Category Archives: science communication

Café Scientifique (Vancouver, Canada) November 29, 2016 talk: Climate change and moving mountains

Vancouver (Canada) Café Scientifique’s next talk is at Yagger’s Downtown (433 W. Pender). From the November 19, 2016 notice received via email,

Our next café will happen on Tuesday November 29th, 7:30pm in the back room at Yagger’s Downtown (433 W Pender). Our speaker for the evening will be Dr. Michèle Koppes, from the Department of Geography at UBC. The title of her talk is:

Can climate change move mountains?

Climate change is causing more than warmer oceans and erratic weather. It can also change the shape of the planet. Glaciers are a fundamental link between climate and the tectonic and surface processes that create topography. Mountain ranges worldwide have undergone large-scale modification due the erosive action of ice, yet the mechanisms that control the timing of this modification and the rate by which ice erodes remain poorly understood. We find a wide range of erosion rates from individual ice masses over varying timescales, suggesting that modern erosion rates exceed long-term averages by two to three orders of magnitude. We also see that glaciers in Patagonia erode 1000 times faster than they do in Antarctica today. These modern rates are likely due to the dynamic acceleration of these ice masses as air and ocean temperatures warmed and they retreated over the past few decades. The repercussions of this erosion add to the already complex effects of climate change in polar and high mountain regions. Shrinking and accelerating glaciers destabilize slopes upstream, increasing the risk of landslides, and deposit more sediment in downstream basins, potentially impacting fisheries, dams and access to clean freshwater in mountain communities. And the dramatic increase in modern erosion rates suggest that glaciers in the Canadian Arctic, one of the most rapidly warming regions in the world, are on the brink of a major shift that will see them speeding up and eroding faster as temperatures warm above 0ºC.

Michele Koppes is an Assistant Professor in Geography at UBC, a Canada Research Chair Tier II in Landscapes of Climate Change, a faculty affiliate at IRES and a Senior TED Fellow. Her passion is forensic geomorphology: the art of reading landscapes to decipher the forces that shaped them.  Her particular expertise is in glaciers, and their impact in shaping mountains and polar regions at a variety of time scales, from last year to the last million years. Her research focus is two-fold: to determine the efficacy of glaciers as agents of erosion, and to determine the climatic and oceanic drivers of glaciations in high mountains and coastal settings. She has current field projects in high places all over the world, from BC to Patagonia, Alaska, the Himalayas, Greenland and Antarctica, where her team combines detailed field observations with numerical modeling of ice-ocean dynamics and glacier mass balance.

Have fun!

Curiosity Collider Café: Nov. 16, 2016 in Vancouver (Canada)

It’s time for another Curiosity Collider art/science event.  to get you excited (from a Nov. 8, 2016 announcement received via email),

Dance. Genetics. Digital Media. Photography. Science Illustration. Join us to create new ways to experience science.

Our #ColliderCafe is a space for artists, scientists, makers, and anyone interested in art+science. Meet, discover, connect, create. Where will your curiosity for science take you? How will you express science through art?

From the Curiosity Collider events page,

Collider Cafe: Scientific. Expression.

When
8:00pm on Wednesday, November 16th, 2016. Door opens at 7:30pm.

Where
Café Deux Soleils. 2096 Commercial Drive, Vancouver, BC (Google Map).

Cost
$5.00 cover at the door. Proceeds will be used to cover the cost of running this event, and to fund future Curiosity Collider events. Curiosity Collider is a registered BC non-profit organization.

***

Where would your curiosity for science take you? How would you express science through art? Join our upcoming “Collider Cafe: Scientific. Expression.” to hear from these speakers about their ideas and to chat with them about collaborations.

 

Julie-anne Saroyan (artistic producer | project manager, Small Stage)

Alina Sotskova (dancer | photographer | psychologist)

Armin Mortazavi (cartoonist | scientist)

Jen Burgess (natural science illustrator)

Karissa Milbury (scientist – genetics | public scholar)

You can find individual websites by clicking on each presenter’s name (if you have the time, it’s worth it for the most part). Milbury’s, unfortunately, is simply a LinkedIn page although you do find out she’s a PhD candidate who’s working at Telus World of Science. As for Saroyan, I found a biography for her on the Small Stage website,

Julie-anne loves sharing dance with everyone.

She co-founded the company and kicked off the series Dances for a Small Stage in Vancouver.  Since then, Julie-anne has she has produced many dance events- including all installments of the MovEnt series Dances for a Small Stage in Vancouver, at the Canada Dance Festival (2006), BC Scene (2009) and Magnetic North Theatre Festival + Canada Dance Festival (2015) at The National Arts Centre in Ottawa.

Saroyan has established herself in dance industry as a skilled and dedicated professional in identifying, developing, and mentoring emerging dance artists.  She has successfully developed Dances for a Small Stage as a breeding ground for new choreographic talent and as a stable, sustainable artistic venture.

They don’t seem to be holding their ‘open mic/request for collaborator’ subevent where they invite members of the audience to stand up and talk for 60 secs. about a proposed project and put in a request for a collaborator. Perhaps next time, eh?

9 am on (Friday) Oct. 21, 2016 University of British Columbia professors take on a zombie apocalypse

Thanks to an Oct. 19, 2016 University of British Columbia (UBC) news release (received via email) for this information about a talk on the zombie apocalypse. This is in the form of a Q&A (question and answer) interview,

Hordes of flesh-eating zombies haven’t yet made the leap from the horror-movie screen to downtown city streets, but that hasn’t stopped two professors from the UBC school of population and public health from sharing tips on how to handle an invasion of the living dead.

Assistant professor Jennifer Gardy and professor David Patrick are taking part in a free public talk on October 21 to discuss how public health workers would diagnose, model and respond to a zombie virus. The talk is part of the school of population and public health’s Grand Round series and will feature faculty, students and guest speakers from UBC and the BC Centre for Disease Control.

Do zombies really exist and how likely is a zombie apocalypse?

JG: Absolutely! They’re just not the humanoid ones we recognize from movies. There are loads of zombie parasites out there in other species. While preparing for the rise of the undead is a little over the top, new diseases are emerging all the time, and thinking about how we’d prep for a zombie apocalypse is a great way of getting us thinking about more realistic disease scenarios, like a viral pandemic.

DP: In comparison, zombie behaviour is pretty unique, so we suspect that most emergency doctors would begin to ask questions. The difference with a zombie epidemic is the uncontrolled and aggressive behaviour of the zombie – that certainly increases the chances of transmission. This behaviour is reminiscent of animal and even human behaviour associated with rabies.  The number of people that could be infected with a zombie virus would be highly dependent on the efficiency of transmission. Rabies is transmitted by a bite, but it’s not so efficient that it results in a giant epidemic in people.

How can the average citizen prepare for, and escape, a zombie attack?  

DP:  The first part of preparation is common to earthquakes and other disasters: make sure you have a survival kit. The more portable it is, like a loaded knapsack, the better.

In every other epidemic we’ve seen, infected people are not all running around exhibiting behaviour that would threaten others. So a zombie epidemic would raise a whole bunch of new ethical issues around our duty to the sick, the healthy, and the role of civil society in protecting itself. Movies aside, the medical imperative is clearly to get to the root of the problem, interrupt transmission, heal the sick, if possible, and protect the healthy. But we’d sure need to pay attention to building security!

How would we respond to an outbreak of the zombie virus?

JG: We use mathematical modelling techniques to understand how quickly a pathogen might spread – these same models are used in zombie movies when they’re showing the projected spread of the outbreak.

Remember that in any outbreak, rumours and misinformation will abound. Listen to public-health officials and heed their advice – you can trust that we’ll share everything we know with you.

Should you try and help an infected relative or friend?  

DP: As long as this can be done while minimizing risk to yourself, it’s worth a try. The Ebola outbreak in West Africa, for example, could have been even worse. But people were able to put aside fear, employ rational measures for infection control, and care for the sick.

The ethical argument for sedating a zombie is pretty straightforward.  As a physician I would sure want to know if I could protect others by isolating and, if necessary, sedating the zombie before I entertained vigilante solutions. “Any idiot can pump a shotgun” but a real healthcare worker is going to do what he or she can to preserve life.

What should you do if you get bitten by a zombie?

DP: Contribute to a natural history study or volunteer for a clinical trial.

(Logistics are just after this bit.) I’m glad to see UBC has hopped on board the ‘zombie’ craze. Interestingly, Canada’s House of Commons got there first in 2013, not to mention the US Public Health Service which had a zombie preparedness plan prior to any declarations in the House,

For anyone who wants to attend the UBC event, here are the logistics (from the event page),

When: Friday, October 21, 2016 9:00 AM – 10:00 am

Where: MICHAEL SMITH LABORATORIES at UBC Point Grey Campus

Description:    Just in time for Hallowe’en, join School of Population and Public Health [SPPH] faculty and BC Centre for Disease Control researchers for October Grand Rounds, where they’ll walk you through how to diagnose, model, and control a plague of the undead, as well as show you the non-fiction zombies that exist today.

Join us for the real public health science behind the zombie epidemic, live or online via www.youtube.com/user/UBCSPPH1

Friday 21st October, 9am to 10am at Michael Smith Laboratories Room 102

Please direct any queries to spph.communications@spph.ubc.ca

Enjoy!

Oil company sponsorships: Science Museum (London, UK) and Canada’s Museum of Science and Technology

Wonderlab: The Statoil Gallery opened in London’s (UK) Science Museum on Oct. 12, 2016 and it seems there are a couple of controversies. An Oct. 17, 2016 article by Chris Garrard outlines the issues (Note: Links have been removed),

What do you wonder?” That is the question the Science Museum has been asking for many months now, in posters, celebrity videos and in online images. It’s been part of the museum’s strategy to ramp up excitement around its new “Wonderlab” gallery, a space full of interactive science exhibits designed to inspire children. But what many have been wondering is how Statoil, a major oil and gas company with plans to drill up to seven new wells in the Arctic [emphasis mine], was allowed to become the gallery’s title sponsor? Welcome to Wonderlab – the Science Museum’s latest ethical contradiction.

In Australia, Statoil is still considering plans to drill a series of ultra deepwater wells in the Great Australian Bight – an internationally recognised whale sanctuary – despite the decision this week of its strategic partner, BP, to pull out. …

The company’s sponsorship of Wonderlab may look like a generous gesture from outside but in reality, Statoil is buying a social legitimacy it does not deserve – and it is particularly sinister to purchase that legitimacy at the expense of young people who will inherit a world with an unstable climate. This is an attempt to associate the future of science and technology with fossil fuels at a time when society and policy makers have finally accepted that that it is not compatible with a sustainable future and a stable climate. As the impacts of climate change intensify and the world shifts away from fossil fuels, the Science Museum will look ever more out of touch with the words “the Statoil gallery” emblazoned upon its walls.

The Science Museum has previously had sponsorship deals with a range of unethical sponsors, from arms companies such as Airbus, to other fossil fuel companies such as BP and Shell. When Shell’s influence over the Science Museum’s climate science gallery was unearthed last year following Freedom of Information requests, the museum’s director, Ian Blatchford, sought to defend the museum’s engagement with fossil fuel funders. He wrote “When it comes to the major challenges facing our society, from climate change to inspiring the next generation of engineers, we need to be engaging with all the key players including governments, industry and the public, not hiding away in a comfortable ivory tower.”

In reality, Blatchford is the one in the ivory tower – and not just because of the museum’s ties to Statoil. Wonderlab replaces the museum’s Launchpad gallery, a hub of interactive science exhibits designed to engage and inspire children. But unlike its predecessor, Wonderlab comes with an entry charge. Earlier this year, the science communication academic Dr Emily Dawson noted that “charging for the museum’s most popular children’s gallery sends a clear message that science is for some families, but not for all”. Thus Wonderlab represents a science communication mess as well as an ethical one.

While the museum’s decision to offer free school visits will allow some children from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to experience Wonderlab, Dawson argues that “it is not enough to use school visits as a panacea for exclusive practice”. Research recently undertaken by the Wellcome Trust showed that likelihood of visiting a science museum or centre is related to social class. Entry charges are not the only obstacle in the way of public access to science, but perhaps the most symbolic for a major cultural institution – particularly where the primary audience is children.

Garrard does note that museums have challenges, especially when they are dealing with funding cuts as they are at the Science Museum.

The sponsorship issue may sound familiar to Canadians as we had our own controversy in 2012 with Imperial Oil and its sponsorship of the Canada Science and Technology Museum’s show currently named, ‘Let’s Talk Energy‘ still sponsored by Imperial Oil. Here’s more from my June 13, 2012 posting,

They’ve been going hot and heavy at Canada’s national museums in Ottawa this last few months. First, there was a brouhaha over corporate patronage and energy in January 2012 and, again, in April 2012 and now, it’s all about sex. While I’m dying to get started on the sex, this piece is going to follow the chronology.

The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) website has a Jan. 23, 2012 posting which notes the active role Imperial Oil played in a November 2011  energy exhibit (part of a multi-year, interactive national initiative, Let’s Talk Energy)  at the Canada Science and Technology Museum (from the CBC Jan. 23, 2012 posting),

Imperial Oil, a sponsor of the Museum of Science and Technology’s exhibition “Energy: Power to Choose,” was actively involved in the message presented to the public, according to emails obtained by CBC News.

The Ottawa museum unveiled the exhibition last year despite criticism from environmental groups like the Sierra Club, which questioned why it was partly funded by the Imperial Oil Foundation, which contributed $600,000 over six years.

Apparently, CBC reporters got their hands on some emails where the Imperial Oil Foundation president, Susan Swan, made a number of suggestions,

In an Oct. 3 [2011] interview on CBC Ottawa’s All in a Day, host Alan Neal asked exhibit curator Anna Adamek whose idea it was to include in the exhibit a reference that says oilsands account for one-tenth of one percent of global emissions.

“This fact comes from research reports that are available at the museum, that were commissioned by the museum,” Adamek told Neal.

But earlier emails from Imperial Oil Foundation president Susan Swan obtained by Radio-Canada through an Access to Information request show she had recommended that information be included back in May [2011?].

Swan, who also served as chair of the advisory committee to the project, also asked that information be included that the oilsands are expected to add $1.7 trillion to the Canadian economy over the next 25 years.

Not all of Swan’s requests made it into the final exhibit: in one point, she asked that an illustration for Polar Oil and Gas Reserves be changed from red to blue, arguing red “has a negative connotation” bringing to mind “blood oil.” The change was not made.

Personally, I love Swan’s semiotic analysis of the colour ‘red’. I wonder how many graphic designers have been driven mad by someone who sat through a lecture or part of a television programme on colour and/or semiotics and is now an expert.

If you’re curious, you can see the emails from the Imperial Oil Foundation in the CBC Jan. 23, 2012 posting.

A few months later, Barrick Gold (a mining corporation) donated $1M to have a room at the Canadian Museum of Nature renamed, from the April 24, 2012 posting on the CBC website,

Environmental groups are upset over a decision to rename a room at the Canadian Museum of Nature after corporate mining giant Barrick Gold.

Barrick Gold Corp., based out of Toronto, purchased the room’s naming rights for about $1 million. The new “Barrick Salon” is the museum’s premier rental space featuring a circular room with glass windows from floor to ceiling.

The decision had activists protest at the museum Tuesday, a few hours before the official naming reception that includes Barrick Gold executives.

“It’s definitely not a partnership, it’s a sponsorship,” said Elizabeth McCrea, the museum’s director of communications. “We’re always looking at increasing self-generated revenue and this is one way that we’re doing it.” [emphasis mine]

Monarchs and wealthy people have been funding and attempting to influence cultural institutions for millenia. These days, we get to include corporations on that list but it’s nothing new. People or institutions with power and money always want history or facts * presented in ways that further or flatter their interests (“history is written by the victors”). They aren’t always successful but they will keep trying.

It’s hard to be high-minded when you need money but it doesn’t mean you should give up on the effort.

The Conversation: Australia’s highly successful academic news blog comes to Canada

Since it was launched in Australia in 2011, The Conversation.com, an academic blog that’s all dressed up, has enjoyed rising success. The writing is crisp and strives to interest and educate its audience without bogging down in extraneous detail or jargon. (I am glad to note that they have decided to be more open with copyright than they were initially. These days their essays have creative commons licences.) After launching a number of offshoots (The Conversation Africa, The Conversation France, The Conversation UK, and the The Conversation UK), Canada joins the crew.

From a Sept. 9, 2016 University of British Columbia (UBC) news release (received via email; Note: Links have been removed),

UBC journalism professors have been awarded approximately $200,000 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to support the launch of a national version of the globally successful non-profit academic journalism site, TheConversation.com.

Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young, both former journalists, are working with the Melbourne-based media organization to develop The Conversation Canada with funding from SSHRC’s highly competitive Partnership Development Grant. This new national media outlet will unlock the expertise of the Canadian research sector and share it with the widest possible audience.

Since its 2011 launch in Australia, The Conversation has expanded to an increasingly global knowledge network, with editions in the UK [the UK is comprised of four countries, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England], the US, France and Africa [this is a continent with somewhere between 54 and 56 countries depending on who’s counting]. [Note: This pedantic segue will seem more relevant in a subsequent paragraph.] The Conversation has a monthly audience of 3.3 million unique visitors, with a reach of 35 million.

“Scholars at Canadian universities have a lot to contribute globally through The Conversation network,” said Alfred Hermida, director of the UBC School of Journalism and a former BBC journalist of 16 years. “News organizations around the country are under intense financial pressure and we believe Canadians, the university sector and the media can all benefit from a new national source of expert analysis.”

Written by 40,000 academics and researchers worldwide and edited by 90 experienced journalists, The Conversation offers informed, insightful and independent analysis and commentary, as well as breaking news from scholars and researchers. The site is published under Creative Commons licensing, which allows mainstream media outlets like The Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian, Macleans, ABC (Australia), BBC and others to re-publish its content.

“We are looking forward to the launch of the new Canadian service, which will be our sixth [?] country [emphasis mine] to launch,” said The Conversation’s editor-in-chief, Andrew Jaspan. “The Conversation’s independent, trusted content service will, I hope, play an important role in providing informed content to support better public debate and decision-making.”

There are 333 Canadian scholars currently registered with The Conversation’s global network, with Canada representing The Conversation’s fourth-largest readership. Currently, though, Canadian users mostly visit The Conversation’s U.S. edition as to date there is no Canadian site.

The Canadian team includes veteran science journalist Penny Park [emphasis mine] and Zoe Tennant who has a background in both journalism and academic research. The team is working on securing the support of Canada’s major universities to partner on the launch of an English-language version of The Conversation Canada.

They have joined forces with The Conversation France to facilitate the participation of Francophone scholars in Canada, and are working on a longer-term strategy to support the development of a French-language version of The Conversation Canada.

I’m mildly surprised to see Penny Park associated with this project since she seemed hesitant about blogs when I spoke to her in 2012. She was and is the executive director of the Science Media Centre of Canada. (I had been invited to join [remotely] a press conference for the Council of Canadian Academies’ report ‘The State of Science and Technology in Canada 2012’ being hosted by the Science Media Centre of Canada [SMCC] which refused to give me access. At the time she agreed to give me credentials [I think being credentialed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science worked in my favour] for the SMCC and I would have been the first blogger to achieve that status. In the end, I did get access to that one press conference but never did get credentialed by the SMCC.)

You can find the The Conversation (Australia) here and the Science Media Centre of Canada here. I wish The Conversation Canada venture good luck!

2016 Nobel Chemistry Prize for molecular machines

Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2016 was the day three scientists received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on molecular machines, according to an Oct. 5, 2016 news item on phys.org,

Three scientists won the Nobel Prize in chemistry on Wednesday [Oct. 5, 2016] for developing the world’s smallest machines, 1,000 times thinner than a human hair but with the potential to revolutionize computer and energy systems.

Frenchman Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Scottish-born Fraser Stoddart and Dutch scientist Bernard “Ben” Feringa share the 8 million kronor ($930,000) prize for the “design and synthesis of molecular machines,” the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said.

Machines at the molecular level have taken chemistry to a new dimension and “will most likely be used in the development of things such as new materials, sensors and energy storage systems,” the academy said.

Practical applications are still far away—the academy said molecular motors are at the same stage that electrical motors were in the first half of the 19th century—but the potential is huge.

Dexter Johnson in an Oct. 5, 2016 posting on his Nanoclast blog (on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website) provides some insight into the matter (Note: A link has been removed),

In what seems to have come both as a shock to some of the recipients and a confirmation to all those who envision molecular nanotechnology as the true future of nanotechnology, Bernard Feringa, Jean-Pierre Sauvage, and Sir J. Fraser Stoddart have been awarded the 2016 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their development of molecular machines.

The Nobel Prize was awarded to all three of the scientists based on their complementary work over nearly three decades. First, in 1983, Sauvage (currently at Strasbourg University in France) was able to link two ring-shaped molecules to form a chain. Then, eight years later, Stoddart, a professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., demonstrated that a molecular ring could turn on a thin molecular axle. Then, eight years after that, Feringa, a professor at the University of Groningen, in the Netherlands, built on Stoddardt’s work and fabricated a molecular rotor blade that could spin continually in the same direction.

Speaking of the Nobel committee’s selection, Donna Nelson, a chemist and president of the American Chemical Society told Scientific American: “I think this topic is going to be fabulous for science. When the Nobel Prize is given, it inspires a lot of interest in the topic by other researchers. It will also increase funding.” Nelson added that this line of research will be fascinating for kids. “They can visualize it, and imagine a nanocar. This comes at a great time, when we need to inspire the next generation of scientists.”

The Economist, which appears to be previewing an article about the 2016 Nobel prizes ahead of the print version, has this to say in its Oct. 8, 2016 article,

BIGGER is not always better. Anyone who doubts that has only to look at the explosion of computing power which has marked the past half-century. This was made possible by continual shrinkage of the components computers are made from. That success has, in turn, inspired a search for other areas where shrinkage might also yield dividends.

One such, which has been poised delicately between hype and hope since the 1990s, is nanotechnology. What people mean by this term has varied over the years—to the extent that cynics might be forgiven for wondering if it is more than just a fancy rebranding of the word “chemistry”—but nanotechnology did originally have a fairly clear definition. It was the idea that machines with moving parts could be made on a molecular scale. And in recognition of this goal Sweden’s Royal Academy of Science this week decided to award this year’s Nobel prize for chemistry to three researchers, Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Sir Fraser Stoddart and Bernard Feringa, who have never lost sight of nanotechnology’s original objective.

Optimists talk of manufacturing molecule-sized machines ranging from drug-delivery devices to miniature computers. Pessimists recall that nanotechnology is a field that has been puffed up repeatedly by both researchers and investors, only to deflate in the face of practical difficulties.

There is, though, reason to hope it will work in the end. This is because, as is often the case with human inventions, Mother Nature has got there first. One way to think of living cells is as assemblies of nanotechnological machines. For example, the enzyme that produces adenosine triphosphate (ATP)—a molecule used in almost all living cells to fuel biochemical reactions—includes a spinning molecular machine rather like Dr Feringa’s invention. This works well. The ATP generators in a human body turn out so much of the stuff that over the course of a day they create almost a body-weight’s-worth of it. Do something equivalent commercially, and the hype around nanotechnology might prove itself justified.

Congratulations to the three winners!

Doctor Strange contest for girls in the US aged 15 – 18

The deadline is Oct. 5, 2016 so if you do qualify for entry, you’d best be quick.

David Bruggeman in his Sept. 25, 2016 posting provides more information,

… the latest contest is called The Magic of STEM Challenge and is tied to the November [2016] release of the film Doctor Strange.

The name highlights part of the dramatic arc of the film – a neurosurgeon engaging with magic as he seeks to recover from an accident.  I have not seen the film, but it may bear some resemblance to how the Thor films have tried to explain the fantastical actions of those characters with some basis in science.  But don’t look too close (as you shouldn’t in any superhero film) or the gloss of scientific realism will disappear.

But I’m writing about the contest.  There’s a short window for entries, because the contest is open until October 5th.  Entrants are girls in the U.S. from 15-18 years old (grades 10-12), and must submit a video blog (vlog) on a scientific or technological questions. …

As some may know, Canadian actress Rachel McAdams is one of the leads in the film so she’s introducing the contest and the winner of the previous STEM Marvel contest (Captain America: Civil War),

You can find out more about the contest and the rules here.

One final thing about the movie, there has been a bit of a controversy with regard to the casting of Brit actress Tilda Swinton. From an April 28, 2016 posting by Kaiser on the Celebitchy blog,

… now C. Robert Cargill, the Strange screenwriter, has come out to try to explain it.

Tilda Swinton was cast as a Tibetan monk in the Marvel movie Doctor Strange so the comic book character could be changed to a ‘Celtic’ to avoid upsetting China, a screenwriter has claimed. One of the film’s screenwriters has suggested that the casting of the British actress as sorcerer the Ancient One was partly done to avoid offending China’s government. Moviegoers in China now represent the world’s second-largest annual box office after North America but the film’s backers apparently did not want to risk losing out on the Chinese market by introducing the highly politically charged subject of Tibet.

“He originates from Tibet, so if you acknowledge that Tibet is a place and that he’s Tibetan, you risk alienating one billion people who think that that’s bullsh*t and risk the Chinese government going, ‘Hey, you know one of the biggest film-watching countries in the world? We’re not going to show your movie because you decided to get political,” screenwriter C. Robert Cargill said in a podcast interview with the Texas-based DoubleToasted.com.

Cargill, who wasn’t involved in the casting of Swinton, said the comic book character of the Ancient One was ‘a racist stereotype.’

‘There is no other character in Marvel history that is such a cultural landmine, that is absolutely unwinnable,’ he said, adding: ‘It all comes down on to which way you are willing to lose.’

After the controversy over the 2016 Academy Awards regarding the paucity of minority nominees which  extended into a conversation about the lack of opportunity for minorities, it seems Hollywood is being held to closer account on topics of race.

As for the science end of things, I guess we can expect a light sprinkling of relatively accurate information mixed in with fantasy science.

Good luck to everyone who enters the contest and may your science be as accurate as possible.

‘Fill in the Planck’ with Tom McFadden

A science rhyming quiz set to music? Here’s more from David Bruggeman’s Aug. 30, 2016 posting (on his Pasco Phronesis blog; Note: Links have been removed),

Tom McFadden, fresh off of his featured appearance as Joseph-Louis Lagrange in William Rowan Hamilton [a science-oriented production by Tim Blais featuring music from the Broadway musical, Hamilton], has a rhyming quiz going on at his YouTube channel.  That’s right, a rhyming quiz, and it’s called Fill in the Planck.

There are two quizzes so far, one on the JUNO spacecraft and the most recent on water.  The idea is to complete each rhyme in the verse. …

McFadden includes instructions in his into. to the quiz. Here’s the second in the series, Hot Water – Fill in the Planck #2,

The ‘Fill in the Planck’ video series can be found here.

You can find out more about McFadden and his work here and there was this: vote for his panel ‘Hip Hop in the Science Classroom’ (voting ended Sept. 2, 2016) to be presented at the 2017 SXSWedu (South by Southwest education). There is no word yet as to whether or not McFadden’s presentation will be seen at the 2017 SXSWedu.

Smallest national flag record achieved to celebrate Canada’s 150th birthday

Courtesy University of Waterloo

Courtesy University of Waterloo

This is a partly nanoscale Canadian flag. For those who can’t read the text on the image, it says ‘Cursor Height = 501.7 nanometers [and] Cursor Width = 1.178 micrometers’.

A Sept. 19, 2016 news item on phys.org announces the latest ‘small’ flag,

The Institute for Quantum Computing at the University of Waterloo set a world record for creating a Canadian flag measuring about one one-hundredth the width of a human hair.

Guinness World Records granted the inaugural award for smallest national flag to the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) at Waterloo for the flag measuring 1.178 micrometres in length. It is invisible without the aid of an electron microscope.

A Sept. 19, 2016 University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) news release, which originated the news item, provides more detail about how the flag was fabricated (Note: A link has been removed),

Nathan Nelson-Fitzpatrick, nanofabrication process engineer at IQC, led the creation of the flag with assistance from Natalie Prislinger Pinchin, a Waterloo co-op student from the Faculty of Engineering. They created it on a silicon wafer bearing the official logo of the Canada 150 celebrations using an electron beam lithography system in the Quantum NanoFab facility at Waterloo.

“Canada 150 celebrates our past, present and future,” said Tobi Day-Hamilton, associate director of communications and strategic initiatives at IQC. “The future of Canadian technology is firmly set in the quantum world and at the nano-scale, so what better way to celebrate the lead up to 2017 than with a record-setting, nano-scale national flag.”

The record-setting flag was unveiled at IQC’s open house on September 17, which attracted nearly 1,000 visitors. It will also be on display in QUANTUM: The Exhibition, a Canada 150 Fund Signature Initiative, and part of Innovation150, a consortium of five leading Canadian science-outreach organizations. QUANTUM: The Exhibition is a 4,000-square-foot, interactive, travelling exhibit IQC developed highlighting Canada’s leadership in quantum information science and technology.

“I’m delighted that IQC is celebrating Canadian innovation through QUANTUM: The Exhibition and Innovation150,” said Raymond Laflamme, executive director of IQC. “It’s an opportunity to share the transformative technologies resulting from Canadian research and bring quantum computing to fellow Canadians from coast to coast to coast.”

The first of its kind, the exhibition will open at THEMUSEUM in downtown Kitchener on October 14 [2016], and then travel to science centres across the country throughout 2017.

You can find the English language version of QUANTUM: The Exhibition website here and the French language version of QUANTUM: The Exhibition website here.

There are currently four other venues for the show once finishes its run in Waterloo. From QUANTUM’S Join the Celebration webpage,

2017

  • Science World at TELUS World of Science, Vancouver
  • TELUS Spark, Calgary
  • Discovery Centre, Halifax
  • Canada Science and Technology Museum, Ottawa

I gather they’re still looking for other venues to host the exhibition. If interested, there’s this: Contact us.

Other than the flag which is both nanoscale and microscale, they haven’t revealed what else will be included in their 4000 square foot exhibit but it will be “bilingual, accessible, and interactive.” Also, there will be stories.

Hmm. The exhibition is opening in roughly three weeks and they have no details. Strategy or disorganization? Only time will tell.