Center for Nanotechnology in Society
University of California, Santa Barbara
www.cns.ucsb.edu
WEEKLY CLIPS
January 14 - 28, 2008
Weekly Clips from CNS-UCSB are now available online:
http://www.cns.ucsb.edu/clips/
January 15, 2008
Setting the nanotech research agenda
By Andrew Maynard
In December 2003, President George W. Bush signed the Twenty-first Century
Nanotechnology Research & Development Act, establishing a framework for enabling
what some have described as "the next industrial revolution." Four years on, the act
is up for reauthorization. As legislators grapple with how the nanotechnology
landscape has changed in the intervening years, they face the complex task of
continuing to ensure U.S. leadership in the development of nanotechnologies that
are successful, sustainable, and above all, safe.
…Following the 2003 act, the federal government established two Centers for
Nanotechnology in Society--academic centers to explore the nano-social interface.
These centers--one at Arizona State University, the other at the University of
California Santa Barbara--have begun the long process of mapping out what issues
nanotechnology raises, and the dynamics of how people respond to and engage in
new nanotech developments. This capacity to observe the social integration of a new
technology firsthand is a unique experiment in itself, and is providing new
opportunities to develop an effective interplay between citizens and science. As
researchers at Arizona State University are discovering, this interplay is as much
about helping scientists consider a broader set of values in their work, as it is about
enabling citizens to make informed decisions. Both of these centers are in their
infancy, and there is a long way to go before the academic becomes the practical,
leading to widespread and informed engagement in the social side of making
nanotechnology work.
Now more than ever, the future of nanotechnology hangs on understanding the
potential risks, managing them effectively, and engaging stakeholders in the
decision-making process. But this progress will not happen spontaneously. The
country needs a strategy that ensures the right safety research is funded and that
the results are translated into sound policy decisions; a plan for informing and
engaging people on the future course of the technology; and the foresight to see
what nanotechnology could become, and how to get there.
http://www.thebulletin.org/columns/andrew-maynard/20080115.html
January 23, 2008
FDA Beginning to Address Nanotechnology
Regulatory Concerns
Groundbreaking Technology Presents Vexing Issues, FDLI Insighter
Article Concludes
WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of nanotech products, including foods, medicines and
medical devices, now have reached the market, and their number will grow
exponentially in the years ahead. But the main regulating body, the Food and Drug
Administration, is just beginning to address the unique issues presented by this
groundbreaking technology, according to an Insighter article, written by Beryl Lieff
Benderly, posted on the Food and Drug Law Institute's website, http://www.fdli.org.
In a July 2007 report, a special FDA nanotechnology task force concluded that, while
the agency has the capability to meet these challenges, it needs to take specific
action soon to get ready. However, according to the Insighter article, FDA has not
made public its plans for responding to the task force report. "We are beginning the
planning for the priority activities defined in the task force report," FDA spokesperson
Crystal Rice told FDLI.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/0123-2008/0004741385&EDATE=
January 28, 2008
Nanotechnology risks assessed by the World
Economic Forum
The World Economic Forum, whose 2008 Annual Meeting ended on Sunday, has
founded the Global Risk Network in 2004 in response to concern that the
international community and the global business community were not yet able to
respond adequately to a changing global risk landscape. The Program has moved
forward in partnership with Citigroup, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Merrill Lynch,
Swiss Re and the Center for Risk Management and Decision Processes, and Wharton
School. In an increasingly complex and interconnected global environment, risks can
no longer be contained within geographical or system boundaries. No one company,
industry or state can successfully understand and mitigate global risks. The World
Economic Forum, with numerous links to business networks, policy-makers and
government, NGOs and think-tanks, is in a unique position to advance new thinking
on global risks, to generate risk mitigation measures and to integrate current
knowledge on global risks. Over the past few years, the Global Risk Network team
has released an annual report. This years' report "Global Risks 2008" was published
two weeks ago. In it, as in previous years, nanotechnology was characterized as a
global core risk.
The report is based on input from a network of more than 100 top business leaders,
decision-makers, scientists and other leading academics convened throughout 2007
as part of the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Network. The topics identified in
the report were at the core of the agenda for this year's Annual Meeting.
Although nanotechnology has been included in the "Core Risks" group, it ranks well
below the majority of risks both on the 'severity' and 'likelihood' scales. The major
focus of the Global Risks 2008 report is on four emerging issues which will impact
the world economy and society in the decade ahead: systemic financial risk; food
security; supply chain vulnerability; and energy.
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=4246.php
January 23, 2008
The Strategic Risk of Nanotechnology
There has been much talk and hand-wringing about health and environmental risks
associated with nanotechnology, but fewer discussions focus on what is termed
"strategic risk." One definition of strategic risk, from a recent Ernst & Young report, is
"[a] risk that could cause severe financial loss or fundamentally undermine the
competitive position of a company" (1). Regulators and NGOs pay attention to health
risks, but strategic risks are the bread-and-butter of investors, insurers, Wall Street
analysts, and corporate boards. The insurance sector has been very clear that it
views nanotechnology as a looming issue. Lloyd's Emerging Risks Team just issued a
report on nano that noted that "due to the potential impact to the insurance industry
if something were to go wrong, nanotechnology features very highly in Lloyd's top
emerging risks" (2). Similarly, Zurich Insurance's Canadian office ranked nano in the
top tier of emerging global risks (along with climate change and deteriorating
infrastructure) (3).
All strategic risks are not created equal; they are affected by large macrotrends (such
as geopolitics) and vary based on industry sector and the operating strategies of
individual firms. Strategic risk is also composed of both real and perceived
components. Since perceptions can drive investments, grow markets, or kill stock
options, strategic risk analysis must consider public attitudes, media coverage, and
consumer whims, which are often fluid and difficult to quantify.
Since more and more sectors are now using nanotechnology in their products, it is
worth beginning to sort out the strategic risks. But how? We could fall back on the
work of the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who stipulated that, for many
phenomena, 20 percent of the people or activities accounts for 80 percent of the
results. Most of the risk associated with driving can be linked to errors made by a
small number of male, adolescent drivers; most of the risk associated with
developing lung cancer can be associated with smoking, even in moderate amounts;
etc. So Pareto's Principle would suggest that a few sectors account for a bulk of the
risk associated with nanotechnology (or a few firms, or a few products). But which
ones?
http://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=162
January 17, 2008
Marketing Nanotechnology Products to Consumers
- Why will they buy?
The consumer marketplace is becoming rich with nanotechnology-based or enhanced
products. In March 2006, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, a Washington,
D.C. initiative associated with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
released an impressive list of nanotechnology consumer products that could be
found in the marketplace from sunscreens to water repellant and stain-resistant
clothing to gum, car wax, sporting equipment and nanoparticle-laden cosmetics.
They all suggest significant strides from the scientific perspective - but from the
consumers' point of view the products are simply new or different versions of
products in an already crowded marketplace. Marketing these products successfully
to today's consumers is not like a field of dreams. You may build it, but in reality they
may not come.
The single point of all innovation, and what's missing for the many consumer-oriented
nanotechnology-based or enhanced products, is the creation of value for the
consumer. Unfortunately, the general public at large is either unaware of
nanotechnology or doesn't care.
http://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=159
January 15, 2008
Blog: No Nanoparticles Were Killed Writing This
Post
The Soil Association, Britain’s largest certifier of organic products, issued a press
release Tuesday proclaiming itself to be the “first organization in the world to ban
nanoparticles.” On closer inspection, that boiled down to the group saying it would
not allow its organic label to be used on any product containing synthetic particles
with a mean size of less than 200 nanometers or a “basic” size — whatever that
means — of less than 125 nanometers.
The Soil Association conceded this is a largely theoretical precautionary stand for
now since no food products sold in Britain are currently advertised as containing
such nano-additives. The handful of cosmetics that contain them, such as clear
sunscreens that use nano-scale titanium dioxide particles to shield the skin from
ultra-violet sunlight, do not claim to be organic. But, the organization said, initiative
“goes to the core of the organic movement’s values of protecting human health.”
The Soil Association’s concern, like that of many nanotechnology critics, is that a
variety of research studies have suggested ways that some man-made nanoparticles
might be harmful. The Soil Association expressed frustration that even though the
British Government had issued a position paper three years ago urging a cautious
approach, no regulations have been imposed to limit the use of nanoparticles in
commerce or to require labeling on products using such particles.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/no-nanoparticles-were-killed-writing-thispost/
January 18, 2007
Nanotechnology and toxicity: the growing need for
in vivo study
Toxicology is an interdisciplinary research field concerned with the study of the
adverse effects of chemicals on living organisms. It applies knowledge, methods and
techniques from such fields as chemistry, physics, material sciences, pharmacy,
medicine and molecular biology. Toxicology established itself in the last 25-30 years
as a testing science in the course of efforts of industrial nations to regulate toxic
chemicals. Particle toxicology, as a subdiscipline, developed in the context of lung
disease arising from inhalation exposure to dust particles of workers in the mining
industry. It later expanded to the area of air pollution. With the rapid development of
nanotechnology applications and materials, nanotoxicology is emerging as an
important subdiscipline of nanotechnology as well as toxicology. Most, if not all,
toxicological studies on nanoparticles rely on current methods, practices and
terminology as gained and applied in the analysis of micro- and ultrafine particles
and mineral fibers. Together with recent studies on nanoparticles, this has provided
an initial basis for evaluating the primary issues in a risk assessment framework for
nanomaterials. However, current toxicological knowledge about engineered
nanoparticles is extremely limited and traditional toxicology does not allow for a
complete understanding of the size, shape, composition and aggregation-dependent
interactions of nanostructures with biological systems. An understanding of the
relationship between the physical and chemical properties of nanostructures and
their in vivo behavior would provide a basis for assessing toxic response and more
importantly could lead to predictive models for assessing toxicity.
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=4132.php
January 24, 2008
From zero to hero: the renaissance of
nanotechnology
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (DTT) has published its 2008 Technology Predictions. The
study examines 10 emerging trends sure to have a major influence on the technology
sector. The report, which is available as a free download here, includes
recommendations from the DTT Technology, Media & Telecommunications industry
group on how to take advantage of these emerging trends.
One of the ten trends deals with nanotechnology. DTT writes:
The public image of nanotechnology – the manipulation of matter at the atomic or
molecular scale – has recently become tainted. This is despite mass market use of
nanotechnology-enabled products, from smoother sun cream to portable MP3
players and faster processors.
The impact of nanotechnology on new or improved products and services has already
been significant and its potential remains considerable. Matter behaves in
fundamentally different ways on the nanometer scale. Previously inert materials can
be transformed into catalysts; solids can become liquids, even at room temperature;
insulators can become conductors. According to advocates, nanotechnology could
even be the basis for the next industrial revolution.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=4202.php
January 25, 2008
What Did We Learn?
As enjoyable as it can be to construct future histories and stories of what the coming
years might hold, the goal of a scenario planning process is to help people make
better decisions by giving them a sense of the implications of different choices.
Throughout 2007, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology worked on assembling
a set of scenarios depicting a variety of near-term futures in which molecular
manufacturing — a nanoscale technology allowing atomically-precise, exponential
production of physical objects — becomes a reality. The eight different scenarios we
completed [1] offer a range of viewpoints about how such an advent of molecular
manufacturing might occur. As we've noted elsewhere [2], we chose a near-term
setting not because we thought it would be the most likely, but because we thought it
would be both the most disruptive to the status quo and the most amenable to a
foresight process (i.e., not already subject to too many other changes to make useful
scenarios impossible). Nonetheless, we believe that these near-term scenarios
provide lessons applicable to longer-range possibilities as well.
While the individual scenarios trigger their own particular conclusions, several
insights arise from looking at the set of scenarios as a whole.
http://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=165
January 15, 2008
Carothers: A bottom-up approach to
nanotechnology safety
Cambridge – You know that stain-repellant necktie you saw at the store this holiday
season? Well that very tie — which uses nanotechnology to enable that stain-resistant
power – may be causing your hometown to take measures to require a warning label
along with the sales receipt.
Within the next month, a panel of advisers to the Department of Public Health in
Cambridge will deliver a set of recommendations to the City Council on how to deal
with nanotechnology firms operating inside the city’s boundaries.
But Cambridge isn’t the first city to address uncertainties surrounding nanotech.
About a year ago the city of Berkeley, Calif., put in place the world’s first ordinance
requiring nanotech firms to disclose their activities. Berkeley’s mayor explained the
absence of federal action on nanotechnology forced the city’s hand: “If the federal
government isn’t going to do anything, it is up to us to step up.”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/opinions/x1295935520
January 2008
Good Governance: Evolution of the Nanoscale
Materials Stewardship Program
Governance issues are seldom the subject of wide consensus, and the question of
how best the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) should obtain needed
information and data on the human health and environmental implications of
nanoscale materials is no exception. EPA has considered the issue carefully and
believes, with good reason, that a voluntary approach makes the most sense at this
time. Not everyone agrees, however, and some urge EPA to exercise its statutory
authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to mandate the submission of
information and data, and to do so quickly. This article discusses the origins and
current status of EPA’s voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program
(“NMSP”), outlines the key issues EPA confronted in developing the Program, and
discusses the reasons why it is critically important for nanotechnology stakeholders
to participate in the Program early and robustly. While stakeholders may not agree on
what is the best way for EPA to obtain information on nanoscale materials, there is
broad consensus that NMSP participation is critically important to maintain the public
trust and confidence in this emerging technology, to provide EPA with needed
information and data, and to demonstrate that potentially more burdensome
rulemaking initiatives are not needed to achieve these goals.
http://www.nanolabweb.com/index.cfm/action/main.default.default/CFID/1409050
/CFTOKEN/51395353/index.html
January 28, 2008
EPA takes first step in filling nanotech information
gaps
Additional action urgently needed to ensure confidence in safety
WASHINGTON, DC—The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published today
in the Federal Register its plan for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The plan takes a positive first step by
offering industry, non-governmental organizations and other groups the opportunity
to voluntarily submit safety data on engineered nanoscale materials.
According to Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) Director David Rejeski,
“The information obtained under the stewardship program could help government
officials develop a better understanding of the risks and benefits posed by the novel
materials, but this voluntary program provides virtually no incentives for industry
participation. Swift action is needed now to ensure public and market confidence in
the safety of these materials. EPA officials first announced in June 2005 the agency’s
intention to launch the stewardship program, and at this point – almost three years
later – the need for action is that much greater.”
…In its announcement of the voluntary program, EPA also notes that it will not
change its policy on what constitutes a new chemical under TSCA. That policy, put
forward last year, says the agency will not consider size when deciding when a
chemical is a new chemical under TSCA – even though size is a determining factor in
what constitutes a nanomaterial. If a substance is determined to be new under TSCA,
it can result in extensive first-time testing to determine the risks posed by the
substance.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/poen-etf012808.php
January 28, 2008
EPA's voluntary program for nanomaterials still too
little, too late
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) long-awaited voluntary reporting
program for engineered nanomaterials will not deliver critically needed information
and serves only to postpone key decisions on how best to mitigate nanotechnology’s
potential risks to human health and the environment, according to Environmental
Defense. The group harshly criticized the EPA’s new Nanoscale Materials
Stewardship Program, which is described in a notice published in today’s Federal
Register.
“EPA is simply ‘kicking the can down the road’ by shunning approaches that could
have delivered needed information faster, and by opting instead to pursue an openended approach with no end in sight,” said Richard A. Denison, Ph.D., Environmental
Defense Senior Scientist.
Nanomaterials are already showing up in hundreds of consumer products, ranging
from paints to cosmetics to stain-resistant treatments for clothing. Initial studies
show that some of them may be able to enter the body and even individual cells and,
once there, cause damage.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=4251.php
January 26, 2008
Blog: Synthetic biology and nanotechnology
The popular computer game “SimLife” allows users to create and manipulate virtual
people. But what are the chances of us one day being able to do the same with real
organisms: building new life-forms out of basic chemicals, so “SimLife” becomes
“SynLife”?
This week’s announcement by J. Craig Venter’s team (and the associated paper in
Science) that they have successfully synthesized the complete genome of the
bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium is an important step towards achieving what is
becoming known as “synthetic biology”. By constructing complete DNA sequences
from scratch, the door is being opened to transforming common laboratory chemicals
into new living organisms; that are engineered with specific purposes in mind. And
perhaps not surprisingly, this manipulation of DNA at the nanoscale is increasingly
being seen as part of the “nanotechnology revolution”.
But is synthetic biology really nanotechnology?
…If you consider nanotechnology to be the intentional manipulation of matter at the
nanoscale and the exploitation of resulting material properties, then synthetic biology
certainly begins to sound like nanotech. In contrast to “natural” biology, synthetic
biology aims to construct with intent the DNA code of brand new life forms, which will
quite literally have functionality that has been engineered-in at a nanometer scale.
And the long-term vision of synthetic biology is to create DNA sequences that will lead
to new proteins, precisely engineered to undertake specific tasks.
If this is not nanotechnology, I don’t know what is.
http://community.safenano.org/blogs/andrew_maynard/archive/2008/01/26/synt
hetic-biology-and-nanotechnology.aspx
January 15, 2008
Nanotechnology Roadmap Unveiled
The Ministry of Science and Technology said Tuesday that South Korea will try to
become one of the three leading nations in the field of nanotechnology by 2020.
A nationwide roadmap for the research and development of the related technologies
has been drawn up by 83 scientists and other experts over the past two years, the
ministry said. The roadmap expects that Korean companies and institutions using
various nanotechnology will earn about $260 billion a year by around 2015 and
$500 billion in 2020, about 20 percent of the global market.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/tech_view.asp?newsIdx=17333&cate
goryCode=129
January 28, 2008
On the impacts of nanotechnology
Barry Castleman, an environmental consultant and expert on workplace
health hazards, tells Arnab Pratim Dutta about nanotechnology’s
impacts
We hear about nanotechnology everywhere but we seldom hear of its impacts. Is it
good or bad?
We are just beginning to understand the nature and the extent of adverse effects
that nanomaterials can cause. Nanomaterials, as the name suggests, are so small
that they can easily pass through the cell wall. They are also capable of crossing the
blood-brain barrier—a membrane in brain capillaries that normally doesn’t allow any
toxic particle in the bloodstream to enter into the brain.
Hence they represent a particular level of threat. But we are yet to know whether the
technology is good or bad. I expect both. This will depend on its applications: whether
its use as solar collectors and in medical applications will come up first or its
indiscriminate commercial use in the cosmetics sector and household appliances will
unleash some kind of tragedy.
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/interview1.asp?foldername=20080131&filename=n
ews&sec_id=14&sid=15
January 21, 2008
‘Nanotech evolved over billions of years’
Nanotechnology might have become the buzzword today but few are aware that it
was in use in ancient times for producing a number of products. Of late, scientists
have not only rediscovered it, they have also reinvented it to keep in pace with
changing times, claims American chemist and Nobel Laureate, Robert Floyd Curl Jr of
Rice University. Curl is known for his contributions to microwave and laser
spectroscopy and the discovery of the first fullerene—the third known form of pure
carbon (after diamond and graphite) in 1985. Curl’s initial work was on small clusters
of atoms of semiconductors, such as germanium and silicon. For his contributions,
Curl shared the 1996 Nobel Prize for chemistry with Smalley and Harold Kroto. Later
work on the discovery by other scientists developed fullerene chemistry, devoted to
the use of fullerenes in the production of superconductors, industrial catalysts, and
nanotubes. Curl was in India recently to participate in the 95th Indian Science
Congress in Visakhapatnam. In an interview to Ashok B Sharma, he outlines the
future prospects of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Excerpts…
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/-Nanotech-evolved-over-billions-of-years/263815/
January 17, 2008
Russia's science minister sets $41 bln
nanotechnology target
Moscow - Russia's annual nanotechnology production must reach at least 1 trillion
rubles ($41 billion) by 2015, Russia's science and education minister said on
Thursday.
Following a government session on nanotechnology development in Russia, Andrei
Fursenko said the figure was attainable, if ambitious, and could be achieved if the
industry received the necessary legal backing for its development, including a
development program to run until 2015, as well as further financial support by the
government.
The nanotechnology development program forecasts that Russia's annual output in
the sector will reach 900 billion rubles by 2015, and the share of Russian
nanotechnology produce in different sectors should be no less than 3% of the world
hi-tech market.
http://en.rian.ru/science/20080117/97198688.html
January 18, 2008
$36Bln Set Aside for Nanotechnology
The Cabinet on Thursday gave the nod to ambitious measures aimed at boosting
sales in the country's nanotechnology sector at least 130-fold in the next seven
years.
According to the plan, sales of materials and equipment based on nanotechnology
will rise to 900 billion rubles, or about $36 billion, by 2015, the government said on
its web site. The total for last year was 7 billion rubles.
Education and Science Minister Andrei Fursenko was even more ambitious,
predicting after the Cabinet session that the sales would grow to 1 trillion rubles.
The government's plan focuses on funding research and expanding the number of
companies producing new materials and equipment commercially. There are
currently 75 Russian firms involved in the sector, including steelmaker Severstal.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2008/01/18/041.html
January 26, 2008
Make India a significant player in nanotechnology:
Kalam
Hyderabad: Government and private sector should join hands and carry out focussed
research to make India a significant player in nanotechnology, former President A P J
Abdul Kalam said on Saturday.
"Only a few institutions are currently contributing towards advancement in
nanotechnology in the country. An action plan needs to be prepared to make India a
significant player in the field," he said, addressing a conference at the National
Institute of Technology at Warangal.
The country can make rapid strides if the government and industry joined hands as
nanotechnology will be the central focus for many technologies to converge. The next
ten years will see nano technology playing the most dominant role in the global
business environment, Kalam said.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200801262240.htm
January 24, 2008
Big Plans for Tiny Science; Nanotechnology May
Change Our Lives And We're Leading the Way
IT IS set to revolutionise the treatment of cancer and many scientists believe it will
even produce a cure, yet most people know very little about the world of
nanotechnology.
From life-saving treatment to computer chips and lightweight tennis rackets the
results of nano research are slowly becoming part of our daily lives.
And yesterday a new E100million global centre dedicated exclusively to
nanotechnology opened in Dublin.
…The main hope for this would be with cancer. The problem with treating cancer is
that current drugs affect both healthy and sick cells. In future the hope would be to
use nano drugs to target the cancer cells only, he said. That really would allow a
patient to be treated and managed in a much more sensitive and creative way.
http://www.smalltimes.com/news/display_news_story.cfm?Section=WireNews&Cate
gory=HOME&NewsID=156535
January 17, 2008
Report highlights Ohio's nanotechnology strengths
and growth
According to a report published today by NorTech and the Nano-Network, Ohio
exhibits significant strengths in nanotechnology research, development,
commercialization and entrepreneurship; and Northeast Ohio, in particular, is a
leader in nanotech innovation. Through better cross-pollination of Ohio's regions and
sectors, the State has the potential to become an even greater national player in
nanotechnology.
The report, entitled, "The Northeast Ohio Nanotechnology Report" is the result of a
strategic planning exercise conducted by the NanoBusiness Alliance and funded by
the Generation Foundation. The study examined the nanotechnology landscape in
Northeast Ohio and Ohio overall as compared to peer regions (Central Ohio, greater
Chicago, Detroit/Ann Arbor and Pittsburgh) as well as other Midwest/neighboring
states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Pennsylvania) in the areas of
research funding and publications, academic patents, the concentration of small to
mid size nanotechnology companies, the nanotech-related activity of large technology
corporations, venture capital investment, and workforce.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=4126.php
The trademarks and logos identified in this publication are the property of their
respective owners. The views presented by the selection and arrangement of
materials here do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation or
The Regents of the University of California.
To be removed from this email list, please reply to valerie@cns.ucsb.edu