Tag Archives: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Science and the 2016 US presidential campaign

An Aug. 10, 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) news release (received via email and issued on behalf of ScienceDebate.org) has elicited an interesting response from David Bruggeman on his Pasco Phronesis blog. But first, here’s more about the announcement from over 50 science societies and organizations in the US regarding their list of 20 questions about science for the four 2016 US presidential candidates,

A blue-ribbon coalition of fifty-six leading U.S. nonpartisan organizations, representing more than 10 million scientists and engineers, are calling on U.S. Presidential candidates to address a set of twenty major issues in science, engineering, technology, health and the environment, and encouraging journalists and voters to press the candidates on them during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election season.

“Taken collectively, these twenty issues have at least as profound an impact on voters’ lives as those more frequently covered by journalists, including candidates’ views on economic policy, foreign policy, and faith and values,” said ScienceDebate.org chair Shawn Otto, organizer of the effort. A 2015 national poll commissioned by ScienceDebate.org and Research!America revealed that a large majority of Americans (87%) say it is important that candidates for President and Congress have a basic understanding of the science informing public policy issues.

The group crowd sourced and refined hundreds of suggestions, then submitted “the 20 most important, most immediate questions” to the Presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein, “along with an invitation to the candidates to answer them in writing and to discuss them on television,” said Otto. The questions and answers will be widely distributed to the science community, journalists, and the general public to help voters make well-informed decisions at the ballot box this November.

The list of organizations is a who’s who of the American science enterprise. “Sometimes politicians think science issues are limited to simply things like the budget for NASA or NIH, and they fail to realize that a President’s attitude toward and decisions about science and research affect the public wellbeing, from the growth of our economy, to education, to public health. Voters should have a chance to know where the Presidential candidates stand,” said Rush Holt, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive publisher of the Science family of journals. “We want journalists and voters to ask these questions insistently of the candidates and their campaign staff.”

Nonpartisan organizations participating in the effort include:

**ScienceDebate.org
*American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Geographers
*American Chemical Society
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
*American Geosciences Institute
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering
*American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Professional Geologists
American Rock Mechanics Association
American Society for Engineering Education
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
American Society of Mammalogists
Association for Women in Geosciences
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Automation Federation
*Biophysical Society
Botanical Society of America
Carnegie Institution for Science
Conservation Lands Foundation
Crop Science Society of America
Duke University
Ecological Society of America
Geological Society of America
*IEEE-USA
International Committee Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies
Materials Research Society
NACE International, The Worldwide Corrosion Authority
*National Academy of Engineering
*National Academy of Medicine
*National Academy of Sciences
National Cave and Karst Research Institute
*National Center for Science Education
National Ground Water Association
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Northeastern University
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Paleontological Society
*Research!America
Scientific American magazine
Seismological Society of America
*Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Honor Society
Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Society of Wetland Scientists
Society of Women Engineers
Soil Science Society of America
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Tufts University
*Union of Concerned Scientists
University City Science Center
*U.S. Council on Competitiveness
The Wildlife Society
World Endometriosis Research Foundation America

*Codeveloper of the questions
**Lead partner organization

An Aug. 10, 2016 article by Brady Dennis for the Washington Post explains that while ScienceDebate.org organizers would prefer a debate they feel they are more likely to get responses to a list of questions they provide the candidates,

Climate change. Mental health. Space exploration. Vaccinations. The health of the oceans. Antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

These are not the typical meat-and-potatoes topics of presidential debates. Often, the candidates and people who ask them questions skip over such topics entirely.

But dozens of non-partisan groups that represent millions of scientists and engineers across the country are eager to change that. For the third consecutive presidential election, the folks behind ScienceDebate.org are asking candidates to hold a debate exclusively about major issues in science, engineering, health and the environment. Since that almost certainly won’t happen (it didn’t in 2008 or 2012, either), the organizers have put together 20 questions they are asking candidates to address in writing.

You can find the group’s list of 20 questions here.

As for David Bruggeman’s response, in an Aug. 11, 2016 posting on his Pasco Phronesis blog, there’s this (Note: Links have been removed),

A point of blog history worth noting – I’m no fan of ScienceDebate, so you can guess the emphasis of the writing to come.

Yesterday ScienceDebate released the questions it wants the Presidential candidates to answer.  While it still makes the motions toward an in-person debate, past experience suggests it won’t do any better than receiving answers from the campaigns.

Of course, it wouldn’t hurt if the organizers actually engaged with the Presidential Commission on Debates, which sponsors the debates (for the general election) and sets everything up several months in advance.  While I doubt they would be immediately open to having a debate focused solely on science, they might be persuaded to make those questions a significant portion of a debate focused on domestic policy.

I recommend reading David’s post in its entirety for his speculations as to why ScienceDebate has not approached the Presidential Commission on Debates. Btw, thank you David for the information about the commission on debates. It certainly changed my take on the situation.

Canadian science petition and a science diplomacy event in Ottawa on June 21, 2016*

The Canadian science policy and science funding scene is hopping these days. Canada’s Minister of Science, Kirsty Duncan, announced a new review of federal funding for fundamental science on Monday, June 13, 2016 (see my June 15, 2016 post for more details and a brief critique of the panel) and now, there’s a new Parliamentary campaign for a science advisor and a Canadian Science Policy Centre event on science diplomacy.

Petition for a science advisor

Kennedy Stewart, Canadian Member of Parliament (Burnaby South) and NDP (New Democratic Party) Science Critic, has launched a campaign for independent science advice for the government. Here’s more from a June 15, 2016 announcement (received via email),

After years of muzzling and misuse of science by the Conservatives, our scientists need lasting protections in order to finally turn the page on the lost Harper decade.

I am writing to ask your support for a new campaign calling for an independent science advisor.

While I applaud the new Liberal government for their recent promises to support science, we have a long way to go to rebuild Canada’s reputation as a global knowledge leader. As NDP Science Critic, I continue to push for renewed research funding and measures to restore scientific integrity.

Canada badly needs a new science advisor to act as a public champion for research and evidence in Ottawa. Although the Trudeau government has committed to creating a Chief Science Officer, the Minister of Science – Dr. Kirsty Duncan – has yet to state whether or not the new officer will be given real independence and a mandate protected by law.

Today, we’re launching a new parliamentary petition calling for just that: https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Sign/e-415

Can you add your name right now?

Canada’s last national science advisor lacked independence from the government and was easily eliminated in 2008 after the anti-science Harper Conservatives took power.

That’s why the Minister needs to build the new CSO to last and entrench the position in legislation. Rhetoric and half-measures aren’t good enough.

Please add your voice for public science by signing our petition to the Minister of Science.

Thank you for your support,

Breakfast session on science diplomacy

One June 21, 2016 the Canadian Science Policy Centre is presenting a breakfast session on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, (from an announcement received via email),

“Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century: The Potential for Tomorrow”
Remarks by Dr. Vaughan Turekian,
Science and Technology Adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry

Event Information
Tuesday, June 21, 2016, Room 238-S, Parliament Hill
7:30am – 8:00am – Continental Breakfast
8:00am – 8:10am – Opening Remarks, MP Terry Beech
8:10am – 8:45am – Dr. Vaughan Turekian Remarks and Q&A

Dr. Turekian’s visit comes during a pivotal time as Canada is undergoing fundamental changes in numerous policy directions surrounding international affairs. With Canada’s comeback on the world stage, there is great potential for science to play an integral role in the conduct of our foreign affairs.  The United States is currently one of the leaders in science diplomacy, and as such, listening to Dr.Turekian will provide a unique perspective from the best practices of science diplomacy in the US.

Actually, Dr. Turekian’s visit comes before a North American Summit being held in Ottawa on June 29, 2016 and which has already taken a scientific turn. From a June 16, 2016 news item on phys.org,

Some 200 intellectuals, scientists and artists from around the world urged the leaders of Mexico, the United States and Canada on Wednesday to save North America’s endangered migratory Monarch butterfly.

US novelist Paul Auster, environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Canadian poet [Canadian media usually describe her as a writer] Margaret Atwood, British writer Ali Smith and India’s women’s and children’s minister Maneka Sanjay Gandhi were among the signatories of an open letter to the three leaders.

US President Barack Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto will hold a North American summit in Ottawa on June 29 [2016].

The letter by the so-called Group of 100 calls on the three leaders to “take swift and energetic actions to preserve the Monarch’s migratory phenomenon” when they meet this month.

In 1996-1997, the butterflies covered 18.2 hectares (45 acres) of land in Mexico’s central mountains.

It fell to 0.67 hectares in 2013-2014 but rose to 4 hectares this year. Their population is measured by the territory they cover.

They usually arrive in Mexico between late October and early November and head back north in March.

Given this turn of events, I wonder how Turekian, given that he’s held his current position for less than a year, might (or might not) approach the question of Monarch butterflies and diplomacy.

I did a little research about Turekian and found this Sept. 10, 2016 news release announcing his appointment as the Science and Technology Adviser to the US Secretary of State,

On September 8, Dr. Vaughan Turekian, formerly the Chief International Officer at The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), was named the 5th Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State. In this capacity, Dr. Turekian will advise the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment on international environment, science, technology, and health matters affecting the foreign policy of the United States. Dr. Turekian will draw upon his background in atmospheric chemistry and extensive policy experience to promote science, technology, and engineering as integral components of U.S. diplomacy.

Dr. Turekian brings both technical expertise and 14 years of policy experience to the position. As former Chief International Officer for The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and Director of AAAS’s Center for Science Diplomacy, Dr. Turekian worked to build bridges between nations based on shared scientific goals, placing special emphasis on regions where traditional political relationships are strained or do not exist. As Editor-in-Chief of Science & Diplomacy, an online quarterly publication, Dr. Turekian published original policy pieces that have served to inform international science policy recommendations. Prior to his work at AAAS, Turekian worked at the State Department as Special Assistant and Adviser to the Under Secretary for Global Affairs on issues related to sustainable development, climate change, environment, energy, science, technology, and health and as a Program Director for the Committee on Global Change Research at the National Academy of Sciences where he was study director for a White House report on climate change science.

Turekian’s last editorial for Science & Diplomacy dated June 30, 2015 features a title (Evolving Institutions for Twenty-First Century [Science] Diplomacy) bearing a resemblance to the title for his talk in Ottawa and perhaps it provides a preview (spoilers),

Over the recent decade, its treatment of science and technology issues has increased substantially, with a number of cover stories focused on topics that bridge science, technology, and foreign affairs. This thought leadership reflects a broader shift in thinking within institutions throughout the world about the importance of better integrating the communities of science and diplomacy in novel ways.

In May, a high-level committee convened by Japan’s minister of foreign affairs released fifteen recommendations for how Japan could better incorporate its scientific and technological expertise into its foreign policy. While many of the recommendations were to be predicted, including the establishment of the position of science adviser to the foreign minister, the breadth of the recommendations highlighted numerous new ways Japan could leverage science to meet its foreign policy objectives. The report itself marks a turning point for an institution looking to upgrade its ability to meet and shape the challenges of this still young century.

On the other side of the Pacific, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its own assessment of science in the U.S. Department of State. Their report, “Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Embedding a Culture of Science and Technology Throughout the Department of State,” builds on its landmark 1999 report, which, among other things, established the position of science and technology adviser to the secretary of state. The twenty-seven recommendations in the new report are wide ranging, but as a whole speak to the fact that while one of the oldest U.S. institutions of government has made much progress toward becoming more scientifically and technologically literate, there are many more steps that could be taken to leverage science and technology as a key element of U.S. foreign policy.

These two recent reports highlight the importance of foreign ministries as vital instruments of science diplomacy. These agencies of foreign affairs, like their counterparts around the world, are often viewed as conservative and somewhat inflexible institutions focused on stability rather than transformation. However, they are adjusting to a world in which developments in science and technology move rapidly and affect relationships and interactions at bilateral, regional, and global scales.

At the same time that some traditional national instruments of diplomacy are evolving to better incorporate science, international science institutions are also evolving to meet the diplomatic and foreign policy drivers of this more technical century. …

It’s an interesting read and I’m glad to see the mention of Japan in his article. I’d like to see Canadian science advice and policy initiatives take more notice of the rest of the world rather than focusing almost solely on what’s happening in the US and Great Britain (see my June 15, 2016 post for an example of what I mean). On another note, it was disconcerting to find out that Turekian believes that we are only now moving past the Cold War politics of the past.

Unfortunately for anyone wanting to attend the talk, ticket sales have ended even though they were supposed to be open until June 17, 2016. And, there doesn’t seem to be a wait list.

You may want to try arriving at the door and hoping that people have cancelled or fail to arrive therefore acquiring a ticket. Should you be an MP (Member of Parliament), Senator, or guest of the Canadian Science Policy Conference, you get a free ticket. Should you be anyone else, expect to pay $15, assuming no one is attempting to scalp (sell one for more than it cost) these tickets.

*’ … on June’ in headline changed to ‘ … on June 21, 2016’ on June 17, 2016.

Call for Entries: 2016 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Awards

You don’t have to rush your entry into the competition (from a May 3, 2016 AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) notice received via email),

We are accepting entries in the 2016 competition for the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Awards. The deadline is August 1, 2016. Entries must have been published, broadcast or posted online during the contest year: July 16, 2015, to July 15, 2016.

Thanks to a doubled endowment by The Kavli Foundation, we accept entries from journalists worldwide in all categories. Nearly 40 percent of our winners in 2015 — the inaugural year of the global competition — were international entrants.

We present two awards in each category: a Gold award ($5,000) and a Silver award ($3,500). The categories are as follows: large newspaper, small newspaper, magazine, television spot news/feature, television in-depth, audio (radio or podcast), online and children’s science news.

Contest rules can be found here,

The contest year is 16 July 2015 through 15 July 2016. All entries must be submitted online on or before midnight 1 August 2016. Entries must have been originally published, broadcast or posted online during the contest year. There is no entry fee.

The awards are open to reporters doing work for independent news organizations around the world. Print articles must be readily accessible to the public by subscription or newsstand sales. If the submitted work was published or broadcast in a language other than English, you must provide an English translation. See online FAQ for further discussion.

A story or series of stories may be entered in one category only.

The following are not eligible for the AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Awards:

  • Items exclusively concerning health or medical treatment. (See the online FAQ for further discussion.)
  • Items published originally in AAAS publications or produced by AAAS.
  • Items by employees of AAAS or The Kavli Foundation.
  • Winners of the 2015 awards are not eligible. Individuals who have won three times are no longer eligible.

 

Read the official contest rules

Submission guidelines can be found here and submissions can be made from this page (scroll down).

Science (magazine) investigates Sci-Hub (a pirate site for scientific papers)

Sci-Hub, a pirate website for scientific papers, and its progenitor, Alexandra Elbakyan, have generated a couple of articles and an editorial in Science magazine’s latest issue (April 28, 2016?). An April 29, 2016 article by Bob Yirka for phys.org describes one of the articles (Note: Links have been removed),

A correspondent for the Science family of journals has published an investigative piece in Science on Sci-Hub, a website that illegally publishes scholarly literature, i.e. research papers. In his article, John Bohannon describes how he made contact with Alexandra Elbakyan, the founder of what is now the world’s largest site for pirated scholarly articles, data she gave him, and commentary on what was revealed. Bohannon has also published another piece focused exclusively on Elbakyan, describing her as a frustrated science student. Marcia McNutt, Editor-in-Chief of the Science Family also weighs in on her “love-hate” relationship with Sci-Hub, and explains in detail why she believes the site is likely to cause problems for scholarly publishing heading into the future.

An April 28, 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) news release provides some detail about the number of downloads from the Sci-Hub site,

In this investigative news piece from Science, contributing correspondent John Bohannon dives into data from Sci-Hub, the world’s largest pirate website for scholarly literature. For the first time, basic questions about Sci-Hub’s millions of users can be answered: Where are they and what are they reading? Bohannon’s statistical analysis is based on server log data supplied by Alexandra Elbakyan herself, the neuroscientist who created Sci-Hub in 2011. After establishing contact with her through an encrypted chat system, Bohannon and Elbakyan worked together to create a data set for public release: 28 million Sci-Hub download requests going back to 1 September 2015, including the digital object identifier (DOI) for every paper and the clustered locations of users based on their Internet Protocol address. In his story, Bohannon reveals that Sci-Hub usage is highest in China with 4.4 million download requests over the 6-month period, followed by India and Iran. But Sci-Hub users are not limited to the developing world, he reports; the U.S. is the fifth largest downloader and some of the most intense Sci-Hub activity seems to be happening on US and European university campuses, supporting the claim that many users could be accessing the papers through their libraries, but turn to Sci-Hub for convenience.

Bohanon’s piece appears to be open access. Here’s a link and a citation,

Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone by John Bohannon. Science (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf5664 Published April 28, 2016.

Comments

The analysis of the data is fascinating but I’m not sure why this is being billed as an ‘investigative’ piece. Generally speaking I would expect an investigative piece to unearth new information which has likely been hidden. At the very least, I would expect some juicy inside information (i.e., gossip).

Bohannon certainly had no difficulty getting information (from the April 28, 2016 Science article),

For someone denounced as a criminal by powerful corporations and scholarly societies, Elbakyan was surprisingly forthcoming and transparent. After establishing contact through an encrypted chat system, she worked with me over the course of several weeks to create a data set for public release: every download event over the 6-month period starting 1 September 2015, including the digital object identifier (DOI) for every paper. To protect the privacy of Sci-Hub users, we agreed that she would first aggregate users’ geographic locations to the nearest city using data from Google Maps; no identifying internet protocol (IP) addresses were given to me. (The data set and details on how it was analyzed are freely accessible)

Why would it be surprising that someone who has made a point of freeing scientific research and making it accessible also makes the data from her Sci-Hub site freely available? The action certainly seems consistent with her raison d’être.

Bohannon steers away from making any serious criticisms of the current publishing régimes although he does mention a few bones of contention while laying them to rest, more or less. This is no great surprise since he’s writing for one of the ‘big three’, a journal that could be described as having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. (For those who are unaware, there are three journal considered the most prestigious or high impact for scientific studies: Nature, Cell, and Science.)

Characterizing Elbakyan as a ‘frustrated’ student in an April 28, 2016 profile by John Bohannon (The frustrated science student behind Sci-Hub) seems a bit dismissive. Sci-Hub may have been borne of frustration but it is an extraordinary accomplishment.

The piece has resulted in at least one very irate librarian, John Dupuis, from an April 29, 2016 posting on his Confessions of a Science Librarian blog,

Overall, the articles are pretty good descriptions of the Sci-Hub phenomenon and relatively even-handed [emphasis mine], especially coming from one of the big society publishers like AAAS.

There was one bit in the main article, Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone, that really stuck in my craw. Basically, Sci-Hub — and all that article piracy — is librarians’ fault.

And for all the researchers at Western universities who use Sci-Hub instead, the anonymous publisher lays the blame on librarians for not making their online systems easier to use and educating their researchers. “I don’t think the issue is access—it’s the perception that access is difficult,” he says.

Fortunately it was countered, in the true “give both sides of the story” style of mainstream journalism, by another quote, this time from a librarian.

“I don’t agree,” says Ivy Anderson, the director of collections for the California Digital Library in Oakland, which provides journal access to the 240,000 researchers of the University of California system. The authentication systems that university researchers must use to read subscription journals from off campus, and even sometimes on campus with personal computers, “are there to enforce publisher restrictions,” she says.

But of course, I couldn’t let it go. Anderson’s response is perfectly fine but somehow there just wasn’t enough rage and exasperation in it. So I stewed about it over night and tweeted up a tweetstorm of rage this morning, with the idea that if the rant was well-received I would capture the text as part of a blog post.

As you may have guessed by my previous comments, I didn’t find the article quite as even-handed as Dupuis did. As for the offence to librarians, I did notice but it seems in line with the rest of the piece which dismisses, downplays, and offloads a few serious criticisms while ignoring how significant issues (problematic peer review process,  charging exorbitant rates for access to publicly funded research, failure to adequately tag published papers that are under review after serious concerns are raised, failure to respond in a timely fashion when serious concerns are raised about a published paper, positive publication bias, …) have spawned the open access movement and also Sci-Hub. When you consider that governments rely on bibliometric data such as number of papers published and number of papers published in high impact journals (such as one of the ‘big three’), it’s clear there’s a great deal at stake.

Other Sci-Hub pieces here

My last piece about Sci-Hub was a February 25, 2016 posting titled,’ Using copyright to shut down easy access to scientific research‘ featuring some of the discussion around Elsevier and its legal suite against Sci-Hub.

NISE Net, the acronym remains the same but the name changes

NISE Net, the US Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network is winding down the nano and refocussing on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). In short, NISE Net will now stand for National Informal STEM Education Network. Here’s more from the Jan. 7, 2016 NISE Net announcement in the January 2016 issue of the Nano Bite,

COMMUNITY NEWS

NISE Network is Transitioning to the National Informal STEM Education Network

Thank you for all the great work you have done over the past decade. It has opened up totally new possibilities for the decade ahead.

We are excited to let you know that with the completion of NSF funding for the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network, and the soon-to-be-announced NASA [US National Aeronautics and Space Administration]-funded Space and Earth Informal STEM Education project, the NISE Network is transitioning to a new, ongoing identity as the National Informal STEM Education Network! While we’ll still be known as the NISE Net, network partners will now engage audiences across the United States in a range of STEM topics. Several new projects are already underway and others are in discussion for the future.

Current NISE Net projects include:

  • The original Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net), focusing on nanoscale science, engineering, and technology (funded by NSF and led by the Museum of Science, Boston)
  • Building with Biology, focusing on synthetic biology (funded by NSF and led by the Museum of Science with AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science], BioBuilder, and SynBerc [emphases mine])
  • Sustainability in Science Museums (funded by Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiatives and led by Arizona State University)
  • Transmedia Museum, focusing on science and society issues raised by Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (funded by NSF and led by Arizona State University)
  • Space and Earth Informal STEM Education (funded by NASA and led by the Science Museum of Minnesota)

The “new” NISE Net will be led by the Science Museum of Minnesota in collaboration with the Museum of Science and Arizona State University. Network leadership, infrastructure, and participating organizations will include existing Network partners, and others attracted to the new topics. We will be in touch through the newsletter, blog, and website in the coming months to share more about our plans for the Network and its projects.

In the mean time, work is continuing with partners within the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network throughout 2016, with an award end date of February 28, 2017. Although there will not be a new NanoDays 2016 kit, we encourage our partners to continue to engage audiences in nano by hosting NanoDays events in 2016 (March 26 – April 3) and in the years ahead using their existing kit materials. The Network will continue to host and update nisenet.org and the online catalog that includes 627 products of which 366 are NISE Net products (public and professional), 261 are Linked products, and 55 are Evaluation and Research reports. The Evaluation and Research team is continuing to work on final Network reports, and the Museum and Community Partnerships project has awarded 100 Explore Science physical kits to partners to create new or expanded collaborations with local community organizations to reach new underserved audiences not currently engaged in nano. These collaborative projects are taking place spring-summer 2016.

Thank you again for making this possible through your great work.

Best regards,

Larry Bell, Museum of Science
Paul Martin, Science Museum of Minnesota and
Rae Ostman, Arizona State University

As noted in previous posts, I’m quite interested in the synthetic biology focus the network has established in the last several months starting in late Spring 2015 and the mention of two (new-to-me) organizations, BioBuilder and Synberc piqued my interest.

I found this on the About the foundation page of the BioBuilder website,

What’s the best way to solve today’s health problems? Or hunger challenges? Address climate change concerns? Or keep the environment cleaner? These are big questions. And everyone can be part of the solutions. Everyone. Middle school students, teens, high school teachers.

At BioBuilder, we teach problem solving.
We bring current science to the classroom.
We engage our students to become real scientists — the problem solvers who will change the world.
At BioBuilder, we empower educators to be agents of educational reform by reconnecting teachers all across the country with their love of teaching and their own love of learning.

Synthetic biology programs living cells to tackle today’s challenges. Biofuels, safer foods, anti-malarial drugs, less toxic cancer treatment, biodegradable adhesives — all fuel young students’ imaginations. At BioBuilder, we empower students to tackle these big questions. BioBuilder’s curricula and teacher training capitalize on students’ need to know, to explore and to be part of solving real world problems. Developed by an award winning team out of MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], BioBuilder is taught in schools across the country and supported by thought leaders in the STEM community.

BioBuilder proves that learning by doing works. And inspires.

As for Synberc, it is the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center and they has this to say about themselves on their About us page (Note: Links have been removed),

Synberc is a multi-university research center established in 2006 with a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to help lay the foundation for synthetic biology Our mission is threefold:

develop the foundational understanding and technologies to build biological components and assemble them into integrated systems to accomplish many particular tasks;
train a new cadre of engineers who will specialize in engineering biology; and
engage the public about the opportunities and challenges of engineering biology.

Just as electrical engineers have made it possible for us to assemble computers from standardized parts (hard drives, memory cards, motherboards, and so on), we envision a day when biological engineers will be able to systematically assemble biological components such as sensors, signals, pathways, and logic gates in order to build bio-based systems that solve real-world problems in health, energy, and the environment.

In our work, we apply engineering principles to biology to develop tools that improve how fast — and how well — we can go through the design-test-build cycle. These include smart fermentation organisms that can sense their environment and adjust accordingly, and multiplex automated genome engineering, or MAGE, designed for large-scale programming and evolution of cells. We also pursue the discovery of applications that can lead to significant public benefit, such as synthetic artemisinin [emphasis mine], an anti-malaria drug that costs less and is more effective than the current plant-derived treatment.

The reference to ‘synthetic artemisinin’ caught my eye as I wrote an April 12, 2013 posting featuring this “… anti-malaria drug …” and the claim that the synthetic “… costs less and is more effective than the current plant-derived treatment” wasn’t quite the conclusion journalist, Brendan Borrell arrived at. Perhaps there’s been new research? If so, please let me know.

Omnidirectional fish camouflage and polarizing light

I find this camouflage technique quite interesting due to some nice writing, from a Nov. 19, 2015 Florida Atlantic University (FAU) news release on EurekAlert,

The vast open ocean presents an especially challenging environment for its inhabitants since there is nowhere for them to hide. Yet, nature has found a remarkable way for fish to hide from their predators using camouflage techniques. In a study published in the current issue of Science, researchers from Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic University and collaborators show that fish scales have evolved to not only reflect light, but to also scramble polarization. They identified the tissue structure that fish evolved to do this, which could be an analog to develop new materials to help hide objects in the water.

HBOI researchers and colleagues collected more than 1,500 video-polarimetry measurements from live fish from distinct habitats under a variety of viewing conditions, and have revealed for the first time that fish have an ‘omnidirectional’ solution they use to camouflage themselves, demonstrating a new form of camouflage in nature — light polarization matching.

“We’ve known that open water fish have silvery scales for skin that reflect light from above so the reflected intensity is comparable to the background intensity when looking up, obliquely at the fish, as a predator would,” said Michael Twardowski, Ph.D., research professor at FAU’s HBOI and co-author of the study who collaborated with co-author James M. Sullivan, Ph.D., also a research professor at FAU’s HBOI. “This is one form of camouflage in the ocean.”

Typical light coloring on the ventral side (belly) and dark coloring on the dorsal (top) side of the fish also can help match intensity by differential absorption of light, in addition to reflection matching.

Light-scattering processes in the open ocean create spatially heterogeneous backgrounds. Polarization (the directional vibration of light waves) generates changes in the light environment that vary with the Sun’s position in the sky.

Polarization is a fundamental property of light, like color, but human eyes do not have the ability to sense it. Light travels in waves, and for natural sunlight, the direction of these waves is random around a central viewing axis. But when light reflects off a surface, waves parallel to that surface are dominant in the reflected beam. Many visual systems for fish have the ability to discriminate polarization, like built-in polarized sunglasses.

“Polarized sunglasses help you see better by blocking horizontal waves to reduce bright reflections,” said Twardowski. “The same principle helps fish discriminate objects better in water.”

Twardowski believes that even though light reflecting off silvery scales does a good job matching intensity of the background, if the scales acted as simple mirrors they would impart a polarization signature to the reflected light very different from the more random polarization of the background light field.

“This signature would be easily apparent to a predator with ability to discriminate polarization, resulting in poor camouflage,” he said. “Fish have evolved a solution to this potential vulnerability.”

To empirically determine whether open-ocean fish have evolved a cryptic reflectance strategy for their heterogeneous polarized environments, the researchers measured the contrasts of live open-ocean and coastal fish against the pelagic background in the Florida Keys and Curaçao. They used a single 360 degree camera around the horizontal plane of the targets and used both light microscopy and full-body video-polarimetry.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), publisher of Science magazine where the researchers’ study can be found issued a Nov. 19, 2015 news release on EurekAlert further describing the work,

… The study’s insights could pave the way to improvements in materials like polarization-sensitive satellites. Underwater, light vibrates in way that “polarizes” it. While humans cannot detect this vibrational state of light without technology, it is becoming increasingly evident that many species of fish can; lab-based studies hint that some fish have even adapted ways to use polarization to their advantage, including developing platelets within their skin that reflect and manipulate polarized light so the fish are camouflaged. To gain more insights into this form of camouflage, Parrish Brady and colleagues measured the polarization abilities of live fish as they swam in the open ocean. Using a specialized underwater camera (…), the researchers took numerous polarization measurements of several open water and coastal species of fish throughout the day as the sun changed position in the sky, causing subsequent changes in the polarization of light underwater. They found that open water fish from the Carangidae fish family, such as lookdowns and bigeye scad, exhibited significantly lower polarization contrast with their backgrounds (making them harder to spot) than carangid species that normally inhabit reefs. Furthermore, the researchers found that this reflective camouflage was optimal at angles from which predators most often spot fish, such as from directly below the fish and at angles perpendicular to their length. By looking at the platelets of open water fish under the microscope, the team found that the platelets align well on vertical axes, allowing fish to reflect the predictable downward direction of light in the open ocean. Yet the platelets are angled in way that diffuses light along the horizontal axis, the researchers say. They suggest that these different axes work together to reflect a wide range of depolarized light, offering better camouflage abilities to their hosts.

The AAAS has made available a video combining recordings from the researchers and animation to illustrate the research,

Be sure you can hear the audio as this won’t make much sense otherwise.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Open-ocean fish reveal an omnidirectional solution to camouflage in polarized environments by Parrish C. Brady, Alexander A. Gilerson, George W. Kattawar, James M. Sullivan, Michael S. Twardowski, Heidi M. Dierssen, Meng Gao, Kort Travis, Robert Ian Etheredge, Alberto Tonizzo, Amir Ibrahim, Carlos Carrizo, Yalong Gu, Brandon J. Russell, Kathryn Mislinski, Shulei Zha1, Molly E. Cummings. Science 20 November 2015: Vol. 350 no. 6263 pp. 965-969 DOI: 10.1126/science.aad5284

This paper is behind a paywall.

Call for AAAS Kavli science journalism award submission goes international, for the first time

From a June 22, 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) news release in my mailbox,

The contest year for the 2015 AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Awards will close on 15 July. Be sure to enter your best work that appeared in print, online or on air between 1 July 2014 and 15 July 2015. The entry deadline is August 1, 2015. [emphasis mine]

Thanks to an expanded endowment from The Kavli Foundation, the competition is open for the first time to professional journalists from around the world in each of the eight reporting categories. There is no entry fee. Please read the Contest Rules and Frequently Asked Questions before submitting.

Note: If the submitted work was published or broadcast in a language other than English, you must provide an English translation.

The awards recognize outstanding reporting for a general audience and honor individuals for coverage of the sciences, engineering, and mathematics. Stories on the environment, energy, science policy, and health qualify if they deal in a substantive way with underlying science. Independent committees of journalists select the winning entries.

The categories:
·  Large Newspaper (circulation of 150,000 or more, daily or weekly)
·  Small Newspaper (circulation of less than 150,000, daily or weekly)
·  Magazine
·  TV – Spot News/Feature Reporting (20 minutes or less)
·  TV – In-Depth Reporting (more than 20 minutes)
·  Radio
·  Online
·  Children’s Science News (reporting on science for children, including young teens up to age 14)

You can find Contest Rules here and you can find Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) here,

Q: I work for a state-funded news organization. Am I eligible?

A. The news outlet must be editorially independent. Questions about eligibility are decided by the awards administrator in consultation with the Managing Committee (an advisory panel of science journalists.)

Q. Are commentaries or articles in advocacy publications eligible for the award?

A. No.

Q. Are books eligible?

No, books, book chapters and e-books are not eligible.

Q. Are stories written by public information officers or freelancers for university-funded research magazines or Web sites eligible for the awards?

A. No. The Managing Committee has determined that such publications are not eligible for the awards.

Q. Are podcasts eligible for the award?

A. Some podcasts are eligible for consideration within the Online category. They must be science-news-only podcasts aimed at a general audience and prepared by reporters. Institutional podcasts from university news or research offices, or podcasts featuring news as well as other types of segments are not eligible.

Q. Are blogs eligible?

A. Yes, in the “Online” category. The judges will determine whether a blog entry meets the standards of professional journalism and is accessible to a general audience.

Finally, you can make your submission by clicking the link on this page which includes a summary of the rules and FAQs.

Good luck!

Hydrogels and cartilage; repurposing vehicles in space; big bang has ‘fingerprints’

The American Institute of Physics (AIP) has made a selection of four articles freely available (h/t Mar. 9, 2015 news item on Azonano).

From a March 6, 2015 AIP news release,

WASHINGTON D.C., March 6, 2015 — The following articles are freely available online from Physics Today (www.physicstoday.org), the world’s most influential and closely followed magazine devoted to physics and the physical science community.

You are invited to read, share, blog about, link to, or otherwise enjoy:

1) STIFF AND SUPPLE CARTILAGE SUBSTITUTE

Physics Today‘s Ashley Smart reports on hydrogels that mimic the tricky nature of cartilage thanks to magnetically aligned nanosheets.

“In the realm of bioengineering, hydrogels are something of an all-purpose material. Made up of networks of interlinked, hydrophilic polymers, they tend to be soft, biocompatible, and highly absorbent…. The new material mimics the articular cartilage that lubricates our joints: It can support a heavy load along one direction while stretching and shearing with ease in the others.”

MORE: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2707

2) GIVING SPACECRAFT A SECOND LEASE ON LIFE WHILE HURTLING THROUGH THE COSMOS

Physics Today‘s Toni Feder reports on the innovative processes undertaken to repurpose various spacecraft in flight, including Kepler, Voyager, Deep Impact, Spitzer, and the Hubble Space Telescope.

“A comeback like Kepler’s is ‘not unique, but it’s unusual,’ says Derek Buzasi of Florida Gulf Coast University, who reinvented the Wide-Field Infrared Explorer (WIRE) after it failed following its 1999 launch. ‘Spacecraft are built for a specialized purpose, so they are hard to repurpose. You have to come up with something they are capable of at the same time they are incapable of their original mission.’

Deep Impact’s original mission was to hurl a copper ball at a comet and watch the impact. In its continued form as EPOXI, the spacecraft went on to visit another comet and, on the way, served as an observatory for user- proposed targets.”

MORE: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2713

3) CONGRESSMAN & FUSION RESEARCHER REFLECTS ON SCIENCE POLICY

Physics Today‘s David Kramer interviews Rush Holt, the New Jersey congressman who retired from office and this past December took the helm of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

“PT: What do you consider to be your accomplishments in Congress?

HOLT: I focused a lot on science education. Our real problem is not that we’re failing to produce excellent scientists, because we are [producing them], but rather that we have failed to maintain an appreciation for and understanding of science in the general population. I was able to keep a spotlight on the need but wasn’t able to accomplish as much as I wanted. We got science included in the subjects emphasized by federal law. But we haven’t really improved teacher professional development and other things we need to do.”

MORE: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2714

4) PARTICLE PHYSICS AND THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND

In this article, physics researchers John Carlstrom, Tom Crawford and Lloyd Knox discuss the fingerprints of the Big Bang and quantum fluctuations in the early universe, which may soon reveal physics at unprecedented energy scales.

“With its empirical successes, inflation is by consensus the best paradigm—notwithstanding some notable dissenting views—for the mechanism that generated the primordial density fluctuations that led to all structure in the universe. Its success has motivated physicists to search for the siblings of those fluctuations, the gravitational waves, via their signature in the polarization of the CMB. If discovered, that gravitational imprint would open up an observational window onto quantum gravitational effects, extremely early times, and extremely high energies.”

MORE: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2718

I have checked; all of the links do lead to the articles.

30 or more PhD nanotechnology studentships available in New Zealand

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) lists a notice posted Jan. 5, 2015 for 30+ PhD studentships in the field of nanotechnology available in New Zealand. The posting comes from New Zealand’s McDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology on its ‘studentship’ webpage (Note: A link has been removed),

The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology is New Zealand’s premier research organisation concerned with high quality research and research education in materials science and nanotechnology.

30+ PhD studentships are now open across our research areas and partnership institutions.

Successful candidates will be a member of the MacDiarmid Institute, a national Centre of Research Excellence which provides collaborative opportunities and a thriving environment to work in.

Each scholarship is worth NZD$27,000  per annum (not taxed) and includes all student fees.

Come to New Zealand to enjoy the best of life and science!

For more details on specific projects, deadlines, etc – contact the appropriate MacDiarmid Institute investigator  from the list below.

Look out for 6 Postdoctoral Fellowships to be advertised soon.

To give you a sense of the possibilities I have excerpted a few of the studentship descriptions (Note: formatting has been changed and links removed),

Professor Kevin E. Smith

Head, School of Chemical Sciences
University of Auckland
kevin.smith@auckland.ac.nz

Synchrotron Radiation X-Ray Spectroscopic Studies of Functional Metal Oxides

The available Ph.D. project involves the experimental study of the electronic structure of transition metal oxides using a suite of synchrotron radiation-based spectroscopies.

Professor Jadranka Travas-Sejdic

The University of Auckland(School of Chemical Sciences)
j.travas-sejdic@auckland.ac.nz

2D and 3D conducting polymer structures to interrogate and sense biological cells.

The PhD project will be highly cross-disciplinary involving materials chemistry, microfabrication of conducting polymer structures and their interaction with biological cells.

The PhD will be enrolled at UoA but the project will be highly collaborative between The University of Auckland and the University of Canterbury.

Dr Geoff Willmott

The University of Auckland
g.willmott@auckland.ac.nz

New Tools for Soft Nanomechanics: Nanoaspiration

We have a growing capability in nanofluidics, an emerging field which aims to understand the physics and chemistry of soft nanomaterials, and of fluidic transport in confined spaces.

Dr Duncan McGillivray

d.mcgillivray@auckland.ac.nz
The University of Auckland

Biologicaly patterning of surfaces

A PhD scholarship in chemistry is offered for research into biological patterning of surfaces based at the School of Chemical Sciences at the University of Auckland.

Dr Shane Telfer

Massey University, Palmerston North
s.telfer@massey.ac.nz

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are an exciting class of porous materials with a raft of applications.

The project will focus on the design, synthesis, and characterisation of MOFs for gas storage and separations.  Novel spectroscopic techniques will be employed to gain insight into the MOF structure and functional properties.

Good luck to all the applicants!