THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
January 11, 2005
Mr. Bruce Johnson, Director
Ohio Department of Development
77 South High Street, 29th Floor
P.O. Box 1001
Columbus, OH 43216-0101
Dear Mr. Johnson,
I am writing to transmit the first of two reports of the work of the Committee for the Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s Wright Centers of Innovation Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Award Program.1 This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the State of Ohio, Department of Development.
Formed under the auspices of the National Academies’ Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB), the committee met December 15 and 16, 2004 in Washington D.C. to review and reach consensus on the nine proposals submitted to the Ohio Department of Development Wright Centers of Innovation Award FY2005 program. The proposals were evaluated relative to the criteria, goals, and priorities as outlined in the FY2005 request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Ohio Department of Development.
The Ohio Department of Development Wright Centers of Innovation Award program is a competition to fund innovative centers that have commercial potential, will create jobs, and will benefit the people of Ohio. Specifically, the overall objective of the physical science portion of the Wright Centers Award is to strengthen Ohio’s national and global position in four physical science core competencies that the state currently possesses: information technology; power and propulsion; advanced materials; and instruments, controls, and electronics.
The Ohio Department of Development asked the National Academies to conduct an independent technical and program review of the nine proposals submitted in response to an RFP issued for the FY2005 award program with an emphasis on the proposals’ commercial potential. To answer this charge, ASEB appointed a 14-member committee with collective expertise across the breadth of the physical sciences addressed in the proposals.
The committee was asked to assess how well each proposal met the criteria of the RFP and to identify the proposals with the greatest technical and commercial merit, which would then be considered for funding by the Ohio Department of Development. The committee was asked to
Committee members and their brief biographies are listed in Attachment 1.
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s 2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program: Letter Report THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Keck 1002-A Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202 334 2668 Fax: 202 334 2482 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org www.national-academies.org/deps January 11, 2005 Mr. Bruce Johnson, Director Ohio Department of Development 77 South High Street, 29th Floor P.O. Box 1001 Columbus, OH 43216-0101 Dear Mr. Johnson, I am writing to transmit the first of two reports of the work of the Committee for the Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s Wright Centers of Innovation Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Award Program.1 This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the State of Ohio, Department of Development. Formed under the auspices of the National Academies’ Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB), the committee met December 15 and 16, 2004 in Washington D.C. to review and reach consensus on the nine proposals submitted to the Ohio Department of Development Wright Centers of Innovation Award FY2005 program. The proposals were evaluated relative to the criteria, goals, and priorities as outlined in the FY2005 request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Ohio Department of Development. THE COMMITTEE AND ITS CHARGE The Ohio Department of Development Wright Centers of Innovation Award program is a competition to fund innovative centers that have commercial potential, will create jobs, and will benefit the people of Ohio. Specifically, the overall objective of the physical science portion of the Wright Centers Award is to strengthen Ohio’s national and global position in four physical science core competencies that the state currently possesses: information technology; power and propulsion; advanced materials; and instruments, controls, and electronics. The Ohio Department of Development asked the National Academies to conduct an independent technical and program review of the nine proposals submitted in response to an RFP issued for the FY2005 award program with an emphasis on the proposals’ commercial potential. To answer this charge, ASEB appointed a 14-member committee with collective expertise across the breadth of the physical sciences addressed in the proposals. The committee was asked to assess how well each proposal met the criteria of the RFP and to identify the proposals with the greatest technical and commercial merit, which would then be considered for funding by the Ohio Department of Development. The committee was asked to 1 Committee members and their brief biographies are listed in Attachment 1.
OCR for page 1
Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s 2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program: Letter Report identify the proposals of highest merit and explain why those proposals were considered the strongest. It was also asked to comment on the proposals deemed to be of lesser merit. The committee’s expertise included nanotechnology and microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), sensors, controls, R&D commercialization, computing, data networks, data management, power and fuel cells, propulsion, manufacturing, photochemistry, electro-optics, bio-processing, polymers and other materials, and gas turbines. Attachment 1 contains short biographical sketches of the committee members. Before final appointment to the committee, prospective members were screened for potential fiduciary and/or financial interests they or their immediate family members might have had in any of the organizations and institutions submitting proposals. In addition, the Executive Office of the Division of Engineering and Physical Sciences within the National Academies held a bias-and-conflict discussion when the committee first met in December 2004 for the FY2005 proposal review to verify (1) that no conflicts of interest existed and (2) that the committee membership was properly constituted with regard to technical expertise and any strongly held beliefs relevant to the proposals being reviewed. None of the 14 committee members had a conflict of interest, and the committee was deemed to be properly balanced. REVIEW PROCESS This is the first of two reports to be authored by this committee regarding the review of the FY2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award program proposals. The specific intent of this first report is to identify the proposals of greatest merit as well as comment on all proposals. A second report will be issued on or about February 28, 2005. The second report will be completed after the committee meets with proposal management teams that will be invited by the staff of the Ohio Department of Development to a management review meeting. The intent of the second report is to go into further detail on the merits of the top proposals once the committee has had an opportunity to address its concerns at the management review. The nine Wright Center proposals were judged against four basic criteria described in the RFP, which is discussed in the next section. Each proposal was reviewed by at least 12 of the 14 committee members prior to the meeting on December 15-16, 2004. Six of the nine proposals requested capital funds and operational funds. Three established Wright Centers requested only operational funds. The State of Ohio asked that the committee develop one list in order of merit for all nine proposals independent of the type and amount of funds requested. At the start of that meeting, and in open session, the committee heard from two members of the Ohio Department of Development: Norm Chagnon, Staff director of the Third Frontier Program and Marc Cloutier, Special Assistant for Biotechnology, Technology Division. They discussed the overall objectives of the Wright Centers of Innovation program and then answered questions from the committee members concerning many aspects of the program. The committee then went into closed session to discuss and to agree on a common understanding of the requirements presented in the RFP so that all proposals might be judged on an equal basis. Specifically, the committee agreed that in order to meet the criteria, a proposal must first and foremost be of high technical quality. The proposal must also show strong interest from a variety of organizations with committed cost share and/or in-kind funding. The committee placed a strong emphasis on the commercialization potential of the technologies being proposed for development. The committee also discussed and agreed on the process to be employed in the evaluation of the nine proposals.
OCR for page 1
Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s 2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program: Letter Report Specifically, a lead reviewer was appointed to each proposal prior to the meeting. The lead reviewer was chosen because of his or her technical expertise in the subject area of the proposal. Two to four additional committee members were assigned to a given proposal, forming a team; some members had additional technical expertise in the area of the proposal and some had experience in business management, technology transfer and commercialization. The lead reviewer would present the proposals’ strengths and weaknesses, the other team members would add their remarks and then all the committee members would participate in a thorough discussion of the proposal in question. The order in which the proposals were reviewed was determined as follows. Grades had been assigned to each proposal by each committee member prior to the meeting. They were averaged and then examined by the entire committee for any obvious discrepancies. A detailed discussion was then conducted on those proposals with the lowest grades (judged not acceptable) and a vote was taken as to whether one or more should be moved forward for further discussion later or should be rejected directly. Then the proposal with the highest grade was analyzed in detail. Next, the proposal with the second highest grade was evaluated and contrasted with the best proposal; either it was moved into first place or it remained in second place and the process was repeated until all the top proposals were analyzed and ranked. At each stage, members were free to revise their earlier grades based on a reinterpretation of the proposals and as a result of the discussion. The committee discussed and deliberated on each proposal in detail and came to conclusions by consensus. Over the course of the two-day meeting, the committee ranked all the proposals according to the criteria of the Wright Centers Award program. A natural break in the order of merit was clearly noted between the proposal ranked fifth and the proposal ranked sixth. Understanding that the State of Ohio possessed sufficient funds to support between two and four proposals and that some reordering of the rankings might occur following the management meetings scheduled for a later date, the committee unanimously agreed that the five top-ranked proposals should be classified as having sufficient merit to justify further consideration. The four remaining proposals were judged insufficient in this regard. Subgroups based on the lead reviewer and associated team members were then formed to draft written assessments of each Wright Center proposal. The full committee then edited and approved the content of these assessments. Attachment 2 contains assessments of the five proposals that were found to have the most merit and are ranked in order of merit. Attachment 3 contains assessments of the remaining four proposals which are ordered according to the State of Ohio’s proposal identification number (i.e., they are not ranked). EVALUATION CRITERIA Using the Wright Centers Award program FY 2005 RFP for guidance, the committee evaluated four general aspects of the Wright Center proposals. Business partnerships Research and development Commercialization Organization
OCR for page 1
Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s 2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program: Letter Report The specific criteria from the FY2005 RFP for the Wright Centers program are copied below for your reference. BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP CRITERIA a) Specific Ohio industrial collaborators that will directly benefit from the research focus of the center have been engaged in the development of the center concept. Other relevant industry, professional service entities, and representatives of the private capital community are identified that will participate in the center’s activities in roles such as advisors, sponsors, and strategic partners, and are dominant in the membership of the center’s board of directors. b) The business sector has made tangible financial commitments allocable to the center exclusively and in support of the operation of the center. c) A credible plan exists for business sector involvement in a process to continuously evaluate the commercialization potential of the center’s research activities. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA a) The research and development program has the requisite scientific excellence to be competitive at an international level and the specific lines of research are scientifically sound. The research program will result in unique competitive advantage in expected fields of commercial development, and has obvious significance to building Ohio’s technology-based economy and to strengthening the competitive position of Ohio’s institutions for leveraging federal and industrial research dollars. b) Key public and private research organizations from around the state needed to establish scale and reputation in the focus area of the center are involved as collaborators. Inter-organizational collaboration, resource sharing and integration of research and commercialization capacity are meaningful and substantial. c) The proposal describes plans for recruiting or otherwise involving the highest quality research and technical talent available in the defined technology focus area for the center. COMMERCIALIZATION CRITERIA a) The technology focus areas of the center, structure of the organization, and personnel support the explicit purpose of creating commercial outcomes relevant to the Ohio economy. Facilities, equipment, programs, teaming arrangements, or other collaborations necessary for accelerating the pace of commercialization of the research outputs are clearly defined and well integrated into the research program. b) The commercialization strategy is a fully-developed and detailed process that defines realistic commercialization and business objectives consistent with the overall concept and structure of the center. Industrial collaborators have been integrated as commercialization and licensing partners. Specific Ohio industry sectors that will benefit from the research focus of the center
OCR for page 1
Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s 2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program: Letter Report have been clearly identified. The expected economic impacts on these industry sectors resulting from the activities of the center have been defined and quantified. The expected Ohio economic impacts represent a reasonable return for the investment being made by the state. ORGANIZATIONAL CRITERIA a) The vision and concept for the center are sound and represent an initiative that will make a significant contribution to Ohio research excellence and the growth of industry and high wage jobs. The evaluation plan for the center represents rational and measurable indicators of progress. b) The proposal appropriately integrates existing facilities, equipment and programs supported by the State of Ohio and others in designing the overall operating plan for the center. c) The budget plan at least meets the minimum cost share requirements and has commitments for a portion of the cost share. The budget plan supports the operational plan defined for the center. The cost share must be directly allocable and related to the center as well as auditable and will be reviewed in terms of its nature, source and quality. d) The continuation plan presents a credible scenario for the WCI to continue operating beyond the three-year funding period. The applicant has a promising plan for acquiring and growing non-state funding for continued operational support. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in the process of helping you to identify the most qualified candidates for the FY2005 Wright Centers Awards. We hope that you will find the committee's assessment and comments useful in this effort. Sincerely, Robert Palmatier, Chair Committee for the Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program cc: Peter Blair Elizabeth Panos Robin Schoen George Levin John Wendt Attachments: 1) Committee Biosketches 2) Proposals of Merit 3) Remaining Proposals Considered
OCR for page 1
Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s 2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program: Letter Report Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program ATTACHMENT 1 COMMITTEE BIOSKETCHES Chair Robert W. Palmatier is a Visiting Professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, having recently received the Ph.D. degree in marketing from the University of Missouri. He retired in 2000 as the President & Chief Operating Officer of C&K Components, Inc., in Watertown, Massachusetts. The company develops, manufactures and markets electromechanical switches in three countries and is the second largest manufacturer of electronic switches in the United States. Prior to C&K, Dr. Palmatier worked for Raychem Corporation where he served as General Manager of the European PolySwitch Division, Director of European Commercial Sales, Director of Worldwide Marketing, Director of Worldwide Strategic Planning, and North American Sales & Marketing Manager among other positions. He has also served as a Lieutenant onboard nuclear submarines in the United States Navy and is a licensed Professional Electrical Engineer. Dr. Palmatier also holds a Bachelors and Masters in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology and an MBA from Georgia State University. Dr. Palmatier served as a member of the 2003 Wright Centers of Innovation NRC panel. Members Dr. Tora K. Bikson, a senior behavioral scientist at RAND Corporation since 1976, is recognized for her research on the introduction of advanced communication and information technologies and their effects in varied contexts of use. She has recently completed a project to define organizational needs and identify best practices for creating, managing and distributing digital documents among United Nations organizations. In previous projects for clients including the National Science Foundation, the World Bank, the OECD, the Markle Foundation, and others, she has addressed such issues as the factors that affect the successful transfer and implementation of new technologies in ongoing communities of practice, how innovations influence intra- and inter-organizational structures and processes, their impact on task performance and social outcomes, and their policy implications. Dr. Bikson has co-authored four recent books addressing issues of data management and communication. She holds Ph.D. degrees in philosophy (University of Missouri) and psychology (UCLA). She has chaired RAND's Institutional Review Board since 1986. Dr. Bikson has also served on special task forces, panels and committees concerned with digital information and communication media for the National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Public Administration, and the Social Science Research council.
OCR for page 1
Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s 2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program: Letter Report S. Michael Hudson recently retired as Vice Chairman of Rolls Royce North America. After Allison Engine Company was acquired by Rolls-Royce, Mr. Hudson served as President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and a member of the Board of Directors of Allison Engine Company, Inc. Previously, during his tenure at Allison, he served as Executive Vice President for Engineering, Chief Engineer for advanced technology engines, Chief Engineer for small production engines, supervisor of the design for Model 250 engines, chief of preliminary design and chief project engineer in vehicular gas turbines. Mr. Hudson brings insight into propulsion engineering issues, related business issues, and the European perspective on aviation issues. Mr. Hudson also served on a number of NRC committees including the Vehicle Systems Panel of the NRC’s review of NASA’s Revolutionize Aviation Program. Donald L. Johnson (NAE) retired as Vice President/Product and Process Technology, Grain Processing Corporation in July 2000. GPC is a major corn refiner producing grain alcohol, food and industrial starch products and conversion syrups. He was responsible for finding, analyzing, developing and implementing new carbohydrate products and process technologies. Dr. Johnson has thirty five years of broad based business, management and research experience in the commercial application of carbohydrate chemistry, biotechnology, food science, water soluble polymers, adhesives and surface active materials. Prior to joining GPC in 1987, he directed research departments at the A. E. Staley Manufacturing Company which included developing products and designing and implementing strategies to support a major new chemicals-from-carbohydrate business. Dr. Johnson has authored or co-authored thirteen patents as well as numerous technical publications and presentations regarding production of foods and chemicals from renewable resources. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1993 and has served on numerous NAS boards and committees. He received the Doctor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering from Washington University, St. Louis, in 1966. Thomas Kurfess is a professor at Georgia Institute of Technology in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, where he started in 1994. He previously served at Carnegie Mellon University. Dr. Kurfess specializes in system dynamics and control of precision grinding systems that involve the development and implementation of adaptive controllers for precision grinding operations. The results of his work are used in a number of industrial environments. He has received numerous awards including the Georgia Tech Outstanding Faculty Leadership award for the Development of Graduate Research Assistants in 2002 and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Blackall Machine Tool and Gage Award in 2001. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in Pennsylvania and is Associate Editor, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control and the Journal of Manufacturing Systems. Dr. Kurfess received his four degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, culminating with a Ph.D. in 1989. David M. Mann directs the activities of the Army Research Office’s Mechanical and Environmental Sciences Division. During 1991, he served as the Acting Director, Engineering Sciences Directorate. In that capacity, he was responsible for oversight of the Army Research Office’s $28 million basic research programs in mathematics and computer sciences, electronics, and mechanics and environmental sciences. Dr. Mann currently directs the ARO basic research program in combustion and propulsion sciences. The program focuses on three major areas: combustion processes in engines (primarily diesels and gas turbines); combustion of solid and liquid gun and rocket propellants, and the internal ballistics of gun and rocket systems; and
OCR for page 1
Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s 2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program: Letter Report energetic materials hazards (the processes leading to the inadvertent ignition of propellants and explosives). He manages major, DoD-funded programs in diesel and gas turbine research and research programs for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. Dr. Mann has served on the staffs of the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition, with responsibilities for coordinating basic research programs within the Department of Defense and Department of the Army. Paul McMahon is an international consultant advising clients in Asia, Europe and North America on a wide variety of strategic and business issues. During a long career as a partner with Ernst & Young, he led several efforts to transform the firm and the profession including the development of a “Directional Plan” which resulted in the Continental European firm growing from 1,000 professionals to over 4,000 in less than five years, recruited 50 individuals to lead major technology consulting projects for US based clients and initiated a multi-million dollar project utilizing technology to perform better and more efficient audits. The result, implemented in over 120 countries, provided a competitive advantage but more importantly served as a lever fully integrating the two cultures resulting from the merger of Ernst and Whinney and Arthur Young. More recently, as Chief Operating Officer of Amrop, the largest international federation of Executive Search firms, he developed and implemented a strategic plan focusing on providing professional management to start-up companies and independent directors for privately held businesses. Mr. McMahon is a graduate of Syracuse University and is a licensed CPA in New York and Oregon. Paul McWhorter is the Founder and Chief Technology Officer of MEMX, a spin off from Sandia National Laboratories in 2000. In the role of MEMX CTO, Mr. McWhorter has built a world class technical team, has secured $28 Million in financial backing from the Nation’s top Venture Capitalists, including Sequoia Capital, and has recruited world class professional management into the company. He has established strategic partnerships between MEMX and four Fortune 500 companies for the development of a variety of high value Microsystems products. MEMX’s Microsystems products span Biomedical, Telecommunications, Wireless, and National Security applications. Prior to creating MEMX, Mr. McWhorter was the Deputy Director of Sandia’s largest center, the Microsystems Science, Technology and Components Center, from 1997 to 2000. This Center is responsible for two microelectronics fabrication facilities, and includes major activities in Radiation Hardened Microelectronics, Optoelectronics/RF, Integrated Sensors, MEMS, and Discreet Weapon Components. Activities in this center span basic research, exploratory technology development, and delivery of qualified components to National Security applications. Mr. McWhorter has Electrical Engineering degrees from the University of Texas and Stanford University. Jim Miller is the Program Director for Argonne National Laboratory’s Electrochemical Technology. He has over 25 years of experience in developing advanced energy conversion and energy storage systems. His past research activities have included work on superconducting materials, the development of advanced batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles, and development of fuel cells for automotive and distributed power applications. Much of his current program is directed at supporting the US Department of Energy’s FreedomCAR partnership and hydrogen fuel cell initiatives. He holds three degrees in physics, including a
OCR for page 1
Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s 2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program: Letter Report Ph.D. from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He also has an MBA from the University of Chicago. Andrew J. Razeghi is Managing Director of StrategyLab, Inc., a growth strategy consulting firm he founded to specialize in new business formation. He is a nationally recognized speaker, advisor, and educator on strategy and innovation. In addition, he is Adjunct Associate Professor at The Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois where he teaches coursework on new product development. Mr. Razeghi has advised clients in industries as diverse as aerospace, automotive, consumer electronics, consumer packaged goods, health care, media/entertainment, pharmaceuticals, specialty chemicals, and retail. His clients include Fortune 500 companies, private equity firms, and family-owned businesses. He has an MBA degree from Loyola University in Chicago, a Certificate in International Marketing from Richmond University London and a BA degree in International Business from Bradley University. M. Frank Rose joined Radiance Technologies, Huntsville, AL, as Vice-President for Research in 2001. In May 1999, Dr Rose was named Director, Science Directorate at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Previously he was Professor of Electrical Engineering and Director of the Space Power Institute at Auburn University. He has forty years of experience in performing and managing basic and applied research in the physical sciences and advanced technologies associated with high pressure physics, energy conversion, advanced materials, directed energy technology, space environmental effects, and space power technology. He has published 158 papers in the open literature, edited or authored 5 books, and conducted and published the proceedings of 12 specialized workshops. He has broad experience in planning, programming, coordinating, and implementing interdisciplinary R & D programs. He has extensive experience in University/Industry/Government relationships. Dr. Rose served on the National Research Council's Board on Army Science and Technology (1997-2004) and chaired a study on Unmanned Ground Vehicles and co-chaired “Meeting the Energy Needs of Future Warriors.” He was elected a National Associate of the National Academies in 2002. He holds the PhD degree from the Pennsylvania State University in Engineering Physics. Neal Shinn is the Manager of the Surface and Interface Science Department at Sandia National Laboratories. He received the B.S. degree in Chemistry and Mathematics from the Pennsylvania State University in 1978 and the Ph.D. degree in Chemical Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983. Thereafter, he was a National Research Council Post-Doctoral Fellow at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where his research involved the elucidation of surface reaction intermediates using vibrational and electronic spectroscopies in conjunction with thermal and stimulated desorption. In 1985, he joined Sandia National Laboratories as a Senior Member of the Technical Staff. He is an Adjunct Professor in the Physics Department of Utah State University, a member of the AVS Board of Directors, and an officer in its international parent organization (IUVSTA). He has published over 80 scientific papers and edited two books. Dr. Shinn is also the User Program Manager for the DOE Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies (CINT), a collaborative nanoscience research center jointly operated by Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories for the DOE Office of Science. During the construction of the new CINT facilities in Albuquerque and Los Alamos, NM, he
OCR for page 1
Review of Physical Science Proposals to the State of Ohio’s 2005 Wright Centers of Innovation Award Program: Letter Report serves as the Special Equipment Manager with oversight responsibility for major new CINT instrumentation. William Tolles is the former Associate Director of Research for Strategic Planning for the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Washington, DC. Currently in private consulting practice and an advisor to academic and government research programs, Dr. Tolles is well known for his contribution to "state of the science and technology" assessments in nanostructured materials. He obtained the Bachelor of Arts degree (Cum Laude) from the University of Connecticut at Storrs, the Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkley and completed his Postdoctoral Fellowship at Rice University. He joined the faculty of the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA in 1962. There he served as Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor of Chemistry (1962-1984). He also served as the Dean of Research and Dean of Science and Engineering (1977-1984) at the Naval Postgraduate School before being appointed Superintendent of the Chemistry Division at the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. His professional research interest includes; nanoscience/nanotechnology, MEMS, non-linear optical spectroscopy, microwave properties of materials, molecular spectroscopy, microwave spectroscopy, and electron spin resonance. He has published over 50 scholarly papers. J.W. (Jim) Wheeler has a diverse background in business consulting, research, strategy and planning, economic analysis, public policy, and technology programs. As Director of Electricore’s Midwest operations (2004- ), Dr. Wheeler is charged with developing corporate-university partnerships in advanced technology development. As Executive Vice President for TechPoint – a merger between Indiana Technology Partnership (ITP) and Indiana Information Technology Association (INITA) – and President of ITP, Dr. Wheeler served as a leader for the statewide technology community’s public policy and economic development initiatives (2002-2004), as well as managed special programs for information technology. In January 1997, he joined the Indianapolis office of Arthur Andersen as a Senior Manager to launch the Indiana Strategy, Finance and Economics Consulting practice. Accepted into the Partnership in 1999, he took on the newly formed position of Central Region lead for Government Services. Prior to joining Arthur Andersen, Dr. Wheeler spent 19 years with the Hudson Institute, ultimately directing both international programs and defense industry research. He completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Missouri and his masters and doctoral studies at Rutgers University, all in Economics. He has an extensive list of publications, is deeply involved on professional and community boards and committees, and serves as a frequent public speaker on economic, business and public policy issues.