Send Orders for Reprints to
[email protected] Current Bionanotechnology, 2016, 2, 00-00
1
Current Trends in Nanoeducation for Industry and Society Ineke Malsch1,*, Dorota Rutkowska-Zbik2, Martin Himly3, Costas Kiparissides4, Olga Kammona4, Bartomiej Szafran5, Iseult Lynch6, Frederick Ntow7, Paula Queipo Rodriguez8 , Moshe Talesnik9 and David Rosenberg9 Albert Duschl3 1
Malsch TechnoValuation, Vondellaan 90, 3521 GH Utrecht, The Netherlands; 2Jerzy Haber Institute of Catalysis and Surface Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Niezapominajek 8, 30-239 Krakow, Poland; 3Immunology and Allergy Division, Department of Molecular Biology, Paris-LodronUniversity Salzburg, Hellbrunner Strasse 34, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; 4Chemical Process & Energy Resources Institute (CPERI), Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH), 6th km CharilaouThermi Rd, 57001 Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece; 5Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, AGH University of Science and Technology, Al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059, Krakow, Poland; 6School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, B15 2TT Birmingham, United Kingdom; 7Nanotechnology Industries Association NIA, Brussels, Belgium; 8 PRODINTEC, Parque Científico Tecnológico de Gijón, zona INTRA. Avda. Jardín Botánico, 1345, 33203 Gijón, Asturias, Spain; 9Moshinsky R&D Center ORT Israel, 28 Hatayasim Rd. Tel Aviv, Israel
Ineke Malsch
Abstract: The article reflects on current international trends in higher education in nanotechnology based on stakeholder discussions held within the EU funded project NanoEIS: Nanotechnology Education for Industry and Society. The discussions with stakeholders reflects on the main issues emerging from this project, that also includes surveys investigating the connection between university education in nanotechnology and the demands of the labour market for personnel with nanotechnology training. The project’s recommendations include a model curriculum for nanoeducation at BSc, MSc and PhD level. The modular organisation of this curriculum increases the opportunities for incorporating elements into current or new nanotechnology courses or as specialisation in disciplinary courses in physics, chemistry, biology, materials science, engineering, etc. Stakeholder comments suggest that there may be interest in developing nanotechnology courses at universities of applied science and in lifelong learning institutions. In addition, university professors in other countries show interest in setting up their own curricula, learning from the best practices in Europe.
Keywords: Nanotechnology, higher education, industry, society, stakeholders, nanosafety. Received: January 14, 2016
Revised: March 24, 2016
INTRODUCTION While no comprehensive catalogue of nanotechnology courses offered by universities exists, Kiparissides and Kamona identified 27 Bachelor courses in European countries and 17 in North America1. They also found 106 MSc and PhD courses in Europe and 35 in North America. European universities furthermore offered 5 other degree courses and North American universities 25 other courses related to “nano”. This gives an indication of the current offer of nanoeducation by universities in these countries that were covered by their study. In the NanoEIS project, we investigated the connection of the existing courses to the needs of the labour market for nanotechnology experts in industry and other non-academic employers2 [1, 2]. To obtain this data, the NanoEIS project conducted three surveys: A survey among industry representatives was held from January to June 2013. This was filled in by 67 respondents from 15 countries including 61% SME, 10% spin-off, 19% large industry, 9% association [3]. A survey of universities offering nanotechnology education was held from March to December 2013. This was filled in by 43 respondents, including 35 *Address correspondence to this author at the Malsch TechnoValuation, Vondellaan 90, 3521 GH Utrecht, The Netherlands; Tel: +31 30 2819820; Fax: +31 842 137482; E-mail:
[email protected] 1 Kiparissides C, Kammona O. Nanoeducation report. Nanofutures, 2011, www.nanofutures.eu 2 www.nanoeis.eu 2213-5294/16 $58.00+.00
Accepted: March 24, 2016
from Europe covering Germany, Denmark, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Austria, France, Ireland, Israel, Norway, UK, Turkey, Poland, Bulgaria [4]. A survey among students and graduates of nanotechnology courses was held from March to December 2013. This was answered by 317 respondents, including 139 from Europe (44 graduates and 95 students, 43 women and 96 men) [5]. In addition we investigated case studies of good practice examples in the EU Member and Associated States based on the expert knowledge of the project participants. Industrial employers reported strong needs to recruit expertise in various nanotechnological areas. Both now and in 5 years’ time, Health/Safety is topic number one. In 5 years, nanotechnology industry expects to recruit experts in: 1) Health and Safety, 2) Regulation and Standardization and 3) Environment, Disposal, Recycling. However, this is not at all coherent with present nanotechnology course content as reported by the university professors responsible for the courses currently available. About half of existing courses claim to develop health and safety issues to some extent, while none of them includes skills in environment, disposal and recycling. In addition, we found that the most important factor for smooth hiring of graduates by industry was direct involvement of industry in teaching [5]. During the course of the project, we organised four stakeholder engagement sessions to get feedback on preliminary findings and recommendations including a model cur© 2016 Bentham Science Publishers
2 Current Bionanotechnology, 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1
riculum for BSc, MSc and PhD levels [6]. The first session was a NanoEIS stakeholder workshop “Responsive Tertiary Nano-Education”, held at Business Centre Rudolf Magnus, Utrecht, The Netherlands, on 24 November 2014, with 9 participants engaged in curriculum development at a university of applied science and in the nanoindustry and research sectors. The second session was a webinar with 6 participants on 24 February 2015 about the same topic. The third was a session on nanoeducation and infrastructure needs during the EuroNanoforum 2015 conference in Riga, Latvia, on 10 June 2015, including two presentations on NanoEIS results, with around 100 participants including researchers, industry representatives and policy makers. The fourth session was a discussion on nanoeducation during the ESFEMBO conference on nanomaterials and the immune system in Pultusk, Poland, on 5 October 2015, with 40 participants, predominantly researchers and PhD students. The present article reflects on issues that were raised during these stakeholder engagement sessions. AIMS OF NANOEDUCATION During the highly international ESF-EMBO conference in Pultusk and the predominantly Dutch NanoEIS workshop in Utrecht, participants questioned the perceived strategic focus of the NanoEIS project. The emphasis on the presentations on industry needs for nanotechnology skills and measures to facilitate the transfer from university education regarding industry has raised the question as to what the ultimate goal of academic education should be: profit-making, the pursuit of knowledge or responsible innovation? In line with EU policies fostering nanotechnology and the scope of the NanoEIS project: nanotechnology education for industry and society, the short answer is: all of these. More extensively, the need for nanoeducation follows the maturity of the technology. Accordingly, in the period 20002010, the focus was on nanoscience at universities and research centres and building up capacity including numbers of academic researchers with nanotechnology knowledge and skills. For example, the EU Action Plan for Nanotechnology 2005-2009 included the objective: “Interdisciplinary Human Resource Development” [7]. Lux Research estimated that by 2009, worldwide private investment in nanotechnology surpassed public investment for the first time3. Crawley and colleagues considered that public investments could still dominate in later years, because private investments in R&D were more sensitive to the economic crisis. By then, several industrial companies made use of public funding for nanotechnology to a considerable extent [8]. Currently, the emphasis has shifted towards nanotechnology and nanoinnovation in research centres and large and small industrial companies. Rudolf Strohmeier, Deputy Director General for Research Programmes of the European Commission stressed that “the main theme of EuroNanoForum 2015 is the renewal of Europe's manufacturing industries and the contribution of nanotechnologies and advanced materials to innovation in manufacturing across all industrial sectors” [9]. The recently published “Implementation Roadmap on value chains and related pilot lines” for nanotechnology also targets more
Malsch et al.
advanced research in research centres and industry [10]. This implies an increasing demand for personnel with nanotechnology knowledge and skills in industry. Given the uncertainty of the potential risks presented by nanomaterials and the appropriateness of current regulations to govern these risks, regulatory bodies and other public and civil society organisations also need staff with some training in nanotechnology [1]. The United Nations Institute for Training and Research recommends offering training in nanosafety for professionals who will need to handle or make decisions regarding nanobased products. These include industrial hygienists, health specialists, researchers in nanomedicine, employees of companies and organisations handling nanomaterials, customs officers and environmental specialists [11]. JOB MARKET FOR NANOSPECIALISTS While it was perfectly appropriate to teach skills in knowledge creation to students destined for academic jobs in the past, the capacity for absorbing more academic nanoscientists may be getting saturated at least in Europe. In other parts of the world, the job market for nanoscientists may still be different. NanoEIS found that 54% of graduates of nanotechnology curricula in the period 2010-2013 ended up in research, academia and education, 23% in industry, 14% in R&D companies and 9% in other jobs including management, finance, consulting and other public services [4]. Participants in the session at Utrecht had not come across a recruitment problem in industry for nanospecialists. Graduates need work experience to get a job. They suggested teaching students to start their own company. In five years they expect that more nano-BScs and MScs will be needed. Opinions differed as to whether there will be plenty of jobs in industry while nanotechnology is in its infancy. Currently, maybe ten big companies in the Netherlands could be interested in hiring those students. Start-ups may be booming in five years. Participants considered the job market for nanotechnology bachelors to be currently very limited, students should be advised to pursue a masters degree before applying for jobs in industry. SCOPE OF THE CURRICULUM The cases studied in the NanoEIS project and the experience of stakeholders demonstrate that the length of the curriculum determines the feasibility of incorporating soft skills and internships in addition to the more classical core subjects. Three year Bachelor courses turn out to be too short, while 3.5-4 year Bachelors do include these additional skills. Internships were also more feasible for small numbers of students than for large groups. Participants at the EMBO-ESF meeting in Pultusk stressed the difference in scope of professional courses including pharmacy, medicine and biotechnology compared to academic courses such as biology, physics and chemistry regarding training in analytical skills. Soft skills and internships were natural ingredients of the former, but expected to be acquired during employment post-graduation for the latter. It is a matter for discussion whether nanotechnology merits a professional or an academic curriculum. OVERCOMING UNIVERSITY HURDLES
3
Lux Research. Global Nanotech Spending. presented at EuroNanoForum 2011 conference. 30 May 2011
The surveys carried out within NanoEIS reveal a mismatch in what university professors consider relevant topics in a
Current Trends in Nanoeducation for Industry and Society
nanotechnology curriculum and what industry and students consider important. Stakeholders in Utrecht, Riga and Pultusk discussed the main hurdles preventing changes in university curricula and made suggestions for overcoming them. One issue is the traditional division between technical and social faculties. Inter- and transdisciplinary research programmes such as the Dutch NanoNextNL4 could offer a stimulating environment for incorporating soft skills including business development and safety and society aspects in technological curricula. The conservative attitude to changing the curriculum among many university lecturers may be overcome topdown by university administrators offering financial incentives to change them, or via accreditation requirements for example for achieving professional degree status (see above). Thus, industry could plan an important role in defining the criteria for professional nanotechnologists. ENGAGING INDUSTRY The NanoEIS project resulted in recommendations for improving industry engagement in nano-education at universities, in particular through lectures by industry experts and internships in industry. The focus was on actions that could be implemented at the university side. Participants in the discussions with stakeholders suggested some contributions to be made by industrial companies. Nanofutures president Matteazzi recommended coordination of the nanoeducation roadmap with the product roadmap for value chains [12]. According to him, the required nanoeducation depends on the needs of the company and the value chain it operates in, but includes hard as well as soft skills including safety, regulation, and building a supply chain. Regional specialisation in nanoeducation is important and could be linked to the smart specialisation policy fostering links between regional centres of excellence and industry5. Likewise, participants in Utrecht stressed the need to distinguish the location of the company in the value chains for nanomaterials and nanotechnologies, because producers of nanomaterials had different skills needs than enduser companies incorporating nanotechnologies in their products. The role of industry in nanoeducation is summarised in the Nanofutures roadmap. In the short term (2015-2018), they recommend industry outreach to university training and promoting education, training activities and industry-academia exchanges on nanostructured surfaces and nanocoatings. In the medium term (2018-2020), they propose the promotion of effective communication, education, training and industryacademia exchanges, as well as harmonization and standardisation of protocols and development of a working agenda for education and training on real-life scenarios in several sectors. In the long term (2020-2022) they recommend education on marketing and communication skills in NMP fields [10]. Participants in Pultusk were sceptical about the profitdriven motivation of industry for engaging in education at universities. Companies might only be interested in giving lectures in connection to public-private research projects in cooperation with the university. In addition, PhD students working in or with industry are sometimes confronted with obstacles and delays in publication, thereby putting their 4
www.nanonextnl.nl http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10157/cc413932-4bea-4ee2a628-cdf373a36780
5
Current Bionanotechnology, 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1
3
chances for an academic career at risk. Some favoured more cooperation between industry and academia in order to overcome the gap between science and innovation, while others emphasised the need for universities to foster knowledge creation and responsible research. In any case, engaging industry in nanoeducation should be a matter of careful consideration taking into account all pros and cons. This debate is not new however, and links back to ongoing issue of universities versus applied universities/polytechnics and or research-intensive versus teaching-focussed universities and their respective roles and merits. Indeed, the different sectors may have different requirements for education of appropriate workforces as indicated above, that will be picked up further below. LIFELONG LEARNING AND PUBLIC AWARENESS NanoEIS did not focus on lifelong learning and public awareness raising of nanotechnology, even though the latter can be a side effect of the proposed introduction of a nanotechnology module at secondary schools [13]. Respondents to the NanoEIS study on non-industrial employer needs for nanoeducation and stakeholders in Utrecht and Pultusk suggested that there may be a need for short professional courses or training on the job in nanotechnology. Some courses and training sessions are reportedly already offered by industry associations, professional societies, or commercial training companies. Mapping of this current offer could be the topic of a follow-up study. UNIVERSITIES OF APPLIED SCIENCE While the scope of the NanoEIS study was limited to university and secondary education in nanotechnology, participants in Utrecht and Pultusk were engaged in nanotechnology curricula at universities of applied science, including one that was still in the development phase. They were interested in learning from experience at universities, while adapting their programmes to the more practical level of their engineering students. In both cases, industry involvement in planning the curriculum, in lectures and internships appeared to be easier than at universities. As more and more companies incorporate nanotechnology in their products, follow-up study on nanotechnology courses at universities of applied science is recommended. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION Eight out of 43 university representatives (19%) and 178 out of 317 students and graduates (56%) responding to NanoEIS surveys were from outside the EU Member and Associated States. This indicates a considerable interest in international cooperation in nanoeducation. Several cases of industry engagement in nanoeducation identified in the project were offered by universities in the USA. Several of the online courses and materials collected as part of the NanoEIS model curriculum are also offered by institutions outside the EU. American participants in Pultusk expressed interest in exchanging experiences. The EU funded project NMP-DeLA developed recommendations for standardising education in nanotechnology at international level in cooperation with Latin America and other world regions6. While outside the scope of the NanoEIS project, exploration of opportunities 6
NMP-DeLA. Standardising education in nanotechnology. Fact sheet no. 2 August 2015. NMP-DeLA project http://www.ethicschool.nl/_files/NMPDeLA%20Factsheetnanoeducationfinal.pdf (accessed 1-12-2015)
4 Current Bionanotechnology, 2016, Vol. 2, No. 1
for international cooperation in nanoeducation could be the topic of follow-up study.
Malsch et al. [2]
CONCLUSIONS During the NanoEIS project, a start has been made with mapping the connection between nanotechnology education provision currently with the needs of the labour market now and in the immediate future (5 years’ timeframe). The collected evidence supports the hypothesis that nanotechnology is maturing, bringing with it a gradual shift in employment opportunities from academia to industry and other nonacademic employers. While universities have been the first to offer nanotechnology curricula, evidence suggests that this experience and vested interests of lecturers may limit their flexibility in adapting to the changing needs of the labour market. Universities of Applied Science and institutions offering lifelong learning that have more recently entered the market for nanoeducation and training may be able to fulfil the needs more quickly. However, some experts suggest that in the short term the required qualifications of staff with education in nanotechnology may at least be a university master-level plus work experience. The emerging maturity of the field also suggests that now is the appropriate time to discuss and agree internationally whether nanotechnology should be an academic or professional qualification and if the latter, to determine the minimum professional criteria and experiences that need to be provided to students as part of their professional training.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] [7]
[8]
[9]
CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors confirm that this article content has no conflict of interest.
[10]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
[11]
The project nanoEIS and the results discussed in this article received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n°319054. .
[12]
REFERENCES
[13]
[1]
Malsch I. Nano-Education in Europe: nano-training for non-R&D jobs. Nanotechnology Reviews 2014; 3 2: 211-221
Malsch I,Rutkowska-Zbik D, Duschl A, Himly M, Zadrozny T, Kiparissides C, Kammona O, Talesnik M, Rothschild Y, Rosenberg D, Szafran B, Queipo Rodriguez P, Lynch I. Nanotechnology educational gaps for industry and society.InMullins M, Murphy F, McAlea EM. Eds.Managing Risk in Nanotechnology: Topics in Governance,Assurance and Transfer. Springer series Innovation, Technology and Knowledge Management. Dordrecht: Springer Forthcoming. Queipo P, Piquero JC, Casasola R, Zadrozny T, Kiparissides C, Kammona O, Ntow F, Friedrichs, S. Report on European Industry Needs. NanoEIS deliverable D2.1. June 2013, http://www.nanoeis.eu/downloads (accessed 1-12-2015) Szafran B, Wojcik P, Spisak, B, Griffin, K, Rutkowska-Zbik, D. Report on factors favouring specific desired outcomes for nanotechnology programmes at universities. NanoEIS deliverable D3.3. October 2014b.http://www.nanoeis.eu/downloads (accessed 1-12-2015) Szafran B, Wojcik P, Spisak B, Griffin K,Rutkowska-Zbik D. Report on implementation strategies for nanotechnology programmes at universities. NanoEIS deliverable D3.2. October 2014.http://www.nanoeis.eu/downloads (accessed 1-12-2015) Rutkowska-Zbik D. Nanotechnology curriculum. NanoEIS project D4.1. November 2015.http://www.nanoeis.eu/downloads (accessed 1-12-2015) EC. Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a Code of Conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels: European Commission C(2008) 424 final http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/thepolicy_en.html#code (accessed 1-12-2015) Crawley T, Koponen P, Tolvas L, Marttila T. Background Paper 2: Finance and Investor Models in Nanotechnology. OECD/NNI International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology.Washington DC: 27-28 March 2012. http://www.oecd.org/sti/nano/internationalsymposiumonassessingth eeconomicimpactofnanotechnology.htm (accessed 1-12-2015) Strohmeier RW.EuroNanoForum 2015 Speech. Conference ProceedingsEuroNanoforum 2015. Riga, Latvia: 10-12 June 2015.http://euronanoforum2015.eu/presentations/(accessed 1-122015) Nanofutures. Implementation roadmap on value chains and related pilot lines. Brussels:Nanofutures Association 2015www. nanofutures.eu (accessed 1-12-2015) UNITAR. Guidance for Developing a National Nanotechnology Policy and Programme. Pilot edition 2011. Geneva: UNITAR http://www2.unitar.org/cwm/publications/Nano.aspx(accessed 112-2015) Matteazzi P. Education and skills from an industrial point of view. Conference ProceedingsEuroNanoforum 2015. Riga, Latvia: 10-12 June 2015.www.euronanoforum2015.eu/presentations (accessed 112-2015) Talesnik M, Rosenberg D. Report on Recommendations for Secondary Schools, NanoEIS deliverable D6.1, October 2015, http://www.nanoeis.eu/downloads (accessed 1-12-2015)
