Read Full Article on UKNow

Read Full Article on UKNow

Read Full Article

Grant Boggess, Todd Montgomery and Samuel Potter each received phone calls from UK President Eli Capilouto congratulating them on their accomplishment. While the students had been accepted by institutions with prestigious names such as Johns Hopkins, Georgia Tech, etc., each chose to pursue their undergraduate engineering education at UK. Why? We’ll let them tell you in their own words.

Grant Boggess (undecided)

The biggest reason I chose UK was the money. UK offered a really good education for essentially free compared to over a quarter of a million dollars at some of the more prestigious out of state schools. Money aside, once I got on UK’s campus I absolutely loved it. Everyone on campus is so welcoming. UK bends over to everything in its power to make sure students exceed their own expectations—I am not just one more student in the crowd.

Todd Montgomery (mechanical engineering)

One of the biggest reasons I chose to come to UK was for the undergraduate research program. UK is very welcoming to students who want to take part in one of the many outlets for research. As a student in the MSTC (Math Science and Technology Center) program at my high school, I was allowed to conduct my own research through the Kentucky Young Researcher’s Program at UK during my junior and senior years in high school. That experience really showed me that UK had made a commitment to giving their undergraduate students every opportunity they need to succeed.

Samuel Potter (materials engineering)

I chose materials engineering because of my interest in medical implants. Today, most orthopedic implants are made of stainless steel or titanium. Although these materials do a decent job, they do have their drawbacks. Knowing what I want to do, I was able to determine that UK’s program would get me there. A lot of schools offer degrees in biomedical engineering, but the field is quite broad. Since my interests relate directly to implant materials, a degree in materials engineering seemed perfect.

Since joining UK, Dr. Dziubla has published 20 peer-reviewed papers, has two U.S. patents pending, graduated three Ph.D. students, mentored 12 graduate students and over 30 undergraduate students on research projects in his laboratory.  In addition, he has been active in mentoring high school students on research projects, having published two peer-reviewed papers that included high school students. Dr. Dziubla is highly involved in multidisciplinary efforts on campus, participating in the engineering bioactive interfaces NSF/IGERT and NSF/REU programs as well as the Cancer Nanotechnology Training Center funded by the NIH/NCI, where Dr. Dziubla serves as part of the Mentoring and Development Committee. Recently, collaborating with the College of Dentistry, Dr. Dziubla has begun looking into how existing biomaterials can aid existing patients with chronic oral pain not treatable by current clinical practices. 

Q: What are you researching and why does it matter?

T.D.: My area of research is biomaterials. A biomaterial is any physical material that comes in contact with the body or biological fluid, whether surgical tubing, dental implants, tissue engineering scaffolds or pharmaceutical pills—all are classified as biomaterials. The most important aspect of biomaterials is biocompatibility; we have to make sure they are beneficial and don’t cause harm to the body. Unfortunately, no material is perfect. Biomaterials can become cytotoxic, pro-inflammatory or carcinogenic. However, all of those reactions have a central underlying cause called oxidative stress—the generation of radical species that is highly reactive and can accumulate in the body.

So, if we know oxidative stress is implicated as the key mechanism for things like carcinogenesis, cytotoxicity and inflammation then, arguably, suppressing that process should be able to control or improve biocompatibility. One way to do that is to through antioxidants. The focus of my lab is taking natural antioxidants like green tea polyphenols and making them into degradable polymers. By their nature, those polymers would release antioxidants as they degrade. Rather than being inert, we are engineering the biomaterial to actually play an active role in improving biocompatibility.

Q: With what other faculty members, departments or colleges do you have opportunities to collaborate?

T.D.: UK is a vibrant center of collaboration. Within two weeks of arriving at UK in 2006, I got a knock on the door from David Puleo, director of the Center for Biomedical Engineering. We sat down and started talking about our respective research areas and, within a month, we had co-authored and submitted a grant together. It’s a very exciting environment. I get to collaborate with people in the College of Medicine, College of Pharmacy, College of Arts & Sciences as well as others within the College of Engineering. My lab develops new materials, so we are open to working with anyone who can take advantage of what we do.

Q: What is your involvement with the biopharmaceutical engineering track? What excites you about it?

T.D.: The biopharmaceutical engineering track takes advantage of one of the unique things about UK: a nationally renowned and top-tiered College of Pharmacy working in conjunction with a great engineering program. Through the biopharmaceutical engineering track, we can develop students who have a full chemical engineering degree but also understand the basics of pharmaceutics, drug manufacturing and delivery, and current issues in the pharmaceutical industry. When you tie all that together, we are able to release a workforce at the bachelor’s level that is very attractive to the pharmaceutical industry.

The pharmaceutical industry is in a state of flux right now. People hear about major pharmaceutical companies shrinking and laying off employees; what they don’t realize is that this is because of a shift in the way the pharmaceutical production is being handled. Large companies are not doing everything themselves anymore. They are subcontracting much of their work to contract manufacturers and that’s where the jobs are. As a result, Kentucky has attracted a lot of contracting manufacturers, such as Catalent in Winchester and Patheon in nearby Cincinnati, etc. The bottom line is that the pharmaceutical industry is both growing and remaining in the U.S.

Q: What do you wish all freshman students had in their toolboxes upon arrival?

T.D.: A sense of wonder that they don’t lose. If they come in interested and engaged, and maintain it, classes will be infinitely easier for them. The grade is a byproduct of what they should be getting, not the goal.

Q: How do you meaningfully involve undergraduate students in research?

T.D.: I was first exposed to the research process as an undergraduate at Purdue University. One day, I saw an intriguing poster done by a professor, Dr. Nicholas Peppas, and went in to talk with him. He was more than willing to let me work in his lab. As a result, I fell in love with the process. It was exciting to work on problems that had never been solved before; frustrating, too, because I learned why they still hadn’t been solved. When you’re on that edge, it gets addicting.

In my classes, I encourage that same exploration. If a student is interested, I will meet with them and help them figure out what they want to do. If it’s in my lab, that’s great; if it is in another area, I try to facilitate them getting involved elsewhere.

Our Research Experience for Undergraduates program, which brings students together from all universities across the country, is a great example of a collaborative research environment. A chemical engineering student can work with a faculty member in pharmaceutical sciences; or, a biomedical engineering student major might explore new areas with a chemist. It’s breadth of scope is what makes it great because, whatever a discipline’s formal definition may be, the barriers in science are artificial.

Q: How do you balance academic rigor with wanting students to succeed?

T.D.: I will start by saying, and my thermodynamics students can attest to this, that while I want them all to succeed, I do not decrease my expectations of them. I teach them at the level I think the material demands, not at a level that will give them easy answers. Sure, the material is challenging to digest but it is very important to our understanding of the world and worth the effort. I don’t believe in lowering bars; if students are challenged, they will rise to the challenge.

Now, how do I balance the rigor? I give as much of my time as possible to help them. I spend a lot of time with students who have questions or problems, in person and through email. I’m not unique, though; all of the chemical engineering faculty members are willing to go above and beyond to help the students succeed.

I also try to make sure flaws in my teaching aren’t hindering them from learning. Just as a grade is an assessment of a student’s performance, I provide ways for them to give feedback on my teaching performance. I will frequently give quizzes that are worth no points. Why? I want to measure their understanding and see if they are picking up material. Other times, I will send a questionnaire to ask what they like most about my class, what they like least and what they would change if they could. Their responses influence my teaching. I really want them to learn the material.

Q: Aside from the necessary classroom information, by the time students finish your class, what do you hope to have imparted to them?

T.D.: Critical thinking—more so than anything else. I tell my students often that knowledge is not compartmentalized. Science and engineering doesn’t begin and end in the classroom. What they learn in thermodynamics doesn’t just apply to what they are going to do in their jobs; it applies to what they are going to do in their lives. When we go through the laws of thermodynamics, I say, “Now that you know these laws, don’t just use them at work. Use them in life. If someone says something that doesn’t make scientific sense, call them on it. It’s your responsibility to protect from scams, charlatans and bad science.” Critical thinking is a big part of that.

Q: If you were starting a company, what would you pay a freshly graduated chemical engineer? Why—what are they able to do that make them worthy of that salary?

T.D.: (Laughs) Well, I am starting a company with Zach Hilt (W.T. Bryan Professorship in Engineering). We just formed a company based on our research, Bluegrass Advanced Materials, LLC., so that’s an interesting question. The starting salary for a chemical engineer is somewhere between $65,000-$75,000 annually. In order to get the best students, we would want to be competitive and, presuming the funds are there, we would probably pay around $70,000. I think that is appropriate for a process engineer fresh out of college.

As for what they can do, they are able to solve problems and avoid catastrophes. An investment in a good student is insurance against failures. A good chemical engineer has insight, is proactive in his/her thinking and isn’t going to simply cookbook it and retrofit a previous answer to a new problem. Rather, they will figure out exactly what the problem is, what the solution is and then apply the solution in the best possible way. To do that, you need a solid engineering foundation and critical thinking. A good engineering education provides both and makes graduates worthy of the money.

Q: If you could take a class from any of our other engineering professors, who would it be with and what would the subject be?

T.D.: One would be materials science professor John Balk on electromicroscopy and materials. I think he does outstanding work and would love to learn from him. I am also interested in the work being done by Fazleena Badurdeen and I.S. Jawahir in the Institute for Sustainable Manufacturing. Their work in the whole area of sustainable manufacturing and supply chains is becoming extremely important for manufacturing biomaterials. Eventually, I would like to incorporate some of their work into my research.

Q: Why do you teach at the University of Kentucky?

T.D.: It is very easy to fall in love with Kentucky—it’s a beautiful state. The city of Lexington is one of the most collegial environments I’ve studied or worked in, with a great community and a level of diversity that goes against a lot of stereotypes. At the state level, we’re doing a lot of things right to develop the students and grow industry, so I believe we have a bright future. I love the size of the university and the student body and, when you factor in the collaborative opportunities and ability to personally interact with the students, helping them when they need it, there are a lot of luxuries here at UK.

“Determining that abstinence is the best policy regarding children and ATVs was merely a hypothesis; there was no scientific evidence to support their judgment,” he recalls. “I felt like someone needed to take a more scientific approach to the question of whether or not children are too small to ride ATVs.”

But how does one test such a hypothesis? What kinds of experiments have the potential to produce relevant data, yet prevent children from becoming injured during testing? Dr. Bernard knew he would need help.

So he looked for an engineer.

“The way engineers look at the world is crucial for tackling a question like this. If you want to go beyond, ‘Oh, there’s another group of injured children, so children should never ride these things,’ then you need engineers,” he says. “I knew about the Wenner-Gren biomedical research facility, but didn’t know exactly what they did. So I sent an email asking if anyone could help me test the hypothesis. A few days later, I got a response from David Pienkowski.”

David Pienkowski has been a faculty member in the Center for Biomedical Engineering at UK since 1991. Specializing in bone research and osteoporosis, he was intrigued by Dr. Bernard’s request.

“I knew nothing about ATVs prior to talking with Andrew regarding the means to test this hypothesis,” he acknowledges, “but with some work, and help from Blue Grass Motor Sports, nurses and many others, we devised a research strategy.”

What have they discovered?

“We are in the process of developing a simple recipe for fitting children onto ATVs. In terms of size, there are two different sizes of ATVs, one aimed toward youth and one for adults,” Pienkowski explains. “There are differences in vehicle dimensions beyond the obvious; one such example is the brake lever on a youth ATV – it is the same as that on an adult ATV. That caused us to ask: how can a child reach a lever that is farther away than it would be for an adult and safely brake an ATV in time to avoid a collision?”

Dr. Bernard elaborates, “We believe we can supply information manufacturers can use for design changes, and that those design changes will lead to greater injury prevention.”

Another finding has to do with factors leading to ATVs tipping over, especially when children ride behind adults.

“ATV injuries come in all forms, but it is all too common for a driver to over-accelerate when going up a hill and tip the ATV. When that happens, the child suffers the weight of the vehicle and the adult,” describes Pienkowski. “We are studying the relationship between the angle at which the ATV can be ridden, the weight of the child and the position of the child relative to the rear axle and torque applied by the throttle input.”

“Given what we have learned from studying those relationships, we are surprised there aren’t more ATV accidents,” adds Dr. Bernard.

Both researchers agree that perhaps the most important lesson they have learned is that age is not a sufficient marker of who should ride an ATV.

“We need to focus on size, not age,” says Pienkowski. “Kids can be the same age and yet differently proportioned. This is a guideline we would like to see manufacturers and retailers change for the safety of their customers.”

Through the peer-reviewed literature, public service announcements and conversations with ATV manufacturers and retailers, the two hope to disseminate the fruits of their research in ways that lead to safer practices and fewer ATV-related injuries and deaths.

“Kentucky is fourth in the nation in ATV deaths, behind California, Texas and Pennsylvania—even though our population is far less than those states; yet, we know that in spite of laws and public service announcements, adults will allow children to ride ATVs. We want to offer scientifically-based guidelines that will make such riding safer.”

Todd William Montgomery of Paul Laurence Dunbar High School received the 2012 Rotary Scholar Award. Todd ranked in the top 2% of his 468 student class. A member of the prestigious Math, Science and Technology Center magnet program at Dunbar, Todd achieved a perfect score on his ACT test and a perfect “5” on all eight of his advanced placement exams. Todd was the captain and MVP of Dunbar’s regional champion soccer team and demonstrated remarkable extracurricular and community involvement. He won the Math, Science and Technology Center Physics Award as well as the Spanish II Award.

Todd worked on a graduate level research project with David Puleo, director of the Center for Biomedical Engineering at UK, focusing on the use of hydrogels in a calcium sulfate matrix as a drug delivery mechanism for periodontal growth. He plans to attend UK this fall, majoring in mechanical engineering with an eye to later graduate studies.

Kenneth Edward Freeman of Lafayette High School made the All-Fayette County High School Academic Team. Kenneth ranked fourth in his class and was a member of the National Honor Society, Beta Club and Mu Alpha Theta Math Club. Kenneth was a four-year member of the varsity swim team, serving as captain the last two years. He was the team’s MVP in 2010 and 2011. Kenneth has also been a member of the U.S. National Deaf Swim Team for the last two years. Kenneth will attend UK and major in mechanical engineering this fall.

Grant Boggess of Paul Laurence Dunbar High School also made the All-Fayette County High School Academic Team. Grant was the captain of the Academic Team, a member of the Science National Honor Society, Beta Club and Mayor’s Youth Council. He was a member of Dunbar’s swim team and also participated in the Math, Science and Technology Center Research Project at UK. Grant earned a perfect score on his ACT and is a National Merit Semifinalist. He will attend UK this fall, majoring in biosystems engineering.

Scott Ashcraft, soon to be a senior mechanical engineering student at UK, received one off eight Rotary Club College and University Scholarships. Scott is specializing in aeronautics and is president of the student chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), as well as an Engineering Student Ambassador and a senator in UK Student Government. Scott’s dream is to begin a career at NASA after completing a master’s degree focusing on aeronautical engineering.

Meanwhile, four biosystems and agricultural engineering majors are studying in Brazil. Temperatures in Viçosa, home to Universidade Federal de Viçosa, are akin to July in North America. The students are gaining invaluable experience by studying agricultural engineering in a cross-cultural environment. Even better—their semester in Brazil is fully funded!

FIPSE—the Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education—is a joint project between the United States and Brazilian governments that provides money for an exchange program between the two countries. Students involved in the program receive a stipend that covers their expenses and typically does not interfere with a student’s graduation date. To date, only biosystems and agricultural engineering students have participated in FIPSE; however, the program is open to all engineering students.

“We primarily work with two universities in Brazil,” says biosystems professor Dr. Timothy Stombaugh. “Universidade Federal de Viçosa is geared toward agriculture studies—agricultural engineering is actually the only engineering discipline taught at the university—and Campina Grande offers engineering, but not agriculture. Because the program has afforded the possibilities for such synergy, we have welcomed several mechanical and electrical engineering students from Brazil to our campus.”

Graduate student Sam Mullins, who studied in Brazil during the 2008 fall semester, appreciates that he had the opportunity to observe engineering applied in a different context. “Immersing myself in Brazilian culture, meeting new people and living life as a Brazilian was the perfect way for me to learn and appreciate the importance of engineering—particularly in agriculture—as a way to help a rapidly developing country progress faster”

One of the differences between the American and Brazilian students in the program is proficiency with the host country’s primary language. Whereas Brazilian students arrive at UK with a strong command of English, their American counterparts often know little Portuguese. To help the students gain facility with Portuguese, students participating in the spring semester leave approximately eight weeks prior to the start of the semester and take part in a language immersion experience. As a result, students are more equipped to interact with faculty and understand the technical aspects of the course lectures and labs.

Dr. Stombaugh says between 50-60 Brazilian students apply for the program each semester and, given the stringent entrance requirements for biosystems and engineering students at Universidade Federal de Viçosa and Campina Grande, those accepted into FIPSE are the universities’ top students.

“The Brazilian students understand the value of an education outside Brazil,” he explains, “They know that to succeed in the world and in global economies, they need to gain exposure outside their own country. While they are here, they make contacts, gain knowledge and broaden their horizons. We would like to build that same desire into our students.”

Students interested in obtaining more information about FIPSE can contact Dr. Stombaugh at (859) 257-3000 x214 or tim.stombaugh@uky.edu.

Q: When you graduated from high school, what were your career ambitions?

A.M.: I graduated from high school at age 16 and although I had the formal academic qualifications to go to university, I was too young and I wasn’t interested. So I went into industry. I took an industrial job at 16, but eventually listened to the guys I was working for who were saying I should be at the university. Because of my qualifications, I was exempt from the first year and got my bachelor’s degree in three years. At that point, I was enjoying higher education, so I started a Ph.D. program. When I was two years into the program, my thesis advisor left the university and his job became available. I had the temerity to apply and they had the stupidity to hire me. So I was a 23 year old faculty member at the University of Birmingham, England, teaching without a Ph.D. That was 1960.

Q: At what point did you shift from academia to industry?

A.M.: I had been teaching for two years by the time I actually got my Ph.D. I taught at the University of Birmingham for another five years and, in 1968, had the opportunity to come to the United States. My wife and I and our two kids came over with the intention of only staying for two years. We never went back. I spent three years working at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base as a contractor for Westinghouse, running their experimental metals processing facility with a group of technicians. In all, I spent 24 years with Westinghouse doing industrial research and interacting with their manufacturing plants. That was my joy. That was what I wanted to do…but I still had this bug for teaching. So every opportunity I got, I taught at—various universities, usually short courses. I would also teach courses within Westinghouse. I was one of their key instructors for their Total Quality Program. But Westinghouse got into dire financial straits, had to compress their workforce, and I was required to take early retirement.

Q: How did you end up at the University of Kentucky?

A.M.: After “retiring,” I turned around and got another job—this time with a small high-tech company called Concurrent Technologies. They had 70 employees when I started, and eventually it grew to 1600 employees. After about four years, I felt I’d had enough of that environment and was seriously thinking of retiring for good. I was ready to do a little fishing and hunting when I got a letter from Dean Lester. In the letter, he asked if I would be interested in applying for the job of Director of the Center for Robotics and Manufacturing Systems at UK. I talked to my wife about it and we decided to go for it, make a new start. I applied and got the job. That was in 1996. Although I had a teaching bent, I really hadn’t thought about going into academia again until I got this letter from Dean Lester.

Q: What do you consider your greatest successes as a professor?

A.M.: Every student that went through ME151. It’s a manufacturing engineering class required of all undergraduate mechanical engineering students. I have had quite a number of students who became interested in manufacturing, hopefully because of that class. I often get kids in my office wanting to do an independent study program with me—that’s why I had three this semester even though I’m supposed to be on sabbatical! I have taken my 30 years of industrial experience and instilled at least some of the students with the kind of enthusiasm that I have for manufacturing. I consider that my greatest success.

Also, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers has an institution called the North American Manufacturing Research Institution. Every year they have an international conference that is usually hosted in an academic institution. When I was at Westinghouse I never had the opportunity to host one of those conferences. Well, in 2000, about three years after I had arrived at UK, we arranged and hosted a North American Manufacturing Research Institution conference here in Lexington. It was a big success as far as I was concerned, and we received much positive feedback.

Q: What are you going to do in retirement?

A.M.: I’m going to miss teaching and the stimulating contact with many undergraduates! Of course, I’ll still do independent study programs as an emeritus professor. I have an independent manufacturing consulting company called Anvil Technologies, LLC, so I’ll stay up on manufacturing. I’m hoping to do a little fishing and some carpentry. My wife and I might travel some within the US. When we moved here 15 years ago, my wife and I were dead set on moving back to Pittsburgh eventually. We’ve now decided we’re not going to do that. We like the Lexington area, and we’re going to stay as long as we can.

Dodson was recognized for his research work on three projects in distinct disciplines: computer simulation of physical phenomena on few-layer graphene, design of an explanation interface for a Markov Decision Process (MDP), and design and construction of a nano-satellite – KySat-1.

Dodson is a graduate of Henry Clay High School in Lexington.  He won a Goldwater Scholarship in 2009 and traveled to Harbin China in 2010 to compete in the ACM’s International Collegiate Programming Competition.  He began working full-time as a software developer at HP Exstream (formerly Exstream Software) in 2008. Dodson kept his job at HP Exstream and returned to school in the fall of 2008 to pursue a BA in Physics, and will be graduating in May 2012.

According to the notification letter from CRA, this year’s nominees were “a very impressive group”.  A number of nominees were commended for making significant contributions to more than one research project, several were authors or coauthors on multiple papers, others had made presentations at major conferences, and some had produced software artifacts that were in widespread use. Many nominees had been involved in successful summer research or internship programs, had been teaching assistants, tutors, or mentors, and a number had significant involvement in community volunteer efforts. It is quite an honor to be selected for Honorable Mention from this group.

CRA gratefully acknowledges the support of Microsoft Research and Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs (MERL) who sponsor the Outstanding Undergraduate Researcher Awards program in alternate years. MERL is the sponsor of this year’s awards.