NANOMANUFACTURING OUTSIDE OF THE LAB:
AN ACADEMIC-INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP CASE STUDY
by
Ann E. Delaney
A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Materials Science and Engineering
Boise State University
December 2016 Ann E. Delaney
SOME RIGHTS RESERVED
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ or send a letter to
Creative Commons
PO Box 1866
Mountain View, CA 94042 © 2016
Ann E. Delaney BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COLLEGE
DEFENSE COMMITTEE AND FINAL READING APPROVALS
of the thesis submitted by
Ann E. Delaney
Thesis Title: Nanomanufacturing Outside of the Lab: An Academic-Industry Partnership Case Study
Date of Final Oral Examination: 14 October 2016
The following individuals read and discussed the thesis submitted by student Ann E. Delaney, and they evaluated her presentation and response to questions during the final oral examination. They found that the student passed the final oral examination.
Eric Lindquist, Ph.D. Co-Chair, Supervisory Committee
William L. Hughes, Ph.D. Co-Chair, Supervisory Committee
Elton Graugnard, Ph.D. Member, Supervisory Committee
The final reading approval of the thesis was granted by Eric Lindquist, Ph.D., and William L. Hughes, Ph.D., Co-Chairs of the Supervisory Committee. The thesis was approved by the Graduate College. DEDICATION
I would like to express my deep gratitude to everyone who has supported me
during my education up to this point – family, friends, and teachers. Special thanks go
to my parents for encouraging my pursuit of a wide variety of interests (especially my father, who was also my informal thesis advisor), my husband, Alex Clifton, for helping
me stay sane (and vicariously putting up with two more years of school), and to all of my
friends and co-workers from the Public Policy Research Center and the Nanoscale
Materials and Device Group, especially Dr. Natalya Hallstrom, who has become a dear friend and taught me most of what I know about working in the lab. Without all of the wonderful people I have had around me, I would not be where I am today.
v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisors, Dr. Eric Lindquist
and Dr. Will Hughes, as well as Dr. Elton Graugnard for their guidance and support for
the past few years. I would like to thank Dr. Jen Schneider for her patient guidance and
help with the literature survey (included in Chapter 3 of this thesis), and for co-presenting
with me on this research at the S.NET conference in Montreal in October 2015. I would
also like to thank the wonderful colleagues that I have worked with over the years: Dr.
Natalya Hallstrom, Dr. Jennifer Padilla, Dr. Jeunghoon Lee, Dr. William Knowlton, Mike
Tobiason, Sara Goltry, Shohei Kotani, Xiaoping Olson, Sadao Takabayashi, Dr. Reza
Zadegan, Brittany Cannon, Will Klein, Chris Green, Lejmarc Snowball, Jared Talley,
Kimberly Gardner, Carl Anderson, Sally Sargeant-Hu, and Robyn Craig. I would also like to thank Micron Technology for their contributions to the Scalable
NanoManufacturing (SNM) Project at Boise State University. I would like to extend special thanks to all of the people who took time out of their busy schedules to participate in interviews for this project. Lastly, I would like to thank the current and former faculty and staff of the College of Engineering for their many years of support and advice.
The United States National Science Foundation supported this research through
Grant No. CMMI-1344915, as part of the Scalable NanoManufacturing (SNM) Program.
Funding was also provided by the Public Policy Research Center at Boise State
University.
vi ABSTRACT
In 2003, policy entrepreneur Dr. Mihail Roco wrote in Nature Biotechnology,
“The key goals of nanotechnology are advances in molecular medicine, increased working productivity, extension of the limits of sustainable development and increased
human potential.” From initial visions like Roco’s until now, there has been significant
investment and research progress in the field of nanotechnology. According to the White
House, over $20 billion has been invested in nanotechnology research and development
by the United States government since 2000.1 There is now a growing emphasis on
transitioning from a focus on fundamental research towards a focus on overcoming the
barriers preventing technologies from being successfully integrated into devices
manufactured at an industrial scale. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars’ Project on Emerging Nanotechnology maintains an index of consumer products
reported to contain nanotechnology, which has over 1,800 entries. 2 However, compared
with the pictures of “nano-futures” painted by early nanotechnology proponents, there are
far fewer products than we might expect, and with much less life-altering outcomes than
some predicted.
While much focus has been placed on the technical barriers to commercialization,
barriers outside of the lab must also be addressed in order to achieve broader adoption of
nanotechnology. These barriers may include public awareness and acceptance, regulation,
and issues with technology transfer. A structure that can have significant impacts on the
commercialization of nanotechnologies is the academic-industry partnership. Such
vii partnerships are a delicate dance of communication, intellectual property, and shared resources that have the potential to greatly accelerate research progress and commercialization, but can also stop such progress in its tracks if they do not work out.
A case study has been conducted of an active research partnership between Boise
State University and Micron Technology. Together, these partners are examining the use of DNA nanostructures in semiconductor memory manufacturing. This study seeks to gain insight into the roles that policy and cultural barriers play in the commercialization of an emerging nanotechnology developed through this unique partnership.
This case study used coded qualitative interviews to collect perspectives on the challenges and opportunities of university-industry partnerships and of scaling nanotechnology in manufacturing. Groups interviewed included researchers on the project under study, as well as administrators associated with the project or other similar projects that involve collaborations between academia and industry.
From these interviews, insight is drawn into the challenges and opportunities of such collaborations, relative to nanotechnology and other emerging technologies that may be developed through academic-industry partnerships. Recommendations are presented, based on interview findings and relevant literature that seek to inform future collaborations between academia and industry and improve outcomes from such partnerships, both for the collaborators and society at large.
viii TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ...... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vi
ABSTRACT ...... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xiv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND ...... 5
Nanotechnology ...... 5
Policy History of Nanotechnology ...... 6
Social Science Literature on Nanotechnology ...... 12
Nanoscale Properties ...... 13
Manufacturing at the Nanoscale ...... 15
SNM Project Background ...... 16
Photolithography in Semiconductor Manufacturing ...... 16
Limits of Photolithography Resolution ...... 18
Block Copolymers ...... 19
DNA Nanotechnology ...... 20
SNM Project Goals ...... 23
Commercialization and Technology Transfer in the University Setting ...... 24
ix Technology Transfer Process ...... 24
Bayh-Dole Act ...... 25
Academic Engagement ...... 25
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE SURVEY ...... 27
Literature Search Methodology ...... 27
Literature Search Results ...... 30
Literature Search Conclusions ...... 35
CHAPTER FOUR: INTERVIEW OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ...... 37
Data Collection ...... 38
Research Questions ...... 39
Crafting the Interview Guide ...... 40
Interviewee Selection ...... 42
Data Processing and Analysis ...... 43
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 44
Opportunities of Academic-Industry Partnerships ...... 44
For University Researchers ...... 45
For Universities ...... 45
For Students ...... 46
For Industry ...... 47
Challenges of Academic-Industry Partnerships ...... 48
For University Researchers ...... 48
For Universities ...... 49
For Industry ...... 49
x Societal Implications ...... 51
Relationship Between Partners ...... 52
Boise State University and Micron Technology ...... 52
Within Boise State ...... 52
Past Experiences ...... 52
Impact on Willingness to Engage in Academic-Industry Partnerships ...... 53
Barriers to Commercialization ...... 53
Other Subjects Discussed ...... 54
Nanotechnology, Research, and the Public ...... 54
Senior Projects ...... 55
Lessons Learned ...... 55
Communication, Relationships, and Time Commitment ...... 56
Aligning Needs and Priorities, Recognizing Differences ...... 57
Other Lessons ...... 58
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION ...... 60
REFERENCES ...... 62
APPENDIX A ...... 70
List of Literature Survey Articles ...... 70
APPENDIX B ...... 86
Institutional Review Board Documents for Interviews ...... 86
APPENDIX C ...... 87
Interview Guides ...... 87
APPENDIX D ...... 90
xi Code Hierarchy Diagram ...... 90
xii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Number of Nanotechnology Entries in the Congressional Record, 1997-2014, from a Search for the Term “nanotechnology” on ProQuest Congressional. Figure duplicated from Anticipatory Policymaking: When Government Acts to Prevent Problems and Why It Is So Difficult by Rob A. DeLeo, page 46.14 ...... 7
Figure 2.2: The process of manufacturing semiconductor devices. This figure illustrates the steps required to manufacture a semiconductor IC, as well as where photolithography fits in this process. Figure duplicated from Manufacturing Techniques for Microfabrication and Nanotechnology by Marc J. Madou, page 3.37...... 17
Figure 2.3: Example Photolithography process (cross-sectional view) ...... 18
Figure 2.4: Block Copolymer Defects (trenches in both images are ~10 nm wide). Images courtesy of Micron Technology, Inc...... 20
Figure 2.5: Examples of Structural DNA Nanotechnology from Literature. Figure duplicated from Structural DNA Nanotechnology: State of the Art and Future Perspective, by Fei Zhang et al., Figure 1.40 ...... 21
Figure 2.6: Example DNA Origami Structure (scaffold shown in black and staples shown in color)...... 23
Figure 3.1: Number of Social Science and Humanities Articles Containing “nano…” by Year ...... 31
Figure 3.2: Number of Social Science and Humanities Articles Containing “nano…” by Journal ...... 32
Figure 3.3: Number of Social Science and Humanities Articles Containing “nano…” by Code (note that some articles were coded under multiple codes, and thus the numbers in this figure do not add to 100)...... 33
Figure 3.4: Number of Code Occurrences by Year – Code counts are presented based on the publication years of the articles coded. This graphic provides insight into what themes were more prevalent in certain years, illustrating the changing priorities of social scientists studying nanotechnology over time...... 34
xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ASU Arizona State University
Boise State Boise State University
CNS Center for Nanotechnology and Society
CO Carbon Monoxide
CVD Chemical Vapor Deposition
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
DSA Directed Self-Assembly
EHS Environmental Health and Safety
FMEA Failure Mode Effects Analysis
GMO Genetically Modified Organism
I/U-CRC Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers
IC Integrated Circuit
IWGN Interagency Working Group on Nanotechnology
LNA Locked Nucleic Aid
Micron Micron Technology
NAM Nucleic Acid Memory
NIH National Institutes of Health
NISE Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network nm Nanometer
NMDG Nanoscale Materials and Device Group
xiv NNI National Nanotechnology Initiative
NRC National Research Council
NSF National Science Foundation (United States)
PI Principle Investigator
PVD Physical Vapor Deposition
R&D Research and Development
RNA Ribonucleic Acid
SNM Scalable Nanomanufacturing Project (specifically, the project at
Boise State funded under the grant, “Atomically Precise, Defect
Free, DNA Masks with Embedded Metrology”)
SRC Semiconductor Research Corporation
STM Scanning Tunneling Microscope
TTO Technology Transfer Office
US United States of America
xv 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Since President Bill Clinton introduced the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) in the year 2000, over $22 billion have been invested by the US federal
government (including requested funds in President Obama’s 2016 budget) to fund
nanotechnology research and development.3 Nanotechnology has shown great potential in a wide variety of applications, many of which are expected to be integrated into
products. Nanoparticles are already found in products such as sunscreens4, and the global
nanotechnology market has been forecasted to be valued at $4.4 billion by 2018. 5
However, compared with the expectations that many had at the outset of the NNI, relatively few nanotechnologies have reached the market (around 1,800, according to the
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies).2
The semiconductor industry may be considered a notable exception to this lack of
widespread commercialization. However, the work of the semiconductor industry is not
commonly thought of as nanotechnology. This is surprising, since common
semiconductor products, such as flash memory and computer processors, now include
many nanoscale features. Much of this research has been developed or funded, at least in
part, by semiconductor companies or through the Semiconductor Research Corporation
(SRC), which is a consortium of semiconductor companies that supports pre-competitive
research with financial support from DARPA.
Obstacles to the development of nanotechnologies can appear in a variety of
forms, including regulations, public acceptance, and difficulties with technology transfer. 2
The report on a 2013 summit convened by the US Government Accountability Office
included a list of challenges to US leadership in nanomanufacturing, which included gaps
in funding for nanotechnology commercialization (sometimes referred to as the “Valley
of Death”) and limited technology transfer capabilities at US universities.6
University research labs play a significant role in discovering and researching
new nanotechnologies. However, universities are not in the business of manufacturing
products, so these technologies need to break out of the university lab and into industry in
order to become products. Breaking out can happen through a variety of channels,
including partnerships between universities and industry, technology transfer through
patenting and licensing, and academic entrepreneurship, where university faculty or
students spin off a company from a university lab. Knowledge can also be transferred out
of a university through formal and informal connections and collaborations with
industry.7
While these factors have been studied individually, there has not yet been a significant amount of scholarly work devoted to academic-industry partnerships and how they relate to the commercialization of nanotechnologies. This thesis seeks to contribute to an understanding of these issues through the study of a collaborative nanotechnology research project being led by Boise State University.
In the spring of 2014, the National Science Foundation (NSF) awarded a grant to researchers at Boise State University, Harvard University, and Micron Technology for a proposal submitted to the Scalable Nanomanufacturing program, entitled “Atomically
Precise, Defect Free, DNA Masks with Embedded Metrology”.8 This grant proposed to address scaling challenges for the semiconductor industry to “enable high-volume 3
manufacturing of atomically-precise, defect-free patterns made from synthetic DNA” and
“self-report defects using an in-line optical technique to monitor the quality control of
patterns during high-volume production”.8 In addition to these technical goals, the project also included funding for a social science study of the project to review the relevant literature and conduct a case study of the project to generate recommendations for public-private collaborations in scalable nanomanufacturing.
While the Wyss Institute at Harvard University is a part of the SNM project, they did not collaborate directly with Micron as a part of this project. Thus, consistent with a
focus on academic-industry partnerships, this case study focuses solely on the
relationship between Boise State University and Micron Technology.
This thesis will present research from this social science study, along with
relevant technical background information. The research questions that this thesis seeks
to answer are: Has the academic-industry partnership in this project been beneficial to
any or all parties involved? How does this project compare to what has been written in
the literature about such collaborations? What lessons can be learned from this project
that can be applied to other projects?
Chapter 2 gives background information to provide context for the following
research. This includes general information about the technical details of
nanotechnology, the effect of the nanoscale on physical properties, and an overview of
details relevant to the SNM project, including photolithography and DNA
nanotechnology. This chapter also provides background information on the policy
history of nanotechnology in the United States, an overview of some of the social science 4
literature that has been published regarding nanotechnology, and a brief description of the
technology transfer process at universities.
Chapter 3 describes the results of a quantitative literature review of social science
articles regarding nanotechnology, focused on finding articles that could be relevant to
nanomanufacturing, especially from the perspective of a nanomanufacturing practitioner
such as a researcher in a university laboratory or in industry.
Chapter 4 describes the methodology used in the case study of the SNM project, including the interview method, research questions, selection of interviewee population and data analysis strategy. Chapter 5 describes the results of the interviews, including
answers to research questions and common topics discussed. This chapter concludes
with interviewees’ lessons and suggestions for academic-industry partnerships. Chapter
6 provides a summary of the thesis and asserts some recommendations for future projects
of this nature. 5
CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND
Due to the interdisciplinary nature of this research, background is required from a wide variety of subjects surrounding nanotechnology and the SNM project, both technical and non-technical. On the materials side, the technical details of nanotechnology and the implications of the nanoscale are explored, and the field of DNA nanotechnology is introduced. Concepts related to the goals of the SNM project are also introduced – most notably, photolithography, and the limitations of that technique.
From the policy side, a brief history of nanotechnology policy in the United States is provided, as well as some of the non-technical challenges that proponents of nanotechnology have faced in advancing the field. A brief overview of social science literature relevant to nanotechnology is provided. Finally, some of the factors involved in bringing new nanotechnologies into products are discussed – technology transfer, commercialization, relevant legislation and, the main focus of this thesis, academic- industry partnerships.
Nanotechnology
According to the 2014 NNI Strategic Plan, “Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications.”9 One nanometer is one billionth of a meter
(or 1 x 10-9 m), and a common convention is that something exists on the nanoscale when it has at least one feature within this 1-100 nanometer (nm) range. Due to the nature of physics at this scale, often involving surface-dominant phenomena, materials and 6
particles with features on the nanoscale can exhibit significantly different properties from
their macro-scale counterparts. For instance, macro-scale objects made of gold are
yellow in color, while colloidal solutions of gold nanoparticles can appear a dark red
color.10
The concept of nanotechnology is generally considered to originate from a speech
entitled “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom”, which was given by Richard Feynman
at annual meeting of the American Physical Society at the California Institute of
Technology in 195911, though others have suggested that these ideas were presented prior
to this talk in science fiction stories, such as Robert Heinlein’s “Waldo”, which was
published in 194212. Regardless of who came up with the initial ideas that spawned the field of nanotechnology, K. Eric Drexler is widely credited with bringing nanotechnology to the masses, beginning with his book, Engines of Creation, which was published in
1986.13,14 In the book, Drexler described “assemblers” – factories shrunk to the nanoscale
which could self-replicate and build almost anything.13 While the scientific soundness of
Drexler’s visions has been questioned by many, including prominently by Dr. Richard
Smalley15, there is no doubt that his writings played a role in increasing public awareness
of nanotechnology. The term, “nanotechnology” was coined by Norio Taniguchi in his
1974 paper “On the Basic Concept of ‘Nano-Technology’”.16
Policy History of Nanotechnology
In the approximately 10 years that nanotechnology was a prominent item on the
US government research agenda (from 2000-2010), there were two major increases in
focus on the subject. This is reflected in the number of nanotechnology entries in the
Congressional Record, as seen in Figure 2.1. 7
The first increase in prominence coincided with the enactment of the NNI in
2001, and was characterized by widespread optimism about the benefits that
nanotechnology could bring for society, and the conviction that the US needed to be the
R&D leader of nanotechnology worldwide. In 2003, the US Congress passed the 21st
Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which affirmed and expanded the federal government’s role in funding nanotechnology research and development. This period ended around 2004.
Figure 2.1: Number of Nanotechnology Entries in the Congressional Record, 1997- 2014, from a Search for the Term “nanotechnology” on ProQuest Congressional. Figure duplicated from Anticipatory Policymaking: When Government Acts to Prevent Problems and Why It Is So Difficult by Rob A. DeLeo, page 46.14
The second round of policy activity occurred between 2007 and 2010, and was
much more focused on the potential risks of nanotechnology, and calls for increased
funding of research on health and safety issues around nanotechnology. While the 8
federal government still funds nanotechnology R&D (President Obama’s 2016 Budget
included $1.5 billion for the NNI), in recent years, nanotechnology has not been as
prominent of a policy issue as it was during this period.
The history of nanotechnology policy in the United States begins largely with Dr.
Mihail Roco, a mechanical engineer working at the National Science Foundation. With
the stage set for public awareness of nanotechnology by Eric Drexler, Roco was the most
prominent policy entrepreneur that drove the creation of nanotechnology policy within
the United States government, both within the executive branch and through Congress.
Policy entrepreneurs are defined by Kingdon as “advocates for proposals or for the
prominence of an idea”.17 Policy entrepreneurs invest their own time and resources (and sometimes their reputations) in hopes of a future return, in the form of policies which benefit them and/or their interests.17 In Roco’s case, in 1997, he was instrumental in the
founding of the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering, and
Technology (IWGN).14 This group reported to the National Science and Technology
Council, a Cabinet-level council which coordinates science and technology policy for the
executive branch, which was established by an executive order from President Clinton in
1993.18
The IWGN’s vision for a multi-agency push for nanotechnology research and development was called the “National Nanotechnology Initiative” (NNI). Roco pitched this idea to White House advisors in 1999, and personally educated members of congress about the anticipated benefits of nanotechnology.14 In January 2000, President Clinton
gave a speech at the California Institute of Technology where he detailed his vision for
the role of the federal government in nanotechnology.19 9
This announcement was followed by a budget request for almost $495 million in
funding for the NNI and nanotechnology research and development. There was a large
amount of optimism at this time from prominent scientists, politicians and science
enthusiasts about the promise of nanotechnology, and the technology was largely cast in a
positive light, as a technology with great potential to do good for society. While the
Clinton administration put forward the NNI, support was bipartisan, with Newt Gingrich,
former Republican House Speaker from Georgia, calling the NNI in 2002 “one of the
better things the government has done.”14
Underscoring this, nanotechnology was widely characterized as having the
potential to bring about “the next Industrial Revolution”.20 Other dominant narratives at this time were of economic and national security and the importance of the US becoming the global leader of this new technology.14
Nanotechnology was presented as a solution to a wide variety of problems during
this time, especially as it became evident that nanotechnology could become a significant
source of research funding. With so many interests, both public and private, involved
with and competing for nanotechnology funding, many different definitions of
nanotechnology were put forth from different sources, such as the US National Research
Council (NRC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Science
Foundation (NSF). Those concerned about the risks of nanotechnology also put forth
their own definitions. Nanotechnology was cited as a potential solution for issues of
national security, energy, the economy, and human health, among other areas.21
However, this narrative was not as convincing to some people outside of
Washington D.C., and soon this optimistic narrative was contrasted with another of 10
potential risks, both to the environment, as well as to vulnerable populations across the
globe. While the Industrial Revolution led to many technological advances and an
improvement in the standard of living of many people, especially in Western countries,
this narrative was questioned by some who raised the question of what upheaval a
potential nanotechnology revolution might bring.14
Other voices painted much grimmer pictures than Drexler’s of out-of-control self- replicating nanomachines destroying the environment and endangering humans. Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, wrote in an article in Wired magazine about the “grey goo threat”, where uncontrolled self-replicating nano-“bacteria” could spread and “reduce the biosphere to dust in a matter of days.”22 Michael Crichton’s 2002 science fiction thriller, “Prey”, depicted a group of scientists trapped and hunted by a deadly swarm of predatory self-replicating nanoparticles.23
A second narrative used by opponents of nanotechnology was a comparison to
another emerging technology that had been surrounded by considerable controversy -
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). GMO’s are organisms whose genetic
material has been altered through the use of genetic engineering techniques. Such
techniques provide the ability to modify the traits of an organism, sometimes through the
introduction of genetic material from another organism. Perhaps the highest-visibility
application of GMO’s is in agriculture, where crops have been modified to increase their
resistance to pests (or pesticides), their shelf-life, and their nutritional value. While some
of these crops, such as “Golden Rice” (a rice genetically modified to produce beta-
carotene, an important nutrient for eyesight24,25) were developed with the intention of
helping people, the use of GMO’s in agriculture by companies such as Monsanto has 11
drawn significant backlash.26 Some saw the potential for the manipulation of materials
via nanotechnology as comparable to the manipulation of genes in GMO’s, with the
potential for unforeseen (and potentially dangerous) consequences.14
GMO opponents weren’t the only ones to see a parallel between nanotechnology and GMO’s. The backlash against GMO’s in the late 1990s was partially directed at policymakers, who were seen as considering the needs of industry over those of the public in introducing a new technology without considering the concerns of the public.
While few nanotechnology opponents called for an outright ban on the technology, many called for measures to be put in place proactively to identify the potential dangers of nanotechnology products before they entered the market.14
One provision of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development
Act addressed concerns about the future impacts of nanotechnology by mandating that
the newly established National Nanotechnology Coordination Office ensure “that ethical,
legal, environmental, and other appropriate societal concerns… are considered during
the development of nanotechnology…” This consideration was to take place through the
support and dissemination of research exploring ethical, legal, environmental, and other
societal concerns around nanotechnology, as well as through integrating this research
with technical nanotechnology research as much as possible and “ensuring that advances
in nanotechnology bring about improvements in quality of life for all Americans”. 27
Two Centers for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS) were established at Arizona
State University (ASU) and University of California, Santa Barbara in 2005, with other
projects related to nanotechnology in society also funded at Harvard University and the
University of South Carolina28,29. Researchers at CNS ASU investigated a number of 12
anticipatory policy approaches to examining the future implications of nanotechnology,
including engaging researchers through “real time technology assessment” with
embedded social scientists and humanists, as well as visioning and public engagement
efforts such as the Nanoscale Science Informal Education (NISE) Network which
engaged science museums to become centers of public deliberation about
nanotechnology.30
Social Science Literature on Nanotechnology
Through the work of the Centers for Nanotechnology, as well as other research
groups focused on the study of the ethical, legal, and societal impacts of nanotechnology, a considerable body of social science scholarship has emerged addressing the development, research output, and impact of the field of nanotechnology.
Shapira, Youtie, and Porter published a study in 2010 of social science literature on nanotechnology.31 Their hypothesis was that social scientists writing about nanotechnology would initially look to technical literature, and then later, as the technology developed, would begin to draw more on the work of other social scientists.
Their method of analysis was examining how papers cite each other, and in order to do this, they created a database of social science literature on nanotechnology.
Shapira et al. found that the articles they examined fell into 16 top categories, each containing more than ten publications in their sample of 308 articles, related to the subject matter addressed in the articles. It is worth noting here that, though the bulk of this thesis focuses on the case of nanotechnology in the United States, Shapira et al’s sample included articles from 11 countries. These subject categories listed are as following, from most to least articles:31 13
• Information Science & Library Science • Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications • Multidisciplinary Sciences • Planning & Development • Ethics • Business • Social Issues • History & Philosophy of Science • Management • Medical Ethics • Social Science, Biomedical • Law • Social Sciences, Biomedical • Law • Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary • Chemistry, Multidisciplinary • Engineering, Multidisciplinary • Medicine, Legal Chapter 3 of this thesis describes a similar, updated literature review that focused on
identifying articles relevant to nanomanufacturing.
Nanoscale Properties
The nanoscale is very close to the scale of atoms and molecules. For instance, the
bond length between two carbon atoms in diamond is 154 pm (or 0.154 nm), putting the
covalent radius of carbon at 77 pm (or 0.077 nm)32. Thus, nanotechnology involves the potential of manipulating individual atoms. This has been a subject of excitement for many nanotechnology futurists, including Richard Feynman, who referenced the idea of 14
writing by arranging atoms in his 1959 talk11. This can already be done using techniques such as Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM).33
The nanoscale affects properties in a variety of ways, and can in some cases even affect intrinsic properties, such as resistivity, which are generally considered to be uniform throughout a sample. Nanoparticles have a high surface-to-volume ratio, which can lead to significant changes in reactivity, compared with their bulk counterparts.
Surface atoms are naturally more reactive, since they have fewer neighboring atoms to bond with. In nanostructures, since so much of the structure is on the surface, a higher proportion of atoms are in this state of increased reactivity. In terms of electronic structure, the energy required to remove electrons from nanostructures (ionization energy) is also generally higher than for the corresponding bulk materials.10 The
interatomic spacing and crystal structure of nanomaterials (especially nanoparticles) can
be different from bulk properties of the same material. In nanoparticles, this is explained
by the compressive strain of internal pressure caused by the small radius of curvature of
the particle. These differences can lead to changes in thermal properties, such as melting
points. Nanostructures can also exhibit impressive mechanical properties, often due to the
lack of room for defects to form and move through the small dimensions of the
materials.10 Multi-walled carbon nanotubes have been shown to exhibit tensile strengths of 11-63 gigapascals34.
Since the nanoscale is so close to that of atoms themselves, electronic properties
can change due to the higher prevalence of the wave-nature of electrons at this scale.
Differences in electronic properties can also contribute to differences in optical
properties, especially those related to valence and conduction bands. Semiconductor 15 nanocrystals (often referred to as “quantum dots”) exhibit size-dependent optical behavior related to the frequency and intensity of light emitted by them after excitation.10
These property differences from corresponding bulk materials open exciting possibilities for new applications. However, they also pose regulatory challenges, as lawmakers must determine how to regulate materials that are elementally the same, but whose properties vary drastically based on size.
Manufacturing at the Nanoscale
Most of the objects that we interact with in day-to-day life (chairs, staplers, etc. -- we will call this the macro-scale) are made using manufacturing processes such as molding, casting, and machining. Some of these processes are also somewhat applicable on the nanoscale. So-called “top-down” manufacturing processes, such as photolithography (discussed in more detail later in this chapter) are used to form nanoscale structures in similar ways as the macro-scale approaches listed above, by removing material from a larger structure to make it smaller, until its features reach a nanometer scale. While methods such as photolithography are used widely in industry, they have inherent limits that can make reliably achieving precise features difficult on the scale of several nanometers using the current tools that are widely used in industry. This technique also has the limitation that it only works on very flat surfaces, such as polished silicon wafers.
One answer to these challenges is the idea of “bottom-up” assembly. Small building blocks of matter can be manually manipulated on the nanoscale through techniques such as Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM), as demonstrated by IBM researchers in the stop-motion animated film, “A Boy and His Atom”, which was 16
animated by moving carbon monoxide (CO) molecules around a copper plate using an
STM. However, such processes are laborious and not currently scalable for large-scale
manufacturing. Chemical and Physical Vapor Deposition (CVD and PVD, respectively,
as well as Molecular Beam Epitaxy, can create thin films of materials, or structures such
as fullerenes or carbon nanotubes.35 However, vapor deposition processes have some
drawbacks when it comes to controlling the formation of three-dimensional structures
such as carbon nanotubes. Thus, the idea of nanoscale building blocks that assemble
themselves is very attractive, especially to the semiconductor industry, which is searching
for methods that can extend the resolution of photolithography. Two technologies that
have been put forth to address this are block copolymers and DNA, which will be
discussed further in the next section.
SNM Project Background
In 1965, Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, put forth what is now known as
“Moore’s Law” – a prediction that the density of transistors in an integrated circuit (IC)
would grow exponentially over time.36 As the drive for miniaturization pushes the semiconductor industry close to the limits of their current technologies, research into new technologies seeks to overcome these barriers. The SNM Project proposes several novel approaches to solving one of the most important challenges limiting the continuation of
Moore’s law – the limitations of photolithography.
Photolithography in Semiconductor Manufacturing
Photolithography is a technique used to create precise patterns on silicon wafers.
It is one stage in the process of creating the complex multi-layer circuits and structures
that make up today’s semiconductor memory and computer chips (see Figure 2.2). 17
Figure 2.2: The process of manufacturing semiconductor devices. This figure illustrates the steps required to manufacture a semiconductor IC, as well as where photolithography fits in this process. Figure duplicated from Manufacturing Techniques for Microfabrication and Nanotechnology by Marc J. Madou, page 3.37
An example of the basic steps in a photolithography process can be seen in Figure
2.3. A thin layer of photosensitive polymer, called a photoresist, is applied to the surface of a silicon wafer (see Figure 2.3.a). This layer is then exposed to light of a specific wavelength, which is projected through a patterned mask onto the wafer surface (Figure
2.3.b). The image formed on the photoresist layer by the light is then developed, selectively hardening the photoresist material in a pattern, which corresponds to the desired features to be patterned on the underlying wafer (Figure 2.3.c). This leaves some areas of the wafer surface protected from subsequent steps in the process, such as etching or ion implantation. Figures 2.3.d to 2.3.f depict a process in which the photoresist has selectively protected areas of a layer of silicon dioxide, which is then etched away in some areas, revealing the wafer surface underneath, which is then able to be etched to form features. 18
Figure 2.3: Example Photolithography process (cross-sectional view)
Limits of Photolithography Resolution
Photolithography techniques are limited by the diffraction limit of light - in this case, of the wavelength of light shone through a mask. The definition of features formed on the photosensitive mask layer is partially dependent on and limited by the wavelength of the light used to set the photoresist, as well as the thickness and intrinsic sensitivity of the resist.37 While the lithographic sensitivity of a resist to generate crisp images from light shone through a mask is best determined experimentally, Madou gives the following equation for the theoretical resolution of “shadow printing” through a mask (in the theoretical case, this mask is a grating):
+ ! = # = ' ( ) + $%& 2
where bmin is half the period of the grating (this is also the minimum feature size transferrable to the photoresist), s is the separation between the mask that the light is 19
shone through and the surface of the photoresist, l is the wavelength of the light shone
through the mask, z is the thickness of the photoresist, and k is a constant (theoretically, this is approximately 1.5).37
Block Copolymers
The 2012 International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors included
“directed self-assembly” (DSA) of block copolymers as an emerging material which was
being evaluated for use in lithography.38 Researchers at Micron Technology have explored the use of block copolymers, in conjunction with features created using photolithography, to define smaller features lithographically.39 In block copolymers, two distinct types of polymer chains are covalently bound together. When the two types of polymers that are combined are also immiscible, phase separation will occur, causing the polymers to self-assemble into periodic structures.
While block copolymers may seem promising, challenges exist with the use of block copolymers for patterning which are difficult to overcome. Chief among these are defects in the self-assembled structures formed by the block copolymers that vary with the width of the lithographically defined trenches that the block copolymers are self- assembling between (see Figure 2.4). Figure 2.4.a shows defects that can occur in block copolymers that are self-assembled between patterned features that are too far apart. 20
a) b)
Figure 2.4: Block Copolymer Defects (trenches in both images are ~10 nm wide). Images courtesy of Micron Technology, Inc.
Figure 2.4.b shows another type of defect that can occur in block copolymer systems, which is similar to a dislocation defect in a material. Since block copolymers assemble with no direction other than phase separation, controlling and eliminating these defects is difficult.39
DNA Nanotechnology
DNA Nanotechnology is a sub-field of nanotechnology that focuses the use of deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA) and other nucleic acids, harnessing on their ability to programmably self-assemble. This feature, based largely on Watson-Crick base-pairing, makes DNA especially attractive for bottom-up self-assembly. By designing synthetic
DNA with custom sequences, structures can be created to perform a variety of functions, including circuits, actuators, sensors, and scaffolds for the formation of other nanostructures.40 21
Figure 2.5: Examples of Structural DNA Nanotechnology from Literature. Figure duplicated from Structural DNA Nanotechnology: State of the Art and Future Perspective, by Fei Zhang et al., Figure 1.40 22
Figure 2.5 depicts some examples of DNA nanostructures, including Seeman’s
original proposed four-way junctions (Fig 2.5.a)41 and DNA lattices (Fig 2.5.b)41,
repeating DNA motifs used to create two- and three-dimensional arrays with microscope
images (Fig 2.5.c)42–45, polyhedral DNA nanostructures (Fig 2.5.d)46–49, and algorithmic
self-assembly of crossover tiles (Fig 2.5.e)50,51. Shown in this figure are also the two dominant methods of creating structures from DNA – Rothemund’s DNA origami
(Figure 2.5.f)52–55 and the Yin group’s DNA bricks (Figure 2.5.g)56,57.
DNA origami uses a long, single-stranded “scaffold” strand of DNA (commonly,
this comes from the M13-mp18 E. coli bacteriophage), which is folded into a two- or
three-dimensional shape by shorter single-stranded synthetic DNA strands, called
“staple” strands. DNA origami is depicted in Figure 2.6, with the scaffold strand in black
and the staple strands in color. Staple strand sequences are typically generated using a
computer program, such as caDNAno.58,59 DNA bricks use a similar principle, except
that there is no scaffold strand, so the entire structure is built out of “staple” strands. This
enables the flexible creation of a wide range of two- and three-dimensional shapes (as
seen in Figure 2.5.g) by selective exclusion of some of the strands. 23
Figure 2.6: Example DNA Origami Structure (scaffold shown in black and staples shown in color).
SNM Project Goals
The project described in the grant proposal funded under the title, “Atomically
Precise, Defect Free, DNA Masks with Embedded Metrology”,8 contains several
technical objectives. The first is to create a mask from DNA crystals that would be
equivalent to existing masks formed from block copolymers and ideally free from defects.8 The second component is the precise placement and alignment of such DNA crystals onto areas on a silicon wafer defined using existing photolithography techniques, similar to work demonstrated by Kershner et al.60 The use of the DNA PAINT technique
(PAINT stands for “point accumulation for imaging in nanoscale topography”), which
uses the transient binding of fluorescent dye molecules attached to single-stranded DNA
to a structure,61 was proposed as the “embedded metrology” to detect defects in-situ 24 during high-volume manufacturing. Lastly, it was proposed that once the DNA crystal mask had been assembled and tested, that the pattern from the mask would then be transferred to a hard lithographic mask.8
Commercialization and Technology Transfer in the University Setting
Technology Transfer Process
The traditional process of technology transfer at a university begins when a faculty, staff, or student identifies a discovery that they have made as having the potential for commercialization and reports it to the university Technology Transfer Office (TTO).
This report, sometimes referred to as a “disclosure”, includes background information about the invention, as well as any organizations that the researcher knows of that might be interested in licensing the technology. Any potential barriers to patenting, such as previous publications, must also be included. The TTO then reviews this information and does research to determine the commercial potential and potential market for the technology, to determine whether it will be worth the university’s resources to invest in patenting the invention.62
While this may seem like a fairly clear path to commercialization, Thursby et al. published a survey in 2001 in which TTO staff speculated that faculty at their institutions disclosed less than half of the potentially commercialize inventions discovered at their institutions. This survey also indicated that institutions allocated resources to pursuing patents only when they perceived an idea to be easily licensed.63 This is likely attributable to limited university resources and the high cost to process a patent, which decreases the incentive for patenting without a clear path to a return on this investment through licensing. 25
While budget constraints still provide a barrier to patent applications for small
and mid-sized institutions such as Boise State, it is possible that such approaches may
have changed in recent years, since the passage of the America Invents Act in 2013,
which changed the long-standing US “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system,
more similar to that seen in other countries.64 While provisions of the act provide a one
year “grace period” for inventors to make disclosures (such as conference presentations)
about their inventions before filing for a patent, some have argued that the new system
favors large businesses over smaller businesses, universities, and individual inventors.64,65
Bayh-Dole Act
Prior to 1980, inventions that came out of federally funded research in the United
States were owned by the government, and would not be exclusively licensed to any one company or organization. This created a significant barrier to investment in licensing federally funded patents, as the first company that licensed the technology and invested in developing the invention for commercialization could easily be taken financial advantage of by subsequent companies who could license the same invention under the same terms, without having to invest in the idea as the first company had.66
The Bayh-Dole Act solved this issue by allowing institutions that generated
inventions through federally funded research to own the inventions, and also to have the
opportunity to exclusively license them to one licensee.66,67
Academic Engagement
Academic engagement is defined by Perkmann et al. as “knowledge-related collaboration by academic researchers with non-academic organizations.” Activities that fall within this definition include collaborative research, contract research and 26 consulting performed by academic researchers with entities outside the university, as well as less formal interactions such as networking. These sorts of relationships may sometimes be referred to as “informal technology transfer”, though many of them involve some sort of formal contract. They contrast these sorts of relationships with the more well-recognized concept of commercialization, which encompasses patenting and licensing technologies, as well as academic entrepreneurship, where professors and/or students start a company to commercialize an idea developed within the university.7
While commercialization is often considered the primary mode of technology transfer, and may be perceived by many to be the most lucrative, Perkmann et al. note that for most universities, the income from academic engagement activities far outweighs that from licensing revenues.7 Many companies also consider these sorts of interactions to be considerably more valuable than simply exchanging the use of an idea for money through licensing.68 27
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE SURVEY
The following research was conducted to fulfill one of the stated goals of the social science component of the SNM grant proposal – to perform a meta-analysis of the current social science literature on nanotechnology to determine what of it, if any, could be relevant to nanomanufacturing “practitioners”, defined as research scientists in university labs or in industry.
Literature Search Methodology
To characterize non-technical literature on nanotechnology, we attempted to replicate a search similar to what we believe a nanotechnology or nanomanufacturing practitioner might perform if they were looking for articles pertaining to these subjects outside of their direct field of study. We searched the Web of Science Core Collection in the Social Science Citation Index and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index using the search term “nano*”, which returned articles containing words that begin with “nano”.
No limit was provided for when articles were published. We further narrowed our search by excluding all but a few “Web of Science Categories”. The categories that we included were as follows:
• Social sciences biomedical • History philosophy of science • Ethics • Public environmental occupational health • Communication • Humanities multidisciplinary 28
• Social issues • Medical ethics • Social sciences interdisciplinary • Public administration
With these conditions, our search returned 664 articles. To further reduce the sample to a manageable size, articles were sorted from most-cited to least-cited according to Web of Science metrics. The intent of this ordering was to identify the most influential papers, which have attracted the attention of other authors in the field. We also thought that this might be a likely strategy employed by a nano practitioner looking for “top” articles in other fields. Articles that were clearly irrelevant to the desired subject matter (i.e. papers on second-hand smoke that used units of nanograms/milliliter) were culled by hand, and the remaining top 100 papers were selected as the study sample set. A list of the titles, authors, and publication information of these articles can be found in Appendix A.
Once the sample set was established, a set of codes were generated to categorize the papers for analysis. These categories were loosely based on those provided by
Shapira et al. in their 2010 Scientometrics paper,31 to which we added some codes and removed others based on subjects observed in our sample set. Again, our intent was to identify subjects that might be of interest to nano practitioners, especially those involved with nanomanufacturing.
We added several codes to Shapira et al.’s original list, including one for articles addressing nanomanufacturing lab practices and applications (including Environmental
Health and Safety, or EHS), one for articles where the stated audience or research subject 29 was lab workers or scientists working in nanotechnology, and one for articles concerned in large part with toxicology or risk assessment. These additional codes were specifically targeted toward subjects that we believe would be of direct interest to nanomanufacturing practitioners.
Several of Shapira et al.’s original codes were also excluded, combined, or expanded to make them more directly applicable to our dataset. “Evolutionary economics”, for instance, was excluded completely, as our dataset included no articles with economics as their primary focus. “Public perception and deliberation” was split into two codes – “Public perception and values” and “Deliberation and engagement”, to differentiate between articles concerned primarily with how deliberation experiments are conducted and their utility, versus those that focus on actual measurements of what the public perceives about nanotechnology. The final set of codes included:
• Predictions/Visions/Pop Culture
• Institutional Governance
• Public Perception and Values
• Deliberation and Engagement Experiments
• Ethics
• Media Studies
• Science Mapping
• Addresses nanomanufacturing lab practices and applications (including EHS)
• One stated audience or research subject is lab workers or scientists (in
nanomanufacturing)
• Toxicology/Risk assessment 30
Articles were also coded based on the predominant topic of the paper. For example, an article that focused primarily on ethical considerations of nanotechnology would be coded under “Ethics”, whereas a toxicology paper that mentioned ethics briefly at the beginning would not be coded under “Ethics”. The top 20 articles were coded by both coders, then compared to ensure general agreement and to refine the code categories to better capture the subject matter seen in the articles in the dataset. The next 80 articles were divided into two parts (even and odd numbers, by citation rank) and divided between the two coders. Codes were clarified and changed as necessary during the coding process, and coding changes were implemented throughout the sample set by both coders.
After all articles in the dataset had been coded, the number of articles for each code was tabulated using Microsoft Excel. Articles were also profiled by year and by journal.
Literature Search Results
Even before looking at the distribution of articles within the codes, several observations may be made about the timeline on which the articles in our sample set were published. There is a clear peak visible in Figure 3.1 in the number of highly cited articles published around 2009. This likely corresponds with research that came out of early funding opportunities from the NNI, and from the two Centers for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University and University of California, Santa Barbara. 31
Number of Articles by Year
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6
Number of Articles 4 2 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Publication Year
Figure 3.1: Number of Social Science and Humanities Articles Containing “nano…” by Year
Another observation about the sample set as a whole may be seen in Figure 3.2, regarding which journals are most represented within the reviewed articles. The most articles came from Public Understanding of Science (19), followed by Science
Communication (12) and Risk Analysis (11). This reflects an emphasis on understanding how the public learns about and views nanotechnology, and is likely reflective of a large amount of funding given for these types of research, possibly stemming from an attempt to prevent or avoid some of the public relations issues experienced by other emerging technologies, such as GMO’s.14 32
Number of Articles by Journal - Nano* Top 100
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 … … … … … … HYLE Minerva Mediated - Risk Analysis Configurations Time & Society Science as Culture New Media & Society Policy Studies Journal Health, Risk & Society Hastings Center Report Science as Public Policy Science Communication Journal of Risk Research Social Studies of Science Journal of Business Ethics Regulation & Governance Journal of Communication Journal of Bioethical Inquiry INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF Science, Technology & Human Agriculture and Human Values Science and Engineering Ethics Issues in Science & Technology Journal of Computer Annual Review of Public Health The Journal of Law, Medicine & Public Understanding of Science Social Science Computer Review Studies in History and Philosophy The American Journal of Bioethics Environmental Health Perspectives Journalism & Mass Communication Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
# Articles
Figure 3.2: Number of Social Science and Humanities Articles Containing “nano…” by Journal
Looking at the article codes themselves, we can also see a large emphasis on articles studying issues surrounding public perception and values. Institutional
Governance and Deliberation and Engagement were also topics addressed in many papers within the sample.
The code “Addresses nanomanufacturing lab practices or applications” was not one of the original codes from Shapira et al., and ended up being applied to a significant number of articles, as many mentioned nanotechnology applications in some way, and we applied this code fairly liberally. Only a few articles under this code addressed nanomanufacturing lab practices. While the meaning of this code may be somewhat 33
ambiguous, it is notable that many articles do address specific applications, since a
criticism that could be leveled at early nano-social-science literature was that it was too
focused on nanotechnology as an abstract concept, instead of as a concrete technology
with specific applications.
Code Distribution
Public Perception and Values (Science and Risk …
Addresses nanomanufacturing lab practices or …
Institutional Governance (STS, Poli Sci)
Deliberation and Engagement Experiments (STS)
Ethics
One stated audience or research subject is lab …
Media Studies
Toxicology/risk assessment
Predictions/Visions/Pop Culture (Cultural …
Science Mapping (History of Science; …
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Number of Articles
Figure 3.3: Number of Social Science and Humanities Articles Containing “nano…” by Code (note that some articles were coded under multiple codes, and thus the numbers in this figure do not add to 100).
More insight may be gained by looking at the distribution of articles coded under the different categories over time (see Figure 3.4). Observations should be prefaced by saying that because we selected articles by citation rank, it is natural that this will tend to bias the search toward older articles, as it takes time for most articles to accumulate citations. Also, it should be noted that some articles were coded under multiple categories, so the sum of the number of articles coded under all categories in a given year may be greater than the number of articles in that year (as shown in Figure 3.1). 34
Figure 3.4: Number of Code Occurrences by Year – Code counts are presented based on the publication years of the articles coded. This graphic provides insight into what themes were more prevalent in certain years, illustrating the changing priorities of social scientists studying nanotechnology over time.
Articles primarily regarding predictions and visions of the future of nanotechnology peaked around 2005, two years after the passage of the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. At this point, it is likely that social 35 scientists were transitioning from visioning about potential futures to dealing with the reality of the nanotechnologies that were beginning to be developed.
According to this data, articles mentioning ethics were also more prevalent at the beginning of the sample, peaking around 2005. However, this shows one of the limitations of this data collection methodology, because there is a whole journal devoted to nanotechnology ethics, NanoEthics, and it is likely that through the methodology that was used in this study, not all of these articles were captured.
Articles addressing institutional governance, public perception and values, deliberation and engagement, and nanomanufacturing lab practices and applications peaked around 2008-2009. Articles whose audience or subjects explicitly included lab workers or scientists, as well as toxicology and risk assessment articles peaked slightly later, around 2010.
Literature Search Conclusions
While the methodology used in this work undoubtedly influenced (and may have restricted) the types of articles that were found and analyzed, this study gives valuable insights into the sorts of articles that a nanomanufacturing practitioner might come across while looking for articles using the search constraints that were used here. From other explorations of the overall body of social science literature on nanotechnology, there are areas of research that are underrepresented in this sample, such as bibliometric article analysis.
However, the overall lesson of this study is less about the areas of study found, and more about the audiences of the articles examined here. Out of the 100 articles examined, less than one fifth addressed the practitioners in the field under study directly. 36
Social science scholarship on nanotechnology was funded to provide societal context for this field, but as can be seen here, that context is often not directed at the researchers advancing nanotechnology, even though they may be the ones for whom this information is the most important. 37
CHAPTER FOUR: INTERVIEW OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
The objective of these interviews, which were part of the larger case study of the
SNM project as a collaboration between Boise State University and Micron Technology, was to collect information from talking with those involved with the SNM project to gain insights into the overall function of the project and the academic-industry relationship therein, as well as how this might impact the commercialization of the technologies under development. Since we were interested in collecting experiences and thoughts about the project, and less interested in statistical analysis of the results, semi-structured interviews with an interview guide were a natural choice.
The use of an interview guide, according to Tracy, “is meant to stimulate discussion rather than dictate it.”69 By allowing the conversation to go in unexpected directions, we allowed for the possibility that the people we were interviewing might have useful information that we had not thought to ask them about. It is also possible that, through the discourse of conversation between the interviewer(s) and the interviewee, that the interviewee might come to additional insights that they had not previously thought of.70
This method also allows the interviewer more flexibility to re-phrase questions to make them clearer to the interviewee, or to skip questions if they have already been addressed in the discussion of previous questions, or if they are not relevant to the particular interviewee. This was important, considering the variation within the sample 38
of respondents’ levels of direct engagement with the SNM project, as well as their
different jobs and organizations.
Data Collection
As our list of interviewees included both researchers and administrators, we had two versions of the interview guide – one for each group. Three questions were omitted
from the interview guide for administrators (these were more project-specific questions,
and most of the administrators that we interviewed were not directly involved with the
SNM project). Some of the question phrasing was also changed to make it more
appropriate for each group. The two interview guides can be seen in Appendix C. The
questions included in the two versions of the interview guides were guides for what to
ask, but the actual wording of the question asked varied somewhat between interviews.
Interviews were conducted alongside Dr. Eric Lindquist. Most of the interviews
were conducted with two interviewers present, which was the ideal case, as one could
focus on asking questions and maintaining the flow of the conversation, while the other
took notes. However, several interviews were conducted with only one interviewer, due
to scheduling conflicts.
Interviewers took hand-written notes and typed them up after the interviews,
which were not recorded. There was concern that, since there were some sensitive
political and intellectual property aspects of the project situation, interviewees might have
been less forthcoming if every word that they said was being recorded. Depoy and Gitlin
cite this notion in their book, stating “There are several considerations in using voice
recording. First, decide whether recording will be intrusive in your setting and will prevent informants from expressing private thoughts."71 Not recording the interviews 39 also lessened the amount of time necessary to spend “processing” the data after the interview, as there was no need for verbatim transcription of recordings. The interviews were conducted under IRB #041-SB16-106 (OSP proposal #:5923). IRB documents may be found in Appendix B.
Research Questions
The intent of these interviews was to probe the experiences of researchers and research administrators associated with the SNM project and similar projects at partner institutions, in regards to university-industry partnerships, as well as the interviewees' perception of how their work impacts the public and how the public might perceive their work. The latter perceptions are of interest, as past experience from other industries
(such as GMO’s) indicates that considering public opinion and how new research is communicated to the public can impact the successful commercialization of a technology produced from this research. To this end, the interview questions aimed to increase our understanding of the answers to the following questions:
1. What are the opportunities and challenges of academic-industry partnerships like this joint project? 2. What does the academic-industry relationship in this case study (the project with Boise State University and Micron Technology) look like? Is this consistent with interviewees' past experiences with such projects (if any)? 3. What do interviewees believe are the societal implications of the rise of nanomanufacturing? Is this something that they think about very often? 4. Have interviewees' past experiences in academic-industry partnerships (or their experiences on the current project) shaped their willingness to participate in university-industry partnerships? 40
5. What do researchers and administrators feel are the most significant factors in university-industry partnerships that can prevent the commercialization of new technologies (especially nanotechnologies)? 6. How much interaction and active collaboration has there been between the different parties in this project? Crafting the Interview Guide
The balance required when conducting qualitative interviews with an interview guide is to craft questions that are sufficiently open-ended to accommodate discussion of unexpected subjects, while still ensuring that the conversation is directed toward answering the research questions of the project. To this end, it is helpful to consider the assumptions that we had about the respondents’ answers, though we worked to craft questions in a way that did not influence answers based on these assumptions.
It was expected that some of the researchers might have considered the social or ethical dimensions of the technologies that they developed, but that many of them would not consider this something that they thought of on a day-to-day basis, if at all. To this end, the “elevator question” (Question 8 on both interview guides – see Appendix C) was a less overt way to assess these thoughts than asking outright (though this subject was also addressed more overly in Question 4 on both interview guides – see Appendix C).
It was also anticipated that many of the administrators that were interviewed would have little, if any, direct knowledge of or involvement with the SNM project, but that many of them would have had some past or present experience with academic- industry partnerships (especially since this was one of the main reasons for selection of the interviewees).
Given the variation in career stages of the interviewees, it seemed likely that there would be a variation in the level of prior involvement in academic-industry partnerships, 41 though we were unsure how this would affect the level of interest that interviewees had in engaging in such partnerships in the future.
With these assumptions in mind, we set about crafting interview questions that we believed would lead to answering our research questions, while not biasing the interviewee’s answers. Tracy outlines some best practices for wording interview questions, which we observed, including70:
• Questions should be simple, clear, and free of jargon (this was especially
important since we were trying to use most questions for both groups –
researchers and administrators).
• Ask only one thing with each question (no “double barreled questions”).
• Follow yes/no questions with follow-ups, such as “Why?” to encourage more
complex answers.
• Word questions in such a way that they do not lead the respondent to answer one
way or the other (no “leading questions”).
• In general, questions should be accompanied with probes, such as asking for an
example or an anecdote.
Following such guidelines helped to ensure that the questions asked in the interview guides would not bias the answers of the interviewees.
Several questions in the interview guides are “matched pairs”, where one asks for positive responses about a subject, then the next asks for negative responses about the same subject, such as “opportunities” and “challenges”. This was also done in an attempt to not bias interviewees towards positive or negative responses about a subject by giving each equal weight. In interviews, these questions were sometimes posed at the same 42
time, so that interviewees could think about their answers to both simultaneously, as
positive and negative answers on a common subject were often intermingled in
conversation.
Interviewee Selection
To date, all interviewees have been either from Boise State or Micron, and the research presented here focuses on the relationship between Boise State and Micron.
Interviewees were selected from the following categories:
• Faculty and Micron researchers involved directly with the SNM project as
Principle Investigators (PI’s).
• Non-PI faculty involved with the project (current and past).
• Lead Ph.D. students involved with each section of the project.
• Research administrators involved in setting up the SNM grant.
• Research administrators involved in other similar academic-industry projects
around campus, including faculty and staff from the College of Engineering and
the Division of Research and Economic Development.
• Names suggested by other interviewees (snowball sampling).
Interviews were conducted with a group of 13 people, consisting of researchers
and administrators from Boise State University, as well as from Micron Technology. The
names of those interviewed are not included here, as interviewees were promised
confidentiality as part of the Informed Consent process. While it is difficult to maintain
anonymity within a sample size of 13 interviewees (a fact which was acknowledged in
the Informed Consent form that each interviewee signed before their interview), identities 43 are shielded here by not mentioning interviewees’ job titles, as well as by aggregating responses into general conclusions.
Future work in the final year of the SNM project should include a broader range of interviews, including with researchers and administrators at Harvard, and industry liaisons at other semiconductor manufacturing companies that participate in the
Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC).
Data Processing and Analysis
Hand-written field notes from the interviews were transferred into Microsoft
Word documents, with interviewers filling in context and details as appropriate (denoted as separate from the main text of the interviewee’s responses). These notes were then transferred into Nvivo, a qualitative data analysis software. Nvivo allows researchers to organize quotes from interview data into themes (called “nodes” in Nvivo). This organization process, referred to as “coding”, is helpful to identify trends in what was said across multiple interviews. These trends were then used to aggregate specific ideas from each interview into broader observations. This aggregation was important to draw broader conclusions, but was also necessary to help protect the anonymity of the interviewees.
Nodes used for coding were generated in two ways. Initial nodes were generated based on the research questions listed above, as well as other themes anticipated to appear in one or more interviews. As interviews were coded, if themes of interest that did not fall into an existing node were discovered, new nodes were created. Some nodes were organized into hierarchies, based on related themes. A full listing of all node names and hierarchies may be found in Appendix D. 44
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As was mentioned above in the Methods section, this thesis focuses on the relationship between Boise State and Micron. To protect the anonymity of the interviewees, ideas and themes discussed have been aggregated up to a broad-level discussion, without mention of the name or position of those who put forth the ideas.
Some additional observations are included from my personal involvement with the project – specifically, shadowing the student research team working on the deposition side of the project for several months.
The interview questions included in the interview guides (see Appendix C for details) were intended to probe several broad subjects, based on the research questions outlined in Chapter Four. Responses to each subject are presented below.
Opportunities of Academic-Industry Partnerships
Academic-Industry partnerships can offer many advantages for all concerned, and can be fertile ground for new ideas. Universities can benefit by receiving materials or resources from companies, strengthening relationships with industry, and through opportunities for their students. Companies in industry can have access to exploratory research and development that they might have trouble justifying performing themselves.
The following section outlines these advantages in more detail for each of the parties involved. 45
For University Researchers
In response to questions regarding the benefits of academic-industry partnerships,
interviewees cited the following benefits for university researchers. University
researchers generally benefit from partnerships with industry through access to more
resources (either financial or materials), as well as often through access to industry expertise in the area of their project. This could be through characterization or access to
a process that the university researchers do not have the capabilities to do, or it could
come in the form of interactions with industry scientists and engineers. In the case of the
SNM project, researchers at Boise State University received over 20 types of wafers with
different surfaces on which to experiment with DNA deposition, as well as access to a
research scientist at Micron who could provide insights into what is realistic and
necessary to scale a product or process into manufacturing in Micron’s facilities. For a
project focused on scaling products into manufacturing, these insights are very valuable.
Beyond the exchange of materials, projects such as the SNM, when successful,
can form the basis for other collaborations between the parties involved. In the case of
the SNM project, at the time of this writing, the Nanoscale Materials and Device Group
(NMDG) currently has another project in collaboration with Micron, focused on Nucleic
Acid Memory (NAM), which is funded by the Micron Foundation, as well as the
Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC), Functional Accelerated nanoMaterial
Engineering (FAME) Center.
For Universities
When discussing benefits of academic-industry partnerships for universities,
interviewees gave the following answers. Relationships built through academic-industry 46 partnerships bring benefits beyond those specific to the researchers involved. Successful partnerships with industry can build or reinforce institution-level relationships between companies in industry and universities. Boise State and Micron have had a long-standing relationship that has included many gifts from Micron to Boise State, including a recent
$25 million gift from the Micron Foundation to build a new Center for Materials
Research. As part of this gift, the Materials Science and Engineering Department at
Boise State is now the Micron School of Materials Science and Engineering. The success of projects such as the SNM can cement these ties and allow companies a way to see a return on their investment into the university.
Through working closely with industry, universities and university administrators can also gain deeper insights into the skills that companies need and expect students to gain through their university education. This can make students more competitive when seeking industry jobs, and universities more competitive if they can demonstrate high levels of student placement into industry. Having faculty doing cutting-edge, industry- relevant research can also give universities a competitive edge in marketing themselves, especially as graduate institutions.
One of the mandates of a state university is to disseminate its research through technology transfer. Partnerships with industry can be one way to do this, through mechanisms such as IP agreements or licensing.
For Students
In response to questions regarding the benefits of academic-industry partnerships, interviewees cited the following benefits for students. Students can benefit greatly from academic-industry partnerships in a number of ways. Student researchers working on the 47
project can gain technical experience, and graduate students can find thesis or dissertation
topics. Whether directly through the project, or through connections made by faculty to
industry, academic-industry partnerships can open pathways for students to get jobs or
internships at partner companies.
On the SNM project, these benefits are evident, as four students from the NMDG
(graduate and undergraduate) have been employed or become interns at Micron’s Boise
site after working on the SNM project, or on a related senior project team through the
Micron School of Materials Science (this team focused on electrophoretic deposition of
DNA, a related and parallel goal to that of the SNM project). The two lead Ph.D.
students (one for the deposition side of the project and one for the metrology side) have also gained research topics and valuable research skills, and in one case, job opportunities, from working on the SNM project.
For Industry
Interviewees noted the following benefits for industry from partnerships with
academia. Companies can benefit from partnerships with universities by gaining access
to exploratory research and insights into new emerging technologies. While in the past,
industry did basic science research and large-scale research and development at places
like Bell Labs, without the technological monopolies of the past, many of these
laboratories no longer exist, and such research is less common today.72 Through working
with university researchers, companies can explore what works and what does not in
these emerging technologies without having to devote their own in-house resources and
people to the task. Industry researchers can also have direct access to university
professors through these sorts of partnerships to exchange and vet ideas. 48
For companies, partnerships with universities can also be a way to reach out to potential future employees – university students. Through working directly with student researchers, or through presentations to university students as part of site visits, partnerships can give companies a chance to get students interested in working for industry and try to attract them to work for them.
Challenges of Academic-Industry Partnerships
While there are many potential benefits of academic-industry partnerships for all parties, interviewees cited several challenges and potential disadvantages to these sorts of partnerships, as well. Some of these disadvantages are relevant in projects that are unsuccessful, but some challenges are inherent to even the most successful academic- industry partnerships. Fundamentally, universities and companies in industry have different priorities, needs, and stakeholders. Companies must maintain their profit margins, often answering to shareholders who are concerned with short-term profits. On the other hand, universities have a mission to educate and (at least in the case of state universities) answer to the public and to their students as stakeholders. Universities focus on disseminating knowledge, while new ideas in industry are frequently kept as trade secrets. Institutions planning to embark on a university-industry partnership must identify, communicate about, and address such issues in order to ensure a successful partnership. The following section outlines these challenges and disadvantages in more detail for each of the parties involved.
For University Researchers
According to interviewees, for university researchers, one of the major potential disadvantages of a collaboration with industry is that they may lose some of their 49
intellectual freedom. Especially when funding for a project comes directly from industry
(instead of from a federal agency, such as the NSF), there can be pressure to maintain focus on a pre-defined goal that may not allow room for researchers to pursue tangential avenues of inquiry which might otherwise become fruitful research subjects or contribute to the diversity of their research portfolio (it is generally desirable for faculty to pursue both applied and basic research topics). For both sides, the communication and collaboration required for a healthy academic-industry partnership can be time- consuming.
For Universities
For universities, interviewees noted that the most significant concerns in an
academic-industry partnership are IP and maintaining relationships with industry
partners. If a project involving an academic-industry partnership goes badly, it could
potentially jeopardize the institution’s relationship with that company and threaten the
possibility of future partnerships with them. Intellectual property agreements must also
be properly negotiated to maintain the university’s control over its previous IP, while
enabling and ensuring sharing of information relevant to the project between partners. If
such arrangements are not negotiated prior to the start of the project, this could negatively
impact the project timeline and progress. In the case of the relationship between Boise
State and Micron, there are multiple department- and college-wide agreements in place
with Micron that facilitate these sorts of exchanges.
For Industry
Interviewees suggested that companies may be hesitant to enter into an academic-
industry partnership, and with good reason. While there are many benefits to these sorts 50 of partnerships, as mentioned above, many companies have been sued by universities over IP disagreements or infringement. This can happen through a company’s use of a university’s IP without proper licensing, but can also stem from industry researchers becoming intellectually “contaminated” after seeing or hearing of an idea in a university lab and later, possibly unknowingly, using aspects of this idea in another project at the company where they work. These sorts of IP disputes mean that agreements must be worked out for IP sharing before a project can go forward, adding time and bureaucratic steps to the process of setting up a partnership.
For engineers or scientists in industry, embarking on such a partnership can be a taxing prospect, as their responsibilities as a liaison with the university may be in addition to their normal workload at the company. This can lead to tensions with university partners (who are also often overcommitted), as industry researchers may be difficult to reach or schedule meetings with because of their work schedule. It is also possible that the company may not yet have the culture or structures in place to support academic-industry partnerships and those engaging in them. Liaisons may be under pressure to make sure that the project produces results that can be shown to their management, demonstrating that the project advances the company’s interests or bottom line, or at least is creating impact through publications.
While industry researchers may be busy and difficult to reach, university faculty and students also have many demands on their time (the only possible exception to this is postdoctoral researchers), meaning that university research projects often move at a fraction of the speed of an equivalent project in industry. Many university research groups also have more limited resources than their counterparts in industry, which can 51
also impact the speed of the project, especially since it may limit the number of people
working on the project. Furthermore, since the mission of academic research labs is, at
its core, to educate through research, the untrained nature of their workforce is
fundamental to their operation. PI’s, especially, often have many demands on their time
(teaching, research, grant-writing, managing students, serving on committees, etc.), and
may only have a small portion of their salary coming from any one grant, which can
sometimes equate to an equivalently small amount of their time devoted to the project.
Societal Implications
One area of interest from the project’s research questions was how frequently and to what degree researchers and administrators on the project considered the societal and ethical implications of their work and of the project. This was measured in part via a question, which asked interviewees to come up with a fictional pitch to the Idaho
Governor regarding the impact of their research on the people of the state of Idaho.
While all those interviewed had some thoughts on the subject of societal and
ethical implications, some interviewees (mainly researchers) were not immediately
conscious of having considered these implications, or said that they only think of them
occasionally. Another frequent comment from those directly associated with the SNM
project was that the project was not directly involved with producing a product, and thus
that the potential implications of the project and the materials and techniques it is
working to develop were not of immediate importance.
Many interviewees mentioned local industry as part of their “elevator pitch”,
noting that technological advancements that benefit Micron would also benefit the local 52
economy. Also frequently mentioned was the importance of an educated workforce, and
how this is also beneficial to the local community and industry.
Relationship Between Partners
Boise State University and Micron Technology
As one of the major technology companies and employers in the Treasure Valley
(in Southwestern Idaho) and longtime support of Boise State, Micron already has a fairly
close relationship with Boise State on an institutional level. On a project level, Micron
has been fairly engaged, with regular meetings between Micron and Boise State
researchers occurring the first two years of the SNM grant. A member of the
management chain at Micron responsible for overseeing the SNM and other similar
projects is also part of the Industrial Advisory Board of the Micron School of Materials at
Boise State.
Within Boise State
Regular research update meetings were held with researchers from Boise State
involved in different aspects of the SNM and related projects, ensuring that the Boise
State teams were aware of each other’s progress and were able to provide feedback to
each other.
Past Experiences
Many of the interviewees mentioned that they had some prior experience with
academic-industry partnerships, though in some cases, they were indirect relationships, or
collaborations that involved only the exchange of materials with little communication.
One researcher mentioned that their experience working with a company in industry had
increased their interest in pursuing industry-related research. Another researcher noted 53
that their interest in pursuing partnerships with industry was motivated by creating
connections to benefit students. Most of the administrators interviewed had extensive
experience dealing with academic-industry partnerships.
Impact on Willingness to Engage in Academic-Industry Partnerships
With mixed levels of past industry engagement across the pool of interviewees,
all expressed some level of willingness to participate in another academic-industry
partnership in the future, though some qualified with caveats about partner alignment or
relevance to their work. While a sample size of 13 is far too small to draw any
quantitative conclusions, in this case it seems that while some interviewees’ past
experiences informed their consideration of whether or not to pursue academic-industry
partnerships, their current level of engagement with such projects was probably a
stronger factor in this matter.
Barriers to Commercialization
Several common themes emerged from the interviews, related to challenges in academic-industry partnerships that could become barriers to commercialization. Many interviewees alluded to challenges surrounding intellectual property – agreements to share it, concerns over lawsuits, getting necessary information from collaborators, and disseminating research knowledge were among the top concerns.
Another significant challenge is that of maintaining the relationships between people and institutions required for such a partnership. Organization-wide policies and culture can create barriers, even if individual researchers and administrators are in agreement. The inherently mismatched needs and timelines of industry and academia are a common barrier which must be addressed and re-addressed throughout the partnership 54
to make sure that all partners feel that their needs are being met. Competing demands on
the time of all parties involved – both in industry and in academia – can make these
frequent communications challenging, but their importance must not be underestimated.
This is especially true of PI’s, whose responsibility it is to maintain inter-institutional
relationships and make sure that the project is on track.
Lastly, a set of challenges that must not be overlooked in the planning and execution of academic-industry partnerships focused on developing new technologies are the technical challenges of accomplishing the project goals. While transformative change rarely happens without big ideas, it is important for project timelines and deliverables to
be as realistic as possible from the beginning.
Other Subjects Discussed
Nanotechnology, Research, and the Public
Public Awareness, Understanding, and Acceptance
Most interviewees agreed that the public, in general, does not know enough about
the technology involved in the SNM project (or many other technologies under
development at their institutions) to understand such technologies and know whether or
not they accept them. If a technology was integrated into Micron’s manufacturing
process, as long as it was not part of the finished product, many interviewees felt that
there was a significant chance that no one in the public would be aware.
One interviewee cited a general lack of technical knowledge among the public,
making discussions of the merits and drawbacks of potential technologies difficult.
Required engineering courses for all students were suggested as a solution to this. 55
Communicating with the Public
Framing has a significant influence on the general public’s perception of a new
technology. This includes not only how researchers communicate their research to the
public, but also what gets attention in the media.
Senior Projects
Senior projects are one way that students can get early exposure to working with
industry. Maintaining engagement from industry partners is especially critical in these
projects, as students need guidance and communication with sponsors to learn and do
well with their projects. There was a senior project related to the SNM project, focused
on electrophoretic deposition of DNA, which provided experience and education value to
four students, two of whom are employed at Micron at the time of this writing. Senior
projects such as this one can provide a platform for research groups to pilot intellectually
risky concepts in a context where learning will be derived, regardless of the outcome of
the project. If such a project is successful, this could lead to future grant opportunities.
Some of the lessons taken from maintaining good senior project relationships with industry also apply to research relationships with industry. Maintaining communication, trust, and engagement is key for establishing good long-term relationships with industry sponsors that can lead to multiple senior projects, over time. These strategies apply equally well to more traditional research partnerships, as well.
Lessons Learned
Interviewees were asked to articulate lessons that they had learned through their involvement in the SNM project, or with regards to academic-industry partnerships in 56
general, based on their experiences. These lessons can largely be distilled into a few key
categories, with significant amounts of overlap between interviews on some points.
Communication, Relationships, and Time Commitment
Possibly the most resounding and frequently repeated recommendation was the
importance of communication and maintaining an open, trusting relationship between
partners on a project. At least a quarter of all of the comments about lessons had
something to do with communication or rapport. While this may be unsurprising,
communication and relationship maintenance between partners, especially if they are off-
campus or in another state or country, can be difficult to maintain. The following is a summary of suggestions that interviewees put forth on this topic:
• Communication must be frequent and open, with all parties feeling comfortable
sharing their needs and challenges.
• All parties involved in such partnerships likely have other demands on their time.
This must be taken into consideration when collaborators are slow to respond.
However, all parties must also devote adequate time to allow frequent
communication to happen. It is important that each side feels like their time
investment in the project is being respected.
• A plan should be established at the beginning of the project, not just for what
research will be done, but what each collaborator will get out of the project.
Being clear about expectations such as authorship and publications upfront can
avoid conflict later on. This plan should be referred to regularly, to make sure
that the project is going in the right direction and is on track. 57
• All sides should do their best to be realistic with what they can accomplish, and
on what timeline, then make every effort to stay on this schedule. However, if a
milestone falls behind, or something is not able to be accomplished, it is
important to be open and honest with collaborators about these situations.
• A lesson from senior projects: Establishing relationships, trust, and maintaining
connections are important to forming a long-term rapport with a company that can
lead to multiple partnerships.
Aligning Needs and Priorities, Recognizing Differences
By nature, industry and academia have fundamental differences that impact how researchers and administrators in each sphere do their jobs. Acknowledging these differences and keeping them in mind can help significantly in maintaining relationships between partners on both sides. The following is a summary of suggestions that interviewees put forth on this topic:
• Be aware of the different missions and needs of each side. In academia, reward
structures are built around the dissemination of knowledge, usually through
publishing. However, it may be in the best interest of a company to keep some
ideas secret to protect their IP. These differences must be discussed, and a
compromise reached which serves both sides’ needs as much as possible.
• Timelines are different between academia and industry. In industry, projects
often move very quickly, and missing deadlines can have serious financial and
other consequences. Academic partners must be sensitive to this. At the same
time, faculty and students in academia have many demands on their time, and
often have more limited resources than industry, so projects tend to move more 58
slowly, by nature. Both sides must be aware of these differences and meet in the
middle with concrete timelines and goals.
• Even the general style of communication is different between academia and
industry. While presentations in academia often focus on what has been
accomplished on a project, presentations in industry may focus more on what is
going wrong and what needs to be fixed, in order to focus efforts on solving the
intermediate problems needed to accomplish the overall goal.
Other Lessons
A number of other ideas, solutions, and lessons were also put forth that do not fit
as neatly into categories as those above. However, they may be helpful to keep in mind
for future partnerships.
• When choosing where to invest resources, focus more on people who are neutral
or somewhat engaged with an idea (such as the merits of partnering with
industry). Those who are disengaged may not respond as strongly to time and
resources, and may be less likely to produce the desired results.
• One interviewee observed a seeming lack of methods for researchers to analyze
the potential risks of the technologies they are developing, and suggested that the
Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) process could be applied to thinking
about these risks, in the same way that it is used in industry to consider the
possible repercussions of changing a manufacturing process in industry.
• While programs exist such as the NSF Industry/University Cooperative Research
Centers (I/U-CRC), which mandate collaboration with industry, the Scalable
Nanomanufacturing Program has no such requirement. However, one interviewee 59 noted that having the insights of an industry partner who has experience in manufacturing and scaling technologies into manufacturing is invaluable to avoid
“re-inventing the wheel”, when it comes to technology scaling. 60
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION
Nanotechnology is an emerging technology field that has yielded many discoveries in the past two decades, and has already begun to be integrated into consumer products. However, many advances in nanotechnology research have not yet been commercialized. One step in the process of commercializing a technology produced in an academic lab is technology transfer. Partnerships between academia and industry are one way that technological ideas can be transferred into industry, with the possibility of becoming integrated into products. One industry where advances in nanotechnology research could be of great impact is in the semiconductor industry, where the drive to shrink feature sizes demand that industry look for new alternatives to traditional technologies, which are reaching their limits.
In the case study presented here, researchers and administrators, mostly related to a nanotechnology research project aimed at addressing some of the manufacturing challenges faced by the semiconductor industry, the SNM project, were interviewed about their experiences on the project and with academic-industry partnerships in general.
From these interviews, observations were made about the challenges and opportunities of academic-industry partnerships, and lessons and suggestions were captured that can be applied to improving future partnerships.
Interviewees overwhelmingly identified communication and relationship-building between project partners as an area that is important to focus on in academic-industry partnerships. Academia and industry have very different cultures, communication styles, 61 needs, stakeholders, and timelines, and these differences must be openly addressed and considered throughout the process to ensure the success of a partnership project.
Intellectual property was also identified as a key sticking point that should be addressed at the beginning of any partnership, particularly between academia and industry.
Realistic timelines and project milestones were suggested as important for keeping projects on track and providing timely results to reinforce the value of projects to industry management.
While the technical challenges of nanotechnology are significant, it is important that researchers consider factors outside the lab that may also impact the success and significance of their projects. Whether part of a partnership or not, it is important for all researchers to be aware of the politics, regulations, and public perception (or awareness) of the work that they do. For those involved in partnerships with industry, managing the dynamics of the relationship between project partners might seem secondary to research goals, but can be as critical to the success of the project as any fundamental technical detail or equipment. 62
REFERENCES
1. New Initiatives to Accelerate the Commercialization of Nanotechnology |
whitehouse.gov. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/05/20/new-
initiatives-accelerate-commercialization-nanotechnology. (Accessed: 13th June 2016)
2. Consumer Products Inventory: An inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer
products on the market. Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/cpi/.
(Accessed: 28th September 2016)
3. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Supplement to the President’s 2016 Budget.
(Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, Committee on
Technology, National Science and Technology Council, 2015).
4. Smijs, T. G. & Pavel, S. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens:
focus on their safety and effectiveness. Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl. 4, 95–112 (2011).
5. Nanotechnology Update: Corporations Up Their Spending as Revenues for Nano-
enabled Products Increase. (Lux Research, 2014).
6. Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for US Competitiveness, the
Environment, and Human Health. (United States Government Acountability Office,
2014).
7. Perkmann, M. et al. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the
literature on university–industry relations. Res. Policy 42, 423–442 (2013). 63
8. NSF Award Search: Award #1344915 - SNM: Atomically Precise, Defect Free, DNA
Masks with Embedded Metrology. National Science Foundation Available at: http://
www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1344915. (Accessed: 31st August
2016)
9. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology, Subcommittee
on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology. National Nanotechnology
Initiative Strategic Plan. (National Science and Technology Council Committee on
Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology,
2014).
10. Kelsall, R., Hamley, I. W. & Geoghegan, M. (Eds.). Nanoscale Science and Technology. (Wiley, 2005).
11. Feynman, R. P. There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom. (1959).
12. Milburn, C. Nanotechnology in the age of posthuman engineering: science fiction as
science. Configurations 10, 261–295 (2002).
13. Drexler, K. E. Engines of creation. (Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986).
14. DeLeo, R. A. Anticipatory Policymaking: When Government Acts to Prevent
Problems and Why It Is So Difficult. (Routledge, 2015).
15. Smalley, R. & Drexler, K. E. Nanotechnology: Drexler and Smalley make the case for
and against ‘molecular assemblers’. Chemical & Engineering News (2003).
16. Taniguchi, N. On the basic concept of ‘Nano-Technology’. in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Production Engineering Tokyo Part II Japan Society of
Precision Engineering (1974). 64
17. Kingdon, J. W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Update Edition, with an
Epilogue on Health Care. (Pearson, 2010).
18. National Science and Technology Council. The White House Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/node/8319. (Accessed: 20th September 2016)
19. Clinton, W. J. President Clinton’s Address to Caltech on Science and Technology.
(2004).
20. Kay, W. D. & Bosso, C. J. A nanotech velvet revolution. Issues Soc. Sci. Inq. STEP
Ahead 3, 2–3 (2005).
21. Lindquist, E., Mosher-Howe, K. N. & Liu, X. Nanotechnology . . . What Is It Good
For? (Absolutely Everything): A Problem Definition Approach. Rev. Policy Res. 27,
255–271 (2010).
22. Joy, B. Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us. Wired (2004).
23. Crichton, M. Prey. (Harper, 2008).
24. Burri, B. J. Beta-carotene and human health: A review of current research. Nutr. Res.
17, 547–580 (1997).
25. Xudong Ye et al. Engineering the Provitamin A (beta-carotene) Biosynthetic
Pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) Rice Endosperm. Science 287, 303–305 (2000).
26. In A Grain Of Golden Rice, A World Of Controversy Over GMO Foods. Morning
Edition (2013).
27. Ron Wyden. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. Public
Law No: 108-153 65
28. NSF Award Search: Award #0531194 - NSEC: Center for Nanotechnology in Society
at Arizona State University. Available at:
https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0531194&HistoricalAwar
ds=false. (Accessed: 25th October 2016)
29. New Grants Are Awarded to Inform the Public and Explore the Implications of
Nanotechnology | NSF - National Science Foundation. Available at:
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104505&org=olpa&from=news.
(Accessed: 25th October 2016)
30. Guston, D. H. Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454, 940–941
(2008).
31. Shapira, P., Youtie, J. & Porter, A. L. The emergence of social science research on
nanotechnology. Scientometrics 85, 595–611 (2010).
32. Müller, U. Inorganic Structural Chemistry. (John Wiley & Sons, 1993).
33. Eigler, D. M. & Schweizer, E. K. Positioning single atoms with a scanning tunnelling
microscope. Nature 344, 524–526 (1990).
34. Yu, null et al. Strength and breaking mechanism of multiwalled carbon nanotubes
under tensile load. Science 287, 637–640 (2000).
35. Allhoff, F., Lin, P. & Moore, D. What Is Nanotechnology and Why Does It Matter:
From Science to Ethics. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).
36. Gordon E. Moore. Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics
114–117 (1965). 66
37. Madou, M. J. Manufacturing techniques for microfabrication and nanotechnology. 2,
(CRC Press, 2012).
38. International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors: 2012 Update Overview.
(2012).
39. Scott E. Sills, Dan B. Millward & Rohit Malshe. The Effects of Lateral Confinement
on Defect Formation during Self-assembly of Block Copolymer Lithography
Patterns. (2010).
40. Zhang, F., Nangreave, J., Liu, Y. & Yan, H. Structural DNA Nanotechnology: State
of the Art and Future Perspective. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 11198–11211 (2014).
41. Seeman, N. C. Nucleic acid junctions and lattices. J. Theor. Biol. 99, 237–247
(1982).
42. Winfree, E., Liu, F., Wenzler, L. A. & Seeman, N. C. Design and self-assembly of
two-dimensional DNA crystals. Nature 394, 539–544 (1998).
43. Yan, H., Park, S. H., Finkelstein, G., Reif, J. H. & LaBean, T. H. DNA-Templated
Self-Assembly of Protein Arrays and Highly Conductive Nanowires. Science 301,
1882–1884 (2003).
44. He, Y., Tian, Y., Ribbe, A. E. & Mao, C. Highly Connected Two-Dimensional
Crystals of DNA Six-Point-Stars. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 128, 15978–15979 (2006).
45. Zheng, J. et al. From molecular to macroscopic via the rational design of a self-
assembled 3D DNA crystal. Nature 461, 74–77 (2009).
46. Chen, J. & Seeman, N. C. Synthesis from DNA of a molecule with the connectivity
of a cube. Nature 350, 631–633 (1991). 67
47. Goodman, R. P. et al. Rapid Chiral Assembly of Rigid DNA Building Blocks for
Molecular Nanofabrication. Science 310, 1661–1665 (2005).
48. He, Y. et al. Hierarchical self-assembly of DNA into symmetric supramolecular
polyhedra. Nature 452, 198–201 (2008).
49. Aldaye, F. A. & Sleiman, H. F. Modular Access to Structurally Switchable 3D
Discrete DNA Assemblies. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 13376–13377 (2007).
50. Rothemund, P. W. K., Papadakis, N. & Winfree, E. Algorithmic Self-Assembly of
DNA Sierpinski Triangles. PLOS Biol 2, e424 (2004).
51. Barish, R. D., Rothemund, P. W. K. & Winfree, E. Two Computational Primitives for
Algorithmic Self-Assembly: Copying and Counting. Nano Lett. 5, 2586–2592
(2005).
52. Rothemund, P. W. K. Folding DNA to create nanoscale shapes and patterns. Nature
440, 297–302 (2006).
53. Dietz, H., Douglas, S. M. & Shih, W. M. Folding DNA into Twisted and Curved
Nanoscale Shapes. Science 325, 725–730 (2009).
54. Han, D. et al. DNA Origami with Complex Curvatures in Three-Dimensional Space.
Science 332, 342–346 (2011).
55. Han, D. et al. DNA Gridiron Nanostructures Based on Four-Arm Junctions. Science
339, 1412–1415 (2013).
56. Wei, B., Dai, M. & Yin, P. Complex shapes self-assembled from single-stranded
DNA tiles. Nature 485, 623–626 (2012). 68
57. Ke, Y., Ong, L. L., Shih, W. M. & Yin, P. Three-dimensional structures self-
assembled from DNA bricks. Science 338, 1177–1183 (2012).
58. Douglas, S. M. et al. Rapid prototyping of 3D DNA-origami shapes with caDNAno.
Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 5001–5006 (2009).
59. Cadnano. cadnano Available at: http://cadnano.org/welcome. (Accessed: 1st May
2015)
60. Kershner, R. J. et al. Placement and orientation of individual DNA shapes on
lithographically patterned surfaces. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 557–561 (2009).
61. Jungmann, R. et al. Multiplexed 3D cellular super-resolution imaging with DNA-
PAINT and Exchange-PAINT. Nat. Methods 11, 313–318 (2014).
62. University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Process, Design, and
Intellectual Property. 16, (Elsevier JAI, 2005).
63. Thursby, J. G., Jensen, R. & Thursby, M. C. Objectives, Characteristics and
Outcomes of University Licensing: A Survey of Major U.S. Universities. J. Technol.
Transf. 26, 59–72
64. Fox, J. L. America Invents Act receives cautious welcome. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 953–
954 (2011).
65. How Universities Can Protect Their Next Bright Idea Under the America Invents Act
| Brookings Institution. Brookings (2001).
66. Vicki Loise, CAE & Ashley J. Stevens, CLP. The Bayh-Dole Act Turns 30. Nouv. -
J. Licens. Exec. Soc. Int. (2010). 69
67. Birch Bayh & Bob Dole. Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act. P.L. 96-517
(1980).
68. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R. & Walsh, J. P. Links and impacts: The influence of
public research on industrial R&D. Manag. Sci. 48, 1–23 (2002).
69. Tracy, S. J. Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis,
Communicating Impact. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).
70. Ivankova, N. V. Mixed Methods Applications in Action Research: From Methods to
Community Action. (SAGE Publications, Inc, 2014).
71. DePoy, E. & Gitlin, L. N. Introduction to Research: Understanding and Applying
Multiple Strategies. (Elsevier Health Sciences, 2015).
72. Out of the dusty labs. The Economist (2007). 70
APPENDIX A
List of Literature Survey Articles 71
Articles from Literature Survey Sample Set
The following list includes the citation information for the top 100 articles that were coded in the project described in Ch. 3 – Literature Survey. The number assigned to each article indicates its citation rank, according to Web of Science, with 1 indicating the most cited article in the sample and 100 indicating the least cited.
Rank Article Citation Information 1 Xia, Tian, Ning Li, and Andre E. Nel. “Potential Health Impact of Nanoparticles.” ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Annual Review of Public Health, 30 (2009): 137–50. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100155. 2 Macnaghten, P, MB Kearnes, and B Wynne. “Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 27, no. 2 (December 2005): 268–91. doi:10.1177/1075547005281531. 3 Lee, CJ, DA Scheufele, and BV Lewenstein. “Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies - Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology.” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 27, no. 2 (December 2005): 240–67. doi:10.1177/1075547005281474. 4 Siegrist, Michael, Carmen Keller, Hans Kastenholz, Silvia Frey, and Arnim Wiek. “Laypeople’s and Experts’ Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards.” RISK ANALYSIS 27, no. 1 (February 2007): 59–69. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x. 5 Gaskell, G, T Ten Eyck, J Jackson, and G Veltri. “Imagining Nanotechnology: Cultural Support for Technological Innovation in Europe and the United States.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 14, no. 1 (January 2005): 81–90. doi:10.1177/0963662505048949. 72
6 Handy, R. D., and B. J. Shaw. “Toxic Effects of Nanoparticles and Nanomaterials: Implications for Public Health, Risk Assessment and the Public Perception of Nanotechnology.” HEALTH RISK & SOCIETY 9, no. 2 (2007): 125–44. doi:10.1080/13698570701306807. 7 Macoubrie, J. “Nanotechnology: Public Concerns, Reasoning and Trust in Government.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 15, no. 2 (April 2006): 221–41. doi:10.1177/0963662506056993. 8 Selin, Cynthia. “Expectations and the Emergence Nanotechnology.” SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES 32, no. 2 (March 2007): 196–220. doi:10.1177/0162243906296918. 9 Morgan, K. “Development of a Preliminary Framework for Informing the Risk Analysis and Risk Management of Nanoparticles.” RISK ANALYSIS 25, no. 6 (December 2005): 1621–35. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6925.2005.00681.x. 10 Rogers-Hayden, Tee, and Nick Pidgeon. “Moving Engagement ‘upstream’? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s Inquiry.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 16.3 (2007): 345–364. Web. 11 Cobb, MD. “Framing Effects on Public Opinion about Nanotechnology.” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 27, no. 2 (December 2005): 221–39. doi:10.1177/1075547005281473. 12 Anderson, A, S Allan, A Petersen, and C Wilkinson. “The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press.” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 27, no. 2 (December 2005): 200–220. doi:10.1177/1075547005281472. 13 Brossard, Dominique, Dietram A. Scheufele, Eunkyung Kim, and Bruce V. Lewenstein. “Religiosity as a Perceptual Filter: Examining Processes of Opinion Formation about Nanotechnology.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 18, no. 5 (September 2009): 546–58. doi:10.1177/0963662507087304.
73
14 Pidgeon, Nick, and Tee Rogers-Hayden. “Opening up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Publics: Risk Communication or `upstream Engagement’?” HEALTH RISK & SOCIETY 9, no. 2 (2007): 191–210. doi:10.1080/13698570701306906. 15 Stephens, LF. “News Narratives about Nano S&T in Major US and Non-US Newspapers.” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 27, no. 2 (December 2005): 175–99. doi:10.1177/1075547005281520. 16 Grunwald, A. “Nanotechnology - A New Field of Ethical Inquiry?” SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 11, no. 2 (April 2005): 187–201. doi:10.1007/s11948-005-0041-0. 17 Milburn, C. “Nanotechnology in the Age of Posthuman Engineering: Science Fiction as Science.” CONFIGURATIONS 10, no. 2 (SPR 2002): 261–95. doi:10.1353/con.2003.0017.
18 Powell, Maria, and Daniel Lee Kleinman. “Building Citizen Capacities for Participation in Nanotechnology Decision-Making: The Democratic Virtues of the Consensus Conference Model.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 17, no. 3 (July 2008): 329–48. doi:10.1177/0963662506068000. 19 Bonaccorsi, Andrea. “Search Regimes and the Industrial Dynamics of Science.” MINERVA 46, no. 3 (September 2008): 285–315. doi:10.1007/s11024-008-9101-3. 20 Powell, Maria C., and Mathilde Colin. “Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Science and Technology - What Would It Really Take?” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 30, no. 1 (September 2008): 126–36. doi:10.1177/1075547008320520. 21 Marchant, Gary E., and Douglas J. Sylvester. “Transnational Models for Regulation of Nanotechnology.” JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS 34, no. 4 (WIN 2006): 714+. doi:10.1111/j.1748- 720X.2006.00091.x.
74
22 Druckman, James N., and Toby Bolsen. “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions About Emergent Technologies.” JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 61, no. 4 (August 2011): 659–88. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x. 23 Kurath, Monika, and Priska Gisler. “Informing, Involving or Engaging? Science Communication, in the Ages of Atom-, Bio- and Nanotechnology.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 18, no. 5 (September 2009): 559–73. doi:10.1177/0963662509104723. 24 Lee, Chul-joo, and Dietram A. Scheufele. “The Influence of Knowledge and Deference toward Scientific Authority: A Media Effects Model for Public Attitudes toward Nanotechnology.” JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY 83, no. 4 (WIN 2006): 819–34. 25 Abbott, Linda C., and Andrew D. Maynard. “Exposure Assessment Approaches for Engineered Nanomaterials.” RISK ANALYSIS 30, no. 11 (November 2010): 1634–44. doi:10.1111/j.1539- 6924.2010.01446.x. 26 Schuetz, Holger, and Peter M. Wiedemann. “Framing Effects on Risk Perception of Nanotechnology.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 17, no. 3 (July 2008): 369–79. doi:10.1177/0963662506071282. 27 Schulte, Paul A., and Fabio Salamanca-Buentello. “Ethical and Scientific Issues of Nanotechnology in the Workplace.” ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 115, no. 1 (January 2007): 5–12. doi:10.1289/ehp.9456. 28 Delgado, Ana, Kamilla Lein Kjolberg, and Fern Wickson. “Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 20, no. 6 (November 2011): 826–45. doi:10.1177/0963662510363054. 75
29 Bello, Dhimiter, Brian L. Wardle, Jie Zhang, Namiko Yamamoto, Christopher Santeufemio, Marilyn Hallock, and M. Abbas Virji. “Characterization of Exposures To Nanoscale Particles and Fibers During Solid Core Drilling of Hybrid Carbon Nanotube Advanced Composites.” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 16, no. 4 (December 2010): 434–50. 30 Lewenstein, BV. “What Counts as a `social and Ethical Issue’ in Nanotechnology?” HYLE 11, no. 1–2 (2005): 5–18.
31 Kleinman, Daniel Lee, Jason A. Delborne, and Ashley A. Anderson. “Engaging Citizens: The High Cost of Citizen Participation in High Technology.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 20, no. 2 (March 2011): 221–40. doi:10.1177/0963662509347137. 32 Cacciatore, Michael A., Dietram A. Scheufele, and Elizabeth A. Corley. “From Enabling Technology to Applications: The Evolution of Risk Perceptions about Nanotechnology.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 20, no. 3 (May 2011): 385–404. doi:10.1177/0963662509347815. 33 Vandermoere, Frederic, Sandrine Blanchemanche, Andrea Bieberstein, Stephan Marette, and Jutta Roosen. “The Public Understanding of Nanotechnology in the Food Domain: The Hidden Role of Views on Science, Technology, and Nature.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 20, no. 2 (March 2011): 195–206. doi:10.1177/0963662509350139. 34 Owen, Richard, and Nicola Goldberg. “Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.” RISK ANALYSIS 30, no. 11 (November 2010): 1699–1707. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x. 76
35 Weaver, David A., Erica Lively, and Bruce Bimber. “Searching for a Frame News Media Tell the Story of Technological Progress, Risk, and Regulation.” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 31, no. 2 (December 2009): 139–66. doi:10.1177/1075547009340345. 36 Kuzma, Jennifer, James Romanchek, and Adam Kokotovich. “Upstream Oversight Assessment for Agrifood Nanotechnology: A Case Studies Approach.” RISK ANALYSIS 28, no. 4 (August 2008): 1081–98. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01071.x. 37 Fretwell Wilson, Robin. “Nanotechnology: The Challenge of Regulating Known Unknowns.” JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS 34, no. 4 (WIN 2006): 704+. doi:10.1111/j.1748- 720X.2006.00090.x. 38 Thorpe, Charles, and Jane Gregory. “Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science.” SCIENCE AS CULTURE 19, no. 3 (2010): 273–301. doi:10.1080/09505430903194504. 39 Dupuy, Jean-Pierre. “Some Pitfalls in the Philosophical Foundations of Nanoethics.” JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY 32, no. 3 (June 2007): 237–61. doi:10.1080/03605310701396992. 40 Gordijn, B. “Nanoethics: From Utopian Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares towards a More Balanced View.” SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 11, no. 4 (October 2005): 521–33. doi:10.1007/s11948-005-0024-1. 41 Sayes, Christie, and Ivan Ivanov. “Comparative Study of Predictive Computational Models for Nanoparticle-Induced Cytotoxicity.” RISK ANALYSIS 30, no. 11 (November 2010): 1723–34. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01438.x.
77
42 Allhoff, Fritz. “The Coming Era of Nanomedicine.” AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS 9, no. 10 (2009): 3–11. doi:10.1080/15265160902985027. 43 Besley, John C., Victoria L. Kramer, Qingjiang Yao, and Chris Toumey. “Interpersonal Discussion Following Citizen Engagement About Nanotechnology What, If Anything, Do They Say?” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 30, no. 2 (December 2008): 209–35. doi:10.1177/1075547008324670. 44 Dudo, Anthony, Sharon Dunwoody, and Dietram A. Scheufele. “THE EMERGENCE OF NANO NEWS: TRACKING THEMATIC TRENDS AND CHANGES IN U.S. NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY.” JOURNALISM & MASS COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY 88, no. 1 (SPR 2011): 55–75. 45 Kuzma, Jennifer, Jordan Paradise, Gurumurthy Ramachandran, Jee-Ae Kim, Adam Kokotovich, and Susan M. Wolf. “An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies.” RISK ANALYSIS 28, no. 5 (October 2008): 1197–1219. doi:10.1111/j.1539- 6924.2008.01086.x. 46 Doubleday, Robert. “Risk, Public Engagement and Reflexivity: Alternative Framings of the Public Dimensions of Nanotechnology.” HEALTH RISK & SOCIETY 9, no. 2 (2007): 211–27. doi:10.1080/13698570701306930. 47 Wilkinson, Clare, Stuart Allan, Alison Anderson, and Alan Petersen. “From Uncertainty to Risk?: Scientific and News Media Portrayals of Nanoparticle Safety.” HEALTH RISK & SOCIETY 9, no. 2 (2007): 145–57. doi:10.1080/13698570701306823. 48 McCarthy, Elise, and Christopher Kelty. “Responsibility and Nanotechnology.” SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE 40, no. 3 (June 2010): 405–32. doi:10.1177/0306312709351762. 78
49 Kuzma, Jennifer, Pouya Najmaie, and Joel Larson. “Evaluating Oversight Systems for Emerging Technologies: A Case Study of Genetically Engineered Organisms.” JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS 37, no. 4, SI (WIN 2009): 546–86. doi:10.1111/j.1748- 720X.2009.00431.x. 50 McComas, Katherine A., John C. Besley, and Zheng Yang. “Risky Business Perceived Behavior of Local Scientists and Community Support for Their Research.” RISK ANALYSIS 28, no. 6 (December 2008): 1539– 52. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01129.x. 51 Helland, Aasgeir, Peter Wick, Andreas Koehler, Kaspar Schmid, and Claudia Som. “Reviewing the Environmental and Human Health Knowledge Base of Carbon Nanotubes.” CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA 13, no. 2 (April 2008): 441–52. doi:10.1590/S1413-81232008000200019. 52 Hamlett, Patrick W., and Michael D. Cobb. “Potential Solutions to Public Deliberation Problems: Structured Deliberations and Polarization Cascades.” POLICY STUDIES JOURNAL 34, no. 4 (2006): 629–48. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00195.x. 53 Ho, Shirley S., Dietram A. Scheufele, and Elizabeth A. Corley. “Value Predispositions, Mass Media, and Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology: The Interplay of Public and Experts.” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 33, no. 2 (June 2011): 167–200. doi:10.1177/1075547010380386. 54 Schummer, J. “Reading Nano: The Public Interest in Nanotechnology as Reflected in Purchase Patterns of Books.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 14, no. 2 (April 2005): 163–83. doi:10.1177/0963662505050111. 55 O’Brien, Niall Joseph, and Enda J. Cummins. “A Risk Assessment Framework for Assessing Metallic Nanomaterials of Environmental Concern: Aquatic Exposure and Behavior.” RISK ANALYSIS 31, no. 5 (May 2011): 706–26. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01540.x. 79
56 Bowman, Diana M., and Graeme A. Hodge. “Counting on Codes: An Examination of Transnational Codes as a Regulatory Governance Mechanism for Nanotechnologies.” REGULATION & GOVERNANCE 3, no. 2 (June 2009): 145–64. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01046.x. 57 Litton, Paul. “‘Nanoethics’? What’s New?.” HASTINGS CENTER REPORT 37, no. 1 (February 2007): 22–25. doi:10.1353/hcr.2007.0011.
58 Selin, C. “Time Matters - Temporal Harmony and Dissonance in Nanotechnology Networks.” TIME & SOCIETY 15, no. 1 (March 2006): 121–39. doi:10.1177/0961463X06061786. 59 Berne, RW. “Towards the Conscientious Development of Ethical Nanotechnology.” SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 10, no. 4 (October 2004): 627–38. doi:10.1007/s11948-004-0043-3.
60 Pidgeon, Nick, Barbara Harthorn, and Terre Satterfield. “Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication: Emerging Technologies, Emerging Challenges.” RISK ANALYSIS 31, no. 11 (November 2011): 1694–1700. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x. 61 Groves, Chris, Lori Frater, Robert Lee, and Elen Stokes. “Is There Room at the Bottom for CSR? Corporate Social Responsibility and Nanotechnology in the UK.” JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS 101, no. 4 (July 2011): 525–52. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7. 62 Marchant, Gary E., Douglas J. Sylvester, and Kenneth W. Abbott. “What Does the History of Technology Regulation Teach Us about Nano Oversight?” JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS 37, no. 4 (WIN 2009): 724–31. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00443.x. 63 Petersen, Alan, Alison Anderson, Stuart Allan, and Clare Wilkinson. “Opening the Black Box: Scientists’ Views on the Role of the News Media in the Nanotechnology Debate.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 18, no. 5 (September 2009): 512–30. doi:10.1177/0963662507084202.
80
64 Sylvester, Douglas J., Kenneth W. Abbott, and Gary E. Marchant. “Not Again! Public Perception, Regulation, and Nanotechnology.” REGULATION & GOVERNANCE 3, no. 2 (June 2009): 165–85. doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01049.x. 65 Gupta, Nidhi, Arnout R. H. Fischer, and Lynn J. Frewer. “Socio- Psychological Determinants of Public Acceptance of Technologies: A Review.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 21, no. 7 (October 2012): 782–95. doi:10.1177/0963662510392485. 66 Burri, Regula Valerie. “Coping with Uncertainty: Assessing Nanotechnologies in a Citizen Panel in Switzerland.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 18, no. 5 (September 2009): 498–511. doi:10.1177/0963662507085163. 67 Sweeney, Aldrin E. “Social and Ethical Dimensions of Nanoscale Science and Engineering Research.” SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 12, no. 3 (July 2006): 435–64. doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0044-5. 68 Kjaergaard, Rikke Schmidt. “Making a Small Country Count: Nanotechnology in Danish Newspapers from 1996 to 2006.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 19, no. 1 (January 2010): 80–97. doi:10.1177/0963662508093090. 69 Stampfli, Nathalie, Michael Siegrist, and Hans Kastenholz. “Acceptance of Nanotechnology in Food and Food Packaging: A Path Model Analysis.” JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 13, no. 3 (2010): 353–65. doi:10.1080/13669870903233303. 70 Paradise, Jordan, Susan M. Wolf, Jennifer Kuzma, Aliya Kuzhabekova, Alison W. Tisdale, Efrosini Kokkoli, and Gurumurthy Ramachandran. “Developing US Oversight Strategies for Nanobiotechnology: Learning from Past Oversight Experiences.” JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS 37, no. 4 (WIN 2009): 688– 705. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00441.x. 81
71 Stebbing, Margaret. “Avoiding the Trust Deficit: Public Engagement, Values, the Precautionary Principle and the Future of Nanotechnology.” JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY 6, no. 1 (March 2009): 37–48. doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9142-9. 72 Bell, Larry. “Engaging the Public in Technology Policy - A New Role for Science Museums.” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 29, no. 3 (March 2008): 386–98. doi:10.1177/1075547007311971. 73 Ebeling, Mary F. E. “Mediating Uncertainty - Communicating the Financial Risks of Nanotechnologies.” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 29, no. 3 (March 2008): 335–61. doi:10.1177/1075547007312068.
74 Powell, Maria C. “New Risk or Old Risk, High Risk or No Risk? How Scientists’ Standpoints Shape Their Nanotechnology Risk Frames.” HEALTH RISK & SOCIETY 9, no. 2 (2007): 173–90. doi:10.1080/13698570701306872. 75 Singer, PA, F Salamanca-Buentello, and AS Daar. “Harnessing Nanotechnology to Improve Global Equity.” ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 21, no. 4 (SUM 2005): 57–64.
76 Katsnelson, Boris, Larissa I. Privalova, Sergey V. Kuzmin, Tamara D. Degtyareva, Marina P. Sutunkova, Olga S. Yeremenko, Ilzira A. Minigalieva, et al. “Some Peculiarities of Pulmonary Clearance Mechanisms in Rats after Intratracheal Instillation of Magnetite (Fe3O4) Suspensions with Different Particle Sizes in the Nanometer and Micrometer Ranges: Are We Defenseless against Nanoparticles?” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 16, no. 4 (December 2010): 508–24. 77 Allan, Stuart, Alison Anderson, and Alan Petersen. “Framing Risk: Nanotechnologies in the News.” JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 13, no. 1 (2010): 29–44. doi:10.1080/13669870903135847.
82
78 Priest, Susanna Hornig. “North American Audiences for News of Emerging Technologies: Canadian and US Responses to Bio- and Nanotechnologies.” JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH 11, no. 7 (2008): 877–89. doi:10.1080/13669870802056904. 79 Anderson, Ashley A., Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, Michael A. Xenos, and Peter Ladwig. “The ‘Nasty Effect:’ Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies.” JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION 19, no. 3 (April 2014): 373–87. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009. 80 Binder, Andrew R., Michael A. Cacciatore, Dietram A. Scheufele, Bret R. Shaw, and Elizabeth A. Corley. “Measuring Risk/benefit Perceptions of Emerging Technologies and Their Potential Impact on Communication of Public Opinion toward Science.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 21, no. 7 (October 2012): 830–47. doi:10.1177/0963662510390159. 81 Cacciatore, Michael A., Ashley A. Anderson, Doo-Hun Choi, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, Xuan Liang, Peter J. Ladwig, Michael Xenos, and Anthony Dudo. “Coverage of Emerging Technologies: A Comparison between Print and Online Media.” NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY 14, no. 6 (September 2012): 1039–59. doi:10.1177/1461444812439061. 82 Elliott, Kevin C. “Epistemic and Methodological Iteration in Scientific Research.” STUDIES IN HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 43, no. 2 (June 2012): 376–82. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.12.034. 83 Friedman, Sharon M., and Brenda P. Egolf. “A Longitudinal Study of Newspaper and Wire Service Coverage of Nanotechnology Risks.” RISK ANALYSIS 31, no. 11 (November 2011): 1701–17. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01690.x.
83
84 Delborne, Jason A., Ashley A. Anderson, Daniel Lee Kleinman, Mathilde Colin, and Maria Powell. “Virtual Deliberation? Prospects and Challenges for Integrating the Internet in Consensus Conferences.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 20, no. 3 (May 2011): 367– 84. doi:10.1177/0963662509347138. 85 Powell, Maria, Mathilde Colin, Daniel Lee Kleinman, Jason Delborne, and Ashley Anderson. “Imagining Ordinary Citizens? Conceptualized and Actual Participants for Deliberations on Emerging Technologies.” SCIENCE AS CULTURE 20, no. 1 (2011): 37–70. doi:10.1080/09505430903567741. 86 Ackland, Robert, Rachel Gibson, Wainer Lusoli, and Stephen Ward. “Engaging With the Public? Assessing the Online Presence and Communication Practices of the Nanotechnology Industry.” SOCIAL SCIENCE COMPUTER REVIEW 28, no. 4 (November 2010): 443–65. doi:10.1177/0894439310362735. 87 Paradise, Jordan, Alison W. Tisdale, Ralph F. Hall, and Efrosini Kokkoli. “Evaluating Oversight of Human Drugs and Medical Devices: A Case Study of the FDA and Implications for Nanobiotechnology.” JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS 37, no. 4 (WIN 2009): 598– 624. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00434.x. 88 Kyle, Renee, and Susan Dodds. “Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies.” SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 15, no. 1 (March 2009): 81–96. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9089-y. 89 Godman, Marion. “But Is It Unique to Nanotechnology?” SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 14, no. 3 (September 2008): 391–403. doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9052-y. 90 Donk, Andre, Julia Metag, Matthias Kohring, and Frank Marcinkowski. “Framing Emerging Technologies: Risk Perceptions of Nanotechnology in the German Press.” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 84
34, no. 1, SI (January 2012): 5–29. doi:10.1177/1075547011417892.
91 Karn, Barbara, Todd Kuiken, and Martha Otto. “Nanotechnology and in Situ Remediation: A Review of the Benefits and Potential Risks.” CIENCIA & SAUDE COLETIVA 16, no. 1 (January 2011): 165–78.
92 Wolf, Susan M., Rishi Gupta, and Peter Kohlhepp. “Gene Therapy Oversight: Lessons for Nanobiotechnology.” JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS 37, no. 4 (WIN 2009): 659–84. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00439.x. 93 Katz, Evie, Fiona Solomon, Wendy Mee, and Roy Lovel. “Evolving Scientific Research Governance in Australia: A Case Study of Engaging Interested Publics in Nanotechnology Research.” PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE 18, no. 5 (September 2009): 531–45. doi:10.1177/0963662507082016. 94 Ghazinoory, Sepehr, Saber Mirzaei, and Soroush Ghazinoori. “A Model for National Planning under New Roles for Government: Case Study of the National Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative.” SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY 36, no. 3 (April 2009): 241–49. doi:10.3152/030234209X427095. 95 Sparrow, Robert. “The Social Impacts of Nanotechnology: An Ethical and Political Analysis.” JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY 6, no. 1 (March 2009): 13–23. doi:10.1007/s11673-009-9139-4. 96 Busch, Lawrence. “Nanotechnologies, Food, and Agriculture: Next Big Thing or Flash in the Pan?” AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES 25, no. 2 (SUM 2008): 215–18. doi:10.1007/s10460-008-9119-z. 97 Nordmann, Alfred. “Knots and Strands: An Argument for Productive Disillusionment.” JOURNAL OF MEDICINE AND PHILOSOPHY 32, no. 3 (June 2007): 217–36. doi:10.1080/03605310701396976. 85
98 Sandler, Ronald, and W. D. Kay. “The National Nanotechnology Initiative and the Social Good.” JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS 34, no. 4 (WIN 2006): 675–81. doi:10.1111/j.1748- 720X.2006.00086.x. 99 Lewenstein, BV. “Introduction - Nanotechnology and the Public.” SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 27, no. 2 (December 2005): 169–74. doi:10.1177/1075547005281532. 100 Lane, N, and T Kalil. “The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation.” ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 21, no. 4 (SUM 2005): 49–54. 86
APPENDIX B
Institutional Review Board Documents for Interviews 87 88
APPENDIX C
Interview Guides 89
Reproduced below are the two interview guides used to conduct the case study interviews for the results which are presented in this thesis. There are two versions of the guide: one for the researchers involved with the SNM project, and one for interviewees in more administrative capacities. Each included the research questions printed on the first page as they are here, as a reminder to the interviewer of what broader questions they looking for answers to during the interview.
All questions are the same between guides, with the exception of the “broad” and
“narrow” sections, which were modified to fit more appropriately for each group.
Question 7 was omitted in almost all interviews (mostly the later ones), as it was found to be largely redundant with other questions in the guide. However, it was still printed in the guide (though in later interviews, it was printed with a strikethrough) to maintain the numbering of the other questions. 90 91 92
Page 3 - Interviewee name ______Last Modified: 6/9/2016
7. How often do you think of the societal implications of your work? Can you give an example? Have you ever had to justify what you do from a societal implications perspective?
8. If you were in an elevator with Governor Otter, what would you tell him to justify how your work is useful to the people of the state of Idaho? [For those outside of Idaho, broaden to "Ifyou were in an elevator with the governorof your state, what would you tell them to justify how your work is useful to the people of your stote ?"}
Narrow: Researchers 9. What challenges have you encountered in the project so far? 93
Page 4 - Interviewee name ______Last Modified: 6/9/2016
10. What opportunities have you found from the project so far?
11. How successful do you feel you've been in accomplishing your part of the project so far? Are you on track with your proposed schedule? Why or why not?
12. How would you describe your level of interaction with people involved in other parts of the SNM Project?
Reflect: All Respondents 13. What do you think can be learned from the SNM project that could be applied to future partnerships between universities and industry? 94 95
Page 1 - Interviewee name ______Last Modified: 6/9/2016
Nanomanufacturing Case Study Interview Guide
Broad Overall Research Questions (for interviewer to keep in mind) What can we learn to increase our understanding of societal implications related to the rise of nanomanufacturing? • What does the academic-industry relationship in this case study look like?
Specific Research Questions I. What do interviewees believe are the societal implications of the rise of nanomanufacturing? Is this something that they think about very often?
II. What does the academic-industry relationship in this case study (the project with Boise State, Micron, and Harvard) look like? Is this consistent with interviewees' past experiences with such projects (if any)?
Ill. What are the opportunities and challenges of academic-industry partnerships like this joint project?
IV. Have interviewees' past experiences in academic-industry partnerships (or their experiences on the current project) shaped their willingness to participate in university-industry partnerships?
V. What do researchers and administrators feel are the most significant factors in university-industry partnerships that can prevent the commercialization of new technologies (especially nanotechnologies)?
VI. How much interaction and active collaboration has there been between the different parties in this project?
Introduction: All Respondents 1. What is your current position (and can you share a bit about your background and how you got there)?
2. What is your role on the SNM Project (as defined in the proposal)? 96
Page 2 - Interviewee name______Last Modified: 6/9/2016
11 11 11 11 Note: There are two, slightly different, versions of the Broad and Narrow sections - one for researchers and one for research administrators
Broad: Administrators 3. Have you been involved in an academic-industry research partnership in the past? Can you briefly describe the project and your role?
4. In regards to integrating nanotechnology into industrial applications, are you concerned with societal and ethical implications? If yes, why? If no, why not? 97
Page 3 - Interviewee name ______Last Modified: 6/9/2016
5. Do you think that the public generally accepts/understands what you're trying to do?
6. What challenges (related to public acceptance) for the industry do you see coming up in the future?
7. I-ls•"sfteR Els ','8�tRiRl1 sf tla!esssietal iFR131isatisR5sf ·,·s�r '"erk? CaR ye� gi"e aR @l1aFR13le? I-la"@;•s� @"er la!aEIts j�stif>,•"'Rat ye� ElsferFR a sssietal iFR13lisatisRs 13ers13esti»e? 98
Page 4 - Interviewee name ______Last Modified: 6/9/2016
8. If you were in an elevator with Governor Otter, what would you tell him to justify how your work is useful to the people of the state of Idaho? {Possibly broaden to "If you were in an elevator with the governor of yaur state, what would you tell them to justify how your work is useful to the people of your state?", since not oil interviewees will be in Idaho]
Reflect: All Respondents 9. What do you think can be learned from the SNM project that could be applied to future partnerships between universities and industry?
10. What do you feel are the advantages of partnerships between universities and industry (in general)? Do you see those in the SNM project? 99 100
APPENDIX D
Code Hierarchy Diagram 101