aaas#symposium#report# convergence… · aaas#symposium#report# #...
TRANSCRIPT
AAAS Symposium Report Convergence Science: A Revolution for Health Solutions AAAS Symposium February 15, 2014 at the 2014 Annual AAAS Meeting Organizers: Joseph M. DeSimone, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and NC State University Amanda Arnold, Massachusetts Institute of Technology with Crista Farrell, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Sarah Mueller, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Moderator: Susan J. Hockfield, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Speakers: Dennis A. Ausiello, Massachusetts General Hospital Belinda Seto, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Chad Mirkin, Northwestern University Joseph M. DeSimone, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and NC State University Introduction In biomedical research, significant breakthrough potential exists at the intersection of the life sciences, the physical sciences, and engineering disciplines. This deliberate collaboration, known as Convergence science, has inspired leading U.S. research institutions—including Stanford University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Harvard University, University of Michigan, University of Chicago, Northwestern University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and many more—to develop dedicated multidisciplinary centers on their campuses. Convergence science enhances the multidimensional promising areas such as cell-‐based therapeutics, nanobiotechnology, engineering approaches to microbial threats, imaging at all scales, immune-‐engineering, and microbiome engineering. During the first portion of this symposium, leaders in relevant fields discussed Convergence as a framework for advancing efforts in predictive health and illustrative examples of health risk predictors with genomic, neuroimaging and big data, as well as how to stand up a Convergence-‐style institute. Additionally, panelists reviewed education and workforce questions in the context of Convergence that must be addressed to meet the scientific and technological challenges of the 21st Century. The potential benefit of taking a broader perspective on Convergence, expanding beyond the life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering fields, to incorporate the social sciences and humanities, was also discussed. Following the presentations, forty attendees participated in small group discussions with the panelists and moderators on questions regarding data for predictive health; the breadth and depth of Convergence; implementing Convergence; and Convergence grand challenges.
Susan J. Hockfield of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology moderated this event. Speakers included Dennis A. Ausiello, Massachusetts General Hospital; Belinda Seto, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Joseph M. DeSimone, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and NC State University; and Chad Mirkin, Northwestern University. Summary Using Convergence to Reorganize Medicine Towards A Gold Standard of Wellness Dennis Ausiello urges us to develop a gold standard for wellness by establishing phenotypes at the population level, taking into account all possible information and measurements (‘omics’, wearable sensors, e-‐medical records, biospecimens, and integrative analytics on research populations). Milestone goals include 1) uniting clinical care with discovery and individual medical information that the patient aggregates and controls; and, in time, 2) enhancing predictability and wellness outcomes that prevent serious illness. Dr. Ausiello offers the CATCH program as one example of a Convergence-‐style program in this area. More online here: http://catch-‐health.org/Home_Page.html Framing the Research Question as a Critical Convergence Moment
NIH is beginning to adopt Convergence approaches to maximize funding opportunities and extramural research capabilities on grand challenges, like those associated with brain research. In order to distill big data into knowledge, researchers have had to reach beyond their comfort zones and into areas with a history of working with big data (e.g. weather forecast modeling,
astrophysics, etc). Dr. Seto reviewed past and present examples of Convergence-‐style research with a focus on projects funded through the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
(ADNI), http://adni-‐info.org, and the NIH Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K), http://bd2k.nih.gov/, effort. New Education and Entrepreneurship Opportunities Emerging at Convergence Centers Based on his experience developing the International Institute for Nanotechnology, http://www.iinano.org/, Chad Mirkin outlined the many responsibilities incumbent on the executive director of a new Convergence-‐style center on a university campus. From inception to build-‐out, a wide variety of university actors, most notably faculty from disparate disciplines, have to agree on space, tools, and other resources. They must see the benefit of pursuing resources as a team as opposed to individually. Despite significant barriers, Mirkin argued that universities across the country are building these centers because of the transformative accomplishments such centers can achieve. Convergence Training Requires Celebrating Diversity in Both Discipline and Socioeconomic Backgrounds Starting with a broader perspective on Convergence to recognize the important roles of the humanities disciplines and the social sciences in shaping how problem-‐solving is viewed and approached, Joseph DeSimone used examples like Apple, Inc. and Stanford’s d.school (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design) to explain how inclusion of disciplines outside of the traditional Convergence framework can augment the potential for innovation using a Convergence approach. On the question of training, Joseph also presented a view in which diversity is critical to the framework since, as he noted, we learn the most from the people with whom we have the least in common. Accordingly, while those who dive deeply into and focus their work within one discipline are necessary and extremely important to manifest Convergence success (i.e. “I” shaped individuals), there is also a great need for “T-‐shaped”, “Pi-‐shaped”, and “Comb-‐shaped” thinkers to go beyond pursuing a common language and enable a cultural shift toward a “multilingual” approach. To solve significant 21st century challenges, we will make the greatest progress through Convergence efforts that involve those who have in-‐depth understanding of multiple fields and
the unique capability to foster better respect, communication, and collaboration among them. Critical Conclusions It became clear during this session that we have to answer the question: “How is Convergence different from the decades-‐long exhortation to cross-‐disciplinary work?” That is, how are today and tomorrow different from yesterday? While the Convergence Approach, which celebrates transdisciplinarity in organization and education, may not be new, it is gaining traction because it offers an organizing framework (much like the National Nanotechnology Initiative did in practice) to overcome traditional obstacles to funding, promotion, and appointment that have slowed transdisciplinary approaches and stymied access to knowledge potential. According to our panelists: Belinda Seto of NIH argues that Convergence approaches do not manifest simply by bringing people of different disciplines together; instead, the Convergence approach depends on a transdisciplinary approach at the outset – at the framing of the research questions. Dennis Ausiello of MGH argued that the Convergence capability is fostered early on with multiple disciplinary deep-‐dive capabilities residing in individual researchers. Joseph DeSimone of UNC built on this arguing that the 18th century-‐style peer review systems are inhibiting reward systems for these kinds of “comb shaped” individuals, and that we need a system that honors and supports the diversity of individuals (including I, T, Pi and Comb-‐shaped), teams, disciplines, and expertise. In application, Chad Mirkin argued that the Convergence model, the tearing down of siloes, is already proving itself at Convergence-‐style centers, like the IIN, where students who are educated in this way are getting superior research and job opportunities as compared to their peers. Susan Hockfield of MIT reminds us that Convergence is not necessarily a new idea but that it is becoming a rallying call to finally address the inhibitory structures and challenges that hinder transdisciplinary research movements. Recommendations Convergence Approaches to Data for Predictive Health Given the significant promise of precision medicine and the integration of digital medical records with real-‐time monitoring to revolutionize health care, we asked attendees to give us recommendations for actionable steps towards wellness.
• Acknowledge the failure of disease management historically and identify toolkits, theories, etc. that can be applied towards new interrogation models that manage complexity and chaos with the goals of greater reproducibility and predictability.
• In the short-‐term, take steps towards establishing a gold standard for wellness by building phenotypic models of discrete populations wherever possible.
• Take advantage of an emerging interest by the public for their health data (via wearable
devices, direct-‐to-‐consumer testing, apps that track diet and activity, etc.) to be interrogated by a medical professional on a continuous basis.
Implementing Convergence We asked attendees to address critical barriers to Convergence including administrative and financial barriers and potential barriers at federal agencies and the peer review model.
• For the individual at both the faculty and graduate student level, celebrate diversity and foster effective communication and extraordinary problem-‐solving efforts among people from different disciplines by ensuring strong leadership and fostering healthy, respectful dialogue that values disagreement to achieve progress. Allow for co-‐ownership of research output, especially among young professors working toward tenure. Clear the way for young graduate students and faculty to approach research under the Convergence framework by clearing bureaucratic hurdles.
• For the organization, such as universities and research institutes, address the culture,
which thrives on outdated siloed structures that inhibit Convergence approaches by realigning incentives for appointment, promotion, and tenure. Customized reward structures should recognize and celebrate diversity. Also consider adjusting physical space to enable transdisciplinary education and interaction.
• For the ecosystem level (including federal funding, publication, and prizes), ensure peer
review panels represent a broad spectrum of disciplinary expertise to evaluate Convergence-‐style proposals. Further review of incentives in publishing and prizes to align with the Convergence framework is needed. The structure of federal agencies informs the structures of the university research enterprise, so universities and agencies should work with one another to facilitate Convergence approaches.
Addressing the Breadth & Depth of Convergence Convergence as we know it entails high-‐impact partnerships at the intersection of the life sciences, physical sciences, computational sciences, and engineering disciplines, and we asked our participants whether there is scope to integrate humanities disciplines and the social and behavioral sciences in the context of Convergence.
• Participants discussed that a Convergence approach to problem solving in, among, or involving fields that lie outside of the traditional definition of Convergence would be beneficial for achieving improved outcomes in health and other areas. Success in pursuing Convergence, going beyond its traditional definition or not, rests on a set of factors discussed by participants. These factors are also drivers to achieve effective
bridge building to fields outside of the life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering disciplines.
o Necessity, opportunity, diversity, strong leadership, incentive, and resources are key to driving the progress of teams of individuals with different expertise who are pursuing a common goal using the Convergence framework.
o Effective communication is fundamental to success in a Convergence framework. What underlies effective communication is respect for other individuals and disciplines and a willingness to learn the language and approaches of another discipline.
o Recognizing challenges and limitations that the life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering disciplines have is key to enabling smart and broader engagement of people outside of those areas to tackle 21st century challenges. Respect is the starting point to enable the recognition of limitations and the value of what other disciplines may be able to bring to the table.
• Participants discussed examples that illustrate how research and problem-‐solving in health and other areas would benefit from the expansion of how we pursue Convergence to include disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. One example is to optimize Convergence in the health care context through design focused on human interface. Incorporating a focus on design principles and the human interface could improve, for example, the implementation of Convergence research results in order to inform the way physicians, physicians’ assistants, and nurses function in a hospital setting. Specific focus could be on improving the way medical professionals interact with equipment, data readouts, and medical records, to enable more time for direct patient care.
• Patient compliance is a large hurdle to the execution of many medical treatments. By tapping into the knowledge base of social and behavioral scientists medicine may be better informed to design, develop, and validate effective mechanisms for increased patient compliance, leading to better, more reliable results in “big data” health monitoring systems.
Developing Grand Challenges for Convergence The Office of Science and Technology Policy has identified several Grand Challenges, including the BRAIN Initiative to identify new technologies to accelerate neuroscience research, and the SunShot Grand Challenge to identify alternative energy sources capable of replacing coal fuel and gasoline-‐powered vehicles. We asked participants to think about additional examples of Grand Challenges in Convergence.
Traumatic Brain Injury as an example Grand Challenge for Convergence It is important as participants to reflect on example Grand Challenges that embody the need for a Convergence approach in research. As noted earlier in this report, a distinguishing factor of modern Convergence is that it demands and depends on a transdisciplinary approach at the outset – at the framing of the research question. Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and, more broadly, the question of how to better manage
reperfusion damage (tissue damage caused when blood supply returns to tissue after a period of ischemia or lack of oxygen), is an example Grand Challenge discussed by symposium participants that is uniquely suited to a Convergence approach. As the leading cause of death and disability for patients under 45 years old in the U.S., TBI is a salient Grand Challenge to the research community and society broadly. Innovation in diagnosis and treatment of TBI requires a combination of theoretical, practical, and engineering prowess. With TBI, we must consider how diverse disciplines should be integrated at the outset in order to design high-‐impact studies. In addition to neuroscience and other fields related to the life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering disciplines, what disciplines should be integrated when examining questions about TBI using a Convergence framework? The first 72 hours after a patient sustains a possible TBI are crucial. Participants therefore examined the idea that an iPhone-‐enabled accelerometer can be used to monitor a patient’s pupils and body movement in real time and identify whether a health professional needs to intervene. With the idea to incorporate this technology, data validity must be considered with respect to the best standards in psychology and other behavioral science disciplines. Research designs must rely on these fields when examining TBI. What other disciplines might be important to consider integrating when designing a TBI-‐focused study? This example sheds light on the types of opportunities a Convergence framework provides for research, and forces us to consider what we mean when we use the term. TBI illustrates clearly the utility of the Convergence framework, yet it also points to the need for that framework to be constantly worked and re-‐worked in a way that always focuses on the problem at hand, and what is best for solving it. Other ideas for Convergence In addition to TBI, participants underlined the importance of Convergence approaches to tackle intractable problems in biomedicine related to areas such as cancer detection and treatment; vaccine development; neurologic and psychiatric disease (like those addressed via the BRAIN Initiative); as well as general challenges related to the cost of, access to, and accuracy of different aspects of healthcare provision. Topics well suited to a Convergence approach include: Healthcare at Home; Biomarkers for Behavior; Immuno-‐ and Tissue/Organ-‐engineering. Finally, participants pointed to the challenge of identify novel funding mechanisms for Convergence-‐style research. Examples for further discussion mentioned during the event included the cancer “megafund” idea of MIT’s Andrew Lo as recently published in Nature Biotechnology (30, 964–975, 2012).
Background and Resources Convergence and Related Reports The National Academies Board on Life Sciences held a workshop on Convergence (September 16-‐17, 2013) entitled: Key Challenges in the Implementation of Convergence. Susan Hockfield (MIT) and Joseph DeSimone (UNC) co-‐chaired the workshop committee. Speakers included Ralph Cicerone (NAS), Harvey Fineberg (IOM), C.D. Mote (NAE), Phil Sharp (MIT), Cherry Murray (Harvard), Don Ingber (Wyss), Arun Majumdar (Google), Bruce Walker (Ragon), and Regis Kelly (QB3), among others. Key discussions included applications of convergence in the real world, especially as related to suggested infrastructure needs, faculty promotion and tenure schemes, evolving education and training modules, and novel inter-‐institution arrangements and partnerships. A workshop report is expected in spring. This National Academy meeting built on several existing National Academies reports, most notably, The New Biology for the 21st Century (September 2009) and Toward Precision Medicine (November 2011), as well as an American Academy of Arts and Sciences report, ARISE II: Unleashing America’s Research & Innovation Enterprise (May 2013). The effort also gained momentum from several additional reports, including, Convergence of Knowledge, Technology, and Society (May 2013), especially chapter five, “Implications: Human health and physical potential focused on Convergence for health”. An MIT faculty developed white paper, Third Revolution: Convergence of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Engineering (December 2010), first introduced the concept at a launch event at AAAS in Washington (January 2011). Last year, during the 2013 AAAS Annual Meeting in Boston, AAAS held a panel on Convergence, entitled: Convergence of Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences: Next Innovation Economy (February 15, 2013). Robbie Barbero, who handles the Convergence agenda for the White House OSTP, moderated the panel. Speakers included Phil Sharp (MIT), Tyler Jacks (MIT), Chad Mirkin (Northwestern), and Andrew Lo (MIT) who outlined the Convergence concept, Convergence in action at university centers, and the application of Convergence to grand challenges such as cancer. The White House is also engaged in Convergence as a Blueprint for Innovation. OSTP included a section on Convergence in the White House Blueprint for Action (January 10, 2013). This section, entitled “Fostering Convergent Science,” identified the NIH/DARPA/FDA Tissue Chip for Drug Screening as an example of convergent science and included four (4) “Goals for Next Year” to further enhance the Convergence discussion. More recently, the OSTP White House priorities memo (August 2013) framed the President’s BRAIN (Basic Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) Initiative as a priority
along with a Convergence-‐style discussion about research at the interfaces of biology, physical sciences, and engineering. The Academy of Science, Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council also created a video on Convergence for the 2014 AAAS Annual Meeting. The video is online here: https://vimeo.com/86625038. Symposium Agenda 8:30 am Susan Hockfield (MIT) Introduction and Overview 8:45 am Dennis A. Ausiello (MGH) The Practical Application of Convergence for Health Current and future challenges in health care delivery will center on integration of digital medical records and social media for patients. Convergence is a key component of what is now commonly referred to as precision medicine. While it is clear that the need is there, the question is only where to start. 9:05 am Belinda Seto (NIH-‐NIBIB) Convergence Technologies on the Horizon Despite continuing budget cuts at NIH, NIBIB continues to be a leading institute in the funding of next generation Convergence technologies and medical devices. Dr. Seto will review past and present examples of this research and identify opportunities both new and existing for approaching fund-‐seeking on Convergence style projects that don’t necessarily fit into one discipline. 9:25 am Chad Mirkin (Northwestern) University Convergence Institutes There are many responsibilities incumbent on the executive director of a new Convergence-‐style center on a university campus. From inception to build-‐out, a wide variety of university actors, most notably faculty from disparate disciplines, have to agree on space, tools, and other resources. They must see the benefit of pursuing resources as a team as opposed to individually. These are significant barriers, but universities across the country are building these centers because of the research accomplishments such centers can achieve.
9:45 am Joseph M. DeSimone (UNC-‐NCSU) Mega Convergence: Science, Engineering, and Beyond As disruptive technologies continue to permeate all that we do on a daily basis and change our world, traditional disciplines will be pulled more and more towards Convergence. This will entail partnerships at the intersection of not only the life sciences, physical sciences, computational sciences, and engineering disciplines, but also humanities disciplines, the liberal and performing arts, and more, thereby magnifying the potential for innovations of incredible variety and magnitude. 10:05 am Susan Hockfield, Transition to Break Out Session 10:20 am Breakout Group Discussions 11:10 am Moderators Report Findings 11: 20 am Susan Hockfield and Joseph DeSimone, Conclusions and Next Steps Participant Biographies Susan Hockfield is President Emerita and Professor of Neuroscience at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, having served as the sixteenth president from 2004 to 2012. As President of MIT, Hockfield shaped emerging national policy on energy technology and next-‐generation manufacturing. She advanced the convergence of the life, physical and engineering sciences to accelerate progress in biomedicine, energy and beyond. In June 2011, President Obama appointed her co-‐chairperson of the steering committee of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership. As a life scientist, she pioneered the use of monoclonal antibody technology in brain research and identified a set of proteins whose expression is regulated by neuronal activity early in an animal’s life. Her work included the discovery of a gene implicated in the spread of cancer in the brain, providing a link between her research and human health. Prior to MIT, she was the William Edward Gilbert Professor of Neurobiology, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (1998-‐2002), and Provost (2003-‐2004) at Yale University. She serves as a board member of General Electric and Qualcomm, a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, a life member of the MIT Corporation, an overseer of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, and a board member of the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School. She also serves as Science Envoy with the U.S. Department of State. She is the recipient of the Charles Judson Herrick Award from the American Association of Anatomists, the Wilbur Lucius Cross Award from Yale University, the Meliora Citation from the University of Rochester, the Golden Plate Award from the Academy of Achievement, the Amelia Earhart Award from the Women’s Union, the Edison Achievement Award, and the Pinnacle Award for Lifetime
Achievement from the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. She has received honorary degrees from national and international universities, and is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dennis A. Ausiello is the Jackson Distinguished Professor of Clinical Medicine and Director, Emeritus of the MD/PhD Program at Harvard Medical School; he is also Chairman of Medicine, Emeritus and Director of the Center for Assessment Technology and Continuous Health (CATCH) at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). He received his undergraduate degree from Harvard College and his medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Ausiello has made substantial contributions to the knowledge of epithelial biology in the areas of membrane protein trafficking, ion channel regulation and signal transduction. He has published numerous articles, book chapters, and textbooks and served as an editor of Cecil's Textbook of Medicine. A nationally recognized leader in academic medicine, Dr. Ausiello was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science in 1999 and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2003. His writings have been published in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe and elsewhere on topics concerning medical education and biomedical research, including human genetics, clinical trials, the inquisitive physician, and the relationship between academic medicine and the private sector. Understanding the need for partnerships between the academy and industry, Dr. Ausiello also serves in a variety of advisory roles beyond his academic affiliations, including his service on the Board of Directors of pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc., drug-‐delivery company, TARIS, and interference RNA company, Alnylam. Belinda Seto is the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). She is responsible for the governance and management of all facets of the Institute, including strategic planning for research and training programs, budget planning, financial management, communications, and staffing. She has launched major initiatives in informatics and has been appointed by the NIH Director to serve on the NIH Scientific Data Council. She promotes the synergy between molecular biology and imaging science. She has developed policies to foster strategic partnerships with stakeholders including industries, patient advocacy groups, and strongly promotes the development of technologies to achieve health equity in the under-‐served populations. She chairs the NIH working group on women and bioengineering to increase the number of women and enhance their careers in bioengineering. As such, she is a strong advocate for the next generation of biomedical researchers. Prior to joining the NIBIB, Dr. Seto was the Acting Deputy Director for Extramural Research in the Office of the Director, NIH. She led the Office of Extramural Research, which is the focal point for NIH policies and guidelines for research administration. Dr. Seto has a wealth of experience in the health policy arena, particularly AIDS policies. She also directed minority health programs in the areas of infant mortality and behavioral interventions research.
Dr. Seto earned her Ph.D. in biochemistry at Purdue University. Following postdoctoral training at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, she joined the Food and Drug Administration where she conducted research in virology for nearly 10 years. She has received numerous awards for her research, including the Distinguished Alumni Award for Science from Purdue University, the DHHS Secretary's Award for Exceptional Achievement, Inventor's Awards, NIH Director’s awards, the Ruth Kirschstein Mentoring Award, and she is listed in the American Men and Women of Science. Dr. Seto is the Editor-‐in-‐Chief of the American Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. She serves on numerous Federal and professional organizations committees, as well as being a member of several professional societies. Chad A. Mirkin is the Director of the International Institute for Nanotechnology, the George B. Rathmann Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Professor of Materials Science & Engineering, and Professor of Medicine. He is a chemist and a world-‐renowned nanoscience expert, who has authored over 560 manuscripts. He is listed as an inventor on over 900 patent applications worldwide (243 issued). Dr. Mirkin has been recognized for his accomplishments with over 90 national and international awards. These include the Linus Pauling Medal, the $500,000 Lemelson-‐MIT Prize, the Raymond and Beverly Sackler Prize in the Physical Sciences, the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology, an Honorary Degree from Nanyang Technological Univ. Singapore, the Lee Kuan Yew Distinguished Visitor to Singapore, and the ACS Award for Creative Invention. He is a Member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology (PCAST, Obama Administration), and one of only 15 scientists, engineers, and medical doctors to be elected to all three US National Academies (the Institute of Medicine, the Natl. Academy of Sciences, and the Natl. Academy of Engineering). He is also a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is the Founding Editor of the journal Small, an Associate Editor of the Journal of the American Chemical Society, and the founder of multiple companies, including Nanosphere, Inc., AuraSense, LLC, and AuraSense Therapeutics, LLC. Dr. Mirkin holds a B.S. degree from Dickinson College and a Ph.D. degree from Penn State. He was an NSF Postdoc at MIT prior to becoming a Professor at Northwestern in 1991. Joseph M. DeSimone is the Chancellor’s Eminent Professor of Chemistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Chemical Engineering at NC State University and of Chemistry at UNC-‐CH. He is also an Adjunct Member at Memorial Sloan-‐Kettering Cancer Center in New York. DeSimone has made breakthrough contributions in green chemistry, fluoropolymer synthesis, colloid science, and nano-‐biomaterials. Currently his main area of focus is nanomedicine. Known for bridging different fields to innovate in new areas, DeSimone fused precision manufacturing processes found in the microelectronics industry with continuous, roll-‐to-‐roll web based processes from the photographic film industry to invent the Particle Replication In Nonwetting Templates (PRINT) technology in 2004. PRINT enables the fabrication of precisely defined nanoparticles with control over chemical
composition, size, shape, deformability, and surface chemistry. DeSimone has published over 300 scientific articles and holds over 140 patents. He is an elected member of the US National Academy of Sciences, the US National Academy of Engineering, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has received over 50 major awards including the 2014 ACS Kathryn C. Hach Award for Entrepreneurial Success; the 2012 Walston Chubb Award for Innovation by Sigma Xi; the 2010 AAAS Mentor Award in recognition of efforts to advance diversity in the chemistry PhD workforce; the NIH Director's Pioneer Award; the $500,000 Lemelson-‐MIT Prize, and the ACS Award for Creative Invention. DeSimone has co-‐founded companies including Micell Technologies, Bioabsorbable Vascular Solutions, and Liquidia Technologies. DeSimone received his BS in Chemistry from Ursinus College in 1986 and his PhD in Chemistry from Virginia Tech in 1990. List of AAAS Panel Participants available upon request.