Posts Tagged ‘North Carolina State University’

« Older Entries

US multicenter (Nano GO Consortium) study of engineered nanomaterial toxicology

Wednesday, May 8th, 2013

Nano Go Consortium is the name they gave a multicenter toxicology study of engineered nanomaterials which has pioneered a new approach  in the US to toxicology research. From the May 6, 2013 news item on Azonano,

For the first time, researchers from institutions around the country have conducted an identical series of toxicology tests evaluating lung-related health impacts associated with widely used engineered nanomaterials (ENMs).

The study [on rodents] provides comparable health risk data from multiple labs, which should help regulators develop policies to protect workers and consumers who come into contact with ENMs.

The May 6, 2013 North Carolina State University news release, which originated the news item, describes the results from one of two studies that were recently published by the Nano GO Consortium in Environmental Health Perspectives,

The researchers found that carbon nanotubes, which are used in everything from bicycle frames to high performance electronics, produced inflammation and inflammatory lesions in the lower portions of the lung. However, the researchers found that the nanotubes could be made less hazardous if treated to remove excess metal catalysts used in the manufacturing process or modified by adding carboxyl groups to the outer shell of the tubes to make them more easily dispersed in biological fluids.

The researchers also found that titanium dioxide nanoparticles also caused inflammation in the lower regions of the lung. Belt-shaped titanium nanoparticles caused more cellular damage in the lungs, and more pronounced lesions, than spherical nanoparticles.

Here’s a link to and a citation for this study on rodents,

Interlaboratory Evaluation of Rodent Pulmonary Responses to Engineered Nanomaterials: The NIEHS NanoGo Consortium by James C. Bonner, Rona M. Silva, Alexia J. Taylor, Jared M. Brown, Susana C. Hilderbrand, Vincent Castranova, Dale Porter, Alison Elder, Günter Oberdörster, Jack R. Harkema, Lori A. Bramble, Terrance J. Kavanagh, Dianne Botta, Andre Nel, and Kent E. Pinkerton. Environ Health Perspect (): .doi:10.1289/ehp.1205693  Published: May 06, 2013

And the information for the other study which this consortium has published,

Interlaboratory Evaluation of in Vitro Cytotoxicity and Inflammatory Responses to Engineered Nanomaterials: The NIEHS NanoGo Consortium by Tian Xia, Raymond F. Hamilton Jr, James C. Bonner, Edward D. Crandall, Alison Elder, Farnoosh Fazlollahi, Teri A. Girtsman, Kwang Kim, Somenath Mitra, Susana A. Ntim, Galya Orr, Mani Tagmount8, Alexia J. Taylor, Donatello Telesca, Ana Tolic, Christopher D. Vulpe, Andrea J. Walker, Xiang Wang, Frank A. Witzmann, Nianqiang Wu, Yumei Xie, Jeffery I. Zink, Andre Nel, and Andrij Holian. Environ Health Perspect (): .doi:10.1289/ehp.1306561 Published: May 06, 2013

Environmental Health Perspectives is an open access journal and the two studies are being offered as ‘early’ publication efforts and will be updated with the full studies at a later date.

Most interesting for me is the editorial offered by four of the researchers involved in the Nano GO Consortium, from the editorial,

Determining the health effects of ENMs presents some unique challenges. The thousands of ENMs in use today are made from an enormous range of substances, vary considerably in size, and take a diversity of shapes, including spheres, cubes, cones, tubes, and other forms. They are also produced in different laboratories across the world using a variety of methods. In the scientific literature, findings on the properties and toxicity of these materials are mixed and often difficult to compare across studies. To improve the reliability and reproducibility of data in this area, there is a need for uniform research protocols and methods, handling guidelines, procurement systems, and models.

…

Although there is still much to learn about the toxicity of ENMs, we are fortunate to start with a clean slate: There are as yet no documented incidences of human disease due to ENM exposure (Xia et al. 2009). Because ENMs are manmade rather than natural substances, we have an opportunity to design, manufacture, and use these materials in ways that allow us to reap the maximum benefits—and minimal risk—to humans.

With $13 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) awarded 13 2-year grants to advance research on the health impacts of ENMs (NIEHS 2013). [emphasis mine] Ten grants were awarded through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grand Opportunities program and three were funded through the NIH Challenge Grants program. One goal of this investment was to develop reliable, reproducible methods to assess exposure and biological response to nanomaterials.

…

Within the framework of the consortium, grantees designed and conducted a series of “round-robin” experiments in which similar or identical methods were used to perform in vitro and in vivo tests on the toxicity of selected nanomaterials concurrently at 13 different laboratories.

…

Conducting experiments in a round-robin format within a consortium structure is an unfamiliar approach for most researchers. Although some researchers acknowledged that working collaboratively with such a large and diverse group at times stretched the limits of their comfort zones, the consortium ultimately proved to be “greater than the sum of its parts,” resulting in reliable, standardized protocols that would have been difficult for researchers to achieve by working independently. Indeed, many participants reflected that participating in the consortium not only benefitted their shared goals but also enhanced their individual research efforts. The round-robin approach and the overall consortium structure may be valuable models for other emerging areas of science.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the Consortium’s editorial, which is available in full,

Nano GO Consortium—A Team Science Approach to Assess Engineered Nanomaterials: Reliable Assays and Methods by Thaddeus T. Schug, Srikanth S. Nadadur, and Anne F. Johnson. Environ Health Perspect 121(2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1306866 [online 06 May 2013]

I like the idea of researchers working together across institutional and geographical boundaries as that can be a very powerful approach. I hope that won’t devolve into a form of institutionalized oppression where individual researchers are forced out or ignored. In general, it’s the outlier research that often proves to be truly groundbreaking, which often generates extraordinary and informal (and sometimes formal) resistance. For an example of groundbreaking work that was rejected by other researchers who banded together informally, there’s Dan Shechtman, 2011 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, famously faced hostility from his colleagues for years over his discovery of quasicrystals.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in nanotechnology, risk, science, science policy | No Comments »

Emory University’s Shuming Nie discusses Iron Man 3 and nanotechnology and researchers develop an injectable nano-network

Monday, May 6th, 2013

I have written about Iron Man 3 before (my May 11, 2012 posting) in the context of its nanotechnology inspirations, specifically, the Extremis Armor. For anyone not familiar with the story, I have a few bits which will bring you up to speed before getting to Shuming Nie’s commentary and some recent research into injectable nano-networks, which seems highly relevant to the Iron Man 3 discourse. First, here’s an excerpt from my May 11, 2012 posting,

In a search for Extremis, I found out that this story reboots the Iron Man mythology by incorporating nanotechnology and alchemy to create a new armor, the Extremis Armor, from the Extremis Armor website (I strongly suggest going to the website and reading the full text which includes a number of illustrative images if you find this sort of thing interesting),

When a bio-tech weapon of mass destruction was unleashed, Tony Stark threw himself onto the bleeding edge between science and alchemy, combining nanotechnology and his Iron Man armor.  The result, which debuted in Iron Man, Vol. IV, issue 5, was the Extremis Armor, Model XXXII, Mark I, which made him the most powerful hero in the world–but not without a price.

…

There were two key parts to this Extremis-enhanced suit.  The first part is the golden Undersheath, the protective interface between Stark’s nervous system and the second chief part, the External Suit Devices (ESDs), a.k.a. the red armor plating.

The Undersheath to the Iron Man suit components was super-compressed and stored in the hollows of Stark’s bones. The sheath material exited through skeletal pores and slid between all cells to self-assemble a new “skin” around him.  This skin provides a complete interface to the Iron Man suit components and can perform numerous other functions. (The process in reverse withdrew the Undersheath back into these specially modified areas of Tony Stark’s bone marrow tissue.)

The Undersheath is a nano-network that incorporates peptide-peptide logic (PPL), a molecular computational system made of superconducting plastic impregnated molecular chains. [my emphasis added for May.6.13 posting]  The PPL handles, among other things: memory, critical logic paths, comparative “truth” tables, automatic response look-up tables, data storage, communication, and external sensing material interface.

The lattice assembly is a stress-compression truss with powered interstitial joints.  This can surround the PPL material and guide it through Stark’s body.  This steerable, motile lattice framework is commanded by the PPL molecule computational mentality.  The metallic component to the lattice is a controlled mimetic artifact that can take on the characteristics of most elements.  Even unusual combinations of behaviors such as extreme hardness and flexibility.

The combination of the two nano-scale materials allows for a very dense non-traditional computer that can change the fabric of its design in very powerful ways. The incorporation of the Undersheath in Stark’s entire nervous system renders reflex-level computer responses to pan-spectrum stimuli.

Anthony Stark’s Bio/Metalo-Mimetic Material concept is a radical departure from the traditional solid-state underpinnings of his prior Iron Man suit designs.  Making use of nano-scale assembly technology, “smart” molecules can be made atom by atom. The design allows for simple computers to be linked into a massive parallel computer that synthesizes human thought protocols.

The External Suit Devices (ESDs), the red armor plates, were made via mega-nano technology that has assembled atoms into large, discreet effectors.  This allows for the plates to be collapsable to very small volumes for easy storage and carried in Stark’s briefcase. The ESDs were commanded by the Undersheath and were self-powered by high-capacity Kasimer plates.  They were equipped with large arrays of nano-fans that allow flight.  Armoring-up was done by drawing the suit to Stark via a vectored repulsor field, just lightly pushing them from different angles.

The armor’s memory-metal technology renders it lightweight and flexible while not in use, but extremely durable when polarized.  The armor was strong, of course, but it could be made even stronger by rerouting repulsor input to reinforce the armor’s mass.

Stark’s skin is now a part of the suit, when engaged.  [emphasis mine] Comfort is relative because the suit rapidly responds to any discomfort, from impacts to high temperatures, from itching to scratching.  The suit’s protocols include semi-autonomy when needed.  Where Stark ends and the suit begins is flexible.  The exact nature of the artificial Extremis Virus is not known (especially because Stark recompiled the dose, then tweaked the nutrients and suspended metals, radically altering Maya Hansen’s [the character Rebecca Hall will reputedly play] formulations).  The effect it has had on Stark’s body is to allow the presence of so much alien material within his body without trauma.

Because of the bio-interface between Tony and the armor, he could utilize the suit to its fullest potential and also instantly access computers and any digital system worldwide at the speed of thought.  He was biologically integrated with his armor, one with it, imbued with unprecedented powers and abilities.  He channeled and processed data, emergency signals, and satellite reconnaissance from every law enforcement, military, and intelligence service in the world–in his head.  He could send electronic signals and make phone calls with his mind.  He could see through satellites.  Plus he had the ability to transmit whatever he saw (from his visual cortex) to other people’s display screens.  The computer’s cybernetic link enables him to operate all of the armor’s functions, as well as providing a remote link to other computers (as Stark is now part of the armor this connection is seamless).  The armor’s system was connected to the global mainframe via StarkTech servers.

I also like this more generalized description of the technology in the Wikipedia essay on Extemis Comics (Note: A link has been removed),

Extremis has been referred to as a “virus” constantly since the story. The verbatim description offered by its inventor Maya Hansen, goes: “…Extremis is a super-soldier solution. It’s a bio-electronics package, fitted into a few billion graphite nanotubes and suspended in a carrier fluid. [emphasis mine] A magic bullet, like the original super-soldier serum—all fitted into a single injection. It hacks the body’s repair center—the part of the brain that keeps a complete blue print of the human body. When we’re injured, we refer to that area of the brain to heal properly. Extremis rewrites the repair center. In the first stage, the body essentially becomes an open wound. The normal human blueprint is being replaced with the Extremis blueprint. The brain is being told the body is wrong. Extremis protocol dictates that the subject be placed on life support and intravenously fed nutrients at this point. For the next two or three days, the patient remains unconscious within a cocoon of scabs. (…) Extremis uses the nutrients and body mass to grow new organs. Better ones…”

A Postmedia movie reviewer, Katherine Monk noted this about the plot in her May 3, 2013 review of Iron Man 3 ,

Apparently, back in the early days of genetic engineering, a brilliant, zit-faced scientist (Guy Pearce) offered Tony a piece of a lucrative patent that had the potential to alter the human body, and even regenerate amputated limbs.

Tony walked away from the offer as well as the pretty girl (Rebecca Hall) who worked for the genetic engineer, but in the opening sequence, we see the technology was successfully developed and tested. It makes people superhuman, but it can also make them spontaneously combust, leaving great craters and human casualties behind.

Now for the video commentary, Dr. Shuming Nie, Biomedical Engineering at Emory University, offers some scientific insight into the science and the fiction of ‘extremis’ as per Iron Man 3 in his YouTube video,

Keeping on the science theme,  researchers at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and other institutions announced an injectable nano-network for diabetics in a May 3, 2013 news release on EurekAlert,

In a promising development for diabetes treatment, researchers have developed a network of nanoscale particles that can be injected into the body and release insulin when blood-sugar levels rise, maintaining normal blood sugar levels for more than a week in animal-based laboratory tests. The work was done by researchers at North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Children’s Hospital Boston.

“We’ve created a ‘smart’ system that is injected into the body and responds to changes in blood sugar by releasing insulin, effectively controlling blood-sugar levels,” says Dr. Zhen Gu, lead author of a paper describing the work and an assistant professor in the joint biomedical engineering program at NC State and UNC Chapel Hill. “We’ve tested the technology in mice, and one injection was able to maintain blood sugar levels in the normal range for up to 10 days.”

Here’s how the smart system is achieved,

The new, injectable nano-network is composed of a mixture containing nanoparticles with a solid core of insulin, modified dextran and glucose oxidase enzymes. When the enzymes are exposed to high glucose levels they effectively convert glucose into gluconic acid, which breaks down the modified dextran and releases the insulin. The insulin then brings the glucose levels under control. The gluconic acid and dextran are fully biocompatible and dissolve in the body.

Each of these nanoparticle cores is given either a positively charged or negatively charged biocompatible coating. The positively charged coatings are made of chitosan (a material normally found in shrimp shells), while the negatively charged coatings are made of alginate (a material normally found in seaweed).

When the solution of coated nanoparticles is mixed together, the positively and negatively charged coatings are attracted to each other to form a “nano-network.” Once injected into the subcutaneous layer of the skin, the nano-network holds the nanoparticles together and prevents them from dispersing throughout the body. Both the nano-network and the coatings are porous, allowing blood – and blood sugar – to reach the nanoparticle cores.

“This technology effectively creates a ‘closed-loop’ system that mimics the activity of the pancreas in a healthy patient, releasing insulin in response to glucose level changes,” Gu says. “This has the potential to improve the health and quality of life of diabetes patients.”

For anyone who’s interested in researching further, heres’ a citation for and a link to the paper,

Injectable Nano-Network for Glucose-Mediated Insulin Delivery by Zhen Gu, Alex A. Aimetti, Qun Wang, Tram T. Dang, Yunlong Zhang, Omid Veiseh, Hao Cheng, Robert S. Langer, and Daniel G. Anderson. ACS Nano, Article ASAP DOI: 10.1021/nn400630x Publication Date (Web): May 2, 2013

Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society

The paper is behind a paywall. Meanwhile, there are discussions about moving these injectable nano-networks into human clinical trials. As Nie notes, Iron Man 3 hints at new medical technologies which will be achievable in the next 10 or so years, although we may have to wait 100 to 150 years for  Extremis armor.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in biomimcry, medicine, nanotechnology | No Comments »

Can you deflate your spike-studded balloon?

Tuesday, January 15th, 2013

Researchers at North Carolina State University have developed a means for embedding carbon nanofiber spikes (or needles)  into an elastic-like membrane to create a studded balloon that could potentially be used for drug delivery according to a Jan. 15, 2013 news item on ScienceDailyOnline,

The research community is interested in finding new ways to deliver precise doses of drugs to specific targets, such as regions of the brain. One idea is to create balloons embedded with nanoscale spikes that are coated with the relevant drug. Theoretically, the deflated balloon could be inserted into the target area and then inflated, allowing the spikes on the balloon’s surface to pierce the surrounding cell walls and deliver the drug. The balloon could then be deflated and withdrawn.

But to test this concept, researchers first needed to develop an elastic material that is embedded with these aligned, nanoscale needles. That’s where the NC State [North Carolina State University] research team came in.

“We have now developed a way of embedding carbon nanofibers in an elastic silicone membrane and ensuring that the nanofibers are both perpendicular to the membrane’s surface and sturdy enough to impale cells,” says Dr. Anatoli Melechko, an associate professor of materials science and engineering at NC State and co-author of a paper on the work.

For some reason this description brought to mind medieval weapons of war such as this  flail (the ball

Flail-Klassischer-Flegel (Deutsch: Ein mit einem Lederriemen verzierter klassischer Flegel mit kugelförmigem Kopf und Kette als Faustriemen) Credit: Tim Avatar Bartel [downloaded from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klassischer-Flegel.jpg]

Flail-Klassischer-Flegel (Deutsch: Ein mit einem Lederriemen verzierter klassischer Flegel mit kugelförmigem Kopf und Kette als Faustriemen) Credit: Tim Avatar Bartel [downloaded from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Klassischer-Flegel.jpg]

not the stick. There’s much more about the flail and its use as a weapon in this Wikipedia essay.

As for this nanoscaled balloon studded with carbon nanofibers, the Jan. 15, 2013 North Carolina State University news release, which originated the news item, goes on to describe the technique,

The researchers first “grew” the nanofibers on an aluminum bed, or substrate. They then added a drop of liquid silicone polymer. The polymer, nanofibers and substrate were then spun, so that centrifugal force spread the liquid polymer in a thin layer between the nanofibers – allowing the nanofibers to stick out above the surface. The polymer was then “cured,” turning the liquid polymer into a solid, elastic membrane. Researchers then dissolved the aluminum substrate, leaving the membrane embedded with the carbon nanofibers “needles.”

“This technique is relatively easy and inexpensive,” says Melechko, “so we are hoping this development will facilitate new research on targeted drug-delivery methods.”

The paper, “Transfer of Vertically Aligned Carbon Nanofibers to Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) while Maintaining their Alignment and Impalefection Functionality,” is published online in the journal ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces. Lead authors on the paper are Ryan Pearce, a Ph.D. student at NC State, and Justin Railsback, a former NC State student now pursuing a Ph.D. at Northwestern University. Co-authors are Melechko; Dr. Joseph Tracy, an assistant professor of materials science and engineering at NC State; Bryan Anderson and Mehmet Sarac, Ph.D. students at NC State; and Timothy McKnight of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

It’s very interesting but I wonder how they plan to deflate the balloon and what will happen to the carbon nanofiber needles and balloon membrane after their usage?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in medicine, nanotechnology | No Comments »

ScienceOnline2013 conference preview

Tuesday, January 8th, 2013

Before describing the upcoming ScienceOnline2013 conference, I should mention it is fully registered and there’s a waitlist for attendees. Here’s more from the ScienceOnline2013 Conference Info page,

ScienceOnline2013, the seventh annual conference exploring science on the Web, will take place Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2013.

…

N.C. [North Carolina] State University will once again be our hosts, letting us use the spacious McKimmon Conference Center for our event.

…

Registration spaces are now full. Yes, we know that there are more people who want to come than we have room for. But the reason that we keep the size limited (450 people) [emphasis mine] is so that the conversation, camaraderie, and collaborations are maximized. We have some other ideas brewing for how more of you can benefit from the programming. Stay tuned.

The cost to registration [sic] for ScienceOnline2013 is $200 (NOTE: the actual cost to cover all the conference expenses is much more than your registration and we rely on our generous sponsors and supporters to make the conference affordable for you! You can help by connecting the organizers to potential sponsors, donors, and corporate partners). Registration includes the conference venue, all regular sessions (Wednesday workshops are extra), many of your meals, and more! We will have breakfast on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Lunch is provided on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and evening food is covered for Thursday at a special yet-to-be announced event. We are still planning the details of the Wednesday night opening, but we will surely have adult beverages and hors d’oeuvres. You will be covering your own costs for dinner on Friday. And of course, coffee, other beverages, and snacks will be available throughout the three days.

As to why you might want to place yourself on the waitlist,

 Thursday, January 31

9:00am CONVERGE: Social Media is Out of This World; CONVERGE: Welcome & instructions for the day

10:00am Break (snacks in Figshare Café) 10:30am

Alternative Careers ARE the Mainstream!

Taking Your Degree to a New Level

Impressions Matter: Embracing art & design in research and science communication

Leading scientists towards openness

Narrative: What is it? How science writers use it?

Never Tell Me the Odds! (Part Deux, Asteroid Field Edition)

Science and medical blogging at institutions: How to avoid being that kind of corporate blog

Why should scientists ‘do’ outreach? (part I)

11:30am

Break (snacks in Figshare Café)

12:00pm

Changing The Public Face of Science

Helping Scientists ‘Do’ Outreach (part II)

Inject some STEAM below the STEM – get in at the roots!

Open access or vanity press?

Public Statistics

Scientific Storytelling: Using Personal Narrative to Communicate Science

Summing it Up: The Data on the Cutting Room Floor

1:00pm Lunch: Neomonde

2:30pm

#Hashtags in the Academy: Engaging Students with Social Media

Broadening the Participation of Diverse Populations in Online Science

Hands-on math

Into the Unknown: What we don’t know, and how to talk about it

Science Art as Science Outreach

The Impact of Electronic and Open Notebooks on Science

Why Won’t the Science Deficit Model Die?

3:30pm Break (snacks in Figshare Café)

4:00pm

Accessibility for All Audiences

Blogging for the long haul

Lightwaves and Brainbows: Seductive Visual Metaphors at the Intersection of Science, Language and Art

Open Session

Science online and rethinking peer review

Tackling science denialism with a systematic game plan

“They said what?!”: Fighting bullshit in the scicomm ecosystem

7:00pm

Evening Social Event

I gather CONVERGE is the new word for Keynote and as it turns out, the speaker for the Friday, Feb. 1, 2013 9 am CONVERGE session is Baba Brinkman, a Canadian-born rapper, who has toured extensively with his Rap Guide to Evolution (the world’s only peer-reviewed science rap) and mounted it as one of his off Broadway shows in New York City. Brinkman also raps about some of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Gilgamesh, and dating, not necessarily together, in various shows he has mounted. There’s more in my Nov. 23, 2012 posting about his then opening Ingenious Nature show, a rap performance about dating and evolutionary psychology.

Tags: , ,
Posted in science communication | No Comments »

NERCS—a great nano acronym (Nanosystems ERCs)—engineering research centers

Tuesday, September 11th, 2012

It’s a bit complicated, isn’t it? Here’s the straight scoop from the Sept. 11, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently awarded $55.5 million to university consortia to establish three new Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) that will advance interdisciplinary nanosystems research and education in partnership with industry.

Over the next five years, these Nanosystems ERCs, or NERCS, will advance knowledge and create innovations that address significant societal issues, such as the human health and environmental implications of nanotechnology. At the same time, they will advance the competitiveness of U.S. industry. The centers will support research and innovation in electromagnetic systems, mobile computing and energy technologies, nanomanufacturing, and health and environmental sensing.

“The Nanosystems ERCs will build on more than a decade of investment and discoveries in fundamental nanoscale science and engineering,” said Thomas Peterson, NSF’s assistant director for engineering. “Our understanding of nanoscale phenomena, materials and devices has progressed to a point where we can make significant strides in nanoscale components, systems and manufacturing.”

Here are some specifics about the three new centers (from the news item),

The NSF Nanosystems Engineering Research Center for Advanced Self-Powered Systems of Integrated Sensors and Technology (ASSIST), led by North Carolina State University, will create self-powered wearable systems that simultaneously monitor a person’s environment and health, in search of connections between exposure to pollutants and chronic diseases.

The NSF Nanosystems Engineering Research Center for Nanomanufacturing Systems for Mobile Computing and Mobile Energy Technologies (NASCENT), led by the University of Texas at Austin, will pursue high-throughput, reliable, and versatile nanomanufacturing process systems, and will demonstrate them through the manufacture of mobile nanodevices.

The NSF Nanosystems Engineering Research Center for Translational Applications of Nanoscale Multiferroic Systems (TANMS), led by the University of California Los Angeles, will seek to reduce the size and increase the efficiency of components and systems whose functions rely on the manipulation of either magnetic or electromagnetic fields.

…

The NERCs will be a part of NSF’s contributions to the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which is a government-wide activity designed to ensure that investments in this area are made in a coordinated and timely manner and to accelerate the pace of revolutionary nanotechnology discoveries. A long-term view for nanotechnology research and education needs is documented in the 2010 NSF/WTEC report, “Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020″.

You can find the 614 pp. “Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020″ PDF written in 2010 here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in nanotechnology, science policy | No Comments »

Gold unzips your DNA but not in a sexy way

Wednesday, June 20th, 2012

The animation that the scientists from North Carolina have provided makes the gold nanoparticles look downright mean as that DNA definitely does not want to be unzipped but perhaps your mileage varies,

The June 20, 2012 news item on Nanowerk provides more detail,

New research from North Carolina State University finds that gold nanoparticles with a slight positive charge work collectively to unravel DNA’s double helix. This finding has ramifications for gene therapy research and the emerging field of DNA-based electronics.

…

The research team introduced gold nanoparticles, approximately 1.5 nanometers in diameter, into a solution containing double-stranded DNA. The nanoparticles were coated with organic molecules called ligands. Some of the ligands held a positive charge, while others were hydrophobic – meaning they were repelled by water.

Because the gold nanoparticles had a slight positive charge from the ligands, and DNA is always negatively charged, the DNA and nanoparticles were pulled together into complex packages.

“However, we found that the DNA was actually being unzipped by the gold nanoparticles,” Melechko [Dr. Anatoli Melechko, an associate professor of materials science and engineering at NC State and co-author of the paper] says. The positively-charged ligands on the nanoparticles attached to the DNA as predicted, but the hydrophobic ligands of the nanoparticles became tangled with each other. As this tangling pulled the nanoparticles into clusters, the nanoparticles pulled the DNA apart.

The implications for this ‘unzipping’ are,

“We think gold nanoparticles still hold promise for gene therapy,” says Dr. Yaroslava Yingling, an assistant professor of materials science and engineering at NC State and co-author of the paper. “But it’s clear that we need to tailor the ligands, charge and chemistry of these materials to ensure the DNA’s structural integrity is not compromised.”

The finding is also relevant to research on DNA-based electronics, which hopes to use DNA as a template for creating nanoelectronic circuits. Because some work in that field involves placing metal nanoparticles on DNA, this finding indicates that researchers will have to pay close attention to the characteristics of those nanoparticles – or risk undermining the structural integrity of the DNA.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in electronics, medicine, nanotechnology, risk | No Comments »

Evolutionary blogging contest

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) is sponsoring a contest for the best evolution-themed blog post. There are two prizes, travel awards to the ScienceOnline 2012 conference (Jan. 19-21, 2012) in North Carolina.

Here’s more about NESCent (from the About page),

The National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) is a nonprofit science center dedicated to cross-disciplinary research in evolution. NESCent is jointly operated by Duke University, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University, and is sponsored by the National Science Foundation.

 

NESCent promotes the synthesis of information, concepts and knowledge to address significant, emerging, or novel questions in evolutionary science and its applications. NESCent achieves this by supporting research and education across disciplinary, institutional, geographic, and demographic boundaries.

Here’s more about the contest and the travel awards (from the Submit Your Post page),

The awards offer the opportunity to travel to North Carolina to meet with several hundred researchers, writers, editors and educators to explore how online tools are changing the way science is done and communicated to the public. Each winner will receive $750 to cover travel and lodging expenses to attend the conference. …

To apply for an award, writers should submit a blog post that highlights current or emerging evolutionary research. In order to be valid, posts must deal with research appearing in the peer-reviewed literature within the last five years. Posts should be 500-1000 words, and must mention the NESCent contest. Two recipients will be chosen by a panel of judges from both NESCent and the science blogging community.

The application deadline is Dec. 1, 2012. You may want to give this a try especially since there aren’t all that many submissions, so far (from the 2011 Entries page).

  • Byte Size Biology:  The oxygen rush:  Late January, all of February and a day in November
  • Nothing in Biology Makes Sense:  Double, double toil and trouble:  A tale of two infections
  • Butterflies and Science:  Zombie caterpillars lurch through forest canopy, infecting their brethren
  • Socera:  Cajun culture wars:  Another victory for LouSEA science education
  • The Biology Files:  If God has a plan for you, why do you pray?
  • Ideonexus:  Archeological narratives that enchant the imagination
  • BEACON Researchers at Work:  The “mating” game
  • Science Meets Religion:  Evolution right before our eyes
  • LABGIRLwrites:  What we’re up against
  • Inkfish:  Hell hath no fury like a hermaphrodite shrimp

Oddly, the deadline listed on the 2011 Entries page is Dec. 15, 2011. In any event, you can submit your blog posting by emailing your name, contact information, the title and date of your blog post, and a URL to travel.award@nescent.org.

Good luck!

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in science communication, writing | 1 Comment »

ScienceOnline 2012

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011

As I recall it was originally a science bloggers conference in North Carolina and yesterday (Nov. 1, 2011) it (ScienceOnline 2012) opened registration at 12 noon EDT to fill 100 seats in a little over 2 mins. Luckily there will be three more opportunities to register for this conference, which gives you time to practice your keyboarding skills.

Before giving more details about registration, here’s a little information about ScienceOnline from the About page,

ScienceOnline2012 is the sixth annual international meeting on science and the Web.

Every January since 2007, the Research Triangle area of North Carolina has hosted scientists, students, educators, physicians, journalists, librarians, bloggers, programmers and others interested in the way the World Wide Web is changing the way science is communicated, taught and done.

ScienceOnline2012 – #scio12 across social media – will take place January 19-21, 2012 on the campus of N.C. State University, with some 450 participants. [emphasis mine]

Here are a few snippets from the programme,

Math Future network of communities: A year in review (discussion) – Maria Droujkova
The Math Future Interest Group is an international network of researchers, educators, families, community leaders and technology enablers. We are collaborating on a variety of research and development projects and conversation threads about social media as it relates to mathematics and mathematics education. In 2011, we opened a peer-to-peer School of the Mathematical Future in collaboration with P2PU; started to develop a community publishing process and a press called Delta Stream Media; launched Math Game Design group; held a successful crowd-funding campaign for “Moebius Noodles,” a young math project; and organized our 100th open, free and interactive webinar in the ongoing series. http://mathfuture.wikispaces.com/

The basic science behind the medical research: where to find it, how and when to use it. (discussion) – Emily Willingham and Deborah Blum
Sometimes, a medical story makes no sense without the context of the basic science–the molecules, cells, and processes that led to the medical results. At other times, inclusion of the basic science can simply enhance the story. How can science writers, especially without specific training in science, find, understand, and explain that context? As important, when should they use it? The answers to the second question can depend on publishing context, intent, and word count. This session will involve moderators with experience incorporating basic science information into medically based pieces with their insights into the whens and whys of using it. The session will also include specific examples of what the moderators and audience have found works and doesn’t work from their own writing.

So You Want To Make A Science Documentary (discussion) – Tom Levenson
This workshop is aimed at those who want to take the next step into storytelling with moving images or sound in work that moves past straight news, commentary or illustration into documentary. It will be half practical, focusing on production much more than technical crafts, which is to say it will talk about how to organize a documentary project down to a quite nitty-gritty level more than how to use a camera or which microphone to buy. (Though some of that kind of stuff will, no doubt, slip in.) The other half of the workshop will look at/listen to a couple of short, well made science documentaries, including recent student work, to start the discussion on what the particular challenges and opportunities for telling stories the media of audio or video create.

Story as Shape or Song: Geometry and Music as Longform Nonfiction Structural Models (discussion) – Deborah Blum and David Dobbs
Nonfiction narratives longer than about 3000 words often demand different, more various structures than shorter pieces do. In this workshop, authors and longform writers Deborah Blum and David Dobbs will describe open a discussion of literally storytelling by describing how geometric shapes (Blum) and musical forms (Dobbs can offer models for conceptualizing, organizing, and composing narratives from about 3000 words up. Is you story a parabola? A circle? A pyramid? Or is it a pop song, a fugue, or a sonata? With a variety of forms to consider as models, you can create what Blum calls “a structured seduction of the reader.” Which, when it works, makes everybody feel good. Pulitzer Prize winner Deborah Blum, author of The Poisoner’s Handbook and Love at Goon Park, writes for leading magazines and literary journals including Scientific American, Slate, Lapham’s Quarterly and Tin House and keeps her blog, Speakeasy Science, at PLOSblogs. She teaches nonfiction writing at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. David Dobbs, author of Reef Madness and the Atavist hit My Mother’s Lover, writes features for The New York Times Magazine, The Atlantic, National Geographic, Slate, and other magazines, and is working on his fourth book, The Orchid and the Dandelion. His blog Neuron Culture is at Wired.

As noted on the About page, you can keep track of the discussion, level of buzz, and the latest conference doings on #scio12 across all social media (I check out their Twitter feed).

Here’s some of the information on how to register (from the Registration page),

In order to allow the most access to conference registration, this year we will open registration at four separate times, closing each time after 100 individuals have completed the registration form and payment has been received. After we fill our total allotted spaces (about 450), we will provide a waitlist registration form.

Please register at one of these times:

  • Tues, Nov 1st at 12 noon EDT
  • Thurs, Nov 3rd at 6 a.m. EDT
  • Tues, Nov 8th at 00:01 a.m. EST
  • Wed, Nov 9th at 6 p.m. EST

Fees

We strive to make the conference affordable and a great value.

Registration fees, to be paid via PayPal (you may use a credit card) at the completion of the registration form, are as follows:

  • Regular rate – $200 – includes Friday banquet
  • Day pass – $150 – does not include Friday banquet
  • Student rate – $100 – includes Friday banquet. High school, college and graduate students may choose this rate.
  • Student day pass – $75 – does not incude the Friday banquet

Good luck with the next registration periods!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in science communication | 2 Comments »

Australians, nanotechnology, and public perception

Friday, August 26th, 2011

The Australian government has released a study showing not only that Australians feel positively towards nanotechnology but those feelings have increased over time. From the August 26, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

Australians are increasingly positive about nanotechnology, in particular its potential to improve our lives, according to a study (“Australian Community Attitudes Held about Nanotechnology – Trends 2005-2011″) by independent company Market Attitude Research Services.

Releasing the findings of a study of public attitudes towards nanotechnologies, Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr said the Gillard Labor Government was working with researchers and industry to ensure the benefits of nanotechnology were realised, while ensuring any risks were identified and managed.

“This study is the fifth conducted since 2005 and in that time we have found the understanding of nanotechnology is increasing,” Senator Carr said.

“Seventy-six per cent of those surveyed said they were aware of nanotechnology, compared to 51 per cent in 2005.

I’m particularly interested in the exceptionally high level of nanotechnology awareness there is in Australia. The latest (2008) figures I have for the US indicate that public awareness hovers at 30% as it has since 2005 (Sept. 28, 2009 news item on Nanowerk). From most of the material I’ve read, public awareness about nanotechnology is considered quite low in North America (Canada and the US [I've not seen any information about Mexico]) and Europe.

I have looked at the Australian report (the version I found is a short report on a series of slides) and there is no speculation about how such a high level of awareness was achieved. There are no references to any other studies about nanotechnology awareness in other countries or regions (in fact, no references at all).

The version of the report I’ve read is a fairly quick read (19 slides) which notes methodological changes year to year. I would have liked to have seen all of the questions in the order in which they were asked in the survey of 1100 Australians so that I might better understand the results.

Australians were strongly in favour of nanotechnology for medical purposes in common with the British who also expressed favourable views for medical uses of nanotechnology in their own earlier study. Australians were also quite positive about nanotechnology for use in  environmental clean up efforts.

From the August 26, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

Improved medical treatments and preventions attracted the highest levels of support (90 per cent) followed by improved technologies for the environment (87 per cent).

Interestingly there was a study from North Carolina State University which suggests that the public tends to view nanotechnology (when they have any awareness of it) in a more positive than negative light. From my April 14, 2011 posting,

A new study (“Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks” [published online in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research, DOI: 10.1007/s11051-011-0325, behind a paywall]) finds that the general public thinks getting a suntan poses a greater public health risk than nanotechnology or other nanoparticle applications. The study, from North Carolina State University, compared survey respondents’ perceived risk of nanoparticles with 23 other public-health risks.

I haven’t seen anything yet that offers an in depth analysis of why the public would adopt this positive attitude toward nanotechnology.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in nanotechnology, public perceptions | No Comments »

Wetware, nanoelectronics and fuel cells

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

Some of the computer engineers I worked with years ago used to ‘jokingly’ refer to people as wetware putting us on a continuum with hardware, software, and firmware. Clearly they knew something I didn’t as it seems we’re getting closer to making that joke a reality with the term wetware expanding to include biological systems. Michael Berger in his July 19, 2011 Nanowerk Spotlight essay, Squishy electronics, takes a look at some of the developments in biocompatible electronics [Mar.7.12: duplicate paragraph removed from essay excerpt],

There is a physical and electrical disconnect between the world of electronics and the world of biology. Electronics tend to be rigid, operate using electrons, and are inherently two-dimensional. The brain, as a basis for comparison, is soft, operates using ions, and is three-dimensional. Researchers have therefore been looking to find different routes to create biocompatible devices that work well in wet environments like biological systems.

Berger goes on to highlight some research in North Carolina,

The device fabricated by the NC State team (that included graduate students Ju-Hee So and Hyung-Jun Koo, who also first-authored the paper [research team was led by Orlin Velev and Michael Dickey]) is composed primarily of water-based gels that are, in principle, compatible with biological species including cells, enzymes, proteins, and tissues and thus hold promise for interfacing electronics with biological systems. [emphasis mine]

The novelty of this work is the operating mechanism of the memory device combined with the fact that it is built entirely from materials with properties similar to Jell-O. The memristor-like devices are simple to fabricate and basically consist of two liquid-metal electrodes that sandwich a slab of hydrogel.

This line of work fits in nicely with ‘vampire’ batteries (my latest posting on this topic, July 18k 3011) which can, theoretically, run on blood. Coincidentally, The Scientist  published a June 23, 2011 article,  by Megan Scudellari which focuses on biological fuel cells that can run on bacteria,

This tiny biological fuel cell, the smallest of its kind with a total volume of just 0.3 microliters, was built using microfluidics and relies on bacteria to produce energy. Bacteria colonize the anode, the negatively charged end of the system, and through their natural metabolism produce electrons that flow to the cathode, creating a circuit. Together, the anode and cathode are only a few human hairs wide, but the tiny circuit generates a consistent flow of electricity.

An undated news item on the Carnegie Mellon University website offers this information,

Carnegie Mellon University’s Kelvin B. Gregory and Philip R. LeDuc have created the world’s smallest fuel cell — powered by bacteria.

Future versions of it could be used for self-powered sensing devices in remote locations where batteries are impractical, such as deep ocean or geological environments.

“We have developed a biological fuel cell which uses microbial electricity generation enabled by microfluidic flow control to produce power,” said Gregory, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at CMU.

No bigger than a human hair, the fuel cell generates energy from the metabolism of bacteria on thin gold plates in micro-manufactured channels.

Those injunctions about not mixing liquids with electricity may soon seem a trifle old-fashioned.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in nanotechnology | No Comments »

« Older Entries