Monthly Archives: August 2011

Intel’s Tomorrow Project

1 Reply

Seeing into the future and making prognostications is an ancient human pastime dating from before the oracle at De;phi*. Brief tangent: for anyone needing a refresher on Delphi and the oracle (from the Wikipedia essay),

Delphi is perhaps best known for the oracle at the sanctuary that was dedicated to Apollo during the classical period. According to Aeschylus in the prologue of the Eumenides, it had origins in prehistoric times and the worship of Gaia. In the last quarter of the 8th century BC there is a steady increase in artifacts found at the settlement site in Delphi, which was a new, post-Mycenaean settlement of the late 9th century.

Not everyone wants to rely on supernatural means or the movement of the planets (astrology) to predict the future. Intel for example has developed something called, The Tomorrow Project (from the project home page),

What kind of future do you want to live in?  What are you excited about and what concerns you? What is your request of the future?  Brian David Johnson Intel’s Futurist asks these questions and more with The Tomorrow Project, a fascinating initiative to investigate not only the future of computing but the broader implications on our lives and planet.
This is a unique time in history. Science and technology has progressed to the point where what we build is only constrained by the limits of our own imaginations. The future is not a fixed point in front of us that we are all hurdling helplessly towards. The future is built everyday by the actions of people. It’s up to all of us to be active participants in the future and these conversations can do just that.
The Tomorrow Project engages in ongoing discussions with superstars, science fiction authors and scientists to get their visions for the world that’s coming and the world they’d like to build. [emphasis mine]

Here’s a video of Brian David Johnson, Intel’s futurist, talking about The Tomorrow Project (watch for the title on the screen at the beginning),

Did you spot the typo? I laugh and groan in sympathy as I’ve had similar things happen. For some reason, this type of mistake is always in the most obvious spot. BTW, the Intel website features the video with a corrected title.

BBC News online featured an August 19,2011 news item about one of the project’s outputs,

Chip maker Intel has commissioned leading science fiction authors to pen short stories that imagine future uses for the firm’s technology.

The collection, called “The Tomorrow Project”, aims to capture the public’s imagination regarding the company’s current research.

…

The project features work from UK sci-fi author Ray Hammond, who took research in development at Intel’s labs and used it as the basis for “The Mercy Dash” – the story of a couple battling futuristic traffic technology in a race to save a mother’s life.

“I was more nervous approaching this than I have been with any of my full-length novels. I’ve never written short stories, so the form was new to me,” Mr Hammond told BBC News.

The author’s work has been made freely available for download from Intel’s site and Mr Hammond has been delighted by the reaction.

You can go here to download the full anthology or select one or more of the stories. The other three authors included in this anthology are Douglas Rushkoff, Markus Heitz, and Scarlett Thomas.

Johnson doesn’t explain clearly enough (for me) what makes his futurecasting unique. The Canadian Army hired a novelist (Karl Schroeder) in 2005 to write a futuristic book about nanotechnology as I noted in my February 16, 2009 posting, which also mentions that they had commissioned another such novel (I haven’t come across any news about it since).

Jamais Cascio seems to do something similar to Johnson’s futurecasting (from the Bio page on Cascio’s website),

Selected by Foreign Policy magazine as one of their Top 100 Global Thinkers, Jamais Cascio writes about the intersection of emerging technologies, environmental dilemmas, and cultural transformation, specializing in the design and creation of plausible scenarios of the future. [emphasis mine] His work focuses on the importance of long-term, systemic thinking, emphasizing the power of openness, transparency and flexibility as catalysts for building a more resilient society.

I look forward to hearing more about The Tomorrow Project as it unfolds. Perhaps they’ll expand their conversation past “superstars, science fiction authors and scientists” and engage some of the rest of us.

2011 Scientific integrity processes: the US and Canada

1 Reply

Given recent scientific misconduct  (July is science scandal month [July 25 2011] post at The Prodigal Academic blog) and a very slow news month this August,  I thought I’d take a look at scientific integrity in the US and in Canada.

First, here’s a little history. March 9, 2009 US President Barack Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity (excerpted),

Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security.

The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions.  Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.  If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public.  To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking.  The selection of scientists and technology professionals for positions in the executive branch should be based on their scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity.

December 17, 2010 John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,  issued his own memorandum requesting compliance with the President’s order (from the Dec. 17, 2010 posting on The White House blog),

Today, in response to the President’s request, I am issuing a Memorandum to the Heads of Departments and Agencies that provides further guidance to Executive Branch leaders as they implement Administration policies on scientific integrity. The new memorandum describes the minimum standards expected as departments and agencies craft scientific integrity rules appropriate for their particular missions and cultures, including a clear prohibition on political interference in scientific processes and expanded assurances of transparency. It requires that department and agency heads report to me on their progress toward completing those rules within 120 days.

Here’s my edited version (I removed fluff, i.e. material along these lines: scientific integrity is of utmost importance …) of the list Holdren provided,

Foundations

  1. Ensure a culture of scientific integrity.
  2. Strengthen the actual and perceived credibility of Government research. Of particular importance are (a) ensuring that selection of candidates for scientific positions in executive branch is based primarily on their scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity, (b) ensuring that data and research used to support policy decisions undergo independent peer review by qualified experts where feasibly and appropriate, and consistent with law, (c) setting clear standards governing conflicts, and (d) adopting appropriate whistleblower protections.
  3. Facilitate the free flow of scientific and technological information, consistent with privacy and classification standards. … Consistent with the Administration’s Open Government Initiative, agencies should expand and promote access to scientific and technological information by making it available  online in open formats. Where appropriate, this should include data and models underlying regulatory proposals and policy decisions.
  4. Establish principles for conveying scientific and technological information to the public. … Agencies should communicate scientific and technological findings by including a clear explication of underlying assumptions; accurate contextualization of uncertainties; and a description of the probabilities associated with optimistic and pessimistic projections, including best-case and worst-case scenarios where appropriate.

Public communication

  1. In response to media interview requests about the scientific and technological dimensions of their work, agencies will offer articulate and knowledgeable spokespersons who can, in an objective and nonpartisan fashion, describe and explain these dimension to the media and the American people.
  2. Federal scientists may speak to the media and the public about scientific and technological matters based on their official work, with appropriate coordination with their immediate supervisor and their public affairs office. In no circumstance may public affairs officers ask or direct Federal scientists to alter scientific findings.
  3. Mechanisms are in place to resolve disputes that arise from decisions to proceed or not to proceed  with proposed interviews or other public information-related activities. …

(The sections on Federal Advisory Committees and professional development were less relevant to this posting, so I haven’t included them here.)

It seems to have taken the agencies a little longer than the 120 day deadline that John Holdren gave them but all (or many of the agencies) have complied according to an August 15, 2011 posting by David J. Hanson on the Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) website,

OSTP director John P. Holdren issued the call for the policies on May 5 in response to a 2009 Presidential memorandum (C&EN, Jan. 10, page 28). [emphasis mine] The memorandum was a response to concerns about politicization of science during the George W. Bush Administration.

The submitted integrity plans include 14 draft policies and five final policies. The final policies are from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration, the Director of National Intelligences for the intelligence agencies, and the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and Interior.

Draft integrity policies are in hand from the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health & Human Services, Labor, and Transportation and from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security Administrations, OSTP, and Veterans Administration.

The drafts still under review are from the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, and the National Institute of Standards & Technology.

The dates in this posting don’t match up with what I’ve found but it’s possible that the original deadline was moved to better accommodate the various reporting agencies. In any event, David Bruggeman at his Pasco Phronesis blog has commented on this initiative in a number of posts including this August 10, 2011 posting,

… I’m happy to see something out there at all, given the paltry public response from most of the government.  Comments are open until September 6.Regrettably, the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] policy falls into a trap that is all too common.  The support of scientific integrity is all too often narrowly assumed to simply mean that agency (or agency-funded) scientists need to behave, and there will be consequences for demonstrated bad behavior.

But there is a serious problem of interference from non-scientific agency staff that would go beyond reasonable needs for crafting the public message.

David goes on to discuss a lack of clarity in this policy and in the Dept. of the Interior’s policy.

His August 11, 2011 posting notes the OSTP claims that 19 departments/agencies have submitted draft or final policies,

… Not only does the OSTP blog post not include draft or finalized policies submitted to their office, it fails to mention any timeframe for making them publicly available.  Even more concerning, there is no mention of those policies that have been publicly released.  That is, regrettably, consistent with past practice. While the progress report notes that OSTP will create a policy for its own activities, and that OSTP is working with the Office of Management and Budget on a policy for all of the Executive Office of the President, there’s no discussion of a government-wide policy.

In the last one of his recent series, the August 12, 2011 posting focuses on a Dept. of Commerce memo (Note: The US Dept. of Commerce includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology),

“This memorandum confirms that DAO 219-1 [a Commerce Department order concerning scientific communications] allows scientists to engage in oral fundamental research communications (based on their official work) with the media and the public without notification or prior approval to their supervisor or to the Office of Public Affairs. [emphasis David Bruggeman] Electronic communications with the media related to fundamental research that are the equivalent of a dialogue are considered to be oral communications; thus, prior approval is not required for  scientist to engage in online discussions or email with the media about fundamental research, subject to restrictions on protected nonpublic information as set forth in 219-1.”

I find the exercise rather interesting especially in light of Margaret Munro’s July 27, 2011 article, Feds silence scientist over salmon study, for Postmedia,

Top bureaucrats in Ottawa have muzzled a leading fisheries scientist whose discovery could help explain why salmon stocks have been crashing off Canada’s West Coast, according to documents obtained by Postmedia News.

The documents show the Privy Council Office, which supports the Prime Minister’s Office, stopped Kristi Miller from talking about one of the most significant discoveries to come out of a federal fisheries lab in years.

Science, one of the world’s top research journals, published Miller’s findings in January. The journal considered the work so significant it notified “over 7,400” journalists worldwide about Miller’s “Suffering Salmon” study.

…

The documents show major media outlets were soon lining up to speak with Miller, but the Privy Council Office said no to the interviews.

In a Twitter conversation with me, David Bruggeman did note that the Science paywall also acts as a kind of muzzle.

I was originally going to end the posting with that last paragraph but I made a discovery, quite by accident. Canada’s Tri-Agency Funding Councils opened a consultation with stakeholders on Ethics and Integrity for Institutions, Applicants, and Award Holders on August 15, 2011 which will run until September 30, 2011. (This differs somewhat from the US exercise which is solely focussed on science as practiced in various government agencies.  The equivalent in Canada would be if Stephen Harper requested scientific integrity guidelines from the Ministries of Environment, Natural Resources, Health, Industry, etc.) From the NSERC Ethics and Integrity Guidelines page,

Upcoming Consultation on the Draft Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), and NSERC (the tri-agencies) continue to work on improving their policy framework for research and scholarly integrity, and financial accountability. From August 15 to September 30, 2011, the three agencies are consulting with a wide range of stakeholders in the research community on the draft consultation document, Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research.

I found the answers to these two questions in the FAQs particularly interesting,

  • What are some of the new elements in this draft Framework?

The draft Framework introduces new elements, including the following:

A strengthened Tri-Agency Research Integrity Policy
The draft Framework includes a strengthened Tri-Agency Research Integrity Policy that clarifies the responsibilities of the researcher.

‘Umbrella’ approach to RCR
The draft Framework provides an overview of all applicable research policies, including those related to the ethical conduct of research involving humans and financial management, as well as research integrity. It also clarifies the roles and responsibilities of researchers, institutions and Agencies in responding to all types of alleged breaches of Agency policies, for example, misuse of funds, unethical conduct of research involving human participants or plagiarism.

A definition of a policy breach
The draft Framework clarifies what constitutes a breach of an Agency policy.

Disclosure
The draft Framework requires researchers to disclose, at the time of application, whether they have ever been found to have breached any Canadian or other research policies, regardless of the source of funds that supported the research and whether or not the findings originated in Canada or abroad.

The Agencies are currently seeking advice from privacy experts on the scope of the information to be requested.

Institutional Investigations
The Agencies currently specify that institutional investigation committee membership must exclude those in conflict of interest. The draft Framework stipulates also that an investigation committee must include at least one member external to the Institution, and that an Agency may conduct its own review or compliance audit, or require the Institution to conduct an independent review/audit.

Timeliness of investigation
Currently, it is up to institutions to set timelines for investigations. The draft Framework states that inquiry and investigation reports are to be submitted to the relevant Agency within two and seven months, respectively, following receipt of the allegation by the institution.

  • Who is being consulted?

The Agencies have targeted their consultation to individual researchers, post-secondary institutions and other eligible organizations that apply for and receive Agency funding.

As far as I can tell, there is no mention of ethical issues where the government has interfered in the dissemination of scientific information; it seems there is an assumption that almost all ethical misbehaviour is on that part of the individual researcher or a problem with an institution following policy. There is one section devoted breaches by institutions (all two paragraphs of it),

5 Breaches of Agency Policies by Institutions

In accordance with the MOU signed by the Agencies and each Institution, the Agencies require that each Institution complies with Agency policies as a condition of eligibility to apply for and administer Agency funds.

The process followed by the Agencies to address an allegation of a breach of an Agency policy by an Institution, and the recourse that the Agencies may exercise, commensurate with the severity of a confirmed breach, are outlined in the MOU.

My criticism of this is similar to the one that David Bruggeman made of the US policies in that the focus is primarily on the individual.

God from the machine: Deus ex machina and augmentation

2 Replies

Wherever you go, there it is: ancient Greece. Deus Ex, a game series from Eidos Montréal, is likely referencing ‘deus ex machina’, a term applied to a theatrical device (in both senses of the word) attributed to  playwrights of ancient Greece. (For anyone who’s unfamiliar with the term, at the end of a play, all of the conflicts would be resolved by a god descending from the heavens. The term refers both to the plot device itself and to the mechanical device used to lower the ‘god’.)

The latest game in the series, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, a role-playing shooter, will be released August 23, 2011. From the August 16, 2011 article by Susan Karlin for Fast Company,

The result—Deus Ex: Human Revolution, a role-playing shooter that comes out August 23–extrapolates MicroTransponder, prosthetics, robotics, and other current augmentation technology into a vision of how technologically enhanced people might gain superhuman abilities and at what cost.

… “We built a timeline that traces the history of augmentation, creating new things, and predicting how would it get out into society. We wanted to ground it in today, and make something where everyone could say, ‘I can see the world going that way.'” [Mary DeMarle, Human Revolution’s lead writer]

Human Revolution, although the third in the series, is a prequel to the original Deus Ex which took place 25 years after Human Revolution.

I’m glad to see games that bring up interesting philosophical questions and possible social impacts of emerging technologies along with the action. In a February 3, 2011 interview with Mary DeMarle, Quintin Smith of Rock, Paper, Shotgun posed these questions,

RPS: Finally, with anti-augmentation groups featuring in Human Revolution, I was just wondering what your own opinions are on human augmentation and human bioengineering are.

MD: Oh, gosh. Well I have to tell you that the joke on the team is that for the duration of this story I’d be supporting the anti-technology view, because most people on the team wouldn’t be anti-technology, and it’d help me make the game more human, you know? And now that the project’s over I bought my first iPad, and I have to admit I’m suddenly like “You know, if I could get one of those InfoLinks in my head, it’d be really useful.”

But you know, all of this stuff is already out there. We already have people putting cameras in their eyes to improve their vision. [emphasis mine] The technology’s there, we’re just not aware of it. As far as our team’s technology expert is concerned, human augmentation’s been going on for decades. If you look at all the sports controversy regarding drugs, that is augmentation. It’s already happening.

RPS: But you have no qualms with our using technology to make ourselves more than we can be?

MD: From my perspective, I think mankind will always try to be more than he is. That’s part of being human. But I do admit we have to be careful about how we do it.

In my February 2, 2010 posting (scroll down about 1/2 way), I featured a quote that resonates with DeMarle’s comments about humans trying to be more,

“I don’t think I would have said this if it had never happened,” says Bailey, referring to the accident that tore off his pinkie, ring, and middle fingers. “But I told Touch Bionics I’d cut the rest of my hand off if I could make all five of my fingers robotic.”

Bailey went on to say that having machinery incorporated into his body made him feel “above human”.

As for cameras being implanted in eyes to improve vision, I would be delighted to hear from anyone who has information about this. The only project I could find in my search was EyeBorg, a project with a one-eyed Canadian filmmaker who was planning to have a video camera implanted into his eye socket to record images. From the About the Project page,

Take a one eyed film maker, an unemployed engineer, and a vision for something that’s never been done before and you have yourself the EyeBorg Project. Rob Spence and Kosta Grammatis are trying to make history by embedding a video camera and a transmitter in a prosthetic eye. That eye is going in Robs eye socket, and will record the world from a perspective that’s never been seen before.

There are more details about the EyeBorg project in a June 11, 2010 posting by Tim Hornyak for the Automaton blog (on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website),

When Canadian filmmaker Rob Spence was a kid, he would peer through the bionic eye of his Six Million Dollar action figure. After a shooting accident left him partially blind, he decided to create his own electronic eye. Now he calls himself Eyeborg.

Spence’s bionic eye contains a battery-powered, wireless video camera. Not only can he record everything he sees just by looking around, but soon people will be able to log on to his video feed and view the world through his right eye.

I don’t know how the Eyeborg project is proceeding as there haven’t been any updates on the site since August 25, 2010.

While I wish Quintin Smith had asked for more details about the science information DeMarle was passing on in the February 3, 2011 interview, I think it’s interesting to note that information about science and technology comes to us in many ways: advertisements, popular television programmes, comic books, interviews, and games, as well as, formal public science outreach programmes through museums and educational institutions.

ETA August 19, 2011: I found some information about visual prosthetics at the European Commission’s Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) website, We can rebuild you page featuring a TEDxVienna November 2010 talk by electrical engineer, Grégoire Cosendai, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. He doesn’t mention the prosthetics until approximately 13 minutes, 25 seconds into the talk. The work is being done to help people with retinitis pigmentosa, a condition that is incurable at this time but it may have implications for others. There are 30 people worldwide in a clinical trial testing a retinal implant that requires the person wear special glasses containing a camera and an antenna. For Star Trek fans, this seems similar to Geordi LaForge‘s special glasses.

ETA Sept. 13, 2011: Better late than never, here’s an excerpt from Dexter Johnson’s Sept. 2, 2011 posting (on his Nanoclast blog at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [IEEE] website) about a nano retina project,

The Israel-based company [Nano Retina] is a joint venture between Rainbow Medical and Zyvex Labs, the latter being well known for its work in nanotechnology and its founder Jim Von Ehr, who has been a strong proponent of molecular mechanosynthesis.

It’s well worth contrasting the information in the company video that Dexter provides and the information in the FET video mentioned in the Aug. 19, 2011 update preceding this one. The company presents a vastly more optimistic claim for the vision these implants will provide than one would expect after viewing the information in the FET video about clinical trials, for another similar (to me) system, currently taking place.

Broader Impacts Criterion and informal science education in the US

Leave a reply

Broader Impacts Criterion (BIC), a requirement for US National Science Foundation (NSF) grants covers the areas of science education, science outreach, and the promotion of benefits to society. As you might expect there is support and criticism from scientists and the scientific community about having to include BIC in grant proposals, from the American Physical Society News, June 2007 (volume 16, no. 6),

Bob Eisenstein, Chair of APS’s Panel on Public Affairs, was at NSF when the criterion was first put in place in the mid-1990s. He said that the criterion is meant to serve two purposes: first, it forces scientists to think more carefully about the ways in which their work impacts society, and second, it helps provide the public with more information about what scientists are doing.

Fred Cooper, a current NSF program director for theoretical physics, said his personal opinion is that this is a good thing for NSF to do. “I’m very happy to encourage people to think about these things,” he said. He says it is in scientists’ self-interest to do so.

However, some scientists object to research funding being coupled to education or outreach efforts. Mildred Dresselhaus of MIT says she has heard from many scientists who are unhappy with the broader impacts requirements, and who feel they should be funded based on the quality of their research, not for outreach. …

I gather the criticism was serious enough to warrant a review, excerpted from the July 25, 2011 NISE (Nanoscale Informal Science Education) Net blog posting by Carol Lynn Alpert (BIC requirements have an indirect impact on science museums which benefit from subawards and partnerships with researchers and research institutions seeking to fulfill their BIC obligations),

After reviewing comments from 5,100 stakeholders, the NSB [the National Science Board is the NSF’s governing body] has decided to retain both criteria, but to revise them in order to clarify their intent and “connection to NSF’s core principles” (NSF-11-42, available at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/06_mrtf.jsp).

As stated by the NSB, these core principles and national goals are led by concerns for global economic and workforce competitiveness, and for the first time allow that “broader impacts” may be achieved “through the research itself.”  This phrase has some worrying that a “BIC loophole” has been created, for it allows that the research itself may be “enough” to enhance U.S economic and workforce competitiveness, without the research team needing to specifically incorporate synergistic activities addressing concomitant K-12 education, diversity, or public engagement goals.

On July 13, AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science] submitted a letter to the Chairman of the NSB strongly objecting to what I am here referring to as the “BIC loophole.” AAAS said, “While increasing knowledge serves a public good, it is not always clear how publicly funded research can produce broader impacts unless it is applied and/or widely communicated beyond the scholarly community. The current language appears to offer researchers an excuse not to engage in a more thoughtful consideration of the criterion.”

Here’s a link to the full letter from the AAAS.

I find it fascinating that there’s a discussion about this in the US as the concept of scientists engaging in public outreach does not seem to exist in the same way in Canada. I was able to find Canadian science funding agencies that require some public outreach.  NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) has a general NSERC policy for public communication,

The Institution [receiving the grant] agrees to:

  1. identify, encourage and assist researchers to communicate with media and participate in announcement events to promote Agency-funded research;
  2. inform, at least five working days before the proposed announcement, if feasible, the Agency’s or Agencies’ public affairs or communications division – normally through the Institution’s own public affairs, communications, or research communications department – of announcements of Agency awards, programs and significant research results that the Institution proposes to make;
  3. include appropriate acknowledgement of the appropriate Agency or Agencies in all relevant public communications issued by the Institution;
  4. respect the relevant Agency or Agencies’ obligation under the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada;
  5. respect the relevant Agency or Agencies’ prerogative to make the first public announcement of its awards, grants and programs, when the relevant Minister declines to do so. It is the purview of a Minister or the Minister’s designate to make public announcements of all federal expenditures; and
  6. share with the Agency or Agencies any promotional material for the general public that is based on Agency-funded research.

So, this NSERC policy is aimed more at the universities and other institutions not the individual researcher.  Also, it seems to be more a guideline or general rule which provides a bit of a contrast  with the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) which lists public communication as a requirement for funding. From the CFI Policy and Program Guide, December 2010,

As part of filing their annual institutional reports (see secion 7.3.2), institutions must provide the CFI with information on the communication activities undertaken in the previous year, along with activities planned for the coming year that are designed to showcase the impacts and outcomes of CFI investments. Institutions are asked to provide information on media activity, publications (print and online) and special events. This information assists the CFI in identifying national trends in research communications, as well as opportunities for collaboration on communications initiatives with institutions. (p. 81)

Nano haiku and MOST summer camp

Leave a reply

The Milton J. Rubenstein Museum of Science and Technology (MOST) in Syracuse, New York is hosting a five-day summer science camp that combines nano haiku and education about nanotechnology. From the July 28, 2011 NISE (Nanoscale Informal Science Education) Net blog posting by Vrylena Olney,

Betty Jones from the Science Education department at MOST told me that she and the other educators have been interested in figuring out how much of the nano content the kids are retaining. To get a sense of that, they’ve had the campers keep journals and created the haiku activity.

The haiku activity involved about 20 minutes of discussion. To prepare, educators printed out big copies of some of the Nano Bite haikus to post near their cafeteria. On the last day of the camp, the campers and educators visited the Nano Haiku Fence and campers were invited to find one haiku that they could explain. They removed their haiku from the fence and brought it back to the classroom where either the camper or educator read the haiku aloud. The camper then explained what the haiku referred to and, if possible, an activity that they had done that related to the haiku. According to Betty, every camper was able to interpret their haiku correctly!

There are sessions for 8 – 11 year olds and, at least one session for 10 – 14 year olds.

Outreach coordinator job for Materials Research Society in Pennsylvania

Leave a reply

This month’s (August 2011) NISE (Nanoscale Informal Science Education) Net newsletter features a job posting,

The Materials Research Society, located in Warrendale, PA, seeks an experienced education or science outreach coordinator to develop, execute, and manage education, outreach and volunteer programs that support the society’s initiatives. Ideal candidates will have at minimum a bachelor’s degree in education or equivalent and 3 years experience working in education and outreach science program development. For more information and to apply, email resume, cover letter, salary history, and 3 references to HRoutreach@mrs.org.

You can find this and other job postings in the Materials Research sector here.

Making nanotechnology-enabled body parts

Leave a reply

In my Aug. 2, 2011 posting, Body parts nano style, I mentioned a scaffolding, developed by Dr. Alex Seifalian, made of a biocomposite. Today’s (Aug. 16, 2011) news item on Nanowerk offers more information about the biocomposite,

The composite made from POSS® and PCU (Polyhedral Oligomeric Silsesquioxane & Poly (carbonateurea) Urethane) had been developed by Dr. Alex Seifalian of the University College London Medical School. The effort has been so effective that Dr. Seifalian says he now has six more tracheas on order. … Moreover the composite scaffold can be transformed into a human artery, vein, heart valve, tear duct or trachea. It might in the future be used to make larynxes, noses, breasts, ears or other parts of the human body.

Hybrid has developed a platform technology called POSS® (Polyhedral Oligomeric Silsesquioxane). It is a revolutionary new Nanotechnology based on silicon-derived building blocks that provide nanometerscale control to dramatically improve the properties of traditional polymers. They release no VOCs and, thereby, produce no odor or air pollution. They are biocompatible and recyclable. POSS® nanoscopic chemical technology provides unique opportunities to create revolutionary material combinations through a melding of the desirable properties of ceramics and polymers at the 1 nm length scale. These new combinations enable the circumvention of classic material performance trade-offs by exploiting the synergy and properties that only occur between materials at the nanoscale.

Yes, it’s a bit puffy with hype but that’s to be expected when the news item is released by the company, Hybrid Plastics, that produces at least part of the biocomposite (POSS®) used to create the scaffolding.

Reading artifacts and situating science

3 Replies

There’s a very interesting (if you like old things) workshop taking place at the Canada Science and Technology Museum Corporation in Ottawa from Aug. 15-19, 2011.  It’s the Reading Artifacts Summer Institute,

Discover alternative historical perspectives and methods in the midst of Canada’s largest collection in science, medicine and technology. Our annual artifact sessions in the CSTM storage facility bring together Canadian and international scholars from across the disciplinary spectrum. Participants immerse themselves in our collections gaining renewed appreciation for artifacts and the multiple, unpredictable stories they tell.

Guest faculty for 2011:

  • Dag Spicer, Senior Curator, Computer History Museum, Mountain View, California, USA
  • Cindy Stelmackowich, Faculty-Lecturer, Art History, School for Studies in Art and Culture, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Yes, it’s a little to apply for this year but if you’re interested for next year, contact David Pantalony, dpantalony@technomuses.ca

Students can get some financial assistance for travel through the Situating Science Cluster (SSC). It’s a programme of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC, one of Canada’s tricouncil funding agencies) with which I am unfamiliar. From the SSC home page,

Created in 2007 with the generous funding of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Strategic Knowledge Cluster grant, Situating Science is a seven-year project promoting communication [emphasis mine] and collaboration among humanists and social scientists that are engaged in the study of science and technology.

I wonder why they don’t promote communication with the rest of us.

Mesocosms and nanoparticles at Duke University

3 Replies

It’s that time of year when just about everybody seems to be on holidays and finding material to post about becomes harder than usual.  Consequently, I dug through some of my backfiles to find this piece on mesocosms and Duke University from November 2010.

From the article, Ecosystem experiments to assess the environmental impact of nanoparticles, by Whitney J. Howell published November 25, 2010 on Nanowerk,

Deep inside Duke Forest, 32 alternate universes sit in quiet rows. They look identical – each with a puddle, some land, a few plants.

But wholly imperceptible to the naked eye, these plots have distinct and important differences.

The realms, known as mesocosms, house individual types of nanoparticles as part of a research effort conducted by the Center for the Environmental Implications of Nano Technology (CEINT) based at Duke University.

The mesocosms are (from the CEINT Mesocosm Construction page) “3ft x 12ft [constructed environments] where researchers can add nanoparticles [to study interactions] and effects on plants, fish, bacteria, and other elements within these contained systems.”

Mesocosm prototypes at Duke University (downloaded from Nanowerk)

According to Howell’s article (originally published in the Raleigh News & Observer), the mesocosm project at Duke should be winding up shortly,

To track where and at what levels the environment absorbs nanoparticles, CEINT began the yearlong mesocosm project in August [2011]. The findings will also reveal the effects of nanoparticle presence.

Each waist-high, 3-foot-by-12-foot box contains nanoparticles coated with a different substance, such as titanium dioxide or silver. By following the coating’s trail through the mesocosm, Wiesner said, researchers can pinpoint how the nanoparticles either positively or negatively alter their surroundings and at what levels they might become toxic.

For example, nanosilver has anti-microbial properties and could be a powerful disinfectant. But if high concentrations of the particles wipe out all surrounding bacteria and viruses – even those that may be benign or beneficial – the effects on plants and animals is unknown.

The Duke investigators are monitoring the mesocosm changes as nanosilver and other nanoparticle levels increase, hoping to identify which substances are most harmful to the environment and humans, and at what level they become worrisome.

CEINT’s external advisory board features Dr. Andrew Maynard, Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center (and mentioned here fairly frequently due to his longstanding expertise on nanotechnology [he was formerly the Chief Science Advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies based in Washington, DC]).

They’ve been busy at the CEINT, here’s where you can find a list of publications by the staff, including blockbusters such as,

Shoults-Wilson, WA, Zhurbich OI, McNear DH, Tsyusko OV, Bertsch PM, Unrine JM.  2011.  Evidence for avoidance of Ag [silver] nanoparticles by earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Ecotoxicology. 20:385-96. Abstract

And

Chae, SR, Hotze EM, Xiao Y, Rose J, Wiesner MR.  2010.  Comparison of Methods for Fullerene Detection and Measurements of Reactive Oxygen Production in Cosmetic Products. Environmental Engineering Science. 27:797-804. Abstract

You can find more of Whitney Howell’s work here.