Centre for Materials Research: Past and Futures

1
Centre for Materials Research Past and Futures

• Marshall Stoneham
• CMR meeting 14 March 2007
• file dotgtsciadmingtcmrgtcmroverview

2
Initial Thoughts the 1995 sceneWhat possible
roles/structures were considered?

• A Materials Department?
• A mechanism for large equipment grants?
• A network to aid access to existing equipment?
• A network crossing traditional lines
• (a) to formulate novel grant applications,
• (b) to help create effective fixed centres
  like LCN
• A route to new teaching opportunities, e.g.,
  M.Res Continuous Professional Development
• A way to enhance visibility of UCL strengths

3
Issues 1 Making Connections

• Research Links across UCL 20-25 units of
  assessment included materials activities in the
  last RAE. These ranged from basic work to
  full-scale engineering.
• Research Links across London LCN exists as a
  working example, with Imperial College. QMW, KCL
  and other London institutes would probably
  welcome good ideas to collaborate. The Thomas
  Young Centre (TYC) is attempting this.
• International Research Links Many possible links,
  notably with North America and the European Union
  (the TYC is attempting this as well)
• Research links can support teaching initiatives.
• Formulating national policies, e.g., Foresight
  and the Materials Modelling initiatives of EPSRC

4
Issues 2 Large resources

• New scientific or technical opportunities
• New opportunities can arise fast. They are often
  interdisciplinary.
• Good networks can make it easy to put teams
  together. But there needs to be enough resource
  (and enough uncommitted resource) to make things
  happen.
• Equipment or other major core feature
• If a Centre is to be more than the sum of its
  components, it needs a core that is substantial
  and (ideally) unique. Most materials departments
  have large items of analytical equipment.
  Research Councils favour large sets of kit (like
  electron microscopes, for instance) at just a few
  sites.
• The scientific diversity of UCL is a strength
  in all ways except one big kit often correlates
  with very specific types of scientific programme.
  Big kit is probably better based in centres like
  the LCN

5
Issues 3 The outside world

• Interactions with outside funding bodies Not
  only Research Councils, but industry, the
  European Union, government, and local government
  bodies. I regularly arranged visits of the EPSRC
  Materials managers.
• External visibility Not just ego-trips, but
  getting the right international recognition as a
  means to better RAE and similar gradings.
  Proposing people for prizes and Plenary/Invited
  talks is important.
• Established routes for funding to protect IPR
  UCL does not have sufficient funds EPSRC refuses
  to fund IPR protection
• Capturing the student market Not just
  undergraduates or Masters students, but also
  Teaching Company, continuous professional
  development, and so on. CAIS seems successful
  with some of these routes.
• Outreach Outreach is important to external
  visibility we have probably not done enough.

6
Summary of Issues 1

• Core scientific and technical platforms identify
  broad areas where UCL should be the place leading
  scientists worldwide want to know (and funding
  bodies want to fund). These platforms will
  evolve, so we should not be rigid.
• Linking physical and biomedical. Routes such as
• (a) Walkabouts (CAIS does these)
• (b) The Derek Roberts informal meeting
• (c) The free wine at lunchtime solution

7
Summary of Issues 2

• Even as a Centre for Materials Research, there
  must be an educational role. This could emphasise
  continuing professional development
• Finance. The CMR should be able to influence
  College support (a) to finance relationships
  across UCL, (b) for modest exploratory projects,
  and (c) to ensure that existing UCL organisation
  doesnt get in the way (e.g., overheads issues
  when an external organisation is prepared to fund
  the major costs of positions).

8
Possible models

• The Network component is crucial. UCL has a
  splendidly cooperative culture.
• In at least two materials areas UCL has unique
  capability (leading edge worldwide) spanning UCL
  materials research Materials Modelling and
  Visualisation. These are examples of platforms
• These two areas could constitute the core of CMR.
  They share common ground and can be mutually
  beneficial.
• In addition, there should be a family of
  affiliated initiatives that exploit the core.
  These should span physical and biomedical
  sciences
• To what extent should we seek London Centre
  status? LCN is a good example, also the Thomas
  Young Centre

9
Summary Simple Actions

• Informal meetings (e.g., wine for lunch)
• Grouped talks (say 2-3 talks in an afternoon)
• Small discussion meetings of interesting ideas
  (the Derek Roberts solution)
• Walkabouts visits to as many as possible of the
  RAE units of assessment that have materials work
  (cf. CAIS/Duncan Bull)
• Identify and build on strong UCL science
  platforms
• Get EPSRC and other relevant Research Council /
  OST or DTI managers to visit
• Update the equipment list (e.g., from UCL
  insurance)

10
(No Transcript)
11
Some of the options suggested

• Materials discovery (Des McMorrow) Novel
  magnetic, electronic properties etc. Most of the
  world follows the Japanese. We have the basis for
  a Centre for Materials Discovery
• Integrate with other initiatives (Paul McMillan)
  Relate to the Materials Chemistry Centre (UCL
  Chemistry, Chem Eng, Birkbeck Industrial
  Materials Chemistry, with some space and
  joint-use kit), including the Visualisation
  Centre.
• Umbrella for LCN new UCL/IC centres (Aeppli)
  e.g., Materials Synthesis (encompassing
  non-'nano' activities in chemistry and elsewhere)
  or Materials Systems Modelling ( transcending
  nanotech but could encompass its modelling needs
  as well as those of other centres/departments
  ranging from pharmacology to earth sciences.
• Biomedical materials (Brown) with links across
  London, and including modelling, measurement
  (CAIS) and the LCN nano aspects.
• Holistic approaches to materials, inspection and
  modelling high-value systems, e.g., fission or
  fusion reactors (Brennan)
• Small scale, informal approaches to stimulate
  radical developments

12
Integration with other initiatives

• Relate to the Materials Chemistry Centre (UCL
  Chemistry, Chem Eng, Birkbeck Industrial
  Materials Chemistry, with some space and
  joint-use kit), including the Visualisation
  Centre.
• Comment Visualisation could be one major core
  component linking a wide (and evolving) range of
  materials initiatives)

13
Umbrella for LCN new UCL/IC centres (Gabriel
Aeppli)

• Examples 1 Materials Synthesis, encompassing
  non-'nano' activities in chemistry and elsewhere
• Example 2 Materials Systems Modelling,
  transcending nanotech but could encompass its
  modelling needs as well as those of other
  centres/departments ranging from pharmacology to
  earth sciences.
• Comment Modelling should be at the core, linking
  many projects. UCL has unique range and strength
  in this area, including Peter Coveneys Centre
  for Computational Science
• Comment Modelling is much more than computer
  power, and this is where UCL has special
  strengths.

14
Biomedical materials with links across London
(Robert Brown, AMS)

• Past discussions by AMS identified many common
  areas, from the molecular scale through other
  mesoscopic areas (minimal invasive dentistry)
  including porous solids to engineering and novel
  materials, e.g., interfaces and adhesives.
• These should exploit our wide-ranging measurement
  (CAIS) and modelling capabilities (LCN, including
  nano aspects)
• Robert Brown raises specifically the area of
  protein-based bioartificial materials and the
  fabrication of meso-scale biomimetic structures
  (cf. Biomaterials Foresight 2004). 
• UCL has funding to set up a cross-college
  Biomaterials Composites lab (now under
  construction at the Eastman Dental Institute,
  which has complementary interests in synthetic
  polymer and glass biomaterials for tissue
  engineering.
• Pankaj Vadgama at QMW (the previous Biomaterials
  IRC) appears to welcome collaboration.

15
Materials discovery (Des McMorrow)

• Novel magnetic, electronic properties etc. Most
  of the world follows the Japanese. We have the
  basis for a Centre for Materials Discovery
• Comment This might be just one of a number of
  projects (maybe with international partners)
  that could benefit from core platforms in
  visualisation and modelling

16
The energy crisis missing skills for the nuclear
industries (fission and fusion)(Feargal Brennan,
Tony Harker)

• It seems most unlikely that the Kyoto targets (or
  even more serious ones) can be met without
  nuclear. In the longer term, fusion will be
  needed, especially for Asia.
• There is a recognised international shortage in
  people with the right skills.
• One particular area for which UCL has special
  expertise is the mix of materials, inspection and
  monitoring to meet the novel challenges in an
  holistic way. We have good links to both the
  fission and fusion communities.
• These themes are also ones that could underly a
  UCL/ Imperial centre.

17
The small scale, informal approaches How to
stimulate radical developments

• The Exploratory projects in the Nanotechnology
  IRC give the right sort of scope
• Right environment to tempt top younger scientists
  with Royal Society, EPSRC and similar Fellows (to
  compensate for the lack of college Junior
  Research Fellowships)
• Room to respond rapidly and effectively in
  cross-disciplinary areas
• Seed funding (say 20K) for research projects in
  cases where confidentiality precludes many routes