National Nanotechnology Initiative Research Articles

NanoHUB.org: Advancing Education and Research in Nanotechnology

In 2002, the National Science Foundation established the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN), a network of universities supporting the National Nanotechnology Initiative by bringing computational tools online, making the tools easy to use, and supporting the tools with educational materials. Along the way, NCN created a unique cyberinfrastructure to support its Web site, nanoHUB.org, where researchers, educators, and professionals collaborate, share resources, and solve real nanotechnology problems. In 2007, nanoHUB.org served more than 56,000 users from 172 countries. In this article, the authors share their experiences in developing this cyberinfrastructure and using it, particularly in an educational context.

Modern Applications of Nanotechnology in Textiles

Nanotechnology (NT) deals with materials 1 to 100 nm in length. At the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), NT is defined as the understanding, manipulation, and control of matter at the above-stated length, such that the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the materials (individual atoms, molecules, and bulk matter) can be engineered, synthesized, and altered to develop the next generation of improved materials, devices, structures, and systems. NT at the molecular level can be used to develop desired textile characteristics, such as high tensile strength, unique surface structure, soft hand, durability, water repellency, fire retardancy, antimicrobial properties, and the like. Indeed, advances in NT have created enormous opportunities and challenges for the textile industry, including the cotton industry. The focus of this paper is to summarize recent applications of NT as they relate to textile fibers, yarns, and fabrics.

The rapidly growing field of micro and nanotechnology to measure living cells

L iving cells are complicated bioreactors with a plethora of multistage reaction sequences all occurring in concert to sustain the factory of life. As chemical engineers develop more sophisticated nanostructures and microdevices in coordination with electrical engineers and chemists, the ability to measure and monitor these cellular and subcellular processes is becoming a reality. Traditional cell analysis tools utilized over the last 25 years have predominantly been conducted at the macroscale. However, the trailing technology of the Silicon Revolution has been microfabricated laboratories on a chip (Lab-on-a-Chip), with the ability to interface micron-scale events and sensors with cell populations. The infusion of nanotechnology into this platform is even more recent and began after the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) flurry of research in this area. Today, micro and nanoscale technologies are routinely used to probe and manipulate living cells. Although a few platforms are currently available on consumer markets, the potential for economic growth is significant. This perspective focuses primarily on the progress made utilizing microscale devices and nanotechnology to probe living cells for applications as diverse as medical diagnostics, pathogen or bioterrorism detection, pharmaceutical screening and cancer detection. Microdevices (also called Lab-on-a-Chip (LOC), and micro Total Analytical Systems (mTAS)) are under development in labs across the globe because they have the potential to provide high-resolution, low-cost, and rapid analysis with small sample volumes for a wide range of biological and chemical applications. Such microdevices are designed to mimic laboratory processes in micro and nanoliter volumes by utilizing microchannels and microchambers fabricated into polymer or glass chips. Living cells can be studied within this platform as precisely controlled environmental conditions and single-cell manipulations are now possible. Most cell manipulation technology takes advantage of the significantly different probability of object interactions that occur at the microscale. For example, examining a 10 cm section of an approximately 4 in. dia. (100 mm) pipe, one finds that the inner surface area of the pipe is 0.03 m with a corresponding volume of 0.0008 m. The surface to volume ratio for this large channel is only about 40 m, while for a microchannel with a diameter of 100 microns and the same 10 cm long, the surface area and volume are three and six orders of magnitude smaller, respectively, but the ratio of surface area to volume is three orders of magnitude larger (540,000 m). This trend is briefly captured in Table 1 for spherical particles, as well as for channels. This means that liquid/solid interactions are much more prevalent, and as such, the surfaces can be utilized to impart forces on the fluid and the cells within the channel. This surface to volume attribute can be exploited further when moving three orders of magnitude smaller to nanoparticles. For instance, one can coat a 1-micron spherical cell with over 3 million 1 nm particles (no void space 5 4 million). Functionalizing a nanoparticle is fairly straightforward, as well because over 300 1-Angstrom molecules can fit on a 1 nm particle (no void space 5 400). Molecules that are used to functionalize surfaces require a high affinity and specificity for their target molecules. Antibodies, a highly specialized biological (immunological) recognition tag, are the most commonly utilized molecules for these purposes. In this perspective, discussions will focus on microfluidic device technologies for probing cellular level processes, molecular influences on cell responses, and cell to nanoparticle interactions.

CONGRESS ADDRESSES NANOTECHNOLOGY

ESTABLISHED IN 2001, the National Nanotechnology Initiative coordinates federal research and development. Over the past years, NNI has tried to keep pace with the growing field of nanotechnology, but it has struggled to set up a strategy to guide R&D and, specifically, to ensure that key environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research is being done. To help NNI better manage its responsibilities, Congress is reevaluating and revising the law that governs it. On June 5, by an overwhelming vote of 407 to 6, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5940, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008. Industry and environmental groups alike praised the bill, which emphasizes the need for EHS research. H.R. 5940 modifies the 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act, which President George W. Bush signed into law in December 2003. “The federal interagency nanotechnology research program has not yet put in place a well-designed, adequately funded, and effectively executed research program focused ...

Nanotechnologies in the biosciences

Nanotechnology is one of the key technologies of the 21st century. The broad field of nanotechnology (electronics, IT, biosciences, materials, etc.) has undergone explosive growth and development in the world since former US President Clinton announced the “National Nanotechnology Initiative” in 2000. In particular, the research area of nanotechnology in the biosciences, which is also called “nanobiotechnology”, is one of the very fast-developing and expanding fields of nanotechnology. This is a highly interdisciplinary field, which draws upon contributions from chemistry, physics, biology, materials science, medicine, and many forms of engineering, as shown in this special issue. Nanobiotechnology is a young and rapidly evolving field of research at the crossroads of biotechnology and nanotechnology, two interdisciplinary areas each of which combines advances in science and engineering (Fig. 1). Indeed much interesting research, for example single-molecule imaging and manipulation, single-cell imaging and manipulation, cell patterning, diagnosis of diseases, development of biosensor and POCT devices, etc., has been performed. Furthermore, challenging topics such as trafficking and molecular crowding analysis in a cell, biomachining and artificial cells, 3D cell patterning and tissue engineering, implantable DDS devices and implantable healthcare devices, and molecular computing will become targets for this technology. Although nanobiotechnology is still in an embryonic stage, we believe that this will bring us large benefits in the very near future. This special issue of Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry presents recent progress in the field of nanobiotechnology covering both regular research articles and reviews on the state of the art. The contributions contain a broad range of topics related to development and application of an Si-based ion-channel sensor, an artificial virus-like nano carrier for drug-delivery systems, DNA manipulation by motor protein, electrochemical-based bio-lithography, and so on. They give the reader a good impression of recent developments in this exciting field. Anal Bioanal Chem (2008) 391:2693–2694 DOI 10.1007/s00216-008-2191-9

Beyond Equal: From Same But Different to the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence

A same-but-different dichotomy has recently been encapsulated within the ill-defined concept of “substantial equivalence”. By invoking this concept the genetically modified organism (GMO) industry has escaped the rigors of safety testing that might otherwise apply. The curious concept of “substantial equivalence” grants a presumption of safety to GMO food. This presumption has yet to be earned, and has been used to constrain labelling of both GMO and non-GMO food. It is an idea that well serves corporatism. It enables the claim of difference to secure patent protection, while upholding the contrary claim of sameness to avoid labelling and safety scrutiny. It offers the best of both worlds for corporate food entrepreneurs, and delivers the worst of both worlds to consumers. The term “substantial equivalence” has established its currency within the GMO discourse. As the opportunities for patenting food technologies expand, the GMO recruitment of this concept will likely be a dress rehearsal for the developing debates on the labelling and testing of other techno-foods - including nano-foods and clone-foods.

Lawmakers fret over health, safety impacts of nanotechnology

As Congress reauthorizes the National Nanotechnology Initiative, groups petition the Environmental Protection Agency to step up its regulation of nanomaterials.

Big Promises: David Berube's Nano-Hype

Big Promises:David M. Berube’s Nano-Hype Bruce E. Seely (bio) In the spring of 2001, David Berube and a colleague from the University of South Carolina visited the National Science Foundation to talk to the program director for Science and Technology Studies (this reviewer) about support for projects examining the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), an interagency federal program focused on nano-scale science and technology, was just getting started and nanotechnology was being identified as the "next big thing" by many in the domestic and international science, engineering, and science-policy communities. Since then, funding in the United States has exceeded $1 billion annually, with similar amounts devoted to research in Europe, in Japan, and in south Asia. Berube's NSF visit was the first step in creating a program of nanotechnology research at South Carolina that led, among other things, to Nano-Hype.1 Berube's is an important study about a significant subject. Since the human genome project in the 1980s, large-scale science and technology research initiatives by the federal government have required attention to the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of emergent fields. NNI borrowed explicitly from the genome project in establishing such a requirement as a very visible element of its research program, in part to limit the type of resistance that surrounded recombinant DNA research and the commercialization of genetically modified organisms. Berube discusses all [End Page 234] of this and much more; indeed, he provides the first detailed study specifically concerned with the societal implications of nanotechnology, including the challenges and obstacles facing societal-implications scholarship. The book's title identifies Berube's organizing theme for exploring the societal implications of research related to exploiting nature at the nano scale (10-9 meters); it is his principal concern. Correctly observing that hype has been a pervasive feature of this rapidly growing research arena, he examines the various reasons that supporters of the NNI and nanotechnology have used to justify the massive commitment of funds: enormous economic payoffs in the form of new technologies; fundamental transformations in the nature of science and technology itself; the insuring of national competitiveness and national security. Indeed, some promoters of nanotechnology promise that it will change everything. They consider it to be the most important development since the Industrial Revolution, since printing, or even since the development of agriculture. Hype indeed! Historians of technology and science inevitably question such claims, and Berube seeks to examine why so very much is claimed for this emerging field. He finds first of all that the development of nanotechnology research has rested to a significant degree on uncritical assertions, on salesmanship, on hype, and his book performs a valuable service in opening to view and studying this phenomenon. But it is also significant that Berube aims to provide more than a detailed review of the societal implications of nanotechnology. As he states early on, "My goal is to provide the reader with a better understanding of how nanotechnology has been communicated to the many audiences willing, sometimes even anxious, to listen" (p. 23). In fact, this volume amounts to a primer that identifies many of the actors involved in the process of developing nanotechnology. After an opening section that specifically reviews the question of hyping nanotechnology, Berube offers chapters on the agencies and officials concerned with nanotechnology, on the governmental initiatives (U.S. and otherwise) funding it, on the promotional reports behind it, and on NGOs. In addition, there are chapters on likely fields of application and on nanohazards and nanotoxicology. The two concluding chapters return to the societal-implications question and to the role of the public in the decision-making process. Thus the book attempts to survey a very broad area. In general it achieves its goals, addressing both the specific question of the place of hype in nanotechnology and the wider attempt to present a snapshot of the entire field at this early stage of its development. But there are some issues worth raising, for—as Berube is well aware—it matters that this first STS review of nanotechnology gets things right. The book rests on an immense research...

Understanding reflexive systems of innovation: An analysis of Swedish nanotechnology discourse and organization

We seek to understand how nanotechnology can contribute to the development of a more sustainable society in general, and to investigate Swedish nanotechnology in particular. On the one hand, the research interest is on how nanoscience can be turned into used products, that is, innovation. On the other hand, we acknowledge that innovation itself is the main producer of risk in modern societies. Inspired by sociology and economics of innovation, we try to capture this by introducing the term ‘reflexive system of innovation’ to denote a system made up of heterogenous elements, such as discursive components (expressions of knowledge and normative and regulative stands) and organizational components (actors and knowledge), evolving in a non-linear way through external influences as well as self re-enforcing and self-regulating processes. We present the evolution of a Swedish nanotechnology system from the 1980s to the present, as it moves through phases characterized by different kinds of discourse and organization. Evaluating the Swedish case against the concept of a reflexive system of innovation, we find advanced academic knowledge production but a lack of interconnectivity between actors, few actors outside the research community entering the system and a weak function of anticipation, guidance and risk handling. Broad national nanotechnology initiatives (NNIs) may be important for the crystallization of the desired processes, but because neither innovation nor risk can be fully contained, an NNI may only be part of the input to a fully fledged reflexive system of innovation in nanotechnology.

Technology roadmapping through intelligence analysis: case of nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is predicted to create the Sixth Kondratieff period following the 'age of information'. It represents a new revolutionary approach in fundamental research moving from a macrocentric to nanocentric system. Nanotechnology is expected to stimulate one trillion dollars of production involving about two million workers in the next ten to 15 years. More than 40 countries now have specific nanotechnology research funding programs with the common goal of finding greater uses for the emerging technologies and enacting measures to encourage commercialisation. This study uses text mining to uncover trends in nanotechnology and changes in nanotechnology programs and applications since the first distribution of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) funds in 2001. Top keywords in current nanotechnology research will be analysed to provide insight into the translation of government funding invested in applied research programs to resulting publications and patents. Future work will extend this text...

NNI in the Future

The article presents the revised strategic nanotechnology program of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The development of the nanotechnology research infrastructure via the new plans contained in the NNI is found to be very promising. Comprehensive R&D programs are created to provide the US a competitive edge.

Nanotechnology and Social Context

The central claims defended in this article are the following: (a) The social and ethical challenges of nanotechnology can be fully identified only if both the characteristic features of nanotechnologies and the social contexts into which they are emerging are considered. (b) When this is done, a host of significant social context issues, or issues that arise as a result of problematic features of the social contexts into which nanotechnology is emerging, become salient. (c) These issues can only be addressed by remedying the problematic features of the social contexts, which cannot be accomplished by technology design or risk management alone. (d) The U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative's conceptualization and operationalization of responsible development does not adequately recognize the significance of social context issues to responsible development. (e) Therefore, the National Nanotechnology Initiative is not yet comprehensive and needs to be expanded with respect to identifying and addressing social context issues.

Time lag assessment between research funding and output in emerging technologies

PurposeIn this paper, an analysis is presented of the research funding towards nanotechnology at the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and its relationship to the research output in Nanoscope, an application area of nanotechnology.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyzes the data collected from 1997 till 2006 and derives a definitive time lag between the allocation of research funds and issued patents and published journals. This assessment is achieved by identifying growth trends in patents, funds and publications and doing a curve‐fit analysis using the Fisher‐Pry model. Linear regression analysis is used to show the correlation between the funding and research outputs. Alongside, non‐linear programming objective function optimization technique is used to derive the time lag in years for each of the research outputs from the year of funds granted.FindingsThis paper demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between research funding and different research outputs. The time lag between funding and patents issued is evident from the patent trend analysis and Bibliometric analysis. In the case of Nanoscope, the patent time lag was found to be approximately five to six years, for journal article it was approximately two to three years and conference presentations happened right after the funding. The research outputs showed similar trends and were found to be interdependent as evident from our mathematical analysis.Research limitations/implicationsWhile this study has shown that lag times exist within the chosen example of Nanoscope, and furthermore can be calculated to a precise degree, further data points in terms of additional emerging technologies would support the hypothesis in a more general term. A future study can look at developing technology roadmaps of the future based on the funding happening today.Originality/valueThe work takes bibliometric analysis to a further intelligence and establishes key linkages between these indicators.

Patents and Nanomedicine

Big pharma's business model, which relies on a few blockbusters to generate profits, is clearly broken. Patent expiration on numerous blockbusters in recent years is already altering the drug landscape. Drug companies are also facing other challenges that necessitate development and implementation of novel R&D strategies, including those that focus on nanotechnology and miniaturization. Clearly, there is enormous excitement and expectation regarding nanomedicine's potential impact. However, securing valid and defensible patent protection will be critical. Although early forecasts for nanomedicine commercialization are encouraging, there are numerous bottlenecks as well. One of the major hurdles is an emerging thicket of patent claims, resulting primarily from patent proliferation as well as continued issuance of surprisingly broad patents by the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Adding to this confusion is the fact that the US National Nanotechnology Initiative's widely cited definition of nanotechnology is inaccurate and irrelevant from a nanomedicine perspective. It is also the cause of the inadequate patent classification system that was recently unveiled by the PTO. All of this is creating a chaotic, tangled patent landscape in various sectors of nanomedicine where the competing players are unsure of the validity and enforceability of numerous issued patents. If this trend continues, it could stifle competition and limit access to some inventions. Therefore, reforms are urgently needed at the PTO to address problems ranging from poor patent quality and questionable examination practices to inadequate search capabilities, rising attrition, poor employee morale and a skyrocketing patent application backlog. Only a robust patent system will stimulate the development of commercially viable nanomedicine products that can drastically improve a patient's quality of life and reduce healthcare costs.

Network Position, Research Funding and Interdisciplinary Collaboration among Nanotechnology Scientists: An Application of Social Network Analysis

The social dimensions of nanotechnology have aroused widespread interests in recent years. In US, for example, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) mandates that a large amount of funding resources to be allocated for studying the societal implications of nanotechnology. Since NNI took effect in 2001, teaching and research in the social dimensions of nanotechnology have grown tremendously [1]. Advances in social network analysis have opened up new research opportunities to understand nanotechnology research and development. In particular, understanding scientific collaboration can help researchers and entrepreneurs better strategize and exploit research opportunities in nanotechnology. Moreover, social network analysis relies heavily on quantitative measures. This feature may serve as a bridge between natural and social scientists to jointly investigate the future directions of nanotechnology research and development (R&D). Using a social network analysis framework, this paper examines the patterns of intra- and inter-disciplinary collaborations among nanotechnology scientists. As an exploratory study, I discuss three methodological issues after reporting some descriptive results. First, the collaborative density used in this study is only one structural measure among many others. When investigating network positions, researchers can utilize other network measures according to specific purposes. Second, generalization may be methodologically problematic for network data. Accordingly, researchers should ascertain the plausibility of probability assumptions. Finally, Bayesian estimates allow researchers to combine beliefs about prior distribution and sample likelihood. Assuming a beta-binomial model, I present a set of Bayesian estimates.

IJN's second year is now a part of nanomedicine history!

Welcome to the second year of the International Journal of Nanomedicine! As our readers know, nanomedicine research worldwide is going strong. As an example, the US National Science Foundation forecasts that the global market for nanotechnology-related products and services will reach US$1 trillion by 2015 (NSF 2007). Nanomedicine may be defined as the monitoring, repair, construction, and control of human biological systems using engineered nanodevices and nanostructures at the molecular level. Although this definition still seems quite broad and all-encompassing, it is clear that this definition is founded on the design, synthesis, and evaluation of nanomaterials in medicine. Basic nanostructured materials, engineered enzymes, and the many products of biotechnology will be enormously useful in near-term medical applications (Foresight 2007b). One part of nanomedicine is the development of precisely controlled or programmable medical nanomachines and nanorobots. Such microscopic machines were first hypothesized by the Nobel-winning physicist Richard Feynman in 1959, and later were described at length by K Eric Drexler in his popular books Engines of Creation (1986) and Unbounding the Future (1991), and in his more recent technical book Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation (1992) (Foresight 2007b). While we are often focused on the future of the field of nanomedicine, it is equally important to consider its past. Below is a list of critical dates in the field of nanotechnology, and the outgrowth of nanomedicine from nanotechnology that we must never forget (Foresight 2007a): 1959 Richard Feynman gives an after-dinner talk describing molecular machines building with atomic precision, believed to the first time nanotechnology is proposed as a research initiative that could revolutionize science. 1974 Norio Taniguchi (1974) uses term “nanotechnology” in paper on ion-sputter machining. 1986 The Atomic Force Microscope is invented which has subsequently allowed for unprecedented control over nanomaterial design and characterization. 1987 First university symposium “Exploring Nanotechnology” on Jan 20th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, US. 1988 First university course at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, US: “Nanotechnology and Exploratory Engineering”. 1990 First nanotechnology journal called Nanotechnology published. 1996 First nanobio conference by International Business Communications “Biological Approaches and Novel Applications for Molecular Nanotechnology” December 9–10, 1996, in San Diego, CA, US. 1998 First study demonstrating increased tissue growth on nanostructures compared with currently used materials (Webster et al 1998). 2000 US President Clinton announces US National Nanotechnology Initiative. 2003 Congressional hearings on societal implications of nanotechnology. 2006 Reflecting the worldwide interest in nanomedicine, the first international journal in nanomedicine is created: International Journal of Nanomedicine. View it in a separate window Welcome to the International Journal of Nanomedicine’s second year, now a part of history.

Nano-Bio-Genesis: tracing the rise of nanotechnology and nanobiotechnology as 'big science'

Nanotechnology research has lately been of intense interest because of its perceived potential for many diverse fields of science. Nanotechnology's tools have found application in diverse fields, from biology to device physics. By the 1990s, there was a concerted effort in the United States to develop a national initiative to promote such research. The success of this effort led to a significant influx of resources and interest in nanotechnology and nanobiotechnology and to the establishment of centralized research programs and facilities. Further government initiatives (at federal, state, and local levels) have firmly cemented these disciplines as 'big science,' with efforts increasingly concentrated at select laboratories and centers. In many respects, these trends mirror certain changes in academic science over the past twenty years, with a greater emphasis on applied science and research that can be more directly utilized for commercial applications.We also compare the National Nanotechnology Initiative and its successors to the Human Genome Project, another large-scale, government funded initiative. These precedents made acceptance of shifts in nanotechnology easier for researchers to accept, as they followed trends already established within most fields of science. Finally, these trends are examined in the design of technologies for detection and treatment of cancer, through the Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer initiative of the National Cancer Institute. Federal funding of these nanotechnology initiatives has allowed for expansion into diverse fields and the impetus for expanding the scope of research of several fields, especially biomedicine, though the ultimate utility and impact of all these efforts remains to be seen.

Health and medicine in the national nanotechnology initiative

Health and medicine in the national nanotechnology initiative

The entangled dance of physics

Physics so permeates today’s world that we often can’t even see it.

FDA holds public meeting on nanotechnology

The issue of whether good things really do come in small packages formed the backdrop for FDA’s first-ever public meeting about the regulation of nanotechnology products, held October 10 in Bethesda, Maryland. “FDA recognizes that nanotechnology has a great potential to promote public health through advances in medical products,” said Randall Lutter, cochair of FDA’s 23-member nanotechnology task force. Lutter said he hoped the meeting would “increase [FDA’s] awareness of both the challenges and the opportunities that nanotechnology may provide and how we can best meet those challenges and opportunities.” A nanometer is a billionth of a meter, which is less than half the diameter of a DNA strand. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a program that coordinates the work of FDA and other federal agencies on nanoscale science, engineering, and technology, defines nanotechnology as “the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometers, w here unique phenomena enable novel applications.”