Fueled by the deep pockets of a government anxious to jumpstart domestic research, the U.S. nano boom poses new challenges for academic institutions committing to their own programs. Not the least of these results from the multiple touch points with disciplines as varied as biology, optics, electronics, and informatics, each with different protocols and operational requirements.

At the building level, the convergence of several departments into the nano stream translates into an infrastructure emphasizing commonality rather than customization. Function trumps discipline, and the model of communal labs and shared equipment predominates. A critical imperative is providing spaces that not only promote casual investigator interaction but also support projects that cross traditional science department boundaries.

“In the U.S., nano means funding,” declares Ahmad Soueid, principal and senior vice president with HDR Architecture in Alexandria, Va., pointing out that in 2005 nanotech ranked second only to the war on terrorism in terms of federal spending priorities (admittedly with a quantum difference in funding levels between the two). Many institutions are emulating the “if you build it, they will come” approach embraced by the Department of Energy, which has invested in a network of fully equipped nanotech facilities to attract researchers willing to make their findings non-proprietary.

Citing the “brain drain” of European scientists lured to the U.S. by minimal red tape and attractive, ready-to-go labs, Soueid notes, “facilities come in as a very important aspect in retaining scientific leaders in the organization.”

Key Drivers: Diversity and Collaboration

Up until now, nanotech facilities have been operating with only light regulation, in the belief that “if you put too many limitations on an emerging field, you stifle creativity,” says Jack Paul, senior laboratory planner and research facility programmer, also with HDR. However, risk management practices are being applied, and “it’s time to develop standards and recommended practices,” Paul says.

With diversity such a vital spoke of the überscience umbrella, he stresses the distinction between activities that are simply collaborative as opposed to interdisciplinary, a far more encompassing description.

“‘Collaboration’ can be just talking to your partner, whoever she is, whether in the same discipline or not,” he remarks. “‘Interdisciplinary’ means actually driving people from different departments together who have different needs and, in many cases, use different techniques and have different organizational structures.”

The architects point to Purdue University’s Birck Nanotechnology Center in West Lafayette, Ind., as one complex that embodies a true interdisciplinary approach. A total of 140 faculty from 27 different schools—including veterinary medicine, agriculture, and pathology, as well as the more expected mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and physics—were engaged in the planning process in order to develop a facility that would meet multiple technical criteria, from exacting temperature control to single-pass air circulation to high bay labs that accommodate large-scale instruments.

The joint effort produced spaces that are collected by function instead of by department, along with community laboratories. Grouping spaces that need like types of utilities avoids the need to distribute all services everywhere in the building. The clustering approach is especially appropriate when dealing with sophisticated capabilities like advanced imaging, which require vibration isolation, EMI shielding, and acoustical quiet, Soueid points out.

“If you mix ‘noisy’ and ‘quiet’ spaces, obviously you defeat the purpose,” he observes.

Designing to a module simplifies building construction and helps control cost. A modular scheme also imparts flexibility and adaptability, essential characteristics for environments where key investigators have yet to be hired and space will have to be prepared quickly to capitalize on recruiting opportunities.

Community Labs Spawn New Issues

Expensive and sensitive research equipment, such as scanning electron microscopes (SEMs) and transmission electron microscopes (TEMs), is another factor pushing nanotech facilities toward community labs.

“SEMs and TEMs cost on the order of one to two million dollars apiece,” says Paul.  “You can’t afford to have one for biology, one for chemistry, and another for physics. Everyone has to share and learn how to work together. This is actually a common occurrence at universities these days,” he continues, noting, “Making it happen is something of a cultural change.”

Despite their many advantages, however, community labs introduce a new layer of complexity from both the administrative and operational standpoints. The architects recommend professional management, with a neutral party arbitrating lab use and making sure that the space is taken care of appropriately.

“Cleanrooms, for example, and even just advanced imaging suites require a tremendous amount of maintenance,” says Soueid. “Questions of space ownership, responsibility, and allocation all have to be answered.”

The level of expertise required to maintain specific process support systems frequently exceeds the knowledge base of campus plant operations personnel. Currently, Purdue has 12 staff members with at least a master’s degree to support the Birck facility. Ph.D.-holding members of the technical staff do their own research but also are in charge of specific, complex sections of the facility.

The Bio-Nano Interface

A vexing challenge for nanotech facility design is the bio-nano interface, which entails the need to accommodate incompatible materials as both organic and inorganic chemistry are introduced into a semiconductor environment.

“The convergence between biotechnology, nanotechnology, and information technology generates opportunities for different devices to be developed, for instance the lab-on-a-chip for medical research,” explains Soueid.

Virtually all of the North American facilities combining bio and nano capabilities represent one-off, customized designs. To fulfill its mission of providing a pharmaceutical-grade cleanroom that integrates with a nanofabrication cleanroom, the layout of Purdue’s Birck Center follows a zoned approach. The molecular cleanroom (everything from tissue culture, bacteria, and mammalian type of spaces) is on one side of the facility, and the semiconductor-based cleanroom is on the other. Linked by a sequence of pass-throughs, each zone has its own protocols, including gowning.

The building organization of the Quantum-Nano Centre at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, stands at the opposite end of the spectrum. In this facility a completely self-contained BSL-2 lab (a non-clean space) is located right across the hall from the cleanroom, meeting the goals of both separation and adjacency. Preparing for an unknown future, planners reserved space within the cleanroom for molecular substrate activity.

“Not all cleanrooms have organic substrates in them,” Paul comments. “Some share the same gowning area, with just a separate protocol—the addition of gloves or a change of smock at the door to the biology suite.”

Well-Configured, High-Quality Spaces

The extent and location of lab support space and the relationship of offices to labs are perennial issues in science facility design. The debate intensifies in the nanotech realm, where slight variations in layout can make a big difference in the traffic flow fostering sought-after scientist interaction. Soueid cites studies revealing that researchers spend half their day at the bench and the other half in their offices, so getting the configuration right is critical to a successful facility.

While relationships among these spaces are still evolving—everything from support spaces tucked away at the end of corridors to eliminating service corridors separating the labs—an overall emphasis on neighborhoods obliges PIs to move about the building, increasing the likelihood of encounters (and collaboration) with colleagues.

Spaces that are most apt to inspire “intellectual collisions” have several characteristics in common. Those inserted into a building’s key connecting points have the advantage of neutrality, helping to put collaborating scientists at ease.

“No one wants to be summoned to someone else’s office,” Paul remarks. “A casual interaction will happen where it is comfortable. The space needs to be readily accessible—no traipsing across campus. It shouldn’t be in the middle of a corridor but off to the side, where conversing scientists won’t impede circulation.”

To be most effective, gathering spots should also be equipped with soft seating, white boards to write on, and wireless Internet access. Well-lit spaces are more appealing than dark or “dungeon-like” areas, and an inviting or interesting view can be a good drawing card. One casual area, at Purdue’s nanotech center, is tucked under a window looking into the cleanroom subfab, with the ultra-pure water system clearly visible.

“The high-tech equipment is a real attraction, giving building occupants a glimpse of a system they wouldn’t normally be able to see,” says Soueid. “This has become an important stop on facility tours.”

Conference rooms constitute another building feature that can be used to promote the all-important commingling, especially when they are strategically located. At the Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y., conference rooms are sprinkled through the facility to draw occupants out of their labs and offices. The design for the University of Waterloo Quantum-Nano Centre includes a large boardroom, representing the opportunity for the facility’s scientists to meet with the outside world, bring in private funding, and execute technology transfers. At Purdue, the original plan was to eliminate conference rooms in the Birck Center because of the availability of similar spaces in the nearby Center for Entrepreneurship, but the HDR team strongly discouraged that approach, despite the potential cost savings.

“We told them that people will not go out of their way, especially outdoors in inclement Midwestern weather, to use such spaces,” Soueid recalls.

Spacious private offices for principal investigators (those at the University of Waterloo are a minimum of 150 sf) and amenities like libraries have proven to be good recruiting tools, according to Paul, who stresses that in this researcher-as-rock-star era appearances do indeed matter.

“Award-winning designs, those that provide a sense of place, constitute yet another vehicle to attract and retain the top talent,” he says. “The quality of the space and the building’s response to the changing research environment are becoming important new attractions.”

By Nicole Zaro Stahl

We welcome your Questions and Comments

Copyright 2008 Tradeline Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ISSN: 1096-4894