Milestone-Proposal talk:Super Resolved Microscopy

Advocates’ Checklist

1. Is the proposal for an achievement rather than for a person? If the citation includes a person's name, have the proposers provided the required justification for inclusion of the person's name?
2. Was the proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature? If so, have they been properly considered in the background information and in the citation?
4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology?
5. Is the proposal adequately supported by significant references (minimum of five) such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references should be from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, shall be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers shall email a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the Advocate. If the Advocate does not consider the supporting references sufficient, the Advocate may ask the proposer(s) for additional ones.
6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent?
7. Does the proposed citation explain why the achievement was successful and impactful?
8. Does the proposed citation include important technical aspects of the achievement?
9. Is the proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public?
10. Will the citation be read correctly in the future by only using past tense? Does the citation wording avoid statements that read accurately only at the time that the proposal is written?
11. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements?
12. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications?
13. Are any scientific and technical units correct (e.g., km, mm, hertz, etc.)? Are acronyms correct and properly upper-cased or lower-cased? Are the letters in any acronym explained in the title or the citation?
14. Are date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines? Helpful Hints on Citations, plaque locations
15. Do the year(s) appearing in the citation fall within the range of the year(s) included at the end of the title?
16. Note that it is the Advocate's responsibility to confirm that the independent reviewers have no conflict of interest (e.g., that they do not work for a company or a team involved in the achievement being proposed, that they have not published with the proposer(s), and have not worked on a project related to the funding of the achievement). An example of a way to check for this would be to search reviewers' publications on IEEE Xplore.

Independent Expert Reviewers’ Checklist

1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?
2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?
3. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?
4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?
5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity?

In answering the questions above, the History Committee asks that independent expert reviewers apply a similar level of rigor to that used to peer-review an article, or evaluate a research proposal. Some elaboration is desirable. Of course the Committee would welcome any additional observations that you may have regarding this proposal.

Submission and Approval Log (For staff use only)

Submitted date: 25 November 2024
Advocate approval date: 18 February 25
History Committee approval date:
Board of Directors approval date:

Initial Review -- Jbart64 (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This milestone proposal needs additional work. Historical background tied to sources is needed. One sentence responses to questions intended to address historical claims need to be expanded. Supporting materials should be identified and linked. The context of the achievement and its challenges need further explanation.

As a suggestion, I liked these two historical articles for background: --Super-Resolved Fluorescence Microscopy at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/advanced-chemistryprize2014.pdf --Super-resolution microscopy: a brief history and new avenues at https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.2021.0110

I suggest the following approach to the milestone text that explains to the reader the nature of the achievement (70 words). It also limits the claim to the 1992 demonstration:

Super-Resolved Fluorescence Microscopy, 1992

A super-resolution image of a biological sample was obtained in 1992 using Near-field Scanning Optical Microscopy (NSOM) techniques, which create images by exciting and collecting light diffracted in the near field of the sample. NSOM exploits the properties of evanescent waves, making single-molecule microscopy possible. Single-molecule localization microscopy (SMLM) approaches to NSOM were successfully used in 1992 to image single fluorophores, inspiring future applications in cell biology, microbiology, and neurobiology.

Dave Bart Milestone Advocate

Re: Initial Review -- Jbart64 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed the updated proposal. A question:

The title reads: Super-Resolved Microscopy. It needs a date. Do we need the word Fluorescence for distinction or clarity? My earlier suggestion was: Super-Resolved Fluorescence Microscopy, 1992

Dave Bart

Support of Milestone Proposal -- Jbart64 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have worked closely with the proposers, and they have addressed all my concerns. I fully support this milestone proposal, and in my opinion the requirements have been met, subject to the expert reviews. The responses of the experts will be posted as they come in. David Bart Milestone Advocate

Expert Comment #1 (with a conflict) -- Jbart64 (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Dr. Afshin Partovi founded Mojo Mobility in 2005 specializing in wireless power in mobile, automotive and industrial applications. He was formerly the CEO of Excel Technologies, advising companies and governments on Technology management. Prior to that, he led Product Management and Product Development at Digilens, a Networking and Virtual Reality Company in Silicon Valley. He previously managed Strategy and Business Development for Lucent's Broadband Networks Business Unit which had an annual revenue of over $1 billion. Earlier in his career, he had management and development roles at Lucent's Bell Laboratories, AT&T, Hughes Corp, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratories. He holds Masters and Ph.D. degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California and an MBA from Columbia University. He has authored over 70 reviewed publications and is an inventor on over 50 patents.

Dr. Partovi has conflicts (he worked at Bell Labs and with Betzig, but not on this achievement). Nevertheless, he provided his comments about this milestone proposal as follows (Feb 14, 2025, 11:56 PM):

Thank you for the email.

I have reviewed the document and it looks great.

As someone that personally worked with Eric Betzig and am familiar with the site I am thrilled that his outstanding work at the site of his work will be recognized.

Indeed a great contribution to science that deserves recognition.

Regards; Afshin

Expert Comment #2 (with a conflict) -- Jbart64 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Tim Harris received his Ph.D. from Purdue University in 1978. He spent the following 18 years at Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ. While at Bell, his work included high-sensitivity fluorescence and Raman scattering instrumentation, the characterization of quantum dots in collaboration with Lou Brus, the tapered fiber probe for Near-Field Microscopy, a collaboration with Eric Betzig, and many follow-on applications of near-field, including the first reports of single-molecule images and single quantum dot imaging and spectroscopy.

In 1996, Harris moved to Seq Ltd., a small biotech startup in Princeton, NJ. There he led a team that invented and developed a high-throughput confocal fluorescence microscope. This company and technology were acquired by Amersham PLC and commercialized as the InCell Analyzer. Harris moved to Helicos Biosciences in 2004 as the founding technical employee, where his team reported the first single-molecule DNA sequence data in 2008. This single-molecule sequencing technology was commercialized by Helicos and has resulted in many publications in the ensuing 3 years.

Since 2008, Tim has been at Janelia, where he is a Group Leader and Director of Applied Physics, an in-house group for neuroscience measurement, research, and development.

Dr. Harris has a conflict (employment at Bell Labs and worked with Betzig), but he shared the following comments about this proposal (Sat, Feb 15, 2:45 PM):

While as far as I can tell, the citation is correct, I was a close collaborator of Dr. Betzig, and a co-author on the paper reporting the tapered fiber probe used to generate these first single molecule images. As far as I can tell this disqualifies my opinion as an allowed review.

Timothy Harris Senior Fellow Howard Hughes Medical Institute Janelia Research Campus

Expert Review #1 -- Jbart64 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Sreeram “Ram” Dhurjaty, PhD held senior positions in engineering and research, in medical systems, at Eastman Kodak Company, Analogic, and Bose Corporation before embarking on a career of full-time consulting. He was educated at IIT Bombay and Yale University and has degrees in Civil Engineering, Fluid mechanics, Electronic Instrumentation, Biomedical Engineering, and Control System Theory. Over his career he has designed medical systems such as Patient Monitors, Defibrillators, CT scanners, Fetal Monitoring systems, Digital and Computed Radiography, Telemedicine, Telerehabilitaion, and precision analog circuitry for medical systems. He has 15 issued patents in areas of medical devices and systems. He is passionate about affordable medical devices and is working on a hand-cranked defibrillator. He works closely with the Engineering World Health organization (EWH) developing medical devices for underdeveloped countries and is a member of the Board for the EWH organization. Dr. Sreeram Dhurjaty is an advisor for Nimble Heart.He also consults on, in addition to power supplies for medical systems, efficient power supplies, and converters for small wind turbines.

Dr. Dhurjaty sent an email and telephoned David Bart, the Milestone Advocate, with his expert review on Sunday, February 17, 2025 at 02:21 PM:

I support this milestone proposal. I read the proposal of the Super Resolved Microscopy, thoroughly. The answers to the five questions are in the affirmative. Those questions are:

1. Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? YES 2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation? YES 3. Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement? YES 4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? YES 5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity? YES

David Bart Milestone Advocate

Expert Review #2 -- Jbart64 (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Anthony L. Campillo (M’03) is the Section Head, Advanced Photonics Section, at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. He received his B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, in 1996 and 2002, respectively. Since 2001, he has been at the Photonics Technology Branch of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. His research interests include reducing nonlinear distortions in microwave photonic systems and exploring advanced optical modulation formats for analog and digital optical communications systems. Dr. Campillo is a member of the Optical Society of America and the American Physical Society.

I received the following Expert Review at February 18, 2025 9:52 AM:

I have reviewed the Milestone proposal. The suggested wording appears to be accurate, The evidence presented is sufficient to support the citation, and the citation does represent the site of a significant historical achievement.

David Bart Milestone Advocate

Final approval -- Jbart64 (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I have worked closely with the proposers and Brian Berg. The proposers have addressed all suggestions and concerns and this proposal is ready for milestone committee review. David Bart, Milestone Advocate

Expert Review #3 -- Jbart64 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Giovanni Milione, Ph.D. (Physics) is a Senior Researcher, Business Incubation Lead, in the Optical Networking & Sensing Department at NEC Laboratories America, Inc., Princeton, NJ. He received his B.S. in Physics from Stony Brook University, M.A. in Physics from CUNY City College of New York, and M.Phil. in Physics and Ph.D. in Physics from CUNY Graduate Center as a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. He is a veteran of the United States Army Reserve, and served as a non-commissioned officer in Operation Iraqi Freedom I. He developed optical communication, sensing, biometrics, and artificial intelligence technologies used around the world. He has over 80 peer-reviewed publications, 15 granted patents, and over 3,000 citations. He was selected for the prestigious and invitation-only National Academy of Engineering’s U.S. Frontiers of Engineering Symposium.

I received the following expert review of this milestone proposal on February 29, 2025 10:48 AM:

Thanks again for your request. I am happy to have done the review. I read the proposal via the link you provided. I am also familiar with super-resolution imaging. I strongly support the acceptance of this proposal. Please, let me know if you need further comments. I am happy to provide them.

As clearly indicated in the proposal, this work was done >25 years ago, was done at Bell Labs in NJ. It had a significant impact on multiple scientific fields, and led the discoverer, Dr. Betzig, to win the Nobel Prize. Bell Labs in NJ is geographically significant and relevant to the pertinent IEEE region and the proposal. The content of the proposal clearly supports my comments, with no ambiguity. The proposers did a good job in unambiguously describing the reason for the milestone, location of the plaque, and overall significance. No further discussion is needed.

1. Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? Yes.

2. Is the evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation? Yes.

3. Does the proposed Citation represent a significant historical site? Yes.

4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? No competition. All adjacent work was clearly described, e.g., STED based super-resolution imaging.

5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity? Yes.

David Bart Milestone Advocate

change 2nd sentence -- Amy Bix (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The exact rules depend which grammar authority you believe, but use of the word "entitled" is best reserved for the sense of a right. In any case, the use here in the 2nd sentence of the citation is awkward. Instead of "Entitled Super-Resolved Fluorescence Microscopy, this breakthrough achievement exploited the properties of evanescent waves and made single-molecule microscopy possible" - could I recommend: "This breakthrough achievement, called Super-Resolved Fluorescence Microscopy, exploited the properties of evanescent waves and made single-molecule microscopy possible."

Re: change 2nd sentence -- Tsizer (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the rewording of the 2nd sentence and have made the change in the Proposal.

Tod Sizer

Re: Re: change 2nd sentence -- Jbart64 (talk) 14:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the edits and updates and approve this version of the proposal. Dave Bart

Re: Re: Re: change 2nd sentence -- Dmichelson (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with the edits and updates and support this version of the proposal.

Title of the proposed milestone:

Super-Resolved Fluorescence Microscopy, 1992

Plaque citation:

The first super-resolution image of a biological sample was obtained in 1992 by exciting and collecting light diffracted in the near field of the sample. This breakthrough achievement, called Super-Resolved Fluorescence Microscopy, exploited the properties of evanescent waves and made single-molecule microscopy possible. Its successful use in imaging single fluorophores inspired applications in cell biology, microbiology, and neurobiology.

[58 words]

Support for Milestone -- Dae-Gwon Jeong (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I fully support this milestone proposal.

Re: Support for Milestone -- Jbart64 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I approve the most recent edits and updates. Thanks everyone for your input. Dave Bart