Category Archives: innovation

Xerox Research Centre Canada, authentic currency, etc. and a ‘nano’ deal with Authentix

An April 1, 2014 news item on labcanada.com describes a recently signed deal which may turn up the competition in Canada’s currency authentication business sector,

The Xerox Research Centre Canada [XRCC] says it has signed a multi-year materials research services agreement with Dallas-based Authentix, a provider of anti-counterfeiting, brand protection and program integrity solutions for the oil and gas industry; currency, branded products and tax stamp markets.

“Working with companies like Authentix adds to the value our scientists bring to the research world,” said Paul Smith, vice president and director of the Xerox Research Centre Canada. “Not only do we continue to strengthen our scientific role in Canadian innovation, we are now bringing valuable research capabilities to other companies globally.”

Given that Xerox is a US company with a Canadian branch, I’m not sure how signing a deal with another US company aids Canadian innovation. On the plus side, it does give some Canadian scientists a job.

I also noted the reference to “currency authentication”, which suggests that Authentix could be in direct competition with the Canadian company, Nanotech Security Corp. (I have written about Nanotech Security Corp. previously with the two most recent being a Jan. 31, 2014 posting about the company’s presentation at an Optical Document Security Conference and a March 17, 2014 posting about the company’s first commercial client, TED.) Perhaps Xerox plans to spur Canadian innovation by providing more competition for our technology companies.

Here’s more from the March 31, 2014 Xerox news release, which originated the news item about the deal with Authentix,

Scientists at XRCC specialize in the design and development of electronic materials and specialty components; environmentally-friendly processes; coatings, applied nanotechnology; polymer science, engineering and pilot plant scale-up. [emphasis mine]

“Materials science research makes it possible to bring new levels of security, accuracy and efficiency to product authentication,” said Jeff Conroy, chief technology officer of Authentix.  “Leveraging the core competencies of Xerox’s materials lab in Canada expands and accelerates our ability to bring innovative solutions to the authentication market.”

Located near Toronto, XRCC is part of the global Xerox Innovation Group made up of researchers and engineers in five world-renowned research centers. Each center leverages XRCC’s unique, integrated, global materials research and development mandate.

You can find out more about Authentix here.

Getting back to XRCC, they had a longstanding relationship with Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT) having signed a 2007 contract with NINT and the Government of Alberta, from a Xerox Innovation Story,

In Canada’s first major public-private nanotechnology research partnership, the Xerox Research Centre of Canada (XRCC), NRC National Institute for Nanotechnology (NINT) and Government of Alberta will provide approximately $4.5 million for research and development of materials-based nanotechnology over the next three years.

The three partners will invest funds, human resources, and available infrastructures to create a research program and teams focused on developing commercially successful nanotechnology-based discoveries. Personnel from NINT and XRCC will collaborate on research projects at NINT in Edmonton, Alberta, and at XRCC in Mississauga, Ontario.

The funds will contribute to the hiring of eight to 10 scientists who will investigate materials-based nanotechnologies, including document- and display-related technologies. The research program, co-managed by XRCC and NINT, will allow access to Xerox’s experience in successfully commercializing technology to facilitate the market application of resulting inventions.

“This level of public and private sector partnership helps fuel the type of innovation that will keep Alberta, and Canada as a whole, strong and competitive in an increasingly global, knowledge-based economy,” said Doug Horner, minister for Advanced Education and Technology, Government of Alberta. “The investments from the Government of Alberta, Xerox and NINT will build a world-class nanotechnology research program that embraces the spirit of innovation, but also that of commercialization.”

I find the references to Xerox and innovation and commercialization amusing since the company is famous for its innovation missteps. For example, the company owned the photocopying business from the 1960s into the 1970s due to its patent rights but once those rights ran out (there’s usually a time limit on a patent) the company was poorly equipped to compete. My guess is that they didn’t know how in an environment where they no longer held a monopoly. The other famous story concerns the mouse and the graphical user interface both of which were developed at Xerox but the company never pursued those innovations leaving Stephen Jobs and his colleagues to found Apple.

At any rate, Xerox survived those missteps so perhaps they learned something and they really do mean it when they talk about spurring innovation. Although, given the business model for most Canadian technology companies, I expect Nanotech Security Corp. to get purchased by Authentix or one of its competitors with the consequence that Canadian taxpayers have helped to pay, yet again, for innovation that will be purchased by a corporate entity with headquarters in another country and much less interest in maintaining a business presence in Canada. If you think I’m being cynical about another country’s corporate interests in Canada, take a look at this excerpt from Derrick Penner’s March 28, 2014 article for the Vancouver Sun about Vancouver’s recent Globe 2014 conference,

Globe, the biannual conference on sustainable development [March 26 - 28, 2014], is as much about doing business as it is about discussing bright ideas for reducing the impact of industry on the environment.

And a new twist for European delegates, such as Roumeas [Vincent Roumeas, a business development manager for the Paris Region Economic Development Agency], is the prospect of Canada Europe Free Trade.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, last October, signed an agreement in principal, which commits the two sides to finalizing a full agreement giving each other tariff-free access to each others’ markets.

Roumeas said it is too soon to tell how much of a draw EU free trade will be because he is working on developing immediate prospects within the next 18 months, which would be before any benefits from free trade would kick in, if the deal is concluded.

However, his colleague Jeremy Bernard Orawiec, a trade adviser for UbiFrance, does see the agreement as an attraction for French firms interested the American market.

He added that the U.S. is viewed as a tough market to crack, so Canada is looked at as an easier-accessed entry point to all of North America.

“It’s really positive to see Canada able to make an agreement before the U.S.,” Orawiec said. “It gives us a time frame so (companies) can come here [Canada] and explore the whole American market.” [emphases mine]

It’s not clear from his comments but I suspect Orawiec is unaware that Mexico is part of North America. In any event, Canada as a market place or as an innovation centre is not important in and of itself. One can criticize Orawiec for making those comments but I’d like to thank him as he has expressed an attitude that I believe is widely held.

Florida and its Advanced Development and Manufacturing (NANO-ADM) Center

A new ‘nano’ manufacturing facility to be located in Florida state is featured in a November 25, 2013 news item on Azonano,

Nanotherapeutics, Inc. announced today that on November 20, 2013, the Company held a Type C meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), providing an opportunity for the FDA to review and provide feedback on Nanotherapeutics’ plans for its Advanced Development and Manufacturing (NANO-ADM) Center facility to be located in Copeland Park, Alachua, FL.

The review and subsequent discussions with the FDA focused on its cGMP [Current Good Manufacturing Practice] manufacturing space, which will provide Nanotherapeutics with capabilities to develop and produce bulk vaccines and biologics for the Department of Defense (DOD), other government agencies and industry. The Company expressed its appreciation to the FDA for granting the meeting, which represents the achievement of a major milestone in the ongoing design of a successful NANO-ADM Center.

You can find out more about Nanotherapeutics, Inc. here and for anyone curious about cGMPs, there’s this page on the FDA website,

Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs) for human pharmaceuticals affect every American.  Consumers expect that each batch of medicines they take will meet quality standards so that they will be safe and effective.  Most people, however, are not aware of cGMPs, or how FDA assures that drug manufacturing processes meet these basic objectives.  Recently, FDA has announced a number of regulatory actions taken against drug manufacturers based on the lack of cGMPs.  This paper discusses some facts that may be helpful in understanding how cGMPs establish the foundation for drug product quality.

What are cGMPs?

cGMP refers to the Current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations enforced by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  cGMPs provide for systems that assure proper design, monitoring, and control of manufacturing processes and facilities….

Prior to this latest announcement about the NANO-ADM, there was some information offered in the company’s Oct. 23, 2013 news release about the groundbreaking event,

Nanotherapeutics, Inc. today announced that a groundbreaking ceremony for its Advanced Development and Manufacturing Center (NANO-ADM) in Copeland Park, Alachua, FL, will be held this morning [Oct. 23, 2013] at 9:00 am ET. …

The ceremony celebrates the groundbreaking of the 30-acre NANO-ADM center being constructed through privately secured financing to fulfill the contract awarded to Nanotherapeutics by the US Department of Defence (DOD) earlier this year. … The goal of the contract is to enable faster and more effective development of medical countermeasures designed to treat and protect military populations against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks and outbreaks of naturally occurring, emerging and genetically engineered infectious diseases.

Nanotherapeutics and its network of 16 world-class teaming partners and collaborators for this project are currently able to furnish core services in response to the DOD’s requirements, should the need arise. … single-use equipment of one-of-a-kind, 165,000 square foot facility. The NANO-ADM Center will integrate new biomanufacturing technologies with existing capabilities enabling the development of both small molecule and biologic products. …

The Nov. 21, 2013 news release, which originated the news item on Azonano, provided this additional detail,

Construction of the NANO-ADM Center is scheduled for completion in early 2015, with commissioning, qualification and full occupancy expected by mid-March 2015.

It seems to me that while New York State has garnered a lot of attention for its nanotechnology model, as evidenced by a book on the topic: New York’s Nanotechnology Model: Building the Innovation Economy: Summary of a Symposium (2013), and much more, Florida has been quietly establishing itself as another center for nanotechnology and innovation.

Lomiko Metals and Graphene Laboratories announce 3D printing spinoff company

A Nov. 25, 2013 news item on Azonano announces a new 3D printing company, Graphene 3D Labs,

LOMIKO METALS INC. (the “Company”) announced today the formation of Graphene 3D Labs Inc. to focus on the development of high-performance graphene-enhanced materials for 3D Printing. Dr. Daniel Stolyarov of Graphene Laboratories Inc. (“Graphene Labs”) was appointed CEO and Dr. Michael Gouzman, a leading expert in 3D Printing, was appointed VP of Engineering and Technology.

On February 12, 2013 the Company had entered into a Strategic Alliance Agreement (“SAA”) with Graphene Labs. The creation of Graphene 3D Labs, a spin-out of Graphene Labs, is a result of R&D efforts during the duration of the SAA.

It’s been a busy year for Lomiko Metals (based in Surrey, BC, Canada) as per my April 17, 2013 posting about its graphite flake testing and its graphite mine (Quatre Milles) in Québec and my May 30, 2013 posting about its agreement/strategic alliance with the Research Foundation of Stony Brook University (RF) based in New York State. This latest effort according to the Nov. 22, 2013 Lomiko Metals news release, which originated the news item, describes the reasons for creating a spinout company to pursue applications,

3D Printing is a new and promising manufacturing technology that has garnered much interest, growing from uses in prototyping to everyday products. Today, it is a billion dollar industry growing at a brisk pace. New developments in 3D printing will allow products with different components such as printed electronic circuits, sensors or batteries to be manufactured.

High quality graphite is a base material for producing graphene. Lomiko will provide graphite to Graphene 3D Labs as the exclusive supplier to Graphene 3D Labs and invest $ 50,000 in the start-up for 250,000 preferred shares which are entitled to dividends. Lomiko will require a minimum of $ 300,000 financing by May 1, 2014 to participate in the venture and further financings to participate in a series of graphene-related ventures in addition to work on a graphite resource at the Quatre Milles Project. The transaction is arm’s length and subject to the approval of the TSX. [Toronto Stock Exchange]

“Our involvement in Graphene 3D Labs is a concrete first step into the world of Graphene, 3D Printing and Printed Electronics. This is a rapidly developing new market for high quality naturalgraphite.” stated A. Paul Gill, CEO from the Graphene Live! Conference in Santa Clara, California held November 19-22, 2013.

Dr. Elena Polyakova, CEO of Graphene Labs, was a speaker on Graphene Live! and stated, “We anticipate graphene-enabled materials to revolutionize 3D printing. We anticipate strong demand in airspace, automotive, semi-conductor and advanced manufacturing industries.”

Currently Lomiko and Graphene Labs are working toward the integration of graphene-based products into end-user goods as set out in the Strategic Alliance. [emphasis mine] Lomiko’s high quality graphite and the extensive customer database cultivated by the experts at Graphene Labs will prove indispensable to reaching production and commercialization goals.

This business of developing a market for your raw materials is an approach the folks at CelluForce in Quebec and the new CNC (cellulow nanocrytals, aka, nanocystalline cellulose [NCC]) plant in Alberta might consider taking, if they haven’t already. (Note: My Nov. 19, 2013 posting both announces the new CNC in Alberta and makes mention of the CNC stockpile in  Québec.)

You can find out more about Graphene Laboratories here and about Graphene 3D Laboratories here. For anyone interested in the Graphene Live! conference, (Nov. 20-21, 2013), there will be presentations and audio available soon (as of Nov. 25, 2013) according to the website.

Council of Canadian Academies’ Paradox Lost: Explaining Canada’s Research Strength and Innovation Weakness and three wise men

October 1, 2013, the Council of Canadian Academies released something they called a ‘new report’ but was effectively a summary of seven of their previous reports. They called the ‘new’ report, Paradox Lost: Explaining Canada’s Research Strength and Innovation Weakness. Here’s more about it from the media advisory),

A new report, entitled Paradox Lost: Explaining Canada’s Research Strength and Innovation Weakness, was released today by the Council of Canadian Academies at a breakfast event with the Economic Club of Canada.

Paradox Lost: Explaining Canada’s Research Strength and Innovation Weakness draws upon the insights reported in seven expert assessments conducted by the Council since 2006. Each assessment examined various aspects of Canada’s performance in science and technology, and innovation. Paradox Lost examines the complex ways in which research leads to innovation, and the factors that motivate Canadian business strategy. It also identifies four megatrends that will pose challenges for Canadian businesses in the years to come.

“The Council was pleased to initiate this review of its work,” said Elizabeth Dowdeswell, President and CEO of the Council of Canadian Academies. “We hope Paradox Lost will provide valuable insight for policy- and decision-makers across Canada.”
The report was led by a three-member expert advisory group composed of Marcel Côté, Founding Partner of SECOR Inc.; Bob Fessenden, Fellow of the Institute for Public Economics; and Peter Nicholson, former President of the Council of Canadian Academies.

First off, that breakfast cost $89/seat (if memory serves and it does because that’s a high price for breakfast and a review/summary of seven previously published reports). Here are the seven reports/assessments the committee of three (Côté, Fessenden, and Nicholson) was summarizing,

The report about women, science, and academe was not included in Paradox Lost: Explaining Canada’s Research Strength and Innovation Weakness (link to webpage hosting assessment and other documents). Are women going to be part of this brave, new innovative world? I realize it would have been a stretch but surely the report’s inclusion in the review would have been worthwhile.

As for the report itself, all 34 pp. of the PDF, I was expecting more given the literary allusion.Before I launch into this further, it should be said that I applaud the ambition in the titling. I appreciate literary references as I view them as an attempt to ground them in the culture which extends beyond policy wonks. While this one didn’t work for me, I hope the Council of Canadian Academies will try again with future assessments.

As for how this attempt failed, who thought it would be a good idea to reference Paradise Lost, John Milton’s epic (written in 10 volumes), 17th century, English poem concerning humanity’s fall from grace as signified by banishment from the Garden of Eden? It’s not only a literary reference, it’s a biblical reference and an old testament one at that. To sum it up, this reference alludes to Judeo-Christian religious traditions, comes from an English literary tradition, and concerns banishment from an idyllic place, due to a woman’s failure of character or inherent sinfulness, depending on your reading of that story. The reference/wordplay in the title seems a bit tone deaf.

Leaving the literary/biblical aspects of the title aside, ‘Paradox Lost’ doesn’t make sense since one might be able to ‘resolve’ a paradox but one generally doesn’t ‘lose’ one. Interestingly the authors seems to concur as they use the verb ‘resolve’,in their Executive Summary (from p. 6 of the report PDF)

The Council of Canadian Academies (the Council) has, since 2006, completed seven expert panel assessments analyzing in great depth Canada’s performance in science and technology (S&T) and innovation. This document synthesizes the main findings of that work, from which two main conclusions emerge:
•Canadian academic research, overall, is strong and well regarded internationally.
•Canadian business innovation, by contrast, is weak by international standards, and this is the primary cause of Canada’s poor productivity growth.

The conclusions are linked by a paradox. Why has Canada’s research excellence not translated into more business innovation? The paradox is resolved once it is recognized that (i) most innovation does not work according to a “linear” model in which academic research yields a pipeline filled with ideas that, following some research and development (R&D), are commercialized by business; and (ii) business strategy in Canada is powerfully influenced by many factors besides those that motivate innovation. [emphasis mine] These factors include Canada’s comparative advantage in a remarkably integrated North American economy, the state of domestic competition, the profitability of existing business models, and the particular Canadian attitude to business risk that has been shaped by the foregoing conditions.

There is a second paradox. How has Canada’s economy sustained relative prosperity despite weak innovation and correspondingly feeble productivity growth? The answer is that Canadian firms have been as innovative as they have needed to be. Until the early 2000s, their competitiveness was supported by an ample labour supply and a favourable exchange rate, which made productivity growth less urgent. Since then, the boom in commodity prices has supported Canadian incomes in the aggregate. But a high-wage country like Canada cannot sustain its prosperity indefinitely without healthy productivity growth and its necessary prerequisite — an aggressively innovative business sector.

There’s nothing new in the report but the authors did highlight a few ideas in their conclusions as per the Executive Summary (from p. 8 of the report PDF),

In summary:
• Policy-makers and commentators need to acknowledge that the business innovation problem in Canada has a pedigree as old as the country itself.
• Canadian business has not become more innovative because it has been able to prosper without needing to do so.
• Now, business will have to embrace innovation-focused business strategies to compete and survive.
• This creates the conditions where public policies to support business innovation can be more effective than in the past because innovation policy objectives and business motivation will finally be aligned.

I’m with the authors on the first two conclusions but as the for the third one (the fourth follows on the third), I’m not convinced that Canadian business feels obliged to make any changes. It’s survived quite handily till now and given the evidence from the OECD Science, Technology and Industry 2013 Scorecard (my Oct.30, 2013 posting offers more detail), Canadian businesses have been diminishing investment in R&D over the last decade and it seems unlikely that there will be any changes in the near future regardless of government programmes. Businesses in Canada have some of the best tax incentives for R&D amongst OECD countries; we’re second to France only in terms of lavish taxpayer support. Other than lip service, is there any indication that Canadian business motivation “… will finally be aligned” with government policy objectives?

One might say (and I will) the the last conclusion was foregone given the committee of ‘three wise men’ (let’s stick with the biblical allusions even it is one from the new testament), include a politician/economist who founded a management consulting firm, an academic/bureaucrat, and a career bureaucrat.

I give you

  • Marcel Côté economist and politician as he’s described in this Wikipedia essay where he’s also described as a founding partner of Secor, a strategic management consulting firm;
  • Bob Fessenden, fellow of the Institute for Public Economies (University of Alberta, former Deputy Minister in four different Government of Alberta departments: Economic Development; Sustainable Resource Development; Innovation and Science; and Advanced Education and Technology, plus somewhere along the way, he was staff member at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Foresty; and
  • Peter Nicholson, inaugural president of the Council of Canadian Academies from February 2006 through December 2009, he was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy in the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada from 2003 to 2006, prior to which he was Special Advisor to the Secretary-general of the OECD. The biography also mentions some experience in the fields of banking and telecommunications.

Is it any wonder that these three might conclude that public policies could now be more effective? After all, it would confirm their life’s work.

Journal of Responsible Innovation is launched and there’s a nanotechnology connection

According to an Oct. 30, 2013 news release from the Taylor & Francis Group, there’s a new journal being launched, which is good news for anyone looking to get their research or creative work (which retains scholarly integrity) published in a journal focused on emerging technologies and innovation,

Journal of Responsible Innovation will focus on intersections of ethics, societal outcomes, and new technologies: New to Routledge for 2014 [Note: Routledge is a Taylor & Francis Group brand]

Scholars and practitioners in the emerging interdisciplinary field known as “responsible innovation” now have a new place to publish their work. The Journal of Responsible Innovation (JRI) will offer an opportunity to articulate, strengthen, and critique perspectives about the role of responsibility in the research and development process. JRI will also provide a forum for discussions of ethical, social and governance issues that arise in a society that places a great emphasis on innovation.

Professor David Guston, director of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University and co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, is the journal’s founding editor-in-chief. [emphasis mine] The Journal will publish three issues each year, beginning in early 2014.

“Responsible innovation isn’t necessarily a new concept, but a research community is forming and we’re starting to get real traction in the policy world,” says Guston. “It is our hope that the journal will help solidify what responsible innovation can mean in both academic and industrial laboratories as well as in governments.”

“Taylor & Francis have been working with the scholarly community for over two centuries and over the past 20 years, we have launched more new journals than any other publisher, all offering peer-reviewed, cutting-edge research,” adds Editorial Director Richard Steele. “We are proud to be working with David Guston and colleagues to create a lively forum in which to publish and debate research on responsible technological innovation.”

An emerging and interdisciplinary field

The term “responsible innovation” is often associated with emerging technologies—for example, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, geoengineering, and artificial intelligence—due to their uncertain but potentially revolutionary influence on society. [emphasis mine] Responsible innovation represents an attempt to think through the ethical and social complexities of these technologies before they become mainstream. And due to the broad impacts these technologies may have, responsible innovation often involves people working in a variety of roles in the innovation process.

Bearing this interdisciplinarity in mind, the Journal of Responsible Innovation (JRI) will publish not only traditional journal articles and research reports, but also reviews and perspectives on current political, technical, and cultural events. JRI will publish authors from the social sciences and the natural sciences, from ethics and engineering, and from law, design, business, and other fields. It especially hopes to see collaborations across these fields, as well.

“We want JRI to help organize a research network focused around complex societal questions,” Guston says. “Work in this area has tended to be scattered across many journals and disciplines. We’d like to bring those perspectives together and start sharing our research more effectively.”

Now accepting manuscripts

JRI is now soliciting submissions from scholars and practitioners interested in research questions and public issues related to responsible innovation. [emphasis mine] The journal seeks traditional research articles; perspectives or reviews containing opinion or critique of timely issues; and pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning responsible innovation. More information about the journal and the submission process can be found at www.tandfonline.com/tjri.

About The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU

The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU (CNS-ASU) is the world’s largest center on the societal aspects of nanotechnology. CNS-ASU develops programs that integrate academic and societal concerns in order to better understand how to govern new technologies, from their birth in the laboratory to their entrance into the mainstream.

—————————————–
About Taylor & Francis Group

—————————————–

Taylor & Francis Group partners with researchers, scholarly societies, universities and libraries worldwide to bring knowledge to life.  As one of the world’s leading publishers of scholarly journals, books, ebooks and reference works our content spans all areas of Humanities, Social Sciences, Behavioural Sciences, Science, and Technology and Medicine.

From our network of offices in Oxford, New York, Philadelphia, Boca Raton, Boston, Melbourne, Singapore, Beijing, Tokyo, Stockholm, New Delhi and Johannesburg, Taylor & Francis staff provide local expertise and support to our editors, societies and authors and tailored, efficient customer service to our library colleagues.

You can find out more about the Journal of Responsible Innovation here, including information for would-be contributors,

JRI invites three kinds of written contributions: research articles of 6,000 to 10,000 words in length, inclusive of notes and references, that communicate original theoretical or empirical investigations; perspectives of approximately 2,000 words in length that communicate opinions, summaries, or reviews of timely issues, publications, cultural or social events, or other activities; and pedagogy, communicating in appropriate length experience in or studies of teaching, training, and learning related to responsible innovation in formal (e.g., classroom) and informal (e.g., museum) environments.

JRI is open to alternative styles or genres of writing beyond the traditional research paper or report, including creative or narrative nonfiction, dialogue, and first-person accounts, provided that scholarly completeness and integrity are retained.[emphases mine] As the journal’s online environment evolves, JRI intends to invite other kinds of contributions that could include photo-essays, videos, etc. [emphasis mine]

I like to check out the editorial board for these things (from the JRI’s Editorial board webpage; Note: Links have been removed),,

Editor-in-Chief

David. H. Guston , Arizona State University, USA

Associate Editors

Erik Fisher , Arizona State University, USA
Armin Grunwald , ITAS , Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
Richard Owen , University of Exeter, UK
Tsjalling Swierstra , Maastricht University, the Netherlands
Simone van der Burg, University of Twente, the Netherlands

Editorial Board

Wiebe Bijker , University of Maastricht, the Netherlands
Francesca Cavallaro, Fundacion Tecnalia Research & Innovation, Spain
Heather Douglas , University of Waterloo, Canada
Weiwen Duan , Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China
Ulrike Felt, University of Vienna, Austria
Philippe Goujon , University of Namur, Belgium
Jonathan Hankins , Bassetti Foundation, Italy
Aharon Hauptman , University of Tel Aviv, Israel
Rachelle Hollander , National Academy of Engineering, USA
Maja Horst , University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Noela Invernizzi , Federal University of Parana, Brazil
Julian Kinderlerer , University of Cape Town, South Africa
Ralf Lindner , Frauenhofer Institut, Germany
Philip Macnaghten , Durham University, UK
Andrew Maynard , University of Michigan, USA
Carl Mitcham , Colorado School of Mines, USA
Sachin Chaturvedi , Research and Information System for Developing Countries, India
René von Schomberg, European Commission, Belgium
Doris Schroeder , University of Central Lancashire, UK
Kevin Urama , African Technology Policy Studies Network, Kenya
Frank Vanclay , University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Jeroen van den Hoven, Technical University, Delft, the Netherlands
Fern Wickson , Genok Center for Biosafety, Norway
Go Yoshizawa , Osaka University, Japan

Good luck to the publishers and to those of you who will be making submissions. As for anyone who may be as curious as I was about the connection between Routledge and Francis & Taylor, go here and scroll down about 75% of the page (briefly, Routledge is a brand).

OECD Technology and Industry 2013 Scorecard: Canada highlights and key nanotechnology indicators

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has released its 2013 scorecard or, more officially, the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013 (which you can find here). There’s a brief description of the 2013 scorecard on the webpage housing the complete report/scorecard and various publications derived from it,

Science, technology, innovation and entrepreneurship – which foster competitiveness, productivity, and job creation – are important mechanisms for encouraging sustainable growth. The 260 indicators in the OECD Science, Technology and Industry (STI) Scoreboard 2013 show how OECD and partner economies are performing in a wide range of areas to help governments design more effective and efficient policies and monitor progress towards their desired goals.

The 2013 scorecard highlights concerning Canada are (from the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013
: Canada publication),

Canada experienced a decline in business spending on R&D between 2001 and 2011, despite generous public support, mainly through tax incentives for business R&D. As a percentage of GDP, Canada’s tax incentives for R&D were the largest after France in 2011. [emphasis mine]
Despite relatively limited investment in R&D, a large share of Canada’s manufacturing and services firms are involved in innovation. Canada is among the group of countries where high-technology industries still dominate patenting activity, while in several other OECD countries business services now account for the largest share of patents. Canada lags somewhat in the proportion of young firms applying for patents, however.
 Canada achieves a relatively high impact with its scientific research. Compared with other large OECD economies, Canada has a very high rate of international mobility of researchers, mostly with the United States. Returning researchers and new inflows tend to publish in journals with higher quality than researchers that have not engaged in international mobility.
 Canada’s trade performance is characterised by a strong focus on primary products, which affects its positioning in global value chains. This contributes to a relatively low foreign (and thus a high domestic) value added content in Canada’s exports, which declined between 1995 and 2009. In 2009, over 26% of jobs in the business sector were sustained by demand from abroad, down from just over 30% in 1995.

So, despite some of the best tax incentives amongst OECD countries, business in Canada spent less on R&D as the decade wore on. Interesting. Especially so since the government, realizing there were problems of some kind, commissioned Tom Jenkins (Chairman, OpenText Corporation), along with a committee,, to examine the various government tax incentive programmes developed for business R&D. This resulted in what  is known as the Jenkins report (featured in my Oct. 21, 2011 posting) and changes, based on the recommendations, such as more incentives for partnerships between universities and businesses and a major change of focus (funds for science that will make money) for one of the granting agencies (mentioned in my May 22, 2013 posting). Given that Canada already had good incentives for business R&D before 2011, why did the government implement more incentives after the 2011 Jenkins report since it seems that the incentives might not be the problem. Here’s more about the situation prior to the changes stemming from the 2011 Jenkins report, from the OECD’s 2013 scorecard: Canada Highlights,

Canada is among the few OECD countries where R&D expenditure declined between 2000 and 2011 (Figure 1). This decline was mainly due to reduced business spending on R&D. It occurred despite relatively generous public support for business R&D, primarily through tax incentives. In 2011, Canada was amongst the OECD countries with the most generous tax support for R&D and the country with the largest share of government funding for business R&D being accounted for by tax credits (Figure 2). …

OECD and key nanotechnology indicators

At roughly the same time as the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard was released, there was this Oct. 25, 2013 news item on Nanowerk about an October 2013 update of the OECD’s key nanotechnology indicators (Note: A link has been removed),

The ‘Key Nanotechnology Indicators’ are produced by the OECD’s Directorate for Science Technology and Industry (DSTI) and recently have been updated in October 2013. These latest numbers are available as Excel spreadsheets and can be found here on the OECD DSTI page and include the following:
Nanotechnology firms
KNI 1 Number of firms active in nanotechnology, 2011 or latest available year
KNI 2 Percentage of small nanotechnology firms, 2011 or latest available year
Number of firms active in nanotechnology
Number of firms active in nanotechnology (OECD). (click image to enlarg

i have looked at some of the nanotechnology key indicator spreadsheets provided by the OECD and the only one of my admittedly small sample that lists Canadian performance was in the Share of countries in nanotechnology patents filed under PCT, 2008-10. Apparently Canada did not submit data about Number of firms active in nanotechnology, 2011 or latest available year or Nanotechnology R&D expenditures in the business sector, 2011 or latest available year.

Responsible innovation at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society’s (Arizona State University) Virtual Institute

The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has a funding program called Science Across Virtual Institutes (SAVI) which facilitates global communication for scientists, engineers, and educators. From the SAVI home page,

Science Across Virtual Institutes (SAVI) is a mechanism to foster and strengthen interaction among scientists, engineers and educators around the globe. It is based on the knowledge that excellence in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) research and education exists in many parts of the world, and that scientific advances can be accelerated by scientists and engineers working together across international borders.

According to a Sept. 24, 2013 news item on Nanowerk, the NSF’s SAVI program has funded a new virtual institute at Arizona State University’s (ASU)  Center for Nanotechnology in Societ6y (CNS), Note: Links have been removed,

The National Science Foundation recently announced a grant of nearly $500,000 to establish a new Virtual Institute for Responsible Innovation (VIRI) at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU (CNS-ASU). In a global marketplace that thrives on technological innovation, incorporating ethics, responsibility and sustainability into research and development is a critical priority.

VIRI’s goal is to enable an international community of students and scholars who can help establish a common understanding of responsible innovation in research, training and outreach. By doing so, VIRI aims to contribute to the governance of emerging technologies that are dominated by market uncertainty and difficult questions of how well they reflect societal values.

VIRI founding institutional partners are University of Exeter (UK), Durham University (UK), University of Sussex (UK), Maastricht University (Netherlands), University of Copenhagen (Denmark), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (Germany), University of Waterloo (Canada), Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences (Norway), and State University of Campinas (Brazil).

VIRI founding institutional affiliates are the US National Academy of Engineering’s Center for Engineering, Ethics and Society, IEEE Spectrum Online and Fondazione Giannino Bassetti.

Interesting cast of characters.

The Sept. 23, 2013 ASU news release, which originated the news item, offers some insight into the time required to create this new virtual institute,

Led by ASU faculty members David Guston and Erik Fisher, VIRI will bring a social and ethical lens to research and development practices that do not always focus on the broader implications of their research and products. Guston, director of CNS-ASU, co-director of the Consortium of Science, Policy and Outcomes, and professor in the School of Politics and Global Studies, has been pushing for the establishment of academic units that focus on responsible innovation for years.

“We are thrilled that NSF has chosen to advance responsible innovation through this unique, international collaboration,” Guston said. “It will give ASU the opportunity to help focus the field and ensure that people start thinking about the broader implications of knowledge-based innovation.”

Fisher, assistant professor in the School for Politics and Global Studies, has long been involved in integrating social considerations into science research laboratories through his NSF-funded Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) project, an affiliated project of CNS-ASU.

“Using the insights we’ve gained in the labs that have participated in the STIR project, we expect to be able to get VIRI off the ground and make progress very quickly,” Fisher said.

The VIRI appears to be an invite-only affair and it’s early days yet so there’s not much information on the website but the VIRI home page looks promising,

“Responsible innovation” (RI) is an emerging term in science and innovation policy fields across the globe. Its precise definition has been at the center of numerous meetings, research council decisions, and other activities in recent years. But today there is neither a clear, unified vision of what responsible innovation is, what it requires in order to be effective, nor what it can accomplish.
The Virtual Institute for Responsible Innovation (VIRI)

The Virtual Institute for Responsible Innovation (VIRI) was created to accelerate the formation of a community of scholars and practitioners who, despite divides in geography and political culture, will create a common concept of responsible innovation for research, training and outreach – and in doing so contribute to the governance of emerging technologies under conditions dominated by high uncertainty, high stakes, and challenging questions of novelty.
Mission

VIRI’s mission in pursuit of this vision is to develop and disseminate a sophisticated conceptual and operational understanding of RI by facilitating collaborative research, training and outreach activities among a broad partnership of academic and non-academic institutions.
Activities

VIRI will:

  • perform interlinked empirical, reflexive and normative research in a collaborative and comparative mode to explore and develop key concepts in RI;
  • develop curricular material and support educational exchanges of graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and faculty;
  •  create a dynamic online community to represent the breadth of the institute and its multi-lateral activities;
  •  disseminate outputs from across the institute through its own and partner channels and will encourage broad sharing of its research and educational findings.

VIRI will pursue these activities with founding academic partners in the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Brazil and Canada.

The site does offer links to  relevant blogs here.

I was a bit surprised to see Canada’s University of Waterloo rather than the University of Alberta (home of Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology)  as one of the partners.

e-Gnosis chip (nanopore sensor) competition on Marblar—winning money and developing a reputation for brilliance

It’s probably best to explain Marblar, a creative ‘playground’ or, as it could be called, a ‘wisdom of the crowd initiative’, before describing the e-Gnosis chip project.

Basically, Marblar is inviting people to participate in an online game/conversation where competitors make suggestions to ‘host’ inventors about how to best commercialize their inventions. Anyone can register to join in; there are two types of incentives for ‘game players’. First, they can accumulate marbles/points by voting and/or contributing ideas. Second, they can win cash prizes. Here’s how the Marblar community describes itself, from the About page,

Marblar is a creative playground that takes over-looked technology and unleashes a crowd of multi-disciplined, brilliant Marblars to discover new applications.

It is like a big game where many minds work together to realise the promise of science. Working with tech holders, we find the best technology deserving of a second look and transform these into challenges for the crowd of Marblars. The best ideas win points, kudos, and prizes. Best yet anyone can tackle any challenge. We don’t care what your background is…we care about your applied brilliance.

There’s a very interesting list of organizations backing this initiative, heavily weighted towards UK institutions but with a solid international presence, from the Partners page,

University of Oxford
Oxford, England

MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Cambridge, England

Svaya Nanotechnologies
California, USA

Imperial Innovations
London, England

Edinburgh Research and Innovation
Edinburgh, Scotland

King’s College London
London, UK

Exploit Technologies
Singapore

Virginia Tech
Virginia, USA

Getting back to the game, for the hosted competitions, participants get to brainstorm ideas for a fixed period of time. These ideas are then refined over another fixed period of time with the inventor finally choosing a winner.

Now on to the specific game/project, the e-Gnosis chip (nanopore sensor). The inventor, Peter Kollensperger of the Imperial College London, has created a portable diagnostic device. There are many such diagnostic devices being developed all over the world, many of them designed for medical use. Kollensperger wants to find another market niche for his e-Gnosis chip device,

The vast majority of biosensors today are based on some form of optical readout to get the  results you want. You usually have a choice between inexpensive (but non-quantitative) methods such as lateral flow tests (e.g. pregnancy tests), which just show you a blue line if positive, or more sensitive tests that can tell you how much of the analyte is present using specialised optical equipment. These quantitative tests generally require several extra wash steps and additional reagents and are carried out by labs or on specialised microfluidic or robotic platforms. We wanted to develop a sensitive, quantitative technology that doesn’t require expensive platforms but instead:

  • Could be read using a low-cost smartphone or laptop accessory (<$20);
  • Works with a small amount of sample (~10 microlitre, such as a tiny drop of blood, urine or saliva)
  • Requires no (or just one) washing steps.
  • Runs several different tests on the same sample simultaneously.
  • Is as easy to use as a pregnancy test.

Here’s what the inventor is looking for (from the e-Gnosis chip page),

We’ve been looking at the field of medical diagnostics for a while, but the point-of-care market is highly competitive, fragmented into relatively small markets, with high entry barriers in the form of FDA [US Food and Drug Administration]/EMA [European Medicines Agency] approval. So for any medical diagnostic we’d need a large market, where our device’s unique features (multiplexing, rapid & simple point-of-care use without sample prep) offer a very significant competitive advantage, and can justify the high barrier costs for approval.

We’d be very interested to hear ideas about a consumer market to prove the device commercially, keeping in mind:

  • While the chip-manufacturing part of the process is cheap, the cost/test is unlikely to ever fall below $6-8 due to functionalization and assembly. We need an application where customers would pay enough to allow a reasonable profit margin.
  • Need a high-volume application to justify setup costs of chip-manufacture (>$300k). What’s your market size?
  • What would be the market entry route? Who’d be our commercial partners? What are the competing devices and their price? How would distinguish ourselves against these?

Here’s a little more about Kollensperger (from the e-Gnosis chip page),

I’m Peter Kollensperger and I’m working with Prof. Green in the Optical and Semiconductor Devices Group of the Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department at Imperial College London.

My research to date has focused on the use of nanotechnology for biosensing applications, but my overarching interest is in making diagnostic/sensing technologies more accessible both to doctors and the general public.

The combination of scalable nanotechnology and the hugely parallel processing of semiconductor foundries holds great promise for the area of biosensors and we are looking for applications where the end-user wants to get results on the go without spending a large upfront amount on a reader. This can be in medical diagnostics, but ideally would be in an underserved consumer market where the combination of properties of our chip can make a real difference.

The Marblar community offers video services for the inventors hosting competitions and this is Kollensperger’s

Diagnostics Array from Marblar on Vimeo.

There’s still time (20 days) to enter the competition. Good luck!

By the way, I owe a big thank you to Daniel Bayley for contacting me about the project and about Marblar.

Brazil, Canada, and an innovation, science, and technology forum in Vancouver (Canada)

The Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce (BCCC) is presenting, in partnership with Simon Fraser University’s (SFU) Beedie School of Business, an all-morning forum on June 17, 2013. From the SFU Vancouver Events: June 14 – 21, 2013 announcement (Note: Links have been removed),

Monday, June 17 [2013]

Brazil-Canada Business, Innovation, Science, and Technology Forum

Time: 8-11:30am

Place: Segal Graduate Business School, 500 Granville St.

Cost: $35-70, register online

Join us for a morning focused on Business Innovation and Science & Tecnology opportunities in the Brazilian economy. The opening speakers, Ambassador Sergio Florencio, Consul General and Dr. Jeremy Hall will provide an overview of the landscape in Brazil. The panel discussion includes industry leaders who have piloted extensive business in Brazil specifically in the agriculture, mining and infrastructure fields: Marcelo Sarkis, Heenan Blaikie; Ray Castelli, Weatherhaven and Rogerio Tippe, Javelin Partners. If you are interested in conducting business in Brazil and would like to understand more about the dynamics of the Brazilian economy and how businesses operate, please register now.

If the event is about business, innovation, science, and technology, it seems curious the only mentions of science and/or technology in the event description are confined to a few of the panelists’ interests in agriculture, mining, and whatever they mean by infrastructure.

Brazil is one of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia,India, China, and South Africa) countries and, from what I understand, this very loose coalition is eager to take a leadership position vis à vis science, technology, and innovation supplanting the dominance of the US, Japan, and the European Union.

In the early 1990s, I wrote a paper about science and technology transfer and noted that Brazil was entering a new period of development after years of the country’s science and technology efforts (scientists) being isolated from the rest of the world in a failed  attempt to create a powerhouse international enterprise.

Some 20 years later, the decision to join the rest of the science and technology world seems to have been successful. Brazil is set to host the 2014 World Cup for soccer (or, as most of the world calls it, football) and the summer Olympics in 2016. (Sports are often correlated with science and technology advances.) I don’t believe any other country has ever attempted to host two such large international sports events within two years of each other. That’s a pretty confident attitude.

There are two areas of science and technology research in Brazil that are of particular interest to me, brain research and the work on cellulose nanocrystals (CNC), also known as, nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC).

While the focus was on Miguel Nicolelis and Duke University (US), the recent announcement of brain-to-brain communication via the Internet featured a research facility in Brazil (from my Mar. 4, 2013 posting),

Miguel Nicolelis, a professor at Duke University, has been making international headlines lately with two brain projects. The first one about implanting a brain chip that allows rats to perceive infrared light was mentioned in my Feb. 15, 2013 posting. The latest project is a brain-to-brain (rats) communication project as per a Feb. 28, 2013 news release on *EurekAlert,

Researchers have electronically linked the brains of pairs of rats for the first time, enabling them to communicate directly to solve simple behavioral puzzles. A further test of this work successfully linked the brains of two animals thousands of miles apart—one in Durham, N.C., and one in Natal, Brazil.

The results of these projects suggest the future potential for linking multiple brains to form what the research team is calling an “organic computer,” which could allow sharing of motor and sensory information among groups of animals. The study was published Feb. 28, 2013, in the journal Scientific Reports.

“Our previous studies with brain-machine interfaces had convinced us that the rat brain was much more plastic than we had previously thought,” said Miguel Nicolelis, M.D., PhD, lead author of the publication and professor of neurobiology at Duke University School of Medicine. “In those experiments, the rat brain was able to adapt easily to accept input from devices outside the body and even learn how to process invisible infrared light generated by an artificial sensor. So, the question we asked was, ‘if the brain could assimilate signals from artificial sensors, could it also assimilate information input from sensors from a different body?’”

One of Nicolelis’s other goals is to have someone with quadriplegia kick the opening ball for the Brazil-hosted 2014 World Cup (Walk Again Project). From my Mar. 16, 2012 posting,

It is the exoskeleton described on the Walk Again Project home page that Nicolelis is hoping will enable a young Brazilian quadriplegic to deliver the opening kick for the 2014 World Cup (soccer/football) in Brazil.

Moving on to the other area of interest, CNC research , which in Canada is discussed in terms of the forestry industry (I’ve blogged about this extensively, the search term NCC should fetch most if not all of my postings on the topic), is taking a different tack in Brazil where the focus is on pineapple and banana fibres. My Mar. 28, 20111 posting (Nanocellulose fibres, pineapples, bananas, and cars) focuses on cellulose and plastic,

Brazilian researchers are working on ways to use nanocellulose fibres from various plants to reinforce plastics in the automotive industry. From the March 28, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

Study leader Alcides Leão, Ph.D., said the fibers used to reinforce the new plastics may come from delicate fruits like bananas and pineapples, but they are super strong. Some of these so-called nano-cellulose fibers are almost as stiff as Kevlar, the renowned super-strong material used in armor and bulletproof vests. Unlike Kevlar and other traditional plastics, which are made from petroleum or natural gas, nano-cellulose fibers are completely renewable.

My second and, to date, only other posting (June 16, 2011) about the work in Brazil features a transcript of an interview with CNC researcher, Alcides Leão.

Finally, I have a few factoids which I will tie together, loosely, and try to show how they relate to this forum. First, São Paulo, Brazil hosts the world’s second oldest and one of its most important biennial visual arts events. (BTW, the next one, Bienal de São Paulo,  is in 2014.) Second, the recent Council of Canadian Academies assessment, State of Science and Technology in Canada, 2012, stated that Canada rates very highly in six areas, one of those areas being the Visual and Performing Arts. Admittedly Canada’s prominence in the visual and performing is fueled largely by efforts in Québec (as per the assessment), still, one would think there might be some value in trying to include that sector in this  forum and encourage the local visual and performing arts technology industry to make connections with the Brazilian industry.

Finally for those of you who have persisted, here’s the link to buy tickets for the June 17, 2012 forum.

ETA June 21, 2013: The protests in Brazil have attracted worldwide attention and according to a June 21,2013 posting by Dillon Rand on Salon.com there are: 5 signs Brazil’s’ not ready to host the World Cup.

Are Canadians really trying to recreate Silicon Valley in Canada?

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.