Tag Archives: US National Science Foundation

Bone implants and restorative dentistry at the University of Malaya

The research into biomedical implants at the University of Malaya is part of an international effort and is in response to a demographic reality, hugely increased populations of the aged. From a Sept. 18, 2014 news item on ScienceDaily,

A major success in developing new biomedical implants with the ability to accelerate bone healing has been reported by a group of scientists from the Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Malaya. This stems from a project partly funded by HIR [High Impact Research] and also involves Mr. Alireza Yaghoubi, HIR Young Scientist.

According to WHO (World Health Organization), between 2000 and 2050, the world’s population over 60 years is expected to increase from 605 million to more than 2 billion. This trend is particularly more prominent in Asia and Europe where in some countries by 2050, the majority of people will be older than 50. That is why in recent years, regenerative medicine has been among the most active and well-funded research areas in many developing nations.

As part of this global effort to realize better treatments for age-related conditions, a group of scientists from the department of restorative dentistry, University of Malaya and four other universities in the US have recently reported a major success in developing new biomedical implants with the ability to accelerate bone healing.

Two studies were published according to the Sept.15, 2014 University of Malaya news release, which originated the news item,

The two studies funded by the National Science Fund (NSF) in the US and the High Impact Research (HIR) program in Malaysia tackled the issue of bone-implant integration from different angles. In the first study appearing on the front cover of the July issue of Applied Surface Science, researchers demonstrated a mechanically superior bioactive coating based on magnesium silicates rather than the commercially available calcium phosphate which develops microcracks during preparation and delaminates under pressure. The new material owing to its lower thermal mismatch with titanium can prolong the durability of load-bearing orthopedic implants and reduce chances of post-surgery complications.

The other study published in the American Chemical Society’s Applied Materials & Interfaces reported a method for fabricating titanium implants with special surface topographies which double the chance of cell viability in early stages. The new technique is also much simpler as compared to the existing ones and therefore enables the preparation of personalized implants at the fraction of time and cost while offering a higher mechanical reliability.

Alireza Yaghoubi, the corresponding author of both studies believes that we are moving toward a future of personalized products. “It is very much like your taste in music and TV shows. People are different and the new trend in biotechnology is to make personalized medicine that matches the patient’s needs” Yaghoubi said. He continued “With regard to implants, we have the problem of variations in bone density in patients with osteoporosis and in some cases, even healthy individuals. Finding ways to integrate the implants with bone tissues can be challenging. There are also problems with the long-term performance of implants, such as release of debris from bioactive films which can potentially lead to osteolysis and chronic inflammation”.

The new technique employed by the scientists to create titanium implants with desirable surface properties uses microwave heating to create a porosity gradient on top of a dense core. The principles are very similar to a kitchen microwave and how it can make cooking easier, however apparently the fast heating capability is not only useful in cooking but it has numerous industrial applications. Prof. Bhaduri, the Director of Multi-functional materials laboratory at University of Toledo says that they have been using microwave for years to simplify fabrication of complex metallic components. “We needed a way to streamline the process and microwave sintering was a natural fit. With our new method, making the implant from titanium powder in custom sizes and with specific surface topographies is achieved through one easy step.” Bhaduri elaborated.

Researchers are hoping to carry out the clinical trial for this new generation of implants in order to make them available to the market soon. Dr. Kutty, one of the lead authors suggests that there is still room for improvement. Kutty concluded that “Roughened surfaces and bioceramics have desirable effects on osseointegration, but we are not stopping there. We are now developing new ways to use peptides for enhancing the performance of implants even further.”

This image provides an illustration of the proposed new material for implants,

The artwork appeared on the front cover of Applied Surface Science summarizes the benefits of a new bioceramic coating versus the commercially available Calcium Phosphate which develops microcracks during processing and may later cause osteolysis in load-bearing orthopedic implants. Courtesy: University of Malaya

The artwork appeared on the front cover of Applied Surface Science summarizes the benefits of a new bioceramic coating versus the commercially available Calcium Phosphate which develops microcracks during processing and may later cause osteolysis in load-bearing orthopedic implants. Courtesy: University of Malaya

Here are links to and citations for the papers,

Electrophoretic deposition of magnesium silicates on titanium implants: Ion migration and silicide interfaces by M. Afshar-Mohajer, A. Yaghoubi, S. Ramesh, A.R. Bushroa, K.M.C. Chin, C.C. Tin, and W.S. Chiu.  Applied Surface Science (2014) , Volume 307, 15 July 2014, Pages 1–6, DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.04.033

Microwave-assisted Fabrication of Titanium Implants with Controlled Surface Topography for Rapid Bone Healing by Muralithran G. Kutty, Alok De, Sarit B. Bhaduri, and Alireza Yaghoubi. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2014, 6 (16), pp 13587–13593 DOI: 10.1021/am502967n Publication Date (Web): August 6, 2014

Copyright © 2014 American Chemical Society

Both of these papers are behind paywalls.

Robo Brain; a new robot learning project

Having covered the RoboEarth project (a European Union funded ‘internet for robots’ first mentioned here in a Feb. 14, 2011 posting [scroll down about 1/4 of the way] and again in a March 12 2013 posting about the project’s cloud engine, Rapyuta and. most recently in a Jan. 14, 2014 posting), an Aug. 25, 2014 Cornell University news release by Bill Steele (also on EurekAlert with some editorial changes) about the US Robo Brain project immediately caught my attention,

Robo Brain – a large-scale computational system that learns from publicly available Internet resources – is currently downloading and processing about 1 billion images, 120,000 YouTube videos, and 100 million how-to documents and appliance manuals. The information is being translated and stored in a robot-friendly format that robots will be able to draw on when they need it.

The news release spells out why and how researchers have created Robo Brain,

To serve as helpers in our homes, offices and factories, robots will need to understand how the world works and how the humans around them behave. Robotics researchers have been teaching them these things one at a time: How to find your keys, pour a drink, put away dishes, and when not to interrupt two people having a conversation.

This will all come in one package with Robo Brain, a giant repository of knowledge collected from the Internet and stored in a robot-friendly format that robots will be able to draw on when they need it. [emphasis mine]

“Our laptops and cell phones have access to all the information we want. If a robot encounters a situation it hasn’t seen before it can query Robo Brain in the cloud,” explained Ashutosh Saxena, assistant professor of computer science.

Saxena and colleagues at Cornell, Stanford and Brown universities and the University of California, Berkeley, started in July to download about one billion images, 120,000 YouTube videos and 100 million how-to documents and appliance manuals, along with all the training they have already given the various robots in their own laboratories. Robo Brain will process images to pick out the objects in them, and by connecting images and video with text, it will learn to recognize objects and how they are used, along with human language and behavior.

Saxena described the project at the 2014 Robotics: Science and Systems Conference, July 12-16 [2014] in Berkeley.

If a robot sees a coffee mug, it can learn from Robo Brain not only that it’s a coffee mug, but also that liquids can be poured into or out of it, that it can be grasped by the handle, and that it must be carried upright when it is full, as opposed to when it is being carried from the dishwasher to the cupboard.

The system employs what computer scientists call “structured deep learning,” where information is stored in many levels of abstraction. An easy chair is a member of the class of chairs, and going up another level, chairs are furniture. Sitting is something you can do on a chair, but a human can also sit on a stool, a bench or the lawn.

A robot’s computer brain stores what it has learned in a form mathematicians call a Markov model, which can be represented graphically as a set of points connected by lines (formally called nodes and edges). The nodes could represent objects, actions or parts of an image, and each one is assigned a probability – how much you can vary it and still be correct. In searching for knowledge, a robot’s brain makes its own chain and looks for one in the knowledge base that matches within those probability limits.

“The Robo Brain will look like a gigantic, branching graph with abilities for multidimensional queries,” said Aditya Jami, a visiting researcher at Cornell who designed the large-scale database for the brain. It might look something like a chart of relationships between Facebook friends but more on the scale of the Milky Way.

Like a human learner, Robo Brain will have teachers, thanks to crowdsourcing. The Robo Brain website will display things the brain has learned, and visitors will be able to make additions and corrections.

The “robot-friendly format” for information in the European project (RoboEarth) meant machine language but if I understand what’s written in the news release correctly, this project incorporates a mix of machine language and natural (human) language.

This is one of the times the funding sources (US National Science Foundation, two of the armed forces, businesses and a couple of not-for-profit agencies) seem particularly interesting (from the news release),

The project is supported by the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the Army Research Office, Google, Microsoft, Qualcomm, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the National Robotics Initiative, whose goal is to advance robotics to help make the United States more competitive in the world economy.

For the curious, here’s a link to the Robo Brain and RoboEarth websites.

Intel’s 14nm chip: architecture revealed and scientist discusses the limits to computers

Anxieties about how much longer we can design and manufacture smaller, faster computer chips are commonplace even as companies continue to announce new, faster, smaller chips. Just before the US National Science Foundation (NSF) issued a press release concerning a Nature (journal) essay on the limits of computation, Intel announced a new microarchitecture for its 14nm chips .

First, there’s Intel. In an Aug. 12, 2014 news item on Azonano, Intel announced its newest microarchitecture optimization,

Intel today disclosed details of its newest microarchitecture that is optimized with Intel’s industry-leading 14nm manufacturing process. Together these technologies will provide high-performance and low-power capabilities to serve a broad array of computing needs and products from the infrastructure of cloud computing and the Internet of Things to personal and mobile computing.

An Aug. 11, 2014 Intel news release, which originated the news item, lists key points,

  • Intel disclosed details of the microarchitecture of the Intel® Core™ M processor, the first product to be manufactured using 14nm.
  • The combination of the new microarchitecture and manufacturing process will usher in a wave of innovation in new form factors, experiences and systems that are thinner and run silent and cool.
  • Intel architects and chip designers have achieved greater than two times reduction in the thermal design point when compared to a previous generation of processor while providing similar performance and improved battery life.
  • The new microarchitecture was optimized to take advantage of the new capabilities of the 14nm manufacturing process.
  • Intel has delivered the world’s first 14nm technology in volume production. It uses second-generation Tri-gate (FinFET) transistors with industry-leading performance, power, density and cost per transistor.
  • Intel’s 14nm technology will be used to manufacture a wide range of high-performance to low-power products including servers, personal computing devices and Internet of Things.
  • The first systems based on the Intel® Core™ M processor will be on shelves for the holiday selling season followed by broader OEM availability in the first half of 2015.
  • Additional products based on the Broadwell microarchitecture and 14nm process technology will be introduced in the coming months.

The company has made available supporting materials including videos titled, ‘Advancing Moore’s Law in 2014′, ‘Microscopic Mark Bohr: 14nm Explained’, and ‘Intel 14nm Manufacturing Process’ which can be found here. An earlier mention of Intel and its 14nm manufacturing process can be found in my July 9, 2014 posting.

Meanwhile, in a more contemplative mood, Igor Markov of the University of Michigan has written an essay for Nature questioning the limits of computation as per an Aug. 14, 2014 news item on Azonano,

From their origins in the 1940s as sequestered, room-sized machines designed for military and scientific use, computers have made a rapid march into the mainstream, radically transforming industry, commerce, entertainment and governance while shrinking to become ubiquitous handheld portals to the world.

This progress has been driven by the industry’s ability to continually innovate techniques for packing increasing amounts of computational circuitry into smaller and denser microchips. But with miniature computer processors now containing millions of closely-packed transistor components of near atomic size, chip designers are facing both engineering and fundamental limits that have become barriers to the continued improvement of computer performance.

Have we reached the limits to computation?

In a review article in this week’s issue of the journal Nature, Igor Markov of the University of Michigan reviews limiting factors in the development of computing systems to help determine what is achievable, identifying “loose” limits and viable opportunities for advancements through the use of emerging technologies. His research for this project was funded in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

An Aug. 13, 2014 NSF news release, which originated the news item, describes Markov’s Nature essay in greater detail,

“Just as the second law of thermodynamics was inspired by the discovery of heat engines during the industrial revolution, we are poised to identify fundamental laws that could enunciate the limits of computation in the present information age,” says Sankar Basu, a program director in NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate. “Markov’s paper revolves around this important intellectual question of our time and briefly touches upon most threads of scientific work leading up to it.”

The article summarizes and examines limitations in the areas of manufacturing and engineering, design and validation, power and heat, time and space, as well as information and computational complexity.​

“What are these limits, and are some of them negotiable? On which assumptions are they based? How can they be overcome?” asks Markov. “Given the wealth of knowledge about limits to computation and complicated relations between such limits, it is important to measure both dominant and emerging technologies against them.”

Limits related to materials and manufacturing are immediately perceptible. In a material layer ten atoms thick, missing one atom due to imprecise manufacturing changes electrical parameters by ten percent or more. Shrinking designs of this scale further inevitably leads to quantum physics and associated limits.

Limits related to engineering are dependent upon design decisions, technical abilities and the ability to validate designs. While very real, these limits are difficult to quantify. However, once the premises of a limit are understood, obstacles to improvement can potentially be eliminated. One such breakthrough has been in writing software to automatically find, diagnose and fix bugs in hardware designs.

Limits related to power and energy have been studied for many years, but only recently have chip designers found ways to improve the energy consumption of processors by temporarily turning off parts of the chip. There are many other clever tricks for saving energy during computation. But moving forward, silicon chips will not maintain the pace of improvement without radical changes. Atomic physics suggests intriguing possibilities but these are far beyond modern engineering capabilities.

Limits relating to time and space can be felt in practice. The speed of light, while a very large number, limits how fast data can travel. Traveling through copper wires and silicon transistors, a signal can no longer traverse a chip in one clock cycle today. A formula limiting parallel computation in terms of device size, communication speed and the number of available dimensions has been known for more than 20 years, but only recently has it become important now that transistors are faster than interconnections. This is why alternatives to conventional wires are being developed, but in the meantime mathematical optimization can be used to reduce the length of wires by rearranging transistors and other components.

Several key limits related to information and computational complexity have been reached by modern computers. Some categories of computational tasks are conjectured to be so difficult to solve that no proposed technology, not even quantum computing, promises consistent advantage. But studying each task individually often helps reformulate it for more efficient computation.

When a specific limit is approached and obstructs progress, understanding the assumptions made is key to circumventing it. Chip scaling will continue for the next few years, but each step forward will meet serious obstacles, some too powerful to circumvent.

What about breakthrough technologies? New techniques and materials can be helpful in several ways and can potentially be “game changers” with respect to traditional limits. For example, carbon nanotube transistors provide greater drive strength and can potentially reduce delay, decrease energy consumption and shrink the footprint of an overall circuit. On the other hand, fundamental limits–sometimes not initially anticipated–tend to obstruct new and emerging technologies, so it is important to understand them before promising a new revolution in power, performance and other factors.

“Understanding these important limits,” says Markov, “will help us to bet on the right new techniques and technologies.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for Markov’s article,

Limits on fundamental limits to computation by Igor L. Markov. Nature 512, 147–154 (14 August 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13570 Published online 13 August 2014

This paper is behind a paywall but a free preview is available via ReadCube Access.

It’s a fascinating question, what are the limits? It’s one being asked not only with regard to computation but also to medicine, human enhancement, and artificial intelligence for just a few areas of endeavour.

Webcast of US NSF workshop for a future nanotechnology infrastructure support program

The US National Science Foundation (NSF) will be webcasting some of the Workshop for a Future Nanotechnology Infrastructure Support Program (Aug. 18 – 19, 2014) sessions live. From the NSF workshop notice (Note: Some links have been removed),

August 18, 2014 8:00 AM  to
August 18, 2014 12:00 PM
Arlington

August 19, 2014 8:00 AM  to
August 19, 2014 12:00 PM
Arlington

To broaden engagement, portions of the Workshop for a Future Nanotechnology Infrastructure Support Program will be webcast. (The approximate webcast times shown above are Eastern Daylight Time.)

The workshop will convene a panel of experts from academe, industry, and government to:

develop a vision of how a future nanotechnology infrastructure support program could be structured, and
determine the key needs for the broad user communities over the coming decade.

The workshop is a next step in NSF’s preparation for developing a program to succeed the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), after having received community input in response to a recent Dear Colleague Letter (DCL 14-068).

The workshop is co-chaired by Dr. Thomas Theis (IBM Research, on assignment to the Semiconductor Research Corporation) and Dr. Mark Tuominen (University of Massachusetts, Amherst).

The final agenda will be available on this page soon. Morning sessions of the workshop will be broadcast via WebEx; afternoon breakout sessions will not be broadcast.

If you have never used WebEx before or if you want to test your computer’s compatibility with WebEx, please go to http://www.webex.com/lp/jointest/, enter the session information and click “Join”. Please feel free to contact WebEx Support if you are having trouble joining the test meeting.

Session number: 643 345 106
Session password: This session does not require a password.

The notice goes on to offer specific instructions for joining the session online or by phone.

You can view the NSF’s Dear Colleague letter here and/or go here to find the previous infrastructure program (National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network [NNIN]), which ended Feb. 28, 2014.

Synthetic Aesthetics: a book and an event (UK’s Victoria & Albert Museum) about synthetic biology and design

Sadly, I found out about the event after it took place (April 25, 2014) but I’m including it here as I think it serves a primer on putting together an imaginative art/science (art/sci) event, as well, synthetic biology is a topic I’ve covered here many times.

First, the book. Happily, it’s not too late to publicize it and, after all, that was at least one of the goals for the event. Here’s more about the book, from the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council April 25, 2014 news release (also on EurekAlert),

The emerging field of synthetic biology crosses the boundary between science and design, in order to design and manufacture biologically based parts, devices and systems that do not exist in the natural world, as well as the redesign of existing, natural biological systems.

This new technology has the potential to create new organisms for a variety of applications from materials to machines. What role can artists and designers play in our biological future?

This Friday [April 25, 2014], the Victoria & Albert Museum’s Friday Late turns the V&A into a living laboratory, bringing science and design together for one night of events, workshops and installations.

It will also feature the official launch of a new EPSRC-funded book ‘Synthetic Aesthetics: Investigating Synthetic Biology’s Designs on Nature’.

The book, by Alexandra Daisy Ginsberg, Jane Calvert, Pablo Schyfter, Alistair Elfick and Drew Endy, emerged from a research project ‘Sandpit: Synthetic aesthetics: connecting synthetic biology and creative design’ which was funded by the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and the National Science Foundation in the US.

Kedar Pandya, EPSRC’s Head of Engineering, said: “This event and the Synthetic Aesthetics book will act as a catalyst to spark informed debates and future research into how we develop and apply synthetic biology. Engineers and scientists are not divorced from the rest of society; ethical, moral and artistic questions need to be considered as we explore new science and technologies.”

The EPSRC project aimed to:

  • bring together scientists and engineers working in synthetic biology with artists and designers working in the creative industries, to develop long-lasting relationships which could help to improve their work
  • ensure aesthetic concerns and questions are reflected in the lifecycle of research projects and implementation of products, and enable inclusive and responsive technology development
  • produce new social scientific research that analyses and reflects on these interactions
  • initiate a new and expanded curriculum across both engineering and design disciplines to lead to new forms of engineering and new schools of art
  • improve synthetic biological projects, products and thus the world
  • engage and enable the full diversity of civilization’s creative resources to work with the synthetic biology community as full partners in creating and stewarding a beautifully integrated natural and engineered living world

Weirdly, the news release offered no link to the book.  Here’s the Synthetic Aesthetics: Investigating Synthetic Biology’s Designs on Nature page on the MIT Press website,

In this book, synthetic biologists, artists, designers, and social scientists investigate synthetic biology and design. After chapters that introduce the science and set the terms of the discussion, the book follows six boundary-crossing collaborations between artists and designers and synthetic biologists from around the world, helping us understand what it might mean to ‘design nature.’ These collaborations have resulted in biological computers that calculate form; speculative packaging that builds its own contents; algae that feeds on circuit boards; and a sampling of human cheeses. They raise intriguing questions about the scientific process, the delegation of creativity, our relationship to designed matter, and, the importance of critical engagement. Should these projects be considered art, design, synthetic biology, or something else altogether?

Synthetic biology is driven by its potential; some of these projects are fictions, beyond the current capabilities of the technology. Yet even as fictions, they help illuminate, question, and even shape the future of the field.

About the Authors

Alexandra Daisy Ginsberg is a London-based artist, designer, and writer.

Jane Calvert is a social scientist based in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies at the University of Edinburgh.

Pablo Schyfter is a social scientist based in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies at the University of Edinburgh.

Alistair Elfick is Codirector of the SynthSys Centre at the University of Edinburgh.

Drew Endy is a bioengineer at Stanford University and President of the BioBrick

Now for the event description from the Victoria and Albert Museum’s Friday Late series, the April 25,2014  event Synthetic Aesthetics webpage,

Synthetic Aesthetics

Friday 25 April, 18.30-22.00

Can we design life itself? The emerging field of synthetic biology crosses the boundary between science and design to manipulate the stuff of life. These new designers use life as a programmable material, creating new organisms with radical applications from materials to machines. Friday Late turns the V&A into a living laboratory, bringing science and design together for one night of events, workshops and installations, each exploring our biological future.

The evening will feature the book launch of Synthetic Aesthetics: Investigating Synthetic Biology’s Designs on Nature (MIT Press). The book marks an important point in the development of the emerging discipline of synthetic biology, sitting at the intersection between design and science. The book is a result of research funded by the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the National Science Foundation in the US.

All events are free and places are designated on a first come, first served basis, unless stated otherwise. Filming and photography will be taking place at this event.

Please note, if the Museum reaches capacity we will allow access on a one-in-one-out basis.

#FridayLate

ALL EVENING (18.30 – 21.30)

Live Lab

Spotlight Space, Grand Entrance
A functioning synthetic biology lab in the grand entrance places this experimental field front and centre within the historic home of the V&A. Conducting experiments and answering questions from visitors, the lab will be run by synthetic biologists from Imperial College London’s EPSRC National Centre for Synthetic Biology & Innovation and SynbiCITE UK Innovation and Knowledge Centre for Synthetic Biology.

No Straight Line, No True Circle

Medieval & Renaissance, Room 50a
Young artists from the Royal College of Art’s Visual Communication course explore synthetic biology through projections on the walls of the galleries. Each one takes its inspiration from the sculptures around it in a series of site-specific installations.

Xylinum Cones

Lunchroom (access via staircase L, follow signs)
What would it mean for our daily lives if we could grow our objects? Xylinum Cones presents an experimental production line that uses bacteria to grow geometric forms. Meet designers Jannis Huelsen and Stefan Schwabe and learn how they are developing a renewable cellulose composite for future industrial uses.

Selfmade

Poynter Room, Café
This film tells the story of how biologist Christina Agapakis and smell provocateur Sissel Tolaas produce human cheese. Using swabs from hands, feet, noses and armpits as starter cultures, they produce unique smelling fresh cheeses as unusual portraits of our biological lives.

Grow Your Own Ink

Lunchroom (access via staircase L, follow signs)
A workshop led by scientist Thomas Landrain and designer Marie-Sarah Adenis showing how to ‘grow your own ink’. Try out some of the steps, from the culturing of bacteria to the extraction and purification of biological pigments. Discover the marvellous properties of this one-of-a-kind ink.

Bio Logic

Architecture Landing, Room 127 (access via staircase P, follow signs)
Take a trip into the Petri dish, where microchips meet microbes, cells become computers and all is not quite as it seems. Bio Computation, a short film by David Benjamin and Hy-Fi by The Living demonstrate revolutionary design using new composite building materials at the intersection of synthetic biology, architecture, and computation.

Zero Park

Bottom of NAL staircase (staircase L) Where is the line between the natural and the artificial? Somewhere in the midst of Zero Park. Sascha Pohflepp’s installation leads you through a synthetic landscape, which poses questions about human agency in natural ecosystems.

Faber Futures: The Rhizosphere Pigment Lab

Tapestries, Room 94 (access via staircase L)
Bacteria are no longer the bane, but the birth of tapestries! Natsai Audrey Chieza creates a gallery of futurist scarves for which bacteria are the sole agent of colour transformation. In collaboration with John Ward, professor of Structural Molecular Biology, University College London.

Living Things

Fashion, Room 40
Breathing, living, ‘second skins’ change their shape and appearance as you approach. Silicon-like smart-fabrics show movement and moving patterns. The Cyborg project – led by Carlos Olguin, with Autodesk Research – explores possibilities of new software to create materials with their own ‘life’.

The Opera of Prehistoric Creatures

Raphael Gallery, Room 48a
‘Lucy’, the extinct hominid Autralopithecus Afarensis, performs an opera just for you. Marguerite Humeau recreates her vocal tract and cords to bring you the lost voice of this prehistoric creature.

Electro Magnetic Signals from Bacterial DNA

Cast Courts, Room 46a
Can we imagine what it sounds like inside the molecular structure of a DNA helix? This composition is inspired by theoretical speculation on bacteria’s ability to transmit EMF signals, played amongst the V&A’s cast collection.

Living Among Living Things

The Edwin and Susan Davies Galleries, Room 87 (access via staircase L, follow signs)
Will Carey explores how living things will replace the products and foods we use today: from packaging that produces its own drink to skincare products secreted from bespoke microbial cultures. This series of images show exotic commodities that could be normal to future generations.

Neo-Nature

Lunchroom (access via staircase L, follow signs)
Join this workshop to create your own synthetic corals and contribute to the V&A’s very own coral reef. Michail Vanis invites you to bring seemingly impossible scenarios to life and discuss their scientific and ethical implications.

Synthetic Aesthetics on Film

The Lydia and Manfred Gorvey Lecture Theatre (access via staircase L, follow signs)
18.30 – 19.00 & 20.00 – 21.45
DNA replication, Bjork, swallowable perfume… these eight films demonstrate a myriad of cultural crossovers; synthetic biology at its aesthetic finest.
Dunne & Raby – Future Foragers (2009)
Tobias Revell – New Mumbai (2012)
Lucy McRae – Swallowable Parfum (2013)
UCSD – Biopixels (2011)
Zeitguised – Comme des Organismes (2014)
Drew Berry for Bjork – Hollow (2011)
Alexandra Daisy Ginsberg and James King – E. chromi (2009)
Neri Oxman – Silk Pavilion (2013)

FROM 19.00

Synthetic Aesthetics Authors’ Panel Discussion and Book Signing

The Lydia and Manfred Gorvey Lecture Theatre (access via staircase L, follow signs)
19.00 – 20.00 (followed by book signing)
The authors of Synthetic Aesthetics pry open the circuitry of a new biology, exposing the motherboard of nature. A presentation by designer Alexandra Daisy Ginsberg will be followed by a panel discussion with members of the team behind Synthetic Aesthetics Drew Endy, Jane Calvert, Pablo Schyfter and Alistair Elfick. Chaired by The Economist’s Oliver Morton.

Blueprints for the Unknown

Learning Centre: Seminar Room 3(access via staircase L, follow signs)
19.00. 19.30, 20.00 & 20.30
What happens when science leaves the lab? Recent advances in synthetic biology mean scientists will be the architects of life, creating blueprints for living systems and organisms. Blueprints for the Unknown investigates what might happen as engineering biology meets the complex world we live in. Speakers include Koby Barhad, David Benqué, Raphael Kim and Superflux.
Blueprints for the Unknown is a project by Design Interactions Research at the Royal College of Art as part of the Studiolab research project.

DNA Extraction

Learning Centre: Art Studio(access via staircase L, follow signs)
19.00, 20.00 & 21.00
Extract your own DNA in the V&A’s popup Wetlab and chat with synthetic biologists from Imperial College London. Synthetic biology designs life at the scale of DNA, and tonight you can take the raw materials of life home with you. With thanks to Imperial College London’s EPSRC National Centre for Synthetic Biology & Innovation and SynbiCITE UK Innovation and Knowledge Centre for Synthetic Biology.

Music of the Spheres

John Madejski Garden
19.30 & 20.30 (20 minutes)
Your computer’s hard drive is nothing compared to nature’s awesome capacity to record information. Artist Charlotte Jarvis explores how DNA can be used to record things apart from genetics – such as music – in the centuries to come. With scientist Nick Goldman and composer Mira Calix, Music of the Spheres encodes music into the structure of DNA suspended in soap solution. An immersive, surprising performance introduced by Jarvis, Calix and Goldman as they release musical bubbles in the garden. This is a work in progress.

FROM 20.00

Synbio Tarot Cards

Medieval & Renaissance, Room 50b
20.00 – 20.45
Synbio tarot card readings reveal possible outcomes, both desirable and disastrous, to which science might lead us. Exploring the social, economic and political implications of synthetic biology in the cards, from dream world to dystopia.

Synthetic Aesthetics Book Contributors Talks

National Art Library (access via staircase L)
20.30 – 21.30
The new book Synthetic Aesthetics: Investigating Synthetic Biology’s Designs on Nature marks a development in the emerging discipline of synthetic biology. For the book launch, designers, artists and scientists explain how their work bridges the gap between design and science. Drop in and hear Christina Agapakis, Sascha Pohflepp, David Benjamin and Will Carey over the course of the evening with social scientists Jane Calvert and Pablo Schyfter.
(Please note coats and bags are not permitted in the Library. Please leave these items in the cloakroom on the ground floor).

This event had a specially designed programme cover,

Souvenir programme wrap designed by London-based graphic design consultancy Kellenberger–White. kellenberger-white.com

Souvenir programme wrap designed by London-based graphic design consultancy Kellenberger–White.
kellenberger-white.com

 


Having observed how very deeply concerned scientists still are over the GMO (genetically modified organisms, sometimes also called ‘Frankenfoods’) panic that occurred in the early 2000s (I think), I suspect that efforts like this are meant (at least in part) to allay fears. In any event, the powers-that-be have taken a very engaging approach to their synthetic biology efforts. As for whether or not the event lived up to expectations, I have not been able to find any reviews or commentaries about it.

LEGO serious play and Arizona State University’s nanotechnology* ethics and society project*

Arizona State University (ASU) is receiving a $200,000 grant for undergraduates to ‘play seriously’ according to an April 10, 2014 news item on Azonano,

ASU undergraduates have the opportunity to enroll in a challenging course this fall, designed to re-introduce the act of play as a problem-solving technique. The course is offered as part of the larger project, Cross-disciplinary Education in Social and Ethical Aspects of Nanotechnology, which received nearly $200,000 from the National Science Foundation’s Nano Undergraduate Education program.

An April 6, 2014 ASU news release, which originated the news item, provides more details (Note: Links have been removed),

The project is the brainchild of Camilla Nørgaard Jensen, a doctoral scholar in the ASU Herberger Institute’s design, environment and the arts doctoral program. Participants will use an approach called LEGO Serious Play to solve what Jensen calls “nano-conundrums” – ethical dilemmas arising in the field of nanotechnology.

“LEGO Serious Play is an engaging vehicle that helps to create a level playing field, fostering shared conversation and exchange of multiple perspectives,” said Jensen, a trained LEGO Serious Play facilitator. “This creates an environment for reflection and critical deliberation of complex decisions and their future impacts.”

LEGO Serious Play methods are often used by businesses to strategize and encourage creative thinking. In ASU’s project, students will use LEGO bricks to build metaphorical models, share and discuss their creations, and then adapt and respond to feedback received by other students. The expectation is that this activity will help students learn to think and communicate “outside the box” – literally and figuratively – about their work and its long-term societal effects.

This project was piloted, from the news release (Note: A link has been removed),

Fifteen engineering students enrolled in the Grand Challenge Scholar Program participated in a Feb. 24 [20??] pilot workshop to test project strategies. Comments from students included, “I experienced my ideas coming to life as I built the model,” and “I gained a perspective as to how ideas cannot take place entirely in the head.” These anecdotal outcomes confirmed the team’s assumptions that play and physical activity can enhance the formation and communication of ideas.

This is a cross-disciplinary effort (from the news release),

“Technology is a creative and collaborative process,” said Seager [Thomas Seager, an associate professor and Lincoln Fellow of Ethics and Sustainability in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment], who is principal investigator for the grant. “I want a classroom that will unlock technology creativity, in which students from every discipline can be creative. For me, overcoming obstacles to communication is just the first step.”

Seager’s work teaching ethical reasoning skills to science and engineering graduate students will help inform the project. Selin’s [Cynthia Selin, an assistant professor in the School of Sustainability and the Center for Nanotechnology in Society] research on the social implications of new technologies, and Hannah’s [Mark Hannah, an assistant professor in the rhetoric and composition program in the ASU Department of English] expertise in professional and technical communication will facilitate the dialogue-based approach to understanding the communication responsibilities of transdisciplinary teams working in nanotechnology. A steering committee of 12 senior advisers is helping to guide the project’s progress.

“Being a new scientific field that involves very complex trade-offs and risk when it comes to implementation, the subject of ethics in nanoscience is best addressed in a transdisciplinary setting. When problems are too complex to be solved by one discipline alone, the approach needs to go beyond the disciplinary silos,” said Jensen.

“As we train the next generation of students to understand the opportunities and responsibilities involved in creating and using emerging technologies that have the potential to benefit society, we need to advance our capacity to teach diverse stakeholders how to communicate effectively,” said Jensen.

I last wrote about play and nanotechnology in an Aug. 2, 2013 posting about training teachers how to introduce nanotechnology to middle schoolers. As for ASU, they’ve had a rich week with regard to funding, in an April 8, 2014 posting, i described a $5M grant for a multi-university project, the Life Cycle of Nanomaterials Network headquartered at ASU.

* Added ‘o’ to the nantechnology so it now reads correctly as nanotechnology and added a space between the words ‘society’ and ‘project’ in the head for this post.

Game design for scientific participation

Thanks to David Bruggeman for his Feb. 13, 2014 post (on the Pasco Phronesis blog) about a US National Science Foundation (NSF) webinar on designing scientific games and where he has embedded a video of a mobile game from Cancer Research UK. (His blog is well worth checking out for the information on science entertainment, as well as, his main topic, science policy.)

The upcoming NSF webinar is titled, From World of Warcraft to Fold.it and Beyond; The Opportunities & Challenges to Designing Games for Scientific Participation and will be held on Friday, Feb. 21, 2014 (1 hr.),

February 21, 2014 12:00 PM  to  February 21, 2014 1:00 PM
NSF Room 110

Designing Disruptive Learning Technologies Webinar Series

Kurt Squire – University of Wisconsin-Madison

Abstract:

Digital games like World of Warcraft and Fold.it are compelling examples of how technology can engage thousands of learners in solving complex problems — even in making scientific discoveries. But what does it take to foster learning in the midst of such enthusiastic engagement? In this presentation, I will draw from a decade of research in how people learn and interact in online gaming environments and present findings from our work designing online environments for science learning. I will present pedagogical models for integrating gaming technologies into classrooms and research exploring how these games work for learning. Both the potential of games for science learning and challenges for leveraging gaming technologies at scale will be presented, as well as implications for further research on how people learn.

Bio:

Kurt Squire is a Romnes Professor in Digital Media in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Director of the Games+Learning+Society Theme at the Wisconsin Institute for Discovery. Squire is also a co-founder and Vice President of Research for the Learning Games Network, a non-profit network expanding the role of games and learning. Squire is an internationally recognized leader in digital media in technology and has delivered dozens of invited addresses across Europe, Asia, and North America and written over 75 scholarly articles on digital media and education. Squire’s research investigates the potential of digital game-based technologies for learning, and has resulted in several software projects including ARIS, Virulent, Citizen Science, among others. Squire is the recipient of an NSF CAREER grant, and grants from the NSF, Gates Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, AMD Foundation, Microsoft, Data Recognition Corporation and others. Squire was also a co-founder of Joystick101.org, and for several years wrote a column with Henry Jenkins for Computer Games magazine.

Webinar

The Webinar will be held from 12:00pm to 1:00pm Eastern Time on Friday, Feburary 21, 2014.

Please register at https://nsf.webex.com/nsf/j.php?ED=239652927&RG=1&UID=0&RT=MiMxMQ%3D%3D  by 11:59pm Eastern Time on Thursday, February 20, 2014.

After your registration is accepted, you will receive an email with a URL to join the meeting. Please be sure to join a few minutes before the start of the webinar. This system does not establish a voice connection on your computer; instead, your acceptance message will have a toll-free phone number that you will be prompted to call after joining. In the event the number of requests exceeds the capacity, some requests may have to be denied.

This event is part of Webinars/Webcasts.

Meeting Type
Webcast

Contacts
Natalie Harr, (703) 292-8930, [email protected]

Good luck with your registration.  This webinar does seem to be open internationally although I imagine priority will be given to registrants located in the US.

Researchers propose massive shift in science funding enterprise

The massive science funding shift that researchers are proposing won’t fundamentally change who or what research is funded so much as it will require fewer resources as described in a Jan. 8, 2014 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

Researchers in the United States have suggested an alternative way to allocate science funding. The method, which is described in EMBO reports (“From funding agencies to scientific agency”), depends on a collective distribution of funding by the scientific community, requires only a fraction of the costs associated with the traditional peer review of grant proposals and, according to the authors, may yield comparable or even better results.

The Jan. 8, 2014 EMBO [European Molecular Biology Organization] news release, which originated the news item, quotes the lead author’s perspective on the current funding systems and describes the proposed solution which is meant for all science funding,

“Peer review of scientific proposals and grants has served science very well for decades. However, there is a strong sense in the scientific community that things could be improved,” said Johan Bollen, professor and lead author of the study from the School of Informatics and Computing at Indiana University. “Our most productive researchers invest an increasing amount of time, energy, and effort into writing and reviewing research proposals, most of which do not get funded. That time could be spent performing the proposed research in the first place.” He added: “Our proposal does not just save time and money but also encourages innovation.”

The new approach is possible due to recent advances in mathematics and  computer technologies. The system involves giving all scientists an annual, unconditional fixed amount of funding to conduct their research. All funded scientists are, however, obliged to donate a fixed percentage of all of the funding that they previously received to other researchers. As a result, the funding circulates through the community, converging on researchers that are expected to make the best use of it. “Our alternative funding system is inspired by the mathematical models used to search the internet for relevant information,” said Bollen. “The decentralized funding model uses the wisdom of the entire scientific community to determine a fair distribution of funding.”

The authors believe that this system can lead to sophisticated behavior at a global level. It would certainly liberate researchers from the time-consuming process of submitting and reviewing project proposals, but could also reduce the uncertainty associated with funding cycles, give researchers much greater flexibility, and allow the community to fund risky but high-reward projects that existing funding systems may overlook.

“You could think of it as a Google-inspired crowd-funding system that encourages all researchers to make autonomous, individual funding decisions towards people, not projects or proposals,” said Bollen. “All you need is a centralized web site where researchers could log-in, enter the names of the scientists they chose to donate to, and specify how much they each should receive.”

The authors emphasize that the system would require oversight to prevent misuse, such as conflicts of interests and collusion. Funding agencies may need to confidentially monitor the flow of funding and may even play a role in directing it. For example they can provide incentives to donate to specific large-scale research challenges that are deemed priorities but which the scientific community can overlook.

“The savings of financial and human resources could be used to identify new targets of funding, to support the translation of scientific results into products and jobs, and to help communicate advances in science and technology,” added Bollen. “This funding system may even have the side-effect of changing publication practices for the better: researchers will want to clearly communicate their vision and research goals to as wide an audience as possible.”

While the research is US-centric, it’s easy to see its applicabllity in many, if not all, jurisdictions around the world.

I have two links and two citations. The first is for the EMBO Reports paper,

From funding agencies to scientific agency; Collective allocation of science funding as an alternative to peer review by  Johan Bollen, David Crandall, Damion Junk, Ying Ding, & Katy Börner. Article first published online: 7 JAN 2014 DOI: 10.1002/embr.201338068

© 2014 The Authors

This paper is behind a paywall.

The second link and citation is for an earlier version of the paper on arXiv.org, which is an open access archive,

Collective allocation of science funding: from funding agencies to scientific agency
by Johan Bollen, David Crandall, Damion Junk, Ying Ding, & Katy Boerner.
(Submitted on 3 Apr 2013)

Here’s the abstract from the April 2013 version of the paper on arXiv.org,

Public agencies like the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) award tens of billions of dollars in annual science funding. How can this money be distributed as efficiently as possible to best promote scientific innovation and productivity? The present system relies primarily on peer review of project proposals. In 2010 alone, NSF convened more than 15,000 scientists to review 55,542 proposals. [emphasis mine] Although considered the scientific gold standard, peer review requires significant overhead costs, and may be subject to biases, inconsistencies, and oversights. We investigate a class of funding models in which all participants receive an equal portion of yearly funding, but are then required to anonymously donate a fraction of their funding to peers. The funding thus flows from one participant to the next, each acting as if he or she were a funding agency themselves. Here we show through a simulation conducted over large-scale citation data (37M articles, 770M citations) that such a distributed system for science may yield funding patterns similar to existing NIH and NSF distributions, but may do so at much lower overhead while exhibiting a range of other desirable features. Self-correcting mechanisms in scientific peer evaluation can yield an efficient and fair distribution of funding. The proposed model can be applied in many situations in which top-down or bottom-up allocation of public resources is either impractical or undesirable, e.g. public investments, distribution chains, and shared resource management.

It’s interesting to note the agencies which supported the research (from the news release),

Awards from the National Science Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the National Institutes of Health supported the work.

It would seem there’s an appetite for change given the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are the two largest science funding agencies in the US.