HNRS 174
Future Impact of Nano in New Technologies
Description: Seminar, four hours. Examination, for general audience, of science behind nanotechnology and way in which nano can potentially influence medical care, environment, energy issues, military, government, and economics. Demonstration of how nano, like current technology, cannot be separated from ethical, cultural, political, and social issues. P/NP or letter grading.
Units: 0.0
Units: 0.0
1 of 1
Most Helpful Review
Spring 2019 - This dude is a rad Chad meets eccentric, brilliant Scottish scientist. You'll understand if you take the class. The topic is lovely - nanotechnology is relevant in many respects (medicine, energy/environment, food, economy, electronics) and Professor Gimzewski is more than willing to engage and try to make room for north campus students, although mechanistic details for many complex topics went over my head even as a physical sciences major. But it's okay - you're not rigorously tested on the material. The way we engage in the 3-hour seminar is as follows: 2-hour "lectures" (more casual, with occasional discussion and questions), then 50 minutes to go through everyone's blogs. These blogs can be written on ANY topic broadly (or specifically, of course) relating to the lecture topic from the week prior. In essence, he encourages you to dive deeper into the topics that interest you on your own time, then share that knowledge with the class. If it's not blogs, then it's presentations that encourage us to think creatively about using nanotechnology in the future. There's a midterm presentation as well as a final presentation, both about 3-4 minutes long, again completely on the topic of your choice. For the final presentation, we also expand upon the ideas in the presentation in a 10-15 page paper (12-15 page paper? The length requirement was inconsistent between the syllabus and the assignment page... I ended up doing 14 so it didn't matter for me). This is also a creative work, where every year he collects everyone's papers and puts it together into a book. We come up with a theme for the book together, but what tends to stay the same as that you'll write a first-person narrative describing a person's experience with nanotechnology as well as an explanation of the science behind the nanotechnology (with the opportunity to expand on social/ethical consequences if you like but this isn't required). The 2020 topic was "A Day in the Life" so we really followed a person as they went about their daily life from waking up to going to bed, and we set the date as 2050. I had a great time with Prof. Gimzewski. He can mumble sometimes, and it isn't always easy to follow his train of thought. His train of thought also killed me sometimes, because one moment you'll see the true genius, and the next moment he'll be on to saying something completely irrelevant/random. But it was also absolutely hilarious, and he has a very good sense of humor, with good intentions. Definitely a professor who means well and attempts to be accommodating, and wants the best for everyone. Despite being a more flexible class, I still feel like a learned a massive amount and had fun. In sum: Blogs: 20% Participation/Discussion: 20% Midterm Presentation: 20% due week 5 Final: 40% (composed of 20% presentation due week 10, 20% paper due finals week) *Note: he was nice about telling students to reach out to him for accommodations in light of the coronavirus. Also he became a lot more communicative around this time, which I think increased my respect for him adapting as a professor. He's definitely a busy man, and prior to this he was the type of professor that definitely acknowledged emails internally, but often did not reply. He would even note to us "oh I saw that some students sent in emails to me that they were sick!" yet a guy in my class saw me later and was like "omg idk what's going on bc he never replied back to me?" But yeah, in the last weeks, he has sent frequent updates, showing that he comes through when it matters! Cool guy. Rad Chad. Haha.
Spring 2019 - This dude is a rad Chad meets eccentric, brilliant Scottish scientist. You'll understand if you take the class. The topic is lovely - nanotechnology is relevant in many respects (medicine, energy/environment, food, economy, electronics) and Professor Gimzewski is more than willing to engage and try to make room for north campus students, although mechanistic details for many complex topics went over my head even as a physical sciences major. But it's okay - you're not rigorously tested on the material. The way we engage in the 3-hour seminar is as follows: 2-hour "lectures" (more casual, with occasional discussion and questions), then 50 minutes to go through everyone's blogs. These blogs can be written on ANY topic broadly (or specifically, of course) relating to the lecture topic from the week prior. In essence, he encourages you to dive deeper into the topics that interest you on your own time, then share that knowledge with the class. If it's not blogs, then it's presentations that encourage us to think creatively about using nanotechnology in the future. There's a midterm presentation as well as a final presentation, both about 3-4 minutes long, again completely on the topic of your choice. For the final presentation, we also expand upon the ideas in the presentation in a 10-15 page paper (12-15 page paper? The length requirement was inconsistent between the syllabus and the assignment page... I ended up doing 14 so it didn't matter for me). This is also a creative work, where every year he collects everyone's papers and puts it together into a book. We come up with a theme for the book together, but what tends to stay the same as that you'll write a first-person narrative describing a person's experience with nanotechnology as well as an explanation of the science behind the nanotechnology (with the opportunity to expand on social/ethical consequences if you like but this isn't required). The 2020 topic was "A Day in the Life" so we really followed a person as they went about their daily life from waking up to going to bed, and we set the date as 2050. I had a great time with Prof. Gimzewski. He can mumble sometimes, and it isn't always easy to follow his train of thought. His train of thought also killed me sometimes, because one moment you'll see the true genius, and the next moment he'll be on to saying something completely irrelevant/random. But it was also absolutely hilarious, and he has a very good sense of humor, with good intentions. Definitely a professor who means well and attempts to be accommodating, and wants the best for everyone. Despite being a more flexible class, I still feel like a learned a massive amount and had fun. In sum: Blogs: 20% Participation/Discussion: 20% Midterm Presentation: 20% due week 5 Final: 40% (composed of 20% presentation due week 10, 20% paper due finals week) *Note: he was nice about telling students to reach out to him for accommodations in light of the coronavirus. Also he became a lot more communicative around this time, which I think increased my respect for him adapting as a professor. He's definitely a busy man, and prior to this he was the type of professor that definitely acknowledged emails internally, but often did not reply. He would even note to us "oh I saw that some students sent in emails to me that they were sick!" yet a guy in my class saw me later and was like "omg idk what's going on bc he never replied back to me?" But yeah, in the last weeks, he has sent frequent updates, showing that he comes through when it matters! Cool guy. Rad Chad. Haha.
1 of 1
