Monthly Archives: September 2013

2013 Word Vancouver (Canada); a literacy festival

Word Vancouver starts today but the main action will be taking place this weekend, Sept. 28 – 29, 2013. While it’s been a little the last few years, the event seems poised for a resurgence of sorts, if the information on the website can be considered a good indicator. For anyone not familiar with this annual event, here’s more from the Word Vancouver home page,

This is Word Vancouver, Western Canada’s largest celebration of literacy and reading. Held on the last weekend of September at Library Square [350 West Georgia Street] in beautiful downtown Vancouver, our festival promotes books and authors with free exhibits, performances, and hands-on activities for a wide range of ages and interests.

For the 2013 year, we are undergoing a renewal of programming so stay tuned for new and exciting changes.

Word Vancouver’s News page describes some of the new initiatives,

The team at Word Vancouver is thrilled to announce an innovative new festival event: the Automated Poetry Project. Word Vancouver will transform ordinary vending machines into poetry dispensers!

Poems will be placed in vending machine capsules and dispensed for just a toonie each. The machines will be in multiple locations in downtown Vancouver during the month of September 2013.

Adopt an author! Make a meaningful connection to Vancouver’s writing community. Your name will be associated with a lively cultural event aimed at promoting literacy and you will receive a signed copy of your author’s book.

This program was created as a way to fundraise for WORD Vancouver and we need your help to ensure that the program is a success.

It’s easy! Just check out the list of authors available (PDF attached or see below) and fill out the registration form (PDF). Your choice of author, registration form, and cheque for $100 must be submitted to the Word Vancouver office by August 27, 2013 to ensure your acknowledgment in the festival program. If you submit after this date you will still be acknowledged at the author’s reading and will receive your author’s signed book.

Authors available as of August 12, 2013:

Short Fiction

  • Theodora Armstrong — Clear Skies, No Wind, 100% Visibility
  • Julia Lin — Miah
  • Cynthia Flood — Red Girl Rat Boy

Fiction

  • Cathy Ace — The Corpse with the Golden Nose
  • Peter Roman (Peter Darbyshire) — The Mona Lisa Sacrifice
  • Stella Harvey — Nicolai’s Daughters
  • Cameron MacDonald — The Endangered Species Road Trip

Poetry

  • Kurt Lipschutz — This Drawn & Quartered Moon
  • Pamela Porter — Late Moon 
  • Kim Minkus — Tuft
  • Dennis Bolen — Black Liquor: Poems
  • Brad Cran — Ink on Paper
  • Peter Culley — Parkway
  • Mariner Janes — The Monument Cycles
  • Wanda John-Kehewin — In the Dog House
  • George Stanley — After Desire

Young Adult

  • Irene Watts — Touched by Fire
  • Sara Leach — Count Me In

Children’s Literature

  • Loretta Seto — Mooncakes
  • Julie Flett — Little You
  • Holman Wang — Cozy Classics: Pride and Prejudice
  • Paola Opal — Pippy
  • Dan Bar-El — Not Your Typical Dragon
  • Rachelle Delaney — The Metro Dogs of Moscow
  • Ainslie Manson — Roll On: Rick Hanson Wheels Around the World
  • Robert Heidbreder—Black and Bittern was Night

Non-Fiction

  • Sa Boothroyd — Before the World Was Ready
  • Charles Wilkins — Little Ship of Fools
  • Ian Parsons — No Easy Ride: Reflections on My Life in the RCMP
  • Arno Kopecky — The Oil Man and the Sea

The entire schedule is pretty overwhelming but here are some snippets from the Sunday schedule,

Mainstage

Presented by The Rosedale on Robson. Hosted all day by David C. Jones

11:00 am The Federation of BC Writers Celebrates the Present and the Past
Hosted by Ben Nuttal-Smith
12:00 pm UBC Creative Writing Celebrates 50 Year Anniversary
Presented by UBC Creative Writing. Hosted by Steven Galloway with Linda Svendsen, Andreas Schroeder, and Keith Maillard
12:40 pm Vancouver Youth Theatre
1:15 pm Vancouver Youth Poetry Slam team with Victoria Fraser, Jacob Gebrewold, Mariah Dear, Floyd VB, and Andrew Warner
2:00 pm Mascall Dance with The Nijinksy Gibber Jazz Club
Dancers: Darcy McMurray, Justine Chambers, and Billy Marchenski.
2:15 pm Barbara Adler with FANG
joined by Gavin Youngash and the Company B Singers
3:00 pm Color Magazine’s Game of S.K.A.T.E. with Chad Dickson
3:15 pm Dead City Scandal
3:45 pm Dragon Dance: Gung Haggis Fat Choy Dragon Boat Team.
With “Toddish McWong,” and ukelele accompaniment from Daphne Roubini and Guido Heistek.
4:30 pm Spoken Word Poetry with Jillian Christmas and Chelsea D.E. Johnson

There’s also something for people who have publishing aspirations of their own,

Word Talks

Readings and panel discussions, poetry, theatre, romance and crime. Inside, downstairs in the Alma VanDusen Room (of the Vancouver Public Library Central Branch]

11:00 am Pauline Johnson: A Vancouver Legend with Sheila Johnston
11:30 am Cameron Macdonald
The Endangered Species Road Trip (Greystone Books $19.95)
12:00 pm Adapting Classics for the Stage
Presented by Rumble Productions. Panelists Stephen Drover, Hiro Kanagawa, and Peter Boychuk
12:30 pm Page to Stage or Screen
Moderated by Maegan Thomas with panelists Dennis Foon, Aaron Bushkowsky, Mina Shum, and Ian Weir
1:40 pm New Directions in Creative Writing
Presented by UBC Creative Writing. Moderated by Annabel Lyon with panelists Bryan Wade, Maureen Medved, Andrew Gray, and Timothy Taylor.
2:50 pm The Scene of the Crime
Presented by the Crime Writers of Canada. Moderated by Cathy Ace with panelists Debra Purdy Kong, David Russell, Robin Spano, Kay Stewart and Chris Bullock.
4:00 pm Dishing on Romance
Presented by Greater Vancouver Chapter of Romance Writers of America. Panelists Eileen Cook, Susan Lyons, Lee McKenzie, Nora Snowdon, and Roxanne Snopek.

Writing Talks

Editing, Publishing and Writing explored from different angles. Inside, downstairs in the Peter Kaye Room. Presented by subTerrain

11:00 am Writing from the Body with Ingrid Rose
12:10 pm Get Published with Janet Love Morrison
1:20 pm Editing: Both Sides of the Fence with Susan Safyan
2:00 pm Finding, Hiring, and Working with a Freelance Editor with Shelagh Jamieson
Presented by Editors Association of Canada
3:10 pm 300 years of Publishing in 30 Minutes with Leanne Johnson
4:00 pm To Be Announced

I hope you get a chance to get out there and enjoy.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s NanoSpace online science ‘theme park’ and science literacy project wins web award

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s NonoSpace, which opened in Oct. 2012, was designed to improve science literacy according to the Oct. 18, 2012 news release,

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute today unveiled NanoSpace, an online “molecular theme park” populated with more than 25 games, activities, and animations to educate and excite young students about the world of atoms and molecules.

From playing “Who wants to be a Quindecillionaire?” in H2OPark, to solving the Polypeptide Puzzler in DNA Land, to button-jamming on Electronz and other retro-style games in the arcade, NanoSpace visitors are having too much fun to notice they’re also learning complex scientific topics.

NanoSpace is the latest platform from the Molecularium Project, which is the flagship outreach and education effort of the Rensselaer Nanotechnology Center. Many NanoSpace games and activities feature the characters Oxy, Hydra, and Mel from the Molecularium animated movies Molecules to the MAX! and Riding Snowflakes.

The mission of the Molecularium Project is to expand science literacy and awareness, and to excite audiences of all ages to explore and understand the molecular nature of the world around them. Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and others, the project is a direct response to the challenge of inspiring more young people to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This is a significant workforce development issue, as the NSF estimates 80 percent of jobs created in the next decade will require some mastery of STEM.

“Science literacy—in every capacity—has never before been so important to our nation,” said Professor Richard W. Siegel, the Robert W. Hunt Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Rensselaer and director of the Rensselaer Nanotechnology Center.  “We realize that not every kid wants to be a scientist, but learning the basics of science—involving molecules and atoms—is critical to the careers that will be available in the next decade, especially as the U.S. continues to fall behind. When learning is fun, it increases a child’s capacity to absorb and retain knowledge. That’s why we are excited to unveil NanoSpace. Kids are interacting, exploring, and having a great time while learning about atoms and molecules, and they are not even realizing they’re learning.”

This concept of “stealth education” runs through every aspect of the Molecularium Project. …

Almost one year later, it seems the project has been successful with its ‘stealth education’ concept, from a Sept. 25, 2013 news item on Azonano,

Faculty researchers from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute were honored for their efforts in developing and creating the NanoSpace website, an online science “theme park” that aims to excite elementary and middle-school students about the world of atoms and molecules.

Rensselaer and NanoSpace received a “2013 Best of the Web” award from the Center for Digital Education, in the category of Higher Education Website.

The Sept. 24, 2013 Rensselaer news release, which originated the news item, describes the agency bestowing the designation,

The Center for Digital Education’s “Best of the Web” awards recognize and honor outstanding education websites. The awards are open to all education institution websites in the United States, including K-12 districts, schools, colleges, universities, teachers, multi-class, parent, and student websites. The Center for Digital Education is a national research and advisory institute specializing in K-12 and higher education technology trends, policy, and funding.

“Educational institutions are constantly tasked with creating quality websites and applications to deliver services and enhance learning,” said Kim Frame, executive director of the Center for Digital Education. “This year’s winners are cognizant of this challenge and have developed innovative models to increase learning and promote achievement via the use of technology. The center congratulates them for creativity and dedication toward excellence!”

I decided to take a look at the Center for Digital Education and found this on their About the Center webpage,

The Center for Digital Education (CDE) is a national research and advisory institute specializing in K-12 and higher education technology trends, policy and funding. CDE advises the industry, conducts relevant research, issues white papers, and produces premier annual surveys and awards programs. CDE also hosts events for the education community. CDE’s media platform includes the quarterly Center for Digital Education’s Special Reports, centerdigitaled.com, email newsletters and custom publications.

The rest of the page includes links to their sales, research, corporate, etc. divisions. This looks like a ‘for profit’ endeavour and awards like “2013 Best of the Web” are classic public relations ploys. One of  the most spectacular examples of this ploy are the Nobel prizes.

You can go directly to the NanoSpace website here (be prepared to sign up) or you can go diectly to the Molecularium project website to find out more about both.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada, Vive Crop, two projects, and $14.7M in funding

The Canadian government used to create Crown Corporations, a kind of quasi-government agency/ business corporation that was run as a not-for-profit operation. Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) bears some of the marks of a crown corporation (completely government-funded) but it’s self-described as a not-for-profit foundation. Before getting to the main event (Vive Crop) here’s a little bit from the SDTC Profile page,

Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) is a not-for-profit foundation that finances and supports the development and demonstration of clean technologies which provide solutions to issues of climate change, clean air, water quality and soil, and which deliver economic, environmental and health benefits to Canadians.

SDTC operates two funds aimed at the development and demonstration of innovative technological solutions. The SD Tech Fund™ supports projects that address climate change, air quality, clean water, and clean soil. The NextGen Biofuels Fund™ supports the establishment of first-of-kind large demonstration-scale facilities for the production of next-generation renewable fuels.

SDTC is clearly focused on the economy and entrepreneurship in addition to sustainability as per their Sept. 9, 2013 news release about  a recent $14.7M investment,

The Government of Canada is showing its commitment to a green Canadian economy with an in investment of $14.7 million to help four new clean technology projects from across the country reach commercialization. The announcement was made today by the Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, and Dr. Vicky Sharpe, President and CEO of Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC).

“Canada must nurture highly skilled individuals and new ideas that will help our businesses innovate, secure new markets and create well-paying jobs,” said Minister Oliver. “By supporting advanced research and technology, our government is investing in Canadian prosperity and a cleaner environment.”

“The projects announced today are great examples of the Canadian innovation and entrepreneurship that characterizes SDTC’s portfolio, valued at more than $2 billion and brimming with innovative technological solutions,” said Vicky Sharpe, President and CEO of SDTC. “Canadian cleantech leaders are continuing to create economic opportunities and open up avenues to new export markets.”


The newly-funded projects are representative of the investment priorities established in the SD Business Cases™, a series of six reports published by SDTC that provide strategic insights into specific economic sectors (available in the Knowledge Centre section of the SDTC website at http://www.sdtc.ca/).

SDTC’s SD Tech Fund™ has committed $598 million to 246 clean technology projects. These figures include adjustments made to the portfolio.

Vive Crop, headquartered in Toronto, Ontario,  is a recipient for two of the four projects being funded. Here’s more about one of the projects from the Sept. 18, 2013 Vive Crop news release,

Vive Crop Protection is pleased to announce that it received an investment of $3.7 million from the Government of Canada through Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) to develop an improved pesticide application distribution method that will translate into greater efficiency and reduced wastage.

Vive’s Allosperse® particle will be used to hold pesticides and deliver them precisely where they need to go.

“Canada must nurture highly skilled individuals and new ideas that will help our businesses innovate, secure new markets and create well-paying jobs,” said Minister Oliver. “By supporting advanced research and technology, our government is investing in Canadian prosperity and a cleaner environment.”

“Canadian farmers want a more economical and effective way to protect their crops from pests,” said Keith Thomas, CEO, Vive Crop Protection. “Thanks to support from the Government of Canada through Sustainable Development Technology Canada, Vive Crop Protection will further develop the Allosperse platform, precisely targeting pesticides where they act on crops.”

The best crop protection happens when pesticides stay where they are intended to protect the crop, for example on a crop’s leaves or at its roots. Vive has developed Allosperse®, a tiny particle that has unique properties: it has a hydrophilic (water-loving) exterior and an oleophillic (oil-loving) interior. Pesticides, which are also oleophillic, are loaded into the particle before application to crops. The next generation of Allosperse particles will have increased stickiness to leaves, avoiding run-off during the rain, and will penetrate leaves and seeds to offer systemic plant protection. Finally, the specially-designed particles will control the movement of the particle through the soil, allowing it to target pests at the plant’s roots. Less product, and therefore less cost, would be required to achieve equivalent results, and growers can get better protection with less accidental surface water run-off and soil contamination.

I have written about Vive Crop previously (most recently in an Aug. 7, 2013 posting when they received approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency for an insecticide) and my curiosity about Allosperse particles has not yet been satisfied. What are the chemical constituents? In lieu of an answer to that question (it’s nowhere on the company website), I found more information about Vive Crop and its SDTC-funded projects in this latest round of funding. As I noted previously, Vive Crop is involved in two of the funded projects as per the Sept. 9, 2013 SDTC backgrounder,

2. Lead organization: Macrotek

Project Title: Novel MVI Acid Gas Scrubbing Technology Project

Environmental Benefits: Climate Change/Clean Air/Clean Water/Clean Soil

Economic Sector: Waste management

SDTC Investment: $2 million

Consortium Members:

Macrotek

Vive Crop Protection [emphasis mine]

Plasco Energy Group

Project Description:

To avoid injecting contaminants into the atmosphere, industries use chemical reactions to “scrub” exhaust before it is emitted from smokestacks. However, current scrubbing techniques use caustic and oxidizing reagents (materials used to produce a chemical reaction). Macrotek has developed a groundbreaking suite of technologies that scrub in a novel, cost-effective and efficient way. The technology is developed initially to eliminate hydrogen sulfide (H2S), which is a major component of acid rain, from industrial gas streams. The technology uses a regenerative reagent, drastically reducing reagent consumption. It also converts H2S into its elemental form of sulphur, eliminating the current need to treat sulphate byproduct in wastewater streams. When full life-cycle costs are considered, this technology could cost less than 50 percent of the operating costs of traditional scrubber technologies, while maintaining or improving contaminant removal efficiency. This technology has the potential to address a multitude of other pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides, simultaneously.

3. Lead organization: Vive Crop Protection

Project Title: Targeted Delivery for Crop Protection

Environmental Benefits: Clean water/clean soil

Economic Sector: Agriculture

SDTC Investment: $3.7 million

Consortium Members:

Vive Crop Protection

Dow AgroSciences LLC

Loveland Products Inc. (a division of crop production services)

Makhteshim Agan of North America Inc.

Halltech Inc.

University of Alberta – Office of Environmental NanoSafety

University of Toronto – Institute for Optical Sciences

McGill University

Project Description:

The best crop protection happens when pesticides stay where they are intended to protect the crop, for example on a crop’s leaves or at its roots. Vive has developed Allosperse®, a tiny particle that has unique properties: it has a hydrophilic (water-loving) exterior and an oleophilic (oil-loving) interior. Pesticides, which are also oleophilic, are loaded into the particle before application to crops. The next generation of Allosperse particles will have increased stickiness to leaves, avoiding run-off during the rain, and will penetrate leaves and seeds to offer systemic plant protection. Finally, the specially designed particles will control the movement of the particle through the soil, allowing it to target pests at the plant’s roots. Less product, and therefore less cost, would be required to achieve equivalent results, and growers can get better protection with less accidental surface water run-off and soil contamination.

Congratulations to Vive Crop and all of the other funding recipients!

Canuck amongst Google Science Fair 2013 winners (which include a Yank, an Aussie, and a Turk)

I imagine 15-year old, Ann Makosinski, of Victoria, BC (Canada) has been excited for the last few months as her science idea has progressed from a submission to a semi-finalist to a finalist and, now, winner in her age category in the 2013 Google Science Fair online. A Sept. 24, 2013 news item on the CBC News online website gives details,

Ann Makosinski, 15, a student at St. Michaels University School in Victoria, claimed a trophy made of Lego for the 15-16 age category, at an awards gala Monday night for the international science fair, Google announced. Her prizes are a $25,000 scholarship and a “once-in-a-lifetime experience” from either CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research), LEGO or Google.

The flashlight contains devices called Peltier tiles that produce electricity when heated on one side and cooled on the other. Makosinski’s flashlight is hollow, allowing one side of the tiles to be cooled by the surrounding air. The tiles are heated on the other side by the heat from the hand of the person holding the flashlight. That generates enough power to maintain a steady beam of light for 20 minutes.

Here’s a picture of the winners with their ‘Lego’ trophies,

Australian Viney Kumar, Canadian Ann Makosinski of Victoria, B.C., Elif Bilgin of Turkey and American Eric Chen, left to right, took home trophies at the Google Science Fair's gala award ceremony Monday night in California.  Courtesy Google

Australian Viney Kumar, Canadian Ann Makosinski of Victoria, B.C., Elif Bilgin of Turkey and American Eric Chen, left to right, took home trophies at the Google Science Fair’s gala award ceremony Monday night in California. Courtesy Google

The Sept. 23, 2013 posting by Clare Conway on Google’s official blog provides more details about this year’s contest and the other winners,

The top 15 projects were selected from thousands of entries submitted by talented young scientists from more than 120 countries around the world. These projects were impressive and represented a vast range of scientific ingenuity—from a multi-step system created for early diagnosis of melanoma cancers to the invention of a metallic exoskeleton glove that assists, supports and enhances the movement of the human palm to help people who suffer from upper hand disabilities.

It was a tough decision, but we’re proud to name the three winners of this year’s Google Science Fair:

The fourth winner, Elif Bilgin of  Turkey, won the Scientific American (SA magazine) award, from the SA June 27, 2013 press release,

On Thursday, June 27, Elif Bilgin, 16, from Turkey, was declared the winner of the second annual Scientific American Science in Action Award, powered by the Google Science Fair. Bilgin won for her project, Going Bananas! Using Banana Peels in the Production of Bio-Plastic as a Replacement for Traditional Petroleum-Based Plastic. In addition to the $50,000 prize, Bilgin will have access to a year’s mentorship and is invited to Google’s California headquarters in September to compete in the 15-to-16-year-old age category in the overall Google Science Fair.

According to Conway’s posting on the official blog, Bilgin also won the Voter’s Choice award.

Congratulations to all of the entrants!

Nano Labs mixes gasoline and water

A Sept. 24, 2013 news item on Nanowerk features news of a ‘nanotechnology gasoline’ that combines gasoline with ordinary tap water,

Nano Labs Corp. announces promising test results relating to a proprietary nanotechnology which replaces commercial gasoline.

The Company has successfully tested their Nanotechnology Gasoline (NG). The technology combines 60% commercial grade gasoline with 40% ordinary drinking water plus the Company’s proprietary nanotechnology additive. The result may mean an alternative to existing additives, like Ethanol, MTBE, Benzene, Methanol, and Aromatics additives that are harmful to the environment.

The Company has replaced 40% of gasoline with water and nanotechnology which thereby dramatically reduces the need of gasoline by over a third, thereby increasing fuel efficiency and reducing environmental emissions.

Nano Labs’ Sept. 24, 2013 press release, which originated the news item, offers a bit more technical information,

 The Company reports that five gasoline mixtures were successfully tested; the tests were repeated three times over a period of thirteen months.

“Our new nano gasoline mixture combines our technology with normal tap water and gasoline which does not separate. In fact, it has remained intact after many months of testing. Also, the nano fuel does not freeze at temperatures of minus 40 degrees Celsius,” states Dr. Victor Castano, Chief Innovations Officer of Nano Labs. “This is by far one of the most interesting projects our teams are working on right now, a game changer in the energy sector.”

“This new technology would not require any changes to the existing refinery process and our nanotechnology could be applied directly at the fuel storage container stage,” adds Mr. Bernardo Camacho Chavarria, President of Nano Labs. “This new technology could dramatically increase profits for the oil companies that they could pass on to consumers, and at the same time dramatically decrease the harmful emissions that contribute to global warming. It is important to note that we are at the development stage of the product, and are currently working with third-party labs for Octane and BTU Certification Testing. With these results we are looking to finalize a roadmap for commercialization and reporting back to industry and our shareholders.”

Oddly there was no information about ‘nanotechnology gasoline’ on the Nano Labs company website as of Sept. 25, 2013 11 am PDT.

I last featured Nano Labs in a Dec. 17, 2012 posting about their then recent innovation of nanotechnology-enabled nail polish.

Responsible innovation at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society’s (Arizona State University) Virtual Institute

The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has a funding program called Science Across Virtual Institutes (SAVI) which facilitates global communication for scientists, engineers, and educators. From the SAVI home page,

Science Across Virtual Institutes (SAVI) is a mechanism to foster and strengthen interaction among scientists, engineers and educators around the globe. It is based on the knowledge that excellence in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) research and education exists in many parts of the world, and that scientific advances can be accelerated by scientists and engineers working together across international borders.

According to a Sept. 24, 2013 news item on Nanowerk, the NSF’s SAVI program has funded a new virtual institute at Arizona State University’s (ASU)  Center for Nanotechnology in Societ6y (CNS), Note: Links have been removed,

The National Science Foundation recently announced a grant of nearly $500,000 to establish a new Virtual Institute for Responsible Innovation (VIRI) at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU (CNS-ASU). In a global marketplace that thrives on technological innovation, incorporating ethics, responsibility and sustainability into research and development is a critical priority.

VIRI’s goal is to enable an international community of students and scholars who can help establish a common understanding of responsible innovation in research, training and outreach. By doing so, VIRI aims to contribute to the governance of emerging technologies that are dominated by market uncertainty and difficult questions of how well they reflect societal values.

VIRI founding institutional partners are University of Exeter (UK), Durham University (UK), University of Sussex (UK), Maastricht University (Netherlands), University of Copenhagen (Denmark), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (Germany), University of Waterloo (Canada), Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences (Norway), and State University of Campinas (Brazil).

VIRI founding institutional affiliates are the US National Academy of Engineering’s Center for Engineering, Ethics and Society, IEEE Spectrum Online and Fondazione Giannino Bassetti.

Interesting cast of characters.

The Sept. 23, 2013 ASU news release, which originated the news item, offers some insight into the time required to create this new virtual institute,

Led by ASU faculty members David Guston and Erik Fisher, VIRI will bring a social and ethical lens to research and development practices that do not always focus on the broader implications of their research and products. Guston, director of CNS-ASU, co-director of the Consortium of Science, Policy and Outcomes, and professor in the School of Politics and Global Studies, has been pushing for the establishment of academic units that focus on responsible innovation for years.

“We are thrilled that NSF has chosen to advance responsible innovation through this unique, international collaboration,” Guston said. “It will give ASU the opportunity to help focus the field and ensure that people start thinking about the broader implications of knowledge-based innovation.”

Fisher, assistant professor in the School for Politics and Global Studies, has long been involved in integrating social considerations into science research laboratories through his NSF-funded Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) project, an affiliated project of CNS-ASU.

“Using the insights we’ve gained in the labs that have participated in the STIR project, we expect to be able to get VIRI off the ground and make progress very quickly,” Fisher said.

The VIRI appears to be an invite-only affair and it’s early days yet so there’s not much information on the website but the VIRI home page looks promising,

“Responsible innovation” (RI) is an emerging term in science and innovation policy fields across the globe. Its precise definition has been at the center of numerous meetings, research council decisions, and other activities in recent years. But today there is neither a clear, unified vision of what responsible innovation is, what it requires in order to be effective, nor what it can accomplish.
The Virtual Institute for Responsible Innovation (VIRI)

The Virtual Institute for Responsible Innovation (VIRI) was created to accelerate the formation of a community of scholars and practitioners who, despite divides in geography and political culture, will create a common concept of responsible innovation for research, training and outreach – and in doing so contribute to the governance of emerging technologies under conditions dominated by high uncertainty, high stakes, and challenging questions of novelty.
Mission

VIRI’s mission in pursuit of this vision is to develop and disseminate a sophisticated conceptual and operational understanding of RI by facilitating collaborative research, training and outreach activities among a broad partnership of academic and non-academic institutions.
Activities

VIRI will:

  • perform interlinked empirical, reflexive and normative research in a collaborative and comparative mode to explore and develop key concepts in RI;
  • develop curricular material and support educational exchanges of graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, and faculty;
  •  create a dynamic online community to represent the breadth of the institute and its multi-lateral activities;
  •  disseminate outputs from across the institute through its own and partner channels and will encourage broad sharing of its research and educational findings.

VIRI will pursue these activities with founding academic partners in the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Brazil and Canada.

The site does offer links to  relevant blogs here.

I was a bit surprised to see Canada’s University of Waterloo rather than the University of Alberta (home of Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology)  as one of the partners.

Toxicity, nanoparticles, soil, and Europe’s NANO-ECOTOXICITY Project

I have featured pieces on nanoparticles, toxicity, and soil in the past (this Aug. 15, 2011 posting about Duke University’s mesocosm project is probably the most relevant) but this study is the first one I’ve seen focusing on earthworms. From the Sept. 23, 2013 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

From the clothes and make-up we wear to the electronic devices we use every day, nanotechnology is becoming ubiquitous. But while industry has mastered the production of such materials, little is known about their fate once their service life comes to an end. The NANO-ECOTOXICITY project looked into their impact on soil organisms.

The Sept. 23, 2013 CORDIS (European Commission Community Research and Development Information Service) news release, which originated the new item, offers a Q&A (Question and Answer) with the project research leader,

Dr Maria Diez-Ortiz, research leader of the NANO-ECOTOXICITY project, tells us about her research findings and how she expects them to help increase knowledge and shape tools allowing for standard environmental hazard and risk-assessment methodologies.

What is the background of the NANO-ECOTOXICITY project?

Nanotechnology is based on the idea that, by engineering the size and shape of materials at the scale of atoms, i.e. nanometres (nm), distinct optical, electronic, or magnetic properties can be tuned to produce novel properties of commercial value. However, there is an obvious concern that such novel properties may also lead to novel behaviour when interacting with biological organisms, and thus to potentially novel toxic effects.

Since nanoparticles (NPs) are similar in size to viruses, their uptake by and transport through tissues are based on mechanisms distinct from those of molecular uptake and transport. Therefore, there is concern that standard toxicological tests may not be applicable or reliable in relation to NPs, hence compromising current risk-assessment procedures.

The majority of research on nano-safety in the environment has so far focused on the aquatic environment. Current research on environmental fate, however, indicates that soils will become the biggest environmental sink for nanoparticles. Following their entry into liquid waste streams, nanoparticles will pass through wastewater-treatment. processes, ending up in waste sludge which may accumulate in the agricultural land where this sludge is often applied.

What are the main objectives of the project?

This project deals with the toxicokinetics – that is, the rate at which a chemical enters a body and affects it – of metal nanoparticles coming into contact with soil-dwelling organisms. The aim is to determine NPs’ fate and effects in terrestrial ecosystems by means of case studies with zinc oxide and silver NPs, which represent different fate kinetics.

The project’s main objectives are to assess the toxicity of metal nanoparticles in soils in the short and long term; the main route of exposure for earthworms and whether it differs from those of ionic metals; and, finally, the influence of the exposure media on metal nanoparticle toxicity.

What is new or innovative about the project and the way it is addressing these issues?

We have been running a long-term study where soils with AgNP [silver nanoparticles] were stored and left to age for up to a year; their toxicity was tested at the start and after three, seven and 12 months of ageing. The results showed that silver toxicity increased over time, meaning that short-term standard toxicity tests may underestimate the environmental risk of silver nanoparticles.

In parallel, we found that organisms exposed to silver nanoparticles in short-term studies accumulated higher silver concentrations than organisms that were exposed to the same mass concentration of ionic silver. However, these NP exposed organisms actually suffered lower toxic effects. This observation contradicts the prevailing assumption in toxicology that the internalised concentration is directly related to chemical concentration at the target site and hence to its toxicity. This observation creates a new paradigm for nano-ecotoxicology.

What is not yet known is whether the accumulated NP metal may in the longer-term ultimately become toxic (e.g. through dissolution and ion release) in cells and tissues where AgNPs may be stored. Should this occur, the high concentrations accumulated may ultimately result in greater long-term toxicity for NPs than for ionic forms. This may reveal these accumulated NPs as internalised ‘time bombs’ relevant to long-term effects and toxicity.

However, it has to be borne in mind that the redicted environmental concentrations resulting from current use of nanoparticles (e.g. results from EU projects like NANOFATE2) are many times smaller than those used in these studies, meaning that such accumulations of nanoparticle-related silver are unlikely to occur in the environment or, ultimately, in humans.

What difficulties did you encounter and how did you solve them?

The main problems encountered relate to the tracking of nanoparticles inside the tissues and soils, as both are complex matrices. The analysis of the particles is a challenge in itself, even when in water, but to get information about their state in these matrices often requires unrealistic exposure concentrations (due to low detection limits of the highly specialised techniques used for analysis) or extraction of the particles from the matrices, which could potentially change the state of the particles.

In this project, I travelled to University of Kentucky to work with Jason Unrine and used gentle water-based extractions of soil samples immediately before analysing them using ‘Field-flow fractionation’ and ‘Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry’ to identify the state of nanoparticles in my aged soils.

To look at what form (speciation) of silver and zinc from the nanoparticle exposures could be found inside worms I collaborated with NANOFATE researchers at Cardiff University who fixed and thinly sectioned the worm tissues. I was lucky to be given the time to use specialist facilities like the UK’s Diamond Light Source synchrotron to investigate where and in what form the metals and potential nanoparticles could be found in these tissues.

The main challenge is that as soon as you take nanoparticles out of the manufacturers’ bottle they start changing, particularly when put into environments likes natural soils and waters, or even organisms. Therefore a lot of characterisation is needed during exposure to establish the state of the nanoparticles the organisms have been exposed to and how fast they are changing from pristine particles to dissolved ions, or particles with completely different surfaces.

Technical solutions to characterisation have been found during this short project, but this will remain a logistical challenge for many years to come as the analysis equipment is still very specialised and expensive and therefore not generally available.

What are the concrete results from the research so far?

The project has helped us draw various conclusions regarding the impact of NPs on the environment and how to assess them. First, we now know that soil acidity, or pH, influences the dissolution and toxicity of ZnO nanoparticles [zinc oxide].

Then, we found that toxicity of silver nanoparticles’ increases over time and that the particles’ coating affects their toxicity to soil invertebrates.

As previously mentioned, earthworms exposed to silver nanoparticles for 28 days accumulated higher silver concentrations than earthworms exposed to silver ions, without the excess silver from the nanoparticles having a toxic effect. [emphasis mine] Moreover, soil ingestion was identified as the main route of exposure to AgNP and ZnONP in earthworms.

How can industry and decision-makers ensure that nanomaterials do not impact our environment?

We hope that this project, and the larger EU project NANOFATE to which it is linked, will provide knowledge and tools enabling standard environmental-hazard and risk-assessment methodologies to be applied to engineered nanoparticles (ENPs) with just a few judicious modifications. The current systems and protocols for chemical risk assessment have been developed over decades, and where no novel toxic mechanisms exist, our results tend to say that nano fits in as long as we measure the right things and characterise realistic exposures properly.

Our research aims to determine the minimum methodological tweaks needed. So far everything indicates that the potential benefits from nanotechnology can be realised and managed safely alongside other chemicals. While we are fairly confident at this stage that ENPs impose no greater acute effects on important biological parameters – like reproduction – than their ionic forms, the NANO-ECOTOXICITY results demonstrate that we have some way to go before we can state loud and clear that we do not believe there is any novel low-level or long-term effect.

As for all chemicals, proving such a negative is impossible using short-term tests. We think the final conclusions by industry and regulators on safe use of nanoparticles should and will have to be made according to a ‘weight of evidence’ approach – proving there is a gap between predicted likely exposure levels and those levels seen to cause any effects or accumulations within ecosystem species.

What are the next topics for your research?

This project has finished but the next step for any other funding opportunity would be to address increasingly environmentally relevant exposure scenarios by analysing how nanoparticles modify in the environment and interact with living tissues and organisms at different trophic levels. I would like to investigate nanoparticle transformation and interactions in living tissues. To date, the studies that have identified this ‘excess’ accumulation of non-toxic metal loads in nanoparticleexposed organisms have only been short term.

Apart from the obviously increased food-chain transfer potential, is also not known whether, over the longer term, the accumulated NP-derived metal ultimately becomes toxic when present in tissues and cells. Such transformation and release of metal ions within tissues may ultimately result in greater longterm toxicity for NPs than for ionic forms.

Furthermore, I want to test exposures in a functioning model ecosystem including interspecific interactions and trophic transfer. Since interactions between biota and nanoparticles are relevant in natural soil systems, caution is needed when attempting to predict the ecological consequences of nanoparticles based on laboratory assays conducted with only a single species. In the presence of the full complement of biological components of soil systems, complex NPs may follow a range of pathways in which coatings may be removed and replaced with exudate materials. Studies to quantify the nature of these interactions are therefore needed to identify the fate, bioavailability and toxicity of realistic ‘non-pristine’ forms of NPs present in real soil environments.

New to me was the material about ageing silver nanoparticles and their increased toxicity over time. While this is an interesting piece of information it’s not necessarily all that useful. It seems even with their increased uptake compared to silver ions, silver nanoparticles (Diez-Ortiz doesn’t indicate whether or not * they tested variously aged silver nanoparticles) did not have toxic effects on the earthworms tested.

The NANO-ECOTOXICITY website doesn’t appear to exist anymore but you can find the NANOFATE (Nanoparticle Fate Assessment and Toxicity in the Environment) website here.

* ‘not’ removed to clarify meaning, Oct. 9, 2013. (Note: I had on Oct. 8, 2013 removed ‘not’ in a second place from the sentence in an attempt t o clarify the meaning and ended up not making any sense at all.) Please read Maria Diez-Ortiz in the Comments, as she clarifies matters in a way I could never hope to.

Blind and visually impaired students introduced to nanotechnology

The US National Institute for Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) recently held a programme for blind and visually impaired students for the third year. According to a Sept. 20, 2013 news item on Nanowerk,

In July 2013, 45 blind and visually impaired high school students from around the country gathered at Towson University for a weeklong event designed to expose them to science careers long believed to be impossible for the blind. Twenty of those students participated in an exciting educational program on nanoscale science led by NIST Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) Project Leader Vladimir Aksyuk, who has participated in this event for the last three years, and CNST/University of Maryland Postdoctoral Researcher Kevin Twedt, who is visually impaired.

The NIST CNST Sept. 19,2012 news release, which originated the news item, offers details about the activities the students engaged in,

During six hours of hands-on activities spread over two days, the students learned the basics of size and scale, the metric system, and received an introduction to the nanoscale. They then learned the techniques scientists use to create and measure nanoscale structures. By probing canes against floor models of different shapes and sizes, they were exposed to how an atomic force microscope probe senses topographic changes on a surface. Using plastic models, they explored the structural relationships between carbon atoms forming either planar graphene or three-dimensional carbon nanotubes. Finally, by scanning a laser pointer across black shapes on white paper and using a photodiode with an audio output that got louder in white regions and quieter in dark regions, the students learned how a scanning electron microscope creates images by scanning a beam of electrons across a surface.

“Most of these students had never really considered careers in science or knew that they are possible for blind people,” says Twedt, who has had 20/200 vision since birth. “In a few days, the students gained an appreciation for the work scientists do and perhaps some will consider going into science later on.”

It’s exciting to see this more inclusive programming.

A chance to game the future Sept. 25 and 26, 2013 starting 9 am PDT

Thanks to David Bruggeman at his Pasco Phronesis blog (his Sept. 20, 2013 posting)  for featuring a 36-hour conversation/game (which is recruiting players/participants). It is  called  Innovate 2038  and you do have to pre-register for this game. For anyone who likes a little more information before jumping into to join, here’s what the Innovate 2038 About page has to offer,

About Innovate2038

The traditional paths to research and technology innovation will no longer work for the critical challenges and new opportunities of 2038.

Increasingly constrained resources, the rise of mega-cities, and rapidly shifting developments in business processes, regulations, and consumer sentiment will present epic challenges to business as usual.

At the same time, opportunities will abound. Emerging fields like 3D-printing and additive manufacturing, synthetic biology, and data modeling will catalyze the next generation of products, services, and markets—if research and innovation can lead the way.

But managing all of these research and innovation efforts will require new tools and technologies, new skills in project and talent management, new players and collaborations, and ultimately a collective re-imagining of the value proposition of research to society.

Innovate2038 is a 36-hour global conversation based on IRI’s extensive IRI2038 research project to uncover new ideas and new strategies that can reinvent the very concept of R&D and technology innovation management for the 21st century.

On Sept 25 & 26, 2013, Innovate2038 will take place in corporations, labs, classrooms, but also hacker-spaces, online innovation communities, and networks of researchers and makers, in countries around the world.

Innovate2038 will bring together current leading voices together with emerging and below-the-radar new players that will be increasingly important to the practice of research and innovation.

The platform to support the conversation is itself a signal of the future—a cutting-edge crowdsourced game called Foresight Engine, developed and facilitated by the Institute for the Future. It’s designed to spark new ideas and inspire collaborations among hundreds of people around the world. [emphasis mine]

In as little as five minutes, you can log on to share rapid-fire micro-contributions that will help make the future of research and innovation heading out to 2038.
For a day and half, you can compete to win points, achieve awards, and gain the recognition of the leading thinkers in technology management today.

Pre-register right now as a ‘game insider’ to be the first to know about the game leading up to the Sept 25 launch.

David notes that this ’36-hour conversation/game is part of a larger project, from his Sept. 20, 2013 Pasco Phronesis posting (Note: Links have been removed),

… This is part of the Industrial Research Institute’s project on 2038 Future, which focuses on the art and science of research and development management.  That project has involved possible future scenarios, retrospective examinations of research management, and scanning the current environment.  The game engine was developed by the Institute for the Future, and is called the Foresight Engine.  The basics of the engine encourage participants to contribute short ideas, with points going to those ideas that get approved and/or built on by other participants.

Here’s more about the  Industrial Research Institute (IRI) from their History webpage,

Fourteen companies comprised the original membership of the Institute when it was formed in 1938, under the auspices of the [US] National Research Council (NRC). Four of these companies retain membership today: Colgate-Palmolive Company, Procter & Gamble Company, Hercules Powder Company (now Ashland, Inc.), and UOP, LLC, formerly known as Universal Oil Products (acquired by Honeywell). Four of the first five presidents were from the six charter-member-company category.

Maurice Holland, then Director of the NRC Division of Engineering, was largely responsible for bringing together about 50 representatives from industry, government, and universities to an initial organizational meeting in February 1938 in New York City. The Institute was an integral part of the National Research Council until 1945, when it separated to become a non-profit membership corporation in the State of New York. However, association with the Council continues unbroken.

At the founding meeting, several speakers stressed the need for an association of research directors–something different from the usual technical society–and that the benefits to be derived would depend on the extent of cooperation by its members. The greatest advantage, they said, would come through personal contacts with members of the group–still a major characteristic of IRI.

In more recent years, the activities of the Association have broadened considerably. IRI now offers services to the full range of R&D and innovation professionals in the United States and abroad.

I went exploring and found this about the game developer, Institute for the Future  (IFTF) on the website’s Who We Are page (Note: Links have been removed),

IFTF is an independent, non-profit research organization with a 45-year track record of helping all kinds of organizations make the futures they want. Our core research staff and creative design studio work together to provide practical foresight for a world undergoing rapid change.

….

Here’s more about the Foresight Engine , the “cutting-edge crowdsourced game,” from the IFTF website’s Collaborative Forecasting Games webpage,

Collaborative Forecasting Games: a crowd’s view of the future

Collaborative forecasting games engage a large and diverse group of people—potentially from around the world—to imagine futures that might go unnoticed by a team of experts. These crowds may include the general public, a targeted sector of the public, or the entire staff of a private organization. And the games themselves can range from futures brainstorming to virtual innovation gameboards and even rich narrative platforms for telling important stories about the future.

Foresight Engine

IFTF has a collaborative forecasting platform called Foresight Engine that makes it easy to set up games without a lot of investment in game design. In the tradition of brainstorming, the platform invites people to play positive or critical ideas about the future and then to build on these ideas to forms chains of discussion—complete with points, awards, and achievements for winning ideas. While the focus of the platform is on Twitter-length ideas of 140 characters or less, a Foresight Engine game does much more than harvest innovative ideas. It builds a literacy among players about the future issues addressed by the game, and it also provides a window on the crowd’s level of understanding of complex futures—laying the foundation for future literacy building. It shows who inspires the greatest following and often surfaces potential thought leaders.

It’s always interesting to dig into an organization’s history (from the IFTF’s History page,

The Institute for the Future has 45 years of forecasts on which to reflect. We’re based in California’s Silicon Valley—a community at the crossroads of technological innovation, social experimentation, and global interchange. Founded in 1968 by a group of former RAND Corporation researchers with a grant from the Ford Foundation to take leading-edge research methodologies into the public and business sectors, IFTF is committed to building the future by understanding it deeply.

I wonder if Innovate 2038 game/conversation will take place in any language other than English? In any event, I just tried to register and couldn’t.  I hope this is a problem on my end rather than the organizers’ as I know how devastating it can be to have your project encounter this kind of roadblock just before launching.

The UK’s Futurefest and an interview with Sue Thomas

Futurefest with “some of the planet’s most radical thinkers, makers and performers” is taking place in London next weekend on Sept. 28 – 29, 2013 and  I am very pleased to be featuring an interview with one of  Futurefest’s speakers, Sue Thomas who amongst many other accomplishments was also the founder of the  Creative Writing and New Media programme at De Montfort University, UK, where I got my master’s degree.

Here’s Sue,

suethomas

Sue Thomas was formerly Professor of New Media at De Montfort University. Now she writes and consults on digital well-being. Her new book ‘Technobiophilia: nature and cyberspace’ explains how contact with the natural world can help soothe our connected lives.http://www.suethomas.net @suethomas

  • I understand you are participating in Futurefest’s SciFi Writers’ Parliament; could you explain what that is and what the nature of your participation will be?

The premise of the session is to invite Science Fiction writers to play with the idea that they have been given the power to realise the kinds of new societies and cultures they imagine in their books. Each of us will present a brief proposal for the audience to vote on. The panel will be chaired by Robin Ince, a well-known comedian, broadcaster, and science enthusiast. The presenters are Cory Doctorow, Pat Cadigan, Ken MacLeod, Charles Stross, Roz Kaveney and myself.

  • Do you have expectations for who will be attending ‘Parliament’ and will they be participating as well as watching?

I’m expecting the audience for FutureFest http://www.futurefest.org/ to be people interested in future forecasting across the four themes of the event: Well-becoming, In the imaginarium,  We are all gardeners now, and The value of everything. There are plenty of opportunities for them to participate, not just in discussing and voting in panels like ours, but also in The Daily Future, a Twitter game, and Playify, which will run around and across the weekend. 

  • How are you preparing for ‘Parliament’?

 I will propose A Global Environmental Protection Act for Cyberspace The full text of the proposal is  on my blog here http://suethomasnet.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/futurefest/ It’s based on the thinking and research around my new book Technobiophilia: nature and cyberspace http://suethomasnet.wordpress.com/technobiophilia/ which coincidentally comes out in the UK two days before FutureFest. In the runup to the event I’ll also be gathering peoples’ views and refining my thoughts.

sue thomas_technobiophilia

  • Is there any other event you’re looking forward to in particular and why would that be?

The whole of FutureFest looks great and I’m excited about being there all weekend to enjoy it. The following week I’m doing a much smaller but equally interesting event at my local Cafe Scientifique, which is celebrating its first birthday with a talk from me about Technobiophilia. I’ve only recently moved to Bournemouth so this will be a great chance to meet the kinds of interesting local people who come to Cafe Scientifique in all parts of the world. http://suethomasnet.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/cafe-scientifique/

 

I’ll also be launching the book in North America with an online lecture in the Metaliteracy MOOC at SUNY Empire State University. The details are yet to be released but it’s booked for 18 November. http://metaliteracy.cdlprojects.com/index.html

  • Is there anything you’d like to add?

I’m also doing another event at FutureFest which might be of interest, especially to people interested in the future of death. It’s called xHumed and this is what it’s about: If we can archive and store our personal data, media, DNA and brain patterns, the question of whether we can bring back the dead is almost redundant. The right question is should we? It is the year 2050AD and great thought leaders from history have been “xHumed”. What could possibly go wrong? Through an interactive performance Five10Twelve will provoke and encourage the audience to consider the implications via soundbites and insights from eminent experts – both living and dead. I’m expecting some lively debate!

Thank you,  Sue for bringing Futurefest to life and congratulations on your new book!

You can find out more about Futurefest and its speakers here at the Futurefest website. I found Futurefest’s ticket webpage (which is associated with the National Theatre) a little more  informative about the event as a whole,

Some of the planet’s most radical thinkers, makers and performers are gathering in East London this September to create an immersive experience of what the world will feel like over the next few decades.

From the bright and uplifting to the dark and dystopian, FutureFest will present a weekend of compelling talks, cutting-edge shows, and interactive performances that will inspire and challenge you to change the future.

Enter the wormhole in Shoreditch Town Hall on the weekend of 28 and 29 September 2013 and experience the next phase of being human.

FutureFest is split into four sessions, Saturday Morning, Saturday Afternoon, Sunday Morning and Sunday Afternoon. You can choose to come to one, two, three or all sessions. They all have a different flavour, but each one will immerse you deep in the future.

Please note that FutureFest is a living, breathing festival so sessions are subject to change. We’ll keep you up to date on our FutureFest website.

Saturday Morning will feature The Blind Giant author Nick Harkaway, bionic man Bertolt Meyer and techno-cellist Peter Gregson. There will also be secret agents, villages of the future and a crowd-sourced experiment in futurology with some dead futurists.

Saturday Afternoon has forecaster Tamar Kasriel helping to futurescape your life, and gamemaker Alex Fleetwood showing us what life will be like in the Gameful century. We’ve got top political scientists David Runciman and Diane Coyle exploring the future of democracy. There will also be a mass-deception experiment, more secret agents and a look forward to what the weather will be like in 2100.

Sunday Morning sees Sermons of the Future. Taking the pulpit will be Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales, social entrepreneur and model Lily Cole, and Astronomer Royal Martin Rees. Meanwhile the comedian Robin Ince will be chairing a Science Fiction Parliament with top SF authors, Roberto Unger will be analysing the future of religion and one of the world’s top chefs, Andoni Aduriz, will be exploring how food will make us feel in the future.

Sunday Afternoon will feature a futuristic take on the Sunday lunch, with food futurologist Morgaine Gaye inviting you for lunch in the Gastrodome with insects and 3D meat print-outs on the menu. Smari McCarthy, founder of Iceland’s Pirate Party and Wikileaks worker, will be exploring life in a digitised world, and Charlie Leadbeater, Diane Coyle and Mark Stevenson will be imagining cities and states of the future.

I noticed that a few Futurefest speakers have been featured here:

Eric Drexler, ‘Mr. Nano’, was last mentioned in a May 6, 2013 posting about a talk he was giving in Seattle, Washington to promote his new book, Radical Abundance.

Martin Rees, Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics, was mentioned in a Nov. 26, 3012 posting about the Cambridge Project for Existential Risk (humans relative to robots).

Bertolt Meyer, a young researcher from Zurich University and a lifelong user of prosthetic technology, in a Jan. 30, 2013 posting about building a bionic man.

Cory Doctorow, a science fiction writer, who ran afoul of James Moore, then Minister of Canadian Heritage and now Minister of Industry Canada, who accused him of being a ‘radical extremists’  prior to new copyright legislation  for Canadians, was mentioned in a June 25, 2010 posting.

Wish I could be at London’s Futurefest in lieu of that I will wish the organizers and participants all the best.

* On a purely cosmetic note, on Dec. 5, 2013, I changed the paragraph format in the responses.