Status Report UTMB Faculty Research Retreat June 5, 2003

1
(Bio-) Nanotechnology
What process, environmental/cultural change, or
infrastructure is needed to more effectively
transfer research to interventional tools,
patient/populations studies, and new standards of
care? How could they best be implemented?

• Environmental change Multifaceted approach to
  educating researchers and clinician-scientists
  about nanotechnology (basic, clinical, and
  combined approach seminars)
• Cultural change NIH has validated the
  importance of nanotechnology for the future of
  medicine. This validation is backed up by action.
  Nanotechnology is now one of the largest areas of
  basic and translational research funding at NIH
  and at least six institutes are actively pushing
  its funding. To paraphrase Harold Varmus,
  nanotechnology is not just for nanotechnologists
  anymore. And our emphasis here at UTMB should be
  Bio-nanotechnology to emphasize the application
  of nanotechnology to medicine.

2
(Bio-) Nanotechnology
What system, structure, or process is needed to
facilitate basic and clinical scientists
communication?
Like genomics and proteomics, nanotechnology is
something that UTMB must do to remain competitive
in the years ahead. Recommendation Form a
small Program in Bionanotechnology to emphasize
development and coordination of efforts in
application of nanotechnology to medicine and
toward positioning UTMB for translational
research NIH funding programs. A steering
committee of active basic and translational
researchers using nanotechnology at UTMB could
make specific recommendations for how best to
strategically position UTMB for this next major
development in medicine. This Program should
produce seminars and a website of activity to
help get things started.
3
(Bio-) Nanotechnology
How do we recruit, develop, retain and reward
effective translational researchers?
Most bionanotechnology researchers are desperate
for access to a nanomaterials core lab that can
help them construct complicated nanoparticle
systems and implant surfaces. Such a core in a
medical school environment would attract and
retain basic and translational researchers who
want to do this research but cannot support the
creation of mini-cores in each of their own
laboratories. Some universities are investing
many millions of dollars in nanomaterials
facilities, but few, if any, are existing in a
biological world and dedicated to biomedical
applications. UTMB could be one of the first to
do this.
4
(Bio-) Nanotechnology
What benchmarks will indicate success?

• The first obvious benchmark of success is
  national peer-reviewed funding.
• A second obvious benchmark of success is
  national and international recognition.
• While still tiny and unofficial, UTMB is already
  becoming known by both criteria. These should
  continue to be the early benchmarks until this
  embryonic field develops and generates other
  benchmarks of for measuring success.