Sorry for the posting drought. There is a good reason: I'm in the final stages of a textbook based on courses I developed about nanostructures and nanotechnology. It's been an embarrassingly long time in the making, but I'm finally to the index-plus-final-touches stage. I'll say more when it's in to the publisher.
One other thing: I'm going to a 1.5 day workshop at NSF in three weeks about the next steps regarding the NNIN. I've been given copies of the feedback that NSF received in their request for comment period, but if you have additional opinions or information that you'd like aired there, please let me know, either in the comments or via email.
3 comments:
I don't know if you can comment on the NNIN comments but I'm curious as to what the sentiment was about NNIN. Based on the comments, does the research community want NNIN to continue as it has before?
Anon, the comments present a wide variety of points of view. There is definitely broad support for the idea that NSF should invest in facilities that are accessible to people outside particular individual institutions (that is, external academic and industrial users). If by "as it has before" you mean a network centrally run by one or two institutions, there is more divergence of opinion on that.
Is it going to be a pop-up book? Because grad textbooks are sorely lacking in pop-up-ness.
Post a Comment