NanoInk, a nanotech company based in Chicago, is breaking down at least two barriers that stand in the way of widespread nanotech commercialization – getting the tools of the future nanotech trade in the hands of companies rather than researchers, and training a new generation of workers in how to use them.

Dean Hart, Chief Commercial Officer in charge of the NanoProfessor division is handling the training portion, while Tom Warwick, General Manager for NanoInk’s NanoFabrication Systems division, is selling the idea of nanofabrication to companies that could use it to create their next-generation products. Together, they just might help push nanotech into the mainstream.

First, let’s meet Hart and the NanoProfessor educational program he is marketing for NanoInk. Early in 2009, Hart says, NanoInk had just launched a desktop version of a product called the NLP 2000, a nanolithography instrument. It caught the attention of Deb Newberry, Director of the Nanoscience Technology program at Dakota County Technical College in Rosemount, MN. She was looking for a way for her students to get the training they need on a real-life nanotech instrument – not a simulation. “What you have here is the cornerstone of a hands-on educational program,” Newberry told NanoInk, according to Hart.

Also, said Hart, as nanotech was moving from research to commercialization, there was still a knowledge gap preventing its total emergence. The only people who had experience with nanotech, and use of nanotech tools, were Ph.D.s and postdocs – primarily doing research. “The big question is who’s going to do the work?” Hart said. “You cannot build an industry, nor can you build a company, on the backs of Ph.D.s. It doesn’t scale.

“One of the greatest obstacles facing the commercialization of nanotechnology today is that there is not a nano-savvy workforce readily available.”

NanoInk had batted around the idea of an educational program before as part of a general discussion on how to diversify, but now the concept was validated. “We have the instrument, we have the need. Let’s build it,” Hart said.

As an example of a successful workforce education program, Hart points to Albany, NY, where undergraduates are being trained for the semiconductor industry. Investment in education is paying off as more semiconductor companies move to Albany because that is where the talent is located.

In North Carolina, he said, Forsyth Technical Community College in Winston-Salem is able to help align the future workforce with what the community needs – undergrads who are well-versed in nanotech and biotech. As a result, Forsyth is getting the talent pool ready for Research Triangle Park, where pharmaceutical companies are ready with jobs.

Another example, Hart said, is North Central State College in Mansfield, OH, which is looking at providing the workforce for a new proliferation of biopharmaceutical and bionanotech companies. They’re looking at implementing the NanoProfessor program.

Hart recently heard from Indian River State College in Fort Pierce, FL, where the Brown Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship is looking at the NanoProfessor suite for their nanotechnology and applied sciences lab. The program is looking at how to maximize thin film to increase the productivity of solar energy, along with food additives that can detect spoilage. It’s all centralized around nanotech and applied science.

And the training program does not require a cleanroom – just an average-sized lab. All the equipment is “research-grade,” nothing dumbed down and no simulations or models used.

The NanoProfessor program itself involves six chapters in a 300-plus-page textbook written specifically for undergraduate students. The main topics involve nanobiology, nanochemistry and nanophysics, with brief reviews of traditional sciences. NanoProfessor contains 11 labs, with the NLP 2000 as the centerpiece. “That’s the game-changer,” Hart said. “That allows these students to actually build nanoscale structures in a desktop setting using metallic nanoparticles or biologic agents.”

Tools also include an atomic force microscope so they can see what they are building, also a nanoflourescence microscope to drive biological applications and a nanoparticle characterization tool allows students to get inside nanoparticles. The skills students are learning through NanoProfessor include fabrication, imaging and characterization. One of the labs involves building a DNA array between of between 1 and 2 microns. In the industry, DNA arrays are typically 100 to 300 microns, Hart said. So, they are learning state-of-the-art fabrication techniques.

“We’re not just teaching them how to operate the tools, we’re teaching them skills that can translate to any type of job,” including servicing the equipment and lab technician, he said.

So, this is not a tough sell. What is tough, though, is for schools to find funding to purchase the system, which runs in the ballpark of $300,000 or less.

“Honestly, one of the concerning points for us is there seems to be, at least from a funding perspective, much greater access to funds internationally than there is in the United States,” Hart said.

That is why NanoProfessor is having slightly more success internationally. Hart said they had just sold five systems in Sao Paulo, Brazil, with five to 10 more in demand before the end of the year. Colombia has eight of their systems, and there is interest everywhere from Turkey to China to India. It’s a competition for worker training that the United States could end up losing if it does not reorganize its priorities.

“We continue to invest in research, which is extremely important, whereas the rest of the world takes that research and then they start investing in the workforce that’s going to be able to implement it,” Hart said.

In Suzhou, China, for example, they’re launching what they are calling the Nano-Polis project that will train 30,000 workers in nanotechnology. It is a commitment to taking research and turning it into workforce development that Hart does not see happening so far in the United States.

The solution, he said, is for commercial companies to approach their local undergraduate institutions and tell them that they need their help in building the new nanotech-enabled workforce. Companies cannot pay too many $90,000-a-year Ph.D.s, but they can hire educated, nano-savvy employees at $50,000 a year. Do that, and “the whole business model has changed,” he said.

It’s about getting the technology to the attention of the masses, training them, opening up their minds to what is available, he said. “We have an opportunity for leadership, but if we don’t act quickly we’re going to lose it.”

To date, Hart said, NanoProfessor has sold 25 systems and could end the year with anywhere between 40 to 50 additional systems sold.

While Hart is helping to prepare the future nanotech workforce, Warwick is helping to transition nanotech out of the academic lab and into the commercial world. And he sees immediate opportunity in biotech. When Warwick joined the company about three years ago, NanoInk had a number of tools that were largely aimed at life scientists for their chemistry or nanoengineering labs.

Warwick set off on a continuing mission to show biotech companies that they can benefit, too. They’ve been featuring substrates on which you can grow living cells, then treat each row to a different drug at different concentrations. The goal is immediate, point-of-care diagnostics, and Warwick said NanoInk is attracting attention from biotech companies large and small.

Warwick has been hitting the road a great deal these days, armed with stacks of proof-of-concept data.

“What I do love about what I’m doing is whenever we present, people smile and they nod their heads and their eyes glisten and gleam with excitement and say, ‘Wow, I just didn’t realize you could do that.’”

Warwick is finding interest from Fortune 50 companies and is active in India. “They are investing heavily in nanotech,” Warwick said.

Warwick has long played the role of the guy who could take research lab tools and transition them into the commercial marketplace. Back in 1993 in the U.K., he was with a company that made ultra-high-vacuum scanning tunneling microscopes. He was their first commercial person and doubled sales in the first year. In the second year, he doubled them again. The business was eventually sold to Oxford Instruments.

Next, he set up Digital Instruments, an AFM company that eventually merged with Veeco, where he became European Sales and Global Sales Vice President at the same time. “I was working 18-hour days and loving it,” he said.

So, it was with this experience in mind that NanoInk took him on to help lead the company to the next phase of commercialization. The toughest part of his job is simply the disruptive nature of the products he is selling. When he first came to the United States from the U.K., Warwick thought it would be easier, since the U.S. is investing heavily in nanotech.

“But it is a technology where people are saying, ‘Well, do I really want to be first or can I manage without in the short term?’”

And when he’s talking to biosensor startups, they’re just bulk-coating materials for proof-of-concept. “So, they’re getting away with the quick and dirty while they’re working on what’s next, which will be multiple materials on their sensor device.”

But, Warwick said, the message is getting through as established companies and startups look to create the next phase of the the biotech revolution – which will be field-based, point-of-care products. They will need the tools that NanoInk can offer to create multiplexing materials into the mobile industry.

Both Warwick and Hart say it’s a good time to be doing what they’re doing, creating the infrastructure necessary for what’s next in nanotech.

“It’s amazing how big companies are approaching us, looking for new technology,” Warwick said. It is an exciting time. It’s a new phase. It was academics, small startups, but also large companies are very interested in point-of-care diagnostics.”

NANO NEWS
The Challenge: Boost Nano, Create Jobs
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/the_challenge_boost_nano_create_jobs/id_46960

PCAST Documents & Reports
2012 Nanotechnology Report
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports

I would like to thank Dean Hart and Tom Warwick for taking the time to share their opinions for our Nanotechnology community.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

At Tuesday evening’s reception Congressman G.K. Butterfield spoke about the importance of nanotechnology for his district, the state of North Carolina, and the nation. Former Congressman George J. Hochbrueckner, who represented the First District of New York for four terms, also honored us with his presence and brief comments. The conference began in earnest on Wednesday, April 4th with three Executive Directors sharing the introductory remarks. Griff Kundahl from COIN and John Hardin from the Office of Science & Technology, NC Department of Commerce joined me in welcoming the participants and setting the stage for the speakers to come.

Sally Tinkle, Ph.D., Deputy Director at the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), gave the opening keynote address. Sally reviewed the overall structure of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and noted that the 2011 NNI Strategic Plan introduced a major new component to the NNI’s commercialization efforts, the Signature Initiatives program. Sally gave us a glimpse of new Signature Initiatives now being developed, one in nanomedicine and another in nanosensors. She told us to expect further details on these soon; like the three existing initiatives (Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond http://nano.gov/node/612, Nanotechnology for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion http://nano.gov/node/610, Sustainable Nanomanufacturing: Creating the Industries of the Future http://nano.gov/node/611) each will be organized around three to five thrust areas, and will have a heightened level of interagency cooperation and agreed-upon goals over a five year timeline. Sally also informed us of some staff changes at the NNCO. Dr. Robert Pohanka has recently come on board as Director, and several new policy analysts have also joined the team. I am sure you all join me in wishing to express our sincere thanks to Sally for her leadership efforts in the past year, when she served as Acting Director of the NNCO in addition to continuing as the NNI’s Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Coordinator. We look forward to further collaborations with Sally and her colleagues.

The second keynote speaker, National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Chief Scientist Richard Ridgley, focused on the importance of nanotechnology for our national security. NRO is a government intelligence agency which designs, builds, and operates spy satellites. It also coordinates the analysis of imagery obtained by various intelligence and military agencies. Rich described the NRO’s ambitious program to develop nanomaterials and nanoscale devices for electronic and structural applications in satellites. The physical properties of these materials, such as extraordinary strength to weight ratios, immunity to radiation, and very high or low conductivity as desired, are extremely attractive for space applications. NRO sees them as disruptive, not evolutionary. Current nanotech projects include lightweight cabling harnesses and support for high-volume production of papers and yarns from carbon nanotubes. The challenge in many cases is not so much meeting technical specifications but bringing down the cost by more than an order of magnitude. Companies working with NRO must learn how to plug in to existing supply chains, with the goal of producing Commercially available Off-The-Shelf (COTS) products. Naturally this means non-defense systems will also benefit from their advances; civilian aircraft manufacturers, for example, are evaluating lightweight wiring harnesses for non-critical cabling such as in entertainment systems. The U.S. is not the only country looking at these opportunities, Rich reminded us. Japan, Russia, India and many others are interested. China is developing a full city, Nanopolis Suzhou, dedicated to accelerated commercialization of nanotechnology. In order to ensure that we develop competitive production capabilities domestically, NRO can fund suitable projects up to about Level 6 of the DOD’s nine Technology Readiness Levels.

We continued our Wednesday morning session with two plenary panel discussions. Ginger Rothrock from RTI moderated the first, “Risk vs Value: The Impact of Nanotechnology Environmental Health Safety (EHS) on Business Decisions”, with expert nanotoxicologists joining representatives of the insurance and legal communities to discuss how nanotech risk is assessed and accounted for in corporate and investor decision-making. Then Christopher Gergen from the Durham-based social entrepreneurship organization Bull City Forward led “Achieving Commercialization Success: How to Sell Your Product to Large Companies”, with panelists from companies large and small as well as the nanotech investment community.

As the morning drew to a close, Griff and I welcomed Forsyth Technical Community College’s Kevin Conley, Ph.D., and NanoProfessor’s Jason Fromer to the stage to present the NanoBusiness and COIN Leadership Award, a $2,500 scholarship for next fall, awarded to a student at Forsyth Technical Community College. Kevin and Jason, as key contributors to nanotech workforce development efforts, are going to be busy.

After a networking lunch, we resumed with the panel discussion format under the direction of Chris William (Wells Fargo Private Client Group and Carolina Business Review). “How to Create 54 New Liquidias” was the topic, with a recap of the Liquidia story and the role universities, private investors, and strong support from the state’s Office of Science and Technology played in growing Liquidia and more broadly in the development of the Research Triangle. Many of these players are now asking whether resources should be reallocated from bio to nano. This discussion is not about picking winners and losers but about identifying and supporting job-creating industries that mesh with local strengths.

At the conclusion of the Liquidia panel we were honored to present Charles E. Hamner, D.V.M., Ph.D. as the NanoBusiness and COIN Pioneer Awardee. Dr. Hamner, widely recognized as a leader in the development of North Carolina’s biotechnology industry, told us that he expects nanotechnology to be even bigger than biotech.

The next two panels were “State of the Union – Nanotechnology Environmental Health Safety (EHS) 2012″, led by session chair Lynn L. Bergeson (Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.) and moderator A. Neil Jones (Kryosphere) and “Nano Energy Solutions: Perspectives on Solar, Wind and Batteries”, moderated by Johnny Rodrigues (Xemerge). First our EHS gurus filled us in on state, national and international regulatory issues. They reminded us that there are many opportunities to participate in partnerships or collaborations which facilitate responsible development of nanotechnology and help reduce uncertainty in the regulatory process. These efforts should assure investors and consumers alike. At the federal level, regulators are reaching consensus on how to treat nanotechnology under existing regulatory authorities at the same time that the overall regulatory structure is being reassessed. If, for example, efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) move forward, proactive work will be required from our community to make sure nano is addressed in a comprehensive fashion. Meanwhile we are seeing regulatory activity for several important nanomaterials (nanosilver, CNTs, nanoclays) under either TSCA or FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), with final decisions and rulemaking expected soon. But many states think federal regulation has not been adequate and are considering their own actions. California, notably, has required data submissions in preparation for developing rules for several classes of nanomaterials. Internationally, the French have instituted a mandatory reporting scheme for any material made or imported into France including nanomaterials. The EC may try to preempt this rule but there is precedent for it. If the final rule takes effect as expected in 2013, many will find the reporting requirements onerous.

From the energy panel, we continued to hear how nanotechnology is a key enabler in the drive to re-invent our energy production, delivery, and storage infrastructure. With the energy picture changing rapidly due to the economic situation in the key European market, aggressive manufacturing subsidies from China, and an unexpected plethora of inexpensive natural gas, our speakers emphasized technologies that can be near-term contributors to improving the efficiency of current products and reducing their manufacturing costs over more speculative disruptive technologies that will need longer development times.

NanoBCA’s good friends, Scott Livingston and Scott Rickert, closed out day one of the conference. Scott Livingston, Chairman & CEO of Livingston Securities is thrilled with the provisions of the recent Jobs Act legislation, which reduce the compliance burden that has been hindering smaller companies since the introduction of Sarbannes-Oxley. This fits right in with his agenda to help nanotech companies raise $30-40 million in funding to scale up production and fill early orders, ultimately by bringing back the small Initial Public Offering. Meanwhile, Livingston Securities is finding its way into the underwriting syndicate for promising IPOs that are managing to come to market even in today’s distorted conditions, with a restricted group of hedge funds buying 90% of the shares no matter who leads the offering. Scott reminded us that both words are important in the term “public financing”. Properly done deals provide financing for new companies and public opportunities for wealth creation. Scott thinks the Jobs Act may be the death knell for business as usual on Wall Street. He has seen a tenfold increase in companies that want to talk about IPOs in last 2 months, and thinks a new Wall Street model is coming with a greater role for a large number of smaller investors.

Scott Rickert, President, Co-Founder & CEO of NanoFilm, shared his strategic thinking on intellectual property protection, team building, location of facilities, and niche-finding. Nanofilm’s IPR strategy relies heavily on trade secrets. Like Coca-Cola, Scott believes in secret sauces. They fine-tune their products for specific markets and even individual customers and manufacture in just a few locations (currently in the U.S. and India). Most of you know that NanoFilm has had great success with their coatings for eyewear. They continue to innovate in this market, with major new products about to appear from leading optical firms. Scott is also justly proud of the company’s coatings for high-end commercial dinnerware used in many fine restaurants. This product reduces scuffing and scratchmarks from silverware, and cleans easily with low-phosphate, environmentally friendly detergents. Plus it is made from plant-derived materials with excellent safety profiles. Scott’s remarks on company staffing also got the audience’s attention. He noted that a company’s needs change as it matures, so leadership needs to be changed every 5 years or so. In his case, he has been able to “fire and rehire” himself as CEO several times, re-inventing the role and adjusting the supporting staff as necessary. But whether or not the names at the top of the letterhead change, the leadership team must be ready to adapt.

Day two of the conference began with Doug Jamison’s review of Harris & Harris Group’s activities over the last year. As Chairman and CEO, Doug learned much about patient investing in 2007-2010, with no exits among the H&H portfolio. H&H had a very successful year in 2011 with 5 liquidity events. They are the following:

1. Solazyme (IPO) http://solazyme.com/
2. NeoPhotonics (IPO) http://www.neophotonics.com/
3. BioVex (acquired by Amgen) http://www.biovex.com/
4. Innovalight (acquired by DuPont) http://www2.dupont.com/Photovoltaics/en_US/products_services/silicon_inks/silicon_inks.html
5. Crystal IS (acquired but not publicly disclosed) http://www.crystal-is.com/

Harris & Harris expects to see 12-15 more portfolio exits in the next three years. Doug had an interesting perspective from H&H’s analysis of venture capital-funded nanotech companies – they seem to be about two years behind comparable microcap companies in their development. VC companies are slower than public markets in resetting their valuations, but it’s coming. Alternatively, VC’s need to justify current valuations by doing more to build company value. Doug pointed out that the investors and bankers who stick with new public markets are almost always specialists, not representatives of the big firms. On the product side, he counseled nanotech companies to think of the Dows and Duponts of the world as customers, not competitors.

Nanomech founder and Chief Technology Officer Ajay Malshe followed Doug with another keynote address. Ajay’s mantra is less is more – NanoMech’s products use less natural resources while giving the customer more functionality. The company draws on local and regional strengths, supplementing research and entrepreneurship skills with a focus on identifying great people and then finding the positions where they are best utilized. This goes for business talent as well as science and engineering talent. In terms of product areas, NanoMech has stayed out of popular areas like solar and batteries not for a lack of new ideas but to avoid the crowd – they prefer to find market sectors where they can be the first actor, secure strong intellectual property protection, and then deliver their technology in the form the customer wants. This approach led to four successful product lines so far -TuffTek, NanoGlide, nGuard, and ElementX.

We moved back to the regulatory world with the next keynote from Dr. Frank Torti of Wake Forest University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center. Previously, Dr. Torti served as Chief Scientist for the Food and Drug Administration, and his talk, “FDA Regulation and Innovation: Reflections without Mirrors” focused on ideas for improving the regulatory process. One change driver is the question of how existing regulatory policy applies to innovative technologies such as nano, individually or as components of a combination drug or device. A second driver is the enormous shift in production of drugs, devices, and food from domestic to offshore manufacturers in recent years.

Dr. Torti recited a list of ten commandments which could help the FDA develop a preemptive, forward-looking strategy for dealing with these sea changes:

1. Build innovation into the mission and mindset of the FDA
2. Speed approvals of drugs and devices
3. Clarify the path to decisions
4. Make the approval process consistent regardless of reviewer or review group
5. Implement a review of FDA performance
6. Update (atrocious) FDA information systems
7. Mandate collaboration, not competition, between the FDA and other Federal Agencies
8. Overhaul approval processes for devices (when is a premarket notification sufficient (510K) and when is premarket approval needed).
9. Direct Congressional funding to the Agency overall. Currently each individual FDA Center is a line item.
10.Encourage the FDA to partner with those who can help.

Our last plenary panel, moderated by J. Robert Tyler III, Partner of Poyner Spruill, described “The Current State of Investing in the Nanotechnology Community”. This lively discussion featuring angel investors and VCs got the attention of the local press, so check out the coverage by Med City News http://www.medcitynews.com/2012/04/investing-in-nanotechnology-what-vcs-angels-and-strategic-investors-look-for/ to learn more about it.

We then broke into parallel tracks for the rest of the morning. FBI Supervisory Special Agent James Gaylord gave a presentation on the case of Chi Mak, an engineer and naturalized citizen who conspired to export sensitive defense technology to China. This was the first of three sessions on the growing threats of industrial espionage. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs had the opportunity to pitch new ideas to potential investors, collaborators, and some of their more experienced colleagues in one-on-one pitch sessions. As the industrial espionage group moved into discussion mode, the second track moved on to a group of presentations highlighting some of the leading edge nanotech research now underway at North Carolina’s outstanding universities.

We reconvened the plenary session for a lunchtime talk, “Nanobiotechnology: Fitting safe and effective technologies to clinically relevant biology at the nanoscale”, by Dr. David F. Williams, Ph.D., Professor and Director of International Affairs Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine. With that title and appointments on five continents, you will not be surprised to hear that Dr. Williams emphasized the globalization of nanobiotechnology. Researchers at universities, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies around the world are using nanoscale engineering to develop drug, gene, vaccine, and biomolecule delivery systems; single or multifunctional imaging systems; tissue replacements; and templates for cell therapy, often personalizing their approach to individual patients or small subgroups of the patient population. Dr. Williams illustrated these approaches with beautiful examples from his own work and that of his Wake Forest colleagues. But he cautioned that to realize the promise of bionanotechnology, we need to be careful to match rhetoric to science and marketing to reality. This includes thoughtful engagement with regulators and the public worldwide, not just here in the U.S.

Following Dr. Williams’ presentation, we broke into parallel sessions again for the rest of the day. First Steve Waite of SoundView Advisory moderated a panel discussing nanomanufacturing while Travis Reese of Mandiant Corporation discussed CyberSecurity. Then Roger Cubicciotti, Ph.D., (CEO of NanoMedica and Chair of COIN’s Board of Directors) led a nanomedicine panel (with special thanks to Sam Brauer, Ph.D., for ably filling in for Anil Diwan on short notice) while Counterintelligence Advisor Michael A. Donner (U.S. Department of Energy) extended our discussion of security and intelligence threats and methods to protect your business.

At the end of a highly successful conference, many of us enjoyed the short walk across the American Tobacco Campus to the Athletic Park, where we watched the AAA Durham Bulls win their season opener. This was NanoBCA’s first major collaboration with COIN and the Office of Science & Technology, NC Department of Commerce. We are looking forward to continuing our relationship in 2013.

State and regional efforts to support nanotechnology R&D are becoming even more important as our community’s commercial impact grows – a topic I hope many of you will join me in discussing at the upcoming 2012 Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology Workshop http://www.nano.gov/node/732 in Portland, Oregon on May 1st and 2nd, under the sponsorship of the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) and the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

We would like to thank all the attendees, speakers and sponsors of the Nanotech Commercialization Conference for making this a very successful event. We have begun planning our conference for next year and are looking forward to your participation in 2013.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

Harris & Harris Group: Nanotechnology Showcase Review
http://blog.research2zero.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/HH-Nanotechnology-Showcase-Day-2012.pdf

Please spend a few minutes and take a look at the new Nanotechnology Video produced by Harris & Harris for PBS. I think Doug Jamison could have been on the big screen.

Nanotechnology and Harris & Harris Group video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-MGhYXrdCE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

NANO NEWS
From the Nanotech Commercialization Conference
April 5th – Durham, NC
‘Thou Shalt Innovate:’ 10 commandments for change at FDA
http://m.wral.com/w/biz/story/58179911/

Nanotechnology’s Role in Society and Future Workforce Needs Is Topic of Keynote Address at Positive Impact Conference Presented by Wheeling High School
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nanotechnologys-role-in-society-and-future-workforce-needs-is-topic-of-keynote-address-at-positive-impact-conference-presented-by-wheeling-high-school-2012-04-10

Chevy Volt: Why is production being halted?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0305/Chevy-Volt-Why-is-production-being-halted?_hse=vince@waterinnovations.org&_hsmi=BE502326&_hsh=d517eafa2ef1ea2e9172d35ba76a9c87&utm_campaign=EmailMarketing_Lux+Populi+Newsletter+–+March+25%2C+2012_20120325

Enjoy the Spring weather with your family and we plan on seeing you in Boston this September www.nanobca.org.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

Please direct any questions to RSL12@nnco.nano.gov

Hope to see you in Portland.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

Our program http://www.nanoevent.org/node/7 has over 50 speakers from the Nanotechnology Community.

I would like to share with you an article from the Charlotte Observer written by Christopher Gergen, entrepreneurial guru and Stephen Martin.

The Giant Power of Small
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/01/v-print/3139862/the-giant-power-of-small.html

Christopher Gergen http://bullcityforward.org/overview/who-we-are/staff-bios/ is the CEO of Forward Ventures (supporting Bull City Forward & Queen City Forward) and a fellow with Fuqua’s Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University. Stephen Martin is a director at the Center for Creative Leadership.

NANO NEWS
2012 Regional, State & Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology (RSL 2012) Workshop
May 1st-2nd
Embassy Suites Hotel
Portland, OR
A workshop sponsored by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and local partners to assess the current landscape of regional, state, and local (RSL) nanotechnology initiatives.
http://www.nano.gov/node/732

Thank you for all your support of our Conference www.nanoevent.org. We hope to see you on the Event trail this spring.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

I was in DC this week at the International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology http://www.nano.gov/node/729 and had the opportunity to meet Dr. Robert Pohanka. I would like to congratulate the show organizers, AAAS, OECD, NNI and NNCO on a thought provoking and insightful event.

Next week, many members of the Nanotechnology Community will be at our Nanotech Commercialization Conference www.nanoevent.org, April 4-5th at the American Tobacco Campus in Research Triangle – Durham, NC.

REGISTER TODAY – Over 200 attendees to date!
General Attendee $150
Student Attendee $50
On-site Registration $200 for general attendees, $75 for students
https://www2.sbtdc.org/events/reg/nanotech/register.asp

HOTEL REGISTRATION
Durham Marriott City Center
http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/rducv-durham-marriott-city-center/?toDate=4/6/12&groupCode=NCCNCCA&fromDate=4/2/12&app=resvlink
201 Foster Street, Durham, NC 27701
Toll-free: 1-800-909-8375
Phone: 1-919-768-6000

Special Room Rates: $134.00 per night

When making your reservation via phone 800-909-8375 be sure to mention Nano Tech Conference to receive your discounted rate.

When making your reservation online, the code is already entered in the appropriate field for your convenience.

Online reservations
http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/rducv-durham-marriott-city-center/?toDate=4/6/12&groupCode=NCCNCCA&fromDate=4/2/12&app=resvlink

Our KEYNOTE LINEUP is impressive:
- Sally Tinkle, PhD, Acting Director & EHS Coordinator, NNCO
- Richard Ridgley, Chief Scientist at the National Reconnaissance Office
- Scott Livingston, Chairman & CEO, Livingston Securities
- Scott E. Rickert, PhD, President, Co-Founder & CEO, NanoFilm
- Douglas W. Jamison, Chairman of the Board, CEO & Managing Director, Harris & Harris Group
- Dr. Ajay Malshe, Founder & EVP/Chief Technology Officer (CTO), NanoMech, Inc
- Frank M. Torti, MD, MPH, FACP, Director, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Wake Forest; FDA Chief Scientist (former)
- David F. Williams, PhD, Professor, Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine

Our AGENDA has content relevant to 2012
Risk vs Value: The Impact of Nanotechnology Environmental Health Safety (EHS) on Business Decisions
- Moderator: Ginger Rothrock, Program Manager: Emerging Technologies, RTI International
- Christie M. Sayes, PhD, Program Manager – Nanotoxicology & Nanopharmacology Center for Aerosols & Nanomaterials Engineering, RTI International
- Russell L. Jones, MBA, Account Executive, Summers Thompson Lowry, Inc.
- Keith Robson, CEO, Assured Nano Limited and Chairman of the Board, INSCX
- Francis A. Stockwell, III, Vice President & Chief Underwriting Officer, Medmarc Insurance Group
- Dr. Sunit Talapatra, Associate, Foley & Lardner LLP
- David Jassby, Ph.D., Executive Director, Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (CEINT), Duke University

Achieving Commercialization Success: How to sell your product to large companies
- Moderator: Christopher Gergen, Co-Founder & Executive Director, Bull City Forward
- Sandra Merkel-DeJames, PhD, Manager, Business Creation, Biobusiness Development and Acquisitions, Novozymes North America Inc
- Paul S. Clayson, President & CEO, HzO
- Kenneth E. Russell, PhD, Director, Enterprise Strategy, Cisco
- Michael Zapata III, Executive Chairman, Protochips Inc.
- Robert Burns, Senior Vice President , Harris & Harris Group, Inc.

How to Create 54 New Liquidias
- Hosted by Chris William, Managing Director, Private Client Group, Wells Fargo and Executive Producer, Carolina Business Review
- Neal Fowler, CEO, Liquidia
- Charles E. Hamner, D.V.M., Ph.D., Chairman, The Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences
- John Hardin, Executive Director, Office of Science & Technology, NC Department of Commerce

State of the Union – Nanotechnology Environmental Health Safety (EHS) 2012
- Session Chair: Lynn L. Bergeson, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
- Moderator: A. Neil Jones, Co-Founder & Vice President, Scientific Operations, Kryosphere
- Rosalind Volpe, D.PH, Executive Director, Silver Nanotechnology Working Group
- Matthew Dahm, MPH, Research Industrial Hygienist, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations & Field Studies, NIOSH

Nano Energy Solutions: Perspectives on Solar, Wind and Batteries
- Moderator: Johnny Rodrigues, Managing Partner, Xemerge
- Alan Rae, B.Sc., PhD, M.B.A., M.R.S.C. C.Chem., CEO, NanoMaterials Innovation Center
- Seamus Curran, PhD, Associate Professor, Physics Department, University of Houston
- Professor David L. Carroll, PhD, Director, Center for Nanotechnology & Molecular Materials, Wake Forest University

Reception: F. Mark Modzelewski and the Center of Innovation for Nanobiotechnology (COIN)
Presenting a National NanoArt Exhibition & Competition, “The Art of the Small”

The Current State of Investing in the Nanotechnology Community – A Panel of VCs
- Moderator: J. Robert Tyler III, Partner, Poyner Spruill
- Douglas W. Jamison, Chairman of the Board, CEO & Managing Director, Harris & Harris Group
- John Glushik, General Partner, Intersouth Partners
- Martin Sinozich, Piedmont Angel Network
- Carol Marino, Vice President, Syngenta Ventures

Nanotechnology Industrial Espionage – How to Protect Your Company – Chi Mak presentation
- James Gaylord, FBI Supervisory Special Agent

Trends in University Nanotechnology Research
- Moderator: The Honorable Kelly H. Carnes, President & CEO, TechVision 21
- Suzy V. Torti, PhD, Professor of Biochemistry, Director, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Graduate Program, Wake Forest University School of Medicine
- Michael Dickey, Assistant Professor, Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, North Carolina State University
- William C. Zamboni PharmD, PhD, Associate Professor, DPET; Associate Member, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Director, GLP Analytical Facility, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, and UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center

CyberSecurity Breakout Session
- Travis Reese, President & COO, Mandiant Corporation

Economic Espionage and the Insider Threat
This interactive session will explore internal and external mechanisms to protect your business. With examples from the field, emphasis will be placed on the human insider threat and best practices to address identified risks.
- Michael A. Donner, Senior Advisor – Counterintelligence, U.S. Department of Energy

Nanomanufacturing Panel
- Moderator: Stephen Waite, Managing Partner, SoundView Advisory
- Raymond Jones, President, North Carolina Aerospace Alliance and CEO, VX Aerospace
- Daniel Herr, PhD, Professor & Nanoscience Department Chair, Joint School of Nanoscience & Nanoengineering
- Philip Lippel, PhD, Nanotechnology Consultant

Nanomedicine Panel
- Moderator: Roger Cubicciotti, PhD, President & CEO, NanoMedica LLC
- Kevin Pang, PhD, MBA, Director, Lux Research
- Adnan Nasir, MD, PhD, President, Nanodermatology Society
- Anil R. Diwan, PhD, Chairman & President, NanoViricides, Inc
- Zagit Z. Gaymalov, PhD, Co-founder & CEO, NeuroNano Pharma

NANO NEWS
Study helps assess nanotechnology’s impact on sustainable growth
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=24752.php

Robert Burns Joins Harris & Harris Group
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/idUS118672+19-Mar-2012+GNW20120319

NASA Puts Nanotechnology Swarm Patents Up for Auction
http://m.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/nasa-patent/

Looking forward to seeing you in North Carolina.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

This week we are taking a look at the 2012 NNI Supplement to the President’s Budget. This annual NNI document presents budgetary data on Federal nanotechnology investments for fiscal years 2011-2013. It also describes how selected cross-agency activities and individual agency programs support each of the four goals of the Initiative. This year’s document serves an additional role as the Department of Defense’s report on the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program, so the information on defense-related activities is particularly detailed.

On the budget front, the news is mixed. The $1.767 Billion overall request for 2013 is a slight increase over the $1.697 Billion now estimated for the current fiscal year, but it is a significant retrenchment from the $2.1 Billion the Administration requested last year (-17%). The final figure for FY2011, $1.85 Billion, is $65 Million less than the total actual expenditures for FY2010 (-3.5%), and the estimated $1.70 Billion FY2012 expenditures represent an additional 8% reduction. So even if the request is fully funded, we are looking at three straight years below the peak 2010 expenditures exceeding $1.9 Billion.

Fifteen agencies are listed with R&D budgets for all three report years. Five of them – the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology – account for 95% of each year’s expenditures or request. These “big 5″ agencies each participate in six to eight Program Component Areas, the topical reporting categories used to further identify NNI investments. Most smaller agencies restrict their funded activities to a few PCAs where they can have a more significant impact; for example, the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Consumer Products Safety Commission together provide roughly 40% of the funding for Environment, Health, and Safety research (PCA7), compared to ~30% from NSF and ~20% from NIH.

Looking at individual agencies, we see that the requested appropriations for many agencies fall between the estimated 2012 expenditures and what they requested a year ago. For DOD, NASA, and FDA, it is below both 2012 numbers. DOE is requesting a $127 Million increase over their 2012 estimate, to $443 Million. But even that pales in comparison to the $611 Million in last year’s request, which Congress cut nearly in half. And despite several years at the top of the request chart, DOE is behind NIH, DOD, and NSF in actually getting money on the street (2011 actual and 2012 estimated).

In terms of program focus, the Supplement notes the continuing emphasis on the three current NNI Signature Initiatives while hinting that 2 or more additional signature areas may be approved in the near future. It also highlights the connections between NNI investments and wider initiatives such as the Materials Genome Initiative and the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership. In the proposed 2013 budget, Solar Energy Collection and Conversion ($112 Million) gets the largest increase and would edge out Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond ($110 Million) for the first time. Sustainable Nanomanufacturing would bump up to $84 Million. The NNI briefing memo on the budget (available at nano.gov/node/750) notes that two of the applied Program Component Areas , Nanoscale Devices and Systems (PCA 3) and Nanomanufacturing (PCA 5) account for over $1/2 Billion in the 2013 proposal, a reflection of the increasing emphasis on commercially relevant technology and processes.

Overall, we should probably be pleased to see that the NNI is holding its own in a very tough budget climate. One encouraging fact is that Congress provided most of the NNI agencies with approved budgets relatively early this year. This makes it easier for them to plan out their programs and puts the 2012 estimated expenditures on a firmer footing than they have been in recent years.

I encourage those of you interested in more specific information on individual agency activities or anyone looking for good examples of currently funded research to check out the full report http://nano.gov/node/748.

NANO NEWS

REGISTER TODAY – Nanotech Commercialization Conference
April 4-5, 2012
Research Triangle – Durham, NC
www.nanoevent.org
http://wraltechwire.com/business/tech_wire/news/blogpost/10829457/

IBM and IBN Treating MRSA With Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine in February’s Edition of Healthcare Global
http://world.einnews.com/247pr/264415

Using Body Heat to Recharge Cellphone, Laptop
http://blogs.voanews.com/science-world/2012/02/24/using-body-heat-to-recharge-cellphone-laptop/

Is Maynard going over to the nano-dark side?
http://2020science.org/2012/02/24/is-maynard-going-over-to-the-nano-dark-side/#ixzz1oM4NMzjB

North Central State College Moves Into Nanotechnology With Curriculum From NanoProfessor
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/north-central-state-college-moves-into-nanotechnology-with-curriculum-from-nanoprofessor-2012-02-21

I hope to see you in April in North Carolina.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
~ Albert Einstein

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

Andrew previously co-chaired the NNI’s Nanotechnology Health and Environment Implications group while working at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. He then became Chief Science Advisor to the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and a frequent spokesperson for PEN’s EHS concerns. He has served on numerous government advisory councils in the U.S. and Canada, including the panels that developed the National Academies report on nanoEHS in 2009 and the draft NRC EHS Research Strategy I discussed in last week’s newsletter.

Today’s interview was written by one of the original Nanotechnology writers, Howard Lovy. The other contributor for today’s interview is Phil Lippel, Ph.D., NanoBusiness Board Member. The opinions expressed by Andrew Maynard are his opinions and this interview is intended to continue our policy of providing all viewpoints in the Nanotechnology Community.

NanoBusiness Interview – Andrew Maynard, Ph.D.

When Andrew Maynard, director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan, read the text of a recent lawsuit by consumer advocates against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which claims the FDA is failing to regulate nanomaterials in products, one phrase jumped out at him. The groups used the words “fundamentally unique properties” when referring to nanoscale ingredients.

The phrase, in fact, comes directly from marketing material of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. So, in one sense, the nanotech industry is a victim of its own public relations, Maynard believes. A phrase used to promote nanotech commercialization is being thrown back at nanotech advocates by those who would use the same logic to demand strict regulations.

“There is an assumption that you can have everything your own way,” Maynard says. “You can say something was unique and important and world-changing, selling the hype, and yet not really understanding what the long-term consequences of that hype are.”

This is what Maynard does for a living. He tries to reach beyond hype and beyond gloom to assess and communicate the real risks associated with emerging technologies, including nanotechnology. But he approaches these assessments from a starting point that seems increasingly difficult to achieve in these polarized political times – one based on scientific principles rather than political agenda.

The problem with that “unique properties” phrase that has been so misused over the years is that the science does not necessarily back it up. Material at the nanoscale is not necessarily any different from its macroscale cousin.

“Now, with the research that’s been generated in the last few years, it’s become increasingly clear that there’s no well-defined set of materials that raise red flags when it comes to size,” Maynard says. “About the best you can do is say that the smaller and more sophisticated you make things the more you have to think about a wide range of questions when you’re evaluating safety.”

So, when Maynard now discusses nanotechnology and potential risk, he’s not likely to even use the “n” word. He’s talking about advanced materials, or “sophisticated materials.”

For example, he says, what questions do you ask when trying to determine whether quantum dots are safe? Well, you talk about the composition of the quantum dot, how its physical and chemical structure determines how it interacts with biological systems, and how its size effects where it goes in the body and how it interacts within it.

“But those are not nano-specific questions,” he says. “They’re the questions associated with a specifically designed material.”

The same thing with titanium dioxide found in sunscreens. Shrink them down to nanosize and you get concerns raised by advocacy groups such as the Friends of the Earth and others involved in the lawsuit against the FDA, but the research says titanium dioxide, even at that size, is still pretty benign.

It has taken Maynard a few years to reach this point in his thinking about nanotech. Many in the nanotech business community might remember Maynard when he was scientific adviser for the Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) between 2005 and 2008. The PEN raised many questions about the potential risks of nanomaterials. Has he changed since his Wilson Center days?

“I have, which is I think inevitable. If you take a young field, our knowledge is going to change over time,” Maynard says. “And if we don’t change our opinions based on that knowledge there’s something wrong.”

But one thing that has not changed is his belief that if nanotech is going to develop into a sustainable industry that is economically robust, it needs to also be “socially robust” and develop with an eye toward social implications.

“It makes a lot of business sense, if you’re developing any new technology – not just nanotech or whatever – to be aware of the possiblities of what might go wrong with that technology and those products and shore things up as early as possible,” he says.

The problem, though, is that roughly 10 years after these questions were first asked, after the U.S. government has invested millions in looking at the environmental and health implications of nanotechnology, we still are not much wiser.

“We know a lot more now,” Maynard says. “The question is do we know a lot more that’s useful now. That’s what I would debate.” The problem, he says, is that the wrong questions are being asked.

Take, for example, carbon nanotubes. There is an assumption by many researchers, Maynard said, that the material is similar to asbestos. But nanotubes are not straight, long, rigid fibers, yet this assumption is driving the research.

“I am quite often concerned that you talk to toxicology groups doing research on carbon nanotubes, I don’t think many of them could actually accurately describe to you the physical form or nature of a carbon nanotube. And yet they’re doing research under various assumptions of what these things are like.”

So, this is the mission of Maynard’s Risk Science Center – to start discussions about the risks of technology with a grounding in real science and not on speculation, taking and “evidence-based approach.”

He’s come a long way since the early 1990s, Maynard, now 46, worked on his Ph. D. at Cambridge in the UK, using advanced microscopy techniques to analyze airborne particles. At the time, many of his colleagues told him he was wasting his time. There would be no future in tiny materials. They were wrong, of course, and Maynard got involved further and further into studying emerging technologies. Eventually, he made the jump from doing science to studying the proper ways of communicating it to the public.

Next on his agenda is looking at issues involved in advanced manufacturing, which overlaps with nanotech. Again, he said he is asking questions having to do with how businesses using new manufacturing technologies, producing new materials, can predict where economic and social barriers are going to be and have a plan to get over them. That includes codes of conduct, standards and best practices. It is up to the industry, itself, to make sure these are in place. The alternative is unwanted regulation.

The most-important advice Maynard gives to the nanotech business community is to simply be aware of the possible implications of the technology they’re developing and make sure regulatory agencies are properly informed of what is being done. But there is no need to respond to individual challenges such as this lawsuit against the FDA.

“It’s worthwhile playing the long game and not being too reactionary to what happens,” Maynard says. “What’s happened over the last 10 years is that concerns over nanotechnology really haven’t gained that much traction.”

In fact, it’s just the opposite. People, in general, remain excited about the prospects of nanotechnology.

“I think the bottom line is to be as honest as possible, and talk to people,” Maynard says. “One of the biggest problems is if you come across as trying to hide things or trying to obscure things. Generally, people are really excited about this technology. They just want to know what’s going on. They want to know what it’s about.”

I hope you have enjoyed this interview. We look forward to continuing our EHS discussions at the Nanotech Commercialization Conference http://www.nanoevent.org/ April 4-5 in Research Triangle – Durham, NC.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

NNCO EVENTS
International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnolgy
March 27-28, 2012
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC
http://www.nano.gov/node/729

2012 Regional, State and Local (RSL) Initiatives in Nanotechnology
Partnering with ONAMI
May 1-2, 2012
Embassy Suites Hotel, Portland, OR
http://www.nano.gov/node/732

TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FORUM: NANOTECHNOLOGY
March 27, 2012
9:00am-7:30pm
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
http://nano.cas.usf.edu/

NANOTECH COMMERCIALIZATION CONFERENCE
April 4-5, 2012
American Tobacco Campus, Research Triangle, Durham, NC
http://www.nanoevent.org/

LEHIGH NANOTECH NETWORK
Nano for Business 2012: Building Toward a Sustainable Future
May 23, 2012
7:30am-6:00pm
Lehigh University, Mountaintop Campus, Bethlehem, PA
http://www.lehigh.edu/lnn/events.shtml

—————————————————-

NANO NEWS
The Nano-economy: Time to Reap the Rewards
20+ years of planting seeds – now a crop of jobs is ready.
By Scott E. Rickert
Jan. 20, 2012
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/the_nano-economy_time_to_reap_the_rewards_26408.aspx

The Father of Green Chemistry
By Josh Wolfe
Feb. 2, 2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshwolfe/2012/02/02/the-father-of-green-chemistry/

This could be the year of nano-enabled medicines
http://www.fiercedrugdelivery.com/story/year-nanotech-enabled-medicines-polaris-bitterman-thinks-so/2012-01-24

Effectively Managing the Risks of Nanomaterials: Present Status and Future Challenges
Written by Jeff Morse, PhD
January 26, 2012
http://www.internano.org/content/view/644/251/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nnn_v5.1_Jan12

NanoBusiness Provides Insight on National Research Council Report
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-provides-insight-on-national-research-council-report

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
~ Albert Einstein

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

The study activities leading to the just-released report are directed by the NRC’s Board on Environmental Studies & Toxicology, with contributions from the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology and the National Materials Advisory Board. A nineteen-person committee was selected to perform the study, chaired by Jonathan M. Samet, a pulmonary physician and epidemiologist from the University of Southern California who is an expert on the health risks of inhaled pollutants. You will see several familiar names on the full list of committee members which appears at the end of this newsletter. Some are members of the nanotechnology community who have participated in earlier Academies nanostudies or who lead major nanotechnology research efforts, while others represent the toxicology and environmental policy communities. The committee met five times between February 2010 and January 2011. The first two meetings included open sessions where they heard from a variety of experts, including our own EHS committee chair Lynn Bergeson.

The result of the committee’s deliberations so far is a suggested overall strategy for nanoEHS research which, the authors claim, would better focus research efforts to identify materials or products likely to cause harm and identify ways to mitigate that risk. The prioritization process would consider both a material’s level of hazard and the likelihood that human or environmental exposure to the material in a hazardous state would occur at some point in the full product lifecycle. They considered strategies and research needs catalogs that have already been developed by various national and international groups, as well as previous critiques of those strategies, but the report does not provide a detailed comparison to other current strategies. Much of the committee’s emphasis, especially in their analysis of available budgetary resources, is on EHS activities funded by U.S. agencies participating in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. But there are frequent mentions of the need for participation by a broad community of stakeholders, nationally and internationally, across academia, industry, government, and non-governmental organizations. The strategy appears to be addressed to all those stakeholders, though its boundaries are not clearly delineated.

Once the final version of the strategy document is released, the committee will move on to the second phase of the study. Phase 2 will consider the extent to which their recommendations have been implemented and will update those recommendations to reflect progress in nanoEHS research or significant changes in needs due to unforeseen developments. A report on that second and final phase is scheduled to be released in about 18 months.

The draft strategy released last week has generated a fair amount of attention, so let’s take a closer look at what the report actually says.

The report includes some broad statements in regard to gaps in our present knowledge and in existing research portfolios:

“First, little research progress has been made on some key topics, such as the effects of ingested ENMs [engineered nanomaterials] on human health. Second, there is little research on the potential health and environmental effects of the more complex ENMs that are expected to enter commerce over the next decade. Third, system-integrative approaches are needed that can address all forms of ENMs based on their properties and an understanding of the underlying biologic interactions that determine exposure and risk.”

We would like to propose a positive spin on the first point. Earlier EHS strategists were nearly unanimous in their expectation that the most likely danger to human health would come from inhalation of nanoparticles, with ingestion the least worrisome of the usual exposure routes. Apparently the committee is satisfied with progress that is being made on understanding inhalation and dermal exposure and believes the time has come to move on to ingestion. As for the second “criticism,” it is again encouraging that the committee feels that research capacity is sufficient to shift some efforts beyond simple materials already in commerce to more complex materials that are not yet widely used. This would seem to be a reasonable, orderly progression of the research agenda.

The committee’s own strategy is based on an integrated systems approach, directly addressing the third point. It emphasizes the use of risk management methods which consider the full lifecycle of both nanomaterials and products in which they are employed. While this strategy is explicitly addressed to EHS aspects of engineered nanomaterials rather than to of all of nanotechnology, its scope is broadened somewhat by layering a value chain analysis on top of the lifecycle analysis. To borrow an example from the report, to evaluate the potential impacts of the use of carbon nanotubes in bicycle frames, you would consider the hazards presented by a particular type of nanotube, the potential for exposure to the nanotubes during production of the frame, and the likelihood that any significant quantity of nanotubes will be released during the bicycle’s useful lifetime or when it is disposed of. They propose three risk properties that should be assessed for any given analysis: emergence, severity, and plausibility. Emergent risks would be risks which are unexpected from basic physical and chemical properties, unusually severe, or resistant to standard management methods – they emerge from the novel properties of the material at the nanoscale. The severity of a risk quantifies the “extent and magnitude of harm that might result” if the use of a nanomaterial was improperly managed. The plausibility of a risk is defined as the overall likelihood that a nanomaterial will pose human or environmental risks, incorporating hazard, exposure, and commercial viability. In the bicycle frame example, they point out that the plausibility of significant exposure during the use phase is low, while it is somewhat higher in the production phase and may rise again at end of life. (We would add that the emergent risk component is also not particularly high in this case, since standard workplace controls are known to be effective in controlling exposure to CNTs.)

In addition to developing a strategy, the committee was charged with estimating the resources needed for its implementation. This part of the report uses the historical investments made by the NNI agencies to benchmark financial resources, starting with $37.7 million in FY 2006 (the first year the NNI separately reported EHS investments) and growing to $123.5M requested in FY 2012. They assume a baseline NNI level of $120M per year for EHS over the next five years, and state that the “predominant challenge to closing the gap” between the current level of research activity and what they feel is required “is one of strategic realignment rather than additional funding.” They do, however, go on to propose new cross-cutting activities that could hasten progress in the field, with “modest” cost of $24M/yr, again for five years, to be spent as follows:

- Informatics: $5 million per year to support the development of robust informatics systems and tools for managing and using information on the EHS effects of ENMs.

- Instrumentation: $10 million per year to translate existing measurement and characterization techniques into platforms that are accessible and relevant to EHS research and to develop new EHS-specific measurement and characterization techniques for assessing ENMs under a variety of conditions.

- Materials: $3-5million per year to develop and distribute benchmark ENMs.

- Sources: $2 million per year to characterize sources of ENM release and exposure throughout the value chain and lifecycle of products.

- Networks: $2 million per year in new funding for the next 5 years should be invested in developing integrated researcher and stakeholder networks that facilitate the sharing of information and the translation of knowledge to effective use.

They explicitly recognize that these increased funding levels “are not likely to be met by the budget requests of any one agency or institute but need to be garnered through a coordinated effort on the part of the nanomaterial community to leverage additional resources from public, private, and international initiatives to support critical cross-cutting research.” This is an aspect of the report the NanoBCA community should consider carefully. The informatics, instrumentation, and materials proposals would seem particularly relevant to us and we should consider how we might facilitate them and ensure that their design is sensitive to the needs of industrial participants.

Equally important is what the report does not say. This report is about research, not regulation. It does not recommend new regulatory approaches for nanomaterials, nor does it suggest that regulatory agencies need to go beyond their current approaches to obtain needed information about individual nanomaterials. While it encourages the development of research protocols based on high throughput screening and predictive modeling, it makes no suggestion for how or when such protocols would be adopted for regulatory purposes. The report does not call for an expansion of the NNI definition of nanomaterials – it quite comfortably accepts the approximate 1-100 nm regime and proposes that risks be prioritized based on the emergence of novel, size-dependent biological or environmental activity within that range. It makes no sweeping statements about the dangers of any particular nanomaterial, class of nanomaterial, or type of nano-enabled product. It identifies no significant risks common to all nanomaterials, stating in fact that “the size range used to describe ENMs – 1-100 nm – has relatively little bearing itself in determining the risk to people or the environment.”

Nonetheless, the report has drawn attention from the media, with several articles adopting a negative tone mirroring the Academies’ own press release, which said “the future of safe and sustainable nanotechnology is uncertain.” Major coverage includes Cornelia Dean’s article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/science/nanomaterials-effects-on-health-and-environment-unclear-panel-says.html?_r=3&scp=1&sq=nanotechnology%20dean in the New York Times and Robert Service’s piece http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/nrc-report-calls-for-new-nano-safety.html#more for ScienceInsider, Science Magazine’s online policy blog. Meanwhile the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office has issued a press release http://nano.gov/node/737 emphasizing that the report credits the NNI with effectively moving nanomaterials-related EHS research forward while noting the many commonalities between the NRC strategy and the current NNI EHS research strategy http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_2011_ehs_research_strategy.pdf. These include:

- Utilization of lifecycle analysis
- Stakeholder participation and engagement
- Regular reviews in order to adapt to evolving research needs
- Increased research on human exposure, human health effects, and environmental effects
- Development of better characterization tools, exposure monitoring tools, and informatics infrastructure

NNCO has also posted a document providing direct comparisons http://nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nrc_and_nni_comparative_quotes_in_lthd_jan_30_2012.doc between the relevant sections of the two strategies. They have not commented as yet on what is sure to be one of the committee’s more controversial recommendations – that the coordination of nanoEHS research among the NNI agencies should not be part of the NNCO’s role but should vest in a separate entity with both budgetary and top-down programmatic authority. We are skeptical about this suggestion for both pragmatic and philosophical reasons:

1. Federal agencies are reluctant to cede budgetary authority and programmatic authority to other entities with distinct missions, and Congress does not like them to do so.

2. In the committee’s own words, “the development and use of new materials cannot be separated from questions of potential risk. Understanding and addressing the EHS implications of ENMs is intricately entwined with their development.”

Agencies whose primary mission is closely aligned with development – for example, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Science Foundation – have been major contributors to NNI’s EHS research portfolio so far. It is difficult to see how their level of interest and investment could be maintained if the coordination of EHS activities was rigidly separated from the rest of the NNI agenda.

But overall there is much to like in this report. We join the committee in noting the substantial progress that has been made in nano-EHS in the last five years, and are in agreement with many of its proposals for continuing to develop our knowledge of nanomaterial interactions in order to accelerate the responsible development of nanotechnology. This is a long and complex document, and we expect the discussion of specific recommendations to evolve as various interest groups identify and analyze parts they find particularly relevant. NanoBCA should be part of that discussion, asking ourselves whether the prioritization methods the committee recommends point to particular questions relevant to our members product development efforts, how we would benefit from participating in coordinated research, and what we have to contribute (knowledge, materials, resources). It will be important to remind many of the other interested parties that while the committee speaks of a knowledge gap, this should not be interpreted as meaning that we are currently incapable of adequately assessing the risks and benefits of individual nano-enabled products. The reference point for this report is not the regulatory review of individual nanomaterials but rather a model for moving beyond case-by-case analysis to assess classes of nanomaterials in a systematic, comprehensive way. The predictive capabilities and rapid evaluation techniques the committee envisions would certainly accelerate the development of safe, high performance nanomaterials and sustainable processes for manufacturing, using, and ultimately disposing of them. This would put our community in an enviable position. The challenge, from the industry perspective, is to get to this new, higher state of knowledge without placing an undue (and unequal) burden on commercial enterprises and without impeding the parallel progress of nanomaterials through the regulatory pathways we have all worked so hard to clarify.

————————————————————————————————————
Members of the Committee to Develop a Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials

JONATHAN M. SAMET (Chair), University of Southern California, Los Angeles

TINA BAHADORI, American Chemistry Council, Washington, DC

JURRON BRADLEY, BASF, Florham Park, NJ

SETH COE-SULLIVAN, QD Vision, Inc., Lexington, MA

VICKI L. COLVIN, Rice University, Houston, TX

EDWARD D. CRANDALL, University of Southern California, Los Angeles

RICHARD A. DENISON, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, DC

WILLIAM H. FARLAND, Colorado State University, Fort Collins

MARTIN FRITTS, SAIC-Frederick, Frederick, MD

PHILIP HOPKE, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY

JAMES E. HUTCHISON, University of Oregon, Eugene

REBECCA D. KLAPER, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

GREGORY V. LOWRY, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA

ANDREW MAYNARD, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor

GUNTER OBERDORSTER, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY

KATHLEEN M. REST, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA

MARK J. UTELL, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY

DAVID B. WARHEIT, DuPont Haskell Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences,
Newark, DE

MARK R. WIESNER, Duke University, Durham, NC

We have attempted to provide an unbiased view of the NRC report. Thank you for reading this lengthy analysis and please email any questions.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Commercialization Association
203-733-1949
vincent@nanobca.org
www.nanobca.org
www.vincentcaprio.org