AM Slide #1Nanotechnology in Society Principal Investigators Meeting 2006 NanoConnection to Society NANOTECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS MEETING

AM Slide #1Nanotechnology in Society Principal Investigator’s Meeting 2006

NanoConnection to Society

NANOTECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS’ MEETINGFEBRUARY 8, 2006 · ARLINGTON, VA · NSF ROOM II-595

Lead Institution: Harvard University

Co-Directors: Richard Freeman (Harvard)Lynne Zucker (UCLA)

In Attendance: Lynne Zucker (UCLA)Sharon Friedman (Lehigh)Vivian Weil (IIT)Mark Wiesner (Rice/Duke)Wei-xian Zhang (Lehigh)

Morning Session: Research & Research Related Activities


Research & Research Related Activities

• Major research foci• Pilot development of NanoEthicsBank• Pilot development of NanoEnvironBank• Patent flow and distribution• Design and validation of NanoIndicator series• NanoConnection.net design• Conclusions



• Major research foci• Pilot development of NanoEthicsBank• Pilot development of NanoEnvironBank• Patent flow and distribution• Design and validation of NanoIndicator series• NanoConnection.net design• Conclusions


Intellectual Foci: Research Activities

• Generate quality nano info -> open to all– Pilot NanoEthicsBank: ethical standards; regulations– Pilot NanoEnvironbank: impacts, known now &

predicted– NanoConnection goal: fully google indexed

• Pilot NanoIndicators -> over time, comparative• Validate indicators: predictive ability

– Media & public: Nano risk perception, expectations– Nano labor supply & demand– Nano spillovers: nano to stem cells example



• Major research foci

• Pilot development of NanoEthicsBank

• Pilot development of NanoEnvironBank• Patent flow and distribution• Design and validation of NanoIndicator series• NanoConnection.net design• Conclusions


NanoEthics Bank Intellectual Foci

• Normative materials: Policies & codes– Multidisiciplinarity; responsible practices– NanoIndicators: When, why (triggers), # nano

• Regulatory documents– NanoIndicators: counts, chronology

• Ethics & nano activities tracked & documented– Public forums, ethnographic study - nano enterprises

• Investigative reports of harmful nano effects


NanoEthicsBank: Expected Value

• Track emerging ethical issues– Flood of materials in last 5 months– Help firms adopt standards of care with public input

• Screen materials, e.g. through formal panel• Identify ethics content, resources, groups

– Facilitate communication across boundaries– Education materials: analysis of ethics in nano

• Public involvement & influence -> success of nano



• Research foci• Pilot development of NanoEthicsBank

• Pilot development of NanoEnvironBank

• Patent flow and distribution• Design and validation of NanoIndicator series• NanoConnection.net design• Conclusions


On-going effort to date:Risk assessment of nanomaterials

fabrication

risk assessment public perception commercialization

Recently published, this methodutilizes less expensive inputmaterials than predecessors;current commercial methods areunknown to the authors

Self assembly of zincselenide quantum dots ina microemulsion

Karanikolos etal.

ZnSe quantumdots

Proprietary process modifiedfrom the reference currently inuse for mass production ~1500ton/year

Production of C60 and C70fullerenes in premixedlaminar benzene-oxygen-argon flame

Howard et al.C60

Currently in use for commercialproduction

Aqueous synthesis andsubsequent thermolysis ofalumoxane

Callender et al.Alumoxanenanoparticles


Gas-phase chemical-vapor-deposition processknown as the HiPcoprocess

Bronikowski etal.

SWNTs


Production of nanosizedTiO2 through hydrolysisand calcinations withchemical additives tocontrol particle size

Duyvesten et al.TiO2nanoparticles

Commercial statusDescriptionReferenceNanomaterial

Cumulative Risk Incident Score

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

SWNT

C60

Q-dots

Alum

oxane

Nano-T

iO2

Silico

n Waf

ers

Win

e

Polyet

hylen

e

Compute

r Ass

embly

Petro

leum

Ref

inin

g (Whole

Fac

ility

)

Cu

mu

lati

ve

EW

I S

core

s

CumulativeRisk Score

Pharmaceuticals (Whole Facility)

= 3988


Next Steps

• Risk identification & assessment -> insurance model

• Identify critical industries & uses– Support life cycle assessment (LCA)– Risks in workplace

• Market assessment: potential impact– Selected nanomaterials industries

• Interface: public perception of risk & attitudes– Location of nanomaterials fabrication facilities– Using nanomaterial-derived products



• Major research foci• Pilot development of NanoEthicsBank• Pilot development of NanoEnvironBank

• Patent Flow and Distribution• Design and validation of NanoIndicator series• NanoConnection.net design• Conclusions


Nanotech Patent Quality & Scope

• Examiner and applicant inserted prior art cited in nano patents– Linked to “patent quality” in previous research (Sampat 2005)– Hard to identify prior art in nanotech vis-à-vis other fields

(USPTO)– Effects of new nanotechnology patent class (Class 977)

• Nano: more claim changes in prosecution? – Narrower patent scope (via the doctrine of equivalents – Festo)

• Patent-based NanoIndicators – being developed• Also: Georgia Tech Patent Working Group

– Arizona State/Harvard CNS collaboration discussed in pm powerpoint



• Major research foci• Pilot development of NanoEthicsBank• Pilot development of NanoEnvironBank• Patent Flow and Distribution

• Design and validation of NanoIndicator series

• NanoConnection.net design• Conclusions


Nano: Media and Public Perception

• Nano-risk: Next figure shows number of articles US&UK

– Oversight issue in minority of articles

• Under 40% new/tighten regulation; under 16% side effects like asbestos

• Second figure shows number of publications on nano

– Commercial representations grow; alternative/futuristic decline

• Societal perceptions of nanotech, 4 surveys (S. Currall)

– Moderate in societal benefits & risks (closest to stem cells out of 43 others including biotech, GMO); more weight on benefits than risks

• sample size over 5K across web and telephone

– When FDA approved, more likely to use medical nano product1. From: “U.S. and U.K. Media Coverage of Nanotechnology’s Environmental and Health Risks,” Sharon M. Friedman and Brenda P. Egolf, December 2005. © Sharon M. Friedman; 2. © Stine Grodal 2006


Number of risk articles in U.S. and U.K. newspapers and wire services every six

months from 2000-2004

02468

101214161820

2000-1 2000-2 2001-1 2001-2 2002-1 2002-2 2003-1 2003-2 2004-1 2004-2

Number

U.S.

U.K.

From: “U.S. and U.K. Media Coverage of Nanotechnology’s Environmental and Health Risks,” Sharon M. Friedman and Brenda P. Egolf, December 2005.© Sharon M. Friedman


Nanoindicators in Text

The graph shows the development in the use of commercial and alternative/futuristic words in nanotechnology related articles in the Top 50 US Newspapers over the last 20 years.

© Stine Grodal 2006, Stanford University


Nano Labor Supply; Nano Spillovers

• Indicator of labor supply of S & E with nano-orientation– “Nano” courses at nano-active (NNIN) universities – next figure– To do: measure of NSF’s affect on pipeline

• Compare offered courses at NNIN institutes vs. schools with less nano-funding

• Nano spillovers to other science areas– Second Figure shows example of spillover: nano & stem cells

• Roughly a fifth of stem cell patents also nanotech patents

• Danger in these analyses– Hype: courses described as “nano”, patents containing nano-

relevant terms, but with varying content– Still on rise of sigmoid curve for recognition of what is “nano”.


Growing use of “nano” by Instructors

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year*

Nu

mb

er o

f C

ou

rses

Number of course descriptions containing “nano” at Institutions with NNIN Facilities

* 2006 refers to 2005-2006 course catalog, etc.; Freeman, Stephan, Chang 2006

NNIN Institutions1. Cornell2. Stanford3. GaTech4. U. Washington5. U. Michigan6. U. Minnesota7. Penn State U.8. UCSB9. U. Texas Austin10. U. New Mexico11. Harvard12. Howard U.13. NCSU


Patents Classified as Both Nanotechnology and Stem Cell as Percent of Total Stem-Cell Patents

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Nanotechnology & Stem-Cell PatentsTotal Stem-Cell Patents

Nanotechnology & Human Embryonic Stem-Cell PatentsTotal Human Embryonic Stem-Cell Patents

Source: Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, “Real Effects of Policy Change in Industry Development in Stem Cells,” paper presented at Stem Cells: Promise and Peril in Regenerative Medicine Conference, UCLA, February 4, 2006.



• Major research foci• Pilot development of NanoEthicsBank• Pilot development of NanoEnvironBank• Patent flow and distribution• Design and validation of NanoIndicator series

• NanoConnection.net design• Conclusions


NanoConnection.net

Figure 1. NanoConnection to Stakeholders, Other Centers and the Nano Research Community

NanoConnection.net (pilot site)NanoBank.org, NNIN, Nano-Science and

Other NSECs, NIRTs, Pilot Education and Public Outreach/Information Program Technology ResearchOther Major Research Community, Social Projects and Centers Science Community

Pilot DatabasesNanoEnvironBank NanoIndicators NanoEthicsBank

Studies of NanoIndicator Design and NanoPatent Validation Studies ConcernFlow and IndicatorsDistribution

Students andTeachers

ProfessionalAssociations Finance

Industry and GovernmentAt All Levels

ConcernedPublic

The Media NGOs



• Major research foci• Pilot development of NanoEthicsBank• Pilot development of NanoEnvironBank• Patent flow and distribution• Design and validation of NanoIndicator series• NanoConnection.net design

• Conclusions


Conclusions

• Generate quality nano info -> open to all– Pilot NanoEthicsBank: ethical standards; regulations– Pilot NanoEnvironbank: impacts, known now & predicted– NanoConnection goal: fully google indexed

• Pilot NanoIndicators -> unfolding stability/change in nano• Validate indicators: predictive ability

– Media & public: Amount/change in nano risk perception, use?– Nano labor supply & demand; NSF funding effects?– Nano spillovers: nano to stem cells; other spillovers?

• Danger in analyses– Still on rise of sigmoid curve for recognition of what is “nano”

Documents

AM Slide #1Nanotechnology in Society Principal Investigators Meeting 2006 NanoConnection to Society NANOTECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS MEETING