**List and Abstracts of NSF funded projects in FY 2008**

**Presented at: 2008 NSF Grantees Meeting on**

**Societal Dimensions of Nanotechnology**

28-29 July 2008

  --------- ------------- ------------------------------- --------------- -------------- -------------
  Award \#  PI            Project Title                   Institution     Award amount   Duration

  0531160   Davis Baird   Nanotechnology in Society       University of   \$1,375,000    10/05-10/10
                          Project \-- Imaging, Scientific South Carolina                 
                          Change and Public Understanding                                
                          of Emerging Technologies                                       

  0708413   Richard Barke NER: Representations of Active  Georgia         \$85,417       9/07-9/09
                          Nanostructures Across           Institute of                   
                          Scientific, Popular, and Policy Technology                     
                          Realms of Discourse                                            

  0532536   Lawrence Bell Nanoscale Informal Science      Boston Museum   \$22,492,072   10/05-10/10
                          Education Network               of Science                     

  0809470   David Berube  NIRT: Intuitive Toxicology and  North Carolina  \$1,399,258    9/08-9/11
                          Public Engagement               State                          
                                                          University                     

  0609078   Christopher   NIRT: Nanotechnology in the     Northeastern    \$1,400,000    9/06-9/10
            Bosso         Public Interest: Regulatory     University                     
                          Challenges, Capacity, and                                      
                          Policy Recommendations                                         

  0426328   Robert Chang  NCLT: A Center to Develop       Northwestern    \$6,000,000    10/04-10/06
                          Nanoscale Science and           University                     
                          Engineering Educators with                                     
                          Leadership Capabilities                                        

  0531146   Richard       Nanotechnology in Society       Harvard         \$1,725,000    9/05-9/10
            Freeman       Project \-- Nano Connection to  University                     
                          Society                                                        

  0608986   Paul          NER: Nanotechnology and Science Pennsylvania    \$85,000       8/06-8/08
            Hallacher     Federalism                      State                          
                                                          University                     

  0741363   Justin Hanes  New Undergraduate Engineering   Johns Hopkins   \$199,993      1/08-1/10
                          Minor in Nanotechnology Risk    University                     
                          Assessment and Public Policy                                   

  0403783   Roger Geiger  Nanotechnology and its Publics  Pennsylvania    \$199,887      7/04-7/06
                                                          State                          
                                                          University                     

  0531194   David Guston  NSEC: Center for Nanotechnology Arizona State   \$6,220,000    10/05-10/10
                          in Society at ASU               University                     

  0824042   Barbara       Deliberating Nanotechnologies   University of   \$249,996      10/08-10/10
            Harthorn      in the US: Gendered Beliefs     California,                    
                          about Benefits and Risks as     Santa Barbara                  
                          Factors in Emerging Public                                     
                          Perception and Participation                                   

  0531184   Barbara       NSEC: Center for Nanotechnology University of   \$5,035,000    1/06-1/11
            Harthorn      in Society at UCSB              California,                    
                                                          Santa Barbara                  

  0425626   Ly James Lee  NSEC: Center for Affordable     Ohio State      \$12,923,000   9/04-9/09
                          Nanoengineering of Polymer      University                     
                          Biomedical Devices                                             

  0609073   Eric          NER: Contours of Nano-Problems  Texas A&M       \$74,519       9/06-9/08
            Lindquist     and Solutions and the Societal  University                     
                          and Educational Challenge of                                   
                          Active Nanoscale Technology                                    

  0822757   Michael Lynch Visualization at the Nanoscale: Cornell         \$111,929      8/08-8/09
                          The Uses of Images in the       University                     
                          Production and Promotion of                                    
                          Nanoscience and Nanotechnology                                 

  0620694   Fritz         Ethical Issues in               Western         \$134,936      9/06-9/09
            Allhoff/      Nanotechnology and Human        Michigan                       
            James H.      Enhancement                     University/                    
            **M**oor                                      Dartmouth                      
                                                          College                        

  0425880   Paul Nealey   NSEC: Templated Synthesis and   University of   \$13,365,000   9/04-9/09
                          Assembly at the Nanoscale       Wisconsin                      

  0758195   Susanna       NER: Building Capacity for      University of   \$128,769      9/07-12/09
            Priest        Understanding and Assessing the Nevada Las                     
                          Impact of Nanotechnology Media  Vegas                          
                          Messages: Toward a Long-Term                                   
                          Strategy for Improving Public                                  
                          Communication about Emerging                                   
                          Technologies                                                   

  0531171   James Watkins NSEC: Center for Hierarchical   University of   \$16,000,000   4/06-4/11
                          Manufacturing                   Massachusetts                  
                                                          Amherst                        

  0608791   Susan Wolf    NIRT: Evaluating Oversight      University of   \$1,220,765    9/06-9/10
                          Models for Active               Minnesota                      
                          Nanostructures and Nanosystems:                                
                          Learning from Past Technologies                                
                          in a Societal Context                                          

  0708914   Nathan Swami  NER: Scenario Analysis for      University of   \$130,000      9/07-9/09
                          Upstream Identification of      Virginia                       
                          Risks and Opportunities from                                   
                          Nanotechnology                                                 

  0403847   Paul Thompson NIRT: Building Capacity for     Michigan State  \$1,720,000    8/04-8/09
                          Social and Ethical Research and University                     
                          Education in Agrifood                                          
                          Nanotechnology                                                 

  0335765   Sandip Tiwari NNIN: National Nanotechnology   Cornell         \$70,000,000   3/04-3/09
                          Infrastructure Network          University                     
  --------- ------------- ------------------------------- --------------- -------------- -------------

**PI: Davis Baird**

**Title: Nanotechnology in Society Project Imaging, Scientific Change
and Public Understanding of Emerging Nanotechnologies**

**Award #0531160**

**University of South Carolina**

*Introduction.* The Nano in Society group at the University of South
Carolina, which is one of five thrust areas of research in the USC
NanoCenter, focuses on 4 distinct but related areas: (1) Environment and
Risk Perception, (2) Research Culture and Nanomaterials, (3) Ethics and
the Public, and (4) Imaging, Imagining, and Understanding. Kevin Elliott
has reported separately on area (1). This brief report will focus on
areas (2), (3), and (4).

*Research Culture and Nanomaterials.* This work has recently been
focused on three key areas: the relationship between theory and
application in nanoscience and technology, the role of industry
benchmarking (especially in chemical engineering) in the development of
nanotechnology, and the relationship between simulation and prediction
in nanoscience. In each case, the fundamental lessons and goals are both
historical and epistemological, both theoretical and practical. For
example, some members of our group have undertaken a project to
investigate the nano-community\'s awareness---both at present and
historically---of the spatial tolerances currently achieved in magnetic
recording, in order to produce a model of the interactions and
isolations of nanotechnology sub-communities, and to identify where
current and future nanotechnologies fail to connect. Such failures
clearly have an impact on nanomanufacturing innovation. This work is
being undertaken alongside and jointly with scientific efforts to assess
the capacity for magnetic recording as a technology for parallel
assembly of nanostructures into larger devices with \< 10nm resolution.

*Ethics and the Public.* The USC Nano in Society group continues to
serve as a consultant to NSECs to help them develop the ethics component
of their mission. Several members of the group are also currently in the
midst of a project, "Complexity, Systems, and Control in
Nanobiotechnology: Developing a Framework for Understanding and Managing
Uncertainty Associated with Radically Disruptive Technologies". This
project has produced several publications aimed at developing our
understanding of the ethical and societal considerations that need to be
brought to bear on the question of how to manage the potentially radical
changes in medicine that may be brought on by nanotechnology. As is
typical of the work done by the group at USC, this project is deeply
inter-disciplinary, involving, primarily, a philosopher, a geneticist,
and a mathematician. In addition to this work, we have continued our
work on the South Carolina Citizen's School, as well as other outreach
projects.

*Imaging, Imagining, and Understanding.* In 2007, the USC group put on a
major international workshop entitled "Images of the Nanoscale: From
Creation to Consumption". This workshop brought together researchers
from a wide variety of fields, including physics, chemistry, material
science, engineering, history, media studies, art, philosophy, and more,
including some participants from industry. They engaged in both formal
and informal conversation about a variety of topics, ranging from the
epistemology of images of the nanoscale, to the conventions that are
typically adopted in their production, to the proliferation of the
images into various extra-scientific realms, to the stories that such
images tell, either explicitly or implicitly. Several participants have
since been brought together to undertake inter-disciplinary projects on
a variety of topics, the results of which will be published in the
journal *Leonardo*.

I should mention as well that USC will host the first conference of a
newly formed international society for the study of nanoscience and
technology in society. Following a two-day meeting at USC, an
international acting executive committee was formed and is in the early
stages of organization.

**PI: Richard Barke**

**Title: Representations of Active Nanostructures across Scientific,**

**Popular, and Policy Realms of Discourse**

**Award #0708413**

**Georgia Tech**

The emergence of active nanostructures and nanosystems (ANN) will
challenge existing economic, social, and political systems in ways that
are qualitatively different and much more rapid that previous
technological revolutions. These effects of ANN will be a combination of
the completely unfamiliar, the previously experienced, and the roughly
analogous. How will social and political systems adapt to these changes
and how will these technologies and their effects be understood and
described? Many writers will use both familiar and new methods of
scientific and popular communication to bridge the gap between public
understanding, entirely new technological systems, and policy responses.
Studies of the public's understanding of nanotechnology to determine
their likely concerns and fears, and research on how to engage the
public in a rational, informed dialogue about the risks and benefits of
the technology are both underway, but we also know that regulations
often are shaped by perceptions of risks and benefits and by the framing
of issues using narratives, metaphors, and imagery.

This project will to study how the values and preferences of scientists,
the public, and policymakers on the issue of "how to regulate active
nanostructures and nanosystems" are shaped by the way they understand
and describe the emerging technology across three spheres of
communication. *Disjunctions among the scientific, public, and policy
realms of discourse* could have profound effects on how well the new
regulatory systems for ANN are able to balance risks and benefits. As an
exploratory research project, intended to be the first step in a more
extensive cross-national study of the realms of discourse concerning
nanotechnology development, this effort will draw upon, and contribute
to, research on risk perception, science, and regulatory policy;
computer-aided analysis of technical textual information; nanotechnology
research in electronics and photonics; and literary studies and
science/technology fiction.

The project will consist of three interrelated parts, each drawing on a
different intellectual tradition and methodology, but converging to
offer a unique perspective on the flow of ideas among the scientific,
popular, and policymaking realms. First, techniques of literary analysis
will be used to examine **t**he use of metaphors, tropes, and story
types (e.g., "fantastic journeys," "evil scientists," "swarms") to
provide expert, popular science, and science fiction writers with ways
to make sense of new sciences and technologies to a wide range of
audiences, including other scientists, the public, and decision makers.
Second, scientific and other literature will be explored using powerful
text-mining techniques, looking at term occurrences or co-occurrences,
which will be meshed with reading-based approaches. Third, discourse
analysis will be used examine the storylines, frames, and discourse
coalitions that appear to be shaping the debate over nanotechnology
policy in canonical policy documents from, e.g., NSF, EPA, and Congress.

**Intellectual Merit**: A major goal of this NER project will be to
advance scholarly collaboration of humanities-based and social
scientific modes of textual analysis by extending several techniques to
study ANN and explore areas of conceptual and methodological
convergence.

**Broader Impacts**: This study should provide insights for scholars,
educators, and policy makers about how ANN issues are being framed, and
how regulatory policies can avoid inappropriate reactions based on
incomplete or inaccurate representations of ANN.

**PI: Larry Bell**

**Title: Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network**

**Award #: 0532536**

**Museum of Science, Boston, in partnership with the Exploratorium,
San**

**Francisco, and the Science Museum of Minnesota, St. Paul**

This project has established the Nanoscale Informal Science Education
Network (NISE Net), a national community of researchers and informal
science educators dedicated to fostering public awareness, engagement,
and understanding of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology. The
Network is currently funded by a five-year cooperative agreement between
the National Science Foundation and the Museum of Science in Boston, and
the Museum's core partners: the Science Museum of Minnesota and the
Exploratorium.

Additional NISE Net subawardees, past and present, include:

Oregon Museum of Science and Industry

Museum of Life and Science (North Carolina)

Sciencenter (Ithaca)

Fort Worth Museum of Science and History

New York Hall of Science

Association of Science-Technology Centers

Materials Research Society

University of Wisconsin, Madison

Cornell University

Purdue University

Maryland Science Center

Houston Children's Museums

Inverness Research Associates

Multimedia Research

Activities have included collaborations with the Center for
Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University; the National Center
for Learning & Teaching in Nanoscale Science and Engineering,
Northwestern University; the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center,
Harvard University; the Center for High-Rate Nanomanufacturing,
Northeastern University; and a variety of other nanoscale research
centers and informal education institutions.

The mission of the NISE Network is to build the capacity of informal
science education institutions and research organizations to work
together to raise public awareness, understanding, and engagement with
nanoscale science and engineering and to attract the interest and
enthusiasm of young people who may become the nanotechnology innovators
of tomorrow.

In its first two years, NISE Net focused on developing and evaluating a
range of exhibits, programs, media, forums, visualizations, and other
materials and activities that could be useful in achieving its public
engagement goals. It also developed new relationships, resources, and
both individual and institutional capacities to develop and present nano
educational opportunities to the public.

In NISE Net's third year, the focus is shifting toward activities to
disseminate knowledge, materials, programs, and exhibits to at lease 100
sites across the country. To that end NISE Net is developing a catalog
of visitor-tested exhibits, demos, programs, forums, media, and
professional tools and resources. These will be available for widespread
distribution via the Network website, [nisenet.org]{.underline}, which
will also include resources from other developers, evaluation data, and
participatory commentary.

The NISE Net is also conducting professional development workshops and
meetings focused on sharing best practices, networking the growing
community of practitioners, and building organizational capacities for
partnering with research centers and producing nanoscale informal
science education experiences on an ongoing basis. Over the next two
years, seven regional network expansion nodes and three topically-based
expansion nodes will serve as hosts for institutions wishing to
participate in the NISE Net.

One of NISE Net's first widespread public outreach activity was NanoDays
2008. Originally intended to be a mechanism to build active membership
in the Network up to 30 participants, their was enough interest for the
development and distribution of 100 NanoDays kits, which provided
recipients with information and materials necessary to conduct a variety
of public outreach and engagement activities. Instructions for
replicating the kit were also posted on nisenet. org. Nano outreach
activities took place all over the country from the state of Washington
to Puerto Rico during NanoDays: March 29-April 6, 2008. NanoDays dates
for 2009 have been set: March 28-April 5.

In addition to nano specific informal educational outcomes, the NISE Net
has provided members of the ISE community the opportunity to expand the
range of its programs and to explore new ways of working together. This
has included incorporating current and emerging fields of science and
technology into informal science educational exhibits and programs,
collaboratively developing activities to provide public engagement with
science focused on dialogue and deliberation, developing new ways of
working collaborative in exhibit and program development and
distribution, and in professional development activities and evaluating
program effectiveness.

For more about the NISE Net's activities, go to **www.nisnet.org**

**PI: David M. Berube**

**Title: Intuitive Nanotoxicology and Public engagement**

**Award #0809470**

**North Carolina State University**

"The primary award was justified as follows: Much research into public
risk perception has been done, especially the biases and heuristics
involved, the relative importance of these, how the perception of risk
by experts and the public may differ significantly, and the roles played
by trust and sources of information on public perception. Data about
perception to geological and consumer hazards, especially nuclear
fission power generation waste disposal have dominated these works.
Limited research in biotechnology and even some opinion research on
nanotechnology have begun to surface. However, trust studies seldom
differentiate between general trust in a source rather than trust
associated with the problem instant and none of these studies have
examined the amplification and attenuation effects of media after the
arrival of the Internet and new media sources. Often, this research has
drawn contrary conclusions. Unfortunately, efforts toward public
engagement have drawn heavily from this research in designing
experiments sometimes with mixed results.

This grant proposal is suggesting we engage in theory buildings and
social science research on public perception about nanotechnology. Since
we anticipate that much of the first concerns surfacing will be
associated with the health and safety of nanoparticles, this proposal
focuses on nano-toxicology. We feel this proposed research agenda should
run parallel to the toxicology research on nanoparticles currently being
funded. As data on toxicity surfaces, it would be fortuitous if we had a
strategy for engaging the public which was based on something better
than supposition, educated guesses, and on transferring results from
previous studies in risk perception potentially unsuitable.

The intellectual merits of the grant include its timeliness in
addressing public perception of toxicity using well-tested
methodologies. The grant examines trust and new media and applies its
theoretical findings to a case instant when we examine public perception
to nanotechnology and agri-food. The broader impacts of the grant rest
with the generation of a data set specific to nanotechnology across many
different forms of knowledge generating instruments. The data will not
only be specific to nanotechnology but also will incorporate the effects
of new media on public risk perception. Furthermore, the data will not
only be shared openly so it can be used by other researchers and will be
generated and evaluated by stakeholders from the public, academia, and
industry, all importance stakeholders in public engagement on
nanotechnology."

Beyond the information gathering and theory building exercises in this
proposal, we entertain three main methodologies.

The first is the Delphi methodology which has a long history in opinion
research. Its capacity to collect and refine data sets is one of its
strengths though we expect to modify it as we examine the rankings of
risk and test rationales of rankings through multivariate analysis.

The second is deliberative polling which, in terms of nanotechnology,
has surfaced primarily with the consensus conference \[see for example,
North Carolina State University in 2004 and University of Wisconsin at
Madison in 2006 and the citizen jury. We are particularly interested in
a model using some of the applicable elements of these models along with
a structured, value-focused decision-making collaborative stakeholder
negotiation model whereby joint deliberation involving local citizens
takes the lead in research and analysis. With it stakeholders are able
to trace the path of their input or to document their influence on the
selection of alternatives by managers due to the model's high
transparency.

The final step involved is the well-known focus group model which has
been used for nanotechnology in the recent past. Finally, we plan to
include probabilistic scenario analysis in our groups as well to ferret
out the deeper motivations among the public.

Our methodological approach directly complements data collections and
analytic strategies employed by the two Centers for Nanotechnology in
Society at ASU and UCSB according to CoPI Scheufele who is associated
with the CNS-ASU site.

A recent supplement to the NIRT involves the White Paper on Risk
Communication. It was commissioned by the NNCO and supported by a
supplement from the NSF. Three professors and four graduate students are
completing the 100 page report. It includes one of the most
comprehensive bibliographies on risk studies ever assembled and covers
the theories and data sets from research in risk from the last half
decade. It will be completed on July 31, 2008.

Finally, Berube is coordinating a project on Public Communication of
Science and Technology
(<http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/PCOSTHOME.html>). PCOST represents an
opportunity to house on the campus of North Carolina State University a
national center for the social science of science with strong
associations with the University of North Carolina, North Carolina
Central University, Duke University, companies in the Research Triangle,
as well as partners on NCSU\'s Centennial Campus. PCOST would generate
data on issues associated with communication, public perception, and
other variables that may impact public acceptance of science and
technology in the 21st century.

PCOST will be housed in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences
(CHASS) at NCSU.

CHASS will provide support and facilities until PCOST moves to the Hunt
Library facility in 2012. PCOST will be is an inter-departmental and
inter-disciplinary project with partnerships in many different colleges
at NCSU and elsewhere in the state and the country. PCOST will be
composed of a team of academics and researchers, who will meet
regularly, generate grant applications, direct graduate student
assistantships, and cosponsor events and speakers. PCOST will function
as a platform for grant solicitation and its operating budget will be
derived from multiple sources, including externally funded grant related
sources and industrial sponsorship. PCOST\'s mission will be to provide
opportunities for scholars in public communication and engagement, media
studies, and associated subject fields to conduct research and
experiments to improve how stakeholders in science and technology,
including policy makers, scientists, and businesspersons communicate
information to the general public through oral and written means in
education, media, and other contexts. In addition, it will be dedicated
to supporting both qualitative and quantitative research in the social
science of science and technology.

Indeed, one of the defining characteristics of PCOST will be the
emphasis on empirical research rather than on scholastic hypothesis
generation and academic criticism. While PCOST understands the
importance of hypothesis generation and criticism, it is dedicated to
producing data which communities and science and technology will find
useful in designing their interface with stakeholders from all areas of
society.

**PI: Chris Bosso**

**Title: Nanotechnology in the Public Interest: Regulatory Challenges,
Capacity, and Policy Recommendations**

**Award #0609078**

**Northeastern University**

**Project Goals**: This project evaluates federal and state government
capacity\--defined here as sufficiency in scientific expertise, legal
authority, organizational design, and relevant regulatory
frameworks\--to address societal and policy challenges posed by emerging
nanoscale innovations and products, and, where appropriate, make
recommendations for building requisite capacity to address these
challenges. Particular attention is paid to developing capacity in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a state currently at the forefront of
nanotechnology research and development with requisite expectations
about the centrality of nanotechnology to its future economic health, as
well as in various cities in the Commonwealth where issues of facilities
siting, health and safety concerns, and first responder expertise are
paramount.

**Methods employed**: Analysis of scholarly literature; review of
government documents and studies; assessment of survey data; interviews
with public officials and other policy stakeholders.

**Fields of Impact**: Political Science; Public Administration and
Public Policy; Public Health; Journalism; Law; Philosophy; Engineering
and Materials Science.

**Collaborations**\--NSF Center for High-rate Nano-manufacturing
(Northeastern University; University of Massachusetts, Lowell;
University of New Hampshire); Boston Museum of Science; Massachusetts
Technology Collaborative; Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection; City of Cambridge (MA); City of Boston; Environmental Law
Institute (Washington, D.C.); Toxics Use Reduction Institute (University
of Massachusetts, Lowell); other regional nanotechnology related
research projects (e.g., University of Massachusetts, Amherst).

**[Ongoing Projects]{.underline}**

**1. The Question of Capacity: Regulating under Conditions of
Uncertainty** \[C. Bosso, project leader\]: projects organized around
the concept of democratic capacity under conditions of rapid
technological change, uncertainty about effects, wary citizens, doubts
about government legitimacy as a result of perceived failures, and
unparalleled (since before WWI) globalization. Working drafts of papers
are posted on the NSRG website for comment; outlets to include edited
volumes and scholarly journals. \[2\]

a.  ***Environmental Regulation in the Shadow of Nanotechnology:
    Confronting Conditions of Uncertainty***. An edited volume focusing
    on challenges of effective and responsive environmental governance
    under conditions of uncertainty in light of the potentially
    revolutionary challenges posed by nanotechnologies. Contributors
    \-- C. Bosso, C. Coglianese, M. Eisner, J. Isaacs, W. Kay, M.
    Landy, R. Rabe, R. Sandler \-- focus on overarching lessons learned
    from decades of regulatory response to earlier technologies and
    their environmental effects. Draft of book to be submitted in August
    2008 for Spring 2009 publication by Resources for the Future Press.

b.  ***FDA Capacity Project***. Second major project in this thrust, to
    focus on the challenges facing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
    as it expects to grapple with an array of new nano-enabled
    technologies, in particular human therapeutics and drug delivery
    systems. Comparisons with European Union and Canada, among others,
    to be included. Structure of project will mirror that of 1.a, with a
    select array of scholars delivering papers in a research workshop,
    followed by publication in an edited volume, among other venues.
    Project design and contributor recruitment currently under way.

**2. Capacity History Project** \[W. Kay, project leader\]: A set of
case studies, designed for teaching purposes and to form the basis of an
edited volume, based around examples of agencies or units of governments
acquiring or developing the capacity to address the challenges produced
by new technologies, whether as a consequence of technological
development or as a need to address the side effects of some product or
application. Examples include the creation of the Atomic Energy
Commission, new responsibilities for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and revisions in Food and Drug Administration approval
processes.

**3. Patent Policy** \[W. Kay, project leader\]: assess institutional
capacity of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and evaluate intellectual
property issues related to patent reform and commercialization of
nanotechnologies.

**4. Ethical and Justice Issues** \[R. Sandler, project leader\]:
evaluate applications of nanotechnology on their likelihood to promote
or compromise environmental values, e.g., ecological integrity,
biodiversity, and environmental justice.\[3\]

**5. Local and state capacity in Massachusetts** \[C. Bosso, project
leader\]: Massachusetts is in the top tier of the states for research
and development in nanoscale technologies, and expects nanotechnology to
be a major component of its economy for decades to come. As a
consequence, there is considerable shared strong interest in ensuring a
smooth transition from R&D to commercial scale production, as well as in
developing the local and state institutional capacity to handle any
social and environmental effects of technology development and
commercialization as this sector matures and grows. Projects under way
include assessments of the Commonwealth's biotechnology regulatory
system, rules on nanoparticle research reporting being promulgated by
the City of Cambridge, the state's response to perchlorate contamination
in groundwater on Cape Cod, and controversies over the siting of a Level
4 infectious disease research laboratory in the City of Boston. These
projects will produce a range of papers to be combined into a report on
Massachusetts and the regulation of emerging technologies and made
available as case studies for use in undergraduate and graduate courses
in public policy and administration, science and technology studies, and
related fields.

**[Outreach and Education]{.underline}**

Education and outreach efforts address the parallel need to build
capacity among current and future policymakers, particularly
administrative professionals in relevant federal, state, and local
agencies and offices, as well as journalists who cover nanotechnology
related issues.

**1. Workshop: Nanotechnology and Public Policy: Basic Science,
Applications, and Implications.** This May 1, 2007 workshop attracted
eighty attendees and introduced the regulatory issues surrounding
nanotechnology to a broad audience of policy scholars, journalists
working on science and technology issues, regional officials whose
agencies who might have jurisdiction over nanoparticles in the workplace
or the environment, technology professionals and industry
representatives, and students in public administration and journalism
with interest in the topic. The appeal to state and local public
officials was especially good given the centrality of bio- and
nano-technologies to the Massachusetts economy and because Cambridge MA
is looking to extend its rules on rDNA research to nanoscale R&D. \[4\]

**2.** **Outreach to citizens through** **collaboration with the Boston
Museum of Science**: participation in Museum of Science nanotechnology
forums and related activities organized under the aegis of the NSF
Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Network).

**3. Professional association meetings:** posters and presentations at
meetings in public administration (NASPAA); political science (APSA);
philosophy and ethics (APA); and engineering (ASEE, IEEE); nano-science
and technology \[NSTI\]. \[5\]

**4. Graduate and Undergraduate Research** positions for students in
philosophy, political science and public administration, environmental
studies, and engineering.\[6\]

**5. Cooperative education and internship opportunities:** e.g., full
time 6-month research positions for undergraduate political science
major at the Environmental Law Institute (Washington, D.C.) and the
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

**6. Content rich website \[[http://nsrg.neu.edu]{.underline}\] and
bi-weekly *NSRG e-newsletter***

**7. Lecture series on Science, Technology and Society**: invited talks
by M. Nisbet (American University), S. Jasanoff (Harvard University), C.
Kelty (Rice University), J. Fountain (University of Massachusetts,
Amherst), M. Kurath (Swiss Technical Institute), among others.

**8. Courses and modules:** Science, Technology and Public Policy (grad
and undergrad); lectures in an array of NEU courses, e.g.,
nano-medicine, business administration, political science, and
engineering.

\-\--

**References**

\[1\] For further information link to the Nanotechnology and Society
Research Group website [http://nsrg.neu.edu](http://nsrg.neu.edu/) or
send queries to <c.bosso@neu.edu>.

\[2\] See Bosso, C. J., Isaacs, J. A., Kay, W.D., and Sandler, R.L.,
"Leaving the Laboratory: Regulatory and Societal Issues Confronting
Nanotechnology Commercialization", in *Nanomanufacturing Handbook*, A.
Busnaina, ed. (CRC Press, 2006): 377-388; Sandler, R., \"Nanotechnology
and Social Context,\" *Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society*
(2008); Sandler, R. and Bosso, C., "Nanotechnology and Comprehensive
Responsible Development," *Issues in Science and Technology*, 23 (2007):
28-30.

\[3\] Sandler, R. and Kay, W. D., "The National Nanotechnology
Initiative and the Social Good," *Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics*
34, 4 (2006): 675-81; Sandler, R., "Nanotechnology and Human
Flourishing: Toward a Framework for Assessing Human Enhancements," in
Jotterand, F., ed., *Nanotechnology: Framing the Field* (Springer,
2007); Sandler, R., "How Not to Think About Radical Human Enhancement,"
*Human Enhancement and Nanotechnology Workshop*, Dartmouth College,
Hanover, NH, Spring 2007.

\[4\] See
<http://www.atsweb.neu.edu/cbosso/resources/events/spring_2007_workshop/agenda/>
for additional information.

\[5\] Bosso, C., and Kay, W.D., "Nanotechnology and Public Policy,"
roundtable at the annual meeting of the American Political Science
Association, August 2006, Philadelphia. Other participants: J. Fountain
(University of Massachusetts, Amherst) and P. Hamlett (North Carolina
State University); Bosso, C., "Teaching about technology in public
administration education," *The American Political Science Association
Public Administration Section Newsletter,* volume 5/2 (2006);
[<http://www.h-net.org/~pubadmin/newsletters/f06a.htm>.]{.underline}

\[6\] Examples include Garcia, T., \"Addressing the Social Justice
Problem for NBIC Technology," paper presented at conference on
*Technological Enhancement of Humans? Perspectives from Underrepresented
Populations*, Center for Nanotechnology and Society, Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ, April 23-24, 2007; Lodwick, T, Rodrigues, R,
Sandler, R, and Kay, W.D., "Nanotechnology and the Global Poor: United
States Policy and International Collaborations," presented at the *NSTI
Nanotechnology Conference and Trade Show,* Santa Clara, CA, May 2007.

**PI:** **R.P.H. Chang**

**Title: National Center for Learning & Teaching in Nanoscale Science
and Engineering (NCLT) - NanoEd Resource Portal**

**Award #0426328**

**Northwestern University**

Nanoscience - the study of materials phenomena occurring at the length
scale between 1 and 100 nanometers - has attracted a tremendous amount
of attention and investment around the world. The US National
Nanotechnology Initiative predicts that this country will need over
700,000 nanoliterate workers in the next 10 years in order to compete
effectively in the \$1 trillion plus global nanotech market. In response
to this national workforce demand, the NSF-National Center for Learning
and Teaching in Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NCLT) has a mission
to build national capacity in Nanoscale Science & Engineering Education
(NSEE). This mission calls for the development of a globally competitive
national nano workforce and a national cadre of leaders in NSEE. The
Center's target audience is science and engineering teachers and their
students at grade levels 7-16. The Center is also working closely with
other NSF-funded Centers and NSE Learning communities to build national
capacity in NSEE. The Center aims to reach a large cross-section of US
students and their teachers by creating a national NSEE network and
resource base through partnerships with academia, government labs, and
industry. The Center has recently developed an online educational
resource repository for the NSEE community, the NanoEd Resource Portal
(**[www.nclt.us](http://www.nclt.us/))**, which currently generates more
than 9,000 monthly visitors.

The goal of the NCLT NanoEd Resource Portal is to collect and
disseminate resources for the NSEE community and support the advancement
of STEM education by introducing NSE concepts into US classrooms. The
Portal is designed to gather, categorize and globally disseminate
nano-education research, nanconcepts, teaching materials, learning
tools, seminars, lectures, and degree programs for the NSEE community.
The NCLT NanoEd Resource Portal offers opportunities for students,
teachers and researchers to showcase their work and collaborate with
their peers.

**NCLT Partners:** NCLT has eleven founding partners: Northwestern
University (Center Headquarters); University of Michigan; University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; University of Illinois at Chicago; Purdue
University; Hampton University; Fisk University; Alabama A&M University;
University of Texas at El Paso; Morehouse College; and Argonne National
Laboratory. Additional working partnerships from academia, government
labs, and industry are being added each year.

**Integrated Program and Center Operation:** The Center's Integrated
Program includes five Operational Units: (1) Learning Research &
Development; (2) Nano Concept, Course, and Learning Technology
Development; (3) Professional Development; (4) Resource Gathering &
Dissemination, Networking & Community Building; and (5) Evaluation and
Assessment. A series of topical Work Circles has been established to
carry out specific projects across Operational Units. This "matrix"
operational structure is further supported by the NCLT
cyberinfrastructure using Oracle Collaboration Suite and Database. Each
Operational Unit and Work Circle consists of faculty members and their
students working in diverse disciplines at various NCLT partnering
institutions. Oversight of the Center's Integrated Program is provided
by the NCLT Leadership Council: R.P.H. Chang (chair); Joseph Krajcik;
Tom Mason; Nick Giordano; Lynn Bryan; Umberto Ravaioli; Tom Moher; and
Jim Pellegrino.

**Current Progress:** The Center is currently finishing its fourth year
of Operation. NCLT is concentrating on further implementation of current
programs and products, as well as strategic planning for future
partnerships and funding. At the same time, the Center is creating a
visible impact on the national STEM community and establishing
international partnerships that will enable US researchers and educators
to join the global dialogue on NSEE and to learn best practices from
around the world. A workshop spearheaded by NCLT for the global NSEE
community is being planned for fall 2008. The following bullets provide
a summary of the key highlights for the NCLT in its current status.

-   **NanoEd Resource Portal**: The NanoEd Resource Portal was
    successfully launched as a hub for the NSEE community in December,
    2006, to gather and disseminate information, archive learning and
    teaching materials, view lectures, etc. The Portal currently hosts
    23 instructional units and courses, 21 nanoconcept simulations and
    applets, 40 lectures and seminars, 9 learning research articles, 6
    nano lessons and multiple links to both national and international
    resources.

-   **Learning Research**: The Center researchers have been working to
    understand how students learn nanoscience and identify key nano
    concepts for insertion into national curricula. They have
    interviewed and observed both students and teachers to develop best
    practices for incorporating key nanoconcepts into existing
    curriculum and are developing appropriate learning progressions and
    nanoconcept inventories for this emerging nanoscience. Key learning
    research findings have been presented at major national education
    conferences, published in peer-review journals and distributed both
    nationally and internationally via the NCLT NanoEd Resource Portal.

-   **Nano Instructional Materials:** A series of Nanoconcept
    Instructional Materials on size and scale, measurements,
    nanomaterial properties, and light interaction with nanomaterials
    have been developed with science teachers and they are being
    field-tested with students in middle and high schools. Additionally,
    those in the final stages of development have been posted on the
    NanoEd Resource Portal for national dissemination under Nano
    Lessons. College level courses have also been developed or modified
    to include NSE and these are also available on the NanoEd Resource
    Portal.

-   **New Learning Tools** -- A number of new tools have been developed
    to support learning and teaching of nanoconcepts. Examples include
    web-based: animations, simulations, visualization, and a nano card
    game. These new learning tools are being used by the NSEE community
    via the NCLT NanoEd Resource Portal.

-   **Professional Development for Teachers:** Center faculty have
    developed a robust professional development program for training
    teachers to teach NSE and have reached out to numerous school
    districts nationwide including those in: Nashville, Huntsville, El
    Paso, Virginia Beach, Chicago, Detroit, New Jersey, Los Angeles,
    Baton Rouge and Indianapolis. The impact and growth of these
    participants has reached 100-plus schools and teachers being trained
    annually.

-   **Assessment Approach:** NCLT has developed an approach to map out
    the knowledge domains (constructs) associated with NSE and use these
    domains to produce instructional materials and assessment and to
    inform teacher education and learning research. This Construct
    Centered Design (CCD) assessment approach has been adopted by NCLT
    and the goal is to develop a systematic prototype of CCD assessment
    for others to follow in the NSEE community.

-   **Networking:** The NCLT has a mandate to establish partnerships
    with other national centers, programs, institutions, and individuals
    in order to leverage their expertise and positively impact national
    STEM education. NCLT continues to strengthen its ties with 50-plus
    NSE partnerships in academia and NSF-funded Centers, while expanding
    its network both nationally and internationally. NCLT is creating
    new partnerships with corporations and international programs
    including: Boeing Corporation, Dragon Fly TV, and Taiwan National
    Nanotechnology Programs.

-   **Annual Meetings & Workshops:** NCLT members have organized and
    gave key-note talks to over a dozen meetings and workshops annually.
    The Center has committed time and resources to planning a global
    NSEE conference with NSF that will host over 150 professionals to
    enhance further research and development within the NSEE Community.
    NCLT has also hosted teacher workshops and professional development
    programs at the Center's founding partners. A Faculty workshop
    hosted by NCLT was attended by 50 college faculty to strengthen the
    teaching of NSE at the college level. NCLT has also hosted nano
    days, summer science camps and other outreach opportunities for
    middle and high school students and their teachers to learn about
    NSE.

**Planned Initiatives:** During Year 5, the Center will work to solidify
the Integrated Program to effectively achieve the Center's mission and
goals. NCLT Leadership will also look forward to establishing future
partnerships to help achieve these future directives:

1.  Reach 7-16 levels in all 50 states with nanoscience:

-   Assure all 50 states will have nanoscience incorporated within their
    state science standards

-   Schools in all 50 states will teach nanoconcepts in their science
    courses

-   All states will have effective training in nanoscience and
    engineering for their economic development.

2.  Revise science standards by including nanoscience within these
    standards

3.  Standardize evaluation process for NSEE/STEM

The important achievements delivered by NCLT members reflect the
synergism, strength, and impact that the NCLT is having in NSEE. For
those interested to learn more about NCLT programs or possible
collaborations. Please go to our website at
[www.nclt.us](http://www.nclt.us/) or email us at
<nclt@northwestern.edu>.

**PI: Richard B. Freeman**

**Title**: **NSEC: Nanotechnology in Society Project -- Nano Connection
to Society**

**Award #0531146**

# Harvard University

** **

China and India are a significant component of the global S&E workforce
and in recent years have significantly boosted R&D spending. Scientific
policymakers in both nations stress the importance of nanotechnology as
a means of accomplishing national development goals. During Fall 2007 in
greater Bangalore, billboards claim that a nine-fold increase in
national nanotechnology spending is underway, while China identifies
nanotechnology as one of the four "Science Megaprojects" that will allow
the nation to achieve scientific parity with the USA by the year 2020.
Despite increased government support for nanotechnology in India and
China, private industry and venture capital have seemed reluctant to
invest in this field. However, Sabeer Bhatia, the co-founder of Hotmail,
has unveiled plans for "Nanocity" in the northern Indian town of
Chandigarh, a project that seeks to attract several billion dollars of
investment and already claims to have delivered \$300 million for
purchasing large swaths of real estate ideal for science parks.
This presentation will seek to map state support for R&D, as well
as registering the amounts of private investments in nanotechnology in
these lands. Despite ambitious talk of India and China "leapfrogging"
over the United States, significant gaps remain in nano enterprise
between the United States and these emerging economic powers. The
presentation will also provide a very brief overview of the productivity
in nano publications in the U.S., China, and India.

**PI: David Guston**

**Title: NSEC: Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State
University**

**Award \# 0531194**

**Arizona State University**

The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University
(CNS-ASU) is a Nano-scale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC), funded
by the National Science Foundation in October 2005 as one of two centers
in a broader network to investigate the societal dimensions of emerging
nanotechnologies. The Center's four-fold mission is to: 1) *research*
the societal aspects of nanotechnologies; 2) *train* a community of
scholars with new insight into the societal dimensions of nanoscale
science & engineering (NSE); 3) *engage* a variety of publics and NSE
researchers in dialogues about the goals and implications of NSE; and 4)
*partner* with NSE laboratories to introduce greater *reflexiveness* in
the R&D process.

CNS-ASU pursues this mission through two kinds of integrated research
programs, as well as educational and outreach activities (that are
themselves integrated with research). The first research programs
comprising "real-time technology assessment" (RTTA) are:

-   RTTA 1, Research and Innovation Systems Assessment, to characterize
    the technical scope and dynamics of the NSE enterprise and the
    linkages between it and a variety of public values and outcomes;

-   RTTA 2, Public Opinion and Values, to monitor, among both the public
    and scientists, the understanding of and values relating to NSE and
    its potential societal outcomes, track these variables over time,
    and examine the role of the media in reflecting and influencing
    them;

-   RTTA 3, Deliberation and Participation, to develop multiple,
    plausible visions nanotechnology-enabled futures, elucidate public
    preferences for various alternatives and, using such preferences,
    help further refine future visions and enhance contextual awareness;
    and

-   RTTA 4, Reflexivity Assessment and Evaluation, to engage in
    integrative research and training with NSE researchers, understand
    how the knowledge generated by CNS-ASU influences the values and
    choices they make, and assess and evaluate the impact of CNS-ASU
    activities more generally.

The second research programs comprising the thematic research clusters
(TRCs) are:

-   TRC 1, Equity and Responsibility, to research ways that the concepts
    of equity and responsibility are being applied in the context of the
    development of NSE and to explore ways to ensure that NSE can
    contribute to equity and responsibility as public values; and

-   TRC 2: Human Identity, Enhancement, and Biology, to investigate the
    historical, philosophical, cultural, and political dimensions of the
    interactions between human biology and human values in the context
    of new nanotechnologies.

Major achievements to date include: assembling and mining bibliographic
and patent databases to understand the geographic and intellectual
contours of NSE (RTTA 1); conducting national polls of public opinion
and of leading nano-scienists (RTTA 2); developing new scenario-based
methods for stimulating deliberation about NSE and holding the first
deliberative citizens' forum of national scope on any science topic in
the US (RTTA 3); demonstrating that interactions between NSE researchers
and social scientists and humanists can generate productive, reflexive
decisions among the former (RTTA 4); generating nuanced findings about
the relationship between religious belief and NSE (TRC 1); and exploring
views and capacities regarding human nanotechnologies (TRC 2).

As part of its broader impacts, CNS-ASU intends these activities
together to begin to allow the *anticipatory governance* of
nanotechnologies, that is, the broad-based capacity extending
through-out society that can act on a variety of inputs to manage
emerging knowledge-based technologies while such management is still
possible. Anticipatory governance can be characterized by an ensemble of
three kinds of activities: *foresight* or anticipation of plausible
futures; *engagement* with various publics; and *integration* of social
science and humanities perspectives with scientific and engineering
research. Achievements in these areas include: *foresight* through
developing an interactive website for the exploration and articulation
of NanoFutures; *engagement* ranging from intensive, large-scale
deliberation (NCTF) to intensive, small-scale deliberation (Science
Cafes) to extensive outreach (NISE Net collaborations); and
*interaction* with NSE researchers resulting in identifiable changes in
knowledge, identity, and practice.

Education and training activities include not only research training
across undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral levels, but also
transdisciplinary curricular innovation, particularly at the
undergraduate level, informal science education, and nano-in-society
training for in-service high school teachers and NSE researchers.

CNS-ASU provides benefits to society across a wide range of its
activities.

-   CNS-ASU activities have been designed to integrate discovery and
    understanding with the promotion of teaching, training, and learning
    across all levels of the curriculum. For example, undergraduate
    honors theses are well-integrated with formal research programs, and
    course development has sprung from programmatic research interests
    ("Human Enhancement and Democracy" Sp 08 UG by doctoral candidate
    Hays and "Nano, the Brain, and the Future" (Sp 08; F 08 G by faculty
    Miller and Robert);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   CNS-ASU has not only been inclusive of personnel from
    under-represented groups, but aspects of diversity are explicit
    parts of the research agenda. For example, undergraduate research
    has investigated the perspectives of persons with visual impairments
    on prospective nano-therapies, master's level research has
    investigated the values of Latino/a NSE researchers, and an entire
    research program area on Equity and Responsibility addresses, in
    part, ethnic and geographic issues in the distribution of benefits
    and risks from NSE;

-   CNS-ASU has enhanced the infrastructure for teaching and learning by
    establishing formal memoranda of understanding with the Nanoscale
    Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net), the National
    Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), the Department of
    Energy's Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies (CINT), and the
    Arizona Nanotechnology Cluster to bring nano-in-society training to
    a variety of audiences. At ASU, CNS-ASU is a hub for
    transdisciplinary research and teaching, including partnerships in
    graduate education with the Biodesign Institute, the Fulton School
    of Engineering, the Department of Physics and the Department of
    Chemistry, and in undergraduate education with InnovationSpace;

-   CNS-ASU disseminates its results to a variety of audiences --
    scholarly, professional, and public. Its e-mail distribution list
    reaches about 1400 individuals. It targets networks (NISE Net) and
    user facilities (NNIN, CINT) for the distribution of nano-in-society
    training material, and it has a high-visibility publishing strategy
    across journals and other publication outlets that reach NSE,
    nano-in-society, and disciplinary social science audiences.

-   Demonstrable benefits of CNS-ASU activities to society include the
    development of capacities that constitute anticipatory governance of
    nanotechnologies, namely: *foresight*, particularly the NanoFutures
    website that provides diverse publics the opportunity to encounter,
    explore, and evaluate technically-vetted scenes of plausible
    nanotechnological products prior to their actual emergence;
    *engagement*, particularly the large scale and intensive NCTF
    completed in Apr 08 but also the ongoing Science Cafes, which create
    more informed citizens; and *integration* with NSE researchers,
    including educational and training activities and workshops as well
    as laboratory collaborations and interventions, resulting in
    identifiable changes in knowledge, identity, and practice. CNS-ASU
    has had other informational and educational exchanges with decision
    makers, including the provision of analyses to federal R&D managers,
    including PCAST.

**Selected CNS-ASU Publications**

***[Books]{.underline}***

Fisher, E.; C. Selin; and J. Wetmore (eds). 2008. *Yearbook of
Nanotechnology in Society, Volume I: Presenting Futures.* Guston, D.H.
(series editor). New York: Springer.

Guston, D. H. (ed.) In preparation. *Encyclopedia of Nano-science and
Society* (two volumes). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

***[Peer Review Journal Articles]{.underline}***

Brossard, D., D.A. Scheufele, E. Kim, and B.V. Lewenstein. Forthcoming.
"Religiosity as a Perceptual Filter: Examining Processes of Opinion
Formation about Nanotechnology." *Public Understanding of Science*.

Fisher, E. 2007. "Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of
Laboratory Decisions" *NanoEthics*. 1(2): 155-165.

Porter, A.L., J. Youtie, P. Shapira, and D. Schoeneck. 2008. "Refining
Search Terms for Nanotechnology." *Journal of Nanoparticle Research*.
10:715-728.

Scheufele, D.A.; E.A. Corley; S. Dunwoody; T-J Shih; E. Hillback; and
D.H. Guston. 2007. "Nanotechnology Scientists Worry about Some Risks
More than the General Public" *Nature Nanotechnology*. 2(12): 732-734.

Selin, C. 2008, forthcoming. "Negotiating Plausibilty: Intervening in
the Future of Nanotechnology." *Science and Engineering Ethics.*

Shapira, P. and J. Youtie. 2008, forthcoming. "Emergence of
Nanodistricts in the United States: Path Dependence or New
Opportunities?" *Economic Development Quarterly*. 22(3).

Tahan, C.; R. Leung; G.M. Zenner: K.D. Ellison: W.C. Crone; and C.A.
Miller. 2006. "Nanotechnology and Society: A Discussion-Based
Undergraduate Course" *American Journal of Physics*. 74(5): 443-448.

Youtie, J.; M. Iacopetta; S. Graham. 2008. "Assessing the Nature of
Nanotechnology: Can We Uncover an Emerging General Purpose Technology?
*Journal of Technology Transfer.* 33:315-329.

Youtie, J.; P. Shapira; and A. Porter. 2008. "National Nanotechnology
Publications and Citations." *Journal of Nanoparticle Research*. Online
at DOI 10.1007/s11051-008-9360-9 (forthcoming in print).

***[Book Chapters]{.underline}***

Barben, D.; E. Fisher; C. Selin; and D. Guston. 2008. "Anticipatory
Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration."
in *The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition*.
Hackett, E.J.; O. Amsterdamska; M.E. Lynch; and J. Wajcman (eds.)
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Guston, D.H.; J. Parsi; and J. Tosi. 2007. \"Anticipating the Political
and Ethical Challenges of Human Nanotechnologies,\" in P. Lin and F.
Allhoff, eds., Nanoethics. New York: Wiley.

Miller, C.A. and S.K. Pfatteicher. 2007. "Nanotechnology in Society
Education: Teaching the Mental Habits of Social Engineers and Critical
Citizens," in A. Sweeney, ed., *Nanoscale Science and Engineering
Education: Issues, Trends, and Future Directions* (American Scientific
Publishers).

Robert, J.S. 2008. "Controversial science, controversial scientists, and
prospects for progress in a pluralistic society." in F. Allhoff and P.
Lin, eds., *Nanoethics: Emerging Debates*. New York: Springer.

Scheufele, D.A. 2006. "Messages and heuristics: How audiences form
attitudes about emerging technologies" in *Engaging science: Thoughts,
deeds, analysis and action*. Turney, J. (ed) London: The Wellcome Trust:
20-25.

***[Theses (PhD, Master's, Undergraduate Honors)]{.underline}***

Bhaskarabhatla, A. 2006. *Spatial Analysis of Nanotechnology Enterprises
in the US: Structure and Location*. Masters Thesis. Public Policy,
Georgia Tech. Atlanta, Georgia.

Finney, S. 2007. *Multinational Comparative Analysis of Nanotechnology
Research: 1990 to 2005 Knowledge Flow Assessment*. Undergraduate Thesis.
Public Policy and Economics. Georgia Tech. Atlanta, Georgia.

Fisher, E. 2006. *Midstream modulation: integrating societal
considerations into and during nanotechnology research and development:
a case study in implementing U.S. federal legislation*. Doctoral
Dissertation. Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado. Boulder,
Colorado.

Leung, R. 2007. *Doing Nanotechnology in 21 Century China*. Doctoral
Dissertation. Sociology. Wisconsin Sociology.

Lidberg, S. 2008. *Examining Potential Futures: A Designer's Toolbox for
Identifying Potential Social and Cultural Implications*. Masters Thesis.
School of Design, Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona.

Milford, R. 2008. *A Dialog on Nanotechnology and Religion: New Methods
in Public Engagement*. Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Barrett Honors
College, Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona.

Panjwani, A. 2007. *The psychological impact of mass surveillance on
society: a quantitative approach*. Masters Thesis. Department of
Mathematics, Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona.

Silverman, A. 2007. *Healing the Blind? Perspectives of Blind Persons on
Methods to Restore Sight.* Undergraduate Honors Thesis. The Barrett
Honors College, Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona.

Spadola, Q. 2008. *Novel Approaches to DNA Sequencing*. Doctoral
Dissertation. Department of Physics, Arizona State University. Tempe,
Arizona.

Pirtle, Z. 2007. *Democratizing nanotechnology: Intersecting the
philosophy of science with science policy*. Undergraduate Honors Thesis.
The Barrett Honors College. Arizona State University. Tempe, Arizona.

Wang, J. 2007*. Resource Spillover from University to High Tech
Industry: Evidence from New Nanotechnology Based Firms in the US*.
Doctoral Dissertation. Public Policy. Georgia Tech. Atlanta, Georgia.

**PI: Paul Hallacher**

**Title: Nanoscale Exploratory Research (NER) Nanotechnology and Science
Federalism**

**Award #608986**

**Penn State University**

This study builds upon work carried out under NSF award 403783 NIRT:
Nanotechnology and its Publics (PI: Roger Geiger). This earlier work
drew attention to the significant state involvement in nanotechnology
policy making with a detailed study of the development of the
Pennsylvania Initiative for Nanotechnology between 1998 and 2005. A
chief finding from this study was that the Pennsylvania Initiative for
Nanotechnology did not emerge from a rational, state-guided policy
development process, but is instead an amalgamation of at least five
state sponsored initiatives developed independently within leading
universities. Nanotechnology programs were funded in a piecemeal fashion
by the state in reaction to proposals from policy entrepreneurs housed
within universities, and the Pennsylvania Initiative for Nanotechnology
was created as a post-facto rationalization of these decisions, creating
the appearance of a coherent policy development process. The study finds
little evidence to suggest that the Pennsylvania approach to
nanotechnology policy making is unique among the states. Another finding
is that there appears to have been very little if any consultation or
coordination by Pennsylvania state officials with counterparts in the
national government in developing the Pennsylvania Initiative for
Nanotechnology.

These findings stimulated interest in state nanotechnology policy more
broadly, and particularly in questions concerning causes and
consequences of the apparent low level of cooperation between state and
federal counterparts in nanotechnology policy, leading to NSF award
608986 NER: Nanotechnology and Science Federalism (PI: Paul Hallacher).
Prior to 1980, science policy was almost exclusively the province of the
federal government. Since 1980, however, state spending on science and
technology has increased dramatically based on an economic development
rationale. Governors played important roles in creating many of the
early state technology based economic development policies. More
recently these policies have been institutionalized in many states,
making them less dependent on gubernatorial and legislative cycles.
Biotechnology has been a particular focus of investment for many states.
Despite this increased state spending, however, there is little evidence
of coordination or collaboration among levels of government in science
policy, despite a clear trend toward collaborative governance in
virtually all other policy domains.

The emergence of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in the
late 1990s and its formalization in 2001 created intense state-level
interest among the states in nanotechnology for economic development.
This quickly evolved into a sub-national competition for leadership in
nanotechnology among the relatively few states that possess the
requisite scientific and innovative infrastructures, which include
California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
Nonetheless, at least 14 states operate significant nanotechnology
programs. Despite these high levels of state investment in
nanotechnology, the outdated centralized federalism model continues to
prevail in nanotechnology policy making as it does in the broader
science policy domain. The nanotechnology policy environment provides a
setting to explore the causes and consequences of what appears to be
under-developed intergovernmental relations in the science policy
domain.

One theory of the politics of bureaucracy argues that a key source of
bureaucratic power is the specialized knowledge possessed by public
administrators, allowing them to anticipate the need for new policies
and mold the views of other policy process participants. The hypothesis
explored is that under-developed intergovernmental relations in
nanotechnology policy making is related to the role of expertise as a
source of bureaucratic power in the science policy domain. It seems
likely that advanced science agencies would derive relatively more power
from the expertise of administrators than would other types of agencies.
If so, then does the greater role of expertise as a source of
bureaucratic power in science agencies relate to the persistence of
centralized federalism model in this domain? Further, what are the
implications of the greater role of expertise and the persistence of
centralized federalism in nanotechnology and broader science policy
making? 

The first step to exploring these questions involved interviews with 20
nanotechnology policy makers at state and national levels. Key national
level policy process participants interviewed include representatives of
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the
National Academy of Sciences, the Nanotechnology Coordinating Office
within the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Committee on Science and
Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and the major federal
science agencies participating in the NNI. Interviews were also
conducted with representatives of state nanotechnology initiatives in
California, Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.

Interview subjects confirmed that there is little intergovernmental
cooperation or coordination on nanotechnology policy making, despite
notable efforts to promote improved relations. It was noted that the
National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office and the National Science
Foundation have sponsored workshops designed to increase understanding
of various state and local nanotechnology initiatives and promote
collaboration. Nonetheless, most interview subjects rated the quality of
intergovernmental relations in nanotechnology policy making as fair or
poor. The interviews also produced names of 90 federal and state
nanotechnology policy process participants who were asked to participate
in the second phase of data collection, an opinion survey.

The opinion survey was mailed to 90 subjects in December 2007. A follow
up mailing was sent to non-responders in January 2008. A total of 41
completed questionnaires were returned for a 46% response rate. Five
(12%) of respondents worked on nanotechnology policy exclusive at the
federal level, ten (24%) worked exclusively at the state level, and
22(53%) worked at both state and federal levels. Respondents
re-confirmed the finding from the interviews that intergovernmental
relations in nanotechnology policy making are not well developed. Twenty
eight respondents (68%) reported low levels of communication over the
past ten years between state and federal agency contacts in development
of nanotechnology initiatives. Only three (7%) of respondents reported
significant levels of communication of this type.

Opinion survey respondents also reported marked differences in the
perceived levels of expertise within state and federal agencies
administering nanotechnology policies. On a one-five scale with one
being the lowest level of expertise and 5 being the highest, the
National Science Foundation received the highest rating of any federal
or state agency (4.28), followed closely by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (3.97), the Naval Research Laboratory (3.96),
and NASA (3.70). The mean rating for the 14 federal agencies
participating in the NNI was 3.24. In comparison, the highest rated
state agency was the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development with a rating of 2.88, followed by the New York Office of
Science, Technology, and Academic Research (2.72) the North Carolina
Department of Commerce (2.50), and the California Commission for Jobs
and Economic Growth (2.45). The mean rating for the 14 state agencies
operating major nanotechnology initiatives was 2.32, nearly one full
point below the mean for the federal agencies participating in the NNI.
In addition, an overwhelming majority of respondents (76.5%) agreed that
it is very important or extremely important for employees of government
agencies that administer science and technology initiatives to possess
scientific and technological expertise.

Taken together, these interview and opinion survey results suggest that
the disparity in perceived levels of expertise between state agency
officials and their federal counterparts responsible for administering
nanotechnology policy initiatives may be a key factor in explaining the
low levels of intergovernmental communication, coordination, and
collaboration in nanotechnology policy making and implementation. These
results also suggest that intergovernmental relations in nanotechnology
policy and in broader science policy making could be enhanced by
strengthening levels of scientific and technological expertise among
public administrators within state technology based economic development
agencies.

**PI: Paul M. Hallacher**

**Title: Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Regional Center for
Nanofabrication Manufacturing Education**

**Award #0532646**

**Penn State University**

The ATE Regional Center for Nanofabrication Manufacturing Education (PI:
Stephen Fonash) was created in July 2001 and is dedicated to meeting
Pennsylvania industry needs for skilled technician level workers across
the full range of micro- and nanofabrication applications. The region
served by the Center is the state of Pennsylvania. The ATE Regional
Center partners include Penn State, the 14 colleges of the Pennsylvania
Commission for Community Colleges, the universities of the Pennsylvania
State System of Higher Education, the Pennsylvania College of
Technology, other post-secondary and secondary schools, private
industry, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the NSF. The nation's
first associate degree programs in nanofabrication were established at
Pennsylvania community colleges through the Regional Center, and more
than 50 associate and baccalaureate degree programs in nanofabrication
have been established at partner colleges and universities across
Pennsylvania to date. The ATE Regioanl Center is built on four core
concepts, which are:

-   A commitment to provide an affordable 18-credit hands-on
    nanotechnology education experience to associate degree students
    anywhere in Pennsylvania

-   A focus on associate degree education, with complementary programs
    for secondary and baccalaureate students, educators, and incumbent
    workers

-   Emphasis on the full range of nanotechnology applications and a
    commitment to prepare students for work in any industry using micro-
    or nanotechnology

-   A commitment to promote the sharing of nanotechnology expertise,
    research and education infrastructure across higher education
    institutions

The feature of the ATE Regional Center that enables partner institutions
to offer degree programs in nanofabrication is a suite of six
nanofabrication courses taught continuously (fall and spring semesters
and summer session) at the Penn State site of the NSF sponsored National
Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), a full-service
nanotechnology research user facility. Penn State teaches the 18-credit
capstone semester for the Center partner institutions, and the courses
are an integral part of each institution's nanofabrication curriculum.
Table 1 summarizes the major accomplishments of the Regional Center to
date.

Table 1

Regional Center for Nanofabrication Manufacturing Education

Activity Summary, June 30, 2008

  --------------------------------------------------------------- -------
  Students who have completed the capstone semester in            469
  nanofabrication to date                                         

  Pennsylvania institutions offering nanofabrication associate    22
  degree programs                                                 

  Pennsylvania institutions offering nanofabrication              10
  baccalaureate programs                                          

  Pennsylvania companies employing nanofabrication program        52
  graduates                                                       

  Educators that have completed professional development          651
  workshops                                                       

  Industry personnel that have completed professional development 281
  workshops                                                       

  Secondary students that have completed *Nanotech Camps*         1,154
  --------------------------------------------------------------- -------

The ATE Regional Center has pioneered low-cost ways for delivering
nanotechnology education to community and technical college students
through partnerships with advanced research institutions, development of
teaching cleanrooms, and remote access to nanofabrication and
characterization equipment, along with other means. The Regional Center
has positioned Pennsylvania as an international leader in nanotechnology
education. The ATE Regional Center is contacted weekly with requests to
guide and aid programs in other states and countries.

Since its creation in 2001, the ATE Regional Center has been a source of
assistance to community and technical colleges, research universities,
and other partners across the nation seeking to establish nanotechnology
education programs. The role in assisting these efforts was formally
added to the mission of the Regional Center as part of its renewal by
the NSF in 2005, and a number of efforts have been established and many
more are now under development in states and regions across the nation.
Many of these programs have benefited from the pioneering work of the
ATE Center.

In 2006, Penn State constructed and equipped a remotely web-accessible
teaching cleanroom adjacent to the Penn State NNIN facility exclusively
for the ATE Regional Center. This was done to reduce costs and
accommodate institutions and students unable to take advantage of a
residential capstone semester experience at a NNIN site or similar
full-service research facility. Software has also been developed that
allows remote access to any tool in either the Penn State teaching
cleanroom or the Penn State NNIN site that is computer driven. The
remotely accessible equipment is available for use from any location in
the world with access to the Internet.

Micro- and nanofabrication education program managers across the U.S.
and in other nations identify more effective student recruitment efforts
as perhaps the single most important challenge to meeting industry needs
for skilled workers in these areas. Institutions that have the ability
to offer cutting edge technology taught by knowledgeable faculty with
state-of-the-art facilities offer potential students outstanding value
and opportunity. Efforts are being expanded to develop Internet-based
and other interactive communications targeted to younger audiences aimed
at increasing the numbers of students enrolled in micro- and
nanofabrication education programs.

Faculty members at ATE Center partner institutions are routinely
afforded the opportunity to participate in sponsored nanotechnology
research projects. In 2007 faculty members at Lock Haven University of
Pennsylvania published an article in the journal *Applied Physics
Letters* based upon their research on nano-rings made possible through
the ATE Center. This was the first time that any faculty member at Lock
Haven University had published an article in such a prestigious
scientific journal. In 2008, Lock Haven University received a \$500,000
NSF S-STEM (Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics) award with assistance from the ATE Center.

In 2007 the NSF encouraged the NMT Partnership to propose creation of a
national ATE center as successor to the existing regional center.
Accordingly, a proposal for an ATE National Center for Nanotechnology
Applications and Career Knowledge (NACK) is currently under review at
NSF and a decision is expected by October 2008. The core mission of the
proposed NACK Center will be to provide national coordination and
dissemination of micro- and nanofabrication workforce development
programs and activities throughout the nation. NACK Center partners
include

-   Dakota County Technical College (DCTC): The Minnesota Nanotechnology
    Workforce Initiative at DCTC is currently in its fourth and final
    year of ATE project funding. Concurrently, DCTC is carrying out an
    ATE planning project to establish a Midwest Center for
    Nanotechnology Education. DCTC will will have a leadership role in
    alumni networking and career services activities and will contribute
    to the development of skill standards.

-   Maricopa County Technical College: The Maricopa Advanced
    Technological Education Center (MATEC) at the Maricopa County
    Technical College is an NSF ATE sponsored national resource center
    for semiconductor manufacturing education. MATEC will help manage
    the NACK Center and will have a leadership role in curriculum
    development and dissemination activities.

-   Museum of Science, Boston: The NSF sponsored Nanoscale Informal
    Science Education Network (NISENET), led by the Museum of Science,
    Boston fosters public awareness, engagement, and understanding of
    nanotechnology. Program promotion and student recruitment activities
    of the NACK Center will be coordinated with related activities of
    NISENET.

-   Northwestern University: The NSF sponsored National Center for
    Learning and Teaching (NCLT) in Nanoscale Science and Engineering at
    Northwestern University promotes the incorporation of nanotechnology
    into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
    teaching and learning at secondary and undergraduate levels, with
    emphasis on middle and high school. The NCLT will help lead student
    recruitment and professional development activities of the NACK
    Center.

-   University of Puerto Rico: The University of Puerto is a
    multi-campus comprehensive public research university which serves a
    large underrepresented population. The University houses an NSF
    EPSCoR sponsored Institute for Functional Nanomaterials involving 28
    nanoscientists, and will engage with the NACK Center to replicate
    the teaching cleanroom site model to address industry needs for a
    skilled nanotechnology workforce in Puerto Rico through its Humacao
    Campus.

**PI: Barbara Harthorn**

**Title: Center for Nanotechnology in Society at University of
California, Santa Barbara**

**Award \# 0531184**

**University of California, Santa Barbara**

**Research Goals**:

> **Working Group 1.** **Historical Context of Nanotechnologies**
> studies the historical underpinnings of nano policy, the nano
> enterprise, and their social context
>
> **Working Group 2.** **Innovation, Intellectual Property, and
> Globalization** develops a comprehensive understanding of processes of
> innovation, commercialization, and global development and diffusion of
> nanotechnology with an emphasis on E and SE Asia.
>
> **Working Group 3**. **Risk Perception and Nano in the Public Sphere**
> seeks to understand amplification and attenuation of nanotech risk
> perception in US and comparative other societies and how elite
> organizations are forming, interacting, and framing discourse about
> nano and society; and to develop methods for engaging diverse US
> publics in upstream deliberation about nanotechnologies' near and
> longterm futures.

**Thematic Areas:**

> **WG1**. The group is currently studying the history of
> nanoelectronics, beginning with spintronics. They also examine
> historical overlap between US pro-space exploration and
> pro-nanotechnology movements. Another stream of research examines the
> role of national facilities and networks in the development of
> nanoscale science.
>
> **WG2**. The **Innovation** group examines core elements of the
> nanoscale innovation system in the *university-industry interface*.
> They study the institutional mechanics for technology transfer from
> university to industry; the effects of intellectual property rights in
> the context of new and emerging hybrids of ownership, conditional use,
> and open access; and the research communities that emerge (or fail to
> emerge) across a range of different institutions. The **Global
> Diffusion of Nanotechnologies** team uses a value chain approach to
> examine emergent nanotechnologies and global inequality, looking
> particularly at the role of international collaboration in nano R&D in
> China and Taiwan.
>
> **WG3**. The **Risk Perception** team is using a multiple party risk
> perception approach to study nano experts' risk perceptions, US public
> risk perception and modes of public engagement with diverse publics.
> They completed Feb, 2007 the first ever comparative US/UK public
> deliberation, focused on health and energy nanotechnologies, and they
> have developed a decision analytic survey instrument to study public
> risk perception in the US, in the field summer 2008. They are seeking
> funding for a parallel survey in the UK and considering future work in
> China. **Nano in the Public Sphere** component examines \"elite\"
> reaction to nanotechnology in global civil society, by focusing on
> media framing and activities of networks of non-governmental
> organizations.  The team has collected the most exhaustive database
> available anywhere on English-language media coverage of societal
> implications of nanotechnologies. This group also pilots methods for
> creating network maps in web-space of nano-related organizations.

**Methodologies**: The CNS-UCSB employs a full range of mixed
qualitative and quantitative methods, and uses spatial analysis and data
visualization for enhancing public participation.

> **WG1**: oral histories; data mining for geospatial mapping and
> visualization of the growth of spintronics at academic, commercial,
> and government laboratories; archival and interview methods using
> historiographic textual analysis techniques.
>
> **WG2**: qualitative interviews with academic nanoscientists, industry
> scientists and administrators in the US and East Asia, university IP
> and tech transfer systems analysis, compilation of comprehensive
> quantitative database and dynamic Google Earth map on the research and
> industry-based nanoenterprise in California; comparative discourse
> analysis of nano actors across type of organization; field research in
> China and Taiwan; database on Chinese publication and patent rates;
> Google Earth mapping of Chinese nano-enterprise; Spark IP mapping of
> China patent data
>
> **WG3**: systematic qualitative interviews with academic and industry
> nanoscientists, nano risk assessment experts, and nano regulators;
> nano health and energy deliberation protocol development, pretesting,
> and comparative implementation in US and UK sites; decision analytic
> survey instrument development for national survey of public risk
> perception in US/UK/(China?); spatial analysis of nano risk
> perception; continuous quantitative tracking of English-language media
> coverage of nano in society; development of new social network methods
> for tracking global social movement activity on the internet in
> response to nanotechnologies in order to identify and locate actors,
> interests, tactics, and rhetoric and their flux over time; development
> of new automated content analysis methods for systematic analysis of
> large textual data sets on nano regulation, nano media coverage, and
> nano elite organization discourse.

**Recent Research Findings (partial list)**:

-   Hidden histories of MBE (molecular beam epitaxy), spintronics, and
    nano's connections with space futurist movements

-   Enhanced nanotechnology research capacity and marketable innovation
    are key to the Chinese government's strategy for future commercial
    success, economic competitiveness, and continued economic growth,
    and US-China collaboration is a vital part of the innovation system

-   Chinese nano materials publications are rapidly increasing in
    quantity (if not quality) to the near-equivalent level of US
    publications;

-   Disciplinary differences among nanoscale scientists and engineers
    are associated with differing views of nanotech and risks

-   Both US and UK participants in engagement with nano health and human
    enhancement technologies and nano energy technologies are
    surprisingly similar in viewing new nanotechnologies benefits as
    outweighing risks so far; cross-application differences are far
    greater than cross-national, with energy applications viewed by both
    US and UK as more urgent and more beneficial than medical
    applications

-   During 2006 and 2007, there is no upward trend in media coverage of
    nano risks; major nano news events that did occur, using the
    criterion of an increase by more than 2 standard deviations in the
    daily number of news outlets discussing nanotechnology, tended to
    focus on regulatory actions and issues of governance

**Challenges and Opportunities (partial list)**:

-   Integration of large heterogeneous, multidisciplinary, international
    research effort

-   Low awareness conditions among the public continue flat---the
    upstream challenge

-   Scientific and technological uncertainty---the other upstream
    challenge

-   Scope of field/multiplicity of nanoscience and nanotechnologies---is
    this changing over time?

-   Maintaining the specificity of societal research to the
    nanotechnology case

-   Pace of nano R&D outstripping societal implications research
    capacity?

-   Deliberation without mechanisms for policy input---citizens want to
    know who is listening

**Selected list of CNS-UCSB publications:**

Mody, Cyrus. \"Why History Matters in Understanding the Social Issues of
Nanotechnology and Other Converging Technologies.\" *Nanoethics*.
(Forthcoming)

Lenoir, Timothy. \"Technological Platforms and the Layers of Patent
Data,\" with Giannella, Eric, Biagioli, Mario, Jaszi, Peter, &
Woodmansee, Martha, eds., *Con/Texts of Invention: Creative Production
in Legal and Cultural Perspective*, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
(2008 in press)

McCray, W. Patrick. \"Over the Red Brick Wall: Spintronics, Novelty, and
Over-the-Horizon Techologies,\" *Technology and Culture* (Forthcoming,
2008) 

Mody, Cyrus. \"Instruments of Commerce and Knowledge: Probe Microscopy,
1980-2000,\" Forthcoming. *Science and Engineering Workforce Project
Proceedings*, ed. by Richard Freeman and Daniel Goroff, U. Chicago Press
(2008).

Appelbaum, Richard P. &  Parker, Rachel. \"China\'s Bid to Become a
Global Nanotech Leader: Advancing Nanotechnology Through State-Led
Programs and International Collaborations,\" *Science and Public Policy*
35(5), June 2008: 319-334.

Newfield, Christopher. *Unmaking the Public University: The 40-Year
Assault on the Middle Class*. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (2008)

Conti, Joseph A.; Killpack, Keith; Gerritzen, Gina; Huang, Leia;
Mircheva; Maria, Delmas; Magali; Harthorn, Barbara Herr; Appelbaum,
Richard P.; and Holden, Patricia A.  \"Health and Safety Practices in
the Nanotechnology Workplace: Results from an International Survey.\"
*Environmental Science & Technology*. 10.1021/es702158q (April 2008)

Pidgeon, N.F. \"Risk, uncertainty and social controversy: from risk
perception and communication to public engagement.\" G.Bammer & M.
Smithson, eds. *Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives*.,
pp. 349-361. London, Earthscan (2008)

Mody, Cyrus & Kaiser, David. \"Scientific Training and the Creation of
Scientific Knowledge.\" *Handbook of Science and Technology Studies*,
eds. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy
Wajcman, 3rd edition, pp. 377-402. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (2008).

Mowery, David C. and J. Machers, eds., *Running Faster to Keep Up:
Globalization of R&D and U.S. Economic Welfare,* National Academies
Press (2008).

Mowery, David C. \"The \'Non-Globalization\' of Innovation in the
Semiconductor Industry\" (with A. DeMinin and J. Macher), in D. Mowery
and J.Macher, eds., *Running Faster to Keep Up: Globalization of R&D and
U.S. Economic Welfare,* National Academies Press (2008).

Mowery, David C., & Verspagen, B., eds. *Norway's Innovation System*,
Oxford University Press (2008).

Choi, Hyungsub and Mody, Cyrus. \"The Long History of Molecular
Electronics: Microelectronics Origins of Nanotechnology,\" *Social
Studies of Science* (2008)

McCray, Patrick W. \"MBE Deserves a Place in the History Books.\"
*Nature Nanotechnology*, 2, 5 (2007): 2-4.

Mowery, David C. \"The \'Non-Globalization\' of Innovation in the
Semiconductor Industry\" (with A. DeMinin and J. Macher), *California
Management Review* (2007)

Newfield, Christopher, \"Passé et passif de l\'enseignement supérieur
américain,\" *Le Monde Diplomatique* (September 2007)

Rogers-Hayden, Tee. & Pidgeon, Nick. \"Moving Engagement \'Upstream\'?
Nanotechnologies & the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering\'s
Inquiry,\" *Public Understanding of Science* (2007) 16, 345-364. ISSN
0963-6625; IF 0.193

Pidgeon, Nick, & Rogers-Hayden, Tee. \"Opening up Nanotechnology
Dialogue with the Publics: Moving Beyond Risk Debates to \'Upstream
Engagement.\'\" In A. Anderson, A. Petersen, S. Allan and C. Wilkinson
(eds.). *Health, Risk & Society*, Special Issue 9, 2 (2007): 191-210.
ISSN 1369-8575; IF 1.634.

Rogers-Hayden, Tee, Pidgeon, Nick, & Mohr, A. (eds.). \"Engaging with
Nanotechnologies-Engaging Differently?\" *Nanoethics*, Special Issue
1(2) (2007): 123-176.

Kandlikar, Milind, Ramachandran, Gurumurthy, Maynard, Andrew, Murdock,
Barbara, & Toscano, William A. \"Health Risk Assessment for
Nanoparticles: A Case for Using Expert Judgment.\" *Journal of
Nanoparticle Research*, 9 (1) (January 2007): 137--156.

Harthorn, Barbara Herr, McCray, W. Patrick & Satterfield, Terre.
\"Anthropological Research at the UCSB Center for Nanotechnology in
Society,\" *Practicing Anthropology* (special issue on nanotechnology)
28, 2 (2006): 38-40.

Mody, Cyrus C.M. \"Corporations, Universities, and Instrumental
Communities: Commercializing Probe Microscopy, 1981-1996.\" *Technology
and Culture* 47, 1(2006): 56-80.

Mody, Cyrus C.M. \"Nanotechnology and the Modern University.\"
*Practicing Anthropology* (special issue on nanotechnology) 28 (2006):
23-27.

Harthorn, Barbara Herr. \"Nano-Buzz: Societal Dimensions of Emerging
Technologies.\" *Anthropology News* (October 2006): 26.

Lenoir, Tim & Giannella, Eric. \"The Emergence and Diffusion of DNA
Microarray Technology.\" *Journal of Biomedical Discovery and
Collaboration* 1(11). (2006).

Pidgeon, Nick. \"Opportunities and uncertainties: the British
nanotechnologies report and the case for upstream societal dialogue.\"
In K. Andersson (ed.) Proceedings of VALDOR. Stockholm: Congrex Sweden,
AB (2006): 371-378. 

Pidgeon, Nick. \"Risk and Uncertainty.\" Trust in Science: The Dialogue
with Society. Berlin: Ernst Schering Foundation and the British Council:
40-45. (2006).

Lenoir, Timothy. \"The Emergence and Diffusion of DNA Microarray
Technology,\" *Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration*, Vol.
1 (no. 10): (August 2006)

Appelbaum, Richard P., Gereffi, Gary, Parker, Rachel, & Ong, Ryan.
\"From Cheap Labor to High-Tech Leadership: Will China's Investment in
Nanotechnology Pay Off?\" CNS working paper (2006)

Rogers-Hayden, Tee & Pidgeon, Nick. \"Reflecting upon the UK's
Citizens\' Jury on Nanotechnologies: Nano Jury UK.\" *Nanotechnology Law
and Business* 2, 3 (2006):167-178.

For further information about this project please see our website at
\<**http:cns.ucsb.edu\>**

##### PI: Ly James Lee

##### Title: Center for Affordable Nanoengineering of Polymeric Biomedical Devices

**Award #0425626**

**Ohio State University**

Economic, technological, and industrial competitiveness for the U.S. in
the coming decades will largely hinge on advances in nano-, bio- and
information technologies. Demand for products with nanoscale features
and functions for industrial, information, and biomedical applications,
presents significant career opportunities for future generations.
However, the development of nanotechnology lags far behind the other
two. Most nanotechnology research remains exploratory and
commercialization is hindered by a great need for mass-producible,
reliable, and affordable manufacturing processes that can lead to both
new products and existing products with high value-added features. This
proposal seeks to develop polymer-based low-cost nanoengineering
technology that can be used to produce nanofluidic devices and
multifunctional polymer-nanoparticle-biomolecule nanostructures for the
next generation medical diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

Micro/nanofabrication methods from the electronics industry exist for
producing miniature devices in silicon and glass. However, the
properties of these materials (poor impact strength/toughness, poor
biocompatibility) are inappropriate for many biomedical devices. In
contrast, polymeric materials possess many attractive properties such as
high toughness and recyclability. Some possess excellent
biocompatibility, are biodegradable, and can provide various
biofunctionalities. Proper combinations of polymers and biomolecules can
offer tailored properties for various medical devices, but the ability
to process them at the nanoscale is still largely underdeveloped.

To gain the full advantages of nanotechnology and integrate its benefits
into useful polymer-based biomedical devices requires a breadth of
high-level research with close collaboration among engineers, biomedical
researchers, chemists and physicists. Although a number of multifaceted
partnerships involving academia, government, national laboratories and
industry have been recently established in the U.S., there is an urgent
need to increase effort in this field because nanobiotechnology covers a
very broad range of challenges and opportunities. Each center or program
can only address a focused portion of these issues. We propose to
establish a multi-institutional, interdisciplinary [C]{.underline}enter
for [A]{.underline}ffordable [N]{.underline}anoengineering of
[P]{.underline}olymeric [B]{.underline}iomedical [D]{.underline}evices
(CANPBD), with a broad-based research, education, and outreach program.
The main center will be at The Ohio State University (OSU) with
complementary partners at the University of Akron, Boston University,
University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University, Florida
A&M/Florida State University (a historically black university) and
Purdue University. Collaborators include at least 20 companies in Ohio
and the U.S., Battelle, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the National
Cancer Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air
Force Labs, and researchers in Asia, Australia and Europe. We also plan
to coordinate our work closely with NSECs at the University of
California at Los Angeles and the University of Illinois-Urbana
(nanomanufacturing), the NSF STC at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill (environmentally responsible solvents), and the NSF ERCs at
the University of Washington (biomaterials and biocompatibility) and the
Georgia Institute of Technology (3D tissue models) because their
research focus complements ours in several important areas. Our research
goals partially overlap with those of the NSF STC at Cornell University
(nanofluidics) and MIT's Center for Biomedical Engineering (molecular
medicine), but the methodology proposed and the applications targeted
are substantially different. We will also seek mutually beneficial
collaboration with these centers in the future.

The research vision of the proposed center is to establish a series of
non-cleanroom, affordable, environmentally and biologically benign
nanoengineering techniques using biocompatible polymers, biomolecules,
and nanoparticles as building blocks as well as nanofluidic surface
transport as a mechanism to design, synthesize, and fabricate biomedical
and therapeutic devices*.* In the Nanomanufacturing Thrust Area, we will
combine 'top-down' fabrication and 'bottom-up' molecular self-assembly
to produce well-defined passive and active nanostructures. Examples of
novel nano-fabrication concepts that will use non-cleanroom,
nanomanufacturing protocols include the integration of
femtosecond-pulsed-laser-based solid freeform fabrication (SFF) and
sacrificial template nano-lithography on a multi-axial magnetic
suspension stage; surface force-guided dynamic self-assembly; and
supercritical fluid-enhanced molding and bonding techniques. In the
Transport Phenomena Thrust Area, the research will achieve design
capabilities at the nanoscale by combining nanofluidic design, transport
phenomena at the nanoscale, and multiphase transport structures with
multiscale modeling and macroscalar property assessment.
Biocompatibility issues will be addressed in the Biocompatibility Thrust
Area in parallel with the development of new nanofluidic designs and
devices. In addition to FDA toxicology tests, 3D 'nanofiber nests'
seeded with cells and embedded with optical sensors will be produced as
ex vivo models to provide rapid feedback on the influence of introduced
nanoscale devices fabricated in the center on the resident cell
population within this 'neotissue.' This will allow the simultaneous
testing of biocompatibility and transport properties. Further device
performance and biocompatibility will be evaluated through NIH-sponsored
animal studies at OSU's College of Medicine/Public Health, College of
Pharmacy, James Cancer Research Institute, and Davis Heart and Lung
Institute, as well as through some collaborating companies and
laboratories.

The near-term goal of the three closely linked research thrust areas is
to design and fabricate polymer-based, 3D nanofluidic circuits for
manipulating the shape, orientation and transport behavior of individual
biomolecules in well-defined nanoscale flow fields (5-100 nm). Such
novel circuits will offer a controlled, dynamic environment for both
biomedical diagnostics that use enzymatic reactions and for molecular
transport in therapeutic processes, resulting in significant improvement
over existing methods. Test bed examples include a simple, handheld
protein separation/diagnostic device; an electroosmotic flow (EOF)-based
'four-roll-mill' for high-speed dynamic hybridization and complexation;
a nanoneedle cell patch for low-invasive delivery of genes and
macromolecular medicines into cell walls by electrophoretic stretching
of molecules through converging channels located in the nanoneedles; and
biomolecular nanopumps as synthetic ion channels.

The ultimate goal is to design and assemble a 'nanofactory' based on the
integration of nanofluidic circuits, synthetic chemistry and biological
complexation. Nanofluidics in conjunction with externally tunable
surface forces at the nanoscale will be used to overcome the Brownian
motion and relaxation forces of biomolecules and nanoparticles, so they
can be caged in the fluid or near the solid surface with a desirable
shape and orientation, and moved along a pre-specified 'assembly line'
in channel-like networks with controlled velocity and displacement.
Together with synthetic chemistry and biological complexation, this
nanofactory platform will allow continuous production of well-defined,
multifunctional 3D biomimetic nanostructures and devices through
polymer-biomolecule and polymer-nanoparticle-biomolecule conjugation.
Such biologically active nanoscale structures and devices may greatly
enhance clinical realization of extensive genomics and proteomics
research results for the treatment of cancers, chronic, infectious,
parasitological and central nervous diseases, and vaccine delivery. A
test bed example is virus-like polymer-DNA conjugates.

Our education and outreach vision is to integrate the latest research
developments into a practical student curriculum that imparts
multidisciplinary skills and global awareness to both graduate and
undergraduate students. The key elements include a series of new courses
to introduce nanoengineering of biomedical devices and related topics;
an interdisciplinary curriculum offering an undergraduate minor and a
graduate certificate; internships and visits to industry and national
laboratories in the U.S. and abroad; and web-based dissemination. To
promote technology transfer and commercialization, the proposed center
will serve as an incubator of SBIR/STTR and NIST-ATP proposals prepared
by teams of faculty, students and companies. The recruitment and
retention of minorities and women will be emphasized through close
collaboration with minority institutes such as FAMU/FSU. Undergraduate
students will participate in research via senior honors theses and
targeted REU support. A systematic outreach plan involving a major
science education institution and public television station will promote
awareness of this area among K-12 students and the public. Outreach
activities include: web-based science modules for K-12 students
nationwide; workshops and short courses for high school science teachers
and industrial researchers; on-site research projects for middle school
and high school students supervised by graduate students; and a
documentary following the discovery and development of biomedical
devices.

The center will be linked closely with a newly established research
facility, the Ohio MicroMD Laboratory at OSU. MicroMD represents an
ongoing \$27M investment from the State of Ohio and OSU. It is designed
to integrate micro/nanofabrication to support a broad range of
activities, including MEMS/NEMS applications and ceramic and polymer
synthesis/processing. The bioprocessing line is fully enabled for
production of biological components and reagents. The organization of
CANPBD includes the Director and an Executive Committee, the Education
Director and an Education and Outreach Committee, an Industrial Advisory
Board, a Steering Committee, and a Medical Evaluation Board. Faculty
participants will be invited to submit collaborative proposals for
fellowships that will be competitively evaluated by the Executive
Committee in consultation with the Industrial Advisory Board and the
Medical Evaluation Board. Each fellow will be linked with an
interdisciplinary advisory team, comprised of a primary advisor,
co-advisor(s), and an industry mentor. Both internal and external (IAB
and an External Evaluation Team) assessments will be carried out
annually for program monitoring and improvement. The evaluation plan
will incorporate both formative and summative evaluation to determine
any modifications needed to improve project effectiveness and to
determine the degree to which objectives are being achieved.

A research team of 40 faculty (7 from underrepresented groups) from the
seven partner universities is assembled for this collaborative effort.
The team includes many well-established senior faculty (3 members of
National Academy of Science or Engineering, 2 Distinguished University
Professors at OSU, 7 Chaired Professors, 4 Department Chairs, the
Associate Dean for Medicine and Public Health and the Assistant Dean of
the College of Engineering at OSU, and 4 winners of the prestigious OSU
Distinguished Scholar Award) and high quality young faculty (5 Assistant
Professors and 13 Associate Professors). Their affiliations and
expertise are given in the List of Participants and their roles
discussed in the proposal. Equally important is the availability of
sophisticated research equipment and facilities housed at OSU and
partner universities. Collectively, the above labs feature over \$50M in
state-of-the-art equipment in synthesis and characterization,
manufacturing, and device/sensor fabrication and testing. Additional
infrastructure exists in the form of a recently funded NSF IGERT
(Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship) program,
involving many faculty from OSU and FAMU/FSU in the proposed center, on
the theme 'Molecular Engineering of Microdevices' (MEMD). This topic is
highly complementary to the center's focus. The IGERT program will
partially support thirty outstanding domestic Ph.D. students over the
next five years and will develop a series of interdisciplinary courses
on nanotechnology. Cost sharing will be made available to the proposed
center through an additional \> \$3M cash contribution and \> \$8M
in-kind contribution.

The intellectual merit of the proposed activities in research is to
revolutionize medical diagnosis and medicine by establishing (1) an
affordable multiscale synthesis and fabrication protocol leading to a
nanofactory for nanofluidic and polymer therapeutic devices; (2) a
multiscale modeling approach to achieve science-based material and
process optimization, and virtual device and process analysis at the
nanoscale; and (3) a comprehensive biocompatibility study to ensure that
the materials used and the devices developed follow regulatory policy
and are relevant to the targeted biomedical applications.

The intellectual merit of the proposed activities in education and
outreach is to (1) establish an interdisciplinary curriculum and
training program to help students and industrial researchers develop
skills needed to establish/adapt to careers in the burgeoning field of
nanoengineering of biomedical devices; and (2) enhance the
competitiveness of U.S. industry and promote awareness of this area of
research among K-12 students and the public.

The broader impacts of the proposed activities are to (1) realize the
commercialization of nanoengineered biomedical devices through
affordable manufacturing methods and novel design, (2) extend research
results from medical/biology applications to homeland security,
environmental protection, and toxicology in the food industry, (3)
establish new products and new industries to create high-paying jobs in
the U.S., and (4) train the 21st century workforce in both economically
important traditional industries and critical high-tech fields.

**PI: Michael Lynch**

**Title: Visualization at the Nanoscale: The Uses of Images in the
Production and Promotion of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology**

**Award #0822757**

**Cornell University**

The project is on the visualization of nanoscale phenomena, and draws
upon previous studies visual representation in science and engineering,
including research on microscopy, astronomy, and forensic science that I
conducted over the past three decades.

*Visualization* is a term used in science and technology studies (STS)
to describe the use of instruments, materials and practices to make
research objects visible, analyzable, and communicable. Visual images
and the processes of transforming them are studied as important means
for producing, reproducing, and disseminating knowledge. For the past
thirty years, the topic has been pursued by historians and philosophers
of science, art historians, sociologists and anthropologists, cognitive
scientists, communication scholars, and others. Many studies examine
publicly presented images and textual illustrations, but of special
interest for historians and ethnographers are the far more numerous
pictorial and graphic images that are prepared, examined, and archived
in scientific and technological projects, often without ever being
published or publicly exhibited. One reason for taking an interest in
unpublished images and electronic data displays is they document how
data are progressively transformed throughout a project. Especially in
fields that deploy digital data, it is commonplace for pictures to be
converted to and from arrays of numerical measures. Often, pictorial
renderings include graphic overlays, verbal labels, and numerical
indices. Studying such juxtapositions and serial renderings enables
ethnographers and historians to retrace how candidate images are
selectively processed for specific analytical and presentational
purposes.

The study I am about to start focuses on images of nanoscale phenomena
(nano-images for the sake of brevity). There are two principal reasons
for this focus.

\(1\) Nano-images (or at least some of them) are said to be created
through manipulation, and they have no clear relation to independently
observable entities. Nevertheless, they are composed as visible
configurations of shape and color that evoke familiar landscapes and
discernable patterns, while laying claim to a future of what can be seen
and/or built at the nanoscale. The project will explore the question of
what, if anything, is novel about nano-scale images. Probe microscopes
have a different (more "tactile") relationship to objects of study than
transmission electron microscopes, but does this make any difference for
what researchers do with the images? If so, what difference do they
make?

\(2\) Nano-images and image galleries appear to have a leading role in
the promotion of nanoscience and technology as part of a broad-based
movement in science and industry. This raises the question of what, if
any, relation the popularized images have to visualization of nanoscale
phenomena at the research front. Do "serious" researchers attempt to
distance their studies from the popularized images, or do they use them
selectively to draw public attention, or even to gain initial insight
into the phenomena they study?

Most of the work of this project will involve interviews and a limited
amount of direct observation at selected science and engineering
laboratories at Cornell University. Extended and repeated open-ended
interviews with laboratory researchers and relevant technical staff will
focus on specific images and sequences of image-processing work.
Examples of images of different kinds will be collected and examined for
the way they deploy visual rhetoric for specific analytical and
presentational purposes. A few trips will be taken to other universities
that support a combination of nano-scale research and groups of
researchers who study historical, social and ethical aspects of such
research.

The research will contribute to STS scholarship on visualization in
science, and to social and cultural studies of nanoscience and
nanotechnology. The proposed project is part of an effort to transform
traditional concepts of scientific knowledge and representation by
stressing the practical and epistemic importance of visual phenomena and
material culture. Specifically, it will shed light on the various types
of nano-image, and examine whether and how they represent novel
relations to objects of study and to different audiences. The project
also will focus on an explicit, popularized use of transformative
discourse and imagery to construct and promote a research front that
spans a broad range of disciplines. The study includes an effort to
identify specific elements of visual rhetoric that have been prominent
in the promotion of "nano".

The project also will supplement ongoing research and training at
Cornell University (and in the S&TS Department specifically) on ethical,
legal, and social aspects of emerging technologies. The research will
also contribute to a book (tentatively titled *Images in Science*)
designed for undergraduate and graduate level teaching in history, STS,
visual studies, and other fields.

**PI: Paul Nealey**

**Title: NSEC: Templated Synthesis and Assembly at the Nanoscale**

**Award #0425880**

**University of Wisconsin**

**Societal Dimensions Component:**

Research in science communication has shown that most of the general
public learns about scientific developments though the mass media,
rather than through formal outreach activities organized by science
centers and research institutions (see Nisbet et al., 2002 for a
discussion). At the same time, value predispositions (such as levels of
religiosity and deference to scientific authority) have been shown to
shape opinion formation on controversial scientific topics in general
and nanotechnology in particular (Brossard et al., in press; Brossard &
Nisbet, 2007).

Communication researchers have therefore explored the influence of
traditional mass media (such and television and print media) on
attitudes toward controversial science, and analyzed how mediated
messages might be interpreted when filtered though different values
(e.g. Brossard & Nisbet, 2007; Brossard et al., in press). Less
understood, however, is how the public's increasing reliance on
information disseminated through the World Wide Web might be influencing
public understanding and attitudes toward nanomaterials. With the online
world providing more and more easily accessible information and being
the information medium of choice of young adults (Pew Internet &
American Life Project, 2008), it is crucial to understand the role
played by the Internet in public opinion dynamics related to
nanotechnology. In this context, the goal of the proposed project will
be three-fold:

1)  The identification of the major themes currently present in online
    English discussions of nanotechnology. This will be performed
    through

    a.  An analysis of auto-complete terms appearing in search engines
        such as google and youtube as individuals type "nanotechnology"
        into the search bars (these terms are based on the history of
        words searched);

    b.  a quantitative content analysis of major web-based providers of
        information on nanotechnology in general and engineered
        nanomaterials in particular; this will include a representative
        sample of commercial blogs, government funded websites, and
        private blogs

2)  The understanding of the psychological processes through which lay
    audiences make sense of complex information conveyed through the
    Internet. More particularly, we will assess how different value
    predispositions and affective strategies might be used by lay
    publics to make sense of information related to engineered
    nanomaterials, when presented through different formats. We will
    also examine how these variables might impact perceptions of risks
    and benefits. Experimental approaches will be used for this aspect
    of the project (pre-post test designs), with an emphasis on
    understanding the role of visual imagery in shaping public
    perceptions

3)  The testing of new forms of online public participation, by
    collaborating with regional and local newspapers and community
    organizations.

It should be noted that our project will coordinate efforts with the
Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University
(Wisconsin based team) who have agreed to provide us with access to
their print media content methodology and database, and their survey
data. Efforts are also underway to ensure that we produce synergies with
the work currently conducted at the CNS at the UCSB.

References

Brossard, D., Kim, E., Scheufele, D.A., & Lewenstein, B.V. (in press).
Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion
formation about nanotechnology. [Public Understanding of
Science]{.underline}.

Brossard, D. & Nisbet, M. (2007). Deference to scientific authority
among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on
agricultural biotechnology. [International Journal of Public Opinion
Research 19]{.underline}(1). 24-52.

Nisbet, M., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., &
Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? Mass
media and public perceptions of science. [Communication Research
29]{.underline}(5), 584-607.

Pew Internet & American Life Project (2008). Social networking and
online videos take off: Internet\'s broader role in campaign 2008. *Pew
Internet & American Life Project* Retrieved April 13, 2008, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Pew_MediaSources_jan08.pdf.

**PI: Susanna Priest**

**Title: Building Capacity for Understanding and Assessing the Impact of
Nanotechnology Media Messages**

**Award #0758195**

**University of Nevada, Las Vegas**

This project initially involves experimental testing of media messages
about nanotechnology. A primary theoretical purpose is to determine
whether framing per se (involving manipulation of article emphasis
through paragraph order) has an impact on risk perception, independent
of the actual information provided. A secondary theoretical purpose is
to determine the possible effects of personal tolerance for uncertainty
on risk perception (as perceived from media messages). We are also
exploring which types of nanotechnology are perceived as higher risk,
which types of risk (social versus health/environmental) are perceived
as being of more concern, and whether the inclusion of information about
regulation raises or lowers risk perceptions, as well as whether
exposure to a series of examples about nanotechnology risks results in
an amplified risk perception or an attenuated one in comparison to
initial reactions to a first message. Priest, Greenhalgh, and Yaros are
leading this effort.

Additional research led by Besley and McComas will explore the impact of
embedding procedural and distributional justice information in similar
messages.

A workshop planned for January 8-9, 2009, at UNLV will bring the
researchers together to discuss these initial results and decide how to
extend the research. This workshop will be part of a broader open
discussion (in a "mini-conference" format) about communicating emerging
technology-related risks, from nuclear waste disposal to global climate
change. Paul Thompson from MSU will be the keynote speaker and will
address ethical issues associated with such efforts.

This project complements work Priest began at USC and continues at UNLV,
a panel study associated with the USC NSEC effort looking at long-term
development of public opinion about nanotechnology based on a
small-scale panel study design. Together with the experimental work, we
expect to generate significant new insights into public opinion
formation in response to media messages.

##### 

**PI: Nathan Swami**

**Title: Upstream identification of EHS risks by Scenario Analysis and
Expert Elicitation**

**Award #0508347**

**University of Virginia**

**Research Goals:** The marketplace for products based on nanotechnology
is poised to grow tremendously. However, in order to realize the
projected market potential of nanotechnology, the uncertainties posed by
nanotechnology need to be characterized through the upstream
identification of risks and opportunities. The research goals of this
project are:

1.  Developing a framework to identify the risks and impacts from
    nanotechnology.

2.  Developing approaches to weigh benefits from nanotechnology against
    risks.

3.  Identifying pathways to regulation of nanotechnology based on risk.

**Thematic Areas**: Some of the thematic areas that guide our study
include:

1.  How can potential risks of an emerging technology be estimated from
    a study of potential hazards and exposure scenarios?

2.  Exploring models for *risk* and *opportunity-based* regulation of
    nanotechnology.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.0in"
height="3.453472222222222in"}**Methodologies:** Using scenario analysis
methodology, social scientists (ethicists, cognitive scientists and
policy experts) and technical scientists (chemists, materials
scientists, and toxicologists) negotiate the issues with stakeholders
using *moral imagination* and *expert elicitation* to identify
risk-based approaches to the development and regulation of
nanotechnology. A set of pre-identified exposure "scenarios" and risk
\"triggers" are scored during expert elicitation for likelihood of
occurrence of the exposure scenarios, their hazards, and the particular
nano-product properties that trigger the risk, so

Figure 1: Methodology for upstream identification of risks and
opportunities

that we may identify *which* products or technologies pose greater
risks, *where* these risks are in the product life cycle and *how* the
society is impacted due to these environmental risks.

**Recent Research Findings**: Starting with an analysis of the spectrum
of proposals for the regulation of nanotechnology (Figure 2), two
publications and one MRS conference presentation focused on the
regulatory gaps that apply to nanotechnology (Table 1).

Figure 2. Continuum of Nanotechnology Regulation Proposals

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.006944444444445in"
  height="2.0145833333333334in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.0in" height="2.7375in"}Table 1

Recent work has focused on applying the framework to air freshener
sprays and silver nanotechnology products to illustrate the
characterization of particular scenarios with high risk, nanoparticle
properties that trigger higher risk, and the intersection of high-risk
scenarios with high-risk triggers to map the negative impacts of the
nanoparticles \[3\].

\[1\] Environmental Regulatory Implications for Nanomaterials under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), *IEEE Technology and Society
Magazine, Summer* **2007**, *2*, 48-56.

\[2\] The Product Life Cycle and Challenges to Nanotechnology
Regulation, Nanotechnology Law and Business, Vol 3, Issue 4.

\[3\] Identification of Risks in the Life-Cycle of Nanotechnology-Based
Products, Journal of Industrial Ecology, August (2007).

**Challenges and Opportunities**: The expert elicitation process is
being continuously widened to consider more scenarios and risk triggers,
and the next step is to include regulatory gaps and knowledge gaps in
the process. A major challenge is in the assessment of *which*
regulatory gaps apply to *which* nano-products, to *what* extent, and
*where* in the product life cycle. This will establish pathways to move
from the current regime of list-based regulation to risk-based
regulation. The inclusion of 'knowledge gaps' within this framework to
delineate areas where the need for EHS research on nanotechnology is
considerable will also be an area for future work. Furthermore, while
the present study focused on a framework for the early evaluation of
risks of nanotechnology-based products, it could also be used to
anticipate possible benefits, creating opportunities for new
nanotechnology products.

**PI: Sandip Tiwari**

**Title: Society and Ethics Activities of National Nanotechnology
Infrastructure Network**

**Award #0335765**

**Cornell University**

The National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) is a
collective of university-based open facilities that support the pursuit
of research and development in all areas that can benefit from the rapid
developments of the science, engineering and technology of the
nanoscale. The facilities, through an open environment that trains and
supports nearly 4700 users from academia, industry and federal
laboratories, enables rapid discovery, translation of the discoveries to
engineering demonstrations, development of useful technologies, and the
transition the engineering advances to commerce. The network also
conducts educational and outreach efforts across the age groups to grow
an educated workforce and for broader enlightenment. Nanotechnology, by
leveraging the properties and control of phenomena at the atomic,
molecular and interfacial scale, is a frontier area of exploration in
science and engineering and at interdisciplinary boundaries. The ethical
implications, the understanding of health and environment issues, and,
because science is such a powerful social force, the larger questions
that arise when new technologies are introduced, are also important to
the consciousness of the scientific enterprise. Societal and ethical
consciousness is thus an overarching theme throughout the network's
activities. The network also conducts independent research that draws on
network's strengths as an infrastructure, as a large community of
scientists and engineers from many different disciplines and as a large
catalyst for commercialization through small and large companies.

Diversity is one aspect that is essential for transformative societal
change. Network's educational and outreach activities focus on this
through mentorship, encouragement, opportunity and support that reaches
out to the young to foster exploration and learning, the pre-college in
analyzing and understanding the fundamental scientific concepts, the
undergraduate to learn the process of research and the opportunities in
various directions of science and engineering, the graduate students to
develop experimental interdisciplinary nanoscale fabrication and
characterization skills, and the advanced scientists a forum for
exploring major challenges of nanoscience and engineering problems in
workshops. These activities take the form of activities in local
communities, research experience programs for undergraduates, programs
for teachers, technical training workshops, advanced symposia on major
technical themes, a program for laboratory experience for
underrepresented faculty and institutions, a showcase of hands-on
activities and lectures at professional meetings geared towards
underrepresented community, advanced research, and programs for US
students to go abroad -- to Japan, Germany, India -- for an
international research, education, and societal perspective. Ethical
attitudes in conduct of research and development and a conscious
understanding of the implications of the technologies being developed
are an integral element of educated research. The network's user
training programs, which reach nearly 4700 researchers, including more
than 3500 graduate student researchers, and the variety of workshops and
educational events, include in-context societal and ethical debate and
discussion.

NNIN's unique strengths and unique opportunities for society and ethics
activities arise through the presence of large academic and industrial
community, the breadth of scientific directions being pursued, and the
connections of the research and development being undertaken to issues
of societal impact of technology and of human resources. NNIN brings
together social scientists and other scholars studying nanotechnology,
fosters coordination and discussion, develops web-based resources for
research and education, reaches out to the public through the media, and
continues to build on an online archive of documents. These resources
are available through SEI portal of NNIN's website,
[www.nnin.org](http://www.nnin.org/).

Four of the network sites have also conducted research to explore and
address ethics, research impact and human resource questions. The
research effort from Cornell has resulted in several articles concerning
media coverage and public opinion of nanotechnology, regulation
questions of nascent technologies with particular attention to
risk-benefit and precautionary policymaking. The efforts have also led
to collaborations, including with researchers at the Cultural Cognition
Project at Yale Law School on a series of experimental investigations of
how message frames, cultural status markers, and other aspects of
communication affect the public's perception of nanotechnology's risks
and benefits. From Georgia Tech, in a study of innovation and industrial
change in relation to nanotechnology, centered on intellectual property
issues and comparisons with biotechnology, several articles discussed
university-industry collaborative research and patenting practices in
high technology industries. One research outcome of particular interest
to NNIN is evidence suggesting that access to cutting-edge equipment is
a more important determinant of innovativeness for nanotechnology firms
than for biotechnology firms. At Stanford, Prof. Robert McGinn undertook
a major survey of beliefs and attitudes among NNIN users regarding the
substance and significance of nano-SEI. This research provided critical
empirical and analytical material to support the importance of SEI
integration within NNIN's institutional structure and user base.
Nanotechnology and NNIN bring interesting questions related to
technology shifts and organizational dynamics in multi-site and multi-
and inter-disciplinary technology. These questions have been pursued at
University of Washington.

NNIN's uniqueness and most significant asset is its national community
which is not accessible through any other resource. SEI has therefore
premium on integrating consideration of SEI matters within NNIN's user
community and to promote SEI awareness among other relevant publics. The
network designed and implemented an SEI web portal that makes available
papers, lectures, and other materials to a worldwide audience. In
collaboration with Prof. David Guston at Arizona State University, SEI
training module was developed, and is in use in the standard new user
initiation process. SEI researchers of NNIN have been active in
presenting their work in various academic and broader public fora, and
in coordinating with other units on their respective campuses to engage
in interdisciplinary discussion. SEI education activities also have been
substantial, in particular at Stanford, where Prof. McGinn has developed
a nanotechnology SEI unit for an engineering ethics course. At Cornell
Nanoscale Facility's 30^th^ anniversary, a full day SEI workshop was
held in 2007 that was attended by more than 400 participants. Earlier
workshops have included special outreach efforts devoted to journalists,
lawyers, and to scientific community through sessions organized at AAAS.

The network's activities have encompassed organization of workshops and
symposia, creation of online resources for the community, teaching of
courses and development of curricular material, site-based discussions
and public forums and impact studies. In pursuing these efforts, it is
clear that as a community, the scientist's way of approaching science's
societal context versus the humanist's approach are quite different;
often they speak a different language, have a different time-scale and
definitiveness with which the views are articulated. In research, the
study by Prof. R. McGinn of the ethics-oriented attitudes in the
network's user community, at various sites, in various disciplines, of
various backgrounds, has been the largest study of this community to
date. It uncovered many issues. An important strength of the network is
that lessons from such a study can be rapidly implemented.

During the coming years, the SEI activities of the network are going to
increasingly focus on the **network becoming the nation's first
open-access research facility for the social scientific study of
science.** With these guiding thoughts, NNIN has organized activities to
leverage the national, infrastructure, and community as the foundation
for intellectual and broader outreach efforts.

The ethics training module training module, developed for users, was
based on earlier trials with REU education program and other feedback
received through use at one site. One of the strengths of a network is
that larger efforts can be implemented after testing and assessment.
This training approach will continue to be refined as the network gains
more experience. The educational activities of the network that are
directed towards undergraduate students, graduate students, teachers,
the local workshops and the national symposia will also continue to
incorporate the SEI learning as integrated part of the scientific
discussion and training. The most significant activity of this approach
will be in NNIN iWSG, the international Winter School for graduate
students where an SEI faculty will be part of the teaching of the first
week and the science-in-society experience in the second week in a
developing world country. Developing countries are nearly 4/5th of the
humanity, are increasingly integrated in the global society that we are
part of, and the life of the future leaders of science and engineering
and US will be strongly coupled to this world. Until now, most of the
interactions in education and research abroad have tended to be with
Europe and Japan - developed countries. This program is an experiment in
exposing and developing leaders that have a global, and not just a
developed world view of society and the role of science and technology
in it. As an example, in the four winter courses described earlier, each
one, organic electronics and optoelectronics through issues of efficient
lighting and energy, nanofabrication through use in information
technology, nanoelectronics through the use of mobile technology, and
nanoscale interfaces through filtration and decontamination, provide
major opportunities for interaction through low cost design, low cost
use, non-western models of interaction, internet-based education and
learning, water filtration, reduction in use of materials, etc. as
societal subjects. The students will participate in activities in poor
communities through initiatives of non-government organizations.

NNIN will strive to be widely available for social scientific study of
science offering itself as a resource. The network will open itself to
outside SEI researchers for data collection, ethnographic study,
experimentation, and other research. A fundamental objective of the
federal SEI initiative is to develop national self-awareness and
self-criticality regarding the impact of nanotechnology research. NNIN
can contribute to this objective by permitting study and analysis of
research being pursued by the user community of NNIN, thus taking
advantage of the nation's most diverse, dynamic and ambitious nanoscale
research enterprises. This effort will be pursued by both internal
researchers and by opening the network for studies by external
researchers. To not interfere with NNIN's primary mission of enabling
R&D, access will need to be limited to only worthy and unburdensome
research proposals. An advisory board will be convened to assist the SEI
Coordinator to undertake selection of outside research following an open
solicitation. The SEI Coordinator will also ensure that ongoing SEI
research from within NNIN takes full advantage of the researchers'
unique position as part of a technical network. The internal research
efforts of the network include:

\(a\) The ethics-and-nanotechnology survey will be updated and
readministered to take into account new ethical issues related to
nanotechnology issues since the initial survey and to use the survey's
findings in teaching and training. A module on "ethical responsibility
and the nanotechnology research laboratory" will be developed, tested
and refined, and with input from NNIN sites, incorporated in the user
training and certification process. NNIN will also organize a scholarly
conference on ethics and nanotechnology with the target community of
NNIN users and nanotechnology researchers.

\(b\) The nature and diversity of NNIN research and the user community
provides a unique opportunity to identify barriers to interdisciplinary
collaborations and to study the strengths and weaknesses of
collaborative efforts for different research directions. By combining
network-wide surveys with in-depth interviews with scientists, this
project will provide recommendations to federal agencies for enhancing
interdisciplinary collaborations and making them more effective.

\(c\) NNIN's industrial users will be surveyed to identify the type of
industrial innovations that result from NNIN use and to connect to how
federal funding contributes to competitiveness. A second study will
examine spillovers from research conducted in the NNIN network to
industrial research. Using patents on NNIN-related researchers, the
study will explore whether government funding for research conducted by
the faculty has its broader impact for technology transfer through
licensing or through consulting. The research will be able to understand
if in nanotechnology, direct funding of research is a significant
contributor to technology transfer. By broadening the study to non-NNIN
university faculty, the survey will also be able to examine if the
research transfer happens differently.

NNIN will also continue to broaden the web-based infrastructure focus of
the network by focusing on establishing the NNIN SEI portal as a
comprehensive library for social scientists pursuing nanotechnology. The
portal will be open to the social science community to contribute
educational materials, research papers, multimedia files, and other
forms for knowledge access mechanisms.

**PI: James J. Watkins**

**Title: NSEC: Center for Hierarchical Manufacturing**

**Award #0531171**

**University of Massachusetts Amherst**

Researchers in the Science, Technology and Society (STS) Initiative,
based in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences (CSBS) and the
Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst, work with the NSF Center for Hierarchical
Manufacturing to examine societal implications of nanotechnology with a
focus on emerging industry and university networks, risk management, EHS
and public policy.

NanoSRG brings together faculty from five research centers and seven
departments and programs including faculty from political science,
sociology, economics, psychology, anthropology, communication, legal
studies, natural resources conservation and history. NanoSRG faculty are
focusing on two activities:

1.  Organization and leadership of three national research and policy
    workshops

2.  An industry study of risk management behavior of nano scientists and
    firms in light of environmental health and safety challenges and
    opportunities for innovation.

[Workshops]{.underline}

The STS Initiative held its first workshop, "Nanotechnology and Society:
The Organization and Policy of Innovation," on May 17, 2007 at the
University of Massachusetts Amherst. The workshop brought together more
than 80 national and international faculty, public officials, scientists
and students to examine a range of societal implications of emerging
nanoscale technologies, including:

-   Technology innovation and dispute resolution

-   The role of the media in forming public opinion and informing public
    policy on emergent technologies

-   Visual perception of nanoscale phenomena

-   Organization and economics of the nanotechnology research and
    development enterprise

Workshop presenters included Howard Gadlin, Ombudsman, National
Institutes of Health Office of the Ombudsman, Center for Cooperative
Resolution; John Armstrong, former Vice President for science and
technology and IBM Director of research; David Rejeski, Director of the
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the Foresight and Governance
Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; among
others.

To capture the knowledge and activities of the workshop, all panels and
question and answer periods were videotaped. These videos, as well as
presentation slides and information about speakers, are available at the
NanoSRG's website:
[www.umass.edu/sts/nano/2007.html](http://www.umass.edu/sts/nano/2007.html)

Using themes developed from the workshop, the NanoSRG also organized a
half-day Policy Roundtable to bring together policymakers and
researchers to build dialogue and understanding between research and
policymaking. Discussions at the roundtable were also used to identify
potential topics for upcoming nanotechnology and society workshops.
Specifically, the roundtable was used to address the following
questions:

-   What are the most pressing challenges for continued advancement of
    the nanotechnology research and policy agenda?

-   How can governments encourage innovation and competitiveness in this
    emerging technological arena while at the same time safeguard the
    public good?

-   What distinctive dimensions of nanotechnology need to be considered
    in crafting responses to these questions?

Roundtable participants included Lee Dillard-Adams, Deputy Regional
Director, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection;
Representative Ellen Story, Joint Committee on Economic Development and
Emerging Technologies; George Kachen, Director, Research and Technology
Development, University of Massachusetts Lowell; Robert Hillger, Senior
Science Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston;
Bill Ennen, Program Director, John Adams Innovation Institute,
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative; among others. A full participant
list is available at
[www.umass.edu/sts/nano/2007roundtable.html](http://www.umass.edu/sts/nano/2007roundtable.html).

The STS Initiative is working closely with CHM and the National
Nanomanufacturing Network (NNN) to plan the second workshop,
Nanotechnology and Society: Emerging Opportunities and Challenges, which
will take place October 3, 2008. Panels will address topics including
the management of risk, the role of networks, and tools for knowledge
sharing and transfer. All workshop panels will again be videotaped and
made freely available on the STS NanoSRG website in an effort to both
preserve and disseminate knowledge:
[www.umass.edu/sts/nano/2008.html](http://www.umass.edu/sts/nano/2008.html).
The final workshop is planned for 2009 and will address current
knowledge of nanomanufacturing materials and the implications for policy
and practice.

[Risk Perception and Management in the Nanotech Industry]{.underline}

The Social and Demographic Research Institute (SADRI), in partnership
with STS, is leading a research project that examines the "Social
Organization and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology Research,
Development and Manufacturing Collaborations." Specifically, the
survey's sample frame and database has been developed using firm data
from Massachusetts firms listed in Nanobank (www.nanobank.org) and in
Dun & Bradstreet databases. The project examines how organizations
acquire patented technology, how they manage research and development
collaborations, internal labor force dynamics, and emerging
environmental and occupational health and safety practices.

Presentations of research findings to date have been made at several
national conferences including the Nanobank Research Conference;
American Sociological Association's Annual Meeting, and the American
Political Science Association annual meeting. A preliminary report on
the research project will be available by early Fall 2008 and
presentations highlighting this summer's findings will be included in
the October 2008 workshop.

[The National Nanomanufacturing Network (NNN)]{.underline}

The UMass Amherst NanoSRG group has begun to work closely with the
National Nanomanufacturing Network. The NNN (nanomanufacturing.org) is
an open network for collaboration and information exchange among the
nanomanufacturing research, development and education community. The
network is an alliance of academic, government and industry partners
that cooperate to advance nanomanufacturing strength in the U.S. The
goal of the NNN is to build a network of experts and organizations that
facilitate and expedite the transition of nanotechnologies from core
research and breakthroughs in the laboratory to production
manufacturing. Network participants find value added through a range of
services including training and education, industrial vision and roadmap
development, thematic conferences and workshops, and a comprehensive
information clearinghouse, *InterNano*. InterNano incorporates
informatics technologies to satisfy the data sharing and analysis needs
of its community and works with complimentary clearinghouse projects to
facilitate data sharing among the various groups engaged with
nanomanufacturing.

**PI: Susan M. Wolf**

**Title: NIRT: Evaluating Oversight Mechanisms for Active Nanostructures
and Nanosystems: Learning from Past Technologies in a Societal Context**

**Award #0608791**

**University of Minnesota**

This 4-year project (Sept. 2006-Aug. 2010) is providing the first
integrative assessment of historical oversight models most germane to
nanobiotechnology. In phase I, the project developed a multi-criteria
method of assessing oversight using expert elicitation in order to
evaluate 6 historical models: drugs, medical devices, gene transfer
research, genetically engineered organisms, chemicals in the workplace,
and chemicals in the environment. The 6 historical oversight models were
chosen because they are germane to nanobio and represent a range of
oversight approaches. We searched the literature on oversight assessment
methods, utilized this literature to draft preliminary criteria
possibilities, vetted these criteria with the Working Group and elicited
their feedback, developed a set of 28 criteria for use in our oversight
assessment, and have begun drafting our findings on the application of
these criteria to each of the 6 areas. A major paper on this pioneering
multi-criteria assessment methodology is in press at *Risk Analysis*. In
phase II we are completing the case studies, preparing a comparative
paper to glean the oversight lessons from all 6 cases, identifying
relevant nano-products and research domains, and beginning to map our
Working Group's consensus paper on oversight recommendations for
nanobio. We have developed a Nanotechnology & Society Fall 2008 seminar
course open to students across the university, with course cross-listing
in public affairs and law. Phase II will result in a symposium in the
*Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics* in Winter '09. In phase III, we will
refine the consensus paper using scenario analysis, host a public
conference in Spring '10, and publish a resulting symposium. The
multidisciplinary project team has already begun publication (see below)
integrating various methods of analysis and criteria for assessment to
evaluate oversight models for key technologies using a historical and
comparative approach.

[Project-Related Publications]{.underline}:

J. Kuzma, *Nanotechnology Oversight: Just Do It,* 12 [Environmental Law
Reporter]{.smallcaps} 10913-23 (2006).

M. Kandlikar, G. Ramachandran, A.D. Maynard, B. Murdock & W.A. Toscano,
*Health Risk Assessment for Nanoparticles: A Case for Using Expert
Judgment*, 9 [Journal of Nanoparticle Research]{.smallcaps} 137-56
(2007).

J. Kuzma, *Moving Forward Responsibly: Oversight for the
Nanotechnology-biology Interface*, 9 [Journal of Nanoparticle
Research]{.smallcaps} 165-82 (2007).

J. Paradise, S.M. Wolf, G. Ramachandran, E. Kokkoli, R. Hall & J. Kuzma,
*Developing Oversight Frameworks for Nanobiotechnology*, 9(1) [Minnesota
Journal of Law, Science & Technology]{.smallcaps} 187-203 (Winter 2008).

J. Paradise, G.M. Diliberto, A.W. Tisdale & E. Kokkoli, *Exploring
Emerging Nanobiotechnology Drugs and Medical Devices*, 63(2) [Food and
Drug Law Journal]{.smallcaps} 407-20 (2008).

J. Kuzma, J. Romanchek & A. Kokotovitch, *Upstream Oversight Assessment
for Agrifood Nanotechnology: A Case Studies Approach*, [Risk
Analysis]{.smallcaps} (in press).

J. Kuzma & J.C. Besley, *Ethics of Risk Analysis and Regulatory Review:
From Bio- to Nanotechnology*, [Nanoethics]{.smallcaps} (in press).

J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, G. Ramachandran, J. Kim, A. Kokotovich & S.M.
Wolf, *An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging
Technologies*, [Risk Analysis]{.smallcaps} (in press).

Symposium on *Developing Oversight Approaches to Nanobiotechnology: The
Lessons of History*,

[Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics]{.smallcaps}, Winter 2009 (in
preparation).

  --------- ------------- ------------------------------- --------------- -------------- -------------
  Award \#  PI            Project Title                   Institution     Award amount   Duration

  0822757   Michael Lynch Visualization at the Nanoscale: Cornell         \$111,929      8/08-8/09
                          The Uses of Images in the       University                     
                          Production and Promotion of                                    
                          Nanoscience and Nanotechnology                                 

  0824042   Barbara       Deliberating Nanotechnologies   University of   \$249,996      10/08-10/10
            Harthorn      in the US: Gendered Beliefs     California,                    
                          about Benefits and Risks as     Santa Barbara                  
                          Factors in Emerging Public                                     
                          Perception and Participation                                   

  0809470   David Berube  NIRT: Intuitive Toxicology and  North Carolina  \$1,399,258    9/08-9/11
                          Public Engagement               State                          
                                                          University                     

  0708413   Richard Barke NER: Representations of Active  Georgia         \$85,417       9/07-9/09
                          Nanostructures Across           Institute of                   
                          Scientific, Popular, and Policy Technology                     
                          Realms of Discourse                                            

  0758195   Susanna       NER: Building Capacity for      University of   \$128,769      9/07-12/09
            Priest        Understanding and Assessing the Nevada Las                     
                          Impact of Nanotechnology Media  Vegas                          
                          Messages: Toward a Long-Term                                   
                          Strategy for Improving Public                                  
                          Communication about Emerging                                   
                          Technologies                                                   

  0708914   Nathan Swami  NER: Scenario Analysis for      University of   \$130,000      9/07-9/09
                          Upstream Identification of      Virginia                       
                          Risks and Opportunities from                                   
                          Nanotechnology                                                 

  0741363   Justin Hanes  New Undergraduate Engineering   Johns Hopkins   \$199,993      1/08-1/10
                          Minor in Nanotechnology Risk    University                     
                          Assessment and Public Policy                                   

  0608986   Paul          NER: Nanotechnology and Science Pennsylvania    \$85,000       8/06-8/08
            Hallacher     Federalism                      State                          
                                                          University                     

  0620694   Fritz         Ethical Issues in               Western         \$134,936      9/06-9/09
            Allhoff/      Nanotechnology and Human        Michigan                       
            James H. Moor Enhancement                     University/                    
                                                          Dartmouth                      
                                                          College                        

  0609078   Christopher   NIRT: Nanotechnology in the     Northeastern    \$1,400,000    9/06-9/10
            Bosso         Public Interest: Regulatory     University                     
                          Challenges, Capacity, and                                      
                          Policy Recommendations                                         

  0609073   Eric          NER: Contours of Nano-Problems  Texas A&M       \$74,519       9/06-9/08
            Lindquist     and Solutions and the Societal  University                     
                          and Educational Challenge of                                   
                          Active Nanoscale Technology                                    

  0608791   Susan Wolf    NIRT: Evaluating Oversight      University of   \$1,220,765    9/06-9/10
                          Models for Active               Minnesota                      
                          Nanostructures and Nanosystems:                                
                          Learning from Past Technologies                                
                          in a Societal Context                                          

  0531160   Davis Baird   Nanotechnology in Society       University of   \$1,375,000    10/05-10/10
                          Project \-- Imaging, Scientific South Carolina                 
                          Change and Public Understanding                                
                          of Emerging Technologies                                       

  0532536   Lawrence Bell Nanoscale Informal Science      Boston Museum   \$22,492,072   10/05-10/10
                          Education Network               of Science                     

  0531184   Barbara       NSEC: Center for Nanotechnology University of   \$5,035,000    1/06-1/11
            Harthorn      in Society at UCSB              California,                    
                                                          Santa Barbara                  

  0531194   David Guston  NSEC: Center for Nanotechnology Arizona State   \$6,220,000    10/05-10/10
                          in Society at ASU               University                     

  0531146   Richard       Nanotechnology in Society       Harvard         \$1,725,000    9/05-9/10
            Freeman       Project \-- Nano Connection to  University                     
                          Society                                                        

  0531171   James Watkins NSEC: Center for Hierarchical   University of   \$16,000,000   4/06-4/11
                          Manufacturing                   Massachusetts                  
                                                          Amherst                        

  0426328   Robert Chang  NCLT: A Center to Develop       Northwestern    \$6,000,000    10/04-10/06
                          Nanoscale Science and           University                     
                          Engineering Educators with                                     
                          Leadership Capabilities                                        

  0403783   Roger Geiger  Nanotechnology and its Publics  Pennsylvania    \$199,887      7/04-7/06
                                                          State                          
                                                          University                     

  0425626   Ly James Lee  NSEC: Center for Affordable     Ohio State      \$12,923,000   9/04-9/09
                          Nanoengineering of Polymer      University                     
                          Biomedical Devices                                             

  0425880   Paul Nealey   NSEC: Templated Synthesis and   University of   \$13,365,000   9/04-9/09
                          Assembly at the Nanoscale       Wisconsin                      

  0403847   Paul Thompson NIRT: Building Capacity for     Michigan State  \$1,720,000    8/04-8/09
                          Social and Ethical Research and University                     
                          Education in Agrifood                                          
                          Nanotechnology                                                 

  0335765   Sandip Tiwari NNIN: National Nanotechnology   Cornell         \$70,000,000   3/04-3/09
                          Infrastructure Network          University                     
  --------- ------------- ------------------------------- --------------- -------------- -------------