Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Review of NNI Hearing held by the House Science, Space & Technology Subcommittee April 14th

Posted on April 28th, 2011 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

I had the opportunity to attend the Congressional Science and Technology Subcommittee’s hearing review of The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). At the NNI hearing, Nanotechnology Icon, Dr. Clayton Teague http://www.tappi.org/content/events/08nano/teague.pdf, informed the Subcommittee he was leaving his post as the Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), a position he has held since April 2003. Dr. Teague has served America in various positions in the US Government for the last 39 years.

Now, for the review of Thursday, April 14th.

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on NNI Oversight

On April 14, 2011, the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing entitled “Nanotechnology: Oversight of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and Priorities for the Future.” Witnesses included:

– Dr. Clayton Teague, Director, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO);
– Dr. Jeffrey Welser, Director, Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, Semiconductor Research Corporation;
– Dr. Seth Rudnick, Chairman of the Board, Liquidia Technologies;
– Dr. James Tour, Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology, Rice University; and
– Mr. William Moffitt, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nanosphere, Inc.

The witnesses emphasized the need for Congress to continue robust funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to ensure that the US remains the global leader in nanotechnology. Other countries, such as Japan, China, and South Korea have increased their investment in nanotechnology and are showing corresponding increases in publication and patent rates. Dr. Teague noted that by current estimates, the 2010 nanotechnology funding for the European Community totaled $2.6B US, exceeding the NNI total of $1.9B. The witnesses encouraged the Subcommittee to continue supporting basic research while also directly promoting technology transfer, for example through expanded use of public-private partnerships. The speakers from industry noted that NNI investments in their companies have generated handsome returns on investment in the form of private follow-on funding, job creation, and cost-saving product or process improvements.

Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL), Chair of the Subcommittee, thanked Dr. Teague for his eight years of service as Director of the NNCO. Dr Teague’s last day as Director was April 15, 2011.

I have attended four of these types of hearings during the last 10 years. This review was very focused with the witnesses explaining how a variety of products developed through the Science of Nanotechnology have impacted America.

Another take away from the hearing is that 2011-2012 US NNI funding is budgeted for $2.1 Billion and the European Union funding is budgeted for $2.6 Billion. I spoke at the German House in NYC http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__events/GKs/NEWY/2011/04/13__Nanovation.html on Wednesday night April 13th and I saw first-hand the progress they are making in Germany.

The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association would like to thank Dr. Teague for his service to the NNI and America. We offer Dr. Teague and his family Best Wishes on the next chapter in his life.

Regards,

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

Summary – 2011 NanoBusiness NYC Conference

Posted on April 15th, 2011 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The 2011 NanoBusiness NYC Conference began with a reception Wednesday evening (April 6th) co-hosted with our friends from the New York Biotechnology Association http://www.nyba.org/.

The technical sessions began the following morning at 9:00am with introductory remarks by NanoBCA Executive Director Vincent Caprio. Next, Dr. AJ Malshe, Founder, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of NanoMech http://www.nanomech.biz/, discussed his company’s philosophy and pipeline. NanoMech has received considerable media attention recently, due in part to a well-publicized visit by treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. NanoMech is currently pursuing product lines based on 4 technologies, each of which is “making atoms work harder and smarter”. TuffTek is a cubic boron nitride (BN) coating which increases the life of machine tooling and saw blades. BN is extremely hard and long-wearing and, unlike diamond, is chemically compatible with steel. AJ showed data indicating that TuffTek-coated tool inserts last 10 times as long as conventional cutters, and at least twice as long as competitive titanium-aluminum-nitride-coated inserts, with which they are cost-competitive. Other NanoMech technologies include Nanoglide, a line of lubricant products which can save energy use in heavy machinery by reducing friction while enhancing durability; the polymer-based antibacterial Nguard line; and ElementX, a proprietary method for forming nanoparticles from evaporable elements or alloys. Nanoglide is being used in a major Department of Energy-sponsored wind turbine improvement program, as recently featured on the General Electric’s Edison Desk http://ge.geglobalresearch.com/blog/making-machines-tick-longer-with-nanolubrication/ blog. ElementX technology was originally developed in Canada and recently acquired by NanoMech. AJ emphasized that NanoMech has not rushed to market but has built its product lines slowly and carefully. A key strategy has been developing materials and processes for integration with existing high-volume manufacturing equipment. He also gave substantial credit to support from local, Arkansas-based businesses and individuals, including his current CEO, James Phillips, who began as an investor.

Longtime nanotechnology advocate, NanoBCA co-founder, and Lux Capital http://luxcapital.com/ Managing Partner, Josh Wolfe, described his investment philosophy and gave us an update on the Lux portfolio. Lux invests in core technologies with broad market applications, biomedical technologies, and materials for the energy market. In all three areas, it looks to differentiate itself by identifying special situations or identifying and investing in outstanding people. The company takes a contrarian perspective when they have a strong thesis suggesting that the herd is wrong—in energy, for example, Lux is staying out of the crowded solar field and sees biofuels as a regressive approach based on an outdated agrarian model. On the other hand, they have been looking carefully at nuclear energy for a decade. One of their portfolio companies, Kurion http://www.kurion.com/, has been developing technologies for safely handling nuclear waste and for cleaning up contaminated sites like Hanford, WA. Their technologies are now being evaluated for use at the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan. Another investment Lux recently unveiled, along with heavy hitters Google Ventures and Kleiner Perkins, is Transphorm. It is the latest company from UCSB Professor and serial entrepreneur Umesh Mishra. Transphorm technology uses gallium nitride semiconducting devices to increase the efficiency of voltage converters, with potential applications all along the electricity chain from power plants to wall warts. As our electric grid becomes ever more complex, the opportunities for employing this energy-conserving technology will only grow. Those of you who missed our recent interview http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-interview-josh-wolfe-co-founder-managing-partner-lux-capital-management with Josh can read it online for more information about Lux’s nanotech investments.

We then moved on to a series of presentations on nanomedicine, chaired by Livingston Securities’ health care guru Mostafa Analoui. First, Mostafa introduced Anil Diwan, Chairman and President of NanoViricides http://nanoviricide.com/. NanoViricides is a publicly traded company whose nanoparticle technology attacks a wide variety of virus particles. A distinguishing characteristic is a flexible component that spreads out on the lipid-based exterior of virus particles, disrupting their structure and ultimately causing them to fall apart. In laboratory tests, the current generation NanoViricides shows about an eightfold improvement in performance compared to its predecessor. In mouse studies of H1N1 influenza, for example, the occurrence of lung lesions was reduced 15 to 30 times compared to untreated subjects. While NanoViricides’ most promising results so far are with HIV and influenza viruses, the technology is also appropriate for fighting Ebola, rabies, and even Dengue fever. Dengue is particularly difficult to treat due to its unusual ability to be more virulent on a second exposure, a phenomenon known as antibody-dependent enhancement. Anil noted that pharmaceutical development costs remain a difficult obstacle, and reported that his company’s analysis indicated that it would be less expensive for them to proceed with private funding than to devote substantial resources to obtaining and managing grants.

Next, Edith Mathiowitz of Perosphere and Brown University discussed her work with polymers that are engineered to adhere to tissue. By increasing bioadhesion and decreasing particle size, Edith noted that the long-standing quest to deliver more medications orally has often been frustrated by a simple fact: the human body is designed to absorb only certain biologic compounds, and to reject most others. By dispersing biologics in sticky biopolymers and taking advantage of the high surface area of nanoparticles, Perosphere believes they can overcome this obstacle. Preliminary results for orally administered insulin are promising.

Frank Bedu-Addo of PDS Biotechnology http://www.pdsbiotech.com/ described Versamune, a nano-based immunotherapy technology. Immunotherapies, which fight disease by activating the body’s own defender T cells, are only now starting to deliver on their promise; Dendreon’s Provenge received the industry’s first FDA approval last year. Most immunotherapies exhibit low potency, so adjuvants have traditionally been used to enhance their effectiveness. But available adjuvants have poor safety profiles, and the added complexity approaches with separate adjuvants increases cost. In contrast, Versamune safely acts as an adjutant activator itself, has higher potency, and is a simpler system. They have completed preliminary animal trials incorporating a protein which targets human papilloma virus. These trials showed striking remission of HPV-associated head and neck tumors. PDS plans to enter clinical trials with this drug candidate within a year, followed by a related compound targeting melanoma in 2013. They have raised $11M in capital to date with minimal dilution, and have received $5M in-kind service contributions from NIH.

We shifted from therapeutic drugs to diagnostic testing with Moritz Beckmann, CEO of XinRay Systems http://www.xinraysystems.com/. XinRay, a joint venture of UNC-spinout Xintek and diagnostic powerhouse Siemens, uses carbon nanotubes to build X-ray emitters. The compact, rugged CNT-based sources allow XinRay to build imaging systems that are not practical with traditional X-ray generators, which Beckmann compared to incandescent light bulbs in their sophistication and fragility. XinRay designs use an array of emitters, so the X-ray beam can be steered electrically instead of swinging a single source mechanically. Medical applications in development range from mammography to image-guided radiotherapy (in which rapid 3-D imaging is used to help surgeons place radioactive implants precisely in diseased tissue). Future possibilities include dental imaging systems. This 3-D imaging approach, called tomosynthesis, is a variant of computer-aided tomographic (CT) scanning. It trades off some resolution for speed, reduced X-ray exposure, and low cost. Non-medical applications include airport baggage screening (in development) and non-destructive testing of structural materials (future).

Joel Friedman described his work building a nanobiotechnology center at Albert Einstein Medical College. They are striving to create the kind of open, collaborative research environment that once thrived at Bell Laboratories, with a “bench to bedside and back” mission – start with basic research on nanoparticles, develop technologies to deliver diagnostics or therapies based on these particles, and apply them in focused healthcare situations. Then take the results right back to the basic research and iterate. They presently have two technology thrusts, each with multiple healthcare applications. The first is hybrid materials combining hydrogels with glassy nanoparticle; the second is gadolinium oxide nanoparticles and techniques for coating them with various substances.

Tony Green, Director of The Nanotechnology Institute, closed out the nanomedicine panel with a description of NTI’s relationship with Ben Franklin Technology Partners. As one of four independent regional entities in the Ben Franklin model, NTI has been a leader in developing multi-institutional IP agreements and moving university-developed IP into companies. They work with many partner companies in Southeastern Pennsylvania and beyond, with restrictions in place to keep most of the money in state. In the past few years the State has shifted more emphasis to funding clean energy, following a very similar model, while cutting back somewhat on their nanobio and other life science investments.

We rejoined our NanoBCA colleagues for lunch, which included a keynote presentation from PhARMA CEO John Castellani. The nano track continued afterward with Jeff Rosedale of Woodcock Washburn surveying the nanomedicine intellectual property landscape. To get a big picture of the situation, Jeff compared the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Nanotechnology Cross-reference Class (Class 977) with the A1 international class for medical patents. He came up with 2,900 patents, 2,300 of them independent, in both classes. Three out of four describe compositions of nanomaterials or methods for making them. Diagnostic devices, imaging devices, bandages, and stents were also common. The largest patenters, not surprisingly, are big corporations – Proctor and Gamble, L’Oreal, and Elan. The University of California is fourth. Jeff used a few just-issued patents to illustrate the true state of the art. Last Tuesday’s new announcement included the following:

7,919,699 Nanotubes as mitochondrial uncouplers
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=3&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=977%2F$.CCLS.&OS=CCL/977/$&RS=CCL/977/$ and

7,919,113 Dispersible concentrate lipospheres for delivery of active agents
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=dispersible.TI.&s2=concentrate.TI.&OS=TTL/dispersible+AND+TTL/concentrate&RS=TTL/dispersible+AND+TTL/concentrate

from the University of Kentucky and Hebrew University respectively. The UK patent is a variation on an 80-year-old idea for altering metabolism, with applications from weight loss to healing brain injuries. While the basic mechanism is demonstrated, it has been very difficult to control. As in many other similar applications, the inventors believe nanotechnology will give them the ability to fine-tune the process safely. Jeff continued that major pharma manufacturers do have nano patent portfolios, including AstraZeneca’s supercritical process for dispersing protein particles; Bristol-Myers Squibb’s conjugated MRI contrast agents; Ethicon’s fluorescent markers to aid surgeons; and Abbott’s stent which eludes nanoparticles that are both bioactive and contrast-enhancing, so standard imaging techniques can see when the medicine has all eluted. GE, as might be expected, has many nano patents throughout the biomedical imaging field. But with all this activity only one set of patents has made it into the FDA orange book, which lists patents of composition or method that are generally recognized as safe and effective. That’s Elan’s TriCor portfolio, which is based on ball milling- far from a modern technology! Moving on to patenting strategies, Jeff suggested that inventors should generally focus more on “what” and less on “how”, since competitors can often find a different way to make something. Claim what they need to take (steal) from you. And claim something that is verifiable – i.e., that you can measure. Rosedale reminded us that trademarks, trade secrets, and agreements can be just as important as patents. Small companies in particular should be very sure that employees and consultants have proper agreements assigning rights to the company. One good basic strategy for balancing these components is to patent your basic compositions, consumables, devices, and tests, while keeping non-critical details and improvements as trade secrets. When conflicting or overlapping IP claims appear, what should a company do? A good way to start is by asking a patent attorney for a freedom to operate study. Their recommendations may range from licensing to requesting re-examination of patents based on new-found prior art to seeking a declaratory judgment invalidating a patent to, as a last (and expensive) resort, doing battle in court.

Our good friend Scott Livingston http://www.livingstonsecurities.com/about.php followed Jeff with an update on the investment outlook. Scott had just been in Boston for the annual meeting of the National Venture Capital Association, which he said was the hottest in several years. He met with leading partners from 20 major VC firms – they are all looking to get their money working again in companies, and IPOs are regaining favor. The political landscape is also promising. Scott noted President Obama’s emphasis on innovation in the State of the Union address, Secretary Geithner’s recent travels to high tech companies including NanoMech, and plenty of interest in innovation on the other side of the aisle – he reminded us that the re-emergent Newt Gingrich has a long history as a champion of innovation (and friend of the NanoBCA). Livingston Securities http://www.livingstonsecurities.com/ expects to continue to be in upcoming quality IPO deals, hoping to following on recent successes like Neophotonics and Gevo. But business as usual on Wall Street is a risk. The big investment firms are not focused on the needs of high tech companies and are pushing them too hard. It is especially bad in healthcare. Biotech deals are getting canceled or requiring companies to give up too many shares at too low a price, leaving them underfunded and unhealthy. He described Tesla’s much talked about 2010 offering as a different model. Sentiment was strong and highly mixed. By offering “friends and family” deals to owners of their first generation Roadster or people on the waiting list, they had 1/3 of their deal done, with engaged investors, before going to the big banks. Scott sees small investment banks like Livingston Securities as playing a similar role for nanotech companies. About 2,500 people are participating in Scott’s investor network. He is looking for more, and more active, members who will add to the group’s collective smarts, proselytize for innovation, and increase its attractiveness to IPO dealmakers. Scott has been hosting state-level webinars around the country, pushing regional connections. Eventually, he would like to move his company up from being the #3,4, or 5 firm on $100M dollar deals to leading $30M deals. Governors, senators, and Presidential hopefuls will be cutting ribbons around the country for the next 18 months, so Scott says get in now.

Harris and Harris http://www.tinytechvc.com/ Chairman and CEO Doug Jamison gave us the VC perspective on the investment landscape. While Doug continues to see some disarray in the community, he is optimistic about the direction in which things are moving. H&H believes that, as a publicly traded VC firm, it offers investors a unique combination of liquidity, transparency, and multi-industry exposure. There are now 32 companies in the portfolio, principally in cleantech, electronics, and healthcare. H&H is able to be more patient than traditional firms since it has permanent capital; some exits are pushing 8, 9, and even 10 years. But the successes are starting to come. BioVex was recently acquired by Amgen for $425M plus up to $575 in future performance payments. Neophotonics completed a successful IPO in February. A third exit is expected soon. Harris and Harris’ portfolio has pipelines of early, middle, and late stage companies, so this is just the beginning. Doug agrees with Scott that smaller IPOs make sense for a lot of companies, though in some fields (healthcare, for example) there is the opposite problem – the current median size for mergers and acquisitions, < 100M, is not sufficient. But he is not sure the NVCA really understands this or has a clue what to do about it. H&H’s attitude is that you want to know who you are selling to – when they make a Series A investment, they already know who they would like to have involved in Series B. Finally, Doug reminded us that nanotechnology is succeeding, with lots of product wins and plenty of interest in the business press. Two examples Doug highlighted which you can buy now are Contour long life lithium carbon fluoride batteries and Sephora’s Algenist skin cream utilizing alguronic acid from biofuel innovator Solazyme. Algenist sold out in 8 minutes in its debut on QVC.

Sam Brauer of Nanotech Plus http://www.nanotechplus.net/ brought the meeting in to the home stretch with his talk on the state of cancer diagnostics. Sam pointed out that diagnostics are less than successful in today’s approach to cancer, nor are therapies successful for many cancers. In fact, the major advance against cancer in the last 50 years has been prevention, most notably by reducing smoking. Consider four of the most highly used screening diagnostics – the pap smear, mammogram, prostate-specific antigen test, and colonoscopy. Too often, Pap smears come back negative when diseased cells are present. Skilled clinicians seem to have lower false negative rates, but this variability is a major problem. PSA tests have the opposite problem – antigen levels are often elevated even though no cancer is present. Mammography also has a high false positive rate. Among these common tests, only colonoscopy is generally considered to have good accuracy and sensitivity – but it is expensive and invasive. Testing overall is about a $4.3B market. We spend almost 10 times that much on chemotherapy drugs. And about 80% if cancer deaths are from metastases, which are not really addressed by the major diagnostic screens. Can we do better by using targeted molecular diagnostics instead of broad screens? The science supporting this approach has been developing for more than 30 years, but may still be inadequate. Over 400 genes are already known to be involved in malignancy, and many researchers believe that all cancer-related genes will be identified within 10 years. But the pattern of gene expression in individual cancers is highly variable – Dr. James Heath, for example, found nearly as many expression patterns as he had patients in a study of the brain tumor known as glioblastoma. Heath’s conclusion is that we need protein screens rather than gene screens. But this is a much less developed area. In colon cancer, for example, only 3 proteins have been identified and none of them seems to be a driving force in the development of the disease. There are particular areas where the path forward seems a little clearer, such as leukemia, where Sam cited a recent paper on resistance to the drug Gleevec that many researchers think provides a roadmap to understanding how the disease progresses. But overall, the field faces scientific obstacles and a challenging business environment. Pharmaceutical companies show little interest in diagnostics, which they see as less profitable than therapeutics. They are also skeptical about providing diagnostics when appropriate companion therapies are not available. While GE’s Jeffrey Immelt foresees a shift of $250B from treatment to diagnosis over the next decade, he seems to be in the minority among healthcare experts. To make real progress, business issues such as research for funding and payment models must be addressed along with technology issues such as the identification of reliable DNA-based (genetic) or protein-based disease markers and the development of inexpensive, robust instruments for measuring them.

Our session closed with a summary dialogue between NanoBCA board members Steve Waite and Philip Lippel. Steve reminded us that nanotechnology is built on scientific discoveries dating back to the early twentieth century, with individual scientists and investors playing critical roles in turning research into innovative products. Phil noted that some of the hype (both positive and negative) around nanotechnology seems to be in decline. He expressed the hope that we are entering a phase where all stakeholders acknowledge that new technology development involves both benefits and risks and attempt to assess both realistically.

Thanks to all of our speakers and attendees for another successful event. Our 10th Annual NanoBusiness Conference will be held at the Seaport World Trade Center http://www.ctnanobusiness.org/NanoBCA/our-conference/boston-2011/ in Boston, MA on September 25-27th. Our 2011 Annual Conference will be organized with our strategic partner The National Nanomanufacturing Network http://www.internano.org/ and it will be a must attend event. For speaking opportunities, please send me your proposals and abstracts to vincent@nanobca.org.

Regards,

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

NanoBusiness Interview – William Moffitt, President & CEO, Nanosphere

Posted on April 5th, 2011 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

In this month’s interview, we talk to William Moffitt, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nanosphere. Mr. Moffitt became president and CEO of Nanosphere in 2004. Moffitt is a 30+ year veteran of the diagnostics and medical device industry, having spent the last 20 years developing novel technologies into products and solutions that have helped shape the industry and generate significant shareholder value. Prior to Nanosphere, he served as President and CEO of i-STAT Corporation, a developer, manufacturer and marketer of diagnostic products that pioneered the point-of-care blood analysis market. Moffitt led i-STAT from an early stage private company through commercialization, an IPO in 1992 and its acquisition by Abbott Laboratories in 2003. Prior to i-STAT, Moffitt held increasingly responsible executive positions from 1973 through 1989 with Baxter Healthcare Corporation, a $7 billion manufacturer and distributor of healthcare products, and American Hospital Supply Corporation, a $3.5 billion diversified manufacturer and distributor of healthcare products, which Baxter acquired in 1985. Mr. Moffitt earned a B.S. in zoology from Duke University.

In our interview, we discuss Nanosphere’s diagnostics technology and the impact of nanotechnology on health care diagnostics. We hope you enjoy the interview. -Steve Waite

SW: Thanks for taking time to speak with us today, Bill. I thought we would begin by discussing the current state of diagnostics technology. What types of advances in diagnostics technology have we seen over the past decade?

WM: We have seen three significant advances in diagnostics in recent years and with them the potential for real, measurable improvements in patient treatment. First, continued discovery of new biomarkers for disease including genetic markers and gene expression ranging from RNA to protein markers. These new biomarker discoveries help advance diagnostics and provide physicians and patients with clinically actionable information that can lead to better outcomes.

Second, although the term personalized medicine created a significant degree of hype and early expectations, there is great progress being made in understanding the mechanisms of action and genetic implications for various therapeutic agents. This will result in a new era for the treatment and prevention of disease using therapies that are more appropriately targeted to an individual. To paraphrase William Osler, a father of modern medicine, “it is more important to know what patient a disease has than what disease a patient has.”

Third, new technologies have emerged that enable complex genetic and protein tests to be performed in virtually any health care setting, thus enabling these new advances to be incorporated into mainstream medicine on a practical and cost effective basis.

SW: What role is nanotechnology playing in advancing diagnostics in health care?

WM: Breakthroughs in nanotechnology have enabled Nanosphere to develop a testing platform – the Verigene System – that can perform both nucleic acid and ultra-sensitive protein assays in a very simple and cost-effective format; and, one that can put molecular diagnostics into any health care setting. Nanotechnology eliminates the complexity and high cost of testing found with other technologies when performing genetic assays for human disease or infectious disease. Moreover, nanotechnology provides a level of sensitivity for protein biomarkers not found in other technologies, which in turn leads to earlier detection of disease. For example, we have in development a test for cardiovascular disease which has already proven to be far more sensitive in detecting heart attacks and acute coronary syndromes. Recent data also suggest that this assay has great value in monitoring patients with chronic heart failure to more appropriately adjust therapy for this life threatening condition. We have also demonstrated the ability to detect recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy months and years earlier than tests available today. Most oncologist would agree, today the best weapon medicine has to fight cancer is early detection.

SW: Tell us more about your Verigene System and how it is being used today by customers.

WM: The heart of the Verigene System is the nanoparticle probe, which due to its selectivity enables us to format assays on a microarray. The microarray printed on a simple glass slide is incorporated into a unit-use disposable test cartridge that contains the reagents necessary to perform a test. Three very important characteristics arise. First, the microarray gives us the ability to probe for dozens of biological targets in a single test at one time. This makes it possible to perform very complex panels of tests such as an infectious disease assay where any number of bacteria or viruses may be the underlying cause. Second, the unit-use disposable cartridge format makes it economically feasible to run one patient sample at the place and time the physician requests the test. Other technologies rely on batch processing many patient samples at one time in order to lower the cost of any single test. This is not conducive to providing critical patient information when and where it is required. Third, operation of the system is so simple that it can be used in virtually any health care setting. After the user inserts a sample, the Verigene System performs all functions required to provide a test result. The system also incorporates an on-board quality control system to ensure accurate results.

SW: Nanosphere is pioneering the use of gold nanoparticles in diagnostics technology. Why gold?

WM: We functionalize the surface of gold nanoparticles with oligonucleotides or antibodies to create probes for genetic and protein assays. On the nanoscale, gold exhibits the perfect properties for creating high selectivity and sensitivity in biological probes, two attributes critical for the development of assays that must detect the smallest quantities of biological materials. Moreover, the catalytic properties of gold enable rapid amplification schemes, which in our case is the attachment of silver to the particle in the detection phase of the assay. This enlarges the particle and increases its light scattering properties. Gold’s stability at the nanoscale enables us to create reagents with a long shelf life, a property that is important in commercializing products for global distribution.

SW: Who are the primary customers for your nano-enabled diagnostics technology and what kind of feedback are you getting from the market?

WM: Our primary customers are hospital-based clinical laboratories, regional reference laboratories and other professional health care settings. Feedback has been very encouraging as our customers are excited about the ability to perform complex genetic and infectious disease tests when and where they are needed and in a format that is very simple to operate. The Verigene System is enabling testing in locations that could otherwise not perform such diagnostic tests.

SW: What kinds of efficiencies and cost savings are you able to deliver to the market today and how might that evolve in the foreseeable future?

WM: One of the greatest efficiencies delivered to the market is speed to patient diagnosis. Enabling tests to be performed at the point of care and as requested by the physician generates critical diagnostic information when and where it is required. The high cost and complexity of genetic tests has been eliminated through nanotechnology. Nanotechnology has enabled the development of a molecular diagnostics platform that operates in a very simple format thus eliminating the need for highly specialized labor. Moreover, the underlying cost of the consumable test cartridge is very inexpensive, which allows for pricing that is in line with any number of other routine diagnostic tests – tens of dollars as opposed to hundreds or thousands.

SW: We are seeing a tremendous decline in the cost of mapping human genomes. What kind of impact will this have on the diagnostics landscape and how do you see it impacting your company in the future?

WM: Genetic research will continue to advance the discovery of genetic biomarkers for disease and the metabolic pathways of various drugs. Medicine will continue to march toward true personalization. The effect on Nanosphere is very positive as such research programs provide the content for our business. As new genetic markers are discovered, we can incorporate them into our testing platform and rapidly and broadly disseminate the use of these new diagnostic tests.

SW: How do you see the regulatory climate evolving with respect to nanotech in diagnostics?

WM: As with any new science or technology, it will take time for the various regulatory agencies to fully understand the implications of products based on nanotechnology. As nanotechnology replaces the underlying technologies of diagnostic tests, it will be important for the regulatory agencies to develop a better understanding of this new science, which in many instances may eliminate problems associated with other older technologies.

SW: If you look out over the next decade, what kind of impact do you think nanotechnology overall will have on health care?

WM: Nanotechnology will impact both diagnostics and therapeutics. Nanoparticles are powerful constructs for the conveyance of biological substances, whether those substances are to probe for a particular target, as in the case of a diagnostic assay, or block the expression of a particular gene within a cell as a therapeutic agent. The best way to look at what nanotechnology can do is to consider the fact that these particles, which exhibit different functional characteristics on the nanoscale than on the macroscale, operate on the same size scale as the biology. Matching these nanoscale properties to the biology will lead to new discoveries in both diagnostics and therapeutics.

SW: Last question for you today, Bill. What do you think are the major risks for nanotech innovation in diagnostics and health care in general?

WM: Nanotech is having and will continue to have a significant impact on many aspects of medicine and on many established technologies and businesses. One risk is simply the adoption curve and how quickly new technologies are accepted in health care. The process can often be daunting, from clinical trials to the demonstration of not only medical efficacy but also economic sense.

For in vivo applications, manufacturers and developers are going to have to understand the biological and environmental impact and provide data to support safety, but this is really not different from proving the safety of any therapeutic drug or device.

SW: Thanks again for your time, Bill. We wish you and your colleagues at Nanosphere all the best in the future.

Regards,

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

NanoBusiness Interview – Josh Wolfe, Co-founder & Managing Partner Lux Capital Management

Posted on March 14th, 2011 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

In this month’s interview, we talk to Josh Wolfe, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Lux Capital Management. Mr. Wolfe manages Lux’s investments in Nanosys, Cambrios, Siluria and serves on the Board of Directors of Kurion, Silicon Clocks, Crystal IS and Lux Research. Before forming Lux Capital, he worked in Salomon Smith Barney’s Investment Banking group, in capital markets at Merrill Lynch on its Financial Futures & Options/Government Strategy desk and at Prudential Securities in Municipal Finance.

Prior to venturing into the financial world, Mr. Wolfe published cutting-edge AIDS-immunopathology research in Cell Vision and The Journal of Leukocyte Biology, in leading medical-immunology journals. He serves as co-founder and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Coney Island Prep, the first charter school in his native Coney Island, Brooklyn, and has been actively involved with the East Harlem School at Exodus House for over a decade. The son of a public school teacher, Josh is passionate about science, inner-city education and kids having a deep desire to learn and the right heroes.

Josh is a columnist with Forbes, Editor for the Forbes/Wolfe Emerging Tech Report and host of a show on the Forbes Video Network. He has been an invited guest to the White House and Capitol Hill to advise on nanotechnology and emerging technologies, a lecturer at MIT, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Columbia and NYU, and a frequent guest on CNBC and CNN. Mr. Wolfe graduated from Cornell University with a B.S. in Economics and Finance.

In this interview, we talk to Josh about Lux Capital’s approach to venture capital investing and discuss some of the firm’s investments in nano and other advanced technology. We hope you enjoy the interview. – Steve Waite

SW: It’s great to be speaking with you today, Josh. Thanks for spending some time with us. You mentioned investing in nuclear. Nuclear technology was derided by environmentalists decades ago, but several prominent and outspoken activists have changed their tune. How big is the opportunity in nuclear today?

JW: There’ve been two things holding back nuclear: fear and waste. On the former it’s a remarkable shift. Environmentalists, once vociferous opponents, have become voracious proponents. To favor carbon reduction is to favor nuclear production. It’s the only rational way to have zero-carbon, not just low carbon, but zero-carbon base-load electricity production. 20% of US electricity is from nuclear, 80% of France, 16% globally and rising.

Remarkably, many people don’t know this, but because of a program called Megatons to Megawatts, about half the uranium our domestic reactors consume comes from Russian nuclear warheads. So amazingly, roughly one in every ten electrons you are consuming right now comes from dismantling of Cold War weapons. Anyway, Lux spent a year scouting the entire fuel cycle, from uranium miners to modular reactors to fuel enrichment, and determined that for a variety of reasons, none of them were venture-backable. The single biggest unsolved problem, particularly in the US was nuclear waste.

SW: Dealing with nuclear waste is obviously a major issue. What kinds of solutions exist today to deal with nuclear waste that weren’t available in the past?

JW: The first thing to know is there are two kinds of nuclear waste: spent fuel, which are the rods inside our 104 domestic reactors and the 440 global reactors. What we call waste, France calls fuel because they reprocess the spent fuel rods; 95% of the fuel is still in them, but proliferation is a concern so since Jimmy Carter’s reign, we have a once-through fuel cycle that stores the rods in casks, basically giant caskets waiting for burial in a some geological repository like Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. But for political reasons that will be trapped in purgatory for years or decades. So there really isn’t a market to go after here.

But the other more important and widely unknown market which has an urgent pain is the defense clean up waste. Most people have never heard of a place called Hanford. It’s in the State of Washington, the size of the State of Delaware and has hundreds of millions of gallons of radioactive waste. Just think about that. That’s bigger than the BP oil spill and twice the cost. And what is most surprising: despite all the rhetoric and punditry on ‘cleantech’ and ‘greentech’ from our political leaders and the media, one out of every four dollars, 25% of the entire DOE (Department of Energy) budget is not spent on solar, batteries, or wind – but on nuclear waste cleanup. This is hands-down the single largest economic opportunity in energy and environment that almost nobody knows or talks about. So we recruited veteran all-stars from the nuclear industry, from government, even Patrick Moore, Greenpeace founder and huge nuclear convert and quietly started and funded a company called Kurion, named after Madame Curie who discovered radiation. They went on to lock-up the most important technical breakthroughs and can grab the worst radioactive elements and permanently capture and isolate waste from the environment. If the team is successful, this will be one of the most important things I do in my life and one of the most financially lucrative things I’ve done for our investors.

SW: While we are on the topic of investing in energy, what is your view of prospects for digital power over the next 3-5 years?

JW: This is another critical area and one where like nuclear, Lux had a variant perception, a differing view. Everyone believes in energy efficiency. But I think they’re crazy. Everyone believes if things were more energy efficient we’d use less energy but they have it exactly and completely backwards. I wish I’d discovered the reason why but credit goes back two centuries to Jevon’s Paradox which shows that while individual devices may get more efficient, without any debate, those devices become cheaper and more available. You can do more for the same cost or less. So demand for them goes up and with near certainty, the aggregate energy use goes up. Even Energy Secretary Steven Chu and I have debated this. He hails fridges as energy efficient devices, to which I say amen. But what he misses is that a fridge today while being 75% more efficient than fridges 30 years ago, also are 20% larger and cost 60% of what they did. And the aggregate number of fridges and the aggregate energy demand is way higher. Individual devices get more efficient, aggregate energy goes up. Think of it in Internet terms: if I gave you an efficient T-1 line you’d be doing video conferencing, streaming music, and sending large files. If I put you on a terribly inefficient 56k baud modem you’d pull your hair out!

The secret paradox is that if you want to reduce energy demand: you make things more INEFFICIENT, NOT more efficient. That’s if you believe we should be reducing energy demand, which I am in the minority opposition. Physics and the laws of thermodynamics tell us that life itself is a fight against entropy, disorder – and the only way to prevent entropy is to add energy to a system. The more energy, the more order and the more utility we have. The highly ordered photons in a laser are hugely valuable to society from eye surgery to photonics, whereas the highly entropic photons of a campfire give off heat and nobody will pay much for that. The trick is ordering the photons in a laser requires an enormous amount of energy and a huge amount of waste is chucked over the side.

We have recently announced an investment in Transphorm Inc. that we’re hugely excited about. Transphorm has developed the world’s most energy efficient power conversion technology – eliminating up to 90% of all electric conversion losses. The ability to convert electricity without loss may be to digital power what Intel was to digital logic.

SW: Are there any nano-enabled energy technologies that look attractive to Lux?

JW: The basis of our nuclear waste remediation company, Kurion was born in sophisticated chemistry and material science at the nanoscale. So too our soon to be announced power conversion digital power company coming out of stealth. All of these are based on ever increasing precision control over and ordering of matter at the nanoscale.

SW: I want to go back to your investment process. The second way Lux Capital invests is based on people. Can you give us a few examples of people-driven investments you have made and some insight into the thinking behind them?

JW: Yes, the first is thesis driven. We try to look where others are not looking, seeking out where capital and attention are scarce because that’s usually where valuations are low and future returns high. It’s intellectually gratifying to do these but very risky as we really part from the herd and we have to make sure we do our work and aren’t being contrarian for unfounded reasons. A second way we make our investments is special-situations, finding capital market dislocations where we can invest often times as the last dollars in but lowest average price per share – being a liquidity provider or helping companies when their other investors may be unable to continue financing them. And our third and favorite style is people-driven as you say. As Lux partner Larry Bock says, we bet on two-legged mammals. Darwin was misquoted. It isn’t survival of the fittest, but survival of the most adaptable. So we find the brilliant galvanizing scientist-entrepreneurs-operators, usually some combination of two of those three are embodied in one person. They are the ones that can adapt and turn on a dime, can passionately recruit, can paint a vision on a blank canvas that makes investors want to write checks and employees want to plunge in and take career risk. A phenomenal individual is just that a phenom – a spinning force that pulls people in. The most important thing we can do as a firm is have the good judgment in finding and picking these people and convincing them that Lux is their partner for the next 5 or 10 years. Our investors trust us to allocate their capital and we have to trust these entrepreneurs to do the same for us.

SW: We’ve seen a lot of activity in nanomedicine over the past decade. How does Lux view the potential of nanotech in medicine and health care overall?

JW: It’s as big as energy. The growing trend from big pharma is continued outsourcing to biotechs, academic institutions and embracing external R&D. And the pace of innovation is remarkable. We’ve spun out companies like Genocea in rapid vaccine discovery from Harvard and Berkeley. From MIT in the case of Cerulean and Visterra, focused respectively on nanotech in cancer and pandemic flu. And from Johns Hopkins in using nanotech to deliver drugs through mucus, with MIT legend Bob Langer and his star protégé Justin Hanes in a new company called Kala – which is Hawaiian for passageway.

SW: Returning to the other piece of Lux’s trilogy investment process, what kinds of special situations have you invested in that you are enthused about?

JW: The most interesting might be Everspin. We were founding investors who approached Freescale Semiconductor, which was previously Motorola Semi. They were struggling with a huge debt load from private equity investors after a buyout. And we made them an offer to spin-out their entire advanced memory division which developed non-volatile memory, instant-on memory and help free up their cash flow. It was a win-win for everyone and the company has been growing at triple-digit percentages.

SW: Nanotech is crucial to the future of semiconductors and electronics. How does Lux Capital go about evaluating technologies and companies in this space?

JW: The key particularly in a cyclical industry like semis is who actually is capturing the value. There’s also a secular component with the rise of Asia, contract manufacturing and fab-less models. The only intelligent thing we felt we could do was to avoid the capital intensive businesses and invest after all the capital was invested at the trough of the cycle. In three of our companies over $100 million was invested by either other investors or a corporate parent and we were able to invest at a valuation that was one-tenth, one-quarter or one-third capital invested – and at a time when product was shipping and tech risk was eliminated. These opportunities are rare but are almost surely to present themselves in energy and healthcare too.

SW: It’s been difficult in the venture capital space given the turmoil in financial markets over the past several years. Do you see the pendulum swinging back in favor of venture capital in the years ahead?

JW: I do. I have a self-serving bias here but VC has been the second worst performing asset class for the past decade, save for the S&P. There has been a flood of capital out of equity capital markets into debt markets, which has driven yields of bonds from governments to munis to corporate low and dividend yields of equities high. What I think you’re likely to see is a reversion of capital flows from debt markets into equities. People and institutions and investment advisors will tire of earning 0.5%, 2.5% or 3.5% respectively on 2,10 or 30 year Treasuries. Municipalities are likely to see serious headwinds and retirees who once thought these were tax advantaged vehicles to preserve capital will see them as capital confiscation and maybe even defaults. My speculation would be capital flows first into large-cap blue-chip high-quality dividend yielding US multi-nationals, almost like a Nifty Fifty of yesteryear. Until that gets overdone. Then investors are likely to seek high-growth unlevered equities and that is exactly what creates a new issue, IPO market. For ten years investors have shunned stakes in high-tech startups. The Facebook, Groupon, Twitter, Zynga phenomena are changing that, with blue-chip institutions clamoring to get allocations. It’s possible, if not probable, this trickles into broad demand for tech companies, which tend to be good inflation hedges as technology is broadly deflationary force with non-commoditized offerings and pricing power. So if Fed printing or debasing our dollars to get out of debt leads to inflation, one could see a resurgence of IPOs. Meanwhile, corporations have restructured balance sheets, refinanced debt, extending maturities and lowering coupons and have record amounts of cash on their balance sheets, ripe for M&A. There is always a five-year investment psychological bias, everyone wants to be invested today where they should’ve been five years ago and I think VC is ripe for five plus years of outperformance.

SW: We’ve seen IPO activity pick up over the past year. Should we expect to see some nanotech IPOs in the near future?

JW: Capital markets are setting themselves up for a reversion of capital flows out of bonds (low yielding sovereigns, munis, corporate in the presence of a non-zero inflationary risk) and into equities. First high-quality multi-national dividend yielding equities, then high-growth, unlevered small and mid-cap tech (also a natural deflationary force against inflation risk from central bank paper printing). It will be an IPO picker’s market: meaning, I’m skeptical we’ll see wholesale sectors see a rising tide of investor demand, but individual companies with either the fundamentals or overwhelming buzz (a la current social media phenomenon of Facebook, Groupon, Twitter, LinkedIn) will see strong demand.

SW: Looking ahead, what are the key investment areas that Lux Capital will be focused on?

JW: Two areas we’re in thesis construction mode are what we call “unmet needs for unmanned systems” and “distributed healthcare.” Both are about emerging technology shaking up both defense and demographic trends in the former and healthcare in the latter.

SW: One last question for you, Josh. What have been the three biggest investment lessons you’ve learned since co-founding Lux Capital.

JW: Not sure I can limit it to three, but I’d say that the only certainty is uncertainty – every company is a roller-coaster ride. That being early is the same thing as being wrong. That in tough investments, deal terms can matter more than the price you pay and in great ones, neither really matters. That good investment team processes are as or more important than outcomes. That people not technology are the single most important thing we invest in. That human nature is a constant and greed and fear and all sorts of well catalogued behavioral biases drive people who drive markets and while markets aren’t predictable, group behavior often is. That rational allocation and irrational misallocation of time and capital define all opportunities in investing.

SW: Terrific! Thanks again for your time, Josh. We wish you and your colleagues at Lux Capital all the best in the future.

I have been friends with Josh for 10 years and every time I speak with him I learn about a breakthrough in energy technology. Thank you Josh for your contributions to our Nanotechnology Community and we look forward to seeing you at one of our Conferences in 2011.

Regards,

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

NanoBusiness – The Next Decade

Posted on March 8th, 2011 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Having successfully completed our first decade of servicing the nanotech community, I am writing you with some exciting news that I hope will provide a solid foundation upon which to serve you and other members in the decade ahead. As the researchers at the NSF and NNI note, nanotechnology is evolving into a second foundational phase that will see a ten-fold increase in the value of nano-enabled products and mass use of nanotechnology. Given the evolutionary path of nanotechnology in the decade ahead, the NanoBusiness Alliance (NbA) is changing its name and refocusing its efforts to be of maximum value to the nanotech community.

Our new name is the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association or NanoBCA, for short. We are in the process of launching a new website: www.nanobca.org. The website will be a comprehensive source of everything we do at the NanoBCA and we hope members find it to be an excellent resource in the future.

From the beginning, the NbA has always had business as its main focus. Our membership and community includes some of the finest business minds in the world. The addition of commercialization to our name reflects the new era into which we are moving whereby a decade of intense scientific research gives way to fundamentally new products that will likely change the way we live, work and play. As billions and trillions of dollars of new nano-enabled products enter the marketplace, there will be a growing interest and focus on nanotech innovation and commercialization. The NanoBCA will be positioned to be the voice of nanotech innovation and commercialization in the decade ahead.

One of the new of the new initiatives undertaking by the NanoBCA, through the support and involvement of its members, will involve monitoring and promoting nanotech innovations and commercialization in the private sector. Steve Waite steve@nanobca.org, our new Director of Strategy and Research, will be assisting me with this initiative. We believe it will be important for our members to stay on top of what is expected to be an acceleration and mass proliferation of nanotech innovations in the future. We hope to create a vibrant and interactive community whereby our members can share information with us and where we can help educate and promote their new products to policymakers, researchers, analysts, the financial community and other interested parties.

Our vision for the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association is clear and focused. The Association seeks to ensure that the United States – its companies, universities and people – are global leaders in the burgeoning nanotechnology field. And the Association ventures to ensure the safe, secure and beneficial use of nanotechnology and nanoscience for all people.

Our mission at the NanoBCA in the coming decade is three-fold:

1. Promote the Commercialization of products designed and developed through the Science of Nanotechnology.

2. Advocate continued U.S. spending through the National Nanotechnology Initiative. America must continue the funding of NNI from R&D to commercialization.

3. Inform membership with regard to EHS regulation from Federal (EPA and FDA) and State Governments. Monitor proposed legislation from Federal and State government.

We are proud of the accomplishments of the NbA over the past decade having successfully lobbied for the creation of The National Nanotechnology Initiative in January, 2000. Backed by our supportive members, our efforts have helped produce over $12 billion of funding, which has created a community of about 150,000 contributors in the U.S., along with a flexible R&D infrastructure consisting of about 100 large nanotechnology oriented R&D centers, networks, and user facilities, and an expanding industrial base of about 3,000 companies producing nanotech-enabled products. Despite all this fabulous growth in activity, we are still only in an early stage of development with nanotechnology. There is much work ahead and we know that we cannot do it without the support of our members.

We are very excited to be returning to NYC for our conference being held at the Marriott Marquis Times Square on April 6-7th. The conference begins with an opening reception on the evening of Wednesday, April 6th. We have an entire day of programming on April 7th (details to follow).

REGISTRATION $400
To register, please complete the attached form 2011 NanoBCA NYC Reg Form and fax to 480-275-3662

HOTEL INFORMATION
New York Marriott Marquis Times Square
212-398-1900
http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/nycmq-new-york-marriott-marquis/
$269 per night
Room block code: NYBA

We appreciate your continued support and look forward to working with and serving our members in what promises to be an exciting decade ahead for nanotechnology and the nanotech community. It has been a pleasure representing the collective voice of the nanotechnology community. I look forward to serving you in the next exciting decade.

Here’s to much success in the Nano Decade ahead!

Regards,

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

NanoBusiness Endorses Introduction to Safe Handling of Nanomaterials – Mar. 28th Anaheim, CA

Posted on March 8th, 2011 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Many of you in the nanotechnology community are familiar with our good friend Kristen Kulinowski, Ph.D. Kristen has been one of our leaders in providing information in regard to the safe handling of nanomaterials. Kristen and her team’s website http://goodnanoguide.org/tiki-index.php?page=HomePage is one of my favorites. Today I would like to share with you an opportunity for you to participate in a unique program called, “Introduction to Safe Handling of Nanomaterials in the Workplace” presented by the American Chemical Society (ACS) http://www.proed.acs.org/.

This course will cover aspects of occupational health and safety as they relate to handling nanomaterials. The emphasis is on controlling human exposure. The course begins with an introduction to nanomaterials and the physicochemical properties of the major classes. Major developments in the toxicology and environmental impacts literature will be summarized along with their implications for occupational practice. The next topic is strengths and weaknesses of existing tools for assessing and controlling exposure. Principles of risk management for nanomaterials will be introduced, including emerging topics such as control banding. Major activity in the regulatory and standards arenas will be summarized. The course will conclude with an introduction to essential resources that attendees can consult after the course is over.

MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011
Check-in opens at 7:30am on the day of the course. Course runs from 8:30am to 5:00pm

REGISTER TODAY $695
The course fee includes a course binder and a continental breakfast each day.

Five for Four! Register five people for one course, one person for five courses, or any combination in between and your fifth registration is free. Note: This discount is only available if you register by fax or mail and mention this discount. May not be combined with any other offer.

Register online for this class in Anaheim, CA
Course Code: NANO
http://www.regonline.com/Register/Checkin.aspx?EventID=916169

Register with form via mail or fax
Course Code: NANO
http://www.proed.acs.org/courses/registration.pdf

KEY TOPICS
– Introduction to nanomaterials
– Toxicology of nanomaterials: research review
– Environmental impact of nanomaterials: research review
– Assessing and controlling exposure to nanomaterials: strengths/weaknesses of existing technologies
– Risk managements approaches: key elements, control banding
– Regulations and Standards: key regulatory agencies’ activities and standards on nanomaterials
– Information management in the nanotech workplace: essential resources for further education

COURSE INSTRUCTOR(S)
Kristen Kulinowski http://chemistry.rice.edu/FacultyDetail.aspx?RiceID=1200 is a Ph.D. Chemist and director of International Council on Nanotechnology as well as executive director of NSF Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology.

Bruce Lippy http://mysite.verizon.net/bruce.lippy/html/team.html is a certified industrial hygienist, a certified safety professional and holds a Ph.D. in policy from the University of Maryland.

EVENT LOCATION
Hilton Anaheim http://www.hiltonanaheimhotel.com/
777 Convention Way

Anaheim, CA 92802

HOTEL RESERVATIONS
Discount room reservations can be made through the ACS Housing Connection.
https://resweb.passkey.com/Resweb.do?mode=welcome_ei_new&eventID=3092081

Direct questions about the course to:
Phone: 202-872-4508, Email: shortcourses@acs.org

This is a subject that is vital to our nanotechnology community. Please continue to educate yourself on this topic.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Alliance
203-733-1949
vincentcaprio@nynanobusiness.org
www.nynanobusiness.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

NanoBusiness Interview – Mihail Roco, Senior Advisor to the NSF and NNI

Posted on February 7th, 2011 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

In this month’s interview, we talk to Mihail (“Mike”) Roco. Dr. Roco http://www.nsf.gov/eng/staff/mroco.jsp proposed the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) on March 11, 1999, at the White House, and is a key architect of the NNI. He is Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology to the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the founding chair of the U.S. National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSTC/NSET). Prior to joining National Science Foundation, he was Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Kentucky (1981-1995), and held visiting professorships at the California Institute of Technology (1988-89), Johns Hopkins University (1993-95), Tohoku University (1989), and Delft University of Technology (1997-98). His research was on multiphase systems, computer simulations, nanoparticles and nanosystems. Credited with thirteen patents, Dr. Roco contributed over two hundred archival articles and twenty books including “Particulate Two-phase Flow” (1993) and “Nanotechnology Research Directions” (1999), and more recently “Managing Nano-Bio-Info-Cognition Innovations” (2007), “Mapping Nanotechnology Knowledge and Innovation: Global and Longitudinal Patent and Literature Analysis” (2009) and “Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020” (2010).

Dr. Roco has been an international leader of nanotechnology development and of converging new technologies (NBIC: nano-bio-info-cognitive sciences). He initiated the first U.S. federal government program that focused on nanoscale science and engineering (on Synthesis and Processing of Nanoparticles) at NSF in 1991. He is editor-in-chief for the Journal of Nanoparticle Research, and has been a member of international research councils including the International Risk Governance Council in Geneva. Dr. Roco is a corresponding member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences, and a fellow of American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and the Institute of Physics. He was elected as the Engineer of the Year by the U.S. National Society of Professional Engineers and NSF in 1999 and again in 2004. Dr. Roco was awarded the National Materials Advancement Award from the Federation of Materials Societies in 2007 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, “as the individual most responsible for support and investment in nanotechnology by government, industry, and academia worldwide.”

In our interview, Mike notes that nanotechnology is recognized today along with information technology and biotechnology as a megatrend in science and engineering. He points out that nanotechnology has provided solutions for about half of the new projects on energy conversion, energy storage, and carbon encapsulation in the last decade. In the coming decade, Mike expects nanotech commercialization to become a powerful driver of innovation, job and wealth creation in the global economy. We hope you enjoy the interview with Mike Roco. – Steve Waite

SW: It’s great to be speaking with you, Mike. Thanks for spending some time with us. You and a group of 250 leading scientists, researchers and experts in nanotechnology recently published a terrific book titled “Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020: Retrospective and Outlook” (Nano 2020, for short). It’s clear from reading the book that nanotechnology has come a long way in the past decade, but still has a long way to go. What do you consider to be the major achievements of the past ten years?

MR: Nano 2020 report provides a twenty-year overview of the development of nanotechnology from a fragmented scientific field at the end of the 1990s to a general purpose technology by 2020. The first part of the report evaluates the progress and outcomes of nanotechnology in the last ten years and how the vision set up in 1999 by Nano 2010 has been realized. Nano 2010 stands for the report “Nanotechnology Research Directions: Vision for the Next Decade” (NSTC, 1999 and Springer, 2000, http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/IWGN.Research.Directions/) that inspired the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and more than 60 other national programs. The first foundational phase of nanotechnology development “Nano 1” (2000-2010) was dominated by a science-centric ecosystem. The second foundational phase “Nano 2” (2011-2020) will be focused on nanoscale science and engineering integration. It is projected to be driven by socio-economic considerations.

In the last decade an interdisciplinary international community and a complex research and education infrastructure have been established. Nanotechnology has penetrated almost all industrial sectors and medicine, and the production of nanotechnology-enabled products has expanded with an annual rate of 25 percent to about $90 billion in the U.S. and $250 billion worldwide.

Scientific curiosity began to transform in 2000 with the help of two key parts of the Nano 2010 report. First, an integrative definition of nanotechnology was formulated based on distinctive behaviors of matter at the nanoscale and the ability to systematically control and engineer those behaviors. Second, a long-term vision and goals were articulated for the transformative potential of nanotechnology R&D to benefit society. Now, nanotechnology is recognized along with information technology and biotechnology as a megatrend in science and engineering.

One main outcome is a library of newly discovered nanoscale phenomena, processes and nanocomponents, as well as a versatile measurement and manufacturing tool-kit. These phenomena have become the foundation for new domains in science and engineering such as plasmonics, negative index of refraction in IR/visible wavelength radiation, spin torque transfer (spintronics), nanofluidics, programmable macromolecules, sub-cellular phenomena and synthetic biology, and teleportation of information between atoms. Other nanoscale phenomena are better understood such as quantum confinement, polyvalency, and shape anisotropy. New nanocomponents include one-dimensional nanowires and quantum dots of various compositions, polyvalent noble metal nanostructures, graphene, metamaterials, nanowire superlattices, and a wide variety of other particle compositions. New tools for nanotechnology have allowed femtosecond measurements with atomic precision in domains of engineering relevance. Single-phonon spectroscopy and sub-nanometer measurements of molecular electron densities have been performed. Single-atom and single-molecule characterization methods have emerged that allow researchers to probe the complex and dynamic nature of nanostructures in previously impossible ways. Together, these discoveries and tools have established a broad interdisciplinary foundation for new technologies.

Already, myriad R&D results include technological breakthroughs in such diverse fields as advanced materials, biomedicine, catalysis, electronics, and pharmaceuticals; expansion into new fields such as energy resources and water filtration, agriculture and forestry; and integration of nanotechnology with other emerging areas such as quantum information systems, neuromorphic engineering and synthetic and system nanobiology. “Nanomanufacturing” is already underway and is a growing economic focus.

Nanotechnology has provided solutions for about half of the new projects on energy conversion, energy storage, and carbon encapsulation in the last decade. Nanotechnology also has provided more than half of solutions for entirely new families of nanostructured and porous materials with very high surface areas, including metal organic frameworks, covalent organic frameworks, and zeolite imidazolate frameworks, for improved hydrogen storage and CO2 separations. Nanocomposite membranes, nanosorbents, and redox-active nanoparticles have been developed for water purification, oil spill cleanup, and environmental remediation.

There is greater recognition of the importance of nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety (EHS) issues for the first generation of nanotechnology products, and of ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) issues.

Nanotechnology has catalyzed overall efforts in and attracted talent to science and engineering in the last decade worldwide. A comprehensive list of outcomes arranged per areas of relevance is presented in the 600-page Nano 2020 report (Springer, 2010, available on www.wtec.org/nano2/ and www.nsf.gov/nano). The forecasts made in the Nano 2010 report generally have been realized, and some have been exceeded.

SW: The U.S. has invested some $12 billion in nanotech through the NNI over the past decade. Please give us a sense of how this investment has paid off to date and how it may payoff in coming years.

MR: Nanotechnology already has a major and lasting impact that promises to be more relevant for healthcare, environment and manufacturing here on Earth than the Space program. The cumulative U.S. nanotechnology commitment since 2000 places the NNI second only to the space program in terms of civilian science and technology investment (see Lok, C. 2010. Small Wonders. Nature 467:18-21, 2 September).

We are only at ten years of discovery and innovation enabled by investments in a field still in rapid formation, and only relatively simple nanostructures are in applications: nanolayers in multibillion dollar semiconductor industry, dispersions in multibillion dollar catalyst industry, and molecular recognition and targeting in multibillion dollar medical therapeutics, to name some of the most relevant. If one would consider an average tax of 20 percent and apply this to about $90 billion market incorporating nanotechnology in 2009, the result would be $18 billion that exceeds the total R&D investment of NNI in the last ten years. (Specific examples are presented in the Nano 2020 report.)

Nanotechnology has extensively penetrated several critical industries. Catalysis by engineered nanostructured materials impacts 30-40 percent of the U.S. oil and chemical industries (Chapter 10 in the Nano 2020 report); semiconductors with features under 100 nm constitute over 30 percent of that market worldwide and 60 percent of the U.S. market (Chapter on Long View in Nano 2020 report); molecular medicine is a growing field and only in 2010 about 15% of advanced diagnostics and therapeutics are nanoscience based. These and many other examples show nanotechnology is well on its way to reaching the goal set in 2000 for it to become a “general-purpose technology” with considerable economic impact.

Nanoscale science and engineering in the last ten years is a springboard for future nanotechnology applications and other emerging technologies. I estimate that introduction of nanotechnology in various economic sectors such as electronics and pharmaceutics will lead to at least 1 percent increase annually in productivity during 2010s in a similar manner as another general purpose technology – information technology – did in the 1990s.

SW: Nano 2020 report argues that we are moving into a new phase of nanotech evolution that you call “Nano 2.” What kinds of changes are we likely to see in the next phase of nanotechnology, and how will it differ from the first phase?

MR: The changes are significant as the field of nanotechnology reaches its “adolescence” in the next ten years (2010-2020). Since 2010, nanoscale science and engineering has changed focus in both R&D and outputs: we are transitioning from empirical synthesis of nanoscale components for improving existing products and services to science-based creation of new and complex nanosystems by design.

The transition from the Nano 1 foundational phase (2000-2010, focused on foundation interdisciplinary research at the nanoscale) to the Nano 2 integration phase (2010-2020, focused on NS&E integration for platform applications) includes achieving direct measurements at the nanoscale with time resolution of nanoscale processes and science-based design of nanomaterials and nanosystems. The focus of R&D and applications is expected to shift towards more complex nanosystems and new areas of relevance such as bio-nanomanufacturing, food systems and cognitive technologies, and fundamentally new products. This phase is expected to be dominated by an R&D ecosystem driven by socio-economic considerations. Nanotechnology development will be rapid and uneven, with global implications for the economy, balance of forces, environment, sustainability and public participation. Reversing the pyramid in education by earlier learning of general nanotechnology concepts in freshman and softmore years will become reality in undergraduate education.

SW: In Nano 2020, you talk about nanotechnology becoming a general purpose technology in the years ahead. Please explain what you mean by this and tell us why it is important.

MR: Nanotechnology will continue its widespread penetration of specific methods, tools and materials into the economy as a general-purpose technology, which – as with prior technologies such as electricity or computing – is likely to have widespread and far-reaching applications across many sectors. For example, nanoelectronics including nanomagnetics has a pathway to devices (including logic transistors and memory devices) with feature sizes below 10 nm and is opening doors to a whole host of innovations, including replacing electron charge as the sole information carrier. Many other vital industries will experience evolutionary, incremental nanotechnology-based improvements in combination with revolutionary, breakthrough solutions that drive new product innovations.

By 2020, there is potential to incorporate nanotechnology-enabled products and services into almost all industrial sectors and medical fields. Resulting benefits will include increased productivity and more sustainable development. New applications expected to emerge in the next decade range from low-cost photovoltaic devices (after about 2015), to affordable high-performance batteries enabling electric cars, to novel computing systems, cognitive technologies, and radical new approaches to diagnosis and treatment of diseases like cancer. As nanotechnology grows in a broader context, it will enable creation or advancements in new areas of research such as synthetic biology, cost-effective carbon capture, quantum information systems, neuromorphic engineering, geoengineering using nanoparticles, and other emerging and converging technologies.

Nanotechnology developments in the next decade will allow systematic design and manufacturing of nanotechnology products from basic principles, through a move towards simulation-based design strategies that use an increasing amount of fundamental science in applications-driven R&D, as defined in the Pasteur quadrant (Stokes 1997, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Brookings Institution Press).

SW: You are projecting a 10-fold increase in the value of nano-enabled final product markets over the next ten years. What industries are likely to be among the most heavily impacted by nanotech during this time frame?

MR: The industries with largest applications will continue to be nanostructured chemicals (and especially catalysts), communication and information equipment, advanced structural nanomaterials, and pharmaceuticals. Other nano-enabled emerging areas of application with large rates of increase include biomedical equipment, energy and water resources, environmental improvement and safety, food and agricultural systems, forestry, hierarchical molecular manufacturing, and cognitive technologies. Current developments presage a burgeoning economic impact: trends suggest that the number of nanotechnology products and workers worldwide will double every three years, achieving a $1 trillion market and 2 million workers by 2015 and $3 trillion market and 6 million workers by 2020. This would correspond to a continuation of the annual growth rate of 25 percent and a 100-fold increase in 20 years (from 2000 to 2020). We have used here the NNI definition requiring a new property or function at the nanoscale. Nanotechnology R&D has become a socio-economic target in all developed countries and in many developing countries – an area of intense international collaboration and competition.

SW: Major semiconductor and electronics manufacturers would be having great difficulty innovating if it weren’t for nanotech capabilities. Yet, many people don’t consider companies like Intel, IBM, Apple and Micron nanotech companies. Do you see this perception changing in the future?

MR: Currently, all major companies producing semiconductors or memory components are in a race to introduce nanotechnology to remain competitive. Because nanotechnology components initially entered the semiconductor industry for improving CMOS, and those companies have other product lines, the perception has been divided. Once significantly improved performance of CMOS due to nanocomponents is proved and new paradigms for logic, memory and transmission of information are introduced using nanosystems – leading to products not available before – the perception will change definitively.

SW: Nanomanufacturing is coming of age. Do you think the U.S. can regain prominence in manufacturing through nanomanufacturing?

MR: Nanomanufacturing is an opportunity to add high added-value and high paying jobs to the economy. There are two main drivers that will be reinforced as we advance into nano’s second decade: creating products and services that were not possible before and more efficiently using materials, energy, environment and labor. The opportunities in the U.S. are particularly for the more sophisticated, new generations of nanotechnology products. The investment should focus on areas where there is capacity for assimilation in the U.S. economy, such as highly automated systems, distributed energy conversion and storage, nanobiotechnology, nanomedicine, integration with other emerging fields, and using specific infrastructure.

A condition for the U.S. achieving prominence in nanomanufacturing is focused R&D and support for continuing processes from discovery to innovation and commercialization at the national level. NSF has supported a funding program in nanomanufacturing since 2002 and the National Nanomanufacturing Network since 2006. Significantly larger efforts by industry, states and federal government are needed.

Another essential condition is the preparation of the workforce. Since 2001, NSF has supported a series of nanotechnology education activities including individual and group awards, the Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) program and the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN), the Nanotechnology Center for Learning and Teaching (NCLT) for multidisciplinary “horizontal” and K-Graduate “vertical” integration of formal education, Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE), the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN) with education components, and Technological/Community College Nanotechnology education in NACK, among other awards. A main challenge now is to disseminate the results partly via Department of Education and Department of Labor to local school and job training systems. Another main challenge is to institutionalize the programs (like we did for IT) to ensure continuity and long-term impact.

Yet another challenge is to use the research results in U.S. industry, and here various national and international governance aspects need to be addressed. A main intellectual driver since 2000 has been the long view of nanotechnology development formulated in the Nano 2010 report that supported the Grand Challenge on Nanomanufacturing since 2002. The recent Nano 2020 report provides a continuation of that vision for nanomanufacturing development (see Chapters 3 and 13). The report encourages support of precompetitive R&D platforms, system application platforms, private-public consortia, and networks in areas such as health, energy, manufacturing tools, commercialization, sustainability, and nanotechnology EHS and ELSI. The platforms will ensure a “continuing” link between nanoscale fundamental research and applications, across disciplines and sectors.

Major industry involvement after 2002-2003 is an assurance for capturing the opportunities. For example, more than 5,400 U.S. companies had papers, patents, and/or products in 2008, and Moore’s law has continued for the past ten years, despite serious doubts raised in 2000 about the trend being able to continue into the nanoscale regime. The establishment of the NanoBusiness Alliance in 2001 was an earlier sign of industry interest.

SW: You note in the book that we are experiencing a qualitative change in nanotech due to direct measurement capabilities. Tell us why direct measurement is important and how it will alter the evolution of nanotech in the future?

MR: Instead of years of indirect measurements and deductive results (measurements based on time and volume averaging approaches mostly on surfaces) one can obtain immediately a realistic picture by a direct measurement. Direct measurements with atomic precision and time resolution of chemical/self-assembling reactions in the biological or engineering domains will open the opportunity to understand and optimize the nanoscale phenomena and processes, to help combinatorial methods and system design. Typical chemical reactions and atomic/molecular assembling processes need femtosecond resolution. The first such measurements for a collection of atoms were performed in 2009.

SW: Give us a sense of how you see nanotech EHS evolving in coming years as we move into the second foundational phase of nanotechnology (i.e., Nano 2).

MR: Nanotechnology EHS needs to be addressed on an accelerated path as an integral part of the general physico-chemical-biological research program and as a condition of application of the new technology. Knowledge is needed not only for the first generation, but also for the new generation of active nanostructures and nanosystems. As we discussed earlier, in about 2010, nanoscale science and engineering has begun a change of focus in both R&D and outputs. We are transitioning from empirical synthesis of nanoscale components to be incorporated into and improve existing products to science-based creation of new nanosystems for fundamentally new products. We need to emplace new principles and organizations for risk governance of new generations of nanotechnology products and processes with increased complexity, dynamics, biology contents, and uncertainty. There is a need for using nanoinformatics and computational science prediction tools to develop a cross-disciplinary, cross-sector information system for nanotechnology materials, devices, tools, and processes. A focus on nanotechnology EHS hazards and ELSI concerns must be routinely integrated into mainstream nanotechnology research and production activities to support safer and more equitable progress of existing and future nanotechnology generations.

The report Nano 2020 provides the outcomes in nanotechnology EHS and ELSI after the first 10 years of development, and research directions how to prepare for safe and ethical use of nanotechnology in the next ten years.

SW: We have seen a lot of growth in nanotech activities overseas in recent years, particularly in China and Korea. What do the numbers tell us today and what do you expect to see in the years ahead?

MR: The growth rate in investments and of number of publications is higher in several countries abroad, particularly after 2005, and the crisis of 2009 affected the U.S. more than the average of other countries. The U.S. maintains the lead in overall quality of papers and in patents as well as in the number of companies involved and the market. This position will be challenged in the future by the European Union, China, South Korea, Russia, as well as other countries for specific subfields of nanotechnology. The U.S. needs to continue to collaborate, compete, remain in the center of international exchanges, and develop mutually beneficial activities. All countries urgently need to better coordinate standards, regulations and sustainable development policies.

International development is rapid and uneven as described in detail in the Nano 2020 report. The report provides the international government investments per regions, as well as for companies and venture funding, between 2000 and 2009. The Science Citation Index paper and patent evolution over the past ten years also are provided. The average annual increases are between 23 percent and 35 percent.

While conceptually most countries generally follow the nanotechnology and converging technologies concepts initially advanced in the Nano 1 report, there are several differences. Other countries have dedicated more funds for applications, and information exchange has been more limited in those areas. Balanced exchange of information and collaborations based on mutual interest is essential for rapid nanotechnology development.

SW: One last question, Mike. In Nano 2, you state that nanotechnology is still in an early stage of development. What are the main challenges for nanotech and the nanotech community over the next decade?

MR: A lot of progress has been made in the last ten years. And yet, nanoscale science, engineering, and technology are still in a formative stage, with most of their growth potential ahead and in still-emerging directions. We cannot yet do direct measurement, build by computational design for a given function or even understand the special-temporal complexity of a general nanosystem.

There is a need for continued, focused investment in theory, direct measurement, and simulation at the nanoscale. We need to promote focused R&D programs, such as “signature initiatives,” “grand challenges,” and other kinds of dedicated funding programs, to support the development of measuring and production tools, manufacturing capabilities in critical R&D areas, and a nanotechnology-adapted innovation ecosystem.

Partnerships between industry, academia, NGOs, multiple agencies, and international organizations need increased attention. Priority should be given to support R&D platforms and creation of additional regional “nano-hubs” for R&D, system-oriented academic centers, earlier nanotechnology education, nanomanufacturing, nanotechnology EHS and ELSI. We need to promote global coordination to develop and maintain viable international standards, cross-sector nomenclatures and databases, and patents and other intellectual property protections. We should seek international coordination for nanotechnology EHS activities (such as safety testing and risk assessment and mitigation) and nanotechnology ELSI activities (such as broadening public participation and addressing the gaps between developing and developed countries). An international co-funding mechanism is envisioned for maintaining databases, nomenclature, standards, and patents. Another priority is the development of experimental and predictive methods for exposure and toxicity to multiple nanostructured compounds. A further challenge is support for horizontal, vertical, and system integration in nanotechnology education, to create or expand regional centers for learning and research, and to institutionalize nanoscience and nanoengineering educational concepts for K-16 students. Furthermore, we need to explore new strategies for mass dissemination, public awareness, and participation related to nanotechnology R&D, breaking through gender, income, and ethnicity barriers. This is a great challenge in the next ten years.

Ambitious scientific and technical goals remain over the next decade, including (a) Integration of knowledge at the nanoscale and of nanocomponents in nanosystems with deterministic and complex behavior, aiming toward creating fundamentally new products; (b) Better control of molecular self-assembly, quantum behavior, creation of new molecules, and interaction of nanostructures with external fields in order to build materials, devices, and systems by modeling and computational design; (c) Understanding of biological processes and of nano-bio interfaces with abiotic materials, and their biomedical and health/safety applications, and nanotechnology solutions for sustainable natural resources and nanomanufacturing; and (d) Governance to increase innovation and public-private partnerships; oversight of nanotechnology safety and equity building on nascent models for addressing EHS, ELSI, multi-stakeholder and public participation; and increasing international collaborations in the process of transitioning to new generations of nanotechnology products. Sustained support for education, workforce preparation, and infrastructure all remain pressing needs.

As nanotechnology applications are expected to satisfy essential societal needs in production, medicine, education, defense and overall economy, an overarching challenge is to institutionalize the nanotechnology in R&D, education, manufacturing, medicine, EHS and ELSI programs. The experience of leading experts from 35 countries is reflected in the comprehensive Nano 2 report. I encourage the readers to look on this material and get involved in solving the challenges ahead.

SW: Thanks again for your time, Mike. It’s been a pleasure speaking with you. We wish you all the best in the coming year and beyond.

The Nanotechnology Community sincerely thanks Dr. Roco for his efforts and vision in furthering the science of Nanotechnology during the last decade.

Regards,

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

NanoBusiness – Nano News January Edition

Posted on February 4th, 2011 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Most of you in our Nanotechnology Community enjoy numbers, check this out:
This year we will experience 4 unusual dates: 1/1/11, 1/11/11, 11/1/11 and 11/11/11. NOW go figure this out. Take the last 2 digits of the year you were born plus the age you will be this year and it WILL EQUAL 111.

Who says math isn’t fun?

NANO NEWS

– Nanotechnology in the President’s State of the Union
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/science/26light.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimesscience

– Harris & Harris Group Notes Amgen to Acquire BioVex
http://www.tinytechvc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=545274

– Super Angels
A new breed of wealthy investors is daring to put their money where others won’t: untested start-ups that have little chance of landing venture capital
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2011/01/23/investing_where_others_wont/

– Livingston Securities www.livingstonsecurities.com – IPO Update
Neophotonics – Prospectus for Neophotonics http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1227025/000119312511008672/ds1a.htm

Endocyte – Prospectus for Endocyte http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1235007/000095012311002356/f56327a3sv1za.htm

The SEC urges you to read the prospectus before making an investment decision. Investment decisions should be based exclusively on the prospectus.

The Nano Community is very active in the IPO Market and M&A activity is heating up too. 2011 is shaping up to be a very good year for the Science of Nanotechnology.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusinenss Alliance
203-733-1949
vincentcaprio@nynanobusiness.org
www.nynanobusiness.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

NanoBusiness Recommends Green Manufacturer Magazine for the Nanotechnology Community

Posted on February 4th, 2011 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

We in the Nanotechnology Community are very aware of the hundreds of products Americans use daily brought to us by the Science of Nanotechnology. I would like to share with you an article I received last fall from Green Manufacturer Magazine titled:

Sage Supplier: Lowering costs of lithium-ion batteries for EV power trains
http://www.greenmanufacturer.net/article/tc/sage-supplier-lowering-costs-of-lithium-ion-batteries-for-ev-power-trains

Launched in 2010, Green Manufacturer magazine is designed to deliver manufacturers the information and practical how-to application knowledge that decision makers need for converting their equipment, processes, facilities, operations and products to green and sustainable options. Published by the Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, International, a 40 year old trade association in Rockford, IL, Green Manufacturer delivers to the marketplace a full set of information tools that include the bi-monthly magazine, bi-monthly eNewsletter as well as delivers the latest business-critical content through its web site, www.greenmanufacturer.net. Please visit http://www.fma-communications.com/green/green-Subscription.cfm to sign up for a free subscription.

NANO NEWS

Arrowhead Sells Unidym for $5 Million
http://www.labusinessjournal.com/news/2011/jan/18/arrowhead-sells-unidym-5-million/

Not Just Bunnies, Nanotechnology: Oregon Lottery Touts Its Science Do-Goodism
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=143079

Building 3D Batteries from the Bottom Up with Coated Nanowires
http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/nanotechnology/building-3d-batteries-from-the-bottom-up-with-coated-nanowires

Russia invests $700m in UK plastic electronics firm
http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk/content/11499/From_Russia_with_love

I continue to be very excited to see nano applications being utilized in the energy market.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Alliance
203-733-1949
vincentcaprio@nynanobusiness.org
www.nynanobusiness.org
www.vincentcaprio.org

NanoBusiness Selects Most Influential Nanotechnology Leaders of 2010

Posted on January 10th, 2011 in Uncategorized | No Comments »

I have enjoyed lists since I was a young man. My mother would buy me the Farmer’s Almanac every year and I would go through all the lists for days.

Many times during the year people from our Nanotechnology Community would ask, “Do you know so and so?” We decided to start an interview series in January 2010 to give you insight into leaders of our Nanotechnology Community.

Today, we announce our Most Influential Nanotechnology Leaders List from 2010. I have enjoyed communicating with all these leaders in the Nanotechnology Community. The common thread amongst them is that they are all Nanotechnology Evangelists. Kudos to these leaders for their contributions to our Nanotechnology Community.

David J. Arthur, President & CEO, SouthWest NanoTechnologies, Inc.
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-alliance-interview-david-j-arthur-president-ceo-southwest-nanotechnologies-inc

Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Director, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-alliance-interview-lynn-l-bergeson-managing-director-bergeson-campbell-p-c

Larry Bock, Executive Director, USA Science & Engineering Festival
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-alliance-interview-larry-bock-executive-director-usa-science-engineering-festival

Peter Hébert, Co-Founder/Managing Partner, Lux Capital
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusinessnyc-april-20th-nba-interview-peter-hebert-co-foundermanaging-partner-lux-capital

James M. Hussey, Chief Executive Officer, NanoInk, Inc
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-alliance-interview-james-m-hussey-chief-executive-officer-nanoink-inc

Doug Jamison, CEO, Harris & Harris Group, Inc
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-alliance-interview-doug-jamison-ceo-harris-harris-group-inc

Scott Livingston, Chairman & CEO, Livingston Securities, LLC
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-alliance-interview-scott-livingston-chairman-ceo-livingston-securities-llc

Ajay P. Malshe, Co-founder & CTO, NanoMech, LLC
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-interview-ajay-p-malshe-co-founder-cto-nanomech-llc

Scott Rickert, CEO, Nanofilm
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-dc-event-nba-interview-scott-rickert-ceo-nanofilm

Dr. Mihail C. Roco, Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology, National Science Foundation
http://www.nsf.gov/eng/staff/mroco.jsp
Dr. Roco’s interview is scheduled for February.

Clayton Teague, Director, NNCO
http://www.vincentcaprio.org/nanobusiness-alliance-interview-clayton-teague-director-nnco

Josh Wolfe, Founding & Managing General Partner, Lux Capital Management
http://www.luxcapital.com/team_wolfe.php
Josh Wolfe’s interview is scheduled for January.

Let’s have another round of applause for the contributions of these Nanotechnology leaders over the past decade.

Regards,

Vincent Caprio “Serving the Nanotechnology Community for Over a Decade”
Executive Director
NanoBusiness Alliance
203-733-1949
vincentcaprio@nynanobusiness.org
www.nanobusiness2010.com
www.vincentcaprio.org