Q: (Initially posted June 14, 2004) FROM STUDENT MEMBER ALEXIS K. IN VA
Thank you to everyone for helping me get deeper into nanotechnology
understanding. My class presentation was so much fun to do because I love
the subject. It was awesome to teach and get the entire class (and teacher)
really into something they had not heard of before. My teacher said
congratulations - he hadn't before seen a student taught subject get the
whole class so charged. It was really fun. Thank you for bringing up this
question and getting me started with something new.
But now the problem and the question.
I am so excited about nanotechnology and nano-applications. Mentor Jean
Brosch told me about Purdue University (thank you) but now I would like to
know how I can get an entire list of colleges that teach nano stuff. I also
need to know a lot more about how to build up to going into nanotechnology.
Do I need to be a physicist, chemist, biologist, geologist, computer
scientist, all of the above, because I see all of it involved. I like the
idea of doing several science directions at once but how would I know which
one needs to be my main science? This reminds me of another great mentor
answer about a cicada question (except that I think the mentor was talking
me out of working no more than only every 13 or 17 years!). Mentor Joan Lusk
said, "One of the wonderful aspects of biology is that you can study it as a
mathematician, modeling stuff like these cycles, or as a chemist, studying
the molecules and reactions of life, or as a visual artist doing anatomy and
microscopy, or an animal (or plant) lover relating to individual animals (or
plants), or as someone who can make the grand synthesis from molecules to organisms to ecosystems." I'm not grand but I like synthesizing information.
think maybe this is why nanotechnology is so interesting - it's so synthetic
(why does that sound odd?). But it is and that is awesome. OK, so please
help me connect the nano-dots and tell me lots more about nanotech careers,
nano-schools, and classes needed. More is better.

P.S.In all my nanotech research, I didn't find one female scientist
mentioned, quoted, pictured, in charge of projects - nothing. This is no
nano-problem.

June 21, 2004
A: FROM MENTOR JOAN LUSK IN RI
Thank you Alexis!

At first I thought "what a paradox! Nanotechnology _synthetic_ when
it seems so analytic to me!" But upon reflection, of course all
those nano-objects are synthetic; and on the broader scale,
nanotechnology's applicability to so many different fields is a
unified approach to diverse questions. that's probably how you see
it as synthetic. The ultimate test of analysis is, can you put the
parts back together and have them function as a whole. The more I
think about it the more I agree with you: nanotechnology is synthetic.

I can't be very specific about how to get started in such a new
field. The borders between fields are getting so blurry. If you
want to make a macromolecular assembly that performs some function -
a nano-switch, a nano-machine, a nano-chip - you can look at it as a
big, big chemistry problem or a tiny engineering problem. You might
encounter new physics problems, since, for example, the effects of
viscosity on moving parts are different at such small scales. In one
sense, "nanotechnology" is in the situation of "applied mathematics"
(one of our fields here at Brown) - it's a way of approaching
problems that could be in almost any traditional field.

So if the technology itself is what inspires you, you should look for
universities with good engineering or materials science programs
where faculty are doing things that inspire you. Your curriculum is
likely to include a minor field and/or elective courses, which could
be in one or more of the sciences to which you might apply your
nano-skills.

(I see a whole new area of wordplay opening up here. In the old days
we made jokes about the tiny size of microbiologists... but they are
giants compared to nanotechnicians!)

[As for the lack of women currently involved in nanotechnology read on...]

You can be part of the solution. Look at how many women now are in
biology and medicine, when a generation ago they were hardly to be
found. Several generations ago this chemistry department was headed
by a man who swore there would be no women in it; now about half the
undergraduate and graduate students are women. Engineering as a
field has been overwhelmingly male, but I'm positive that there is no
good biological reason for that. It's social effects, not biology,
that keep women from any career. Go back 150 years and all the
secretaries and most teachers were men. Go back to WWII and Rose the
Riveter did "a man's job". The post office now has "letter carriers"
and nobody thinks it's odd to have a woman mailman. In science, men
are quite capable of being good mentors to women students (I didn't
say _all_ men; one has to choose carefully). And your male
contemporaries are more willing to believe in women's abilities than
they were a couple of generations ago. So do what inspires you!
********************
A: FROM MENTOR NATALIE GIVANS IN VA
I recommend that Alexis look at MIT - they have a new nanotechnology lab
in the main building of the campus and a terrific and rich set of
interdisciplinary programs across all of the departments.

One interesting link is as follows:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/deshpande-0414.html

You can also go to www.mit.edu and search under research and department
topics for more information.