Nanotechnology Theme Day Report Cross Currency Pairs

Document Sample
Nanotechnology Theme Day Report Cross Currency Pairs Powered By Docstoc
					EPSRC Nanotechnology Theme Day

              16 June 2005

     Church House, London




     Panel Chair: Professor 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 Scoring 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 EPSRC 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 sessions 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 hospitality.

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 guidance 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 78 (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 theme day. They were also able to
compare the current sample with those assessed and reported on at the previous
Nanotechnology Theme 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) or 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 amongst 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 lower 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 and impact but there
were not a great number of grants in this theme. The greatest numbers of grants
were in the Nanostructured Materials and Functional Nanotechnology themes. Most
of the grants in these themes were of good quality and impact but of lower
exploitability 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 urgency, 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 make use of its strengths in Medicine, Biosciences and
    Design Technology. The EPSRC thus needed 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 research 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.

          Any 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 and 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 called „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 with
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 portfolio 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 facilitated 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 aggregated 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 – particularly 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 together 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 weaknesses 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 from these sessions was also used as input to the panel.

The Agenda for 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 were. 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 78 grants
were represented 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. Nanostructured materials.
   5. Functional nanotechnology.
   6. Nano-electromechanical 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 panel on the Theme Day was to evaluate the grants
selected against a framework comprising the following criteria:

Quality: Intrinsic excellence of the research in world terms

Impact: The potential for wider impact on other research

People: The extent to which 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 scale 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 of
Nanotechnology in the UK and then consider what might be the major research
challenges for Nanotechnology 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 members 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 key 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 from the breakout sessions were inputs
to the 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 themes 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 Table (3). There were no posters
concerned with Biomimetics at the theme day (and no grants identified in this theme)
and thus no results for this theme are available.

Table (1) Posters presented by Theme

               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 scores. 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) Average 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
Molecular(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
proportion 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 exploitability 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 individual 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 right 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 the 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 quality 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: Functional 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 grants in this theme had a value between £150 000 and £400 000
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 while 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 large grant of high quality and
impact that also had a high exploitability. 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 (Fig (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 people and exploitability metrics were below
average.


3.3 Breakouts:

Summaries of the individual breakout sessions 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 nanoscale

      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 Nanotechnology

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 be monitored.


Theme2: Nanofabrication

FIB (Focused Ion Beam) was a widespread technique in the grants reviewed
because of its many new and increasingly important applications. Much of this work
seemed to be adventurous engineering exploiting recent developments 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 the
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
displacement, 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, there 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 (magnetic, 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 sponsorship 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
nanometrology. 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 nanotube tips, modeling of nanotubes in
polymers and processing of ceramic nanoparticles. There appeared to be gaps in the
fundamental understanding of nanostructured materials and the relation of their
structure to properties on the macro scale.



                                            12
Theme 5: Functional 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 lack of representation from the
Spintronics community.

There were some projects of good to excellent quality that were 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 applications 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 definition of the NEMS
theme needed to be revised to emphasise this „bottom-up‟ approach, the 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 applications 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 collaboration 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 funded 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 was 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 expensive
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 manufacturer.

Training

This was considered to be the most difficult aspect to judge because details were not
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
poor 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 that had encouraged
industry/academic collaboration. This had been very successful 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 benchmarking of the grants on display, some of the more
prominent UK Nanotechnology researchers had chosen not to come to the theme
day and there did seem to be a genuine diminution of the quality of the grants
represented.

Most of the leading nations in Nanotechnology 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 research 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 „patchy‟


                                          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 some 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 bibliometric
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 this 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
       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 two 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 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 research
       meant that some of the original themes were now redundant. The strategy

                                         15
    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.

   Any 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 and 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 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 staff are in demand from
employers:
5 = exceptional demand from employers
4 = high demand from employers
3 = moderate demand from employers
2 = limited demand from employers
1 = no output or no demand for the skills provided
At the theme level
The extent to which the output of trained staff 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 research:
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 exploitation
4 = high potential for exploitation
3 = moderate potential for exploitation
2 = limited potential
1 = no potential for exploitation discernible at present




                                           17
Appendix (2) Theme 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 Explanation- 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
                   University.




                                     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
  Professor 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) Nanotechnology Themes


    1. “Extreme” 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
       manipulation 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 size 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 which 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 actuators 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 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; targeted drug delivery. At the single cell 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 fabrication. 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


Figure A5-1 Extreme Nanotechnology


                        Extreme Nano(1)

             5
   Impact




             3                                            <150K




             1
                 1                   3             5
                                Quality



Figure A5-2 Nanofabrication


                       Nanofabrication(2)

             5


                                                       150K-400K
    Impact




             3                                         <150K
                                                       >400K


             1
                 1               3             5
                              Quality




                                          22
Figure A5-3 Nanometrology



                        Nanometrology(3)

            5


                                                      <150K
   Impact




            3                                         150K-400K
                                                      >400K


            1
                1             3                   5
                            Quality




Figure A5-4 Nanostructured Materials


                    Nanostructured Materials(4)

            5


                                                      <150K
   Impact




            3                                         150K-400K
                                                      >400K


            1
                1             3                   5
                            Quality




                                       23
Figure A5-5 Functional Nanotechnology


                    Functional Nanotechnology(5)

            5


                                                       <150K
   Impact




            3                                          150K-400K
                                                       >400K


            1
                1             3                    5
                            Quality




Figure A5-6 NEMS


                              NEMS (6)

            5
   Impact




                                                       <150K
            3
                                                       150K-400K



            1
                1              3                   5
                            Quality




                                      24
Figure A5-7 Molecular Nanotechnology


                            Molecular Nanotechnology(7)

            5
   Impact




                                                                <150K
            3
                                                                150K-400K



            1
                1                      3                   5
                                    Quality




Figure A5-8 Nanoparticles, Nanoclusters and Nanocatalysis



                    Nanoparticles, nanoclusters, nanocatalysis(8)

            5


                                                                <150K
   Impact




            3                                                   150K-400K
                                                                >400K


            1
                1                      3                   5
                                    Quality




                                              25
Figure A5-9 Modelling


                        Modelling(9)

            5
   Impact




                                           <150K
            3
                                           150K-400K



            1
                1         3            5
                        Quality




                                  26
Appendix (6) Summary of Breakout Sessions.

Nanotechnology Theme Day Breakout Session- Summary of Discussions


1. “Extreme” 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 of 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 scale 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-ray 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‟ techniques 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 timescale 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 used 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 of 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 to 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 evolution 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 integrity 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 biological 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 level 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 size 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 the 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 adapt 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 characterisation, 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 measurements 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 dimensional 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 and 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, electronic 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 the
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 and 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 efficiency 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 lead 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 technology 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;
targeted 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:
Advanced 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 microscopy, 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, nano-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 metabolic 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 particularly 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 atmospheric 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 integral 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 mechanisms 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 understanding 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 applications 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 applications, 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 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.

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 behaviour 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 modelling 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 scientists, 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
biomedical 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 integrated 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 continue 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 encourage 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 IGRs

Evaluation of Nanotechnology Individual Grant Reviews


1. Introduction

These 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 Nanotechnology 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 Statistics

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 overall 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.

Physics, 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 proportion 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 of 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 done 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 period 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 of 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 submitting 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
weighting 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 whereas 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 and 8 is
converted from the 7 point scale to the 5 point IGR scale using the following formula:

Gamma= Unsatisfactory
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 represents 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 and IGRs



                        100                                           4.25
                         90
   Number of IGRs/FRs




                         80                                           4




                                                                                 Average Quality
                         70
                         60                                           3.75
                                                                                                         Number
                         50
                                                                                                         Quality
                         40                                           3.5
                         30
                         20                                           3.25
                         10
                          0                                           3
                          1994    1996   1998     2000        2002
                                          Year




Fig A7-6 Number and Quality of All Final Reports and IGRs



                        2200                                              4.25
   Number of IGRs/FRs




                        2000                                              4.00
                                                                                       Average Quality




                        1800                                              3.75                           Number

                        1600                                              3.50                           Quality

                        1400                                              3.25

                        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 EPSRC 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 & Electronic       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        Mechanical, 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 well as Inter Disciplinary Research Centres.

     Where there are sufficient IGRs there does not appear to be a significant difference
     between IGR grades for Nanotechnology 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 Industry         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 Associates 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 Nanotechnology 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 trained 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
              12%                                                                                  0%
                                        Mech Eng
                                                                                                            IRCs
                                          3%
                                                                                                             2%
                                        Mathematics
                         Medicine
                                            0%              Life Sciences Eng            Elec Eng
                           2%                                      General
                                                                  1% 3%                     7%


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
                                                        South East
                 1%
                                                          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 publications.

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    % Total1       Rank2

 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 publications 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),
Qinetiq (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 keywords 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 11,582 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 China    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    3.01      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 5th place in 2000 to 6th 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 to 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 have 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              Netherlands                    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                        31204




                                           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
Professor 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 of       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
                                                     Optoelectronics 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 engineering
                                                     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 Glasgow   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       Spectroscopy 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 Probe 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
                              Manchester                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             NETWORK: 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 Solar 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 Hadfield       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 phonon 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 Biomolecular
                                                     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 for 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-Based 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 MOS 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
                                                       analysis.

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 Paisley     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       The 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 new 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              Loughborough              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 Techniques 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           Feasibility 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 and 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 together 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 different 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 member 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 fact 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 enthusiasm 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 commonly 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 previous, 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 from 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 comments 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 room 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 bionanotechnology 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 Synopses 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 offer 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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:18
posted:12/18/2010
language:English
pages:60
Description: Nanotechnology Theme Day Report Cross Currency Pairs