Current Research Activities

Personal Nano: An Ethnography of the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (Cornell University)

PI: Ana Viseu
 

Dr. Ana Viseu is in the process of setting up an ethnographic study of ISN. The goal of this project is to critically examine the ways which ISN researchers incorporate notions of embodiment, personhood, information and agency within their practices and knowledges. Situated studies of nano R&D contribute to our understanding not only of the policy instruments that facilitate such initiatives, but also of the sociocultural frameworks that researchers draw upon and construct within their practices, and how these affect the shape and functionality of the final ‘products.’

PI: Kirsty Mills

A recently awarded NSF program, EESE: Nationwide Nanotechnology Ethics Education Development, will enable the dissemination of the course Societal and Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology to five other NNIN partner institutions. Developed by Prof. Kirsty Mills, the project PI, and offered for the first time in Fall 2005, this 3-credit graduate-level course prepares students for the rapidly evolving, multidisciplinary environment of nanotechnology. It develops their capacity for critical analysis and their awareness of the multiple issues they will meet as they work in nanotechnology. It also inculcates the flexibility and insight necessary to take an ethically responsible position when faced with unprecedented circumstances. A core course on the UNM’s Nanoscience and Microsystems NSMS curriculum, it is cross-listed in, and draws students from, both the School of Engineering, the School of Medicine, and the College of Arts and Sciences. A paper describing this course was given at the American Society of Engineering Education Conference in the summer of 2006 by Kirsty Mills and can be found in the resource database.

Nano Practioners' Ethics Perceptions (Stanford University)

PI: Robert McGinn

Through the means of a questionnaire, this project attempts to provide insights into the ethical concerns of nano-practitioners. Developed by Robert McGinn (mcginn at stanford.edu)at Stanford University, the questionnaire was administered throughout the NNIN network. Preliminary results will be posted on the portal soon!

'Where are we now? Where should we be going?' Conference on nano-SEI (Cornell University)

Organizers: Ron Kline (STS & Engineering), Ana Viseu

In celebration of its 30 year anniversary the Cornell Nanoscale Facility is hosting a one day conference on June 14 2007 to assess the current state and future directions of nanotechnoscience. The conference will focus on three themes of equal importance and weight—societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology, the future of nanofabrication, and medical applications for nanotechnology.  The SEI stream, organized by Ron Kline and Ana Viseu, has as its topic the following questions: 'Where are we now on nano-SEI? and, where should we be going?'. Among confirmed speakers are: Juergen Altmann (who will speak on the interplay of nano R&D and international security), Rosalyn Berne (who will discuss nano sci-fi as a portal to nano research), David Guston (Director of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University) and Priscilla Regan (NSF's Program Director of Science & Society).

Public Health and Nanotechnology Perceptions (University of Washington)

PI: Suzanne Brainard  

This study surveyed University of Washington faculty associated with the Center for Nanotechnology or the Department of Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences.  Faculty members (116) were invited to participate in an online or phone survey; 52 responded.  The study objectives were to measure and evaluate differences between nanotechnologists/nanoscientists and environmental health scientists in behavior, knowledge, beliefs and attitudes relating to nano-development.  The hypotheses were that 1) environmental health scientists would perceive greater risk and greater need for nano-development regulation and public awareness than would nanotechnologists/nanoscientists and that 2) nanotechnologists/nanoscientists would perceive greater benefit to nano-development than would environmental health scientists.  Variances in knowledge, communication, and attitudes including trust, regulation and perceived benefits and risks were examined in order to better understand cross-disciplinary differences.

The results of this study mirrored previous findings including that people with more knowledge of nanotechnology are more likely to think the benefits of nano-development will outweigh the risks, that there is a general lack of definition of nanotechnology among the field’s own community, and that there is lack of trust in regulatory agencies to prevent hazards from nano-development.  Results of this study also confirm findings from preliminary interviews that there is a lack of definition for nanotechnology and that researchers are reluctant to identify themselves primarily with nanotechnology or nanoscience.

Identifying and Analyzing the Discourse(s) of Nanotechnology and Nanoscience  (University of Washington)

PI: Suzanne Brainard  

 The research project entitled “Identifying and Analyzing the discourse(s) of nanotechnology and nanoscience” is ongoing.  This project is the basis for Deborah Bassett’s Ph.D. dissertation in communication. Fieldwork and data collection phase of the project will be finished shortly.

The study intends to: conduct an ethnography of communication that identifies the various discourses about social and ethical implications of nanotechnology and nanoscience (SEIN), and in so doing, provide a taxonomy that enables researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds to engage with each other, as well as with the media, and the public at large in meaningful discussion about nanotechnology and nanoscience. Drawing upon literature in intercultural communication, this study will identify what issues related to SEIN are considered significant within different discourse communities (e.g., nanoscientists, social scientists, ethicists, popular media, the public at large, etc.), describe how these issues are talked about (e.g., what imagery or metaphors are used to discuss SEIN), and suggest ways in which the various discourses might be appropriated in order to promote collaboration among the discourse communities (e.g., an interdisciplinary research team). 

Interdisciplinary Communication  (University of Washington)

PI: Suzanne Brainard  

This study surveyed University of Washington faculty associated with the Center for Nanotechnology or the Department of Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences.  Faculty members (116) were invited to participate in an online or phone survey; 52 responded.  The study objectives were to measure and evaluate differences between nanotechnologists/nanoscientists and environmental health scientists in behavior, knowledge, beliefs and attitudes relating to nano-development.  The hypotheses were that 1) environmental health scientists would perceive greater risk and greater need for nano-development regulation and public awareness than would nanotechnologists/nanoscientists and that 2) nanotechnologists/nanoscientists would perceive greater benefit to nano-development than would environmental health scientists.  Variances in knowledge, communication, and attitudes including trust, regulation and perceived benefits and risks were examined in order to better understand cross-disciplinary differences.

Nanotechnology Workforce (University of Washington)

PI: Suzanne Brainard 

A survey focusing on the nanotechnology personnel needs of companies and current demographics of the nanotechnology workforce at these same companies is in development.  A list of nanotechnology companies has been compiled, and the survey will be submitted for review by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Washington .  Some data on the future nanotechnology workforce has been collected from students in the University of Washington interdisciplinary nanotechnology Ph.D. program, and students who have taken nanotechnology courses.

Mentoring and Tracking of Nanotechnology Graduate Students (University of Washington)

PI: Suzanne Brainard 

In 2001, The Center for Workforce Development (CWD) partnered with the Center for Nanotechnology ( CNT ) at the University of Washington to develop a system to track student progress through the new, interdisciplinary program in Nanotechnology and to create the Nanotechnology Graduate Student Mentoring Program. The report linked below is the fifth annual report from the Center for Workforce Development detailing the major findings from student tracking and from the mentoring evaluations.