Monthly Archives: July 2012

Medusa, jellyfish, and tissue engineering

The ‘Medusoid’ is a reverse- tissue-engineered jellyfish designed by a collaborative team of researchers based, respectively, at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Harvard University. From the July 22, 2012 news item on ScienceDaily,

When one observes a colorful jellyfish pulsating through the ocean, Greek mythology probably doesn’t immediately come to mind. But the animal once was known as the medusa, after the snake-haired mythological creature its tentacles resemble. The mythological Medusa’s gaze turned people into stone, and now, thanks to recent advances in bio-inspired engineering, a team led by researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Harvard University have flipped that fable on its head: turning a solid element—silicon—and muscle cells into a freely swimming “jellyfish.”

“A big goal of our study was to advance tissue engineering,” says Janna Nawroth, a doctoral student in biology at Caltech and lead author of the study. “In many ways, it is still a very qualitative art [emphasis mine], with people trying to copy a tissue or organ just based on what they think is important or what they see as the major components—without necessarily understanding if those components are relevant to the desired function or without analyzing first how different materials could be used.” Because a particular function—swimming, say—doesn’t necessarily emerge just from copying every single element of a swimming organism into a design, “our idea,” she says, “was that we would make jellyfish functions—swimming and creating feeding currents—as our target and then build a structure based on that information.”

Oops! I’m not sure why Nawroth uses the word ‘qualitative’ here. It’s certainly inappropriate given my understanding of the word. Here’s my rough definition, if anyone has anything better or can explain why Nawroth used ‘qualitative’  in that context, please do comment. I’m going to start by contrasting qualitative with quantitative, both of which I’m going to hugely oversimplify. Quantitative data offers numbers, e.g. 50,000 people committed suicide last year. Qualitative data helps offer insight into why. Researchers can obtain the quantitative data from police records, vital statistics, surveys, etc. where qualitative data is gathered from ‘story-oriented’ or highly detailed personal interviews. ( I would have used ‘hit or miss,’ ‘guesswork,’ or simply used the word art without qualifying it  in this context.)

The originating July 22, 2012 news release from Caltech goes on to describe why jellyfish were selected and how the collaboration between Harvard and Caltech came about,

Jellyfish are believed to be the oldest multi-organ animals in the world, possibly existing on Earth for the past 500 million years. Because they use a muscle to pump their way through the water, their function—on a very basic level—is similar to that of a human heart, which makes the animal a good biological system to analyze for use in tissue engineering.

“It occurred to me in 2007 that we might have failed to understand the fundamental laws of muscular pumps,” says Kevin Kit Parker, Tarr Family Professor of Bioengineering and Applied Physics at Harvard and a coauthor of the study. “I started looking at marine organisms that pump to survive. Then I saw a jellyfish at the New England Aquarium, and I immediately noted both similarities and differences between how the jellyfish pumps and the human heart. The similarities help reveal what you need to do to design a bio-inspired pump.”

Parker contacted John Dabiri, professor of aeronautics and bioengineering at Caltech—and Nawroth’s advisor—and a partnership was born. Together, the two groups worked for years to understand the key factors that contribute to jellyfish propulsion, including the arrangement of their muscles, how their bodies contract and recoil, and how fluid-dynamic effects help or hinder their movements. Once these functions were well understood, the researchers began to design the artificial jellyfish.

Here’s how they created the ‘Medusoid’ (artificial jellyfish, from the July 22, 2012 Harvard University news release on EurekAlert,

To reverse engineer a medusa jellyfish, the investigators used analysis tools borrowed from the fields of law enforcement biometrics and crystallography to make maps of the alignment of subcellular protein networks within all of the muscle cells within the animal. They then conducted studies to understand the electrophysiological triggering of jellyfish propulsion and the biomechanics of the propulsive stroke itself.

Based on such understanding, it turned out that a sheet of cultured rat heart muscle tissue that would contract when electrically stimulated in a liquid environment was the perfect raw material to create an ersatz jellyfish. The team then incorporated a silicone polymer that fashions the body of the artificial creature into a thin membrane that resembles a small jellyfish, with eight arm-like appendages.

Using the same analysis tools, the investigators were able to quantitatively match the subcellular, cellular, and supracellular architecture of the jellyfish musculature with the rat heart muscle cells.

The artificial construct was placed in container of ocean-like salt water and shocked into swimming with synchronized muscle contractions that mimic those of real jellyfish. (In fact, the muscle cells started to contract a bit on their own even before the electrical current was applied.)

“I was surprised that with relatively few components—a silicone base and cells that we arranged—we were able to reproduce some pretty complex swimming and feeding behaviors that you see in biological jellyfish,” says Dabiri.

Their design strategy, they say, will be broadly applicable to the reverse engineering of muscular organs in humans.

For future research direction I’ve excerpted this from the Caltech news release,

The team’s next goal is to design a completely self-contained system that is able to sense and actuate on its own using internal signals, as human hearts do. Nawroth and Dabiri would also like for the Medusoid to be able to go out and gather food on its own. Then, researchers could think about systems that could live in the human body for years at a time without having to worry about batteries because the system would be able to fend for itself. For example, these systems could be the basis for a pacemaker made with biological elements.

“We’re reimagining how much we can do in terms of synthetic biology,” says Dabiri. “A lot of work these days is done to engineer molecules, but there is much less effort to engineer organisms. I think this is a good glimpse into the future of re-engineering entire organisms for the purposes of advancing biomedical technology. We may also be able to engineer applications where these biological systems give us the opportunity to do things more efficiently, with less energy usage.”

I think this excerpt from the Harvard news release provides some insight into at least some of the motivations behind this work,

In addition to advancing the field of tissue engineering, Parker adds that he took on the challenge of building a creature to challenge the traditional view of synthetic biology which is “focused on genetic manipulations of cells.” Instead of building just a cell, he sought to “build a beast.”

A little competitive, eh?

For anyone who’s interested in reading the research (which is behind a paywall), from the ScienceDaily news item,

Janna C Nawroth, Hyungsuk Lee, Adam W Feinberg, Crystal M Ripplinger, Megan L McCain, Anna Grosberg, John O Dabiri & Kevin Kit Parker. A tissue-engineered jellyfish with biomimetic propulsion. Nature Biotechnology, 22 July 2012 DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2269

Andrew Maynard weighs in on the matter with his July 22, 2012 posting titled, We took a rat apart and rebuilt it as a jellyfish, on the 2020Science blog (Note: I have removed links),

 Sometimes you read a science article and it sends a tingle down your spine. That was my reaction this afternoon reading Ed Yong’s piece on a paper just published in Nature Biotechnology by Janna Nawroth, Kevin Kit Parker and colleagues.

The gist of the work is that Parker’s team have created a hybrid biological machine that “swims” like a jellyfish by growing rat heart muscle cells on a patterned sheet of polydimethylsiloxane.  The researchers are using the technique to explore muscular pumps, but the result opens the door to new technologies built around biological-non biological hybrids.

Ed Yong’s July 22, 2012 article for Nature (as mentioned by Andrew) offers a wider perspective on the work than is immediately evident in either of the news releases (Note: I have removed a footnote),

Bioengineers have made an artificial jellyfish using silicone and muscle cells from a rat’s heart. The synthetic creature, dubbed a medusoid, looks like a flower with eight petals. When placed in an electric field, it pulses and swims exactly like its living counterpart.

“Morphologically, we’ve built a jellyfish. Functionally, we’ve built a jellyfish. Genetically, this thing is a rat,” says Kit Parker, a biophysicist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led the work. The project is described today in Nature Biotechnology.

….

“I think that this is terrific,” says Joseph Vacanti, a tissue engineer at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “It is a powerful demonstration of engineering chimaeric systems of living and non-living components.”

Here’s a video from the researchers demonstrating the artificial jellyfish in action,

There’s a lot of material for contemplation but what I’m going to note here is the difference in the messaging. The news releases from the ‘universities’ are very focused on the medical application where the discussion in the science community revolves primarily around the synthetic biology/bioengineering elements. It seems to me that this strategy can lead to future problems with a population that is largely unprepared to deal with the notion of mixing and recombining  genetic material or demonstrations of “of engineering chimaeric systems of living and non-living components.”

Tissue regeneration by injection

I’ve got two items: one from the University of Nottingham (UK) where they’re working on tissue regeneration for bones, muscles, and the heart.The second item is from Simon Fraser University (Vancouver, Canada)where the focus is on regenerating bones.

Here’s more about the work at the University of Nottingham from the [July 3, 2012] news item on Nanowerk,

The University of Nottingham has begun the search for a new class of injectable materials that will stimulate stem cells to regenerate damaged tissue in degenerative and age related disorders of the bone, muscle and heart.

The work, which is currently at the experimental stage, could lead to treatments for diseases that currently have no cure. The aim is to produce radical new treatments that will reduce the need for invasive surgery, optimise recovery and reduce the risk of undesirable scar tissue.

The research, which brings together expertise in The University of Nottingham’s Malaysia Campus (UNMC) and UK campus, is part of the Rational Bioactive Materials Design for Tissue Generation project (Biodesign). This €11m EU funded research project which involves 21 research teams from across Europe is made up of leading experts in degenerative disease and regenerative medicine.

The original July 3, 2012 news release from the University of Nottingham includes a video which offers some additional insight (sadly ,it cannot be embedded here) and more information (Note: I have removed a link),

Kevin Shakesheff, Professor of Advanced Drug Delivery and Tissue Engineering and Head of the School of Pharmacy, said: “This research heralds a step-change in approaches to tissue regeneration. Current biomaterials are poorly suited to the needs of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. The aim of Biodesign is to develop new materials and medicines that will stimulate tissue regeneration rather than wait for the body to start the process itself. The aim is to fabricate advanced biomaterials that match the basic structure of each tissue so the cells can take over the recovery process themselves.”

The Canadian project at Simon Fraser University features a singular focus on bone regeneration, from the July 19, 2012 news release on EurekAlert,

A Simon Fraser University researcher is leading a team of scientists working to create new drugs to stimulate bone regeneration – research that will be furthered by a $2.5 million grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

Lead researcher Robert Young heads a team of internationally recognized experts in bone disease and drug development. The researchers are focusing on developing small molecule compounds and nano-medicines that stimulate bone regeneration, and hope to identify new therapeutic approaches by improving understanding of bone renewal biology.

Their objective is to develop new therapeutic agents that promote bone repair, regeneration and renewal, and prove their efficiency in reproducing or improving bone strength.

The research involves studying the “natural controls” that guide the development of cells in the bones toward either bone forming or bone resorbing cells, setting the stage for the next generation of bone regenerative therapies.

The grant is one of three announced today by the federal government targeting bone health research and totalling $7 million. The others focus on wrist fractures management and identifying bone loss in gum disease.

The funding is through the CIHR’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis and addresses priorities identified at a 2009 national Bone Health Consensus Conference.

I’ve decided to focus on tissues today so there will be something about tissue engineering and jellyfish (artificial) shortly.

Cambridge University Press and the Materials Resarch Society

The July 25, 2012 press release from Cambridge Journals announces a new single point access for all things in materials research science,

The Materials Research Society (MRS) and Cambridge University Press announced today the launch of  Materials360 Online, a news resource designed specifically for the materials research community. Materials360 Online captures the most important materials science news in one place, saving readers huge blocks of time navigating various resources across the web.

Through rigorous reporting, detailed fact checking, and clear writing, a dedicated editorial staff provides original news articles, videos and podcasts—all with the unique perspective of an organization devoted to the advancement of materials science. Visitors gain insight into the latest materials information not available elsewhere on the web.

The site also brings together materials news stories aggregated from many other major scientific publications and websites. A “Hot Topics” cloud offers an easy search on keywords of current importance, and a Twitter feed (@Materials_MRS) allows followers to share contributions to this ongoing stream of news, thoughts and opinions.

Rounding out the coverage, Materials360 Online also connects researchers to all MRS publications on Cambridge Journals Online (CJO ), keeping readers up-to-date on highlighted, most recent, and most viewed articles from MRS Communications, Journal of Materials Research (JMR), MRS Bulletin, and the MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL).

MRS is the first society to avail itself of this new offering from Cambridge University Press, which has developed the ability to deliver tailored, digital functionality for its portfolio of over 300 journals and its learned society partners. The Cambridge platform vastly improves the discoverability of materials science information—easily accessed via computers and mobile devices.

The launch of the new site comes just months after the birth of MRS’s newest journal to serve the materials research community, MRS Communications.

“This is a fantastic development for the materials research community. Materials360 Online cuts research time significantly, through aggregating information across the web in one easy-to-find place,” said MRS President Bruce Clemens. “We continue to be proud of our relationship with Cambridge University Press and this is just another example of how two world-class organizations can work together to create outstanding results,” he said. “Along with our new journal, MRS Communications, this new site will significantly improve the information flow to materials research professionals everywhere.”

Jamie Hutchins, Head of Journals, Americas said the new site was set to be the first of many, as other learned societies, already entrusting their journals and other publications to Cambridge, take the opportunity to create a new online presence through online hubs that offer much more than just a website.

“This new capability is a true game-changer for our distinguished partners like the Materials Research Society. We can now pull information from across the globe into a meaningful site that will save the academic community untold hours of research time.”

Some of  the materials on the website are free such as this video,

As they note in the press release, news is aggregated from many sources although I suspect they have the same problem I have, most of the material they access will be in English which leaves a good chunk of international research inaccessible. Still, this is a pretty impressive collection.

It’s not all free, from the Terms of Use webpage,

Materials360 Online (‘website’) is provided by Cambridge University Press (‘Cambridge’) and its collaboration partner, The Materials Research Society (‘MRS’).

Cambridge University Press is a syndicate of the University of Cambridge and its principal place of business is at The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8RU. The Materials Research Society is an organization of materials researchers from academia, industry, and government that promotes communication for the advancement of interdisciplinary materials research to improve the quality of life and its primary place of business is at 506 Keystone Drive, Warrendale, PA, 15086-7537, USA.

The website provides access to four Journals:

• Online Proceedings Library
• MRS Bulletin
• MRS Communications
• Journal of Materials Research(‘the Journal(s)’)

By registering to access and using this website at www.materials360online.com for the journals you are indicating that you accept the terms and conditions set out below. Users who do not accept these terms of use are not authorized to use or continue using this website.

Cambridge or MRS may amend these terms of use at any time and any revised version will be effective immediately that it is displayed on this website. In the event of any comments or questions concerning these terms of use, please contact us by emailing The Legal Services Director at legalservices@cambridge.org or writing to The Legal Services Director at The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8RU, England.

The website homepage, listings and full text displays of news articles, search listings, video links, alongside tables of contents and abstracts of Journal articles may be accessed free of charge by all users.

The full texts of Journal articles (referred to below as ‘the Materials’) may be accessed only by authorized users. ‘Authorized User’ is defined as either:

  • 1. A fully paid member of the MRS.
  • 2. An individual who is authorized to access the Journals through a secure network or proxy server (subject to the terms and conditions detailed below) at a subscribing institution, via his/her affiliation with a subscribing institution as a current student, faculty member, library patron, or employee
  • 3. An individual who holds a valid electronic personal subscription to Cambridge Journals Online.
  • 4. An individual who has purchased access to a single article on Cambridge Journals Online, and who accesses that article within the allotted timeframe.

Etc.

I hope they are able to keep this website active and interesting over time. Right now, it certainly seems like promising.

Burn off cellulite with nanotechnology-enabled underpants

Michelle Hammond in a July 24, 2012 article for the startupsmart website (Australia) highlights a nanotechnology breakthrough,

A new range of underwear has been launched online which manufacturers claim actually helps to burn fat.

Italian firm MyShapes uses nanotechnology and crystals that focus infrared rays to create a material to reduce cellulite.

It claims the Emana range is a “curative and cosmetic line with infrared rays” by stimulating blood circulation to the skin’s surface.

It also claims to have a clinically tested international patent for the product.

There’s more in Hammond’s article and you can find other details such as these I’ve excerpted on the Emana webpage at the MyShapes website,

What is Emana?

Emana is registered brand by Rhodia/Solvay built with bioactive crystals that absorb the human body heat to return it in the form of far infrared rays (FIR). These rays penetrate into the skin and interact with the body, stimulating blood microcirculation and cellular metabolism.

How Emana works?

Emana absorbs a fraction of “infrared” waves emitted by human body, re-emitting them as “far infrared” waves (also known as FIR), which interacts with human body, leading to body stimulation.

What are “far infrared” waves (F.I.R.)?

They are electromagnetic waves, invisible to naked eye and characterized by low energy and low penetration, without any collateral damage to biological tissues.

“Far Infrared” waves stimulate human body by interacting among other mechanisms, with water molecules which represent 70% of human body mass.

What are the advantages of a MyShapes Emana product?

All the MyShapes Emana items are made following the directions of Rhodia /Solvay: after checks and tests on finished garments MyShapes has obtained a certification to guarantee the therapeutic and healing characteristics.

The interaction between Emana and skin is entirely physical, it doesn’t provide chemical migration.

The enhancement of blood microcirculation and cellular metabolism are the primary effects of EMANA®, leading to important secondary benefits:

Aesthetic benefits:

• Increased skin elasticity for a younger and smoother skin

  1. •Reduced cellulite signs
  2. •Improved toxins elimination

• Fostered sizes reduction

Performance benefits:

• Higher skin blood microcirculation

• Better thermoregulation

  1. •Lower lactate accumulate

With improved blood microcirculation, heat distribution on the skin surface becomes more uniform thereby accelerating the human body’s heat dissipation and thermal balance during sports activities.

These benefits are clinically evaluated?

Emana efficacy has been assessed through international recognized protocols with medical surveillance and the support of an independent laboratory.

Emana is Oeko-tex standard 100 class I certified: (label guaranteeing that the product is harmless to human health) for use in all clothing in contact with the skin, including children.

Origin and provenance

Emana yarn is produced in Italy by Fulgar, leading European producer, processed and packed in Italy by the laboratories and partners MyShapes.

The folks at MyShapes claim this product is safe although contraindicated for pregnant women, people with autoimmune diseases, etc. Personally, I’d like a little more information about the studies mentioned on the webpage but perhaps those details have not been translated from the Italian. I also don’t understand how nanotechnology enables these underpants to burn cellulite.  In any event, these are interesting marketing tactics.

All about the University of Calgary and its microscopy and imaging facility

A July 24, 2012 news item on Nanowerk features the the equipment and capabilities of …

The Calgary Microscopy and Imaging Facility (MIF) is a world-class university-wide facility housing transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), advanced light microscopy, atomic force microscopy (AFM), including single cell force spectroscopy (SCFS), and advanced image processing for three-dimensional electron and light microscopy, directed by Professor Matthias Amrein.

Single cell force spectroscopy at the MIF has now attracted high profile research with three NanoWizard® AFM systems from JPK [Instruments], one of which is equipped with the CellHesion® module. Describing the work of the Calgary group, Professor Amrein says “While we do some work for the energy sector (to predict behaviour of nanoparticles injected into oil reservoirs) our main focus is medicine. We delve into very fundamental problems such as “how does a malaria red blood cell attach itself to a blood vessel” or “how does binding of a ligand to a cell surface receptor or contact of a crystalline surface with the plasma membrane drive lipid sorting and how will this lead to signalling” but then immediately apply it to a practical problem such as “how does contact of uric acid crystals with dendritic cells cause gout in affected joints and how can we prevent this occurrence?” We want to understand disease processes at a very fundamental level so we know how to intervene in the best possible way. For example, a chronic inflammatory disease such as gout or arteriosclerosis may be triggered by a very specific interaction of a particle (uric acid crystals, cholesterol crystals, amyloid plaque, …. ) and specific cell (dendritic cell, macrophage, T-cell, …). Understanding this interaction will lead to targeted treatment “block the interaction” rather than the non-specific dampening of inflammation such as by corticosteroids with its many well-documented side effects and limited efficacy.”

It’s always nice to get some information about activities in microscopy, etc. in Canada although I’m not sure what occasioned the news item/release.

Innovation in Europe—don’t copy a policy unless it works (amongst other salient comments)

There are very trenchant comments coming from the European Science Foundation (ESF) and the European Parliament’s Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) brief of  the Science of Innovation conference held Feb. 28, 2012.

From the July 18, 2012 news release on EurekAlert,

Innovation has improved human living standards to an unprecedented level, and is the key to further progress; however it is a complex phenomenon that is not easy to understand and whose effects are unclear. This is the conclusion of the policy brief published by the European Science Foundation and STOA on innovation policy. …

It summarises ten thought provoking issues that the science of innovation poses to policy makers:

1. Innovation policy: ‘uncommon sense’ needed – innovation is not always benign and its effects are not clean cut. It is important to understand how best to optimise, not maximise, innovation

2. The ‘science of innovation’ – diversification of innovation policy is vital. In particular a better understanding of innovation policy for the service sector is important, as this is the largest and fastest growing sector, making up more than two-thirds of European economies

3. Policy myths and rituals – there are many ‘myths’ in the world of innovation policy, such as the role of venture capitals, SMEs and the state. Innovation policy sometimes has a ritual dimension, in which policy-makers apply certain principles from elsewhere – often the US – because it seems like the thing to do, rather than because of clear evidence that it will work in their particular situation. Innovation policy has to be context-specific, and this is a big challenge for those who want to develop European-level innovation policy [emphasis mine]

4. Blind spots in innovation policy – knowledge transfer from other sectors than universities have been largely omitted in the discourse on innovation; the focus on tertiary education has for instance in some cases reduced the quality of the output of secondary education [emphasis mine]

5. Creative destruction, or destructive creation? – rather than ‘creative destruction’ we are increasingly seeing a process of ‘destructive creation’, in which new products and services diminish or destroy the usage value of existing ones, to the benefit of a few rather than many [emphasis mine]

6. Cognitive lock-in – the increased proximity between innovation policy and innovation research may have the effect of inhibiting the creation of new knowledge that could change policy directions

7. The ERA and academic disparities – the effect of European Research Area (ERA) policy may be uneven, as the opportunities it presents are unevenly distributed

8. Evidence-based innovation policy: limits and challenges – innovation policy is often not really evidence-based, or even based on distorted evidence. Available evidence from innovation research is fragmented, of variable quality, hard to interpret and often used inappropriately [emphasis mine]

9. Sharing risks and returns: toward a new model of knowledge governance – a new model of knowledge governance is considered, with innovative financial tools to give returns proportional to the very active high risk-taking role of state in investing in innovation

10. Innovation aimed at public value – stimulating the right type of innovation requires a clear idea of ‘public value’ and how to measure it

The brief (all 12 pp.) can be found here. Having read the brief, I highly recommend it. They actually have some imagery accompanying the text that I would describe as satirical. You just don’t expect that kind of thing in an official joint non-governmental agency/government  document.

There were a few things that I didn’t quite understand including the image of the turtle jumping out of a glass of water and seeming to fly (front cover) but perhaps someone could leave a comment explaining it to me.

To whet your appetite, here’s an excerpt from an item in the brief,  from 3. Policy myths and rituals on p. 5 PDF,

Features that work in the US may not work as well in Europe [or Canada for that matter], and in fact many of the ideas that Europe [or Canada] has about what works in the US are incomplete or distorted. For example, in the US, it is in fact in existing, large firms (rather than small new start-up SMEs) and in non-R&D intensive sectors (rather than R&D-intensive sectors) where the main productivity gains are being realised. The real importance of universities in the innovation system is not the direct commercialisation of research-derived knowledge. It is rather a range of other highly influential effects, notably the ‘production’ of an educated workforce able to generate and/ or absorb innovations, and of educated consumers able to use innovative products, both necessary for realising the value of innovation. Also, contrary to the ruling perception of many European policy-makers, active intervention by the state is key to innovation in the US. Innovation policy has to beware of myths and rituals, and needs to be highly context-specific (national, regional).

ETA July 27, 2012: David Bruggeman in a July 26, 2012 posting on his Pasco Phronesis blog comments,

In general, the report strikes me as a more pragmatic, operational focus on science, technology and innovation than what I see being supported through the NSF program.  (Of course, YMMV.)

He too was quite interested in their point on myths and policy.

Self-cleaning products in six to eight years?

I am obsessed, as anyone who doesn’t vibrate with joy at the thought of housecleaning can appreciate, with self-cleaning products. Sadly, this is not an announcement about self-cleaning windows (my bête noire) but the July 19, 2012 news item on Science Daily does offer the possibility of future relief for anyone cleaning cars, aircraft, or smart phones,

Researchers at Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) have developed a coating with a surface that repairs itself after damage. This new coating has numerous potential applications — for example mobile phones that will remain clean from fingerprints, cars that never need to be washed, and aircraft that need less frequent repainting.

Researcher Catarina Esteves of the department of Chemical Engineering and Chemistry at TU/e and her colleagues have [developed] surfaces with special ‘stalks’ carrying the functional chemical groups at their ends, and mixing these through the coating. If the outer surface layer is removed by scratching, the ‘stalks’ in the underlying layer re-orient to the new surface, thereby restoring the function.

This development can be of great importance for many applications. For example it will be possible to make a self-cleaning car, with a highly water-resistant coating that keeps this self-cleaning property for long periods. The superficial scratches will be self-repaired and the water droplets simply roll off the car, taking dirt with them.

The researchers are hoping the first commercially available coatings will be available in the next six to eight years.

RUSNANO and 12BF’s clean energy investment fund

After the late June 2012 announcement that the Russian government was selling its shares in various resource- and commodity-based national enterprises as well as 10% of its stake in RUSNANO (my June 25, 2012 posting), this seems an interesting development. Sally Bakewell in a July 18, 2012 article for Bloomberg.com mentions a new Rusnano venture (Note: I have removed links),

Rusnano Capital LLC teamed up with New York-based I2BF Global Ventures to invest $150 million in nanotechnologies for Russia’s agriculture and water industries.

Nanotechnology, which deals with matter on a scale comparable to the diameter of a strand of DNA, can be used to remove pollutants and salt from water, improve soil fertility and boost crops. Drought, still affecting nine regions in Russia, has damaged grains on 1.5 million hectares (3.7 million acres) of land this year, according to the Agriculture Ministry.

The July 18, 2012 news item on Opalesque offers this detail,

Rusnano Capital (RNC), the Russian government-owned nanotechnology investment company, and international technology investment group I2BF Global Ventures have announced the launch of the I2BF-RNC Strategic Resources Fund to invest in later-stage nanotechnology companies. The seven-year fund launches with a $53m commitment from its LPs with a target fund size of $150m.

Its remit will be to invest in international nanotechnology that has applications of value within the Russian Federation, with a focus on the resource sector as well as water and agriculture.

“We are delighted to partner with Rusnano Capital on our first late-stage venture fund expanding on I2BF’s existing investment expertise,” says Ilya Golubovich, Managing Partner of I2BF Global Ventures (right). “… The opportunities to roll out nanotech applications and also production facilities in Russia are widespread and we will be using our global footprint to channel the best technologies into this market.”

Do dolphins and nonlinear math add up to sonic mapping with bubbles?

Professor Tim Leighton from the University of Southampton (UK) studies dolphins and their sonar capabilities.

This is professor Tim Leighton and dolphin. Credit: University of Southampton

From the July 18, 2012 news item on phys.org, here’s the observation about dolphins and their ‘bubble nets’ that occasioned the study,

When hunting prey, dolphins have been observed to blow ‘bubble nets’ around schools of fish, which force the fish to cluster together, making them easier for the dolphins to pick off. However, such bubble nets would confound the best man-made sonar because the strong scattering by the bubbles generates ‘clutter’ in the sonar image, which cannot be distinguished from the true target.

Taking a dolphin’s sonar and characterising it from an engineering perspective, it is not superior to the best man-made sonar. Therefore, in blowing bubble nets, dolphins are either ‘blinding’ their echolocation sense when hunting or they have a facility absent in man-made sonar.

You can also find the University of Southampton July 18, 2012 news item on e! Science News. The news item goes onto describe the study,

In the study, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Professor Leighton along with Professor Paul White and student Gim Hwa Chua used echolocation pulses of a type that dolphins emit, but processed them using nonlinear mathematics instead of the standard way of processing sonar returns. This Biased Pulse Summation Sonar (BiaPSS) reduced the effect of clutter by relying on the variation in click amplitude, such as that which occurs when a dolphin emits a sequence of clicks.

Professor Leighton says: “We know that dolphins emit sequences of clicks and the amplitude of each click can vary from one to the next, so that not all the clicks are the same loudness. We asked, what if this variation in amplitude was not coincidental, but instead was key to distinguishing fish from bubbles.

“These clicks were shown to identify targets when processed using nonlinear mathematics, raising the question of whether dolphins also benefit from such mathematics. The variation in amplitude of these clicks is the key: it produces changes in the echoes which can identify the target (fish) in the bubble net, where human-made sonar does not work.

“Although this does not conclusively prove that dolphins do use such nonlinear processing, it demonstrates that humans can detect and classify targets in bubbly water using dolphin-like sonar pulses, raising intriguing possibilities for dolphin sonar when they make bubble nets.”

(Fancifully, it occurred to me when reading the previous excerpted passage that the dolphins might be using the bubbles and clicking to make sonic maps.)

There are some practical reasons for this research,

BiaPSS was shown to be effective in distinguishing targets from the clutter generated by bubbles in the ‘field of view’ of the sonar. One such target is a sea mine, which is relatively simple to purchase, and inexpensive (around $1,000 each) compared to the financial damage (let alone injury and loss of life) that they cause (for example $96 million repair to USS Samuel B Roberts; $24 million repair to USS Princeton; $3.6 million to USS Tripoli).

The research isn’t  not over yet,

Professor Leighton adds: “There are still questions to answer. For one thing, dolphins would have to use a frequency, when they enter bubbly water, which is sufficiently low that they can hear up to frequencies twice as high in pitch. Until measurements are taken of wild dolphin sonar as they hunt in bubbly water, these questions will remain unanswered. What we have shown is that it is not impossible to distinguish targets in bubbly water using the same sort of pulses that dolphins use.”

There you have it, dolphins, bubbles, and (maybe) nonlinear mathematics.

Industry Canada, Vanessa Clive, nanotechnology, and assessing economic impacts

I have long (one year) wanted to feature an interview with Vanessa Clive, Nanotechnology Policy Advisor; Industry Sector, at Industry Canada but have been distracted from sending interview questions until about several weeks ago.  (Sometimes, I lose track *of time.)

Here then are the interview questions  I asked and the answers Vanessa very kindly provided,

1.      Could you describe your role? 

Industry Canada’s mandate is to help make Canadian industry more productive and competitive in the global economy, thus improving the economic and social well-being of Canadians.  As an emerging/nascent technology, nanotechnology can help contribute towards this objective.  Our role vis a vis nanotechology is to:

  • better understand Canadian capabilities, strengths and expertise
  • contribute to effective policy development
  • contribute to the development of a supportive business environment for innovation and commercialization

2.       Recently, you helped organize an event in Washington, DC (International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology, March 27-28, 2012). Could you give a brief overview of why this was needed, who attended, & what happened? 

The Symposium was organized jointly by the OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology (WPN) and the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office for the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), and hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). I was a member of the OECD WPN Steering Committee which worked with the NNI to organize the event.

Some 200 people participated from OECD and non-OECD countries, representing a broad spectrum of sectors, industries, and areas of expertise. In addition to plenary sessions, industry break-out discussions were organized on advanced materials, food packaging, transportation, nanomedicine, energy, and electronics.

The decision to hold the event recognized the important potential contribution of nanotechnology to innovation, as reflected in rising R&D investments over the past decade. OECD member countries wish to explore ways to assess returns to these investments and the broader economic impacts of nanotechnology more generally, as well as the challenges for effective innovation policy development in this area.

The agenda and presentations can be viewed at http://nano.gov/node/729. Four background papers on related topics were also commissioned for the Symposium and can be found at the same site.

3.      What can be said about nanotechnology’s economic impacts and what information (e.g. bibliometric measures, no. of patents, etc.) is being used to arrive at that conclusion? 

Given the still relatively early stage of developments, the range of potential applications, and other factors, there are major challenges to estimating potential impacts. Holding this Symposium was intended to provide a start to develop useful indicators and other assessment tools.

4.      So, how is Canada doing relative to the international scene?

As discussed above, given the lack of measures, it is difficult to assess our relative position. However, Canadian federal and provincial governments have invested increasing amounts in nanotechnology R&D over the past decade or so. These investments have supported an array of government funding programs and contributed to the establishment of a world-class R&D infrastructure and research community and a growing number of companies involved in nanotechnology across industry sectors in Canada.

5.      Is there anything that stands out from the symposium?

It was clear from the level of attendance, presentations, and discussions which took place, that there is widespread interest in the symposium topics. To learn more about the event, I would encourage interested people to visit the website where presentations and background papers are posted – http://nano.gov/node/729.

6.      Are there any Industry Canada plans in the works for developing new assessment tools given that, unlike many countries, Canada does not have a national nanotechnology funding hub? 

We are working with the OECD to develop useful tools that would enable us to estimate or measure the economic impacts of nanotechnology.

7.      Are there any plans for a nanotechnology ‘road map’ similar to the digital media road map? Or perhaps there’s something else in the works?

Industry Canada is focused on assisting Canadian industry to grow, compete in the global economy, and create jobs. In order to do so we are building the department’s knowledge base about Canadian activities and capabilities, contributing to sound policy development in domestic and international for a, and contributing to building a supportive business environment for responsible innovation and commercialization in this field.

Thank you for the insight into the Canadian nanotechnology situation and the issues around economic impacts as per Industry Canada and tor taking the time to do this . Also, I am very happy to see the link to the presentations and background papers for the March 2012 nanotechnology and economic impacts event in Washington, DC (first mentioned in my Jan. 27, 2012 posting).

I did briefly visit the website which is a US National Nanotechnology Initiative website. The event page for which Vanessa provided a link hosts the background papers and links to other pages hosting the presentations and the agenda providing a rich resource for anyone interested in the issue of nanotechnology and its possible economic impacts.

* Changed preposition from ‘to’ to ‘of’ on Sept. 19, 2013.