EPSRC Nanotechnology Theme Day 16 June 2005 Church House, London
EPSRC Nanotechnology Theme Day
16 June 2005
Church House, London
Panel Chair: Prof essor Graham Davies (Birmingham University) Report Prepared by: Dr David Holtum (EPSRC) Contents
Acknowledgements ...... 2
Executive Summary ...... 3
1. Introduction ...... 5 2. Conduct of Study ...... 6 3. Results ...... 8 4. Panel Analysis and Comments on Results ...... 12 5. General Comments and Conclusions ...... 14 6. Panel Recommendations ...... 15
Appendix (1) Evaluation Scor ing Criteria ...... 17 Appendix (2) Theme Day Agenda ...... 18 Appendix (3) Panel Members ...... 19 Appendix (4) Nanotechnology Themes ...... 20 Appendix (5) Plots of Quality V Impact ...... 22 Appendix (6) Summary of Breakout Sessions...... 27 Appendix (7) Evaluation of Nanotechnology IGRs ...... 33 Appendix (8) Bibliometric Study ...... 48 Appendix (9) List of Posters Presented at the Theme Day ...... 51 Appendix (10) Evaluation Questionnaire ...... 57
1 Acknowledgements
The E PSRC would like to thank the following for helping with the success of the theme day:
The Panel for their hard work and enthusiasm under the chairmanship of Professor Graham Davies
The grant -holders and researchers for their posters and discussions with the panel
The speakers for their excellent and stimulating talks:
Professor Paul Shore (Cranfield University) Professor Hanjo Lim (Ajou University, Korea) Professor Mark Welland (Cambridge University) Professor Jim Gimzewski (UCLA, USA)
Dr Liam Blackwell for organising the Breakout ses sions and the APMs who ran them
Office support – in particular Beverly Silk for organising the event and Carol Becker and Jeanna Gowland for their help on the day itself.
Church House for the venue and hospi tality.
Appendix 3 – List of Panel Members Appendix 9 – List of participating grant -holders and projects .
2 Executive Summary
The primary objective of the Nanotechnology theme day was to evaluate EPSRC’s Nanotechnology portfolio to provide guidanc e for future investment strategy in this cross cutting , interdisciplinary research area. The main activity to satisfy this objective was analysis of a sample of the portfolio by an international panel . They assessed the research quality, training aspects, impact and exploitability of 7 8 (out of a possible population of 286) recently completed or current EPSRC Nanotechnology grants. The panel also received inputs from a bibliometric study, an evaluation of final reports and breakout sessions , held on the the me day. They were also able to compare the current sample with those assessed a nd reported on at the previous Nanotechnology T heme day held in 1999.
The panel used the Quality, People, Impact and Exploitability (QPIE) Framework to evaluate the portfolio. In general the overall metrics were lower for the 2005 Theme Day than for 1999. This was particularly noticeable regarding the research quality. In 1999 about 80% of the posters seen were considered to be predominantly world leading ( given a grade of 5 ) o r predominantly competitive at an international level (graded 4 ) whereas in 2005 this dropped to about 60%. The panel felt that this was partially because the area had matured and now there was generally a better understanding and benchmarking ability amon gst researchers . However, it was also felt that there was a genuine diminution of quality. The bibliometric data would appear to support this conclusion. The training of people aspect was overall the lowest metric, as it was in 1999. Impact scores were low er in 2005 than 1999 and this category showed the greatest drop in grants graded 4 or 5. The level of exploitability of the research was considered to be similar for the 2005 and 1999 Theme Days.
The Nanometrology theme had the grants of highest quality an d impact but there were not a great number of grants in this theme. The greatest numbers of grants were in the Nanostructure d Materials and Functional Nanotechnology themes . M ost of the grants in these themes were of good quality and impact but of lower ex ploitability and lower in training aspects. There were only two grants in the Nano Electromechanical Systems category and none in the Biomimetics category at the Theme Day.
The Panel made the following recommendations:
• EPSRC should, as a matter of urgen cy, carry out an in depth review of its strategy for Nanotechnology research to establish a funding framework that would address the relative weakness of Nanotechnology research in the UK. This could result in the establishment of a Nanotechnology Program analogous to its current programmes such as Chemistry and Materials.
• If the UK was to compete in Nanotechnology research new funding was required specifically directed to Nanotechnology.
• Nanotechnology was a dynamic research area and 5years was too long a period between reviews. The panel felt that the EPSRC Nanotechnology research portfolio should be reviewed again in less than two years time.
3 • The UK needed to m ake use of its strengths in Medicine, Biosciences and Design Technology. The EPSRC thus neede d to strongly encourage its Nanotechnology community to work with these communities and there needed to be increased cross council collaboration to ensure that these ties were formed and maintained. RCUK could help encourage this.
• The EPSRC was the major funder of basic and applied Nanotechnology research in the UK and if the UK was to be a major force in Nanotechnology in the world the current strategy for funding Nanotechnology research required revising. Specific points to note were:
• Nanotechnology was a complex research area and the strategy needed to be flexible and continually reviewed to maintain its currency.
• The Nanotechnology Themes generated in 1999 still had some relevance but should be reviewed because the dynamic nature of Nanotechnology re search meant that some of the original themes were now redundant. The strategy required for funding in each of these themes differed from theme to theme and could involve any of the mechanisms previously used by EPSRC and might require new mechanisms, but it was clear that the current funding strategy needed drastic revision.
• Training in Nanotechnology, perhaps by means of MSc courses, required further consideration. This was needed both for future workers in industry and researchers for Universities.
• An y strategy evolved needed to take into account industrial and societal needs and concerns.
• There needed to be a much better estimate of what the EPSRC was actually spending on Nanotechnology, the current methodology overestimated this. There should be an explicit view of what should be counted as Nanotechnology this could help to reduce the medium quality research that appeared to have been funded because of its association with the Nanotechnology research area.
• Cooperation between the DTI MNT programme a nd the EPSRC needed improving to ensure the exploitation of Nanotechnology research. Manufacturing Industry in the UK had drastically reduced the amount of early stage development that it did and DTI and EPSRC had to ensure that this funding gap (the so ca lled ‘Valley of Death) did not prevent the progression of research into products.
4 1. Introduction
1.1 . Theme Days General
The primary objective of a Theme Day is to evaluate the effectiveness of the EPSRC's support for research in an area that cuts across programme boundaries. The Theme Day is, therefore, a constituent part of the overall evaluation framework and, along with Programme and Sector evaluation reports, feeds into the business planning process. Secondary objectives of Theme Days are to provide advocacy by generating information on research achievements and successes that can be used to demonstrate the importance and relevance of research; and to provide an opportunity for individuals within a particular research community to network w ith others.
Theme Days provide a mechanism for examining topics of research that span programme areas. An independent expert review Panel provides opinion on a representative sample of grants from the research theme and draws conclusions about the portfol io as a whole, or major segments of it. A Theme Day is not concerned with constructing league tables of individual grants or individual research groups, nor is it trying to isolate individual achievements or failures. The Panel's considerations are facilit ated by discussion with, and poster presentations by, grant holders. Grants are scored on the basis of these discussions against the agreed QPIE (Quality, People, Impact, Exploitability – see Appendix (1)) evaluation framework. These ratings are then aggre gated to consider the quality and impact of EPSRC funded research in the theme.
1.2. Nanotechnology Theme Day
EPSRC’s Nanotechnology portfolio was last evaluated at a theme day held in 1999 and since then the value of nanotechnology grants per year has increased threefold from about £12million in 1999 to more than £40 million in 2004. It was thus thought timely to review the portfolio to inform future EPSRC policy in this area and also to look closely at how the research has contributed to the UK – part icularly to UK manufacturing industry and how it may impact in future.
Prior to the theme day the panel was sent a volume of papers containing a bibliometric study of Nanotechnology and an evaluation report based on nanotechnology IGRs. These papers toget her with the QPIE evaluation of the grant synopses and associated posters were used as inputs to the panel to enable it to review and evaluate the EPSRC research grant portfolio for Nanotechnology . The primary objective was to indicate its strengths and we aknesses and to highlight the opportunities and threats and develop a strategy to deal with these. Particular emphasis was placed on ‘Nanomanufacturing’ as a cross cutting topic for all the themes.
Other features of the Nanotechnology theme day were:
Four oral presentations were given by UK and International experts to help set the scene and act as further input to the panel.
5 The theme day was opened to allow people other than the poster presenters to attend and get a view of the EPSRC’s Nanotechnology portfolio. Breakout sessions were also organised based around the individual Nanotechnology themes to glean a wider view of the state of the EPSRC Nanotechnology portfolio the output f ro m these sessions was also used as input to the panel.
The Agenda f or the Theme day is given in Appendix ( 2).
Poster presenters were asked to complete a questionnaire giving their impressions of the theme day and suggestions for improvements. An analysis of the questionnaire and the comments is given in Appendix (10) .
2. Conduct of Study
2.1 Grant Selection .
Current grants that had been underway for at least 18 months before April 05 and grants that had been completed within the 18 months prior to April 05 were considered as candidates for the Nanotechnology Theme Day. Grants were selected which had been classified with a Socioeconomic Theme ‘Nanotechnology’. This gave a population of 286 grant holders who were approached and asked if they would be willing to attend the Theme Day and to supply a grant synopsis if they w ere. At a pre theme day meeting held two months before the theme day the panel looked at the grant -holders that had agreed to attend and suggested some other groups who were in under represented areas who were regarded as important. Eventually 7 8 grants we re repres ented by posters at the Theme Day.
2.2 Panel
The full listing of the panel is given in Appendix (3). The panel consisted of scientists and technologists from academia, industry and the public sector and was chaired by Professor Graham Davies of Birmingham University who chaired the previous Theme Day held in 1999. There were two overseas members to provide an international perspective.
2. 3 Division of grants into themes .
The panel agreed to subdivide the grants into the 8 themes defined at the Theme Day held in 1999 but asked for two additional themes , Biomimetics and Modelling, to be added. The themes used were thus:
1. “Extreme” nanotechnology. 2. Nanofabrication. 3. Nanometrology. 4. Nanostructure d materials. 5. Functional nanotechnology. 6. Nano -electromec hanical systems (NEMS) . 7. Molecular (including bio -molecular) nanotechnology . 8. Nanoparticles, nanoclusters, nanocatalysis . 9. Biomimetics . 10. Modelling
Full definitions of these themes are given in Appendix ( 4).
6 2.4 Theme Day
The main activity for the pan el on the Theme Day was to evaluate the grants selected against a framework comprising the following c riter ia:
Quality: Intrinsic excellence of the research in world terms
Impact: The potential for wider impact on other research
People: The extent to w hich the skills of the research staff are in demand from, and meet the requirements of employers
Exploitability : The potential to contribute to (UK) wealth creation and quality of life
Each of the criteria was scored a sc ale of 1 -5 details of the meanings of the score levels is given in Appendix (1).
Two panel members were assigned to assess each grant. The pairs of panel members met on the evening before the theme day to discuss any differences in scores and to identify specific queries and clarification points to put to the poster presenters. A full listing of the posters presented at the theme day is given in Appendix (10)
2. 5 Panel Inputs.
In the breakout sessions attendees were asked to consider the current state o f Nanotechnology in the UK and then consider what might be the major research challenges for N anotechnology on 5 and 10 year horizon. A breakout session was arranged for each of the Nanotechnology Themes (see Appendix ( 6))
The papers sent to the panel me mbers included:
• a report of the previous Nanotechnology Theme Day held in 1999, • a bibliometric report on Nanotechnology citations and patents , • an evaluation report based on Individual Grant Review of Nanotechnology grants, • A collection of summaries of k ey documents from outside of EPSRC that had some relevance to EPSRC’s Nanotechnology strategy.
These papers together with the QPIE evaluation of the grant synopses and associated posters and the posters derived f rom the breakout sessions were inputs to th e panel to enable them to review and evaluate the EPSRC research grant portfolio for Nanotechnology.
7 3. Results
3.1 Overall:
The individual scores were combined under each theme and scatter plots of Impact against quality examined to assess the th emes and total portfolio. The number of grant posters in each theme is given in Table (1) . The average scores for each theme and the proportion graded as 4 or 5 are given in Table ( 2); the results for the 1999 theme day are included for comparison in Tabl e ( 3). There were no posters concerned with Biomimetics at the theme day (and n o grants identified in this theme) and thus no results for this theme are available.
Table (1) Posters presented by Them e
Theme Number of Posters “Extreme” nanotechnology. 4 Nanofabrication. 7 Nanometrology. 6 Nanostructured materials. 21 Functional nanotechnology. 20 Nano -electromechanical systems 2 (NEMS). Molecular (including bio - 7 molecular) nanotechnology. Nanoparticles, nanoclusters, 5 nanocatalysis. Biomimetics. 0 Modelling 5
It should be emphasised that the Metrics and Graphs were produced as inputs to the panel discussions and that there has been no statistical analysis as to the significance of differences between the 1999 and 2005 panel sc ores. The small number of grants in some of the themes would make any statistical analyses difficult and the intention of the scoring was to focus the panel’s attention rather than provide an absolute measure for each metric.
8 Table ( 2) Aver age Metrics for 2005 Theme day
Theme Quality People Impact Exploitability Extreme(1) 3.1 3.0 3.6 3.0 Fabrication(2) 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.6 Metrology(3) 4.4 3.8 4.2 4.3 Materials(4) 3.6 3.0 3.5 3.5 Functional(5) 3.9 3.2 3.6 3.5 NEMS(6) 3.5 2.8 3.5 3.8 Mole cular(7) 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.2 Clusters(8) 3.6 3.2 3.6 3.6 Average 3.7 3.3 3.6 3.5 % (4 or 5) 59% 35% 41% 52%
Modelling 3.5 2.8 2.8 2.8
Table ( 3) Average Metrics for 1999 Theme Day
Theme Quality People Impact Exploitability Extreme(1) 4.5 3.3 4.0 2.5 Fabrication(2) 4.1 3.5 3.8 3.6 Metrology(3) 3.7 3.8 3.7 4.1 Materials(4) 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 Functional(5) 4.4 3.6 4.3 3.4 NEMS(6) 4.1 3.5 3.5 4.0 Molecular(7) 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.5 Clusters(8) 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.8 Average 4.0 3.6 3.8 3.6
%(4 or 5) 79% 48% 66% 63%
Quality
The overall average quality was 3.7 in 2005 which is lower than the average of 4 in 1999 , the proportion of grants that were graded 4 or 5 in 2005 was also lower at 59% compared with 79% in 1999. The quality score was lower for all of the individual themes in 2005 than in 1999 with the exception of the Nanometrology theme which rose from an average of 3.7 in 1999 to 4.4 in 2005. The average quality of the IGRs (see Appendix ( 7) Fig5) for the period 2001 to 2004 was 3.9.
People
The people category was scored lowest on average in 2005, with a value of 3.3 , and equal lowest (3.6) in 1999. The proportion of grants grade 4 or 5 was also lowest for this category being 48% in 1999 and 35% in 2005. Both the average score and the proport ion graded 4 or 5 were lower in 2005 than in 1999.
9 Impact
Impact scores were lower in 2005(3.6) than 1999(3.8) and this category showed the greatest drop (25%) in grants graded 4 or 5 from 66% in 1999 to 41% in 2005.
Exploitability
The average exploit ability scores were only a little lower in 2005, at 3.5, than in 1999, where the average was 3.6, and this category showed the lowest drop in the proportion of grants graded 4 or 5, from 63% in 1999 to 52% in 2005.
3.2 Individual Themes
Graphs for the i ndividual themes are given in Appendix ( 5) the following features can be noted:
Theme 1: Extreme Nanotechnology ( see Fig ( A5 -1))
There were only 4 grants in this theme each with a value of less than £150 000. All of the grants were placed in the upper ri ght hand quadrant of the graph but 3 of them were on the border of lower quality/impact regions. People and exploitability metrics for this theme were both scored at 3 which were below the overall average.
Theme 2: Nanofabrication (Fig ( A5 -2))
Most of t he grants in this theme were of good to excellent quality and of high impact. There was one grant of medium quality and lower impact. People and exploitability metrics were both above average for this theme.
Theme 3: Nanometrology (Fig ( A5 -3))
There was a good variety of grants of different value in this theme and all of them were of high quality and impact. The people metric was above average and the exploitability the highest of all the themes.
Theme 4: Nanostructured Materials (Fig ( A5 -4))
The qual ity of the work in this theme was mixed. Most of the work was good to excellent but overall it was not seen to be as strong as the nanometrology theme. The people metric was below the overall average and the exploitability metric average.
Theme 5: Functi onal Nanotechnology (Fig ( A5 -5))
Overall the work in this area appeared to be of high quality and impact but there was one large grant that had low quality and impact which was a cause for concern. People and exploitability metrics were average.
10 Theme 6: NEMS (Fig ( A5 -6))
The activity in NEMS seemed to be at a low level in the UK and only two grants fell into this theme making it difficult to draw any conclusions.
Theme 7: Molecular ( including bio -nano) Nanotechnology (Fig ( A5 -7))
The majority of gr ants in this theme had a value between £150 000 and £400 00 0 and were of good to excellent quality and impact. There were two grants of lower value and these were thought to be of lower quality and impact. The people metrics for this theme were average whi le exploitability was slightly below average.
Theme 8: Nanoclusters, Nanoparticles and Catalysis. (Fig ( A5 -8))
The quality and impact of the grants in this theme was variable but overall they all fell into the upper right hand quadrant. There was one la rge grant of high quality and impact that also had a high explo itability. In general the people and exploitability metrics for this theme were average.
Theme 9: Biomimetics
The only work represented at the theme day in this theme was that being done by the Nanotechnology IRC (led by Cambridge) which appeared to be of high quality. The IRC poster was not included in the overall analysis because of its relevance to several different themes and the difficulty of apportioning scores.
Theme 10: Modeling (F ig ( A5 -9))
Only four grants fell into this category at the theme day. The quality and impact of the grants in this theme was variable. The peo ple and exploitability metrics were below average.
3.3 Breakouts:
Summaries of the individual breakout sessi ons are given in Appendix 6. The panel had the opportunity to view the posters and talk to the spokesman from each breakout group. There were several common threads that emerged from the breakout groups:
• 3D non destructive characterisation at the nanoscal e
• Integration of 'top down' and 'bottom up' fabrication
• Promotion of work across the physical sciences/ biology interface
• The need to consider ethical aspects of nanotechnology research.
11 4. Panel Analysis and Comments on Results
Theme1: Extreme Nano technology
There were some interesting ideas in the grants reviewed but much of the work did not seem to be genuinely ‘extreme Nanotechnology’. This was an area where research had become more recognised since 1999 but there was still room for adventurous research. There appeared to be a gap between EPSRC and DTI funding in this area and some topics e.g. extreme nanotribology were not being funded. It was possible that some convergence between BBSRC and EPSRC had occurred and the work done by BBSRC should b e monitored.
Theme2: Nanofabrication
FIB (Focused Ion Beam) was a widespread technique i n the grants reviewed because of its many new and increasingly important applications. M uch of this work seemed to be adventurous engineering exploiting recent devel opments in physics. There was a question as to how the UK should exploit the world leading work that had been done on silicon based systems as much of the work carried out by UK universities was now owned by foreign companies. This work was important for t he next generation of devices. The work presented on ultra precision engineering indicated that the UK had a strong position in this research area.
Theme 3: Nanometrology
This theme is open to a wide variety of interpretations from the measurement of dis placement , dimensional resolution, indentation, etc ., to any work concerned strongly with the development of measurement techniques for nanoscience and nanotechnology research . The Theme Day took a position close to the latter viewpoint, but, even so, ther e were relatively few grants that fell primarily into the nanometrology theme.
There was a high standard of work across this theme, and also better than average quality in the training aspects. Most was concerned with generating functional probes (magn etic, chemical, topographic, etc. ) with extreme spatial discrimination. The majority of it remained at the stage of scientific investigation rather than instrument building but was nevertheless application inspired and often involved industrial sponsorshi p and occasional spin -outs.
The UK has a leading role in the development of nanometrology standards, especially through NPL. The placing of NPL on a commercial basis has tended to decrease the emphasis that had previously been placed on fundamental nano metrol ogy. EPSRC does not appear to have addressed the gap that has opened up in this important area.
Theme 4: Nanostructured Materials
The work in this theme was commendably broad and innovative work was being done in some areas e.g. AFMs using nanotu be tips, modeling of nanotubes in polymers and processing of ceramic nanoparticles. There appeared to be gaps in the fund amental understanding of nanostructured materials and the relation of their structure to properties on the macro scale.
12 Theme 5: Funct ional Nanotechnology
There was some excellent work in the general field of nanophotonics in the UK but it was noted that this was a very competitive area with the US Korea and Japan being the main competitors. Some leading UK researchers in this theme had chosen not to be involved in the theme day and their presence would have helped get a better picture of the UK position. There was also a l ack of representation from the Spintronics community.
Ther e were some projects of good to excellent quality that we re not connected to work going on elsewhere in the UK and this implied that collaboration needed to be encouraged.
Theme 6: NEMS
There were only two grants at the theme day in this topic one of which was a network and the other mostly MEMS with some appl ications to NEMS from the top down perspective. There was some mention of the topic in the Nanotechnology IRC presentation given by the IRC director which described activity in the IRC which had the aim of building NEMS devices from the ‘bottom up‘. The de finition of the NEMS theme needed to be revised to emphasise this ‘bottom -up’ approach, t he current emphasis was on the extension of present -day micro machines and micro actuators .
NEMS was seen by the panel as an important area of research with applicati ons in medicine and in hazardous conditions such as nuclear reactors. There were a large number of research opportunities in this field and because of the low activity a relatively small investment would markedly improve the EPSRC’s grant portfolio in this area.
Theme 7: Molecular ( including bio -nano) Nanotechnology
Some of the grants with medical applications were of excellent quality. It should be noted that Bionanotechnology is not the same as Biology. There should be substantial cross council collabor ation in this theme between BBSRC and EPSRC and attention was needed in this area - particularly with regard to Bioengineering at the nanoscale.
Theme 8: Nanoclusters, Nanoparticles and catalysis
This theme seemed to be reasonably healthy with some areas being relatively mature and producing work of exploitable nature. There were also a few grants which were adventurous and would produce work that would help maintain the future health of this theme. Much of the catalysis work pertaining to Nanotechnology was carried out industrially.
Theme 9: Biomimetics.
The only example represented at the theme day was from the Cambridge IRC . The biomimetics work was of high quality. The UK should be stronger in this area it is possible that there was some work being f unded by BBSRC.
Theme 10: Modeling
The UK as a whole has some real strength in modeling at the nanoscale but the grants at the theme day did not show this.
13 5. General Comments and Conclusions
Nanomanufacturing
There was not much representation at the theme day of the novel methods of manufacturing such as massively parallel processing, dip pen lithography and direct writing techniques. The strengths in Ultra precision engineering had been noted and the extension of this to even smaller length scales wa s anticipated. There was a great potential to work at the Bio/nano interface both in developing new manufacturing techniques and in recognising new opportunities in manufacturing medical artifacts . Research into Nanomanufacturing tended to require expensiv e equipment and was thus often carried out by industry which tended to lead to research that was confined to the area of interest for a particular manufacture r.
Training
This was considered to be the most difficult aspect to judge because details were no t generally given and also because many researchers were still involved in the projects. The best overall training opportunities appeared to be associated with larger grants and research groups with longer term stability. There might be a need to consider supporting master’s level training for both industrial and academic needs but it was possible that there were enough current courses to supply current needs
Exploitability
It was noted in the 1999 Nanotechnology Theme Day report that Universities were po or at controlling the IPR from their research. The panel felt that this had changed in the interim and Universities now had mechanisms in place to ensure that the value of IPR was realised.
One of the grants at the theme day was a Foresight LINK grant tha t had encouraged industry/academic collaboration. This had been very succe ssful and this type of mechanism should be explored further for encouraging exploitation of Nanotechnology research in some areas such as Nanofabrication.
General
Overall the QPIE metrics for the research presented at this theme day were lower than those for the 1999 theme day. There could be several reasons for this, amongst which were: there was now a much better grasp of the worldwide research arena which allowed better benchmark ing of the grants on display, some of the more prominent UK Nanotechnology researchers had chosen not to come to the theme day and ther e did seem to be a genuine diminution of the quality of the grants represented.
Most of the leading nations in Nanotechn ology research had specific targeted programs in Nanotechnology and regularly reviewed the strategy for this area. The previous EPSRC Nanotechnology Theme Day panel in 1999 had specifically said that the EPSRC should not develop a directed programme of res earch in Nanotechnology. That was probably the best strategy at that time as the individual research areas were just then emerging and much of the work being carried out was speculative in nature. Partially as a result of this the current portfolio was ‘pa tchy’
14 with some strong and some weak areas. The strong areas tended to be either ‘blue skies’ fundamental research or at the other extreme of research that was very relevant to industry and had thus been strongly supported by industry.
The 1999 strategy had also led to s ome researchers working in isolation from others working on similar topics and many of the grants seen would have benefited from collaboration. Another result was that EPSRC overestimated the value of its Nanotechnology portfolio. Some of the grants that were presented as ’Nanotechnology’ at the Theme Day had a low Nanotechnology content.
The panel doubted that the current mechanism was best for the future of Nanotechnology research in the UK. This was particularly so when the bibliometri c data was taken into account - which indicated that there was a lack of researchers in Nanotechnology in the UK compared with its major competitors.
There was a particular threat to UK Nanotechnology research from China which had invested massively in t his area and which increasingly would manufacture its own high tech goods.
6. Panel Recommendations
• EPSRC should, as a matter of urgency, carry out an in depth review of its strategy for Nanotechnology research to establish a funding framework that woul d address the relative weakness of Nanotechnology research in the UK. This could result in the establishment of a Nanotechnology Program analogous to its current programmes such as Chemistry and Materials.
• If the UK was to compete in Nanotechnology resear ch new funding was required specifically directed to Nanotechnology.
• Nanotechnology was a dynamic research area and 5years was too long a period between reviews. The panel felt that the EPSRC Nanotechnology research portfolio should be reviewed again in t wo years time.
• The UK needed to make use of its strengths in Medicine, Biosciences and in Design Technology. The EPSRC thus needed to strongly encourage its Nanotechnology community to work with these communities and there needed to be increased cross cou ncil collaboration to ensure that these ties were formed and maintained. RCUK could help encourage this.
• The EPSRC was the major funder of basic and applied Nanotechnology research in the UK and if the UK was to be a major force in Nanotechnology in the w orld the current strategy for funding Nanotechnology research required revising. Specific points to note were:
• Nanotechnology was a complex research area and the strategy needed to be flexible and continually reviewed to maintain its currency.
• The Nanot echnology Themes generated in 1999 still had some relevance but should be reviewed because the dynamic nature of Nanotechnology research meant that some of the original themes were now redundant . The strategy
15 required for funding in each of these themes di ffered from theme to theme and could involve any of the mechanisms previously used by EPSRC a nd might require new mechanisms, but it was clear that the current funding strategy needed drastic revision.
• Training in Nanotechnology, perhaps by means of MSc c ourses, required further consideration. This was needed both for future workers in industry and researchers for Universities.
• Any strategy evolved needed to take into account industrial and societal needs and concerns.
• Ther e needed to be a much better e stimate of what the EPSRC was actually spending on Nanotechnology, the current methodology overestimated this. There should be an explicit view of what should be counted as Nanotechnology this could help to reduce the medium quality research that appeared to have been funded because of its association with the Nanotechnology research area.
• Cooperation between the DTI MNT programme and the EPSRC needed improving to ensure the exploitation of Nanotechnology research. Manufacturing Industry in the UK had dras tically reduced the amount of early stage development that it did and DTI and EPSRC had to ensure that this funding gap (the so called ‘Valley of Death) did not prevent the progression of research into products.
16 Appendix ( 1) Evaluation Scoring Criteria
QUALITY Intrinsic excellence of the research in world terms: 5 = predominantly world leading 4 = predominantly competitive at an international level 3 = predominantly competitive at the national level 2 = modest contribution to the UK's research standing 1 = little or no contribution to the UK's research standing
PEOPLE At the grant level The extent to which the skills of the research staf f are in demand from employers: 5 = exceptional demand fr om employers 4 = high demand f rom employers 3 = moderate dema nd f rom employers 2 = limited demand fr om employers 1 = no output or no demand for the skills provided At the theme level The extent to which the output of trained sta ff meets the requirements of employers: 5 = fully meeting the requirements of employers 4 = well matched to the requirements of employers 3 = meeting the requirements of employers 2 = significantly below that required by employers 1 = completely fails to meet the requirements of employers
IMPACT The potential for wider impact on other researc h: 5 = very high potential 4 = high potential 3 = moderate potential 2 = limited potential 1 = no potential discernible at present
EXPLOITABILITY The potential to contribute to (UK) wealth creation and quality of life: 5 = very high potential for exploita tion 4 = high potential for exploitation 3 = moderate potential for exploitation 2 = limited potential 1 = no potential for exploitation discernible at present
17 Appendix ( 2) T heme Day Agenda
Timetable for the EPSRC Nanotechnology Theme Day 16 June 2005
08.00 – 10.00 Registration and Poster Setup
10.00 – 10.20 Introduction - Prof Graham Davies, Birmingham University
10.20 – 10.50 Speaker1 (Prof P Shore, Cranfield - Top down Manufacture)
10.50 -10.55 Breakout Explan ation - Dr Liam Blackwell -EPSRC
10.55 – 12.05 Poster Session1 – Breakouts 1 -5 (Coffee Available)
12.10 – 12.35 Speaker 2 (Prof. Hanjo Lim, Ajou University, Nanotechnology in Korea )
12.35 – 13.00 Speaker 3 (Prof . M Welland Cambridge, the Nanotechnology IRC)
13.00 -14.00 Lunch and open Poster Session
14.00 - 14.05 Breakout Explanation - Dr Liam Blackwell -EPSRC
14.05 – 15.15 Poster Session 2 – Breakouts 6 -10
15.15 – 15.30 Coffee
15. 30 – 16.00 Speaker 4 (Prof J Gimzewski – Bottom up Manufacture)
16.00 - 16.30 Breakout Poster Market Place
16.30 – 16.45 Close, General Remarks - Prof Graham Davies, Birmingham Universi ty.
18 Appendix ( 3) Panel Members
Professor GJ Davies , (Chairman) , Birmingham Professor RW Whatmore, Cranfield Dr MJ Pitkethly, QinetiQ Nanomaterials Professor JK Gimzewski, UCLA (USA) Professor D Cockayne, Oxford Professor RAL Jones , Sheffield Professo r Hanjo Lim, Ajou University (Korea) Professor AM Stoneham , UCL Professor DG Chetwynd , Warwick
Dr Alan Smith , Associate Director of the UK MNT Network assisted in scoring the posters on the theme day.
19 Appendix ( 4) N anotechnol ogy T hemes
1. “Extre me” nanotechnology builds structures from the ‘bottom up’. It encompasses atomic and molecular manipulation and self -assembly, including single electron devices using electron tunnel junctions and quantum computing and cryptography.
2. Nanofabrication, using ‘top down’ techniques for the manufacture of materials with dimensions less than 100 nm, involving lithographic techniques beyond the optical domain using electron beam and X -ray lithography. Advanced manufacturing processes and instrumentation for manipu lation at the nanoscale, including scanning probe techniques, focused ion beam technology and nanomanipulators.
3. Nanometrology, precise measurement below 100nm and development of measurement techniques.
4. Nanostructured materials, where grain and composite si ze is less than 100nm, offering potential for stronger, more wear and corrosion resistant materials. These include carbon nanotubes, biomaterials, thin films, anticorrosion coatings, colloids and nanopowders.
5. Functional nanotechnology, applications in whic h nanostructures are used to produce improved optical, electronic or magnetic properties. Includes nanoelectronics based on quantum effects.
6. Nano -electromechanical systems (NEMS) devices and machines, an extension of present -day micro machines and micro a ctuators into the nano domain. Protein motors, capable of linear or rotary motion. DNA and active devices such as nanowires, switches, motors and tweezers.
7. Molecular (including bio -molecular) nanotechnology is the technology of molecular sensing and molec ular recognition. Much of the research is at the interface between the life and physical sciences. This includes: lab -on -a-chip and smart sensors for medical and environmental monitoring and diagnosis; tissue repair; targeted drug delivery. At the single c ell level: gene therapy and screening; drug testing; design of nanomachines; replacement structures.
8. Nanoparticles, nanoclusters, nanocatalysis, includes the understanding of properties and processes of nanoparticulate catalysts, modelling and catalyst fa brication. This is likely to have major impact in areas such as fuel production, materials production and environmental protection.
Two cross cutting themes for the 2005 theme day were:
9. Biomimetics is the concept of taking ideas from nature, operating on the nanoscale, and implementing them in a technology such as engineering, design, computing or other areas.
20 10. Modelling aims to provide the quantitative understanding of physical systems and processes. It ranges from offering a framework of understanding to quantitative predictions based on state of the art calculations. At the nanoscale, modelling can analyse and predict properties of systems, processes and other phenomena in ways that complement experiment.
21 Appendix ( 5) Plots of Quality V Impact
Figur e A5 -1 Extreme Nanotechnology
Extreme Nano(1)
5
3 <150K I m p a c t 1 135 Quality
Figure A5 -2 Nanofabrication
Nanofabrication(2)
5
150K-400K 3 <150K
I >400K m p a c t 1 135 Quality
22 Figure A5 -3 Nanometrology
Nanometrology(3)
5
<150K 3 150K-400K I
m >400K p a c t 1 135 Quality
Figure A5 -4 Nanostructured Materials
Nanostructured Materials(4)
5
<150K 3 150K-400K I
m >400K p a c t 1 135 Quality
23 Figure A5 -5 Functional Nanotechnology
Functional Nanotechnology(5)
5
<150K 3 150K-400K I
m >400K p a c t 1 135 Quality
Figure A5 -6 NEMS
NEMS (6)
5 t
c <150K a
p 3 150K-400K m I
1 135 Quality
24 Figure A5 -7 Molecular Nanotechnology
Molecular Nanotechnology(7)
5 t
c <150K a
p 3 150K-400K m I
1 135 Quality
Figure A5 -8 Nanoparticles, Nanoclusters and Nanocatalysis
Nanoparticles, nanoclusters, nanocatalysis(8)
5
t <150K c a
p 3 150K-400K m I >400K
1 135 Quality
25 Figure A5 -9 Mode lling
Modelling(9)
5 t
c <150K a
p 3 150K-400K m I
1 135 Quality
26 Appendix (6) Summary of Breakout Sessions.
Nanotechnology Theme Day Breakout Session - Summary of Discussions
1. “E xtreme” nanotechnology builds structures from the ‘bottom up’. It encompasses atomic and molecular manipulation and self -assembly, including single electron devices using electron tunnel junctions and quantum computing and cryptography.
5 year horizon
The most important challenge was thought to be the controlled self assembly of molecules into both two and three dimensional patterns that had been predicted by modelling. Tools would need to be developed to do this and these could involve the use of optical, magnetic or electrical techniques. Real time, non -destructive monitoring and characterisation would also be needed to facilitate process control. Other more specific areas that would see development were: Titanium conjugated extended structures, control o f carbon nanotube size by catalytic methods, the development of chemically functionalised tips to drive reactions at the single molecule level and parallel systems for directed assembly.
10 year horizon
The integration of nano scale assembly and macro scal e fabrication in a seamless process was thought the most important topic. Techniques that could lead to this were the combination of self assembly and directed assembly, computer directed assembly, the development of modelling across the length scales and the integration of ‘bottom up’ and ‘top down’ systems. Specific outcomes could be molecular electronic chips, self assembled solar cells, development of carbon devices with architectures similar to silicon devices (or hybrids) and fine scale integration of storage/ readout systems for quantum computing.
2. Nanofabrication, using ‘top down’ techniques for the manufacture of materials with dimensions less than 100 nm, involving lithographic techniques beyond the optical domain using electron beam and X -ra y lithography. Advanced manufacturing processes and instrumentation for manipulation at the nanoscale, including scanning probe techniques, focused ion beam technology and nanomanipulators
5 & 10 year horizon
This was defined as the use of ‘top down’ te chniques but it was likely that even on the short time scale there would be a convergence of ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ methods. The adaptation and economic optimisation of existing techniques such as lithography was the most promising route on the short t imescale but research into new techniques, particularly low temperature techniques was needed. More rapid non destructive characterisation, better tolerances and improved measurements were prerequisites to progress. It was possible that existing methods us ed in the production of catalysts could provide a lead in this area. One of the difficulties to face was the lack of a UK industry in this area and because of this there was a need to bridge the funding gap between university research and the development o f larger scale fabrication facilities.
27 3. Nanometrology, precise measurement below 100nm and development of measurement techniques.
5 year horizon
Three dimensional measurements with a resolution of 5nm particularly for defects and strain are likely t o be attained within 5 years. Perhaps the most important challenge will be the application of nanometrology to the toxicity assessment of nanoparticles. This will require quantification of the interaction between biological systems and nanoparticles, the e volution of test methods for exposure to nanoparticles, single particle cell assays and appropriate metrics and measurement of particle size, number and shape. Statistical methods to deal with small populations required further development to ensure the in tegrity of measurement techniques.
10 year horizon
3D Picometrology would continue to be a subject for development but an improved resolution to 1nm should be the target. Electrical measurement on single molecules applied in -situ particularly to biologic al systems should also be realisable. Other challenges involving non –destructive techniques are: high resolution surface and 3D measurements of chemical contrasts using advance spectroscopic methods, dynamic structure measurements at the single molecule l evel within cells and the development of instrumentation for in -porous manufacturing operations. An over arching goal is to make the public aware of nanometrology and its contribution to the UK.
4. Nanostructured materials, where grain and composite siz e is less than 100nm, offering potential for stronger, more wear and corrosion resistant materials. These include carbon nanotubes, biomaterials, thin films, anticorrosion coatings, colloids and nanopowders.
5 year horizon
The most important goal was th e fabrication of controlled nanostructures (on 5 -50nm scale) into artefacts of macroscale (about 1kg) that were large enough to show which nano -structured materials would offer superior structural properties. The most promising method for this was to adap t current technology of self assembly but it was likely that hybrid fabrication processes incorporating ‘top -down’ and ‘bottom -up’ approaches would be required. Some of the research challenges that would need to be met were: in -situ, non destructive charac terisation, fabrication of nanoscale bulk materials from nanopowders, better techniques to incorporate nanofibres into polymers, molecular self assembly to template mesoporous functional materials with controlled pore size and geometry and improved measure ments to validate modelling of nanoscale properties.
10 year horizon
The development of industrially viable processes using the fabrication of controlled nanostructures was thought the most important goal. This would require the ability to scale up from the laboratory to the mass production scale of nanostructures tailored
28 to a specific purpose and the development of techniques to measure and ensure the consistency of nanostructure over the whole of the macroscale fabrication. Integration of two dimension al and three dimensional nanostructures into devices incorporating both structural and functional properties was a realistic objective on this time scale. The most promising manufacturing techniques would incorporate ‘bottom - up’ and ‘top down’ approaches a nd it was expected that knowledge of how biological systems assemble macrostructures would help in the development of manufacturing processes.
5. Functional nanotechnology, applications in which nanostructures are used to produce improved optical, elect ronic or magnetic properties. Includes nanoelectronics based on quantum effects.
5 year horizon
The scaling up to economic production of techniques such as nano -lithography, microspotting and self assembly was an achievable objective. This would allow t he development of delivery platforms incorporating clean surfaces, adaptive and complex systems and ultraclean synthesis (amongst others). These in turn would lead to applications in medical diagnostics, sensors for food safety, label free protein arrays a nd packaging.
10 year horizon
Placing a particular set of atoms in a specific nanostructure and understanding the result both at the surface and in three dimensions was an important long term goal. This would have uses in energy applications such as high energy density rechargeable batteries, hydrogen storage and photovoltaics. The biology –electronics interface was a research area that would be extensively developed on this timescale.
6. Nano -electromechanical systems (NEMS) devices and machines, an extension of present -day micro machines and micro actuators into the nano domain. Protein motors, capable of linear or rotary motion. DNA and active devices such as nanowires, switches, motors and tweezers
5 year horizon
Much of the work needed would be concerned with the development of tools for modelling, characterisation and analysis and also in understanding the physics of biological systems at the nano scale. This latter item requires researching the role of nanotribology, nanomechanics and energy ef ficiency in biological systems particularly individual cells and viruses.
Research across the biology/physics/engineering/chemistry interfaces is required to attain the required understanding and cross council collaboration, perhaps facilitated by RCUK, will be needed to encourage this. Industrial collaboration should also begin to be developed so that target needs and manufacturing challenges can be taken into account.
10 year horizon
The understanding of the physics of cells at the nanoscale will lea d to the application of biomimetics to the development of components of NEMS such as power supply,
29 switches, motors, pumps. The next step is to integrate the individual components into operational NEMS devices that are useful in for example drug delivery. The ethical dimension of NEMS devices will also need to be researched particularly the possible use of such devices in surveillance and the implications of this to individual privacy.
7. Molecular (including bio -molecular) nanotechnology is the technolog y of molecular sensing and molecular recognition. Much of the research is at the interface between the life and physical sciences. This includes: lab -on -a-chip and smart sensors for medical and environmental monitoring and diagnosis; tissue repair; targete d drug delivery. At the single cell level: gene therapy and screening; drug testing; design of nanomachines; replacement structures.
5 year horizon
Many of the research challenges were concerned with the development of tools and techniques such as: Adv anced single molecule tomography, pulsed table top X -ray source, double coincidence imaging to improve contrast and resolution, use of micro -bubble probes which give enhanced optics on a small scale, high spatial resolution MRI scanning, conductance micros copy, local AFM probes and dye bled Quantum Dots for molecular labelling. The development of these could lead to some realisable benefits for example: remote sensing of disease, use of self assembly in nanofabrication, health monitoring and toxicology, nan o-array coating to prevent bio -fouling.
10 year horizon
While continued development of tools, such as the use of single molecule tomography in vivo, was necessary more useful outcomes could be envisaged such as: an intracellular lab on a chip, in vivo me tabolic screening, implanted undetectable probes, biological computers, nanoformed drug delivery, molecular antennas, and molecular energy sources.
8. Nanoparticles, nanoclusters, nanocatalysis, includes the understanding of properties and processes of nanoparticulate catalysts, modelling and catalyst fabrication. This is likely to have major impact in areas such as fuel production, materials production and environmental protection.
5 and 10 year horizon
There was a need for fundamental science partic ularly with regard to understanding the physical properties of nanoclusters such as size, shape and the nature of the particle interface. The most important requirement was for the development of nanoscale characterisation tools particularly for atmospheri c and water borne detection. Secondary to this but also important was the need to build capacity in the UK both in terms of infrastructure and people. This should be done by means of a collaborative research initiative between EPSRC and industry. An integr al part of any initiative should be epidemiological studies to elucidate the health and environmental effects of nanoparticles.
Cross cutting themes
9. Biomimetics is the concept of taking ideas from nature, operating on the nanoscale, and implementing them in a technology such as engineering, design, computing or other areas.
30 5 year horizon The major challenge was in the use of biological systems via biokleptic nanotechnology which takes biological systems, such as proteins and cellular assembly mech anisms and modifies them to produce the device of interest. This would require observing how cells work when components such as the nucleus are removed and the development of methods for extracting nanocomponents from biological structures. The understandi ng generated from and in conjunction with biokleptics will contribute to Biomimetic nanotechnology which examines the principles behind how and why biological systems work, and duplicates them using synthetic analogues. The developments will have many appl ications in medicine, cosmetics and other unexpected areas for example iridescent paints.
10 year horizon
Some of the possibilities were the development of a completely synthetic cell which could be the basis of nanofactories for pharmaceutical application s, realistic nano robots for myriad uses such as appetite suppression and neural and body tissue repair. Such developments need to be open to public discussion as the ethical dimensions need to be explored and possibilities such as self -replication and the possibility of evolution and effect on human life considered.
10. Modelling aims to provide the quantitative understanding of physical systems and processes. It ranges from offering a framework of understanding to quantitative predictions based on sta te of the art calculations. At the nanoscale, modelling can analyse and predict properties of systems, processes and other phenomena in ways that complement experiment.
5 year horizon
The nanoscale shows many features that are not evident from scaled -up atomistic calculations, nor from scaled -down macroscopic calculations, though the important links across length and timescales must be recognised. Linking nanoscale phenomena to models of novel manufacturing processes will be important. The dynamic behavio ur of complex three -dimensional nanostructures in real time is especially important, and would enable development of better mathematical models of mixed hard/soft structures, like biological systems. Other results from these developments would be the model ling of intentionally -doped or structured nanosystems which would have applications in spintronics, and extensions of the modelling to devices such as displays, solar cells, and radio -frequency tags. EPSRC needs to consider the collaboration of computer sc ientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, in the development of new algorithms, and the availability of next generation computing power for such modelling.
10 year horizon
Ambitious, imaginative projects need encouragement. Goals might include biomedica l systems with realistic modelling of interactions between nanomaterials and biological tissues, the credible modelling of life processes in living cells, and the whole lifecycle modelling of environmental issues including nano -pollution. These imply the i ntegrated models of whole systems. Other developments might include
31 quantum algorithms to model quantum dynamics of nanostructures in dissipative environments. The predictive modelling of highly non -equilibrium systems involving nanoscale components will c ontinue to give challenges, and such challenges will be come even more varied as microelectronics moves to nanoelectronics. These developments will drive collaborations between different scientific communities. Progress on the 5 year time scale should enco urage a culture change within the whole science community, so that many more researchers feel able to span different disciplines.
32 Appendix (7) Evaluation of Nanotechnology IGR s
Evaluation of Nanotechnology Individual Grant Reviews
1. Introduction
Thes e graphs are derived from details of Nanotechnology Individual Grant Reviews (IGRs) held on EPSRC's Management Information System (MIS). Where appropriate grant applications are coded by Associate Program managers (APMs) as containing significant Nanotechn ology content and if the grant application is successful this coding will be carried over to the IGR. The IGR system replaced a system of Final Reports in 2001 at about the same time as the coding of grants for nanotechnology started. Information from both systems is held on MIS but the IGR gives a more complete overview of the activities and success of the project. In total there are 171 IGRs coded as containing significant nanotechnology. The total number of IGRs received over the same period was 3300.
The report has been split into sections that correspond to the criteria that the Nanotechnology Theme Day Panel will use to evaluate the current Nanotechnology portfolio namely Quality, People, Impact and Exploitability (the QPIE criteria)
2. General Stat istics
Figs A7 -1 and A7 -2 give the numbers of IGRs for the EPSRC programmes for Nanotechnology and all IGRs respectively. The Materials Programme has the largest proportion of Nanotech IGRs followed by Physics and Chemistry. This contrasts with the overal l picture where Engineering and Information and Communication Technology IGRs predominate.
Whereas Figures A7 -1 and 2 give the origin of the research grants Figures A7 -3 and 4 give the discipline of the academic department that received the grants.
Phys ics, Chemistry and Engineering departments receive the largest proportion of Nanotechnology grants while the order for all grants is Engineering, Chemistry, Physics. Taking Figs A7 -1 to A7 - 4 together indicates that the Materials programme funds a large pr oportion of the Nanotechnology grants held by Physics and Chemistry departments.
33 Fig A7 -1 Distribution of number of Nanotech IGRs by Programme
Chemistry Physics 18% 26%
Engineering 8%
Maths 1% ICT 5%
LSI 1%
Materials 41%
Fig A7 -2 Distribution of number of all IGRs by Programme
Physics Chemistry 9% 15% Maths 8%
Materials 13%
LSI 1% Engineering 36%
ICT 18%
34 Fig A7 -3 Distribution o f number of Nanotech IGRs by Research Discipline
Engineering 19%
Physics 37%
Chemistry 28%
Materials Comp Sci 9% Maths 1% Medicine 2% 2% IRCs 1% LSI 1%
Fig A7 -4 Distribution of number of All IGRs by Research Discipline
Physics 13% Other 5% Engineering Materials 35% 5% Medicine 3%
Maths 9% LSI 2% Chemistry IRCs 18% 1% Comp Sci 9%
35 2. Quality
The data for Figures A7 - 5 and 6 has been taken from grants with ‘Nano’ in the title or abstract. This was don e to extend the time period involved (as IGR data are available for only the last 3 years) so that trends in funding and quality could be followed. The dates on these graphs are the dates that the IGR or Final Report was received by EPSRC.
It can be seen that the number of Nanotechnology Final Reports and IGRs, and hence the number of successful grant applications rose steadily from 1994 to 2002 but levelled off in 2003.The overall number of Final Reports and IGRs have shown fluctuations over the same pe riod depending on the balance of funds available and proportion of successful grant applications. It should be noted that the average duration of a project is about 3 years so peaks and troughs in the IGRs represent peaks and troughs in successful grants o f 3 years before.
Final reports were assessed by peer review using at least two assessors and then given an overall quality grade by APMs. IGRs are similarly assessed by at least two peers but are then given a grade by an assessment panel. The PI submitti ng the IGR also submits a self assessment and has the opportunity to comment on the two assessments prior to the assessment panel. The quality measures reported here are for overall quality which takes into account a number of factors but a greater weighti ng is given to 'Scientific Quality' than those pertaining to communication of outputs or management of the grant. The quality ranges for the final reports and IGRs are not the same. The final reports used a 7 point scale as shown in Figure A7 - 7 wh ereas the IGR process uses a 5 point scale as shown in Figure A7 - 8. The average quality for Final Reports used in Figures A7 - 7 an d 8 is converted from the 7 point scale to the 5 point IGR scale using the following formula:
Gamma= Unsatisfacto ry Beta and Alpha 1 = Tending to Unsatisfactory Alpha 2 and Alpha 3 = Good Alpha 4 = Tending to Outstanding Alpha 5 = Outstanding
The average quality of all IGRs shows a change with time but this is a step change that more or less occurs at the same time as the change in grading systems. Thus the average was at about 3.4 for Final Reports and increased to about 3.9 for IGRs. This is further emphasised in Fig A7 - 8 where a definite shift in quality grade can be seen. It seems unlikely that this increase rep resents a real increase in quality but is an artefact of the grading system used so it is most likely that the overall quality of IGRs for all EPRC grants has remained the same.
36 Fig A7 - 5 Nanotechnology Number and Quality of Final Reports an d IGRs
100 4.25 90 s
R 80 4 y F t / i
70 l s a R 60 3.75 u G Q I Number f
50 e o
g Quality r
40 3.5 a r e e b 30 v m A
u 20 3.25 N 10 0 3 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year
Fig A7 -6 Number and Quality of All Final Reports and IGRs
2200 4.25 s
R 2000 4.00 y F t / i s l a R u
G 1800 3.75
I Number Q f e o
g Quality r
1600 3.50 a e r b e v m A
u 1400 3.25 N 1200 3.00 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year
37 Fig A7 -7 Final Reports pre 2000 Old Grading
Beta Gamma Alpha 1 Alpha 2 Alpha 3 Alpha 4 Alpha 5
1.7% 0.6% 5.0% 16.5% 38.1% 28.9% 9.3%
Fig A7 -8 Final Reports ( converted) and IGR Grades.
Unsatisfactory Tending to Good Tending to Outstanding Unsatisfactory Outstanding Pre 2000 0.6% 6.6% 54.6% 28.9% 9.3% Post 2000 0.3% 3.6% 22.7% 55.5% 17.9%
Fig A7 -9 Overall Quality of Nanotechnology and All E PSRC IGRs
60%
50%
40% Nanotech(%) 30% All(%) 20%
10%
0% Unsatisfactory Tending to U Good Tending to O Outstanding
Figure 9 illustrates that the distribution of quality for Nanotechnology IGRs is very similar to that for all IGRs received at EPSRC.
38 Fig A7 -10 Average IGR Grade for Nanotechnology Themes.
Theme Theme Number Average Grade Extreme 1 3.9 Fabrication 2 4 Metrology 3 4.5 Nanomaterials 4 4 Functional 5 3.8 NEMS 6 3.7 Molecular/Bio 7 3.8 Particles 8 3.8
Theme 3 appears to have a slightly higher average grade than the other themes.
Fig A7 -11 Average IGR Grade by Disciplines.
Avg. IGR Grade Discipline Number Avg Overall Discipline Number Nanotech IGR Grade
4.00 Chemical Engineering 2 3.74 Chemical Engineering 172
4.02 Chemistry 48 3.91 Chemistry 840
5.00 Computer Science 2 3.93 Computer Science 489
3.54 Electrical & El ectronic 13 3.78 Electrical & Electronic 502 Engineering Engineering
3.71 General Engineering 7 3.85 General Engineering 285
4.00 IRCs 2 3.82 IRCs 55
3.00 Life Sciences 1 3.80 Life Sciences 96
3.33 Mathematics 3 4.15 Mathematics 450
4.10 Mec hanical, Aeronautical & 10 3.78 Mechanical, Aeronautical & 478 Manufacturing Engineering Manufacturing Engineering
3.33 Medicine 3 3.68 Medicine 134
3.50 Metallurgy & Materials 16 3.81 Metallurgy & Materials 239
3.95 Physics 63 4.01 Physics 645
Note: IRCs are Inter Disciplinary Research Collaborations and include Faradays, IMRCs as w ell as Inter Disciplinary Research Centres.
Where there are sufficient IGRs there does not appear to be a significant difference between IGR grades for Nanotechno logy and other IGRs,
39 3. People
Referring to Figs A7 -12 to 15 there does not appear to be any major differences between the age distribution for Principal Investigators for Nanotechnology IGRs and all IGRs and Nanotech IGRs and all IGRs show very similar patterns of Staff destinations and Countries of origin.
Fig A7 -12 Age Distribution of PIs on IGRs
30 -35 35 -40 40 -45 45 -50 50 -55 55 -60 60+ Nano (%) 6.7% 20.1% 17.1% 14.0% 17.7% 9.1% 15.2% Total (%) 8.0% 18.4% 20.6% 14.4% 13.4% 13.0% 12.1%
.
Fig A7 -13 Staff destinations on IGRs
Nanotech All Commerce 1% 1% Fixed Term Academic 29% 28% Further Training 3% 5% Government 4% 4% Not Employed 3% 3% Unknown 38% 33% Other 5% 7% Permanent Academic 11% 8% Private Sector Indust ry 6% 10% Teaching 1% 1% 100% 100%
40 Fig A7 -14 Staff Origins on Nanotech IGRs
Other 5% EU 14%
Former USSR 6%
Asia 11% UK 64%
Fig A7 -15 Staff Origins on all IGRs
Other 12%
EU 12%
Former USSR 3% UK Asia 61% 12%
41 As can be seen in Fig A7 -16 there appears to be a higher proportion of Post Doctoral Research Assoc iates on Nanotech IGRs than Post Graduates when compared with the whole of EPSRC. Perhaps indicating the need for more experienced personnel on these projects.
Fig A7 -16 Staff Types on IGRs
Nanotech All Other 5.0% 9.9%
Post Doc RA 51.8% 41.8% Post Graduate 8.3% 16.0% Project Student 12.3% 12.9%
Technician 21.6% 18.1%
Visiting Fellows 1.0% 1.4%
Figures A7 -17 to 20 illustrate various aspects of the distribution of PhD awards for Nanotechnology related projects compared with all EPSRC PhD awards. They are taken from data available for the years 1999 to 2003 and a project was deemed to be relevant to Nanotechnology if the term 'Nano' appeared in the project title or abstract. These figures are presented to illustrate the numbers of Nano technology researchers being trained by EPRC. In total during this period 427 out of 7600 awards were deemed to have some nanotechnology relevance.
Physics, Chemistry, Materials and Electrical Engineering all have a larger proportion of graduates being tr ained in nanotechnology than would be expected from their respective proportions of the overall awards.
The East of England (which includes Cambridge) and the South East (which includes Oxford) both have a significantly greater proportion of PhD awards in nanotechnology during this period than their share of the overall awards.
42 Fig A7 -17 Nanotech Awards by Discipline
Chem Eng 3%
Physics 32%
Chemistry 35%
Other Compr Sci 0% 0%
Materials Civil Eng 0% 12% Mech Eng IRCs 3% 2% Mathematics Medicine 0% Elec Eng 2% Life Sciences General Eng 7% 1% 3%
Fig A7 -18 All Awards by Discipline
Chem Eng Physics 2% 15%
Other Chemistry 3% 27%
Materials 5%
Medicine 2%
Mech Eng 7% Civil Eng 2%
Compr Sci 6%
Mathematics 14% Elec Eng Life Sciences 9% 2% General Eng IRCs 4% 2%
43 Fig A7 -19 Regional Distribution of Nanotech PhD research Awards ( 1999 -2003 ) (Total 427)
Yorkshire & Humberside East Midlands 9% 5% West Midlands East of England 7% 16% Wales 2% South West 7%
London 11%
North East 1% South East 21% North West 11% Scotland 10%
Fig A7 -20 Regional Distribution of all PhD research Awards (1999 -2003 ) ( Total 7600)
Yorkshire & East Midlands Humberside 7% 11% East of England West Midlands 10% 7% Wales London 3% 13% South West 7%
North East 4% South East North West 16% 11% Scotland 11%
44 4. Impact
Impact of a project using IGRs is difficult to assess because the report is produced soon after the projects end which may be before all publications have been completed and will almost certainly be before citations for publications have reached their maximum. The distribution of the number of publications per IGR is compared with the overall distribution for all EPSRC IGRs in Fig A7 - 21.
Fig A7 -21 Distribution of Journal Publication Numbers
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0% Nanotech 15.0% All
10.0%
5.0%
0.0% 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 or 8 9 or 10 >10
This is data for IGRs with the Nanotechnology socioeconomic pillar and indicates a higher publication rate for Nanotechnology grants than the EPSRC average. Very few IGRs reported zero publicati ons.
Figure A7 -22 gives some indication of which journals the EPSRC Nanotechnology grant holders published in and the comparative standing of the journals.
45 Fig A7 -22 Nanotechnology Journal Publications
Number of Journal Publications % Total 1 Rank 2
Applied Physics Letters 36 3.7% 2 Journal of Applied Physics 31 3.1% 11 J Chem Phys 23 2.3% - Phys. Rev. Lett 23 2.3% 4 Physical Review B 22 2.2% 5 Chemical Communications 17 1.7% 24 Macromolecules 16 1.6% 25 J. Phys. Chem. B 15 1.5% 6 Physica B 15 1.5% - SURFACE SCIENCE 11 1.1% - J. Mater. Chem 8 0.8% 19 J. Phys. Condens Matter 8 0.8% - Nanotechnology 7 0.7% 21 Angewandte Chem. International Ed. 5 0.5% 16 Ultramicroscopy 5 0.5% -
Note 1: The total number of Journal publications was 986
Note 2: The Rank is the Citation Rank of the Journal taken from the Thomson ISI Citation study of Nanotechnology.
5. Exploitability
42% of 172 Nanotech IGRs had some result other than publicat ions and 43% of all 7300 IGRs had some other result. These were divided as shown in the following table:
Fig A7 -23 Proportion of results of specific type.
Result Type Nanotech All % % Licences or Patents 34% 24% Other 28% 28% Industrial Training courses 11% 15% Spin Off Company 10% 12% Direct Consultancy 18% 21%
46 A greater proportion of Nanotech projects have led to licences or patents than average.
The proportion of current Nanotechnology grants that have industrial collaborators is 32% which is lower than the average for EPRC as a whole for which the proportion is 42%.
Companies that have collaborated on more than 4 grants are: Accordis (industrial fibres), Alstom (power), BHR ( fluids), Hitachi ( electronics), the NPL ( metrology), Qi netiq (defence & high tech), and Rolls Royce ( aerospace).
The top collaborating institutions and grant numbers with industrial collaborators are:
Oxford(12 electronics, aerospace), Cambridge(10 electronics, chemicals), Surrey(10 electronics and chemicals ), Sheffield(9 electronics, fibres and instruments), Manchester(9 various sectors), Loughborough(7 mostly materials), Birmingham(7 various sectors), Imperial (6 chemicals and materials), Bolton (6 all fibre related – mostly fire resistance).
47 Appendix (8) Bibliometric Study
Nanotechnology Citation Report
Thomson ISI were contracted by EPSRC to update their ‘Special Topics’ analysis for Nanotechnology which was carried out in 2000.
To construct this database, papers were extracted based on title -supplied ke ywords for nanotechnology. The keyword used was ‘nano*’.
The baseline time span for the resulting database was 1994 -2004. The resulting database contained 78,614 (10 years) and 31,436 (2 years) papers; 95,882 authors; 112 countries; 2,323 journals; and 1 1,582 institutions.
Figure A8 - 1 compares the results for the 2000 analysis with those for the updated , 2004, analysis.
Fig A8 -1 International Citation Ranking for Nanotechnology
Nation Cites Papers Cites Rank Rank Cites Papers Cites Cites Papers 2004 2004 Per 2004 2000 2000 2000 Per 2004/ 2004/ Paper Paper Cites Papers 2004 2000 2000 2000 USA 296855 22739 13.05 1 1 92108 9993 9.22 3.22 2.28 Japan 72010 10091 7.14 2 2 26267 4251 6.18 2.74 2.37 Germany 70557 7674 9.19 3 3 20673 3579 5.78 3.41 2.14 France 52462 5216 10.06 4 4 17168 2673 6.42 3.06 1.95 Peoples R C hina 50104 11527 4.35 5 7 7653 3168 2.42 6.55 3.64 UK 37522 3739 10.04 6 5 11251 1676 6.71 3.33 2.23 Switzerland 22299 1444 15.44 7 6 8233 792 10.4 2.71 1.82 Italy 17056 2357 7.24 8 11 4585 958 4.79 3.72 2.46 Spain 15737 1914 8.22 9 9 5131 874 5.87 3.07 2.19 Canada 15524 1521 10.21 10 8 5707 754 7.57 2.72 2.02 South Korea 15020 3220 4.66 11 21 1243 579 2.15 12.08 5.56 Netherlands 14362 1100 13.06 12 10 4767 514 9.27 3.0 1 2.14 Russia 14013 3756 3.73 13 12 4240 1708 2.48 3.30 2.20 India 11297 2066 5.47 14 15 2005 636 3.15 5.63 3.25 Belgium 10060 922 10.91 15 13 2873 382 7.52 3.50 2.41 Israel 9772 938 10.42 16 14 2063 371 5.56 4.74 2.53 Sweden 7652 1006 7.61 17 16 1729 381 4.54 4.43 2.64 Australia 6623 908 7.29 18 18 1508 349 4.32 4.39 2.60 Taiwan 6199 1435 4.32 19 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Brazil 5826 815 7.15 20 20 1253 245 5.11 4.65 3.33 Denmark 4901 453 10.82 21 19 1401 217 6.46 3.50 2.09 Austria 4145 584 7.1 22 22 1103 220 5.01 3.76 2.65 Singapore 4127 845 4.88 23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mexico 3943 494 7.98 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Poland 3594 1008 3.57 25 23 969 387 2.5 3.71 2.60
48 The Rank in the table is based on the total number of citations and on this measure the UK dropped from 5 th place in 2000 to 6 th in 2004 due to the rapid growth in citations attributed to the People’s Republic of China. Chinese papers have a far lower citation rate than those from the UK but China produces far more papers – second only to the USA.
The UK’s citation rate is similar to that for Germany and France but the UK produces fewer papers and thus fewer total citations. This could be due to fewer papers being produced per researcher in the UK or, as seems more likely t o there being fewer researchers in the field in the UK.
The top ranked papers and institutions(based on total number of citations) were extracted from the data to give an indication of where the leading researchers in nanotechnology were. The results are given in Fig A8 - 2 and 3.
Fig A8 -2 Number of Top 25 Papers by Nation
Nation Top 25 Papers 2004 Top 25 Papers 2000
USA 14 13 France 4 2 Netherlands 3 2 Germany 2 2 Switzerland 1 1 UK 1 1 Japan 0 3 Canada 0 1
Fig A8 -3 Number of Top Institutions by Nation
Nation Top 25 Institutions Top 25 Institutions 2004 2000 USA 15 18 France 4 3 Netherlands 1 0 Germany 1 0 China 1 0 Japan 2 3 Russia 1 1
The USA is clearly the leading nation but France appears to ha ve a growing influence. The UK has only one paper in the leading 25 and no institutions in the leading 25.
49 Nanotechnology Patents
The data is taken from the European Patent Office website which contains a number of databases. The database used was the worldwide database which contains information about published patent applications from over 70 different countries and regions. In February 2005, esp@cenet ® held data on 50 million patents from 71 countries. A total of 25.6 million of these patents have a title, while 26.2 million have an ECLA class and 16.6 million an abstract in English.
The table is based on all patent applications that contain nano in the abstract or title.
Nanotechnology Patents Applications by Country:
Rank Country Nano Patents (total) % of World 1 USA 9448 30.3% 2 China 3922 12.6% 3 Germany 2187 7.0% 4 Japan 1241 4.0% 5 France 997 3.2% 6 Korea 928 3.0% 7 UK 428 1.4% 8 Canada 373 1.2% 9 Switzerland 307 1.0% 10 Taiwan 283 0.9% 11 Netherlan ds 251 0.8% 12 Belgium 141 0.5% 13 Israel 128 0.4% 14 Ireland 126 0.4% 15 Italy 112 0.4% 16 Sweden 108 0.3% 17 Australia 106 0.3% 18 Russian Federation 104 0.3% 19 Spain 72 0.2% Total Top 19 21262 68.1% World 3120 4
50 Appendix (9) List of Posters Presented at the Theme Day
Presenter University Poster Title
Professor Richard Abram University of Durham Interaction of zero -dimensional electronic and photonic states in semiconductor nanostructures Profess or Alfred Adams University of Surrey Optoelectronic Devices using Nanostructures
Dr Andrew Alderson Bolton Institute Modelling of the Mechanical and Separation Properties of Negative Poission's Ratio Nanomaterials Dr Martyn Amos University of Exeter Molecular and Cellular Computing
Professor Peter Ashburn University of 0.03 MICRON VERTICAL SHALLOW Southampton TRENCH CMOS TECHNOLOGY
Professor Geoffrey Ashwell Cranfield University Molecular Rectification Using Symmetrical Gold Electrodes Professor Jas Badyal University of Durham Surface Micro -Patterning of Polymerization Initiators
Dr Claudio Balocco (for AM The University of Physics & Applications of Novel Rom - Song) Manchester Temperature Nanoelectric Switch Devices Dr Ursel Bangert The University o f Novel electron energy loss spectroscopy of Manchester carbon -, carbon -nitride - and boron -carbon - nitride nano structures Professor Jeremy Baumberg University of Localized Surface Plasmons in Self - Southampton Assembling Metallic Nanocavities for Optoelect ronics and Molecular Sensors Professor G Beddard University of Leeds Flourescence Equipment to Underpin Research in the School of Chemistry
Professor Jon Binner Loughborough Suspension -based fabrication of University nanostructured materials for engineer ing applications Professor David Birch University of Single Molecule Sensing in Clinical Medicine Strathclyde
Dr James Carey University of Surrey DEVELOPMENT OF COLD CATHODE MATERIALS FOR FIELD EMISSION DISPLAYS Professor John Chapman University of Glas gow Characterisation and modification of magnetic multilayers using focused ion beams and electron microscopy Dr Victor Chechik University of York Spin -labelled Disulfides as Mechanic Probes for Au Nanoparticles
51 Presenter University Poster Title
Dr Rebecca Cheung University of Edinburgh Silico Carbide MEMS for Harsh Environments
Professor David Cockayne University of Oxford PLATFORM: Nanocharacterisation and Nanofabrication of Materials
Dr Lesley Cohen Imperial College of Optimisation of Surface Enhanced Raman Science, Tech & Med Spectr oscopy For Label Free DNA Analysis
Professor Peter Coveney University College Novel Clay -Polymer Nanocomposites Using London Diversity -Discovery Methods: Synthesis, Processing & Testing.
Dr Russell Cowburn Imperial College Nanoscale Scanned Hall P robe Magnetic London Microscopy
Dr Steven Dunn Cranfield University Nanosized ferroelectric islands through self assembly
Dr Karen Edler University of Bath Surfactant -PolyElectrolyte Nanostructure Self -Assembly (SPENSA)
Dr SJ Eichhorn The University of Microstructure and Micromechanics of Manches ter Natural and Regenerated Cellulose Fibres
Dr Andrew Ellis University of Leicester Freezing Chemical Reactions: Trapping Reaction Intermediates in Helium Nanodroplets
Dr Keith Firman University of NETWOR K: Molecular machines in Portsmouth Nanotechnology
Professor Gillian Gehring University of Sheffield Optical Studies of Magnetic Oxides
Dr Mark Geoghegan University of Sheffield Controlling network/brush interactions to achieve switchable adhesion
Professor Peter Goodhew University of Liverpool The NW SuperSTEM; a multi -user sub - angstrom analytical electron microscope facility for the UK
Dr S Haque (for JR Durrant) Imperial College Improved Routes To Nanocrystalline Metal London Oxide Films For Dye Sensitised Sola r Cells and Related Applications
52 Presenter University Poster Title
Professor John Hay University of Surrey Novel Hybrid Nanocomposite Particles as Modifiers For Polymers and Composites
Dr Robert Hicken University of Exeter Imaging High Frequency Magnetisation Dynamics at the Wafer Level
Dr Nidal Hilal University of Development of biofouling - resistant Nottingham membrane
Dr Michael Hughes University of Surrey Feasibility study: Dielectrophoretic manipulation of nanoparticles for device applications
Dr Beverley Inkson Sir Robert Hadfie ld NETWORK: NanoFIBnet - The nano - Bldg processing and nanoanalysis of materials using focused ion beams.
Dr Baljinder Kandola Bolton Institute Nanocomposite Fire Retardants for Synthetic Fibres
Dr Anthony Kent University of Monochromatic phono n source and phonon Nottingham spectrometer for studies of low dimensional structures.
Dr Vasileios Koutsos University of Edinburgh Adhesion and Friction of Polymer Monolayers
Professor Graham Leggett University of Sheffield Fabrication of Molecular and Biomolecula r Nanostructures by scanning Near -Field Optical Lithography
Dr Julie MacPherson University of Warwick Development of Single Walled Carbon Nanotube Scanned Probes for High Resolution Electrical and Electrochemical Measurements Dr Neil Mathur University of Molecular magnetoelectronics: spin Cambridge polarised injection from manganites into carbon nanotubes
Professor Stephen Meech University of East Ultrafast Dynamics In Constrained Media Anglia
Dr Paul Midgley Cambridge University Electron Tomography fo r Nanoscale Materials
Professor Andrew Mills University of Light driven oxygen scavenging by Strathclyde polymer/titania nanocomposite films
53 Presenter University Poster Title
Dr Philip Moriarty University of Correlating the Properties of Adsorbed Nottingham Buckyballs. a Synchrotron -Base d Multi - Technique Approach
Professor Peter Morris University of Hyperpolarised technologies for medical and Nottingham materials sciences
Dr Iris Nandhakumar University of Characterisation of nanostructured materials Southampton by carbon nanotube probes
Dr Richard Nichols University of Liverpool Scanning Tunnelling Spectroscopy of Nanoscale Structures
Dr C Nicklin University of Leicester Self Organisation of Nanoscale Crystallites
Professor Anthony O'Neill University of Newcastle SIGE FOR MO S TECHNOLOGIES upon Tyne
Dr James O'Shea University of Mass -selected electrospray deposition of Nottingham complex molecules in UHV
Professor Richard Palmer University of Fabrication of Encapsulated nanotips for Birmingham molecular -scale sensing and surface analy sis.
Dr David Parker Impact Faraday ACORN: A collaboration on Research into Partnership Nanoparticles
Professor Victor Petrashov Royal Holloway, Univ Andreev Spectroscopy for Superconducting of London Phase Qubits
Professor F Placido University of Pai sley New barrier materials for OLED displays
Dr MJ Reece Queen Mary, University Electromechanical Properties of PZT Films of London using Nanoindentation
Dr David Richards King's College London Nano -optical Imaging
Dr I Richardson University of Leeds Th e nanostructure and degredation of C -S-H in Portland and blended cements
54 Presenter University Poster Title
Professor Kevin Roberts University of Leeds Surface Engineering of Particulate Materials Using Defect -Controlled Interface Modelling
Dr Basudeb Saha Loughborough A phase inversion route to colloidal polymer University nanocomposites
Professor John Seddon Imperial College PHASE BEHAVIOUR OF BINARY BLOCK London COPOLYMER/HOMOPOLYMER BLENDS: THEORY AND EXPERIMENT
Professor Paul Shore Cranfield University Ultra Precision Surfaces: A ne w paradigm (accuracy capability of 1 part 10 to the power of 8)
Professor Maurice Skolnick University of Sheffield SF:CONTROL OF LIGHT -MATTER INTERACTIONS IN SEMICON'RS: FROM M'SCOPIC TO REGIME OF S'GLE PHOTONS & S'GLE EL'N Professor Roger Smith Loughbor ough Modelling & Simulation of Nanoindentation University & Nanofriction & Comparison With Experiment
Dr Mo Song Loughborough Novel intercalated polyurethane -organically University modified layered silicate nanocomposites
Professor M Sturgess (for Binns) University of Leicester Photoelectron Microscopy of Nanostructures
Dr Svetlana Tatarkova University of Durham SPANAS: Systems for Photonic Adjustment of Nano -scale Aggregated Structures
Professor Iain Thayne University of Glasgow Sub 100nm III -V MOSFET' s for Digital Applications
Dr Neil Thomson University of Leeds STUDY OF THE MECHANISM OF ACTION OF DNA GYRASE AND RELATED PROTEINS USING ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY Professor Ugur Tuzun University of Surrey Novel Interfacing of Computer -Aided Imaging Techniq ues to Probe Microscopic Evolution of Nano -Powder Assemblies.
Dr Dimitri Vvedensky Imperial College Self -Assembled Low Dimensional London Semiconductor Nanostructures.
Dr Alison Walker University of Bath Charge transport & recombination in non - classical solar photovoltaic cells: integrating theory & experiment
55 Presenter University Poster Title
Dr Paul Warburton University College Focussed ion -beam fabrication of nanoscale London single - electron intrinsic josephson devices
Professor Ian Ward IRC in Polymer Feasibi lity study:Incorp'tion of nano -scale Science & Technology carbon fibres & single walled carbon nano - tubes to enhance properties of hot compacted polypropylene sheet Professor Mark Welland Cambridge University The IRC in Nanotechnology
Dr Peter Wright Univesity of Sheffield Control of microwave transmission and reflection at large area nanocomposite surfaces
Dr Qi Zhang Cranfield University PLATFORM: Thin Film Ferroelectrics for Nanotechnology Applications
Professor Wuzong Zhou University of St 3D Porous Crystals an d Other Andrews Nanomaterials
56 Appendix (10 ) Evaluation Questionnaire
1. EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE OVERALL RESULTS
There were 34 respondents to the questionnaire (not all questions were answered by all respondents). The overall responses are given below togeth er with a summary of comments.
In giving you the opportunity to provide evidence of the quality and achievements of your work, how useful was:
1 The Synopsis 9 12 3 Very useful Useful Not useful 2 Your poster 6 17 1 Very useful Useful Not useful 3 The panel visit to your poster 7 11 8 Very useful Useful Not useful
Comments:
Comments about the preparation of the Synopsis and Poster were almost universally that it had been a valuable exercise to look at the work that they were carrying out from a dif ferent perspective. Several respondents complained that many posters did not give the information requested by EPSRC and one recognised that he had not put his in requested form despite knowing what it was due to work pressure. A suggestion from a panel me mber is that we have a web based synopsis input with fields that have to be filled in to try and ensure that synopses provide the required information.
The panel visit was found less useful by a greater number of respondents. The main complaint being (as it always seems to be ) that 10 minutes was not enough time to fully appreciate the research presented and that the discussion was very one way with not much feedback from the panel. For the future, better communication of the purpose of the day and the fa ct that panel members will have spent much more than 10 minutes reading synopses and the poster visit is just to clarify remaining issues, is required.
1. How informative did you find the presentations / discussions?
10 19 3 Very informative Informative Not informative
Comments:
The majority of the respondents found at least some of the presentations very informative and there was particular enthu siasm for that given by Prof. Gimzewski.
57 2. How useful did you personally find the Theme Day?
13 17 3 Very useful Useful Not useful
Comments:
The most commonl y mentioned benefit was the networking opportunity offered by the theme day and the stimulation of new ideas and collaboration that this offered. The breakout sessions were also cited as being very useful but too short. Some attendees who had attended prev ious , similar exercises felt that new ways of doing the breakouts should now be sought. Several respondents appreciated the opportunity to take part in and learn how EPSRC obtains feedback from the community to inform policy. More feedback on the results f rom this and the previous theme day and better feedback of the breakouts (perhaps via oral sessions) were suggested.
3. Please provide comments on the structure or timings of the day to help us improve future events.
Comments:
The great majority of commen ts on the organisation of the day and the venue were very positive and broadly speaking start (10am) and finish (4.30pm) times were suitable for the respondents. There were some travel difficulties for those living ‘intermediate’ distances from London ( i.e . Northwest and Northeast). Most comments on timing were on the need for more time for posters and breakouts and reporting back. There were some comments to the effect that it would have been better if all of the posters were in on room as those in the roo m where lunch was provided had a greater exposure.
7. Any comments on other aspects of the day?
Comments:
There were some comments on the content of the posters and the difficulty in defining nanotechnology. Specific comments on the lack of bionanotech nology and the fact that there was not an area of nanotechnology which could be called a UK strength were made. Another fairly common comment was that the poster presenters be given the panel score and comments on their posters.
2. LEARNING POINTS
2.1 Sy nopses and Posters
Many of the synopses and posters did not give the requested information despite The emphasis placed on the different approach required. It was suggested by one of the panel members that a web based input with required fields might offe r a better approach for future activities of this nature.
58 2.2 Breakouts
More time was needed to present the outputs from the breakouts – the panel did not get all the input that they needed from these. The current breakout techniques also need refreshing (a constant process) – perhaps we should review them and produce guidance for the future.
2.3 Communication.
This as always could have been better – the message as to what the theme day is all about needs making clear to the participants. Hopefully the report will help to clear up some of the need for feedback.
59