Monthly Archives: August 2010

Nanotechnology and emerging and developing economies

Occasionally I come across references to nanotechnology and its possible impact on emerging and developing countries such as this news item on Nanowerk,

… OECD and UNITAR organised workshops in each of the UN Regions to undertake awareness raising and other related activities in developing countries regarding the potential risks from nanotechnologies and manufactured nanomaterials (e.g. to the environment or human health) and benefits (e.g. decreased costs of low-maintenance products, or use in environmental remediation) of nanotechnology and nanomaterials.

These workshops brief participants on what is nanotechnology and manufactured nanomaterials, what are some of the potential risks from nanotechnologies and manufactured nanomaterials (e.g. to the environment or human health) and benefits (e.g. decreased costs of low-maintenance products, or use in environmental remediation) of nanotechnology and nanomaterials. It also considered some of the posible implications for developing and transition countries as nano-based or nano-containing products are traded across borders, into jurisdictions where there is little or no capacity to address them. These workshops were organised in conjunction with SAICM Regional Meetings, within the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC). The workshops were held as follows:

Asia-Pacific Region: 27 November 2009, in Beijing, China
Central and Eastern Europe Region: 11 December 2009, in Lodz, Poland
Africa Region: 25-26 January 2010, in Abidjan, Cote d’lvoire
Latin America – Caribbean Region: 12 March 2010, in Kingston, Jamaica
Arab Sub-Region: 11-13 April 2010, in Alexandria, Egypt

… In addition to the awareness-raising workshops, UNITAR and OECD are looking at opportunities for assisting developing and transition countries to develop programmatic capacities to address nano issues at the national level. Some countries will undertake pilot projects aimed to develop and/or strengthen capacities to address Nanotechnology and Manufactured Nanomaterials within their national frameworks. These projects, which are provided with funding support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), will generate experiences and lessons learned that will be transmitted for deliberation at the third International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM3), to be held in mid-2012.

The question isn’t only being asked by the OECD and other international organizations. In a recent Ask a Nobel Laureate series on the Nobel Organization’s YouTube channel, a young woman from Bangalore asks Nobel Laureate Albert Fert the question, How could nanotechnology be used in the developing world,

Unfortunately, I can’t include the answer but you can go here if you’re curious. Fert suggests strongly that nanotechnology not be viewed as separate from other sciences but (I’m extemporizing here) as a logical direction for the sciences we practice. He goes on to note that developing should focus on science generally and that nanotechnology might be the most difficult for developing countries to establish as the costs are very high.

Ineke Malsch at The Broker asks in her June 1, 2010 posting,

How can we ensure that poor people in the least developed countries really benefit from the current big investments in nanoscience and nanotechnology in the world? For example, the shortage of clean potable water has many victims in developing countries each year. Will the solutions to be developed in Dutch nanotechnology and water research centres over the coming years be suitable for use in tropical conditions, or places without much infrastructure? Not necessarily. Even in water-rich and wealthy countries like the Netherlands, future shortages of clean and drinkable water are looming. Researchers and the utility companies responsible for our water supply may give preference to nanotechnology applications that only work if they are incorporated into the existing infrastructure for sewage treatment or the purification of surface or ground water.

Early cooperation with nanoscientists in developing countries, who are also working on water purification, may contribute to solutions that are also useful in remote areas of the least developed countries. Hopefully, initiatives like the recent series of webinars on nanotechnology for water purification, which involved speakers from South Africa and Europe, will turn out to be steps in the right direction.

You may want to check out Ineke Malsch as she does post regularly on these issues.

From what I can tell basic needs must be met first and clean water (mentioned in Malsch’s posting) certainly comes under that category.  What we need to do is to ensure clean water through the most practical and least harmful means for the greatest number of people. Some of the work being done in this area suggests that nano-enabled technologies may be the best means for achieving that goal. Personally, I don’t care which technology is used to that end.

Summer Dreams Literary Arts Festival (Vancouver, Canada)

Pandora’s Collective is presenting its Summer Dreams Literary Arts Festival until August 24, 2010. I want to draw your attention to Saturday’s events which will take place at Lumberman’s Arch in Stanley Park, Vancouver. From the Pandora’s Collective website,

The Summer Dreams Literary Arts Festival is a one day annual free event which takes place at Lumberman’s Arch, in beautiful Stanley Park. This event is an outdoor festival which brings together, showcases and celebrates the on-going literary events, programs and resources available in the community. The line up is a combination of literary performances, dancers, local bands, panel discussions, open mics etc. Some of this year’s performers include Evelyn Lau, Betsy Warland, Brad Cran, Ms. Spelt, Vancouver’s own Theatre In the Raw and more. There is also a children’s area with puppet shows, music, story tellers, face painting and craft tables. There will be information tables showcasing community groups and resources.

Here’s the full list of events,

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Main Stage

12:00 – 12:30 Welcome and Opening Reading: Poet, Susan Musgrave

12:30 – 12:45 Poetry Readings: Burnaby Writers Society/Inkspot; Sally Reesman

12:45 – 1:00 Poetry Readings: Christianne’s Lyceum of Literature and Art, Kelsey Savage, Fraser Readman, Christianne Hayward

1:00 – 1:15 Poetry Slam: Vancouver Poetry Slam; Johnny MacRae

1:15 – 1:30 Story Telling: The Writers Studio- Clarrisa Green

1:30 – 1:45 Announcements

1:45 – 2:15 ♫♫: Sandy Bone

2:15 – 2:30 Poetry Readings: Vancouver Artists Collective, Steve Locke

2:30 – 2:45 Poetry Readings: Word Whips, Warren Dean Fulton, Christy Hill

2:45 – 3:00 Feature: Ms. Spelt

3:00 – 3:15 Multi Cultural Readings: World Poetry Reading Series, Ariadne Sawyer and Alejandro Mujica-Olea, Masume Mahasti, Persia, Anita Aguirre Neveras. Philippines

3:15 – 3:30 Announcements

3:30 – 4:00♫♫: Wailin’ Wayne and the Pain (Spike McKinley, Wailin’ Wayne Pattern, Andre Rahut, Michel Drouin)

4:00 – 4:15 Story Telling: Vancouver Story Slam, Clint Father Goose Wilson

4:15 – 4:30 Poetry Readings: Poetry Around the World, Lucia Gorea, Alara Bretanne, Kyle Christensen

4:30 – 4:45 Featured Poet: Heather Haley

4:45 – 5:00 Poetry Readings: Wax Poetics, Diana Itebu.

5:00 – 5:30♫♫: Jess Hill

5:30– 5:45 Poetry Readings: Canadian Authors Association: Ben Nuttall-Smith,

Bernice Lever, Lilija Valis

5:45 – 6:00 Poetry Readings: Word Whips North Shore Edition, Fran Bourassa, Christy Hill

6:00 – 6:15 Story Telling: Vancouver Storytellers, Mary Gavin

6:15 – 6:30 Poetry Readings: Twisted Poets, Bonnie Nish, Daniela Elza,

6:30- 7:00 Radio Show: Theatre In The Raw

7:00-7:30 Feature Poet: Evelyn Lau

Granville Stage

1:00 – 1:20 Welcome and Opening Reading: Vancouver Poet Besty Warland

1:20 – 2:00 Panel Discussion: A Cross Cultural Conversation: As poets, we tend to hang out with poets whose writing and thinking is similar to our own. What happens when poets who differ in their practice and production (such as print-based poets & spoken word poets/book poets & web poets)have a conversation with one another?

Moderator: Betsy Warland Panelists: Jabez Churchill, Susan Cormier, Daniela Elza, RC Weslowski, Alex Winstanley,

2:00 – 2:15 Feature Poet: Catherine Owen

2:15 – 2:30 Open Mic: sign up on site at Granville Stage

2:30 -2:45 Announcements

2:45 -3:15 Spoken Word & Music: Dennis E. Bolen and Soressa Gardener performing The Somme Wheat Field 1989

3:15 -3:30 – Featured Poet: Jabez Churchill

3:30 – 4:10 Panel Discussion: Writing and Healing: Entrance to the Secret Garden of the Self: Poet-Physician William Carlos Williams saw each patient as “material for a work of art,” and called medicine “the thing which gained me entrance to the secret gardens of the self.” Drawing on this tradition, five poets (physicians, nurses and lay healers) will discuss how their poetry has been shaped by their involvement with trauma and healing work.

Moderator: Rachel Rose. Panelists: Wayde Compton, Marni Norwich, Catherine Owen, Nilofar Shidmehr, Karen Shklanka

4:10 – 4:25 Poetry & Music: Spillious Speak and Sing

4:25 – 4:40 Announcements

4:40 – 5:10 Literary Game Show: Host: Warren Dean Fulton

5:10-5:50 Panel Discussion: Panel Discussion: New Media: Surfing the Tsunami Ready to catch the curl of New Media like Facebook, Twitter, & ______? Will you ride the wave, drown in indecision, or just get left behind in the backwash? Explore the currents and calamities of an ocean of marketing potential.

Moderator: Sylvia Taylor. Panelists: Trevor Battye, Dennis E. Bolen, SR Duncan, Lorraine Murphy

5:50 -6:05 Open Mic: sign up on site at Granville Stage

6:05- 6:30 Feature Poet: Brad Cran

Children’s Stage

1:00 – 1:15 Announcements

1:15 – 1:45 Opening Children’s Performer : D’Arcy Stainton

1:45 – 2:15 Author: Tiffany Stone

2:15 – 2:45 Author: Lee Edward Fodi

2:45 – 3:15: Children’s Performer: VPL Puppets on Parade Mary Duffy

3:15 – 3:45 ♫♫ Dancers D’Hercy Dance Co

3:45 – 4:00 Announcements

4:00 – 4:30 Author: James McCann

4:30 – 5:00 Author: kc dyer

5:00 – 5:30 Readings: Vancouver Public Library Book Camp Readers

5:30 – 6:00 Children’s Performer: VPL Puppets on Parade Mary Duffy

You can find out more about the other events including tonight’s tribute to Susan Musgrave at Pandora’s Collective website.

Is peer review a good idea?

I’ve been meaning to write a piece about science publishing and peer review in the light of a number of recent articles and postings on the subject. As there hasn’t been anything new for at least three or four days now this might be an opportune moment.

I did touch on a related topic in an April 22, 2010 posting where I focused amongst other issues on a paper about publication bias.  From my posting (quoting a news item on physorg.com)

Dr [Daniele] Fanelli [University of Edinburgh] analysed over 1300 papers that declared to have tested a hypothesis in all disciplines, from physics to sociology, the principal author of which was based in a U.S. state. Using data from the National Science Foundation, he then verified whether the papers’ conclusions were linked to the states’ productivity, measured by the number of papers published on average by each academic.

Findings show that papers whose authors were based in more “productive” states were more likely to support the tested hypothesis, independent of discipline and funding availability. This suggests that scientists working in more competitive and productive environments are more likely to make their results look “positive”. It remains to be established whether they do this by simply writing the papers differently or by tweaking and selecting their data.

These papers with their publication bias would have, for the most part if not all, been peer-reviewed which time-honoured system is currently being tested in a number of ways.

There’s the LiquidPublication project in Europe which offers scientists a faster and more dynamic way to publish. From the news item on Nanowerk,

Scientists spend too much of their time publishing papers and ploughing through the mountains of papers produced by their colleagues, and not enough time doing science.

That’s the observation – and frustration – that spurred Fabio Casati and his collaborators to launch LiquidPublication, an EU-financed [European Union] research project that seeks to revolutionise how scientists share their work and evaluate the contributions of their peers.

“The more papers you produce, the more brownie points you get,” says Casati. “So most of your time is spent writing papers instead of thinking or doing science.”

Besides wasting untold hours, Casati says, the current scientific publication paradigm produces other toxic fallout including an unduly heavy load for peer reviewers and too many papers that recycle already published research or dribble out results a bit at a time.

“The current system generates a tremendous amount of noise,” he says. “It’s hard to find interesting new knowledge because there’s so much to see.”

Casati and his colleagues are developing and promoting a radically new way to share scientific knowledge, which they call “liquid publication”. They want to tap the power of the Web – including its ability to speed communication, facilitate data storage, search and retrieval, and foster communities of interest – to replace traditional peer reviews and paper publications with a faster, fairer and more flexible process. [emphasis mine]

David Bruggeman at Pasco Phronesis commented on this project,

The project acknowledges the influence of arXiv.org, but would have some important differences. The plan includes having scientists and so-called ‘invisible colleges’ of researchers develop their own journals which would be created via the platform. There is also the thought that readers of these papers and journals could add value by linking related papers.

David goes on to give support for it while noting that LiquidScience should not be used in the place of peer review and that the more means of publishing research and critiquing it, the better.

The August 2010 issue of The Scientist features three articles on peer review. From the Breakthroughs from the Second Tier article by the staff,

Often the exalted scientific and medical journals sitting atop the impact factor pyramid are considered the only publications that offer legitimate breakthroughs in basic and clinical research. But some of the most important findings have been published in considerably less prestigious titles.

Take the paper describing BLAST—the software that revolutionized bioinformatics by making it easier to search for homologous sequences. This manuscript has, not surprisingly, accumulated nearly 30,000 citations since it was published in 1990. What may be surprising, however, was the fact that this paper was published in a journal with a current impact factor of 3.9 (J Mol Biol, 215:403–10, 1990). In contrast, Nature enjoys an impact factor more than 8 times higher (34.5), and Science (29.7) is not far behind.

One of the most commonly voiced criticisms of traditional peer review is that it discourages truly innovative ideas, rejecting field-changing papers while publishing ideas that fall into a status quo and the “hot” fields of the day—think RNAi, etc. [emphasis mine] Another is that it is nearly impossible to immediately spot the importance of a paper—to truly evaluate a paper, one needs months, if not years, to see the impact it has on its field.

Jef Akst offers a specific example in his article, I Hate Your Paper,

Twenty years ago, David Kaplan of the Case Western Reserve University had a manuscript rejected, and with it came what he calls a “ridiculous” comment. “The comment was essentially that I should do an x-ray crystallography of the molecule before my study could be published,” he recalls, but the study was not about structure. The x-ray crystallography results, therefore, “had nothing to do with that,” he says. To him, the reviewer was making a completely unreasonable request to find an excuse to reject the paper.

Kaplan says these sorts of manuscript criticisms are a major problem with the current peer review system, particularly as it’s employed by higher-impact journals. Theoretically, peer review should “help [authors] make their manuscript better,” he says, but in reality, the cutthroat attitude that pervades the system results in ludicrous rejections for personal reasons—if the reviewer feels that the paper threatens his or her own research or contradicts his or her beliefs, for example—or simply for convenience, since top journals get too many submissions and it’s easier to just reject a paper than spend the time to improve it. [emphasis mine] Regardless of the motivation, the result is the same, and it’s a “problem,” Kaplan says, “that can very quickly become censorship.”

In the third article, this one by Sarah Greene, there’s mention of a variation on the traditional peer review, post-publication peer review (PPPR),

In the basic formulation of PPPR, qualified specialists (peers) evaluate papers after they are published. Instead of hiding reviewers’ identities and comments, they become part of the published record and open to community review and response. Renowned educator Paolo Freire once said, “To impede communication is to reduce men to the status of things.” PPPR at its best facilitates ongoing dialogue among authors, peer reviewers, and readers.

Presumably, PPPR will be part of the LiquidPublication experience. Interestingly, in a recent article on Techdirt (a site focused on intellectual property issues), there was this mention of PPPR,

Apparently, people are realizing that a much more open post-publication peer review process, where anyone can take part, is a lot more effective:

We are starting to see examples of post-publication peer review and see it radically out-perform traditional pre-publication peer review. The rapid demolition […] of the JACS hydride oxidation paper last year (not least pointing out that the result wasn’t even novel) demonstrated the chemical blogosphere was more effective than peer review of one of the premiere chemistry journals. More recently 23andMe issued a detailed, and at least from an outside perspective devastating, peer review (with an attempt at replication!) of a widely reported Science paper describing the identification of genes associated with longevity. This followed detailed critiques from a number of online writers.

I’m not sure I’m ready to get quite as excited about PPPR as some of its supporters do. Traditional peer review is not the only process that can be manipulated as the recent events with Virology Journal point out. I first came across the incident in a Fast Company (which mostly focuses on business, marketing, design, and technology) in an article by Davdi Zax,

It must get tedious sometimes, running a scientific journal–all that dull data, all those pesky p-values. Wouldn’t it be cool if science journals had accounts of Biblical miracles, and speculation on events thousands of years in the past? That seems to be what the editors of Virology Journal were thinking, when they decided to publish a speculative analysis of a Biblical miracle by Ellis Hon et al., of Hong Kong.

Even from the very first sentence of the abstract, which mentions a woman with a fever cured “by our Lord Jesus Christ,” it ought to have been clear to the article’s reviewers that it was not written to the highest objective scientific standards. The authors go on to present evidence that the woman likely had the flu: “The brief duration, high fever, and abrupt cessation of fever makes influenza disease probable.”

The paper was swiftly eviscerated online, particularly on the blog Aetiology.

An apology was issued both the editor and the author fairly soon after, as per this news item on physorg.com,

Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Robert F. Garry, publicly apologized for publishing the article, saying it “clearly does not provide the type of robust supporting data required for a case report and does not meet the high standards expected of a peer-reviewed scientific journal.” He also apologized for any “confusion or concern” the article may have created among readers.

One of the blogs that brought the paper to notice was This Scientific Life, by Bob O’Hara. O’Hara said the lead author of the paper, Kam L.E. Hon from the Department of Paediatrics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, had replied by email to his queries and confirmed he had agreed to the retraction and was “astonished” the article had produced such a negative response since it was only intended for thought provocation. He went on to apologize for the inconvenience caused to the Journal and anxiety caused to himself. He said he would never to write this kind of article again. [emphasis mine]

You might think it was a bad piece of science that was caught by the vigilant online community but according to an August 17, 2010 posting by Kent Anderson at the Scholarly Kitchen,

Recently, BioMed Central’s Virology Journal published a case report speculating that the woman in the Biblical story in which Jesus cures her of fever was suffering from the flu. The case report was obviously quite tongue-in-cheek, akin to many others in the literature, but also applied clinical reasoning to the scant evidence offered by the Bible.

In most case reports that seek to plumb historical facts, investigators review documentation, try to translate what they can into modern meaning, then attempt a diagnosis, usually for the sport of it.

I’ll wager that the authors and editors expected this little bit of fluff to pass quietly into oblivion, a harmless lark in an obscure journal. It’s not an unreasonable expectation. In the traditional journal world, reports like this were shielded from widespread evaluation due to relatively small circulations in tight-knit communities. Even in the last decade, the lack of robust commenting on journal articles has helped insulate scholars.

Today, things are different. Now, a science blogosphere bent on sensationalism and hungry for topics is perfectly willing to pick up on a silly article and beat the bejeezus out of it.

Sometimes people behave badly. No system is a perfect bulwark against this tendency. So while the Virology Journal article had been peer-reviewed (which has its own problems),  it was the set of post-publication reviews which resulted in an apology both from the editor and the author who has promised he’ll never write this type of article again. In essence, a kind of mob mentality seems to have ruled and I expect that mob mentality will be seen in the PPPR process as well. My conclusion is that the more ways we have of disseminating and publishing information the better.

German report on nanosilver toxicity and some thoughts on the US EPA silver nanomaterials consultation

More about nanosilver toxicology (see earlier posting about US EPA silver nanomaterials consultation) this week courtesy of an article by Michael Berger about a new report from a group of German researchers. From the article on Nanowerk,

Silver had already been recognized in ancient Greece and Rome for its infection-fighting properties but in modern times pharmaceutical companies made more money developing antibiotics. However, thanks to emerging nanotechnology applications, silver has made a comeback in the form of antimicrobial nanoparticle coatings for textiles, surgical instruments, lab equipment, floors or wall paints (see for instance: “Antibacterial nanotechnology multi-action materials that work day and night”).

The flip side of silver’s desired toxicity towards microbes is that it might have toxic effects for humans as well (“As nanotechnology goes mainstream, ‘toxic socks’ raise concerns”) and this has raised debate about the safety of nanosilver products. Although scientists have worked to reduce the toxicity of antimicrobial nanosilver in products, concerns remain.

Not helping to put these concerns to rest is a new report from a group of researchers in Germany that shows that toxicity of silver nanoparticles increases during storage because of slow dissolution under release of silver ions.

According to Epple [Matthias Epple, a professor for inorganic chemistry at the University of Duisburg-Essen], there is a general agreement that dissolved silver ions are responsible for the biological action that is especially pronounced against microorganisms. The lethal silver concentration of silver nanoparticles for human mesenchymal stem cells is about three times higher than that of silver ions (in terms of the absolute concentration of silver in a given solution).

The report has been published by the American Chemical Society in Chemistry of Materials. You can find an abstrect here, the full article is behind a paywall.

I was interested to note that the focus for the report is on the dissolution of nanoscale silver in water. By contrast, the US EPA consultation uses, as its starting point for the case study, nanoscale silver in an antibacterial spray. While laboratory researchers tend to focus on specifics such as the dissolution of  silver nanoparticles and ions, the EPA’s strategy allows for a 360o view. Theoretically, commenters could focus on anything from the production of the air spray, its own packaging, its use in various situations such as hospitals or food packaging, etc., and the various ways it dissipates into the environment, e.g. being washed off and ending up in the water supply.  This can lead to a comprehensive framework for future research activities examining more specific questions which provide answers that fit back into the framework.

Berger’s article reminds me of an October 29, 2009 news item on Science Daily about Swiss researchers, clothes washers, and nanosilver,

Scientists in Switzerland are reporting results of one of the first studies on the release of silver nanoparticles from laundering those anti-odor, anti-bacterial socks now on the market. Their findings may suggest ways that manufacturers and consumers can minimize the release of these particles to the environment, where they could harm fish and other wildlife.

They found that most of the released particles were relatively large and that most came out of the fabrics during the first wash. The total released varied from 1.3 to 35 percent of the total nanosilver in the fabric. Bleach generally did not affect the amount released. “These results have important implications for the risk assessment of silver textiles and also for environmental fate studies of nanosilver, because they show that under certain conditions relevant to washing, primarily coarse silver-containing particles are released,” the paper says.

The research report was published by the American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology journal. The abstract is available here, the full article is behind a paywall.

ISO nanomaterials definition

There’s a new definition from the International Standards Organization (ISO) for nanomaterials.  From the news item on Nanowerk,

ISO has therefore published a new technical report, ISO/TR 11360:2010, Nanotechnologies – Methodology for the classification and categorization of nanomaterials, offering a comprehensive, globally harmonized methodology for classifying nanomaterials.

ISO/TR 11360 introduces a system called the “nano-tree”, which places nanotechnology concepts into a logical context by indicating relationships among them as a branching out tree. The most basic and common elements are defined as the main trunk of the tree, and nanomaterials are then differentiated in terms of structure, chemical nature and other properties.

“The document provides users with a structured view of nanotechnology, and facilitates a common understanding of its concepts,” says Peter Hatto, Chair of the committee that developed the standard (ISO/TC 229). “It offers a systematic approach and a commonsensical hierarchy”.

The new definition is called: ISO/TR 11360:2010, Nanotechnologies – Methodology for the classification and categorization of nanomaterials. It will cost you 112 Swiss Francs or, roughly, $112.90 CAD.

I’m not sure what the big difference is between this definition and the one I posted about Oct. 24, 2008 but I suspect the difference lies in the classification level, i.e., the 2008 definition (ISO/TS 27687:2008 titled Nanotechnologies — Terminology and definitions for nano-objects — Nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate) laid the groundwork for this more specific nanomaterials definition.

ETA Aug.21.10: Dexter Johnson at Nanoclast has posted about the new ISO definition and the impact this may have on commercialization of nanomaterials. Go here to read more.

International science policy at Kavli Prize Science Forum

September 6, 2010 there’s going to be the first ever Kavli Prize Science Forum featuring science policy figures from a number of countries discussing: “The Role of International Cooperation in Science.” From the news item on Nanowerk,

Cooperation comes naturally to science; or at least it should, as the big problems science is called upon to address – from climate change to pandemics – respect no boundaries. And science at its best is a group effort, inclusive and open.

But are competitive forces, now stronger than in the past, working against globally collaborative science? This will be one of the issues addressed at the inaugural Kavli Prize Science Forum, a partnership of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, The Kavli Foundation and the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. To be held on September 6 in Oslo as part of Kavli Prize Week, the Forum is a biennial event aimed at facilitating high-level, global discussion of major topics on science and science policy. This year’s topic: “The Role of International Cooperation in Science.”

The inaugural forum will bring together some of the most influential science policy figures in the world. Among them will be John P. Holdren, science advisor to President Barack Obama, and Ernst-Ludwig Winnacker, the first head of the European Research Council and now Secretary-General of the International Human Frontier Science Program Organization (HFSPO). Also joining a panel discussion will be the presidents of the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Science Council of Japan, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. Officials from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Max Planck Institute will also be panelists. (For a full list of participants, click here.)

Moderating the event will be Charles M. Vest, former president of MIT and now president of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering.

The science forum is part of the Kavli Prize Science Week being held Sept. 6-9, 2010.

Five tech hubs in NY state

I noted a few weeks back that 24 regional nanotechnology centres in the UK are likely to be cut when the UK’s new budget is announced (July 28, 2010 posting). By contrast, the State University of New York (SUNY) has announced the formation of five regional technology hubs. From the news item on Azonano,

The State University of New York (SUNY), in partnership with The Research Foundation of SUNY and SUNY campuses statewide, has launched five regional “Technology Transfer” hubs across the SUNY research enterprise as part of a novel effort to spur new high-tech business opportunities and stimulate economic growth across New York State.

The move is in direct alignment with the SUNY Strategic Plan to build the Entrepreneurial Century.

I realize a straight comparison isn’t possible since the centres in the UK are specifically oriented to nanotechnology while the centres in the US are generalized technology hubs. Also, the centres in the UK are funded directly by the federal government while the centres in New York are funded through the university. Still I find the contrast between pulling back as opposed to reaching out in times of trouble rather interesting. BTW, this is the first time I’ve heard of an Entrepreneurial Century.

Tony Clement announces Canadian government nano investment in two Alberta firms

Tony Clement, Canada’s Minister of Industry, announced investments totaling over $500,000 to two Alberta-based firms associated with nanotechnology. From the news release on Marketwire [ETA Aug.18.10: there’s also this link to the item on Nanowerk],

The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, today announced contributions of $285,268 to Sonoro Energy Limited and $257,000 to IntelligentNano Incorporated from the National Research Council of Canada Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC-IRAP). The funding supports innovative research and development projects that will assist both firms in developing high-tech solutions for global markets.

“Our government is investing in science and technology to create good jobs, strengthen the economy and improve the quality of life of Canadians,” said Minister Clement. “This government is supporting Canadian firms that successfully develop and apply innovative technologies. Canada’s Economic Action Plan is bolstering scientific research and commercialization, while creating good jobs and economic growth.”

Edmonton boasts Canada’s largest and most technologically advanced nanotechnology research infrastructure, centred around the National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT). NINT is a joint initiative between the National Research Council of Canada, the University of Alberta, and the Government of Alberta.

So there you have it, the follow up to yesterday’s news flash. If you’re curious about the two companies, Sonoro is using the money to,

[support] a project that will seek to accelerate the commercial upgrading of heavy oil into synthetic crude, by small and medium- sized producers in remote areas. As the technology is both scalable and repeatable, Sonoro is actively pursuing heavy oil resource opportunities, particularly in remote global regions where there is heavy oil that could benefit from low-cost upgrading technology. Sonoro Energy has developed and patented a proprietary sonic reactor technology platform that transfers sonic energy on an industrial scale to physical, chemical or biological processes.

IntelligentNano will apply its funds towards,

further development of the “Sonacell,” a device for amplifying and accelerating the growth of therapeutic stem cells. Stem cells have an ability to self-renew and the potential to replace diseased and damaged tissues in the body, without the risk of rejection and side effects. Adults have a very small number of such cells; IntelligentNano has developed the “Sonacell,” which will make it possible to harvest and grow a sufficient quantity of a patient’s own stem cells for use in medical therapies. The “Sonacell” opens the door to the possibility of treatments for diseases like diabetes, arthritis, Parkinson’s and spinal cord injuries.

Joy of nanotechnology

When I first started investigating nanotechnology about four years ago, Bill Joy and his essay for Wired magazine, Why the future doesn’t need us, was suggested as a good place to start. As it turns out, I’ve waited until now to read that piece and only did so in the wake of Christine Peterson’s Foresight Institute August 11, 2010 posting about Joy and a TED talk that he gave in 2006.

It’s all old news but compelling nonetheless given the status that Joy’s 2000 essay still has. As for Joy’s TED Talk, it’s odd in the same way that his essay is odd, i.e., scrambled and all over the place. As I’ve often been accused of writing that way myself, I can’t be too critical of it.

His interest is much broader than nanotechnology although it is mentioned in the essay, if not the talk. The one element of his talk that has stayed with me is his focus on asymmetry and the danger posed by the ‘one to the many’. As he sees it, these new technologies which are becoming more and more easily accessible by anyone  put a great deal of destructive power into one any one person’s hands. He also proposes  more control as a remedy for this asymmetry.

Joy’s TED TAlk is here. While it was given in February 2006, it wasn’t posted online until November 2008. Since then it has generated continuous comment, the most recent being an August 8, 2010 comment.