a budget crisis that is the larger threat to adequate oversight, Taylor said. “You can have all the legal tools in the world,” he said. “Without the resources to apply those tools, the tools don’t mean a great deal.” The FDA’s 2006 budget would have to be 49 percent higher just to do what it was doing in 1996 and to continue the new activities mandated for it since then, Taylor’s report states.

The report appeared just five days before a public meeting the FDA organized on nanotech safety on October 10. At that meeting, Taylor and Rejeski joined more than two dozen experts and stakeholders who spoke before the FDA’s Nanotechnology Task Force to give advice as to whether and how the agency should regulate nanotechnology.

Overall, that advice was mixed. Some speakers, such as representatives of environmental groups, called for safety testing and mandatory labeling of nanotech products, especially ones with little current FDA oversight, such as cosmetics. But others, such as John Bailey, executive vice president of science of the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, an industry group, said current regulations are sufficient.

Experts also disagreed as to how to define a nanoparticle or nanotechnology or even if there should be a definition in the first place. Some questioned the NNI’s current definition that the size of a nanoparticle is roughly between 1 and 100 nanometers.

“Is 101 nanometers no longer toxic?” asked Martin Philbert of the University of Michigan School of Public Health. “As far as the FDA is concerned, there is no such thing as nanotechnology,” he added. “We need to get away from labeling things and get down to the business of risk analysis.”

And toxicological assessments need to look at more than just size, other experts told the FDA’s Task Force. For example, certain nanoparticles become more toxic as they become smaller, but only if they are positively charged, not if they are negatively charged, said Stacey Harper, a toxicologist at Oregon State University.

The mixed nature of the advice will likely make it a challenge for the Task Force to come up with their recommendations to the FDA’s Acting Commissioner, slated for nine months after the public meeting.

Whatever the case, all the talk and meetings about nanotech safety are useless without the money to do the risk research, said Günter Oberdörster, an inhalation toxicologist who studies the health effects of nanoparticles at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, N.Y.

“The problem is, there are a lot of meetings, often sponsored by governmental agencies, and talk that we need to do the appropriate risk assessment,” Oberdörster said. But he maintains that additional funding would be required to perform the studies that are needed.

R&D UPDATES


November 1, 2006

Nano technique: fossilized liquid assembly

GAITHERSBURG, Md. – Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have developed a novel platform for the self-assembly of experimental hierarchical surfaces in a fluid. Their work offers diverse industries a new way to generate and measure self-assembly at the nano-scale.

Creating topologically complex, self-assembled surfaces has been a challenge. If the components are mixed on a surface, that substrate affects how they assemble; if mixed in a solvent and dried, the drying process similarly distorts the results.


An optical microscope image (lower plane) shows spheres at multiple size scales self-arranging in complex “super-assemblies” in NIST’s hierarchical topology modeling system. Atomic-force microscopy (detail) shows the textured surface formed by the spheres. Image courtesy of NIST
Click here to enlarge image

In a paper published in the journal Macromolecular Rapid Communications, the NIST team detailed a much simpler and faster system they dubbed “fossilized liquid assembly” to create models of hierarchical topologies in which the components are allowed to mix and assemble freely in a fluid, and then quickly “frozen” in place. The key is the use of solutions of water and a special monomer that polymerizes when exposed to ultraviolet light. Like an oil-water mixture, the fluid forms liquid interfaces that can be manipulated to create a desired hierarchical structure and then suddenly solidified with a burst of UV light.

Lead researcher and physicist Alamgir Karim estimates that it takes about five minutes to make a sample of self-assembling particles using NIST’s approach. Other methods, he notes, not only are more complicated and costly, but also do not allow the structures to form as freely. With the new technique, engineers also will be able to build complex dynamic structures and freeze them into solid form, studying self-assembly under the microscope.

SEMATECH North team pushes immersion lithography to 45 nm features

ALBANY, N.Y. – A team of engineers and technicians at International SEMATECH North have successfully used 193 nm immersion technology to pattern features narrower than 45 nm half-pitch in multiple orientations simultaneously. SEMATECH North is part of the Albany NanoTech complex within the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering of the University at Albany, N.Y. The team used 193 nm immersion at 1.3 numerical aperture (NA) with azimuthal polarization, a technique which allows for aggressive imaging of arbitrary circuit features beyond simple line-and-space test patterns.

The team used an Exitech immersion projection microstepper with 1.3 NA in combination with optical proximity correction and other resolution enhancement techniques to simultaneously image sub-45 nm linewidths along X and Y axes within the same field. The resulting “pitch,” or width of a single line and its adjoining space, was 84 nm.

Motorola, Arizona State advance carbon nanotube sensing capabilities

TEMPE, Ariz. – Motorola Labs, the applied research arm of Motorola Inc., and Arizona State University announced a key advancement in the use of single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) in field effect transistors (FETs) to sense biological and chemical agents.

Together, the research teams have developed a method to functionalize SWNTs with peptides to produce low-power SWNT-FETs that are highly sensitive and can selectively detect heavy metal ions down to the parts-per-trillion level.

Researchers have successfully tuned SWNT-FETs to sense specific agents by applying a peptide-functionalized polymer coating that does not affect their ability to transmit electrical signals. This developing sensor technology could be used to monitor a host of environmental and health issues including air and water quality, industrial chemicals and biological agents.

The work was published in a paper coauthored by Arizona State University and Motorola titled “Tuning the Chemical Selectivity of SWNT-FETs for Detection of Heavy-Metal Ions” in the journal Small.

Researchers harness DNA to direct gold nanoparticle assembly

UPTON, N.Y. – The speed of nanoparticle assembly can be accelerated with the assistance of DNA, a team of researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory recently found.

The interdisciplinary team, composed of scientists from Brookhaven’s new Center for Functional Nanomaterials and the biology department, found a way to control the assembly of gold nanoparticles using rigid, double-stranded DNA. Their technique takes advantage of the molecule’s natural tendency to pair up components called bases, known by the code letters A, T, G and C.

The synthetic DNA used in the laboratory is capped onto individual gold nanoparticles and customized to recognize and bind to complementary DNA located on other particles. The process forms clusters, or aggregates, of gold particles.


Researchers, standing, Oleg Gang (left) and Daniel van der Lelie and, sitting, Mathew Maye (left) and Dmytro Nykypanchuk have capped synthetic DNA onto gold nanoparticles to direct nanoparticle assembly. Photo courtesy of Brookhaven National Laboratory
Click here to enlarge image

“It’s really by design,” said Mathew Maye, a Brookhaven chemist and the study’s lead author, in a prepared statement. “We can sit down with a piece of paper, write out a DNA sequence, and control how these nanoparticles will assemble.”

One limitation to the assembly process is the use of single-stranded DNA, which can bend backward and attach to the particle’s gold surface instead of binding with surrounding nanoparticles. This flexibility, along with the existence of multiple forms of single-stranded DNA, can greatly slow the assembly process.

In the Brookhaven study, researchers introduced partially rigid, double-stranded DNA, which forces interacting linker segments of DNA to extend away from the gold surface, allowing for more efficient assembly.

UD scientists use carbon nanotube networks to detect composite defects

NEWARK, Del. – Two University of Delaware researchers discovered a means to detect and identify damage within advanced composite materials by using a network of carbon nanotubes which act in much the same manner as human nerves.

The discovery has important implications both in the laboratory, where the scientists hope to better predict the life span of various composite materials, and in everyday applications, where it could become an important tool in monitoring the health of composite materials used in the construction of a variety of essential products, including commercial airliners.

The research is the work of Tsu-Wei Chou, Pierre S. du Pont chair of engineering, and Erik Thostenson, assistant professor of mechanical engineering, and was published in the journal Advanced Materials.

Composite materials are generally laminates, sheets of high-performance fibers, such as carbon, glass or Kevlar, embedded in a polymer resin matrix. Chou said that the traditional composite materials have inherent weaknesses because the matrix materials – plastics – surrounding the fibers are “strong, but far less strong than the fibers.”

This results in weak spots in composites in the interface areas in the matrix materials, particularly where there are pockets of resin, Chou said. As a result, defects, including tiny microcracks, can occur. Over time, those microcracks can threaten the integrity of the composite.

The carbon nanotubes can be used to detect defects at onset by embedding them uniformly throughout the composite material as a network capable of monitoring the health of the composite structures. Because the carbon nanotubes conduct electricity, they create a nanoscale network of sensors that work like the nerves in the human body.

The researchers can pass an electrical current through the network and if there is a microcrack, it breaks the pathway of the sensors and the response can be measured. Chou said the carbon nanotubes are minimally invasive and just 0.15 percent of the total composite volume.

The research is supported by funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Science Foundation.

Clemson researchers develop nanotubes to fight anthrax

CLEMSON, N.C. – Clemson University chemist Ya-Ping Sun and his research team have developed a countermeasure strategy to weaponized anthrax. The Clemson team’s findings were published online in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

“For anthrax to be effective, it has to be made into a fine powder that can easily enter the lungs when inhaled. That is what makes it lethal,” said Sun in a prepared statement. “What we have done is come up with an agent that clings to the anthrax spores to make their inhalation into the lungs difficult.”


Anthrax spores gather in clusters on sugar coated carbon nanotubes. Images courtesy of Clemson University
Click here to enlarge image

Anthrax spores are covered with carbohydrates, or simple sugars, that are used to communicate with or attract other biological species. The Clemson team used carbon nanotubes as a platform or scaffolding for displaying sugar molecules that would attract the anthrax spores. When sugar coated, the carbon nanotubes bind with the anthrax spores, creating clusters that are too large to be inhaled — stopping their infection and destruction.

Sun said a similar approach using sugar-coated carbon nanotubes to stop the spread of E. coli bacteria was tested successfully in 2004. He sees this new method potentially as a way for first responders to contain anthrax in an office or mailroom setting using a water-based gel, foam or aerosol spray, and he thinks it has potential application on the battlefield in larger quantities.

55,000 tiny T.J’s show power of DPN

EVANSTON, Ill. – Northwestern University researchers have developed a 55,000-pen, two-dimensional array that allows them to simultaneously create 55,000 identical patterns drawn with tiny dots of molecular ink on substrates of gold or glass. Each structure is only a single molecule tall.

The recent advance of dip-pen nanolithography (DPN), which was invented at Northwestern in 1999 and is being commercialized by local startup NanoInk, was published online by the journal Angewandte Chemie.

To demonstrate the technique’s power, the researchers reproduced the face of Thomas Jefferson from a five-cent coin 55,000 times, which took only 30 minutes. Each identical nickel image is 12 micrometers wide – about twice the diameter of a red blood cell – and is made up of 8,773 dots, each 80 nanometers in diameter.

The parallel process paves the way for making DPN competitive with other optical and stamping lithographic methods used for patterning large areas on metal and semiconductor substrates, including silicon wafers. The advantage of DPN, which is a maskless lithography, is that it can be used to deliver many different types of inks simultaneously to a surface in any configuration one desires. Mask-based lithographies and stamping protocols are extremely limited in this regard.

In addition to Professor Chad Mirkin, other authors on the paper are Khalid Salaita (lead author), Yuhuang Wang and Rafael A. Vega, from Northwestern; Joseph Fragala, from NanoInk, Inc.; and Chang Liu, from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Science Foundation.

Brown engineers build a better battery – with plastic

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Brown University engineers have created a new battery that uses plastic, not metal, to conduct electrical current. The hybrid device is intended to marry the power of a capacitor with the storage capacity of a battery.

“Batteries have limits,” said Tayhas Palmore, an associate professor in Brown’s division of engineering, in a prepared statement. “They have to be recharged. They can be expensive. Most of all, they don’t deliver a lot of power. Another option is capacitors. These components, found in electronic devices, can deliver that big blast of power. But they don’t have much storage capacity. So what if you combined elements of both a battery and a capacitor?”

That’s the question Palmore set out to answer with Hyun-Kon Song, a former postdoctoral research associate at Brown who now works as a researcher at LG Chem Ltd. They began to experiment with a new energy storage system using a substance called polypyrrole, a chemical compound that carries an electrical current.


A prototype battery created at Brown University combines elements of both a capacitor and a battery. Photo courtesy of Brown University
Click here to enlarge image

In their experiments, Palmore and Song took a thin strip of gold-coated plastic film and covered the tip with polypyrrole and a substance that alters its conductive properties. The process was repeated, this time using another kind of conduction-altering chemical. The result: two strips with different polymer tips. The plastic strips were then stuck together, separated by a papery membrane to prevent a short circuit.

The result is a hybrid. Like a capacitor, the battery can be rapidly charged then discharged to deliver power. Like a battery, it can store and deliver that charge over long periods of time. During performance testing, the new battery performed like a hybrid, too. It had twice the storage capacity of an electric double-layer capacitor. And it delivered more than 100 times the power of a standard alkaline battery.

Palmore said some performance problems – such as decreased storage capacity after repeated recharging – must be overcome before the device is marketable. But she expects strong interest since battery makers are always looking for new ways to more efficiently store and deliver power. NASA and the U.S. Air Force are also exploring polymer-based batteries. A description of the prototype was published in Advanced Materials.

By James R. Dukart

A molecular diagnostic tool has been at the forefront of addressing the recent outbreak of E. coli detected in fresh spinach, which had resulted in nearly 200 cases of illness as of late September. The experience is motivating toolmakers to hone their abilities to prevent food safety problems in the future.

A government lab used a system manufactured by Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Cepheid to isolate the E. coli earlier this year. Using the system, researchers performed rapid molecular tests that pointed to a bag of spinach that sickened a New Mexico woman. While the technology provided a critical breakthrough in the case, Cepheid’s chief medical and technology officer, David Persing, says the goal must be to detect and intercept pathogens long before they enter the general food supply.

“We need to identify the source much earlier in the process, some way of testing foodstuffs coming out of a particular farm or on a lot-specific basis,” Persing says. “In this case, it may have been one truckload of spinach that was contaminated, and that single load knocked out so many others because we did not know exactly where it was.”

Persing envisions greater public awareness of food safety, perhaps including certification programs for bags of fresh produce. He likens it to the response to the anthrax scare at the post office. Cepheid works with Northrop Grumman and others to apply its technology at hundreds of U.S. Post Office branches throughout the country, and offers a range of sensors and diagnostic products aimed at testing for pathogens from anthrax to salmonella. Persing sees similar deployment of sensor technology for agricultural operations, food distribution centers and perhaps even grocery stores.

The company is not the only one pursuing the opportunity. Santa Clara, Calif.-based NanoSensors is licensing nanoporous silicon-based biosensor technology through Michigan State University and a university in Korea to develop food safety analysis systems. In addition to silicon-based filters, NanoSensors is also using carbon nanotube technology to detect and isolate biologically-based pathogens.


A government lab isolated E. coli from a bag of spinach that sickened a New Mexico woman by performing a rapid molecular diagnostic test with Cepheid’s SmartCycler instrument, shown here. Unlike traditional culture tests that take days to generate a result, molecular diagnostics quickly and accurately identify microorganisms by identifying specific segments of DNA. Photo courtesy of Cepheid
Click here to enlarge image

“This is a market that is ripe for a solution,” says Joshua Moser, vice president and chief operating officer of NanoSensors. “Food safety may not be as sexy as testing for anthrax or liquid explosives in airports, but it’s a problem. We need to find a solution.”

Nano- or molecular-scaled devices operate at the same scale as the biological agents they target, he explained, allowing the technology to both detect and isolate targeted pathogens. Nanoprobes and filters can address viruses and bacteria at a level of specificity hard to get at with larger, more unwieldy technology, while at the same time promising faster, more accurate results than existing technology.

Another advantage to molecular detection, Persing adds, is that it works in ways contemporary culture-based technologies fall short. “The viability of the bacteria might go down over time,” he says. “It gets degraded, but that is where the molecular techniques really shine, since they can detect DNA whether alive or dead.”

Both Persing and Moser expect the movement of food-testing technology from research labs to the field to be expedited in light of recent events.

“We’re seeing a lot of attention paid to this now,” Moser says, “and not just because we are in California, which is such a large food producer.”

NanoSensors is working on a reusable testing kit – a disposable sensor that reports back to an external data acquisition unit – that can be used by people at all levels of the food distribution chain, from farmers to wholesalers to retail grocers. Moser refers to the product as a “razor/razorblade” model, where customers will buy and use disposable sensors on each specific lot of produce that is tested. He also sees government agencies pushing for stronger testing in the wake of the E. coli spinach outbreak.

“Situations like this cannot help but raise consciousness,” says Cepheid’s Persing. “The connection has already been proven by molecular testing. In addition to illness and loss of life, any significant outbreak of one of nature’s biothreats results in tremendous economic loss as well.”

Dear reader


November 1, 2006

At Small Times we have always prided ourselves on staying ahead of the curve. Whether it is trends in MEMS fab outsourcing, the latest tools or materials innovations, or even nano startup financing, we have always aimed to report and analyze what has recently happened, and also point out for readers what we expect to come next.

The issue in your hands takes it a step further by explicitly predicting what will be the major trends of 2006. My personal prediction for 2006 is that the world at large will better understand our industry. I don’t mean that the man on the street will appreciate the difference between the active nanomaterials in a nanoelectronic device and the passive ones in a baseball bat. Nor do I mean that he will understand the nuances of nanotech’s environmental, health and safety debate (though both of the aforementioned would be nice.)

Rather, I mean that the mainstream population – starting with the mainstream press – will understand that while micro and nanotechnology do not constitute a traditional vertical industry, they do represent a clearly definable horizontal industry with a common collection of manufacturing techniques, tools and materials.

The best analogy has always been the biotech industry. Consumers don’t buy biotech products, they buy pharmaceuticals and tomatoes. Yet at the same time there is a definable biotech industry centered around core technologies and tools. Micro and nanotech is the same. And, as Small Times’ group publisher, Patti Glaza, points out on page 48, it’s all part of a big ecosystem that also includes business development, marketing, finance, economic development and more.

Astute readers will have noted the change in our tagline that occurred with the July/August issue. “Micro and Nanotech Manufacturing, Tools and Materials” defines the industry we cover, whether it is reporting on new MEMS packaging techniques, AFM imaging modes, or the unveiling of a new type of dendrimer molecule. (Or, for that matter, on the latest micro/nano legal trends.) And you’ll find those types of stories consistently within our pages. The applications, of course, remain critically important, and you will continue to find reports on micro/nano efforts within various verticals, from defense to electronics to sporting goods.

Astute readers will also have noticed that SmallTimes.com, the online counterpart to Small Times Magazine, was re-launched in September in conjunction with NanoCon International. Our new online reader’s network is easier to read, features new content categories, has an expanded list of companies involved in micro and nanotech, hosts more magazine content, and now supports webcasts, white papers and micro-sites. If you haven’t logged in lately, check it out at www.smalltimes.com.

For those subscribers who prefer the online experience to printed publications, you can also now choose to get Small Times Magazine in a digital delivery edition instead of print. It’s exactly the same magazine, only you get it sooner and the content is interlinked and searchable. Next time you resubscribe, just choose the “electronic/digital” option.

David Forman is editor-in-chief of Small Times. He can be reached at [email protected].

Sending the wrong message


November 1, 2006

Dear Small Times:

I’ll start by freely admitting that FEI is a fabulous company and the Titan is an awesome piece of gear. That said, selecting the Titan as the Best of Small Tech 2006 Product of the Year in the September/October issue was not a good choice.

By choosing the Titan as Product of the Year, we’ve told the uninitiated casual observer that the most important breakthrough product in nanotechnology is one that enables nanoscale science. The message we’ve sent is “Nano is still at the research side of research and development. Don’t get too excited yet.”

Oxonica and Authentix have very real identification technologies using nano particles. Acrymed is one of several companies using nanotechnology in anti-microbial applications. Fuel cells, catalytic devices, MEMS applications… The list goes on and on. Very real products are becoming better because of what nanotechnology has to offer.

FEI gets my vote for “big influential company that actually cares about nano science” and the Titan is clearly the winner of “nanotechnology enabler of the year”. What about picking a product next year that’s actually better because of nanotechnology? Maybe we could pick one that: 1) used nanotechnology; 2) got better; 3) gained some market share, and; 4) rewarded the investors that took the risk.

Les Makepeace
Senior Vice President, LITMUS Defense