IBJNews

Purdue lands $14.5M to expand nanotechnology portal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Purdue University announced Tuesday that some of its researchers won a five-year, $14.5 million grant from the National Science Foundation to expand the school’s online gateway for instruction, research and simulations in nanotechnology.

The nanoHUB.org portal already attracts nearly 250,000 users each year, and it provides instructional segments used by 760 classes at 185 universities around the world.

The new funding will be used to expand nanoHUB’s resources for running simulations based on experimental data, for offering courses in nanotechnology to train new workers in the field, and to bring in even more users to participate in the nanoHUB community.

"Thousands of times a day the leading researchers 'come' to Purdue through the globally unique tool of nanoHUB," Purdue President Mitch Daniels said in a prepared statement. "The new NSF investment is an affirmation of the brilliance of nanoHUB's Purdue creators and of its worldwide scientific significance."

Purdue’s has started to build off of nanoHUB to provide more online instruction to students at other universities, potentially creating a new revenue stream at a time when state support for higher education has not kept pace with inflation.

The National Science Foundation helped launch nanHUB with a $10.5 million grant to Purdue and five other universities in 2002. That money was used to create the Network for Computational Nanotechnology and the nanoHUB content.

The National Science Foundation also gave a $3.5 million grant to the University of Illinois.

The Purdue researchers behind nanoHUB are Gerhard Klimeck, Krishna Madhavan, Michael McLennan, Lynn Zentner and Michael Zentner.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Just because someone supports the project, they are a PR shill for the developer? Myself and everyone I know has no connection whatsoever to any developer. We just want Broad Ripple to move forward and develop, not stay stagnant.

  2. And the failure on the part of Indiana GOP to allow an expansion of Medicaid had nothing to do with Indiana hospitals' financial woes?

  3. It would have been nice if they could have arranged for at least some of Zaxby's menu to be sold at the concession stands as part of the marketing campaign.

  4. Get the feeling Browning has some PR presence on the message board this morning. I don't know a single person in the neighborhood who supports this project.

  5. Grew up in Warfleigh, which is the neighborhood directly across College from the proposed development. I am against the proposed project for several reasons: 1) Traffic Flow -- College is already a mess, especially with the new lane guidance which makes the southbound left lane 'turn only' at Broad Ripple Ave. Not to mention the backups at 64th and College. If this is in fact a Whole Foods, I would expect a steady stream of cars pulling in and out, either off College or 64th Street which are both bad already. 2) Use of TIF funds. I though TIF funds were for under-developed areas, to help bolster property tax rolls for the city. I agree with Barth that this area will do just fine letting market forces dictate what is developed. 3) Specialty Grocer Overkill. There is already a Fresh Market a mile south and a Whole Foods 2 miles north. This store is not needed. Frankly I shocked that the Whole Foods site selection criteria supports a store right here 4) Hurts the Character of the Neighborhood. This type of development, along with the (hideous) parking garage down the street are out of character with the history and fabric of this area. Broad Ripple has succeeded because it was quirky and different. It would be a shame if the city gets involved and helps support ANOTHER project that aims to turn Broad Ripple into some kind of manufactured urban center.

ADVERTISEMENT