Gary Goodyear rouses passions: more on Canada’s National Research Council and its new commitment to business

May 22nd, 2013

Gary Goodyear’s, Minister of State (Science and Technology), office in attempting to set the record straight has, inadvertently, roused even more passion in Phil Plait’s (Slate.com blogger) bosom and inspired me to examine more commentary about the situation regarding the NRC and its ‘new’ commitment to business.

Phil Plait in a May 22, 2013 followup to one 0f his recent postings (I have the details about Plait’s and other commentaries in my May 13, 2013 posting about the NRC’s recent declarations) responds to an email from Michele-Jamali Paquette, the director of communication for Goodyear (Note: A link has been removed),

I read the transcripts, and assuming they are accurate, let me be very clear: Yes, the literal word-for-word quotation I used was incorrect, and one point I made was technically and superficially in error. But the overall point—that this is a terrible move by the NRC and the conservative Canadian government, short-changing real science—still stands. And, in my opinion, Goodyear’s office is simply trying to spin what has become a PR problem.

…

I’ll note that in her email to me, Paquette quoted my own statement:

John MacDougal [sic], President of the NRC, literally said, “Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value”

Paquette took exception to my use of the word “literally,” emphasizing it in her email. (The link, in both her email and my original post, goes to the Toronto Sun story with the garbled quotation.) Apparently MacDougal did not literally say that. But the objection strikes me as political spin since the meaning of what MacDougal said at the press conference is just as I said it was in my original post.

As I pointed out in my first post: Science can and should be done for its own sake. It pays off in the end, but that’s not why we do it. To wit …

Paquette’s choice of what issues (the 2nd issue was Plait’s original description of the NRC as a funding agency) to dispute seem odd and picayune as they don’t have an impact on Plait’s main argument,

Unfortunately, despite these errors, the overall meaning remains the same: The NRC is moving away from basic science to support business better, and the statements by both Goodyear and MacDougal [sic] are cause for concern.

Plait goes on to restate his argument and provide a roundup of commentaries. It’s well worth reading for the roundup alone.  (One picayune comment from me, I wish Plait would notice that the head of Canada’s National Research Council’s name is spelled this way, John McDougall.)

Happily, Nassif Ghoussoub has also chimed in with a May 22, 2013 posting (on his Piece of Mind blog) regarding the online discussion (Note: Links have been removed),

The Canadian twitter world has been split in the last couple of days. … But then, you have the story of the Tories’ problem with science, be it defunding, muzzling, disbelieving, doubting, preventing, delegitimizing etc. The latter must have restarted with the incredible announcement about the National Research Council (NRC), presented as “Canada sells out science” in Slate, and as “Failure doesn’t come cheap” in Maclean’s. What went unnoticed was the fact that the restructuring turned out to be totally orthogonal to the recommendations of the Jenkins report about the NRC. Then came the latest Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) report, which showed that Canada’s expenditure on research and development has fallen from 16th out of 41 comparable countries in the year Stephen Harper became prime minister, to 23rd in 2011. Paul Wells seems to be racking up hits on his Maclean’s article,  “Stephen Harper and the knowledge economy: perfect strangers.”  But the story of the last 48 hours has been John Dupuis’s chronology of what he calls, “The Canadian war on science” and much more.

Yes, it’s another roundup but it’s complementary (albeit with one or two repetitions) since Plait does not seem all that familiar with the Canadian scene (I find it’s always valuable to have an outside perspective) and Nassif is a longtime insider.

John Dupuis’ May 20, 2013 posting (on his Confessions of a Science Librarian blog), mentioned by both Nassif and Plait, provides an extraordinary listing of stories ranging from 2006 through to 2013 whose headlines alone paint a very bleak picture of the practice of science in Canada,

As is occasionally my habit, I have pulled together a chronology of sorts. It is a chronology of all the various cuts, insults, muzzlings and cancellations that I’ve been able to dig up. Each of them represents a single shot in the Canadian Conservative war on science. It should be noted that not every item in this chronology, if taken in isolation, is necessarily the end of the world. It’s the accumulated evidence that is so damning.

As I’ve noted before, I am no friend of Stephen Harper and his Conservative government and many of their actions have been reprehensible and, at times, seem childishly spiteful but they do occasionally get something right. There was a serious infrastructure problem in Canada. Buildings dedicated to the pursuit of science were sadly aged and no longer appropriate for the use to which they were being put. Harper and his government have poured money into rebuilding infrastructure and for that they should be acknowledged.

As for what the Conservatives are attempting with this shift in direction for the National Research Council (NRC), which has been ongoing for at least two years as I noted in my May 13, 2013 posting, I believe they are attempting to rebalance the Canadian research enterprise.  It’s generally agreed that Canada historically has very poor levels of industrial research and development (R&D) and high levels of industrial R&D are considered, internationally, as key to a successful economy. (Richard Jones, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation at the University of Sheffield, UK, discusses how a falling percentage of industrial R&D, taking place over decades,  is affecting the UK economy in a May 10, 2013 commentary on the University of  Sheffield SPERI [Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute] website.)

This NRC redirection when taken in conjunction with the recent StartUp visa programme (my May 20, 2013 posting discusses Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney’s recent recruitment tour in San Francisco [Silicon Valley]),  is designed to take Canada and Canadians into uncharted territory—the much desired place where we develop a viable industrial R&D sector and an innovative economy in action.

In having reviewed at least some of the commentary, there are a couple of questions left unasked about this international obsession with industrial R&D,

  • is a country’s economic health truly tied to industrial R&D or is this ‘received’ wisdom?
  • if industrial R&D is the key to economic health, what would be the best balance between it and the practice of basic science?

As for the Canadian situation, what might be some of the unintended consequences? It occurs to me that if scientists are rewarded for turning their research into commercially viable products they might be inclined to constrain access to materials. Understandable if the enterprise is purely private but the NRC redirection is aimed at bringing together academics and private enterprise in a scheme that seems a weird amalgam of both.

For example, cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) are not easily accessed if you’re a run-of-the-mill entrepreneur. I’ve had more than one back-channel request about how to purchase the material and it would seem that access is tightly controlled by the academics and publicly funded enterprise, in this case, a private business, who produce the material. (I’m speaking of the FPInnovations and Domtar comingling in CelluForce, a CNC production facility and much more. It would make a fascinating case study on how public monies are used to help finance private enterprises and their R&D efforts; the relationship between nongovernmental agencies (FPInnovations, which I believe was an NRC spinoff), various federal public funding agencies, and Domtar, a private enterprise; and the power dynamics between all the players including the lowly entrepreneur.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, nanotechnology, science policy | No Comments »

At the nanoscale, grapefruit swings from being medication danger to medication enhancer

May 22nd, 2013

It’s known that grapefruit, despite its health benefits, can inhibit (or even a pose danger) to a medication’s effectiveness. Most of us have been warned at one time or another to avoid grapefruit juice when downing a pill. So, the news from the University of Louisville (Kentucky; UofL) about grapefruit as part of a drug delivery system seems a little counter-intuitive (from the May 22, 2013 news item on Azonano),

Grapefruits have long been known for their health benefits, and the subtropical fruit may revolutionize how medical therapies like anti-cancer drugs are delivered to specific tumor cells.

University of Louisville researchers have uncovered how to create nanoparticles using natural lipids derived from grapefruit, and have discovered how to use them as drug delivery vehicles. UofL scientists Huang-Ge Zhang, D.V.M., Ph.D., Qilong Wang, Ph.D., and their team today (May 21, 2013), published their findings in Nature Communications.

The May 21, 2013 University of Louisville news release by Julie Heflin, which originated the news item, describes how the nanoparticles are derived and their advantages,

“These nanoparticles, which we’ve named grapefruit-derived nanovectors (GNVs), are derived from an edible plant, and we believe they are less toxic for patients, result in less biohazardous waste for the environment and are much cheaper to produce at large scale than nanoparticles made from synthetic materials,” said Zhang, who holds the Founders Chair in Cancer Research at the Brown Cancer Center.

The researchers demonstrated that GNVs can transport various therapeutic agents, including anti-cancer drugs, DNA/RNA and proteins such as antibodies. Treatment of animals with GNVs seemed to cause less adverse effects than treatment with drugs encapsulated in synthetic lipids.

“Our GNVs can be modified to target specific cells — we can use them like missiles to carry a variety of therapeutic agents for the purpose of destroying diseased cells,” he said. “Furthermore, we can do this at an affordable price.”

The therapeutic potential of grapefruit derived nanoparticles was further validated through a Phase 1 clinical trial for treatment of colon cancer patients. So far, researchers have observed no toxicity in the patients who orally took the anti-inflammatory agent curcumin encapsulated in grapefruit nanoparticles.

The UofL scientists also plan to test whether this technology can be applied in the treatment of inflammation related autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the researchers’ paper,

Delivery of therapeutic agents by nanoparticles made of grapefruit-derived lipids by Qilong Wang, Xiaoying Zhuang, Jingyao Mu, Zhong-Bin Deng, Hong Jiang, Xiaoyu Xiang, Baomei Wang, Jun Yan, Donald Miller, & Huang-Ge Zhang. Nature Communications 4, 1867 doi:10.1038/ncomms2886 Published 21 May 2013

This paper is behind a paywall.

As for the dangers of grapefruit-medication interactions, ABC (American Broadcasting Corporation) has a Nov. 26, 2012 news item featuring then new research suggesting that even more medications are affected by grapefruit/grapefruit juice than had previously been believed,

It has long been known that grapefruit juice can pose dangerous — and even deadly — risks when taken along with certain medications. Now, experts warn the list of medications that can result in these interactions is longer than many may have believed.

…

In a new report released Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal [CMAJ], researchers at the University of Western Ontario said that while 17 drugs were identified in 2008 as having the potential to cause serious problems when taken with grapefruit, this number has now grown to 43.

…

So how does a common breakfast fruit cause these problems? Grapefruits contain chemicals called furanocoumarins that interfere with how your body breaks down drugs before they enter the bloodstream. By preventing this normal breakdown of a drug, these chemicals in grapefruit can effectively cause a drug overdose and more severe side-effects.

Among the side effects sometimes seen with grapefruit-induced overdoses are heart rhythm problems, kidney failure, muscle breakdown, difficulty with breathing and blood clots. …

ABC provides a list of drugs that are affected by grapefruit here.

For interested parties, here’s a link to and a citation for the research on grapefruit-medication interactions,

Grapefruit–medication interactions: Forbidden fruit or avoidable consequences? by David G. Bailey, George Dresser, and J. Malcolm O. Arnold. CMAJ March 5, 2013 185:309-316; published ahead of print November 26, 2012,

This paper is behind a paywall.

I have a couple of final comments. (1) It would seem that the grapefruit’s characteristics at the macroscale are not echoed at the nanoscale. (2) Interestingly, the grapefruit nanoparticles (grapefruit nanovectors [GNVs]) are being used to encapsulate curcumin (a constituent of turmeric). I wrote about turmeric and its healing properties in a Dec. 26, 2011 posting, which features a number of links to research in this area.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in medicine, nanotechnology | No Comments »

R.I.P. Heinrich Rohrer, co-inventor of the scanning tunneling microscope, 1933-2013

May 22nd, 2013

Heinrich Rohrer died May 16, 2013 according to the May 22, 2013 news item on Nanowerk,

The co-inventor of the scanning tunneling microscope, Dr. Heinrich Rohrer, passed away on the evening of May 16, 2013. He was 79.

Heinrich Rohrer, IBM Fellow and Nobel Laureate, joined the IBM Research Laboratory in Zurich, Switzerland, in December of 1963, where he worked for 34 years.

After hiring a young scientist named Gerd Binnig in the late 1970s, the two started collaborating, brought closely together by their backgrounds in superconductivity and their fascination with atomic surfaces. The two scientists grew increasingly frustrated by the limits of the tools then available to study the distinct characteristics of atomic surfaces, so they decided to build their own, something that would be capable of seeing and manipulating atoms at the nanoscale level.

The May 2013 obituary on the IBM research website, which originated the news item, commemorates Rohrer’s Nobel winning accomplishment, the co-invention of the scanning tunneling microscope (STM),

Dr. Heinrich Rohrer, IBM Fellow, Nobel Laureate and co-inventor of the scanning tunneling microscope, passed away on the evening of May 16, 2013. He was 79. Dr. Rohrer joined IBM Research – Zurich in December of 1963, where he worked for 34 years.

“The invention of the scanning tunneling microscope was a seminal moment in the history of science and information technology,” said Dr. John E. Kelly III, IBM senior vice president and director of Research. “This invention gave scientists the ability to image, measure and manipulate atoms for the first time, and opened new avenues for information technology that we are still pursuing today.”

After hiring a young scientist named Gerd Binnig in the late 1970s, the two started collaborating, brought together by their backgrounds in superconductivity and their fascination with atomic surfaces. They grew increasingly frustrated by the limits of the tools then available, so they built their own, capable of seeing and manipulating atoms at the nanoscale level.

They began experimenting with tunneling, a quantum phenomenon in which electrons can escape the surface of a solid. When another surface approaches, the electron clouds can overlap and an electric current can flow.

Binnig and Rohrer found that when maneuvering a sharp metal conducting tip over the surface of a sample, the amount of electrical current flowing between the tip and the surface could be measured. Variations in the current provided information about the inner structure, and from this information,  they could build a three-dimensional atomic-scale map of the sample’s surface.

In January 1979, Binnig and Rohrer submitted their first patent disclosure on the scanning tunneling microscope (STM). Soon afterwards, with the help of fellow IBM researcher Christoph Gerber, they began to design and construct the microscope.

…

In awarding Binnig and Rohrer the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986, just five years after the first STM had been built, the Nobel committee said the invention opened up “entirely new fields… for the study of the structure of matter.”

In 2011, in the presence of 600 guests from throughout the research community, IBM and ETH Zurich dedicated the Binnig and Rohrer Nanotechnology Center in Rüschlikon in honor of the scientists’ achievements.

“ For me, Heini was father figure, role model, emotional and spiritual teacher, and best friend – all rolled into one. An eminent person, with an incredible sense of humanity and kindness. ”

-Gerd Binnig

Heinrich Rohrer was as famous for his kindly personality as for his sharp wit and humor. During the opening ceremony of the Center he participated in a public discussion with Binnig and Dr. Ralph Eicher, then president of ETH Zurich. After Binnig attempted to explain their invention, Rohrer jokingly apologized to the audience saying, “If you didn’t quite understand what Gerd just told you, you are not alone.”

Here are a few biographical details from the obituary page on the IBM website,

Heinrich Rohrer was born on June 6, 1933, in Buchs, Switzerland. In 1949, the Rohrer family moved to Zurich and a few years later Heinrich enrolled at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH), where he studied Physics under Wolfgang Pauli.

In the summer of 1961, Heinrich married Rose-Marie Egger and their honeymoon in the United States led to a two-year project studying thermal conductivity of type-II superconductors and metals at Rutgers University. Shortly thereafter in 1963, he returned to Switzerland to join the Physics department at the newly founded IBM Research – Zurich Laboratory.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in nanotechnology | No Comments »

NanoSustain published four case studies: zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, carbon nanotubes, and nanocellulose

May 21st, 2013

A May 17, 2013 news item on Nanowerk highlight a European Commission-funded project, NanoSustain and its publication of a fact sheet and four case studies,,

NanoSustain, a €2.5 million NMP small collaborative project (2010-2013) funded by the European Union under FP7, has published a fact sheet and four case studies addressing these issues.

How do nanotechnology-based products impact human health and the environment?
Can they be recycled?
Can they be safely disposed of?
How can you find out?

The March 20, 2013 NanoSustain news release, which originated the news item, goes on to explain,

… the EC-funded NanoSustain project has been developing new sustainable solutions through an investigation of the life-cycle of nanotechnology-based products, in particular the physical and chemical characteristics of materials, hazard and exposure aspects, and end-of-life disposal or recycling to determine the fate and impact of nanomaterials.

A summary of the different materials and products tested within NanoSustain:

• Case Study #1: Titanium dioxide for paints
• Case Study #2: Zinc oxide for glazing products
• Case Study #3: Carbon nanotubes epoxy resins for plastics
- for structural or electrical/antistatic applications
• Case Study #4: Nanocellulose for advanced paper applications

Information about the individual experimental approaches

Descriptions of the different techniques developed

How these techniques have been successfully applied in physical-chemical characterisation; life-cycle analysis; final disposal; recycling.

Getting access to the case case studies and the fact sheet requires filling out a form but once you’ve done that you get instant access to the materials.

Here’s some information from EuroSustain’s fact sheet,

Factsheets

Analytical Techniques

Development of sustainable solutions for nanotechnology-based products based on hazard characterization and LCA1 The primary goal of the NanoSustain project is to develop new technical solutions for the sustainable design and use, recycling and final treatment of selected nanotechnology-based products.

To achieve this the project has the following objectives: 1) to assess the hazard of selected nanomaterials based on a comprehensive data survey and generation concerning their physicochemical (PC) and toxicological properties, exposure probabilities, etc., and the adaptation, evaluation, validation and use of existing analytical, testing and life-cycle assessment (LCA) methods; 2) to assess the impact of selected products during their life cycle in relation to material and energy flows (LCA); 3) to assess possible exposure routes and risks associated with the handling of these materials, their transformation and final fate; and 4) to explore the feasibility and sustainability of new technical solutions for end-of=life processes, such as reuse/recycling, final treatment or disposal.

…

Within NanoSustain an assessment has been made of the PC properties, exposure and toxicity, energy and material inputs and outputs at relevant stages of a material or product’s life-cycle. This means: material production, processing, manufacturing, use, transportation, and end-of-life (recycling/disposal). At each stage potential risks to human health and the environment have also been assessed, through a number of experimental models and test systems using materials that would be expected to be released from products containing nanomaterials.

Four nanomaterials were investigated that either already feature in commercial products or are expected to be commercialized on a large scale: titanium dioxide (TiO2) in paint, zinc oxide (ZnO) as a coating for glass, multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) in epoxy resins, and nanocellulose in paper.

Detailed information on the nanomaterials have been summarized in internal project material datasheets (MDS), and will be made available as part of peer-reviewed publications on release studies and toxicological investigations. [emphases mine]

Having looked at the four case studies, each of which is two pages, I would describe them as teasers. There’s not a lot of information in them as to the results of the testing which makes sense when you see that they will be publishing in various publications.

I find the inclusion of titanium dioxide, zinc oxide and carbon nanotubes for life-cycle assessments easily understandable as they  have been integrated into many consumer products. However, it’s my understanding that nanocellulose has not reached that level of product integration. Still, given the number of times I’ve been told this is a ‘safe’ product, it’s interesting to see what NanoSustain has to say about its toxicity (from the NanoSustain’s nanocellulose case study),

Work in NanoSustain has provided new data and information on the physicochemical properties, potential human and environmental hazard and risk associated with relevant stages of the life-cycle of nanocellulose based products as well as on the overall energy and material input/output that may happen during manufacturing, use and disposal. Initial results indicate that the nanocellulose degrades efficiently under standard composting conditions, but does not in aquatic environments. Furthermore nanocellulose does not demonstrate any ecotoxicity. Unfortunately nanocellulose forms a gel when suspended in media for inhalation studies, and so no toxicology experiments could be performed (as for the other engineered nanomaterials studied in NanoSustain). Final results will be made available once published in peer-reviewed journals.

I have written many times about nanocellulose, a topic featuring some interesting and confusing nomenclature and taking this opportunity to highlight a couple of responses from folks who took the time to clarify things for me (from my Aug. 2, 2012 posting),

KarenS says:

Hi Maryse!

From my understanding, nanocrystaline cellulose (NCC), cellulose nanocrystals (CNC), cellulose whiskers (CW) and cellulose nanowhiskers (CNW) are all the same stuff: cylindrical rods of crystalline cellulose (diameter: 5-10 nm; length: 20-1000 nm). Cellulose nanofibers or nanofibrils (CNF), on the contrary, are less crystalline and are in the form of long fibers (diameter: 20-50 nm; length: up to several micrometers).

There is still a lot of confusion on the nomenclature of cellulose nanoparticles, but nice explanations (and pictures!) are given here (and also in other papers from the same conference):

http://www.tappi.org/Downloads/Conference-Papers/2012/12NANO/12NANO49.aspx

and there’s this from my Sept. 26, 2012 posting,

Gary Chinga Carrasco says:

The definition of cellulose nanofibrils as “diameter: 20-50 nm; length: up to several micrometers)” is somewhat simplified. For terminology on MFC terms you may want to take a look at: http://www.nanoscalereslett.com/content/6/1/417

Bringing this piece back to where I started, I look forward to seeing the NanoSustain case studies published with more details in the future.

Note: Since the folks at NanoSustain are likely using their form to collect data, I’m not linking back to the factsheet or nanocellulose case study as I would usually. So, if you want to look at the material, you do need to register via the form.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in environment, health and safety, nanotechnology | No Comments »

2013 US National Nanotechnology Initiative stakeholder workshops

May 21st, 2013

I found a May 20, 2013 news blurb about an upcoming 2013 US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) workshop on the OH&S (Occupational Health Safety magazine website,

Nanotechnology experts will gather in Washington, D.C., on June 11-12 [2013] for workshops and discussions to inform the 2013 strategic plan for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). …

More details about the workshop (2013 NNI Strategic Planning Stakeholder Workshop), which is limited to 120 people, can be found in the agenda here (a few items have been excerpted),

AGENDA: Tuesday, June 11, 2013
8:00 – 8:30 Registration and Coffee Session
1: Setting the Scene
Moderator: Anthony Green, Vice President of Technology Commercialization: Life
Sciences, Ben Franklin Technology Partners; Director, The Nanotechnology Institute

8:30 – 8:45
Welcome, NNI Overview, & Charge to Participants
Altaf Carim, Assistant Director for Nanotechnology, Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy, Executive Office of the President, United States

8:45 – 9:10
Synergies with Other Federal Initiatives
Thomas Kalil , Deputy Director for Policy, Office of Science and Technology Policy,
Executive Office of the President, United States

9:10 – 9:35
Bridging Technologies
Paul Braun, Ivan Racheff Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

9:35 – 10:00
Commercializing Nanotechnology
Christopher Schuh, Head of Department of Materials Science and Engineering and Danae
and Vasilios Salapatas Professor of Metallurgy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

10:00 – 10:25
Infrastructure Needs
Julia Phillips, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Sandia National Laboratories

…

Apparently you can still register. Here’s more from the nano.gov homepage (scroll down),

REGISTER NOW!

Date: June 11 – 12, 2013

Location: USDA Patriot Plaza Conference Center, 355 E Street, SW, Washington, DC

Scope: The 2013 NNI Stakeholder Workshop will obtain input outside the U.S. Government on the future directions of the NNI. The recommendations of this one-and-a-half day workshop will inform the development of the 2013 NNI Strategic Plan.

Objectives: The goal of this workshop is to obtain input from stakeholders – both those new to nanoscale science, engineering, and technology and those already familiar with these fields and with the NNI – regarding revisions to the NNI Strategic Plan that will be proposed in advance of the workshop.

Participants will be invited to suggest additions to and provide feedback on wording and emphasis areas in the NNI goals, the objectives that support these goals, and the Nanotechnology Signature Initiatives. Comments will also be solicited on the relationship between these topics and the revised Program Component Areas, which will be presented at the event.

…

Registration: This workshop is free and open to the public with registration on a first-come, first-served basis. Registration is now open and will be capped at 120 people.

Wish I could go.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in nanotechnology | No Comments »

Kick up your heels to the periodic table of elements sung to the sounds of the can-can (Offenbach’s Infernal Galop)

May 21st, 2013

First the fun,

You may to want to check out Jennifer Miller’s May 20, 2013 Fast Company article about this effort where she highlights one of the cheekier illustrations in this periodic table of elements song from AsapSCIENCE (Mitchell Moffit and Gregory Brown).

I found out more about AsapSCIENCE and the duo (former classmates at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada) in a Sept. 18, 2012 article by Chase Hoffberger for the Daily Dot,

Mitchell Moffit and Gregory Brown are the two former University of Guelph classmates behind asapSCIENCE, a young but massively informative and entertaining YouTube channel that produces three-minute lessons on all the scientific questions that you actually want answered: “The Scientific Power of Naps.” …

“We’re trying to keep a balance of the things that people want to know as well as cool tidbits that people would never have any idea about,” Moffit, 23, told the Daily Dot from his home in Ontario, where he holds down production and most video voiceovers while Brown spends the year teaching science in England.

…

“We’re interested in inspiring people who maybe don’t know a lot about science and think of it as this hard subject in school,” Moffit said.

The perfect example’s “The Science of Orgasms,” which more than 380,000 people have viewed in the past week and comes packed with far more knowledge and insight than the time your dad tried to put a condom on a cucumber.

At the time of the Daily Dot article (Sept. 2012), AsapSCIENCE had been making videos for three months and already had more than 40,000 subscribers on their YouTube channel. After checking this morning (May 21, 2013), I see the channel has over 784,000 subscribers. Bravo!

I have written about the periodic table of elements before. This Feb. 8, 2012 posting features Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) singing Tom Lehrer’s classic Periodic Table of Elements song.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in science communication | No Comments »

Buildable, bendable, and biological; a kirigami-based project at Cornell University

May 20th, 2013

A May 18, 2013 news item on Azonano highlights a new project at Cornell University,

Cornell researchers Jenny Sabin, assistant professor of architecture, and Dan Luo, professor of biological and environmental engineering, are among the lead investigators on a new research project to produce “buildable, bendable and biological materials” for a wide range of applications.

…

The project is intended to bring new ideas, motifs, portability and design to the formation of intricate chemical, biological and architectural materials.

Based on Kirigami (from the Japanese word kiru, “to cut”), the project “offers a previously unattainable level of design, dynamics and deployability” to self-folding and unfolding materials from the molecular scale to the architectural level, according to the researchers.

The May 16, 2013 Cornell University news release by Daniel Aloi, which originated the news item, describes the project’s intent,

The project is intended to illuminate new principles of architecture, materials synthesis and biological structures, and advance several technologies – including meta-materials, sensors, stealth aircraft and adaptive and sustainable buildings. A complementary goal is to generate public interest through an enhanced impact on science, art and engineering.

“Like the opening and closing of flowers, satellites and even greeting cards, our research will offer a rich and diverse set of intricate surprises, problems and challenges for students at all levels, and broaden their interest and awareness of emerging science and engineering,” according to the project proposal, “Cutting and Pasting: Kirigami in Architecture, Technology and Science” (KATS).

The Emerging Frontiers in Research Innovation grant from the NSF is in the research category of Origami Design for Integration of Self-assembling Systems for Engineering Innovation.

I wish they had a few sample illustrations of how this project might look as a macroscale architectural (or other type of) project even it is a complete fantasy.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in nanotechnology | No Comments »

Are Canadians really trying to recreate Silicon Valley in Canada?

May 20th, 2013

As I recall it’s Robbie Burns who coined the phrase, ‘the gift to see ourselves as others see us’, and it’s the Globe and Mail newspaper in its May 17, 2013 article (Jason Kenney visits California to lure tech workers north) which provides that perspective in a quote about Minister of Immigration, Jason Kenney’s current  tour promoting Canada’s special Startup Visa,

“The Canadian perspective is they would love to re-create Silicon Valley in Canada,” said Irene Bloemraad, a professor who chairs the Canadian studies program at UC Berkeley. “And they recognize that under the current immigration system in the United States … there are people who are having a hard time getting permanent legal status.”

Anirudh Bhattacharyya writing for the Hindustan Times about Kenney’s tour and this latest effort to attract entrepreneurs to Canada notes in a May 16, 2013 article,

As Canada’s minister for citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism Jason Kenney heads to California’s Silicon Valley for four days, pushing the country’s new Startup Visa programme, he will make an appearance at TiECon 2013, the annual conference of The Indus Entrepreneurs [TIE], dominated by tech pioneers of Indian origin.

Minister Kenney will arrive in Silicon Valley on Friday [May 17, 2013], and will even be present at a Canadian government booth at the Santa Clara convention venue for TiECon, as part of an attempt to poach entrepreneurial talent in the tech sector away from the United States.

In an interview with the Hindustan Times, the minister said, “I think it’s no secret that many of the bright young people (in America) on short term work permits, are of Asian origin and more specifically of Indian origin.”

Canada’s Startup Visa program is similar to other efforts in Australia and the UK and it traces its own origins to a US initiative, from the Bhattacharyya article,

Ironically, the idea for the visa originated with the Canadian venture capital industry observing movement in the US Congress in recent years to create an American startup visa. That effort has yet to succeed. The industry then promoted the concept in Canada.

It’s not all roses and sunshine for entrepreneurs who wish to come to Canada although there is one major upside unique to the Canadian effort according to CICS Immigration Consulting’s May 17, 2013 posting on their website,

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) hopes to capitalize on the frustration tech companies in the U.S. are feeling over immigration restrictions on foreign technology workers and encourage them to relocate to and invest in Canada.

The eventual goal is to help foster the development of a Canadian equivalent to Silicon Valley.

One challenge that CIC faces in this mission is the country’s top marginal income tax rate, which is significantly higher than that of the U.S. A Canadian entrepreneur can look forward to paying about 50 percent of their income to the government if they succeed in joining the top bracket of income earners. [emphasis mine]

Compensating for this disadvantage, the federal government is offering a perk that no other advanced economy offers foreign entrepreneurs: permanent residency status. [emphasis mine]

I suppose this is one way of developing an entrepreneurial and innovative culture in Canada but it seems to me that if other conditions (financing, willingness to take risks, appropriate governmental regulations, etc.) are not met, this may cause yet more problems.

As to whether or not creating a ‘Silicon Valley’ in Canada is possible or even desirable, I don’t know. There is only one Louvre, one Terra Cotta army, one Borobudur, one Stonehenge, one Mount Olympus, one Grand Canyon, one Guggenheim, etc. Of course, there are other art museums, other funerary displays, and other wonders but there is always the one which holds precedence and retains its grip on the imagination in a way the others do not. Canadians can try to copy the US’s Silicon Valley but if our effort is to be successful, we must find a way to put our own stamp on it and we need to recognize that it may always stand in the shadow of its parent.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in innovation | 1 Comment »

When your kinks and your defects are your strength: the truth about copper’s coherent twin boundaries

May 20th, 2013

There’s perfection and then there’s imperfection in this story about the nanoscale. From the May 19, 2013 news release on EurekAlert,

One of the basic principles of nanotechnology is that when you make things extremely small—one nanometer is about five atoms wide, 100,000 times smaller than the diameter of a human hair—they are going to become more perfect.

“Perfect in the sense that their arrangement of atoms in the real world will become more like an idealized model,” says University of Vermont engineer Frederic Sansoz, “with smaller crystals—in for example, gold or copper—it’s easier to have fewer defects in them.”

And eliminating the defects at the interface separating two crystals, or grains, has been shown by nanotechnology experts to be a powerful strategy for making materials stronger, more easily molded, and less electrically resistant—or a host of other qualities sought by designers and manufacturers.

Scientists thought they’d found perfection in 2004 (from the news release),

Since 2004, when a seminal paper came out in Science, materials scientists have been excited about one special of arrangement of atoms in metals and other materials called a “coherent twin boundary” or CTB.

Based on theory and experiment, these coherent twin boundaries are often described as “perfect,” appearing like a perfectly flat, one-atom-thick plane in computer models and electron microscope images.

Over the last decade, a body of literature has shown these coherent twin boundaries—found at the nanoscale within the crystalline structure of common metals like gold, silver and copper—are highly effective at making materials much stronger while maintaining their ability to undergo permanent change in shape without breaking and still allowing easy transmission of electrons—an important fact for computer manufacturing and other electronics applications.

It turns out that not all coherent twin boundaries are ‘perfect’ (from the news release),

A team of scientists, including Sansoz, a professor in UVM’s College of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, and colleagues from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere, write in the May 19 edition of Nature Materials that coherent twin boundaries found in copper “are inherently defective.”

With a high-resolution electron microscope, using a more powerful technique than has ever been used to examine these boundaries, they found tiny kink-like steps and curvatures in what had previously been observed as perfect.

Even more surprising, these kinks and other defects appear to be the cause of the coherent twin boundary’s strength and other desirable qualities.

“Everything we have learned on these materials in the past 10 years will have to be revisited with this new information,” Sansoz says

The work was performed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (from the news release),

The experiment, led by Morris Wang at the Lawrence Livermore Lab, applied a newly developed mapping technique to study the crystal orientation of CTBs in so-called nanotwinned copper and “boom—it revealed these defects,” says Sansoz.

This real-world discovery conformed to earlier intriguing theoretical findings that Sansoz had been making with “atomistic simulations” on a computer. The lab results sent Sansoz back to his computer models where he introduced the newly discovered “kink” defects into his calculations. Using UVM’s Vermont Advanced Computing Center, he theoretically confirmed that the kink defects observed by the Livermore team lead to “rather rich deformation processes at the atomic scale,” he says, that do not exist with perfect twin boundaries.

With the computer model, “we found a series of completely new mechanisms,” he says, for explaining why coherent twin boundaries simultaneously add strength and yet also allow stretching (what scientists call “tensile ductility”)— properties that are usually mutually exclusive in conventional materials.

It seems to me that scientists keep discovering that it’s the imperfections and defects which give rise to strength and, often, beauty. I hope this time they remember what they’ve discovered.

For those who need to know more, here’s a citation for and link to the paper,

Defective twin boundaries in nanotwinned metals by Y. Morris Wang, Frederic Sansoz, Thomas LaGrange, Ryan T. Ott, Jaime Marian, Troy W. Barbee Jr, & Alex V. Hamza. Nature Materials (2013) doi:10.1038/nmat3646 Published online 19 May 2013

This paper is behind a paywall.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Russia’s nanotechnology efforts falter?

May 17th, 2013

The title for Leonid Bershidksy’s May 16, 2013 Bloomberg.com article, Power Grab Trumps Nanotechnology in Putin’s Russia, casts an ominous shadow over Rusnano’s situation (Note: Links have been removed),

The projects, known as Rusnano and Skolkovo, were meant to propel Russia’s raw-material economy into the technology age. They involved multibillion-dollar government investments, the first in nanotechnology and the second in a new city that would become Russia’s answer to Silicon Valley. They were supposed to provide the infrastructure and stability required to attract large amounts of foreign investment.

Now, both have become targets in Putin’s campaign to demonstrate that he’s being tough on corruption and mismanagement of government funds. As a result, their chances of succeeding are looking increasingly remote.

…

Trouble came in April [2013], when the Accounting Chamber, a body charged with auditing government spending, accused Rusnano of inefficient management in a report that received ample coverage on state-owned TV. It said that Rusnano had transferred about $40 million to shell companies and pointed out that a silicon factory in which Rusnano invested about $450 million was not functioning and was about to be declared insolvent. The report also highlighted the state company’s 2012 losses of 2.5 billion rubles ($80 million) and the 24.4-billion-ruble (about $800 million) in reserves Rusnano had formed against potential losses from risky ventures.

Anatoly Medetsky’s Apr. 29, 2013 article for The Moscow Times provides more insight into the situation,

The government’s Audit Chamber on Friday [April 26, 2013] accused state-owned Rusnano of multiple infractions in a blow to the high-tech corporation’s chief, Anatoly Chubais.

The chamber’s critical conclusions followed President Vladimir Putin’s reproof of the company during a live call-in show the previous day.

Auditors made their statement after examining Rusnano’s records in response to a request by Chubais’ political nemesis, the Communist Party.

“The audit’s materials attest that Rusnano’s performance was inappropriate to attain the goals that it was entrusted with, which are the development of the national nano industry,” the Audit Chamber said in a statement.

…

Auditor Sergei Agaptsov said separately that Rusnano is unlikely to achieve the goal of 300 billion rubles in annual sales of nano-tech products by the companies it co-owns in 2015 — the target that the government set for the company, Interfax reported.

I’m sorry to read about Rusnano’s difficulties especially in light my first piece about it where I compared the Canadian effort unfavourably to, what was then, a relatively new and promising organization in my Apr. 14, 2009 posting. About seventeen months later, officials with Rusnano signed a memorandum of understanding with John Varghese, CEO and Managing Partner of Toronto based venture capital firm, VentureLink Funds as noted in my Sept. 14, 2010 posting. Nothing further seemed to come of that agreement.

I have one last thought about Rusnano’s current travails, will they have an impact on US commercialization efforts? In my Oct. 28, 2011 posting where I was contrasting nanotechnology commercialization efforts by the US, Spain, and Rusnano, I mentioned this deal Rusnano had made with two US nanomedicine companies,

Then RUSNANO announced its investments in Selecta Biosciences and BIND Biosiences, from the Oct. 27, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

BIND Biosciences and Selecta Biosciences, two leading nanomedicine companies, announced today that they have entered into investment agreements with RUSNANO, a $10-billion Russian Federation fund that supports high-tech and nanotechnology advances. [emphasis mine]

RUSNANO is co-investing $25 million in BIND and $25 million in Selecta, for a total RUSNANO investment of $50 million within the total financing rounds of $94.5 million in the two companies combined. …

…

The proprietary technology platforms of BIND and Selecta originated in laboratories at Harvard Medical School directed by Professor Omid Farokhzad, MD, and in laboratories at MIT directed by Professor Robert Langer, ScD, a renowned scientist who is a recipient of the US National Medal of Science, the highest US honor for scientists, and is an inventor of approximately 850 patents issued or pending worldwide. Drs. Langer and Farokhzad are founders of both companies.

Ripple effects, eh? Rusnano was very active internationally.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in business, investment, nanotechnology | No Comments »

« Older Entries