I just received the sad news that one of the legends of materials science and of science, in general, Rustum Roy, passed away last week. Although he was a stellar researcher, he considered himself to be a citizen-scientist and urged his colleagues to deeply consider how science, society, art and education can interact in productive and nonproductive ways.

It is difficult to summarize Roy’s influence on the world of science, let alone just the fields of ceramics and glass. He held five professorships: three at Pennsylvania State University, one at Arizona State University and one at the University of Arizona. He was a 32-year member of the National Academy of Engineering, with the rare distinction also of having been elected to the National Academies of Science/Engineering of Russia, Japan, Sweden and India.

In 2003, the Institute for Scientific Information ranked Penn State’s Materials Research Laboratory, which he founded in 1962 and directed for a quarter century, first in the world on the basis of the number of highly cited scientists in the lab.

Roy left a permanent mark on the materials field, starting with its most fundamental base: phase diagrams and crystal chemistry. His discovery and championing of a major discovery in new materials processing — the sol–gel process — has been utilized (not only cited) in over 50,000 papers. His work in hydrothermal reaction, microwave processing, nucleation in glass, radioactive wastes, nanocomposites and superconductors have also left a permanent legacy.

Roy became a Fellow of The American Ceramic Society in 1961 and elevated to Distinguished Life Member in 1993. He had also sponsored one of the most anticipated annual lectures of ACerS: The Frontiers of Science Rustum Roy Lecture series that has been a fixture of the Society’s Annual Meetings.

Roy authored or coauthored hundreds of papers, founded and edited numerous newsletters and journals in materials science and engineering education. One of his recent papers appeared in the first issue of ACerS’ new International Journal of Applied Glass Science, “Glass Science and Glassmaking: A Personal Perspective” [ed. note - this paper is available at no cost] and represents something of a tour de force of his career:

“This paper demonstrates how glass has provided one of the earliest, and still rare, examples of controlled use of science at the nanolevel in a well-established gigatechnology. The glass community-from the Venetian glass makers (and the science of luminaries such as Michael Faraday and Isaac Newton) down through major industrial successes such as glass-ceramics-are examples of excellent nanoengineers practicing clever applications of manipulation of matter at the nano and subnano scale. This paper describes the evolution of the understanding of nanoheterogeneity of the structure (and composition of virtually all useful glasses) that has been the key evolutionary “invention” in this process. It then makes the case that glass (and polymer) technology has an enormous advantage over all of the nanomaterial technologies that are confronted with the enormous barrier of assembling large numbers of very small particles into useful products on a large scale, as recognized by the recently anointed patron saint of the present nanofever, Richard Feynman, in his only paper in the field. Finally, this paper introduces glass scientists to a radically new opportunity via a totally new way to convert crystalline matter into glasses (noncrystalline solids)-for all scientists interested in the glassy state.”

Roy also chaired the Science Advisory Committee of the Friends of Health, a nonprofit group that examines a range of disruptive innovations in human healing based on materials science and physics.

In an obituary on Penn State’s website, one of Roy’s colleagues, Carlo Pantano, had this to say:

“Rustum Roy made a difference for the field of materials science and for Penn State. He had a tremendous publication record extending back 60 years that people still refer to in their research. At every step of the way he seemed to be ahead of the curve, in research as well as in the way he managed the scientific enterprise. He was well-known to be an enthusiastic and provocative lecturer by students and colleagues alike. His crystal chemistry course was on every graduate student’s course list, in addition to numerous special topics courses he created in concert with the latest and hottest research topics in materials science.”

Roy was interested in science policy as much as science, itself, and he served as a science policy fellow at the Brookings Institution from 1982 to 1983 and was a visiting fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., from 1980 to 1985.

He was also a lay preacher and served on the board of the National Council of Churches and helped found the Sycamore Community church.

Finally, it is important to note Roy’s long-time marriage to fellow materials scientist Della Martin Roy, another legendary figure in the world of material science and policy.

Here is Roy’s formal obituary from the Centre Daily Times:

Rustum Roy, 86, of State College, died Thursday, August 26, 2010 at Foxdale Village.

Born on July 3, 1924, in Ranchi, India, he was the seventh child of the late Narendra Kumar and Rajkumari Roy. On June 8, 1948, he married Della Martin, who survives.

Also surviving are three children, Neill R. Roy and his wife, Evelina Francis, of State College, Jeremy R. Roy and his wife, Lydia, of Arlington, Tex., and Ronnen A. Roy and his wife, Sinaly, of Bethesda, Md.; two grandchildren, Simone and Naren; a brother, Prodipto Roy of India, and a sister Ioni Dipti Sisodia of Georgia; and by numerous nieces and nephews.

He received B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from Patna University and received his Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University.

He was associated with Penn State for sixty-five years as a graduate student and faculty member. At Penn State he held positions as Evan Pugh Professor of the Solid State, as Professor of S.T.S., and as Professor of Geochemistry. He also was a Distinguished Professor of Materials at Arizona State University, and a Visiting Professor of Medicine at the University of Arizona. He was appointed and served for 23 years as the first director of an independent interdisciplinary Materials Research Laboratory in the U.S. He was elected to numerous national and international scientific academies including the U.S. National Academy of Engineering. He co-founded the pioneering nterdisciplinary scientific society - the Materials Research Society- and continued to advance the boundaries of science and technology up to the present, including seminal research in the emerging field of water science, as well as resonance effects in condensed matter.

An outstanding aspect of his life was his capacity and dedication to breaking artificial boundaries in order to integrate science, religion, education, health, art and social action for human benefit. As an eight year old, in his parent’s house he met Gandhi, who discussed with his father how personal change was more effective for human advancement than technological change. Professor Roy’s solution in life was to pursue both.

He was very active in ecumenical religious life for over 60 years and co-founded the interdenominational Sycamore Community. His insight into the world’s main religions led him to work to break down the boundaries between Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism and other religions. He served on the Executive Committee of the National Council of Churches, was a leader in the Kirkridge retreat center, and was the friend and colleague of many religious leaders including Bishop John Robinson, John Shelby Spong, Prof. Harvey Cox, Sister Joan Chittister and Reverend Gordon Cosby. He was also invited by the Pope to the Vatican committee regarding the rehabilitation of Galileo.

He was a champion of interdisciplinary K-12 schooling and was the driving force behind creation of the interdisciplinary field of Science, Technology and Society. He served as Science Advisor to a number of successive Pennsylvania Governors and chaired for many years the Science and Society Sector of President Mikhail Gorbachev’s State of the World forum.

Professor Roy became a champion of integrative medicine, resulting in alliances with pioneering figures including Andrew Weil, Deepak Chopra, Larry Dossey, B.M. Hegde, Marc Newkirk, Patrick Flanagan, Hans Peter Duerr, Vladimir Voeikov, and Yan Xin, with the purpose of bringing advances in the art and science of whole person healing to the wider public. He was founder and sponsor of Friends of Health, served as co-chair of the Chopra Foundation, and hosted a live Internet talk radio show onVoiceAmerica.com.

He was also a long time promoter of art and the field of art and science, and was responsible for bringing the works of artists, such as Barbara Hepworth, Max Bill, and Fredrick Franck, to the University.

[Two notes: The comments below are my opinions. Sometimes convention need to be reexamined, especially as new technology and other conventions around us change. Second, I have replaced the original photo, above, with one that is more generic. At least one reader  recognized the venue in the original and felt it implied a particular criticism of the meeting organizers. That was not the intention. For the record, I am not trying to single out any scientific group, society, association, division, agency, etc. as particularly better or worse at hosting these sessions and picking participants. To my knowledge, every poster session across the globe is nearly identical. Thus, my comments are meant to be universal. More importantly, the question I am hoping to discuss is this: Given existing technology and what we know about communication science, can poster sessions be improved to optimize the flow of information and maximize the networking/career outreach benefits for both the poster presenter and the session attendees?]

Apropos to my post earlier this week about re-imagining poster sessions, I just realized that Marshall McLuhan would have been 99 yesterday.

Among many things, McLuhan was famously know for his “medium is the massage/message” meme. What I have always understood this to mean is that significant nuances and implications to one’s choice of media to deliver what ever it is that one wants to deliver, whether it be art, entertainment, opinion, facts . . . or even science discoveries.

Going a step further, McLuhan says the medium creates and molds an audience suited for it. Unlike, perhaps a piece of sculpture in a public place, he noted that the rise of TV and electronic media gave rise to an isolated, impersonal audience whose moods could/would shift every half hour or hour.

What’s this got to do with posters sessions? A lot, I think. To repeat myself, I think posters are much more than just a logically ordered collection of facts on paper. They are a billboard to a person’s (most likely a grad student, post doc or young professional) “fact set,” but also to their work style, intellect, interests, ability to deliver and interpret results. They also can reflect a person’s ability to communicate and network.

I am not convinced that facts and conclusions presented on the posters, themselves, are the most important aspect of poster sessions. My sense is that the poster presenters go into these sessions with excitement and high hopes about the conversations, questions, sharing, discussions of alternative methodologies, comparisons of paths to different conclusions and, of course, networking and job hunting.

Yet, these ugly, two-dimensional posters do little if anything to create an audience that really engages in those conversations and networking. I think the engagement that does occur between reader and presenter in poster sessions happens in spite of the medium, not because of it. Social courtesies make it difficult to not acknowledge the presenter in some way. On occasion, a reader will attempt to engage in a deeper discussion of the work of a presenter, but, nearly by definition, these interactions are confined to the facts and subject matter of the poster. Nevertheless, the entire set up of a poster session encourages readers to easily and impersonally “change the channel,” move three feet to their left or right and start reading the next poster.

In this sense, the old science-fair format is better. At least there, the observers are encouraged to stop and see the entrant’s “performance” of their faux volcano or a beating heart.

So, I’d expect that if McLuhan were around to provide an opinion, he would say that if you want to create an audience geared to engagement, conversations and networking, he’d tell you to find a medium and an approach through that medium that does that.

But, a sheet of 4′ X 6′ white cardboard with words jammed into every nook and cranny? I think he’d have a good laugh at the notion that this stimulates good conversation.

Even putting a bowl of M&Ms or some other cheap snack in front of your poster would be an improvement .

I once heard the old horrible saying about spouses – “you can’t live with ‘em and you can’t live without ‘em” – used to describe the venerable poster sessions at science conferences.

But, here is a question I have been thinking a lot about lately, and I wonder if any of you have any thoughts: “When, or what will it take for science poster sessions evolve?”

On their surface, poster sessions are still based on technology that is ancient, one-dimensional, difficult to edit and to share, and 99% of the info dies when the poster is taken down. On the other hand, posters are inexpensive and allow nonlinear learning at a pace the reader selects.

Of course, the simple truth is that the posters, themselves, are really a “prop” to stimulate lots of networking and data exchange.

Yet, by modern graphic art and technical standards, the yardstick for a “good” poster experience is very, very low. Nearly every poster is ugly and difficult to follow (flow-wise). And, the type and quality of interaction has been nearly unchanged for at least 60 years. Most participants don’t even prepare a PPT or PDF version of their poster to share. (Thumb drives are nearly free now - and could be preloaded and given away.)

These posters and sessions are literally billboards and sales pitches for a scientist (or grad student/postdoc) and his/her work, yet they often fail not because of bad science but because they fail on a “medium is the message” level.

And despite their ubiquity, creating posters and preparing for poster sessions is largely untaught (and to the extent there is any major mentoring or teaching, it doesn’t involve any designers or communications specialists.)

One possible game changer: Coincidentally while thinking about this last week, I discovered a postdoc at Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics conference who had prepared videos and lots of supplementary materials on an iPad that he held while standing by his poster. I watched him and he frequently used the iPad to show the supplementary stuff, to immediately email a PPT version of his poster, to search through his research for answers to questions he didn’t anticipate, etc. Very, very cool, and the people who stopped seemed to really like it.

And, for the first time, it made me think that the beginning of major changes might not that far off.

So, I am curious. What’s the best poster you’ve seen recently? Why? (Or what’s the best “worst” poster, if you tastes tend to go in that direction.)

If you could redesign the “poster experience” what would you change?

(And please, please, please don’t waste my time suggesting insidious “How to” sites like this. Slide film and 8.5 X 11 tiled sheets. Really?!?!?! What year is this?)

The DOE tells me ARPA-E still has “help wanted” signs out in several areas of the organization dedicated to high-risk, high-reward energy R&D.

Program Directors: For three- year stints, ARPA-E is looking for people visionary ideas on promising areas for new energy technologies. Program Directors are responsible for program creation, design, implementation, and management.

Especially relevant backgrounds include:

• Electrochemical energy storage and conversion
• Photovoltaic energy conversion
• Advanced engines/vehicle technologies
• Chemical catalysis/reaction engineering for biofuels, industrial processes, and other energy applications
• Biological approaches to energy conversion/biofuels
• Low temperature waste heat recapture/thermodynamic and/or solid state cycles
• Fossil energy conversion/carbon capture and conversion
• Wind power/ocean and wave power/aerodynamics and fluid dynamics
• Grid scale energy storage
• Energy harvesting materials and devices
• Building efficiency technologies/HVAC/building envelope/smart buildings
• Advanced lighting technologies
• Advanced materials for energy applications

Commercialization Advisors: For two- to four-year assignments, ARPA-E is seeking Commercialization Advisors who have both technical and business skills for technology transfers to the market. They will be ARPA-E’s primary providers of commercialization assistance to the research teams that ARPA-E funds. Each advisor will focus on one or two ARPA-E technology program areas (supporting approximately 10-20 ARPA-E-funded research teams) and will also contribute to overall commercialization program development.

Qualifications

• U.S. citizenship.
• 5+ years of work experience, including a combination of technology/research and business experience; startup/entrepreneurial experience is a plus.
• MBA degree is preferred.
• Strong technical backgrounds are preferred, including engineering, technology development or scientific research.
• Superior analytical skills with experience in areas such as market research and financial analysis.
• Strong written and oral communication abilities.
• Demonstrated interest in energy and energy technologies.

Fellows: ARPA-E Fellows lead agency initiatives and gain exposure to energy policy and all aspects of the energy technology development lifecycle, including scientific research, technology prototyping and development and technology commercialization. The initial term of hire will not exceed two years. Prospective fellows should aspire to be leaders in the energy field after their tenure at ARPA-E. Once selected, fellows are full-time federal employees and paid a competitive salary.

Qualifications/work experience:

• Doctorate degree in an energy-relevant field of science or engineering.
• Strong technical background and deep expertise in at least one energy-technology-related field.
• Passion for energy technology research and development.
• Interest in working in a multidisciplinary, fast-paced environment focused on energy technology research and development.
• Strong analytical and research skills, and a demonstrated capacity for creative thinking.
• A distinguished record of scholarship and publication.
• Fellows are recent doctoral graduates with less than three years of work experience. In rare cases, candidates may be accepted who are still working toward their doctorate.
• Senior Fellows have three or more years of distinctive work experience in an energy-innovation-related field. Experience and knowledge in technology commercialization is desirable, but not required.

Left, a tie based on microstructure of MgB2, and, right, the society logo.

The materials science and engineering honorary society, Alpha Sigma Mu, now has several really unique and  attractive ties and scarves you won’t find anywhere else. Admittedly, these accessories are a little on the pricey side – $100 each – but $80 of that is tax deductible and all monies are earmarked for the Alpha Sigma Mu Professor Richard Connell Scholarship Fund. In other words, they are worth every penny.

Ties and scarves are also available based on the microstructure from Gibeon meteorite.

The ties and scarves can be purchased several ways:

• At the upcoming MS&T10 conference (Oct. 17-21, 2010, in Houston);
• Through the Alpha Sigma Mu website;
• Contact the group’s treasurer, Raghavan Srinivasan, c/o Mechanical and Materials Engineering Dept., Wright State University, 3640 Col. Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435.

Alpha Sigma Mu also says it wants to keep up with where its members are. The groups requests that members to its website’s Career Center and establish an account introduces employers to Alpha Sigma Mu members who have registered.