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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT