Monthly Archives: March 2011

Arts scholar in residence at National Institute of Technology: Heather Graves

Leave a reply

Early in the new year, the University of Alberta announced the appointment of its first Scholar in Residence for Arts in Nanotechnology, Heather Graves (mentioned in my Jan. 19, 2011 posting). I contacted Dr. Graves for an interview which she very kindly gave. Before proceeding here’s a little bit of biographical information from the WRS webpage) about her [ETA Mar.11.11: photo and information about WRS webpage added],

Heather Graves is an Associate Professor of Writing Studies and the Department English and Film Studies. She is the author of Rhetoric in(to) Science: Style as Invention in Inquiry (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2005); co-editor with Roger Graves of Writing Centres, Writing Seminars, Writing Culture: Teaching Writing in Anglo-Canadian Universities (Winnipeg: Inkshed Publications, 2006) and Inkshed: Newsletter of the Canadian Assoication for the Study of Language and Learning; and co-author of the Canadian Edition of The Brief Penguin Handbook (Pearson/Longman, 2007) and A Strategic Guide to Technical Communication (Peterborough: Broadview, 2007). …

As co-president of the Canadian Association for the Study of Discourse and Writing (CASDW)/ L’Association canadienne de rédactologie (ACR) (formerly the Canadian Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (CATTW)/ L’Association canadienne de professeurs de rédaction technique and scientific (ACPRTS), she has served as program chair of the annual conference held at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Professor Heather Graves, Canada's new Arts Scholar in Residence in Nanotechnology (photo from WRS website)

Heather will be working with scientists at the National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT) which is located in Edmonton at the University of Alberta. The interview starts here:

(a) I was thrilled to see that a ‘scholar in residence for arts research in nanotechnology’. How do you feel about the appointment?

It’s a real opportunity to be invited into a community of practicing scientists. A number of them have been quite generous with their time to help me with their project. I have worked with scientists before but this is the first time that the invitation came, basically, from them, rather than me inviting myself in. It is wonderful to learn new things and to extend my understanding of science and how science people use rhetoric and writing in their work and professional lives.

(b) I believe this is the first such appointment in Canada, is that right? Why was the position created?

I am not aware of any other such appointments (there is only one National Institute in Canada, but the various centres for nanotechnology being built at various Canadian universities could also follow suit). I think the position was created because someone at NINT wished to develop closer links between Arts and Science, specifically nanoscience/technology. The hope is that greater knowledge of what scientists are doing with their research in nanotechnology will get a bit more publicity through this position (it will get more play on campus for sure, and likely a bit more exposure to the broader public). The position is sponsored by the Vice President of Research here at U of A but I’m not exactly clear on where the money came from (to buy out my teaching for this term, so give me some development money with which I am employing a Graduate Research Assistant, and a modest travel budget to present a conference paper or two). I expect the university and the National Institute for Nanotechnology (NINT) are sharing the costs.

(c) What will you be doing as a ‘scholar in residence for arts research in nanotechnology’? (i. e., Are there deliverables for this project and what might they be?)

I am conducting a research project on language and writing in the work of scientists doing research in nanotechnology/nanoscience. There are several strands to the project: interviews with scientists about their research and about how they use writing in their professional work and how they teach writing to the graduate students who work with them; attending meetings between supervisors and their graduate students as they meet regularly to talk about their progress on individual experimental work; attending seminars by visiting researchers about their recent work; and analyzing drafts of research reports to identify the discursive conventions of the discipline, including the features of argument structure. My focus is on how scientists use language and writing to communicate about their research; how they understand the process of drafting a convincing argument for their interpretations of the research findings, and how they structure that argument; and how newcomers to the field acculturate into the norms and conventions of the discourse in this field. The discourse conventions of nanotechnology (as an emerging discipline) are still being negotiated: they evolve out of the collaborative efforts of the interdisciplinary scientists who work together on various projects, as well as between writers and editors for scholarly journals in nanotechnology. I’m interested in documenting, as far as possible, some of this negotiation from the scientists’ perspectives and from studies of their published (and in some cases draft) reports of research. This study also analyses the linguistic constructions that the scientists use to conceptualize and communicate the scientific phenomena that they are studying. Research on the nanoscale is mediated by both technology and language, making it a fascinating site for exploring how these mediations are translated into knowledge and eventually commercial products. I expect that these different strands of the project will result in a series of conference papers and then several academic articles or even a book-length manuscript on rhetoric and nanotechnology. I also expect that some of these insights will be valuable in writing textbooks on writing in disciplines other than Arts and Humanities. I may also write some articles on nanotechnology for more popular audiences.

(d) What aspects of your previous work are you bringing to this position (e.g., rhetorical function of visuals in science research and/or model of argumentation in scientific discourse)?

Much all the work that I’ve done earlier on rhetoric of science and on argument in the disciplines is relevant to this project. For example, many discussions of scientific phenomena take place based on visuals, so a better understanding of relationship between the visuals and their rhetorical purpose is crucial to understanding the processes of knowledge creation engaged in by scientists. The visuals in science generally function as evidence supporting the claims made for new knowledge in the arguments constructed in oral presentations of work as well as in journal publications. These aspects tie in to my long-standing interest in argument in the disciplines and especially science-related disciplines. Since I also teach writing to first year science majors and to graduate students in science disciplines, this study will enable me to develop new and better teaching materials for these audiences of learners. So on a practical level this research project could well translate eventually into better instructional material for writers in science and better writers of scientific discourse in Canada.

(e) Do you have colleagues, i.e. other ‘scholars in residence for arts research in nanotechnology’, internationally and who might they be? In other words, how does this position fit within the international scene?

I am not aware of any other “scholars in residence for arts research in nanotechnology” elsewhere at this point. Please let me know if you encounter any more! I am working pretty much in isolation; of course it would be great to have colleagues to talk to who are in similar circumstances but when you are carving your own path it’s also freeing, in a way, because there is no standard procedure or approach. You can invent your project and its execution any way you want. This is generally how I have proceeded in the past because my area of interest (the study of the language and rhetoric/writing of working scientists) was sparsely populated by other scholars, especially from 1995 to the early 2000s. In the last five years or so, however, I have met a number of other rhetoric of science and writing in science scholars who are addressing some of the same issues.

Beyond the “Scholar in Residence . . .” title, however, I know there is significant interest in nanoscience and nanotechnology from many different types of people from both academic and more popular perspectives, but this collaboration between the University of Alberta and the National Institute for Nanotechnology does seem like a brand new idea. It certainly encourages interaction between two areas that don’t generally mix professionally, and it will be interesting to see what comes of this interaction in the long term, since the “Scholar in Residence for Arts Research in Nanotechnology” pilot project is slated to run for two more years after me and perhaps to be made permanent if it is deemed a success. I look forward to also hearing about subsequent research projects that follow mine. Perhaps other Centres for Nanotechnology across Canada and around the world might follow the lead here by University of Alberta and NINT. I certainly hope so.

(f) Is there anything you’d like to add?

I think many people have little idea about what is required to do this kind of research project successfully at least from the perspective of the number of hours it takes. You do have to commit significant numbers regularly over a period of time to get to know anyone in the community and to gain a reasonable level of understanding of the community. This means just hanging out for several hours a day as often as possible and collecting information as you hang out. The more information you collect the better you understand your area of study and the more data you have to work with, but processing all of this information also becomes a huge task. For example, sifting through interviews and research presentations and meeting transcripts takes a lot of time and energy. Transcribing digital recordings of key interchanges also takes time (although voice recognition software has improved immensely in the last few years, one still can’t devote one-third of a half-hour interview with a busy person to getting the technology up to speed). What I’m trying to say is that you cannot do this kind of research while also teaching a full load of classes; this type of research is only practical and possible if you have the luxury of time, which is what a program such as the Scholar in Residence for Arts Research in Nanotechnology provides. More people might conduct this kind of research if such a program were more widely available but in the absence of this type of support other types of less time-intensive research has to be undertaken, changing the types of research questions that you can ask and re-directing to somewhere else the advance of knowledge from this area.

Thank you Heather. I look forward to hearing and reading more about your work as the project progresses. I wish you the best of luck with it.

They is becoming more like us: Geminoid robots and robots with more humanlike movement

3 Replies

We will be proceeding deep into the ‘uncanny valley’, that place where robots looks so like humans, they make us uncomfortable. I have made a reference to the ‘uncanny valley’ in a previous posting that featured some Japanese dancing robots (October 18, 2010 posting [scroll down]). This is an order of magnitude more uncanny. See the video for yourself,

First test of the Geminoid DK. The nearly completed geminoid (twin robot) is operated by a human for the first time. Movements of the operator is reproduced in the robot. (from the description on Youtube)

Here’s a little more from a March 7, 2011 article by Katie Gatto on physorg.com,

The latest robot in the family of ultra-realistic androids, called the Geminoid series, is so realistic that it can actually be mistaken for the person it was designed to look like. The new bot, dubbed the Geminoid DK, was was created by robotics firm Kokoro in Tokyo and is now being housed at Japan’s Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International in Nara. The robot was designed to look like Associate Professor Henrik Scharfe of Aalborg University in Denmark.

As for why anyone would want a robot that so closely resembled themselves, I can think of a few reasons but Scharfe has used this as an opportunity to embark on a study (from the March 7, 2011 article by Kit Eaton on Fast Company),

Scharfe is an associate professor at Aalborg University in Denmark and is director of the center for Computer-Mediated Epistemology, which pretty much explains what all this robotics tech is all about–Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, centering on the question of what’s “true” knowledge versus “false” or “inadequate” knowledge. Scharfe intends to use the robot to probe “emotional affordances” between robots and humans, as well as “blended presence” (a partly digital, partly realistic way for people to telepresence themselves, demonstrated by weird prototypes like the Elfoid robot-phone we covered the other day). The device will also be used to look at cultural differences in how people interact with robots–for example in the U.S. robots may be perceived as threatening, or mere simple tools, but in Japan they’re increasingly accepted as a part of society.

Here’s a picture of the ‘real’ Scharfe with the ‘Geminoid’ Scharfe,

Image from Geminoid Facebook page

You can click through to the Geminoid Facebook page from here. Here’s more about Geminoid research (from the Geminoid DK website),

Introduction to Geminoid research

The first geminoid, HI-1, was created in 2005 by Prof. Hiroshi Ishiguro of ATR and the Tokyo-based firm, Kokoro. A geminoid is an android, designed to look exactly as its master, and is controlled through a computer system that replicates the facial movements of the operator in the robot.

In the spring of 2010, a new geminoid was created. The new robot, Geminoid-F was a simpler version of the original HI-1, and it was also more affordable, making it reasonable to acquire one for humanistic research in Human Robot Interaction.

Geminoid|DK will be the first of its kind outside of Japan, and is intended to advance android science and philosophy, in seeking answers to fundamental questions, many of which that have also occupied the Japanese researchers. The most important questions are:

– What is a human?
– What is presence?
– What is a relation?
– What is identity?

If that isn’t enough, there’s research at Georgia Tech (US) being done on how make to robots move in a more humanlike fashion (from the March 8, 2011 article by Kit Eaton on Fast Company),

Which is where research from Georgia Tech comes in. Based on their research droid Simon who looks distinctly robotic with a comedic head and glowing “ears,” a team working in the Socially Intelligent Machines Lab has been trying to teach Simon to move like humans do–forcing less machine-like gestures from his solid limbs. The trick was to record real human subjects performing a series of moves in a motion-capture studio, then taking the data and using it to program Simon, being careful (via a clever algorithm) to replicate the fluid multiple-joint rotations a human body does when swinging a limb between one position and the next, and which robot movements tend to avoid.

Then the team got volunteers to observe Simon in action, and asked them to identify the kinds of movements he was making. When a more smooth, fluid robot movement was made, the volunteers were better at identifying the gesture compared to a more “robotic” movement. To double-check the algorithm’s effectiveness the researchers then asked the human volunteers to mimic the gestures they thought the robot was making, tapping into the unconscious part of their minds that recognize human tics: And again, the volunteers were better at correctly mimicking the gesture when the human-like algorithm was applied to Simon’s moves.

…

Why’s this research important? Because as robots become increasingly a part of every day human life, we need to trust them and interact with them normally. Just as other research tries to teach robots to move in ways that can’t hurt us, this work will create robots that move in subtle ways to communicate physically with nearby people, aiding their incorporation into society. In medical professional roles, which are some of the first places humanoid robots may find work, this sort of acceptance could be absolutely crucial.

It seems that researchers believe that the ‘uncanny valley’ doesn’t necessarily have to exist forever and at some point, people will accept humanoid robots without hesitation. In the meantime, here’s a diagram of the ‘uncanny valley’,

From the article on Android Science by Masahiro Mori (translated by Karl F. MacDorman and Takashi Minato)

Here’s what Mori (the person who coined the term) had to say about the ‘uncanny valley’ (from Android Science),

Recently there are many industrial robots, and as we know the robots do not have a face or legs, and just rotate or extend or contract their arms, and they bear no resemblance to human beings. Certainly the policy for designing these kinds of robots is based on functionality. From this standpoint, the robots must perform functions similar to those of human factory workers, but their appearance is not evaluated. If we plot these industrial robots on a graph of familiarity versus appearance, they lie near the origin (see Figure 1 [above]). So they bear little resemblance to a human being, and in general people do not find them to be familiar. But if the designer of a toy robot puts importance on a robot’s appearance rather than its function, the robot will have a somewhat humanlike appearance with a face, two arms, two legs, and a torso. This design lets children enjoy a sense of familiarity with the humanoid toy. So the toy robot is approaching the top of the first peak.

Of course, human beings themselves lie at the final goal of robotics, which is why we make an effort to build humanlike robots. For example, a robot’s arms may be composed of a metal cylinder with many bolts, but to achieve a more humanlike appearance, we paint over the metal in skin tones. These cosmetic efforts cause a resultant increase in our sense of the robot’s familiarity. Some readers may have felt sympathy for handicapped people they have seen who attach a prosthetic arm or leg to replace a missing limb. But recently prosthetic hands have improved greatly, and we cannot distinguish them from real hands at a glance. Some prosthetic hands attempt to simulate veins, muscles, tendons, finger nails, and finger prints, and their color resembles human pigmentation. So maybe the prosthetic arm has achieved a degree of human verisimilitude on par with false teeth. But this kind of prosthetic hand is too real and when we notice it is prosthetic, we have a sense of strangeness. So if we shake the hand, we are surprised by the lack of soft tissue and cold temperature. In this case, there is no longer a sense of familiarity. It is uncanny. In mathematical terms, strangeness can be represented by negative familiarity, so the prosthetic hand is at the bottom of the valley. So in this case, the appearance is quite human like, but the familiarity is negative. This is the uncanny valley.

It’s a very interesting interpretation of the diagram. The article is definitely worth reading  although you won’t find a reference to the zombies which represent the bottom of the ‘uncanny valley’. Perhaps there’s something about them in the original article printed in Energy, (1970) 7(4), pp. 33-35?

ETA April 12, 2011: Someone sent me a link to this March 8, 2011 posting by Reid of the Analytic Design Group. It offers another perspective, this one being mildly cautionary.

Nigeria and nanotechnology

Leave a reply

The March 6, 2011 news item on Nanowerk specifically concerns the development of nanomedicine facilities and teaching in Nigerian Universities,

The National Universities Commission (NUC) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Institute for Lasers, Photonics, and Biophotonics (ILPB), United States of America for the development of an international joint research centre for nanomedicine in some Nigerian universities.

According to details of the MOU, the first phase of the initiative is to implement the program at NUC-selected universities while the second phase will bring Nigerian researchers to train at ILPB and equipment distributed to Nigerian universities. The MOU postulates that by this time, there should be “global impact of research with widespread implementation of quantum dots and other nanoparticles in the fields of medical diagnosis and treatment.” The third stage, meant to take place five to 10 years from now, will be defined by major research focuses, sufficient funding, and effective personnel training and the centre is expected to become a first-class research center not only in Nigeria, but in the world.

The NUC appointed Paras Prasad, a professor of chemistry and medicine with the University of Buffalo (UB) and the executive director of the ILPB, as the head of the joint research center.

“The two major application areas are alternate energy and health care. We are applying this merge of photonics, of light wave energy, for application in the area of medicine called nanomedicine. The other, alternative energy focuses primarily on solar energy harvesting,” he said.

Despite the reference to alternative energy the primary focus, according to Folarin Erogbogbo, leader of the Nigerian group and research assistant professor in cancer nanotechnology, is nanomedicine.

The full video from the Canada Foundation for Innovation celebrating the 100th International Women’s Day

2 Replies

The full video produced by the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Women and Science was released today. Go here to enjoy roughly 7.5 minutes with five different and highly accomplished women ranging from an ethnomusicologist to a spinal cord researcher to the president of the University of Alberta. Personally, I found the evolutionary biologist (I think she studies spiders) who described her area of research as being about self-sacrifice and cannibalism quite intriguing. There’s also Suzanne Fortier, the president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (a major funding agency for Canadian science), discussing careers, balance, and a life in science.

Accompanying the video are stories by Elizabeth Howell. Here’s an excerpt from the webpage,

When Karen Kidd thinks back on the women who inspired her as a young scientist, she can’t come up with any.

“All the researchers I worked with were men. I didn’t have a female mentor until more recently,” says Kidd, an ecotoxicologist at the University of New Brunswick in Saint John who earned her PhD in 1996.

She doesn’t feel her experience impeded her career, but the Canada Research Chair in Chemical Contamination of Food Webs acknowledges that there is a need for more women in science. And she recognizes that there are barriers which sometimes keep them away.

“Self-promotion and marketing — I think that’s what we [women] tend to do poorly,” she says. “It’s important to get out there and show others what you’re capable of. I think it’s really critical in this field, because it’s a competitive field for receiving grants and getting published. You have to be willing to sell yourself and defend your work.”

Nanotechnology, kids, and internships

2 Replies

Dr. Moon Kim, a materials scientist, decided to write a book for children about nanotechnology. Originally written in Korean and now being translated into English,  the book was selected  in December 2010  by the Korea Foundation for the Advancement of Science and Creativity as one of the top science books of the year. From the March 7, 2011 news item on physorg.com,

Written in Korean and with the English translation just recently completed, “A Day With Nano” takes a wide-ranging view of nanotechnology. He wrote it in collaboration with his wife, Sun Song, and it touches not only on Kim’s own research but also on applications such as robotic surgery, micro-needles for painless injections, smart windows that adapt to outdoor conditions, nano cosmetics and self-healing paint that prevents the development of rust.

“I actually learned quite a bit by doing research for this, and it’s given me new ideas about additional laboratory research to pursue,” said Kim, a professor of materials science and engineering in the University’s Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science.

And although the primary audience comprises elementary- and secondary-school students, he says he sees a need to spread the word further as well.

“The reason we do so much of our research is to make everyone’s lives better, and we need public support for that,” he said. “As a professor, education is a big part of my job, and that includes the general public, so the more that both kids and their parents understand and support what we do, the better it is for everyone.”

Dr. Kim has also instituted an internship program. The first session in January 2011 had three students and a teacher from South Korea visit him at his laboratory at the University of Texas.

Coverage of the Nano Intern Program appeared in the Donga Daily, one of South Korea's leading newspapers. (Copied from Univ. of Texas News Center website)

There’s more about Dr. Kim’s projects here.

Interview with Julie Freeman about her nano art show at the UK’s House of Lords

Leave a reply

An invitation arrived in my email box from the BioCentre in the UK for a nanotechnology workshop and reception featuring some ‘nanotechnology’ art work at the House of Lords. I was pleased to notice that the artist, Julie Freeman, was someone I met a few years ago at the 2009 International Symposium on Electronic Arts (ISEA) in Belfast. As attending the event was not possible, I decided to approach Julie for an interview and she kindly answered my questions.

Before launching into the interview, here’s a little more information about the BioCentre’s 2nd workshop in a series titled, Revolution, Regulation and Responsibilities; Technology & Democracy in the 21st Century (from the PDF) ,

Products, Privacy & People: Regulating on the Nanoscale Monday 28th February 2011, 14:00, House of Lords, Committee Room 3

The manipulation of matter at the nanoscale represents a ‘rebound revolution’ reframing our understanding and engagement with science and technology. As nanotechnologies continue to evolve the promised nano structures which offer novel and new properties currently present unknown hazards. Nanoparticles have been found to pass through the skin, offering exciting possibilities of targeted drug delivery. Conversely, given their size nanoparticles could also interfere with the functioning of proteins on the surface of cells, or be taken up into cells and bind to intercellular proteins. How crucial is public awareness of these issues? Should there be a mandatory labelling system for nano products? This becomes all the more important as nanomaterials are adopted commercially and taken up into global supply chains.

Nanotechnology will present new possibilities for collecting new data and intensifying debate and discussion surrounding ongoing questions of privacy. There is the potential for tiny senses to be embedded in clothes, products or even bodies which could record and collect a multitude of data, including the movement of people, products, health and financial details.

Increasingly, it appears that the distinction between human and machine could become blurred through the convergence of biology, nanotechnology, information technology and even neuroscience. If some of the grander ideas which nanotechnology would seemingly promise are believed to be true, then fusion between people and technology could occur like never before. Yet public and civil society debate remains limited despite dramatic efforts to frame the significance of such developments ranging from Eric Drexler’s ‘grey goo’ scenario, to technology guru Bill Joy’s Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, to Ray Kurzweil’s imminent expectation of the sci‐fi “singularity”.

As attempts are made to develop effective and proportional regulation in response there is also the inevitable tension between divergent approaches to risk management on the national, regional and global level. One thing is for certain, transdisciplinary discussion, fresh thinking and understanding is essential if we are to avoid a repeat of the GM foods debacle and re‐emergence of the ‘yuck’ factor. Through short expert presentations, panel and Q&A discussions you are invited to join us as we discuss and examine the regulatory issues at the nanoscale.

A drinks reception will follow the symposium during which the work of Julie Freeman, Artist‐in‐residence at Microsystems and Nanotechnology Centre, Cranfield University, will be on display. [emphasis mine]

Now, here is the interview with Julie Freeman,

a) Which work (or works are) is being shown at the House of Lords on Feb. 28, 2011? [if you have any images of the piece or pieces, I would be happy to include them.]

A set of 16 A3 prints from the Nano Novel collection, which are part of the In Particular project.

(b) How did your work come to be selected for this display? Was it specifically created for this show or was it chosen as something that would be relevant to the workshop themes “of revolution, regulation and responsibilities surrounding the issue of emerging technologies?”

Each of the works are accompanied by two pieces of text, one factual, one fictional. The factual texts describe a process, issue or reaction that is related to the nanoscale, so although there is a broad range – from how nanoparticles are moved to the future of self-diagnostic implants – some of them address issues of regulation and revolution. The director of a UK think tank called BioCentre asked me if I would like to exhibit the work at the seminar. I had been previously asked to show work at a BioCentre event, but it was too complicated to install just for a few hours. As the Nano Novels work are framed prints they are the most portable piece of work I have ever created, so are ideal for an exhibition with a quick turnover!

(c) Could you discuss some of the challenges of representing the invisible (that which occurs at the nanoscale) and some of the specific challenges, technical and/or conceptual, that you encountered with the work being shown at the reception?

The work shown, as I mentioned, were digital prints. The prints are the first stage in the In Particular project, kind of a way for me to contextualise nanotechnology in a way that I could understand it. I have prototype works in progress that are proving tricky to realise – at the nanoscale materials take on different properties and behaviours. Stresses and strains that act at the macro level are different at the nanoscale so even creating something as seemingly simple as a rigid nanothin film is very complex. I think the challenge for artists working in the realm is how to avoid the obvious, how to depict something that is beyond our sensory perception, and how to create work that is true to a nanoprocess or material without simply showing it at a macro scale.

(d) How does someone with an MA in Digital Arts from the Lansdown Centre for Electronic Arts, Middlesex University, London come to be associated with the Microsystems and Nanotechnology Centre at Cranfield University?

I knew when I started my MA that I wanted to work with life and technology – life in terms of living biology. My MA show consisted of a fish tank containing 4 rudd that were tracked and created a soundscape (a precursor to a future larger project called The Lake**), so although it took ten years, it was a natural progression for me to end up working in a laboratory with scientists.

The residency was instigated by Professor Jeremy Ramsden, Chair of Nanotechnology at Cranfield University. He says “I’d read a very interesting book by Cyril Smith* in which he argues that the primary motivation for new technology was aesthetic” so he thought an artist on his team would push the technology in a new direction. He approached a local arts agency, HAPPEN, who had visited my work The Lake, which is another piece of work that involved much scientific collaboration, and they brokered the relationship. We quickly ascertained that we had a lot of common curiousity, so we collaborated on a funding proposal and were very fortunate to be successful.

*C.S. Smith, The Search for Structure: Selected Essays on Science, Art and History, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.) (1981).

**http://www.juliefreeman.co.uk/lake/

(e) What are you currently working on now (nanotechnology-influenced or not)?

I have been working on ideas that bring my love of data together with the bionanotech area, the fusion of biology and technology at the ‘invisible’ level. Consequently I’m working on some new kinetic objects that incorporate nanomaterials and utilise conversational network activity to give them dynamic actions. I can’t say much more, but it’s an ambitious one!

(f) Is there anything you’d like to add?

Thanks for being in touch. Great blog!

You’re welcome and glad you enjoy the blog.

You can find out more about Julie Freeman and her work at her website, Translating Nature.

ETA Mar. 8, 2011:  Julie Freeman sent two pictures from her show at the House of Lords.

Nano Novels at UK's House of Lords, Feb. 28, 2011. Photo: Julie Freeman

And then, the crowd arrived.

Feb. 28, 2011 reception at UK's House of Lords where Nano Novels shown. Photo: Julie Freeman

International Women’s Day teaser video from Canada Foundation for Innovation

Leave a reply

The Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) has posted a one-minute teaser video to promote their longer International Women’s Day video being released tomorrow, March 8, 2011, the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day. From the March 2, 2011 CFI news release,

To mark the centenary of International Women’s Day on March 8, the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) is releasing a video that offers a personal portrayal of the challenges and rewards of being a woman in science.

The video, which will be posted on InnovationCanada.ca, the CFI’s online magazine, focuses on five accomplished Canadian researchers at various stages of their careers. With humour and candor, the women reflect on their formative experiences, their views on combining family and work, and their assessment of how far women have come in research in Canada. They also discuss what women bring to the scientific process and what needs to be done to attract more females into research careers.

The CFI will also publish a story on the state of women in science in Canada, including a look at trends and attitudes of young girls with respect to science. Last year, the CFI commissioned IPSOS-Reid to conduct the first nationwide study of young Canadians’ views on science. The survey suggests that the widespread belief that young women don’t like science is no longer true. In fact, the Canadian Youth Science Monitor says females between 12 and 18 are significantly more likely than males to say that science is a good career choice for young people generally.

Look for the full video tomorrow on the CFI website.

Synthetic biology and global ocean sampling talk by J. Craig Venter in Vancouver

Leave a reply

J. Craig Venter will be in Vancouver (Canada) Tuesday, May 3, 2011 (7:30 pm at The Vogue Theatre) to talk about the construction of the first synthetic cell and the global ocean sampling expedition, according to the advertisement in The Georgia Straight weekly newspaper, March 3 – 10, 2011. The talk is being presented by the Peter Wall Institute of Advanced Studies (PWIAS). Seating is free but you must reserve a ticket here.

I did try to get more information about the event but the PWIAS website (www.pwias.ubc.ca) does not have a notice let alone more details. I did find a notice at the Genome BC website about the event but they don’t have any substantive details

Venter made international news with his work on a synthetic cell in Spring 2010 (there are brief comments about it in my May 24, 2010 posting) so bringing him to Vancouver is quite the coup. As for the global ocean sampling expedition, Venter recently completed a 2009-2010 journey to the seas in Europe. From the JCVI (J. Craig Venter Institute)webpage describing what was then a forthcoming expedition,

From there she sails for England and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory where the crew and scientists will have a short stay with their collaborators there. From the UK waters the boat will then head to Stockholm for a summer and early fall of sampling and collaboration with scientists in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Estonia, and other Baltic countries. After what Dr. Venter and team hope will be a fruitful sampling year, the Sorcerer II will head for Spain and Italy for winter 2009. In 2010 the Sorcerer will begin sampling in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Check back for more updates on the progress of the Sorcerer II.

The purpose for the journey?

Since 2003 scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute have been on a quest to unlock the secrets of the oceans by sampling, sequencing and analyzing the DNA of the microorganisms living in these waters. While this world is invisible to us, its importance is immeasurable. The microbes in the sea, land, and air sustain our life on Earth. This is why Dr. Venter and his team have been on their voyage of microbial discovery.

Coincidentally and for a somewhat different approach to the oceans and seas, there’s the 2nd International Marine Conservation Congress taking place May 14 – 18, 2011 in Victoria, BC.

According to the Genome BC notice, Venter’s May 3, 2011 talk is scheduled for 7:30 – 10:30 pm.

Walking on eggshells? and sunshine too?

Leave a reply

Tissue scaffolding, egg shells, and nanostructures all come together in work being done by Ryerson University (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) researchers Bo Tan and Krishnan Venkatakrishnan. From the Feb. 28, 2011 news item on physorg.com,

… Venkatakrishnan and Tan first began studying nanostructures within micro-electronics. More recently, though, the researchers have started developing nanostructures using a variety of materials.

One example: the pair’s research on eggshell-based nanostructures – co-authored with Ryerson PhD candidate Amirhossein Tavangar – was published last month in the Journal of Nanobiotechnology. But eggshells aren’t the only materials that can support nanostructures; bones and other natural bio-materials are also being studied in Venkatakrishnan and Tan’s lab.

Typically, fragile ceramics or rigid polymers are used in surgery to fix broken, old or cancer-damaged bones. Nanostructures embedded within actual bones, however, offer a better solution and can help “glue” deteriorated or fragmented bones back together. Through a biomedical process called tissue scaffolding, a porous, artificially created material is used to simulate real tissue and stimulate new bone growth in the body – something that other grafting materials are limited in their capacity to do.

This couple (partners in research and in life) are also working on solar energy panels and water quality monitoring as part of their investigations into nanostructures. I recommend reading this article for a good general introduction about how multidisciplinary research on nanostructures can be applied to many fields.

After writing my headline about “walking on eggshells” I was reminded of a song, “Walking on Sunshine” by Katrina and the Waves. Enjoy a happy weekend,

A machine that doesn’t wear out?

Leave a reply

Dr. Guojun Liu’s (Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada),  first research in the field of friction reduction and lubrication won an award (Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers’ Captain Alfred E. Hunt Memorial Award). Perhaps more interestingly for the average person, Dr. Liu found a way to reduce friction in automobile engines and machines. From the March 1, 2011 news item on physorg.com,

“The technology should be useful in a wide range of machineries other than automobile engines,” says Dr. Liu, a professor in the Department of Chemistry and an expert in polymer synthesis. “If implemented industrially, this nanotechnology should help prolong machine life and improve energy efficiency.”

Dr Liu’s team prepared miniscule polymer particles that were only tens of nanometers in size. These particles were then dispersed in automobile engine base oils. When tested under metal surface contact conditions that simulated conditions found in automobile engines, these tiny particles were discovered to have an unprecedented friction reduction capability.

Evidently, the friction is reduced by as much as 55% over the current rates. There is no word as to when consumers might see a product based on this work.