Monthly Archives: October 2011

Aptamers and Maria DeRosa

Leave a reply

Today’s (Oct. 25, 2011) next interview is with Maria DeRosa of the DeRosa Lab at Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada) where she and her colleagues work on bionanotechnology projects. (The Highlighting the 2011 Dance Your Ph.D. contest posting featured a Ph.D student from her lab who is one of this year’s contest finalists.)

Before proceeding to the interview, here’s a little bit about the DeRosa Lab (from the website homepage),

The first step in the rational design of novel bionanotechnology is to find the right molecular components for the task. Our group seeks to investigate the use of chemically-modified nucleic acid aptamers, single stranded DNA or RNA sequences that specifically bind to a diverse variety of targets, in biosensing and catalysis.

Here’s some information about Dr. DeRosa,

Dr. Maria DeRosa’s research examines a type of nucleic acid called ‘aptamers’ that can fold into 3D nanoscale shapes capable of binding tightly to a specific molecular target.  Her group is focused on developing a better understanding of how these systems and using this information to design useful nanotechnology, like biosensors or “smart” delivery devices.  Dr. DeRosa received her Ph.D in Chemistry from Carleton University in 2003 and was presented with a University Senate Medal. She was awarded an NSERC Postdoctoral Fellowship to do research at the California Institute of Technology from 2004-2005 with Prof. Jackie Barton, a world-leader in DNA sensor research. In 2005, she returned to Carleton as a faculty member in the Chemistry Department. Her research group has received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and Alberta Innovates Biosolutions.  DeRosa was a recipient of the John Charles Polanyi Research Award for new researchers in 2006 and an Ontario Early Researcher Award in 2010.

Here’s the interview,

*   Are you one of those people who always wanted to be a scientist or was this something you discovered later?

I was never one of those people who knew what they wanted to do from an early age.  I thought about being a doctor, pharmacist, plumber, engineer, bank teller…  In high school, I had many great math and science teachers that inspired me to go into science when I started at Carleton University.  Then, in my third year I got a summer job working in Dr. Bob Crutchley’s research lab.  He was a great mentor and it was then that I started seriously thinking about a career as a scientist.  I loved the idea of research, that I was working on a problem and no one knew what the answer would be.  I wanted the answers!

*   How did you get interested in aptamers (and could you briefly describe what they are)?

Aptamers are synthetic pieces of DNA that can recognize and stick to a molecular target.  The targets can vary from things that are very small, like a drug molecule to something much larger, like bacteria or viruses.  Because they can recognize and stick to other molecules, people are interested in using them as receptors for sensors.  I had never even heard of them until about 2005.

After my Ph.D., I went to Caltech to do something called a postdoctoral fellowship.  It was a research position in the lab of Dr. Jackie Barton, one of the world’s top DNA researchers (she just won a National Medal of Science a couple days ago).  She wasn’t working with aptamers but she opened me up to the idea of using DNA in an “unnatural” way.  Most of us, when we are thinking of DNA, we think of our genes and that it is the blueprint for life.  But from a chemistry point of view, DNA is just another material that has certain chemical properties that can be useful for other applications.  In Jackie’s lab, I learned how to make synthetic DNA and I started reading about aptamers.  I found the whole field fascinating and I knew that I wanted to be a part of it.

*   What applications are there for your work? (I noticed that you discussed fertilizers in your TEDxCarleton talk. Is agriculture an area of particular interest?)

Applications for aptamers mostly stem from their ability to bind tightly and selectively to other molecules.  So, they are typically used in technology such as biosensors where they can serve to detect low levels of something, like a toxin or a virus for example, in another matrix.  We’re developing aptamers for the detection of mycotoxins (toxins that come from moulds) in crops and food.  We’re also working on aptamers for norovirus (the virus that causes Norwalk, that awful stomach bug) so that we can catch it if it is in meat and other foods before they get sent off to stores.

We are also trying to use aptamers for triggered delivery of drugs and/or nutrients.  In many cases with drugs, we want them to act on certain cells or tissues and not on others.  So, we need to be able to control where the drug is released in the body.  There is a similar problem in agriculture.  We want to give crops certain nutrients from fertilizers but if we deliver them at the wrong time, they will be washed away and not taken up by the crop.  This leads to major economic losses for the farmer and problems for the environment.  With our work, the idea is that we use the aptamer to control the release of whatever we are delivering.  We incorporate the aptamer into a coating that covers the drug or nutrient.  The aptamer is there to recognize a stimulus that we want to use to release the contents.  For drug delivery, that stimulus might be a cancer cell or a disease biomarker.  For fertilizers, that stimulus might a be a plant signal that corresponds to the plant’s need for nutrients.  (We are working with Dr.Carlos Monreal from Agriculture and Agrifood Canada on the fertilizer project, and he is an expert in these plant signals and ‘smart fertilizers’.)  In the absence of that signal, the coating does not allow the release of the drug or nutrient.  But, once the aptamer recognizes that key signal, the aptamer distorts or destroys the coating and it allows the nutrient to be released.

*   According to the information on your lab website, you are the recipient of Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) Leaders Opportunity Fund (LOF) monies. Are these funds being applied to a particular project in your lab or are they used to support your general area of research?

CFI funds helped us to build our facility called the LADDER (Laboratory for Aptamer Discovery and Development of Emerging Research applications).  That funding allowed us to get the state-of-the-art equipment we need to support all of our research projects.  Without CFI funding, our work would not be possible!

*   Given your TEDxCarleton talk and your involvement in the 2011 Canadian Science Writers conference (researchers’ speed dating [I couldn’t confirm it but I’m pretty sure I saw your name listed for this event]), I gather you’re quite interested in public outreach. Why do you think it’s important?

Yes, I was at that ‘speed dating’ event and I am very committed to science outreach.  The public helps to support my research through funding like NSERC and CFI, so I think it is critical that I can explain to them what it is that I do, why it is important, and why their money is well-spent.  The general public may not know what an aptamer is, but they all realize the importance of keeping our food free of toxins or the need to make drugs that are better able to target disease.

*   I noticed that one of your students is a finalist in the Dance your Ph.D 2011 contest. And it’s not the first time. Do you find a lot of scientists with ‘dance’ tendencies are attracted to your lab? Are you one of those scientists?

My students won the competition last year and then they were finalists again this year!  I’m not sure if dancers are attracted to my lab or if my students are just as committed to outreach as I am!  My students are very excited to talk about their research with anyone who will listen.  This contest is a fun way to explain their work to everyday people.  Friends and family, after watching these dances online, have told me that they finally understand what is going on in my lab.  Maybe I should dance more!  (I’m not a dancer and you will not find me in either video…I support them from the sidelines!)

*   Is there anything you would like to add?

Thanks for profiling me and it has been fun!

Maria, thank you for this intriguing peek into your research, the field of DNA nanotechnology, and your (and shared by your students) commitment to public science outreach. I’m very happy you managed to cram the time to answer these questions into your schedule.

Nanoparticle size doesn’t matter

2 Replies

Does size matter when regulating nanomaterials? As I’ve noted (more than once), I waffle on this issue. Earlier this week, I featured my thoughts on Health Canada’s definition of nanomaterial (Oct. 24, 2011)  and posted an interview with Dr. Andrew Maynard (Oct. 24, 2011) where he expressed reservations about basing nanomaterial regulations on definitions which rely on  nanoparticle size.

Hours after posting my thoughts and the interview with Andrew, I came across this Oct. 24, 2011 news item on Nanowerk titled, Nanoparticles and their size may not be big issues. From the news item,

If you’ve ever eaten from silverware or worn copper jewelry, you’ve been in a perfect storm in which nanoparticles were dropped into the environment, say scientists at the University of Oregon.

Since the emergence of nanotechnology, researchers, regulators and the public have been concerned that the potential toxicity of nano-sized products might threaten human health by way of environmental exposure.

Now, with the help of high-powered transmission electron microscopes, chemists captured never-before-seen views of miniscule metal nanoparticles naturally being created by silver articles such as wire, jewelry and eating utensils in contact with other surfaces. It turns out, researchers say, nanoparticles have been in contact with humans for a long, long time. [emphasis mine]

…

“Our findings show that nanoparticle ‘size’ may not be static, especially when particles are on surfaces. For this reason, we believe that environmental health and safety concerns should not be defined — or regulated — based upon size,” said James E. Hutchison, who holds the Lokey-Harrington Chair in Chemistry. [emphasis mine] “In addition, the generation of nanoparticles from objects that humans have contacted for millennia suggests that humans have been exposed to these nanoparticles throughout time. Rather than raise concern, I think this suggests that we would have already linked exposure to these materials to health hazards if there were any.”

This discussion is becoming quite interesting.

Reaching out with big science panel at the 2011 Canadian Science Policy Conference

4 Replies

Today’s 2011 Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) interview is with Dr. Tim Meyer, Head of Strategic Planning & Communication for TRIUMF who will be one of the presenters on the Reaching out with big science panel. Here’s a little more about Tim (from Tim Meyer’s profile page on the TRIUMF website),

Dr. Timothy Meyer came to TRIUMF from the U.S. National Academies in Washington, D.C.. At the National Academies, Meyer was a senior program officer at the Board on Physics and Astronomy. He received a Notable Achievement Award from the [US] NRC’s Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences in 2003 and a Distinguished Service Award from the National Academies in 2004. Meyer joined the NRC staff in 2002 after earning his Ph.D. in experimental particle physics from Stanford University. His doctoral thesis concerned the time evolution of the B meson in the BaBar experiment at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. His work also focused on radiation monitoring and protection of silicon-based particle detectors. He is a member of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Canadian Science Writers Association, American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Materials Research Society, and Phi Beta Kappa.

Here’s a little more on the Reaching out with big science panel. From the CSPC agenda page,

The public often learns of developments in science in the media distilled from press offices at peer-reviewed journals or universities. In a few cases, research institutions such as the Mayo Clinic and CERN have also developed a reputation for being seen as authoritative sources of science news and information for the public. In recent years, the Canadian research landscape has grown to feature a number of ‘big science’ facilities. These institutions, such as TRIUMF, Ocean Networks Canada, the Canadian Light Source, SNOLab and the Perimeter Institute, conduct research at the forefront of science – often at the convergence of science disciplines and with a scope and scale that is larger than traditional research institutions in government or the academy. In addition to research, all of these laboratories also engage in a number of forms of public engagement and outreach, ranging from media relations to classroom education. In a media landscape where science reporting is becoming increasingly fractured, what role do Canada’s big science facilities have in being sources of science news, information and education?

Here is the interview that Tim kindly gave during a period when he has been traveling extensively on behalf of TRIUMF,

  • For those who are not familiar with TRIUMF could you please give a brief description of it and an explanation of how it fits into the Canadian science landscape?

TRIUMF IS CANADA’S NATIONAL LABORATORY FOR PARTICLE AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS.  IT IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY A CONSORTIUM OF 17 CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES FROM COAST TO COAST.  TRIUMF WAS FORMED MORE THAN 40 YEARS AGO TO POOL RESOURCES AND TALENTS FOR RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WAS TOO COMPLEX AND EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN BY A SINGLE UNIVERSITY.

THE TRIUMF TEAM INCLUDES ABOUT 350 STAFF ON 12 ACRES IN VANCOUVER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE UBC CAMPUS. TRIUMF OPERATES 5 DIFFERENT ACCELERATORS INCLUDING THE WORLD’S LARGEST CYCLOTRON.

TRIUMF IS UNIQUE IN CANADA AND ONE OF THE TOP THREE LABORATORIES IN THE WORLD FOR CAPABILITIES TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOP ISOTOPES FOR SCIENCE AND MEDICINE.

TRIUMF IS ONE MEMBER OF A FAMILY OF NATIONAL LABORATORIES IN CANADA INCLUDING THE CANADIAN LIGHT SOURCE [represented on the panel], SNOLAB, PERIMETER INSTITUTE [represented on the panel], AND THE CANADIAN NEUTRON BEAM CENTRE.

  • I’ve read the description for this panel and wonder how this fits into a science policy conference. Is there going to be some link made between public engagement and public policy?

ABSOLUTELY. THIS PANEL SESSION SHOWS UP FOR TWO REASONS.  FIRST, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS PART OF THE OBLIGATION OF PUBLICY-FUNDED RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.  EITHER TO SHARE THE BENEFITS OF THE RESEARCH OR SHARE THE INSPIRATION THAT COMES FROM DISCOVERY… OR ANY OTHER NUMBER OF REASONS.  SO IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE POLICY, THIS PANEL WILL DISCUSS HOW THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND “SHARING” FROM LARGE SCIENCE FACILITIES MIGHT DIFFER FROM THAT OF INIDIVUAL RESEARCHERS—OR EVEN WHETHER LARGE SCIENCE FACILITIES HAVE A LARGER OBLIGATION.

SECOND, LARGE SCIENCE FACILITIES PRESENT A CHALLENGE FOR TRADITIONAL SCIENCE POLICY BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT LARGE UP-FRONT CAPITAL COMMITMENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT ONGOING OPERATING COSTS.  WHAT IS THE RESPONSIBLE APPROACH FOR MANAGING A PORTFOLIO OF THESE LABORATORIES?  IN THIS PANEL DISCUSSION, WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THE SOME OF UNIQUE FEATURES OF NATIONAL SCIENCE FACILITIES THAT MAKE THEM INVALUABLE AS WELL AS OUTLINE SOME ROUTES FOR IMPROVING THEIR STEWARDSHIP.  SO THIS PANEL DISCUSSION WILL ENGAGE THE ENGAGERS IN AN ENGAGING CONVERSATION!

  • Could you briefly discuss some of the public outreach and engagement initiatives taken by TRIUMF?

TRIUMF’S STRATEGIC PLANNING AND COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE (SPCO) OVERSEES PUBLIC RELATIONS, CONFERENCE SERVICES, PUBLICATIONS, AND EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES AT THE LAB.  FOR INSTANCE, TRIUMF CO-SPONSORS A MONTHLY LECTURE SERIES FOR HIGH-SCHOOL STUDENTS ON BREAKING-NEWS TOPICS IN PHYSICS FOR PEOPLE IN THE VANCOUVER METRO AREA.  TRIUMF ALSO SELECTS 2-3 OF THE TOP BC AREA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND WARDS THEM A SUMMER RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP AT THE LAB ALONGSIDE THE WORLD’S BEST SCIENTISTS.  TRIUMF ACTIVELY PARTICIPATES IN CONVERSATIONS TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE.  DURING THE FIRST MONTH AFTER THE FUKUSHIMA CRISIS, TRIUMF PROVIDED INVALUABLE COUNSEL TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE MEDIA ABOUT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING ON.  ELSEWHERE, TRIUMF HAS PROVIDED EXPERTS TO SCREENINGS OF SCIENCE-RELATED FILMS PART OF THE VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL.  WE ALSO USE TWITTER TO CALL ATTENTION TO IMPORTANT SCIENCE DEVELOPMENTS AND WE ARE DEVELOPING A LIBRARY OF ENTERTAINING “BEHIND THE SCENES” VIDEOS ON OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL ABOUT RESEARCH AT TRIUMF.  TRIUMF HAS BEEN AN OPINION AND TECHNOLOGY LEADER IN CANADA’S DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MEDICAL-ISOTOPE CRISIS, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON POLICY TOPICS SHAPED BY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

  • I’m surprised by the failure to include social media as part of the new science communications landscape. Do you have any thoughts on that exclusion?

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT’S NOT INCLUDED? YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE TALKS YET!  JUST TEASING.  WE WILL ALL CERTAINLY BE TALKING ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA AND WE’LL EVEN BE TWEETING AND BLOGGING LIVE FROM THE CONFERENCE.

  • Can you offer a preview of what you, in particular, will be discussing during the panel session?

WELL, I DON’T SPOIL EVERYTHING, BUT HERE’S WHAT I CAN SAY IN ADVANCE.  I WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE SET OF MOTIVATIONS FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT FOR RESEARCH LABORATORIES.  NATIONAL SCIENCE FACILITIES ARE NOT THE BE-ALL, END-ALL FOR RESEARCH AND SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, BUT THEY PLAY A CLEAR, UNMISTAKABLE ROLE THAT IS INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT. I WILL DISTINGUISH THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A NATIONAL SCIENCE FACILITY FROM THOSE OF INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH EFFORTS.  I WILL ALSO DISCUSS HOW THE PUBLIC ROLE OF A LABORATORY IS EVOLVING IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT AS WELL AS THE VERY-MUCH-IN-DEMAND CONTEXT OF INNOVATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION.

  • Is there anything you would like to add?

(1) MANY FEEL THAT PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION IS JUST A SELF-SERVING TRICK OF SCIENTISTS—IF MORE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE, THEY’LL LIKE IT, AND THEN WANT TO SPEND MORE TAX DOLLARS ON IT.  THIS SIMPLISTIC LOGIC HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE.  THERE IS NO PROSELYTIZING GOING ON.  WE’RE NOT HERE TO MAKE YOU LIKE SCIENCE SO YOU LIKE US!  WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS GIVING BACK TO KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PUBLIC AND ABOUT ADVANCING SOCIETY.

(2) THE CANADIAN SCIENCE POLICY CONFERNECE IS AN IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD FOR CANADA.  IT AIMS TO PROVIDE A FORUM FOR KEY ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED AND EXAMINED.  THE KEY CHALLENGE IS TO DRIVE THE FIELD FORWARD BY RESOLVING SOME OF THESE ISSUES.  BETTER AND BETTER INFORMED HAND-WRINGING ABOUT THE STATE OF SCIENCE OR INNOVATION (I.E., JUST COMPLAINING) IN CANADA IS GOING TO GET OLD.  THE OPPORTUNITY OF THIS CONFERENCE, AND THE INTENTION OF THE ORGANIZERS, IS TO START TO GENERATE A NEW CONVERSATION.  WHAT ARE THE BASELINES EXPECTATIONS FOR SCIENCE?  WHAT RESULTS HAVE WE ACHIEVED WITH OUR RECENT INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS?   WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE QUESTIONS, WE START MOVING THE ENTIRE COUNTRY FORWARD.

Thank you, Tim. I’m very grateful you managed to squeeze this interview into your schedule. I imagine this will be a lively presentation given your comments.

Education and training of scientists panel at the 2011 Canadian Science Policy Conference

1 Reply

On the heels of my last posting which featured Science magazine’s 2011 Dance Your Ph.D. contest, it seems like a good idea to follow up with another science student-themed posting.

Dr. David Kent who will be moderating the Education and training panel at the 2011 Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) being held in Ottawa, Canada from Nov. 16 – 18, 2011 has enthusiastically granted me an interview. (My Oct. 19, 2011 posting featured a description of the 2011 CSPC conference and highlighted some of the events.)

First, here’s a little bit about David (from the 2011 CSPC conference website),

Dr. David Kent is a CIHR [Canadian Institutes of Health Research] postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cambridge, UK. He currently sits on the executive of the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars and created the website The Black Hole which provides information on and analysis of issues related to science trainees in Canada. Previously, Dr. Kent served as joint coordinator for the UBC branch of the Let’s Talk Science Partnership Program (2004-07), an award winning national science outreach program. Dr. Kent grew up in St. John’s, NL, obtained a B.Sc. in Genetics and English Literature at the University of Western Ontario and completed his Ph.D. in blood stem cell biology at the University of British Columbia. He has been awarded scholarships or fellowships from the CIHR, NSERC, the Canadian Stem Cell Network, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, and the Lady Tata Memorial Trust. His current laboratory research focuses on normal blood stem cells and how changes in their regulation lead to cancers.

Here’s the description of the panel (Education and training of scientists) David will be moderating,

Over the past 15 years, there has been an enormous shift in the human resources performing scientific research. The training period has lengthened significantly and adjustments must be made to address the growing concerns of young scientists. Many individuals, who do not have permanent positions, share a unique set of experiences and challenges that need to be better addressed in order to avoid wasting the substantial resources invested in their education and training.

This panel aims to address two main themes:

  1. Are we producing too many biomedical research trainees?
  2. What careers will the large majority of highly specialized PhDs undertake and who should facilitate these transitions?

Presentations and discussion from Alan Bernstein (Founding Director of CIHR), Angela Crawley (Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars), Suzanne Fortier (President of NSERC), and Olga Stachova (COO, MITACS) will be introduced and moderated by David Kent (University of Cambridge and founder of http://scienceadvocacy.org, aka The Black Hole).

Here’s  the interview,

  • I’m intrigued by the description for this panel which asks a highly specific question (Are there too many biomedical research trainees?) and a much more general question (What careers will the majority of highly specialized PhD undertake and who should facilitate the transition?). Assuming that you proposed the panel, how did you arrive at these two questions in particular?

The first question definitely has its origins in Jeff Sharom’s piece in Hypothesis Journal (http://www.hypothesisjournal.com/pdfs/vol6num1/17.pdf) who queried whether we were producing too many biomedical trainees.  It is also a great way to capture a large issue under a simple title, but by no means would I consider it specific and I think just about anybody you ask would have the answer “it depends…” followed by discussions ranging from the demands of a knowledge-based economy to keeping young people out of the workforce for a few more years.

As for the second question, I see this one having a much more straightforward answer as it is really an attempt to assign responsibility to a sector of society to help deal with the problem – I’d like the panel and delegates to help steer future advocacy efforts to address the fundamental issues.

  • Given that you are currently working as a postdoc at the University of Cambridge, would you be asking these same questions on a UK panel and if not, why not?

The UK is a very different beast, but I think there is still overlap – in particular, the challenges facing those seeking an academic post and those debating whether or not to leave the academy.  The one thing that is very different in the UK – and I’m torn as to whether or not it’s a good thing or a bad thing – is that time-to-degree is substantially shorter with PhD programs lasting 3-4 years.  If you’re equipping people to go off into other careers, this is brilliant because they don’t get stuck in a very long PhD, but rather come out with the nuts and bolts of a PhD training.  However, this sort of system also tends to lead to what I would call “safe” projects that will yield results in the limited time frame and leave little room for exploring risky projects.  We talk about this in an old entry on the Black Hole called “The Rise of the Cookie-cutter PhD” (http://scienceadvocacy.org/Blog/2009/11/17/science-is-like-baking-the-rise-of-the-cookie-cutter-phd/)

  • Will you be acting as a moderator only or will you also speak to the questions? If you do speak to the questions, could you give a preview of your presentation?

I will introduce the panel and in doing so will try to set the stage for the audience – chart the change in demographics, highlight the issue of career stasis in academic labs, etc.  Much of my presentation will draw from entries on the Black Hole such as the Changing Human Resources in Academia, Say no to the second Postdoc, and Professionals in High Demand.  Briefly, I’ll show statistics on the longer training times and summarize the unrest in academic labs.  In the moderation of the panel discussion, I’ll include some resources on how some universities have started to tackle the issues and some innovative programs that are helping young academics make choices sooner.

  • What do you hope will be the outcome(s) of having this panel at the 2011 CSPC?

For me, the biggest mission is awareness – I want policy makers, granting councils, and industry leaders to recognize the growth in highly trained scientists and the immense number of talented people that often finds themselves “stuck”.  These are people who have trained for nearly a decade and only a fraction of them can end up on the path they have been trained for (unlike doctors, lawyers, accounts)

A complete bonus would be to get some strategies for unsticking these people and some guidance on where to broach the issue.  We’ll see how it goes!

  • Is there anything you would like to add?

The only final thing I would suggest is for young scientists who have any sort of inclination toward or interest in science policy to get out there early – two or three days at a conference like the CSPC can be career changing or it could simply allow you to better understand the machinery that ends up impacting how you will be funded, how your trainees will be trained, and how research gets (or doesn’t get) incorporated into government policy.  Take off the blinders once in a while and try something new.

Thank you for taking the time to provide some insight into your topic and your presentation. I wish you and your panel the best of luck at the conference.

ETA Nov. 9, 2011: For Twitter purposes I decided to call this panel the ‘Kill all your darlings/science grads” panel. “Kill all your darlings” is a phrase I came across that describes what writers sometimes have to do when they edit a piece and must cut a wonderful sentence or phrase because it doesn’t fit. I gather that there is a problem (not only in Canada) with fitting science grads into the larger science enterprise.

Highlighting the 2011 Dance Your Ph.D. contest

1 Reply

Science magazine (published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]) has been holding a Dance Your PhD contest since 2008* (as best I can determine from a Sept. 17, 2010 posting by Katherine for SciFri). In any case, this year they received a record number of entries (from an Oct. 14, 2011 posting by John Bohannon on Science Now),

Have you ever wondered what nanotube chemistry might look like as a dance? Or fruit fly sex? Or protein x-ray crystallography? Look no further. As part of the 2011 Dance Your Ph.D. contest, scientists who study those phenomena and more have converted their research into dance videos for your enjoyment and edification. And today the 16 finalists of this annual contest are revealed below.

A record 55 dances were created for this year’s contest, submitted by scientists around the globe, from the United States and Canada to Europe, India, and Australia. As the contest rules state, each dance must be based on the scientist’s own Ph.D. research thesis, and that scientist must participate in the dance. For many of the graduate students who danced, the research they depicted is still ongoing. For some of the older contestants, the project is a distant, perhaps harrowing memory from their early days in science. The dances are divided into four categories based on subject: physics, chemistry, biology, and social science. (The criteria for those categories are explained here.)

One of this year’s finalists is from the DeRosa lab at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Titled, “DNA Aptamers as a Tool for Studying Mental Health Disease.” Erin McConnell and her troop are featured in the video below, *ETA February 27, 2024: The video is no longer here, please follow the link to Vimeo: DNA Aptamers as a Tool for Studying Mental Health Disease from Erin McConnell on Vimeo.*

I haven’t had time to review the other finalists but given this one, I can hardly wait.

The DeRosa lab also had a finalist in last year’s Dance Your PhD contest. It’s not the only reason I contacted the lab’s leader, Maria DeRosa but it did add a piquant flavour to my interview with her, which I will be posting tomorrow (Oct. 25, 2011).

*ETA Oct 24, 2011 1500 hours: There is an Oct. 18, 2011 article by Bob Weber for the Globe and Mail newspaper about the Canadian finalists in the 2011 Dance Your PhD contest. The contest was informally created in 2007 according to its originator John Bohannon.

Dr. Andrew Maynard discusses the Health Canada nanomaterial definition

1 Reply

I have often referred to and linked to Andrew Maynard’s writing on nanotechnology issues and am pleased to note he has kindly answered some questions about the Health Canada Working Definition of Nanomaterial. Before launching into his responses, here’s a little more about him.

Dr. Andrew Maynard was originally trained as a physicist and graduated with a PhD from Cambridge, UK  in 1993. He worked for a number of years for the UK Health and Safety Executive moving to the US to work with the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety where he helped set up a nanotechnology safety programme post 2000 when the NNI was established. By 2005, he was employed at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies as their Chief Science Advisor. As of April 2010, he assumed responsibility as director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. He consults internationally on nanotechnology safety issues. He was a member of the expert panel consulted for the nanotechnology report, Small is Different; A Science Perspective on the Regulatory Challenges of Nanotechnology, published by the Council of Canadian Academies in 2008.

Since the 2008 report for the Council of Canadian Academies, Andrew has adopted a different approach to regulating nanotechnology, a change I first noted in an April 15, 2011 posting on the University of Michigan Risk Science Center blog. Excerpted from that posting,

Engineered nanomaterials present regulators with a conundrum – there is a gut feeling that these materials present a new regulatory challenge, yet the nature and resolution of this challenge remains elusive.  But as the debate over the regulation of nanomaterials continues, there are worrying signs that discussions are being driven less by the science of how these materials might cause harm, and more by the politics of confusion and uncertainty.

The genesis of the current dilemma is entirely understandable. Engineered nanomaterials are typically the product of nanotechnology – a technology that has been lauded as leading to designed materials with unique physical and chemical properties.   Intuitively it makes sense that these unique properties could lead to unique risks.  And indeed a rapidly growing body of research is indicating that many nanoscale materials behave differently to their non-nanoscale counterparts in biological environments. Logically, it seems to follow that engineered nanomaterials potentially present risks that depend on their scale, and should be regulated appropriately.

Yet the more we learn about how materials interact with biology, the less clear it becomes where the boundaries of this class of materials called “nanomaterials” lie, or even whether this is a legitimate class of material at all from a regulatory perspective.

I waffle somewhat largely due to my respect for Andrew and his work and due to my belief that one needs to entertain new approaches for the emerging technologies, even when they make your brain hurt. (Before proceeding with Andrew’s comments and for anyone who’s interested in my take here is, My thoughts on the Health Canada nanomaterial definition.)

In any event, here are Andrew’s responses to my questions,

  • I have warm feelings towards this definition, especially the elaboration where I think they avoided the problem of including naturally occuring nanoparticles (as per your comment about micelles in milk); and they specify a size range without being doctrinaire about it. How do you feel about it, given that you’re not in favour of definitions?

The problem is that, while the Health Canada is a valiant attempt to craft a definition based on the current state of science, it is still based on a premise – that size within a well defined range is a robust indicator of novel risk – that is questionable.  Granted, they try to compensate for the limitations of this premise, but the result still smacks of trying to shoehorn the science into an assumption of what is important.

  • Do you see any pitfalls?

A large part of the problem here is an attempt to oversimplify a complex problem, without having a clear understanding of what the problem is in the first place.  Much of my current thinking – including questioning current approaches to developing definitions – revolves round trying to work out what the problem is before developing the solution.  But this makes commenting on the adequacy or inadequacy of definitions tricky, to say the least.

  • Is there anything you’d like to add?

My sincere apologies, I’ve just got to 5:00 PM on Sunday [Oct. 23, 2011] after working flat out all weekend, and am not sure I have the wherewithal to tackle this before collapsing in a heap.

I am hugely thankful that Dr. Maynard extended himself to answer my questions about the Health Canada definition of nanomaterial. To Andrew: a virtual bouquet of thanks made up of the most stunning flowers and scents you can imagine.

My thoughts on the Health Canada nanomaterial definition

2 Replies

In my Oct. 11, 2011 posting, I noted that Health Canada had released both its nanomaterial definition and its response to the public consultation that took place in 2010. Unfortunately, it’ s not possible to attempt the same sort of  analysis (mentioned in my Oct. 21, 2011 posting) that Dr. Andrew Maynard applied to the US government (National Nanotechnology Initiative) public consultation on EHS (environmental, health and safety) research strategy as Health Canada did not make the submissions available for viewing.

In my first posting, I focused largely on the public consultation aspects, now I’d like to look more closely at the definition itself (especially in the wake of the European Commission’s Oct. 19, 2011 announcement of its nanomaterials definition). Note: Health Canada says nanomaterial; European Commission says nanomaterials.

Here’s the definition (from the Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterial webpage),

4.1 Health Canada’s Working Definition of Nanomaterial

Health Canada considers any manufactured substance or product and any component material, ingredient, device, or structure to be nanomaterial if:

  1. It is at or within the nanoscale in at least one external dimension, or has internal or surface structure at the nanoscale, or;
  2. It is smaller or larger than the nanoscale in all dimensions and exhibits one or more nanoscale properties/phenomena.

For the purposes of this definition:

  1. The term “nanoscale” means 1 to 100 nanometres, inclusive;
  2. The term “nanoscale properties/phenomena” means properties which are attributable to size and their effects; these properties are distinguishable from the chemical or physical properties of individual atoms, individual molecules and bulk material; and,
  3. The term “manufactured” includes engineering processes and the control of matter.

4.2 Elaboration

The Working Definition is not an additional source of authority, but works within the existing regulatory frameworks that allow for obtaining information.

Information is submitted to Health Canada regulatory programs as required by legislation and their associated regulations. Within these legislative and regulatory frameworks, Health Canada may request specific information (see Section 6) for a regulated substance or product that is, or contains, a nanomaterial as described in the Working Definition.

The term “manufactured” includes engineering processes and control of matter that lead to the synthesis, generation, fabrication or isolation of nanomaterials. Health Canada may request information regarding a deliberately or incidentally manufactured nanomaterial for risk assessment purposes. This term also includes natural components that have been deliberately used or engineered to have nanoscale properties/phenomena, used in nanoscale encapsulation of bioactive compounds, or used in tissue engineering.

“Part a” of the Working Definition relates to current evidence suggesting that nanoscale properties/phenomena are more likely observable at the scale of 1-100 nanometres (more often at the lower end) and “Part b” reflects that it is possible for nanoscale properties/ phenomena to be exhibited outside this size range, such as select quantum devices.

A variety of lexicons and interpretations of “nano-terminology” currently exist, underlining the importance of understanding the context in which these terms are used. In the risk assessment context supporting hazard and exposure assessment for risk characterization and management, the term “nanoscale properties/phenomena” refers to size-related properties which have qualities or characteristics that do not readily extrapolate from those observed in individual atoms, molecules or bulk materials. For example, “bulk” gold is not very reactive, but nanoscale gold can act as a chemical catalyst. For risk assessment purposes, this term includes observable biological or environmental effects resulting from size-related properties as described above. Examples of such biological or environmental effects could be increased permeability through cell membranes or increased reactivity of iron/iron oxides for the purposes of groundwater remediation, respectively.

Internal or surface structures at the nanoscale include nanomaterials that are aggregated or agglomerated to form a larger group. While the break-up of aggregates is less likely, a larger group could be broken down into component nanomaterials in the human body or the environment. Some regulatory programs may request information above the 100 nm size range to an upper limit of 1000 nm in order maintain flexibility to assess potential nanomaterials, including suspected nanoscale properties/phenomena. The 1000 nm cut-off attempts to separate characteristics attributable to macro-scaled materials from those of nanomaterials. However, a product or substance that contains nanomaterial could measure beyond 1 micron in size (for example (e.g.) bundles of carbon nanotubes that are very long). In these cases, regardless of the size, information may be requested for risk assessment purposes.

In addition to requesting information about nanomaterials, information regarding particles above the 100 nm size range may also be requested by some regulatory programs to assess possible biological effects that could be attributable to their dimension or size. These approaches may be applied on a case-by-case basis or to a whole product class.

While not expressly stated in the Working Definition, information regarding nanomaterial size distribution, especially number size distribution, is also relevant for risk assessment purposes.

Currently, there is insufficient evidence to establish common threshold values for size distributions of relevance across all substances and product lines that Health Canada regulates.

I find the fact that this is called a ‘working’ definition immediately establishes a very different frame of reference as the term ‘working’ in this context suggests flexibility. like a ‘working’ hypothesis which can by redefined as more information becomes available. You can find a longer definition for working hypothesis in this Wikipedia essay.

The first two items in the definition are very generalized (in fact, downright vague) but this changes when the meaning of the terms are described where everything becomes more specific. It’s only when reading the elaboration that one realizes how very carefully this definition has been constructed. They have given themselves a lot of ‘wiggle room’. For example,  “”Part a” of the Working Definition relates to current evidence suggesting that nanoscale properties/phenomena are more likely observable at the scale of 1-100 nanometres (more often at the lower end) and “Part b” reflects that it is possible for nanoscale properties/ phenomena to be exhibited outside this size range, such as select quantum devices.”  [emphasis mine]

I’m still waffling as to whether or not a definition is necessary although I’m inclined to say yes to a definition when I see something like this. I think a good balance has been struck between caution and unnecessary (at this time) regulation. E.g., ” Currently, there is insufficient evidence to establish common threshold values for size distributions of relevance across all substances and product lines that Health Canada regulates.” [emphasis mine]

Report on Review of Federal Support to R&D

1 Reply

It (Innovation Canada: A Call to Action) [ETA Oct. 25, 2011: Title corrected] is not a light read (it weighs in at 148 pp.) as one might expect when a comprehensive review of government programmes is made and given the pace that major reports are being released these days I’ve not had a chance to even skim through the report itself. However, there are some major recommendations being made, notably this one about the National Research Council (from the Review of Federal Support to R&D home page),

  • Transform the institutes of the National Research Council [NRC] into a series of large-scale, collaborative centres involving business, universities and the provinces.
  • The NRC was created during World War I to kick-start Canada’s research capacity. It has a long and storied history of discoveries and innovation, including numerous commercial spin-offs. While the NRC continues to do good work, research and commercialization activity in Canada has grown immensely.  In this new context, the NRC can play a unique role, linking its large-scale, long-term research activity with the academic and business communities. The panel recommends evolving NRC institutes, consistent with the current strategic direction, into not-for-profit centres run with stakeholders, and incorporating its public policy research into other departments.

The panel also suggests cutting down on the number of funding agencies and creating a portal or ‘concierge’ to help businesses find the right funding solution for their needs,

  • The creation of an Industrial Research and Innovation Council (IRIC) to deliver the federal government’s business innovation programs.
    • There are currently more than 60 programs across 17 different government departments. The creation of an arm’s-length funding and delivery agency – the Industrial Research and Innovation Council – would begin to streamline the process as the development of a common application portal and service to help businesses find the right programs for their needs (a “concierge”).

This next one seems more like a ‘buy Canada’ recommendation than anything else,

  • Make business innovation one of the core objectives of procurement.
    • The federal government spends billions of dollars every year but it ranks low internationally when it comes to using that purchasing power to encourage Canadian innovation. The encouragement of home-grown innovation a part of government procurement is commonsense.

I like this idea,

  • Help high-growth innovative firms access the risk capital they need through the Business Development Bank of Canada
    • Innovative Canadian companies face real challenges in getting start-up funding and late stage risk capital financing. In many cases, the gap is filled by foreign investors, which means that too many commercial benefits and intellectual property end up leaving the country. Directing the BDC to work with angel investor groups and develop late-stage risk capital/growth equity funds will pay dividends.

Simplifying certainly seems reasonable,

 ·Simplification of the tax credit system used to support small and medium-sized businesses.

  • The current Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) program is unnecessarily complicated: many small businesses hire consultants just to submit an application. This discourages eligible businesses from applying and may cost successful small SR&ED recipients a good portion of the credit received. By basing the SR&ED credit  solely on labour costs, the panel believes SR&ED will be more effective.

This one seems like one of those recommendations that are impossible to implement,

·Establish a clear federal voice for innovation and work with the provinces to improve coordination.

  • Currently, there is a lack of government-wide clarity when it comes to innovation. Responsibility is spread across a number of cabinet portfolios. The Prime Minister should assign responsibility for innovation to a single minister, supported by a whole-of-government Innovation Advisory Committee, evolved from the current Science Technology and Innovation Council (STIC), composed of external stakeholders, who would then work with the provincial and territorial governments to initiate a collaborative dialogue to improve coordination and impact.

I base my comment about the last recommendation on my experience with the gnashing of teeth I’ve observed when someone is going to lose an area of responsibility that is associated with power and other good things. Who do you imagine will want to give up innovation and what will they want in return?  Another question which springs to mind is this one: How are they going to develop a single voice for discussion of innovation across several federal bureaucracies with thousands of people and miles between them when even a small office of 20 people experiences difficulty doing this (again, this is based on my personal experience).

As for the suggested changes to the NRC? Well, those should provide some fodder for lively discussion. I’m sure the other items will provide conversational fodder too but it seems to me that the two I’ve highlighted in these comments are likely to be the among the most contentious.

Hannah Hoag in her Oct. 14, 2011 posting on the Nature news blog notes this,

  In an effort to address Canada’s problem with innovation, an independent panel has recommended a radical overhaul that includes the creation of a new funding council and transforms the country’s largest research entity, the billion dollar National Research Council (NRC).

Study after study has shown that Canada’s businesses invest less on R&D, relative to the country’s gross domestic product, than those of many other OECD countries and, unlike others, has actually decreased its spending over the last decade. Many of these business investments include government support in the form tax credits, training programs, or grants. [emphasis mine]

In an effort to make the best use of the government’s investments the six-member expertpanel developed six broad recommendations include appointing a Minister of Innovation and creating the Industrial Research and Innovation Council (IRIC).

Laura Payton writes in her Oct. 17, 2011 article for CBC news,

Canada’s research and development funding system is too complicated and confusing, a government-appointed panel [for the Review of Federal Support to R&D] said Monday.

Creating a new arm’s-length funding agency and putting a single cabinet minister in charge of innovation would streamline the application process and give the government a clear voice on the issue, Tom Jenkins, the panel’s chair said.

The idea is to cut red tape and make it easier for companies to get access to cash and increase collaboration.

“Going forward, more of the world’s innovations may well happen elsewhere, outside of Canada,” warned Jenkins, executive chairman and chief strategy officer of Waterloo, Ont.-based Open Text Corp.

“Governments in Canada spend more on supporting business R&D per capita than most countries in the industrialized world. And yet, we’re increasingly near the bottom of the pack when it comes to investing in business innovation. So if it’s not a lack of government investment, then why has our business R&D momentum been stalled for almost a decade?”

Gary Goodyear, minister of state for science and technology, said business investment and R&D help create high-paying, high-value jobs and maintain Canada’s standard of living.

Of course, none of the recommendations in the report from the expert panel address the core problem of Canadian businesses not investing in themselves. It simply wasn’t part of the brief and the title seems a little grandiose. Perhaps Government funding for innovation in Canada: A Call to Action might have been a better title.

While I think this review was an excellent exercise I am dismayed that one of the core problems (business investment) with innovation in Canada has not been addressed.

  • Help high-growth innovative firms access the risk capital they need through the Business Development Bank of Canada
    • Innovative Canadian companies face real challenges in getting start-up funding and late stage risk capital financing. In many cases, the gap is filled by foreign investors, which means that too many commercial benefits and intellectual property end up leaving the country. Directing the BDC to work with angel investor groups and develop late-stage risk capital/growth equity funds will pay dividends.

More on US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and EHS research strategy

Leave a reply

In my Oct, 18, 2011 posting I noted that the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) would be holding a webinar on Oct. 20, 2011 to announce an environmental, health, and safety (EHS) research strategy for federal agencies participating in the NNI. I also noted that I was unable to register for the event. Thankfully all is not lost. There are a couple of news items on Nanowerk which give some information about the research strategy. The first news item, U.S. government releases environmental, health, and safety research strategy for nanotechnology, from the NNI offers this,

The strategy identifies six core categories of research that together can contribute to the responsible development of nanotechnology: (1) Nanomaterial Measurement Infrastructure, (2) Human Exposure Assessment, (3) Human Health, (4) Environment, (5) Risk Assessment and Risk Management, and (6) Informatics and Modeling. The strategy also aims to address the various ethical, legal, and societal implications of this emerging technology. Notable elements of the 2011 NNI EHS Research Strategy include:

  • The critical role of informatics and predictive modeling in organizing the expanding nanotechnology EHS knowledge base;
  • Targeting and accelerating research through the prioritization of nanomaterials for research; the establishment of standardized measurements, terminology, and nomenclature; and the stratification of knowledge for different applications of risk assessment; and
  • Identification of best practices for the coordination and implementation of NNI interagency collaborations and industrial and international partnerships. “The EHS Research Strategy provides guidance to all the Federal agencies that have been producing gold-standard scientific data for risk assessment and management, regulatory decision making, product use, research planning, and public outreach,” said Dr. Sally Tinkle, NNI EHS Coordinator and Deputy Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), which coordinates activities of the 25 agencies that participate in the NNI. “This continues a trend in this Administration of increasing support for nanotechnology-related EHS research, as exemplified by new funding in 2011 from the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission and increased funding from both the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The other news item, Responsible development of nanotechnology: Maximizing results while minimizing risk, from Sally Tinkle, Deputy Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Tof Carim, Assistant Director for Nanotechnology at OSTP (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) adds this,

Core research areas addressed in the 2011 strategy include: nanomaterial measurement, human exposure assessment, human health, environment, risk assessment and management, and the new core area of predictive modeling and informatics. Also emphasized in this strategy is a more robust risk assessment component that incorporates product life cycle analysis and ethical, legal, and societal implications of nanotechnology. Most importantly, the strategy introduces principles for targeting and accelerating nanotechnology EHS research so that risk assessment and risk management decisions are based on sound science.

Progress in EHS research is occurring on many fronts as the NNI EHS research agencies have joined together to plan and fund research programs in core areas. For example, the Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health have researched the safety of nanomaterials used in skin products like sunscreen; the Environmental Protection Agency and Consumer Product Safety Commission are monitoring the health and environmental impacts of products containing silver nanoparticles, and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has recommended safe handling guidelines for workers in industries and laboratories.

Erwin Gianchandani of the Computing Community Consortium blog focuses, not unnaturally, on the data aspect of the research strategy in his Oct. 20, 2011 posting titled, New Nanotechnology Strategy Touts Big Data, Modeling,

From the EHS Research Strategy:

Expanding informatics capabilities will aid development, analysis, organization, archiving, sharing, and use of data that is acquired in nanoEHS research projects… Effective management of reliable, high-quality data will also help support advanced modeling and simulation capabilities in support of future nanoEHS R&D and nanotechnology-related risk management.

Research needs highlighted span “Big Data”…

Data acquisition: Improvements in data reliability and reproducibility can be effected quickly by leveraging the widespread use of wireless and video-enabled devices by the public and by standards development organizations to capture protocol detail through videos…

Data analysis: The need for sensitivity analysis in conjunction with error and uncertainty analysis is urgent for hazard and exposure estimation and the rational design of nanomaterials… Collaborative efforts in nanomaterial design [will include] curation of datasets with known uncertainties and errors, the use of sensitivity analysis to predict changes in nanomaterial properties, and the development of computational models to augment and elucidate experimental data.

Data sharing: Improved data sharing is a crucial need to accelerate progress in nanoscience by removing the barriers presented by the current “siloed” data environment. Because data must be curated by those who have the most intimate knowledge of how it was obtained and analyzed and how it will be used, a central repository to facilitate sharing is not an optimal solution. However, federating database systems through common data elements would permit rapid semantic search and transparent sharing over all associated databases, while leaving control and curation of the data in the hands of the experts. The use of nanomaterial ontologies to define those data elements together with their computer-readable logical relationships can provide a semantic search capability.

…and predictive modeling:

Predictive models and simulations: The turnaround times for the development and validation of predictive models is measured in years. Pilot websites, applications, and tools should be added to the NCN [Network for Computational Nanotechnology] to speed collaborative code development among relevant modeling and simulation disciplines, including the risk modeling community. The infrastructure should provide for collaborative code development by public and private scientists, code validation exercises, feedback through interested user communities, and the transfer of validated versions to centers such as NanoHUB… Collaborative efforts could supplement nanomaterial characterization measurements to provide more complete sensitivity information and structure-property relationships.

Gianchandani’s post provides an unusual insight into the importance of data where research is considered. I do recommend more of his posting.

Dr. Andrew Maynard on his 2020 Science blog has posted as of Oct. 20, 2011 with a comparison of the original draft to the final report,

Given the comments received, I was interested to see how much they had influenced the final strategy.  If you take the time to comment on a federal document, it’s always nice to know that someone has paid attention.  Unfortunately, it isn’t usual practice for the federal government to respond directly to public comments, so I had the arduous task of carrying out a side by side comparison of the draft, and today’s document.

As it turns out, there are extremely few differences between the draft and the final strategy, and even fewer of these alter the substance of the document.  Which means that, by on large, my assessment of the document at the beginning of the year still stands.

Perhaps the most significant changes were on chapter 6 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Methods. The final strategy presents a substantially revised set of current research needs, that more accurately and appropriately (in my opinion) reflect the current state of knowledge and uncertainty (page 66).  This is accompanied by an updated analysis of current projects (page 73), and additional text on page 77 stating

“Risk communication should also be appropriately tailored to the targeted audience. As a result, different approaches may be used to communicate risk(s) by Federal and state agencies, academia, and industry stakeholders with the goal of fostering the development of an effective risk management framework.”

Andrew examines the document further,

Comparing the final strategy to public comments from Günter Oberdörster [professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Rochester in NY state] on the draft document. I decided to do this as Günter provided some of the most specific public comments, and because he is one of the most respected experts in the field.  The specificity of his comments also provided an indication of the extent to which they had been directly addressed in the final strategy.

Andrew’s post is well worth reading especially if you’ve ever made a submission to a public consultation held by your government.

The research strategy and other associated documents are now available for access and the webinar will be available for viewing at a later date. Go here.

Aside, I was a little surprised that I was unable to register to view the webinar live (I wonder if I’ll encounter the same difficulties later). It’s the first time I’ve had a problem viewing any such event hosted by a US government agency.

Technology impact on creativity contest and the day radio killed music

Leave a reply

I’ve been meaning to post this for a couple weeks now. There’s a video contest being run by the Insight Community (it’s affiliated with Techdirt a website where they publish information about copyright and other intellectual property issues, innovation, and more) with a $1000 US prize. From the Oct. 6 (?), 2011 posting,

A few weeks ago we wrote about a contest that NBC Universal was putting on, officially through New York City, asking students to make propaganda films, repeating NBC Universal/MPAA talking points about how copyright infringement was damaging NBC Universal.  In going through the fine print on the contest, we noted a few oddities.  First, you were not supposed to actually use facts or data and make a case.  Instead, the rules flat out told you what your position was.  You had to support the claim that “piracy costs jobs.”  Think the data shows that the real problem is legacy companies like NBC Universal not adapting to embrace new opportunities?  Too bad.

Even worse, the detailed fine print in the contest (which is pretty difficult to dig out), shows that if you win, you lose the copyright on your video.  Seriously.  It’s pretty amazing that a video contest promoting the supposed importance of copyright to creators involves requiring creators to give up their copyrights.  The prize?  A measly $500.

So we’re offering a competing contest, here via our Insight Community platform.  We’re asking people to create PSA videos showing the impact of technology on creativity today.  We’re not asking you to advocate any specific position at all, because unlike that other contest, we’re pretty secure in our beliefs and won’t melt like the wicked witch of the west should someone submit a PSA that challenges some of them.  We believe that the best videos will be both creative and have a factual basis.

Complete details and comments are available at the link I’ve provided. Note that the deadline is coming up soon.

Following on this theme of creativity being destroyed by new technologies and industry panics, there’s this from an Oct. 6, 2011 posting titled, Radio Is Killing Music, on Techdirt,

But what was a lot more entertaining about the article [in an August 1932 issue of Time Magazine] was the paragraph above this, in which it seemed to suggest that radio was absolutely killing music. Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but the refrain may be familiar:

Tin Pan Alley is sadly aware that Radio has virtually plugged up its oldtime outlets, sheet music and gramophone discs. The average music publisher used to get $175,000 a year from disc sales. He now gets about 10% of this. No longer does a song hit sell a million copies. The copious stream of music poured out by Radio puts a song quickly to death. The average song’s life has dwindled from 18 months to 90 days; composers are forced to turn out a dozen songs a year instead of the oldtime two or three.

Has there ever been a time, ever, in which the music industry’s established players weren’t complaining about the industry dying?