Presently, I design and test public safety devices for the U.S. government, specifically warning systems for biological or chemical attacks. The goal is to have devices that can be carried in a backpack, and provide instant alerts if a specific agent is detected in an air or water supply. We've been making progress roughly on the expected schedule on a couple different designs, but that goal is still a ways off.

I'd like to transition into more of an analyst/advisor than a 'widget-maker'. I've had a lot of luck as a 'translator' between technical and non-technical people (or just between technical people who don't overlap in expertise), and you just may have noticed examples where influential people know jack about science. Portions of the government (military, law enforcement, intelligence, the less... uh... "faith-based" (*) sectors of government, etc.) have definitely noticed this, and they've recently been hiring more people who have a research background. So I'm floating resumes while I'm building my widgets, and we'll see where it goes.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

(*): This is also the term we use when people ask us for impossible things. For example, when you tell us that our device needs to cost less than $500/ea and fit in your hand, and our best-case estimates for the initial builds are about 50-100x pricier and larger, that is a "faith-based" device request. (Fun quote from someone well above me: "I should ask them if they want the handheld $500 device delivered by unicorn.")