I gather they’re sticking to 2022 as the year for the second race as first mentioned in my December 18, 2020 posting “Next-gen Rice University nanocars for Second international Nanocar Race (it’s been bumped to 2022).”
A November 17, 2021 news item on Nanowerk announces the inclusion of a team called NANOHISPA from IMDEA Nanociencia (Institute of Advanced Studies in Nanoscience, a private non-profit foundation initiated by the regional government of the community of Madrid [Spain]),
The nanomechanics at IMDEA Nanociencia are getting ready their engines for the international Nanocar Race II. The research groups led by David Écija and Emilio M. Pérez at IMDEA Nanociencia (Madrid) will participate in the second edition in Toulouse, March 2022.
The Nanocar Race is the world’s smallest car race covering the longest distance possible on a gold track for 24 hours, where the vehicles are molecules driven by the interaction with the tip of a scanning tunneling microscope (STM).
The overarching goal of the competition is to advance the development of nanomachines capable of real work, like carrying molecular-scale cargo and facilitating nano-fabrication.
Not everyone can join this competition. After pre-registration, two years are given to each team to consolidate their molecular designs. Nanocar drivers use the tip of a STM microscope to help jolt their molecules along, typically by just a few nanometers each time, so that the nanocar race takes place on a very small scale. Touching however is forbidden. The vehicles must be drivable without mechanical push from the tip. The propulsion mechanism can be either inelastic (related to the excitation of vibrational modes or to current-induced structural changes) or dipolar, resulting from the repulsion or attraction between the nanocar and the STM tip. In the Nanocar Race II two sessions will happen, depending on the “weather” conditions: ambient or ultra-high vacuum.
With a lateral size of a few nanometers, a nanocar is a molecule with a distinguishable front and rear. Its chemical structure allows the nanocar to move on a surface when a STM tip is approached. The IMDEA Nanociencia’s NANOHISPA team joins the international group of certified teams in the ultra-high vacuum nanocar racing with their molecule “SPARC”, consisting on 70 well placed atoms. With rear wheels of toluene and front wheels of benzene, built on an anthracene chassis, the minimalistic hydrocarbon nanoarchitectonics of SPARC should help them navigate the speedway in a solid manner. This molecular design includes a permanent dipole moment “motor”: permanent dipoles make the car susceptible to electric field gradients, and can be used to propel and maneuver them. The small anthracene chassis keeps the weight at minimum, while its polyaromatic nature ensures sufficient downforce for fast cornering. Meanwhile, the benzene derivatives at the wheels allow little interaction with the gold track, promoting acceleration and top speed on the straights.
The nanocar SPARC will be driven by the NANOHISPA team with members of the research group of Prof. David Écija at IMDEA Nanociencia. The team of drivers, with Dr. Koen Lauwaet, Dr. Ana Sánchez, Dr. Ignacio Urgel and Dr. Ana Barragán, all led by Prof. David Écija, will go helmets on and fire the engines for the most exciting 24 hours in the nanoracing panorama. “The team has great expertise in molecular synthesis and scanning tunneling microscope manipulations” Prof. Rodolfo Miranda, director of IMDEA Nanociencia, says. The team is sponsored by the Specialised Group in Nanoscience and Molecular Materials (GENAM) from the Spanish Royal Society of Physics (RSEF) and the Spanish Royal Society of Chemistry (RSEQ), and by the company Scienta Omicron. The NANOHISPA team passed their rookie tests last October in an online meeting with the organizers in France.
The Écija’s and Perez’s groups will team up and travel to Toulouse for the race presentation during the C’NANO Conference 2021, on the 23rd of November 2021. The event occurs in the year we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the STM microscope invention. All the Nanocar Race II teams officially registered will present their first molecule-car prototype to the public during the MEMO satellite workshop “Single molecule mechanics on a surface: gears, motors and cars”.
The 2nd international Nanocar Race [sic; Note: This appears to be a link to the first international Nanocar Race website; link to 2nd race after this excerpt] is organized on the framework of the European FET OPEN project MEMO (Mechanics with Molecules). The competition will be broadcasted live from Toulouse in March, 2022. The First Nanocar Race was held in Toulouse in April 2017, and was followed live by more than 100.000 people on the NanoCarRace Youtube channel. On this occasion, a greater attention to this event is expected. All teams will compete at the same time in the same room in Toulouse, controlling their nanocars remotely.
8 drivers. 24 hours. Don’t miss out another incredible edition of the Nanocar Race.
As mentioned in the press release, the 2nd international Nanocar race is being organized by the European FET [Future and Emerging Technologies] OPEN project MEMO (Mechanics with Molecules) funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 joint funding programme.
For information about the Nanocar Race II, also known as, the 2nd international Nanocar Race, see this webpage on the MEMO website. You can find the NanoCarRace Youtube channel here.
The NANOHISPA team has made an animation of their nanocar SPARC,
As mentioned in the press release, the 2nd international Nanocar race is being organized by the European FET [Future and Emerging Technologies] OPEN project MEMO (Mechanics with Molecules) funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 joint funding programme.
Relationships can be so complicated. First, Unlocking Science is the name for the International Science Council’s (ISC) multimedia hub and it’s the name for a new four-part podcast launching today, November 16, 2021. Plus, Unlocking Science (the podcast) can be found on the Unlocking Science multimedia hub/website.
Produced by BBC [British Broadcasting Corporation] StoryWorks Commercial Productions, this dynamic online series uncovers the innovative global stories of scientists and how they are addressing inequalities, engaging policymakers and the public, and pioneering a more sustainable future.
With all eyes on COP26, and a chance for the world’s leaders, policymakers and community activists to put the planet on a sustainable path, this series meets the scientists who are finding solutions to some of humanity’s most pressing issues. Unlocking Science, a new online series, looks at how the global collaborative effort by international science is rising to the challenge of finding pathways to living within planetary boundaries.
Produced for the International Science Council (ISC) by BBC StoryWorks Commercial Productions, Unlocking Science addresses the need for accessible science through compelling and innovative storytelling for the public. This new series of films, articles and podcasts explores the ever-changing face of science culture, where diversity of thought and creative approaches to our most immediate and complex concerns are championed.
“We want communities to realize that science creating solutions for our planet is certainly not taking place in a so-called ivory tower. It is open, multinational, participatory and fuelled with urgency,”
From innovators working to protect vital ecological biomes like the Great Barrier Reef and the Amazon rainforest, to scientists seeking stability after being displaced by conflict, to ordinary citizens discovering our galaxy and our place in it through community-led tourism, Unlocking Science tells the human stories and new discoveries created by science.
said Mathieu Denis, ISC Science Director.
From innovators working to protect vital ecological biomes like the Great Barrier Reef and the Amazon rainforest, to scientists seeking stability after being displaced by conflict, to ordinary citizens discovering our galaxy and our place in it through community-led tourism, Unlocking Science tells the human stories and new discoveries created by science.Explore the ISC stories to feature on the new hub:
Meet Laura de Santis as part of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR)’s story on What Antarctica can teach us about climate change – “We need to combine multidisciplinary work in order to understand the sensitivity of the ice sheets to ongoing climate warming, and to even more warming, which is expected in the future in the next decades”
Discover the people behind the changing face of medical science – “The medical physicists and engineers are like the orchestra in the opera: they are not the people you see, but they are the ones who ensure that the technology needed in healthcare is created and developed” – in Tomorrow’s hidden visionaries with the International Union for Physical and Engineering Sciences [in Medicine (IUPESM)].
Learn about The communities using astronomy to bring tourism to their region with the International Astronomical Union Office of Astronomy for Development and meet Tsewang Dorjey and Arun Radhakrishnan, a local team leaders in the village sharing their knowledge of the night sky
Meet refugee scientists displaced by conflict, like Eqbal Dauqan, who left Yemen for Oslo, where she gained an academic position with support from the Scholars At Risk network. Eqbal was a mentee of the Global Young Academy’s At-Risk Scholars Initiative, and now acts as a mentor herself.
Additional films and articles will be joining the Unlocking Science series in early 2022.
I’m not sure how I stumbled on to to the Unlocking Science podcast before I got onto the multimedia hub website,
BTW, if the conference that the International Science Council’s subgroup, the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) held here in Canada (August 30 – September 2, 2021) are an indicator, the podcasts and hub are likely to contain very interesting material. You can find out more about the conference in my August 31, 2021 posting.
The four-part podcast series should be here on the ISC podcasts webpage on November 16, 2021.
A quick reminder, ARPICO stands for the Society of Italian Researchers & Professionals in Western Canada and while the upcoming speaker, Jason Halter, doesn’t seem to be Italian, his topic is quintessentially so.
[downloaded from https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/uncovering-leonardo-da-vincis-earlier-isleworth-mona-lisa-tickets-205331049697]
From a November 5, 2021 ARPICO announcement (received via email),
After an extended break since our last (virtual) public event of last April and an unusually difficult summer, for BC in general and ARPICO in particular, we are happy to announce that our activity is restarting this fall. Our next event features a very enticing lecture presenting us with a story that neatly straddles art, science, and history, around one of the most intriguing portraits of the Renaissance, if not ever, by the great Leonardo Da Vinci. Modern day Renaissance man, designer, architect, historian and lover of Italia, Prof. Jason Halter will give us an account of his role, in collaboration with experts in other fields, in the uncovering of the so-called Earlier Mona Lisa, and verifying its authenticity. …
The lecture will take place on November 18th, 2021 at 7:00PM and will be hosted virtually, as our last few events have been. We continue to use BlueJeans as our videoconferencing platform, for which you will only require a web browser (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, Opera are all supported). Full detailed instructions on how the virtual event will unfold are available on the EventBrite listing here in the Technical Instruction section.
If participants wish to donate to ARPICO, this can be done within EventBrite; this would be greatly appreciated in order to help us continue to build upon our scholarship fund, and to defray the cost of the videoconferencing license.
The announcement goes on to provide details about the topic and the speaker,
Leonardo da Vinci’s Earlier (Isleworth) Mona Lisa:
Time Travel, Pattern Recognition, and the Scientific Method
A fascinating presentation and discussion of Da Vinci’s Earlier Mona Lisa in the context of the paper of the same title that was published in Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa: New Perspectives, by Jean-Pierre Isbouts (Ed). Art historians have long debated the question why sources about the origin of the Mona Lisa portrait provide conflicting information. This monograph presents a solution for this quandary: those 16th-century sources don’t agree because they are not talking about the same painting. Jason Halter is one of a team of leading scholars and experts who have contributed to the veracity and authentication of this painting and the process has necessitated embracing technology and methods offered by science, which had not been uncovered before.
Design, Art & Architecture occupy a central position in the practice of Jason Halter & Wonder Inc. Having gained his formative experience under the tutelage of one of the world’s most important designers, Bruce Mau, Jason has won international acclaim for his innovative approach to design & art production. His unfettered curiosity & ability to realize ideas have made him intuit & manifest design solutions in new & novel ways.
As a Renaissance scholar, Halter spent several years teaching art & architecture of the late Gothic and early & late Renaissance in Florence and Rome, having held faculty positions with the University of Toronto & the University of British Columbia. He holds several degrees in history & architecture, & was awarded the prestigious Syracuse Fellowship during his post graduate work in Italy.
Halter was recently invited by the Mona Lisa Foundation, a consortium based in Zurich, Switzerland, to assist in the marketing and research for the ‘Earlier Mona Lisa’, 1503, by Leonardo Da Vinci. Contributing an article entitled ‘Time Travel. Pattern Recognition & the Scientific Method’, to the recent book entitled ‘Earlier Mona Lisa – New Perspectives’, published by the Fielding Graduate University, this new scholarship has established a series of insights and theories regarding this incredibly important artwork by Da Vinci, engaging new vital scientific investigation with critical cultural expertise on the work. The book was released in April 2019, ahead of an exhibition of the ‘Earlier Mona Lisa’ at Palazzo Bastogi in Florence, Italy in June of 2019, corresponding with the 500th anniversary of the passing of Leonardo da Vinci in 1519.
ARPICO offers an overview for how the night will proceed,
WHEN (EVENT): Thurs, November 18th, 2021 at 7:00PM (BlueJeans link active at 6:45PM)
WHERE: Online using the BlueJeans Conferencing platform.
The evening agenda is as follows:
6:45PM – BlueJeans Presentation link becomes active and registrants may join.
7:00pm – Start of the evening Event with introductions & lecture by Prof. Jason Halter
8:00 pm – Q & A Period via BlueJeans Chat Interface
Tickets are Needed
Tickets for this event are FREE. Due to limited seating at the venue, we ask that each household register once and watch the presentation together on a single device. You will receive the event videoconferencing invite link via email in your registration confirmation.
FAQs
Where can I contact the organizer with any questions? info@arpico.ca
Can I update my registration information? Yes. If you have any questions, contact us at info@arpico.ca
I am having trouble using EventBrite and cannot reserve my ticket(s). Can someone at ARPICO help me with my ticket reservation? Of course, simply send your ticket request to us at info@arpico.ca so we help you.
I found this about the BlueJeans Conferencing platform on the ‘Leonardo da Vinci’s Earlier (Isleworth) Mona Lisa: Time Travel, Pattern Recognition, and the Scientific Method’ registration page,
Technical Instruction
The event will be managed via the videoconferencing platform BlueJeans Meetings, by clicking on the link that will be emailed to each registered individual (to the email address provided). Please, note that the event will not be active until 6:45 pm on the day of the event.
At that time, clicking on the link will automatically let you join the event via your web browser (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera should all work smoothly). You are NOT required to download or install anything to your computer. The entire video stream will occur inside your web browser window just like any other website you might visit. There is no security risk or risk to your personal information. You can always join the event late, as this will not interfere with the presentation.
When you open the link you will be prompted to input a guest name. Please use your name that will allow us to identify you, and continue. On the following screen you may be prompted by your browser (depending on your settings) to allow access to use your computer’s microphone and camera. You do not need to approve these if you do not plan to talk or be seen at any time during the Q&A segment. Upon joining you should see a screen similar to the sample image seen below where the various icons superimposed on the pictures of participants will show when you hover the mouse pointer over the BlueJeans browser window.
…
By default, your system’s camera will be turned on and your microphone will be turned off. If you do not wish to show your face, you can of course do that by clicking on the camera icon like the one on the bottom right of the sample screenshot provided. We ask that you keep your microphone muted, since any background sounds and noises from your environment will be audible and may interfere with the speaker’s voice.
As we have done for the in-person events, we will be recording our virtual ones for future reference.
Q&A
At any time during the lecture, participants will be able to post comments or questions for the speaker via the “chat” button also visible by hovering over the BlueJeans browser window. The moderator will read them for the speaker by way of a Q&A session at the end of the lecture.
Feedback
In the days following the event we will be sending all participants a succinct feedback form, which we encourage you to fill in and send back to us.
A little background
It seems this talk is the outcome of a Mona Lisa Foundation initiative, which resulted in a 2019 book (mentioned earlier), Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa: New Perspectives, by Jean-Pierre Isbouts (editor).
Few works of art have garnered as much attention from experts and the public as the ‘Mona Lisa’ in the Louvre Museum. By contrast, the ‘Earlier Mona Lisa’ has spent much of its existence hidden from view. Despite this, on the few occasions the painting has been available to be viewed, significant expert opinion has been recorded.
It is probably fair to say that attributing a painting to Leonardo da Vinci with certainty is one of the most difficult tasks in the field of Old Master paintings. To date there are about 18 to 20 paintings “more or less” attributed to Leonardo. One states “more or less” since there is not even one painting about which all the recognized Da Vinci experts agree. It is even disputed whether some parts of the famous ‘Mona Lisa’ portrait in the Louvre are not by the master. One famous expert said that attributing a painting to Leonardo is like “holding in one’s hand a burning iron rod.”
Nonetheless, it is generally accepted that he did paint all or at least the essential parts of those paintings currently attributed to him. In the case of a Da Vinci portrait, an attribution is generally agreed upon if the artist painted only the face, while some experts argue that it is even enough if Da Vinci had simply conceived the structure of the painting. It should be noted that some of his pupils and followers had great talent. The well-known ‘Lady with an Ermine’ and ‘La Belle Ferronière’ represent only recent attributions to Leonardo, having been attributed to pupils for almost 400 years.
Professor Jean-Pierre Isbouts says, “Every interpretation is subject to subsequent dispute. When you look at dating, when you look at authorship, when you look at provenance. So I think it’s just part of the world we live in that Leonardo scholarship happens to be a debating society whether you like it or not.”
…
The essay goes on to detail the key elements for establishing attribution and presents some contrarian views.
Jason Halter and science
I wish there was a little more detail about the science that Halter will be discussing. Halter’s science background seems to be confined to his work in architecture, which suggests material science. On the other hand, pattern recognition suggests algorithms and artificial intelligence.
As for Bruce Mau’s influence, mentioned as a colleague and mentor in Halter’s biographical details, Mau is a big deal in Canadian design circles who has an amateur’s interest (like mine) in science if his 2004 Massive Change show at the Vancouver Art Gallery is an accurate indicator. The show featured a bioengineered nose being grown in a beaker. (More about Massive Change and bioengineering in my February 21, 2013 posting.)
A November 6, 2021 article by Hyungwon Kang for The Korea Herald is a great reminder that for all the wonders of contemporary technologies, we still cannot equal the technological achievements of bygone ages,
For humans, the Bronze Age meant metal weapons, farming tools, and means to sustain large enough populations with an organized labor force which enabled construction of lasting monuments such as dolmens.
East Asia, especially in ancient Korea, must have been a happening place in the Bronze Age as there are more dolmens in Korea than anywhere else in the world.
Bronze mirrors are found in abundance in Korea and neighboring areas formerly occupied by ancient Koreans. Bronze mirrors with fine lines and geometric designs are a more advanced version of earlier Bronze Age mirrors with rough designs.
The largest and the most famous bronze mirror with fine lines, South Korea’s National Treasure No. 141, Bronze Mirror with Geometric Designs, or Jeongmungyeong in Korean, was found serendipitously in the early 1960s by Korean army recruits who were digging trenches at the Nonsan Republic of Korea Army Training Center.
…
The bronze mirror is shattered into many pieces, apparently from the impact of an iron pick‘s sharp tip piercing the mirror from its shiny side.
The other side shows finely engraved geometric lines and has two knobs where a chain or cord would have been passed through to form a necklace. The round shiny mirror is considered to have represented the Sun, a heavenly source of mythical power in ancient times. Researchers believe a leader or a priest/priestess would have worn the mirror to reflect sunlight from the chest.
Researchers believe the 21cm diameter Bronze Mirror with Geometric Designs was made during the height of cutting-edge Bronze Age technology, when Korean civilization was transitioning into the early stage of the Iron Age. The mirror has an incredible number of more than 13,000 fine lines which are only 300,000 nanometers thick, a size thinner than human hair.
…
The cutting edge high-tech Bronze Age mirror was made with zinc-bronze alloy, mixing zinc with copper, tin, and lead. In particular, the bronze mirror has an alloy ratio of 7 to 3 of copper and tin, which exhibits the most suitable hardiness and reflectivity as a mirror.
It is almost impossible to replicate [emphasis mine] the bronze mirror with fine lines even with 21st-century technology. Researchers have tried without success to replicate the mirror with modern technology.
…
If you have the time, you can check out the full text and the other images which accompany Hyungwon Kang’s November 6, 2021 article.
Last year (in my November 5, 2020 posting about this event), it was ‘art and design’ and now, it’s ‘art + design’. I wonder if this is a provincial (British Columbia) choice or if this is being adopted generally. I’ll keep an eye out for it.
In the meantime, there’s a November 6, 2021 Science World event as noted by Rebecca Bollwitt in an October 20, 2021 posting on her miss604.com website,
…
On Saturday, November 6, 2021, Science World will livestream Girls and STEAM for free, with the aim of preparing British Columbia’s youth for the STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art + Design, Math) heavy job landscape of the future. The event will be opened by keynote speaker and popular science communicator, Dr. Samantha Yammine and runs from 9:00am to 12:00pm.
Girls and STEAM gives girls dreaming of future careers in STEAM a space to learn about a variety of scientific topics and careers from experts and mentors. Last year’s digital event saw 2,500 attendees from across the country participate.
With Canada facing a major gap in gender diversity in STEM careers, Girls and STEAM endeavours to inspire, engage and empower girls to pursue research-focused and technical careers by connecting them with female professionals and learning opportunities to help address the major gap in gender diversity that Canada is facing in these fields.
…
From Science World’s Girls and STEAM webpage, here’s an schedule for the morning of Saturday, November 6, 2021,
9:00am
Opening Keynote and Q&A Session with Science Sam
10:00am
Interactive Workshop with Genome BC: How Disease Researchers Track Outbreaks
It’s been too long (in a January 19, 2015 posting) since I last featured an SFU Café Scientifique here. I’m glad to have the opportunity to do it again and just before COP26, the United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference being held in Edinburgh, Scotland from October 31 – November 12, 2021..
From an October 19, 2021 SFU Café Scientifique announcement (received via email), Note: I have made some formatting changes,
We are excited to announce that our fall sessions are back by popular demand, and we look forward to having you join us for our next virtual [on Zoom] SFU Café Scientifique!
“Our climate is changing too fast for forests to adapt. Can we help them?“
Rapid climate change has resulted in the decline of tree species, as the spread of naturally resistant genetic variants to combat new conditions is too low. Dr. Jim Mattsson from the Department of Biological Sciences will give local examples of such losses and present research that identifies genetic variants with a high tolerance to new climate conditions that could potentially be used for reforesting affected areas.
According to Mattison’s SFU profile page where he’s listed as an Associate Professor, Plant Functional Genomics with an undergraduate degreee and PhD obtained at Uppsala University, Sweden and which gives a brief description of his interests,
Our research focuses on the genetic regulation of vascular tissue development in plants. Specific questions are (1) what is the molecular mechanism behind vascular strand formation? (2) which genes regulate fiber differentiation? (3) which genes regulate the rate of wood formation and the cellular composition of wood? … We are also setting up induced mutant populations of western red cedar and hybrid poplars for identification of mutations in genes of interest through so called TILLING technology. …
Given the focus on forests and trees, I’m a little surprised Mattison isn’t at the University of British Columbia (UBC) where they have a faculty of forestry. As for western red cedar (redcedar), I found a Genome BC (British Columbia) project, “Health Future Forests,” which focuses on western red cedars,
University of British Columbia researchers and British Columbia’s government are joining forces to protect and enhance one of the province’s most iconic symbols and valuable resources.
The life of the majestic western redcedar and the history of British Columbia have been intertwined for as long as humans have walked, fished and forested the West Coast. Known as arborvitae – the tree of life – the redcedar is both British Columbia’s official tree and a $1-billion annual industry. (Scientists spell “redcedar” as one word to indicate a false classification [emphasis mine]; the redcedar is actually a member of the cypress family.)
Industry will face a challenge as they transition from old growth forests, with trees more than 250 years old, to younger second-growth forests that have sprung up following human-caused events like logging or natural disturbances such as wildfire. Because of their size and age, second growth forests are less productive than old growth forests, generating less wood with lower durability.
In addition, the health of redcedar forests can be negatively impacted by shifts in the quantity and types of pests influenced by climate change.
…
Traditional breeding strategies for western redcedar can take decades to produce the desired traits of wood durability inherent in old growth trees. Dr. Joerg Bohlmann of the University of British Columbia is working with Dr. John H. Russell of British Columbia’s Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to apply genomic selection to reduce that time by up to 30 years. Genomic selection will accelerate the development of tree populations that are resistant to multiple pests and reduce the need for time-consuming and costly phenotyping (this involves observing the characteristics of an organism resulting from the interaction of its genes with the environment). Because key industry producers and users of these trees are actively participating in the project, technology transfer and commercialization will be seamless.
I haven’t forgotten the poplars, in an April 7, 2014 posting three different projects on poplars (scroll down about 40% of the way for the UBC work) are featured.
Perhaps Mattison is involved in the either or both the western redcedar and poplar work being done at UBC.
Coming up in November 2021
SAVE THE DATE: REGISTRATION OPENING SOON Thursday November 25, 2021 5:00-6:30pm
Dr. Ryan Morin, SFU Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
“How genome research is influencing our understanding of B-cell lymphomas”
I gather the next one will be about cancer.
*October 28, 202 changed to October 28, 2021 on November 9, 2021.
It’s six years (May 4, 2015 posting) since I last featured the Science & You conference here. Science & You 2021 (hosted by l’Université de Lorraine) will be held in Robert Schuman Conference Center in Metz (France), 16 – 19 November 2021.
Before launching into any details about this year’s program, here’s a little information from the Science & You About (Who we are) page,
For the University of Lorraine, the ambition behind Science & You is to bring closer science and citizens in order to raise awareness on science culture’s societal stakes.
Following the Journées Hubert Curien Conference, Science & You is an international science culture event addressed to professionals (researchers, PhD students, heads of museums and science centers, science communicators and journalists…), and open to the general public.
The event is made of 4 concurrent parts:
– a congress dedicated to science culture, supervised by an international scientific committee,
– a formation on how to master science communication techniques, addressed to international PhD students,
– a “science & culture” forum, which showcases innovative actions of science communication,
– a series of cultural events addressed to the general public, disseminated across the region.
Science & You’s first edition took place in Nancy (France) form 1st to 6th June 2015, and gathered 1000 congressists, 115 PhD students, and 10 000 visitors of the general public.
Consequently to this success, partnerships have been made with science dissemination structures on an international level. The first franchised edition of Science & You took place in Montréal in May 2017, in partnership with Acfas – Association francophone pour le savoir, ahead of their annual congress.
NAIS – National Academy of Innovation Strategy – has organized Science & You’s second franchised edition in Beijing in September 2018.
The fees include registration for both the “Journées Hubert Curien” Conference and the “Science and Culture” Forum.
They include : > access to all the conferences and workshops of the JHC Conference > access to the professional Forum > coffee breaks > badges > participation certificate
Health situation Covid-19: in case the Conference is held partly or completely online for health reasons, fees will remain unchanged.
…
Informations [sic] regarding other delegates:
Science&You will offer the possibility to attend the scientific programme by videoconference, for all registered delegates who will not be able to physically be present at the Conference. In that case, an individual link will be sent by the organizing team a few days before the Conference.
Good luck to the organizers (I get the impression they strongly prefer a fully in-person conference).
As far as superstars for Canadian science communication go, there is only one candidate and that would be Timothy Caulfield, professor of Health Law and Policy a the University of Alberta.
Not being Caulfield’s biggest fan, I stumbled onto some of his latest work by accident in a Tweet from Canadian Science Publishing (@cdnsciencepub). It sent me on a search that resulted in an open access paper (a pretty good one too or so I thought), a description of the research project that resulted in the paper, and more.
This story begins in 2020 with the research project description, from an April 15, 2020 posting on the Alberta Innovates (a provincial research entity) website,
Timothy Caulfield may be the most well-known face of scientific myth-busting. He is the host of Netflix’s The User’s Guide to Cheating Death and the author of multiple bestsellers on science and misinformation, including Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything? and The Vaccination Picture. He’s also a law professor at the University of Alberta, the Research Director of its Health Law Institute, and a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy.
In March [2020], Caulfield and his team received a $381,708 grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Alberta Innovates to research the spread of misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and recommend ways to counter it.
…
Q: Are you seeing any types of themes around COVID misinformation?
A: In the early days a lot of the misinformation was about the source of it. It’s a bio-weapon, right? Or even the idea that it was a hoax. Now what we’re seeing is a lot of the misinformation, not surprisingly, is about cures, is about prevention, about things that people can do in order to avoid getting it. That’s problematic.
The other thing we’re seeing is a lot of marketing, which is infuriating. A lot of people taking advantage of the fear and the uncertainty to push products.
Q: Why don’t people trust science?
A: That’s actually a topic that we’ve been exploring for a long time at the institute, looking at it in different contexts. Of course it’s complex. I think that there is a conflation between science and scientific institutions. Obviously a lot’s going on here, but things like the misbehaviour of the pharmaceutical industry have an impact.
…
The other thing that we’ve done research on and we’ve found that anytime industry is involved, trust erodes very quickly. You can say, “Do you trust the university research?” People say yes. If that same university researcher receives industry funding, the trust erodes, that’s part of the story.
There’s also this erosion in trust with the health-care system. Because many people feel like it hasn’t treated them well. …
As new science emerges, rapid changes in information and health advice have created fertile ground for conspiracy theories and misinformation to flourish, says Timothy Caulfield, a University of Alberta professor of health law and science policy.
“When things are uncertain, when there’s a lot of fear, when the science is still moving, people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories,” Caufield said. “That’s certainly the situation that we have now.”
A recent Carleton University study found that half of Canadians believe at least one conspiracy theory around the novel coronavirus, including 26 per cent who believe it was lab-created bioweapon.
…
That’s the kind of data that Caulfield, a Canada research chair in health law and policy, is looking at as part of an ongoing research project into the viral spread of misinformation during the pandemic.
In a wide-ranging Q&A with Nancy Carlson, host of CBC Edmonton’s News at 6, Caulfield said sorting good information from bad is as simple as thinking like a scientist, a skill that only requires a healthy degree of curiosity and internet access.
…
Where is it all coming from?
“It’s really coming from all over and that’s why it is so difficult to battle,” Caulfield said. But there are a few notable trends.
Celebrities and prominent individuals are the source of about 20 per cent of misinformation, but their posts have extraordinary reach, making up more than 70 per cent of what is shared online, Caulfield said. “That really gives you a sense of the power of pop culture.”
Bots, particularly on Twitter, play an important role, while the role of social media in general — Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and more — can’t be underplayed. “This really has been a social media-driven infodemic,” he said.
…
Changing course a ‘badge of honour’
Should the border be closed? Do masks make a difference? Is hydroxychloroquine the answer? If science is so good, why do public health officials keep changing their minds?
While public frustration is understandable, Caulfield urges people to applaud health leaders for staying on top of emerging science and changing public health rules accordingly.
“If you are a science-based decision-maker, like a public health authority … it is a badge of honour that you’re changing your mind. It’s a badge of honour that you’re willing to look at the evolving evidence and reframe a recommendation,” he said.
…
Changing the dialogue
Here is one more fact about the COVID-19 infodemic: The mind of a conspiracy theorist will not be changed. At least not easily, said Caulfield.
“They may go to an idea or a belief for one reason … but once they start to embrace it, it becomes part of who they are, it becomes part of their personal identity, it becomes part of their personal brand,” he said.
…
“What you want to do is stop their rhetoric, their belief systems, from infecting the rest of the community, [emphasis mine]” Caulfield said. “We don’t want the hard-core deniers to impact the rest of the community in a way that’s not rational. That should be the goal of science communication.”
Interesting, eh? In that last paragraph, you’d think Caulfield was talking about a virus.
If COVDI-19 science communication interests you, this is a very good paper. I am particularly taken with their section on the ‘Hydroxychloroquine’ story from the first whispers that the medication might help to claims that it does to the research rush to prove/disprove the hypothesis to the entrenchment of belief in some quarters.
My reservations lie in problems that permeate science communication, (1) top/down communication, (2) disagreement means you are wrong, (3) you have to change (4) experts/government organizations are never wrong; they’ve simply gotten more data and, accordingly, have had to change course. Note: Experts/governments often pretend that they haven’t changed course due to their belief that the public has a short memory.
It’s very easy *to fall* into the traps and, with that said, there’s much value in this paper.
I’ve been wondering when there’d be more ‘public engagement’ discussion in Canada about artificial intelligence, human genome editing, robotics, and other technologies which are rapidly changing status from ’emerging technologies’ to ’embedded technologies’.
In October of 2020, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier were awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their discovery of an adaptable, easy way to edit genomes, known as CRISPR [clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats], which has transformed the world of genetic engineering.
CRISPR has been used to fight lung cancer and correct the mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia in stem cells. But the technology was also used by a Chinese scientist to secretly and illegally edit the genomes of twin girls — the first-ever heritable mutation of the human germline made with genetic engineering.
“We’ve moved away from an era of science where we understood the risks that came with new technology and where decision stakes were fairly low,” says Dietram Scheufele, a professor of life sciences communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Today, Scheufele and his colleagues say, we’re in a world where new technologies have very immediate and sometimes unpredictable but significant impacts on society. In a paper published the week of April 26 [2021] in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [PNAS], the researchers argue that such advanced tech, especially CRISPR, demands more robust and thoughtful public engagement if it is to be harnessed to benefit the public without crossing ethical lines.
The authors say that being thoughtful and transparent about public engagement goals and using evidence from social science can help facilitate the difficult conversations society must have about scientific issues like CRISPR and their societal implications. Effective public engagement, in turn, lays the groundwork for public ownership of advances that do arise from CRISPR.
Life sciences communication Professor Dominique Brossard and graduate student Nicole Krause, along with University of Vienna research assistant Isabelle Freiling, co-authored the report with Scheufele. The paper stems from a 2019 National Academy of Sciences colloquium on CRISPR.
Since 2012, when the CRISPR system was first described, scientists have understood both its genetic engineering potential and the need for public engagement to discuss the possible uses of the technology. Many scientists wanted to avoid rehashing the controversies surrounding genetically modified organisms, which have been harshly criticized as unnatural and unnecessary by some activists despite broad scientific support for their use.
Yet, Krause says, some scientists who supported using CRISPR began by errantly repeating the public engagement methods employed for GMOs, which “assumes that people just need more knowledge, more of an ability to understand the science.” Instead, Krause adds: “Solutions focused on tailoring communications to people’s values would make more sense.”
This values-based public engagement strategy is supported by social science research into how people form and change their opinions around new technologies. Some public engagement methods engage value systems, and encourage thoughtful conversation, more than others.
For example, what researchers term “public involvement” and “public collaboration” are methods of two-way communication involving the joint exchange of information and values and the identification and design of science-based decisions that adhere to those values. That contrasts with “public communication,” which focuses only on the dissemination of scientific information.
Scheufele and his colleagues say that such collaborative approaches could help scientists widen the representation of voices in debates around science to groups who are often overlooked, such as people with disabilities or racial minorities.
“As the scientific community, we don’t have a long track record of effective engagement mechanism with these communities,” says Scheufele. This failure to reach broader groups stems in part from the low participation rates of most science engagement events, which also attract highly selective audiences.
Another challenge is rewarding scientists for public engagement. “There’s very little incentive in academia to do this kind of work,” says Scheufele.
A recent report by Brossard and others found that a majority of land-grant faculty felt that public engagement was very important, but believed it was less important to their colleagues. That divide suggests scientists feel their engagement efforts won’t be rewarded by their peers, says Brossard.
Now, Brossard, Krause, Scheufele and colleagues have a grant from the National Science Foundation to research how to depolarize debates around CRISPR. Previous studies suggest that making people accountable for their positions helps them think more critically about their underlying reasoning. And when social scientists emphasize the complexity inherent in people’s values, it helps people consider controversial issues with more nuance.
But engaging a diverse society with pluralistic value systems in deliberations on the latest technologies will never be easy.
“The policymaking process involves a lot more than just science. Science will inform how we regulate technologies, and so will religious, political, ethical, regulatory and economic considerations,” says Scheufele. “And so the ability to actually do engagement in this much broader setting where we meaningfully contribute and guide the debate with the best available science is a major challenge.”
Receiving an email newsletter from a local group about social robots has given me an excuse to write up a few ideas I’ve been mulling with regard to older adults, stereotypes, and the rush to innovate with ‘elder care’ technology.
A request for volunteer participants for a social robot survey
It seems that in the near future seniors in Vancouver could have a real life experience with an ‘artificial friend’ if these folks have anything to do with it. In a March 2021 Vancouver neighbourhood newsletter for seniors (specifically, the West End Seniors Network [WESN] newsletter), there was a notice for participants in a research project, Note: Some formatting changes have been made but text has not been altered,
Are you 50+ years old and interested in participating in research?
Take part in a 20-minuteonline survey about social robots – you can participate even if you have no experience with robots!
For more information, email Dr. Jill Dosso at jill.dosso@ubc.ca.
Participants will be entered to win 1 of 3 iPad Minis.
To participate, visit: bit.ly/UBCrobot4 {the survey is now closed]
Principal Investigator:Dr. Julie Robillard
LOGOS: SSHRC [Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada\, Alzheimer Society British Columbia, Neuroethics Canada, Consequential Robots, AGEWELL [emphasis mine]
There’s an image of a dog/rabbit-like robot in the notice that looks something like this,
Before the survey was shut down, I tried contacting the researcher, Dr. Jill Dosso by email with some questions and had no success either time. So, I participated in the survey, which I found to be a little disconcerting.
If memory serves, I was asked about how powerful I felt relative to the three robots (all animal-like) featured in the survey. These and other puzzling (to me) questions meant I took significantly longer than 20 minutes to complete the survey.
Are my responses truly anonymous?
I did find some additional information in the consent form such as the project name. Also, the form stimulated a question about my data. Here’s the consent form,
Survey Consent for Collection, Storage and Use of Participant Information: SOcial Co-creation of Robotic Aging TEchnologieS (SOCRATES)
As an adult over the age of fifty in Canada, you are invited to participate in this survey by Dr. Julie Robillard, Assistant Professor in Neurology at The University of British Columbia (UBC). Dr. Robillard and her team are interested in gaining a better understanding of the attitudes of adults towards pet-like social robots. The results from this survey will be collected anonymously.
This survey will take 20 minutes [emphasis mine] of your time. Your progress on the survey is saved automatically so you can take a break at any time you need to and simply return to the survey link on the same device to resume your progress. The survey will be closed on Apr 30, 2021.
We will not use your responses to try to guess your identity. We encourage you not to provide any information that might identify you or another individual. When we report the results of this study, we will not report any information that may point to your identity.
In appreciation for your time, you will have the chance to enter in a draw to win one of three iPad minis. At the end of the survey, you will be redirected to a page where you can input your email address to be entered into a draw to win one of three iPad minis. Your survey responses and the information you provide for the purposes of the draw will be kept in separate files. This ensures that your survey responses will remain anonymous and cannot be linked back to you. You may enter the draw even if you chose to withdraw from the study, simply click to the end of the survey and you will be redirected to the page where you can input your email address to be entered into the draw. The draw winners will be contacted via email after the survey is closed.
Access to your information is limited [emphasis mine] to the survey administrator and the technical support team at UBC. [Could someone hack into the system?] The survey administrator will maintain the survey and analyze the results. You will not be identified in any reports, presentations, or publications that describe these results. Aggregate survey results may be shared with other researcher or publishers. Aggregated survey results will be available at the end of the study if requested.
As a participant in this survey, the information you choose to provide will be stored in UBC’s Secured Network electronically for 5 years [emphasis mine]. Participation in this survey is voluntary. There will be no consequences to you if you choose not to participate. You do not have to answer any question that you do not want to. This survey is anonymous and individual responses will not be linked back to you.
Who can I contact if I have any questions or concerns about the study?
If you have any concerns about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the research participant information line in the UBC Office of Research Ethics at 604-822-8598 or if long distance e-mail RSIL@ors.ubc.ca or call toll free 1-877-822-8598. Our ethics ID is H19-03308.
Questions about your information and this survey may be directed to the Principal Investigator:
Dr. Julie Robillard Assistant Professor of Neurology B402 Shaughnessy 4480 Oak Street [Children’s & Women’s Hospital] Vancouver, BC V6H 3N1 CANADA [T] 604.875-3923 Email: jrobilla@mail.ubc.ca
Because this survey collects responses anonymously and cannot link the information back to you, it will not be possible to withdraw your consent after you participate.
There are stories online about how technically skilled people can use anonymized data to reveal your identity; I read one such story years ago on Slate.com. The journalist had gotten a friend to agree to the test and then approached a tech specialist. The surprise was that the specialist managed to crack the friend’s identity in under 24 hours.
Universities and hospitals are high value targets and this survey was run by university researchers one of whom is jointly associated with a local hospital. BTW, over the last 18 months, I’ve been alerted by both universities I attended that my data privacy has been breached.
It would be good to know more about how my data is being protected. As for the five year time limit, is the data designed to self-destruct like it does on Mission Impossible?
Two SOCRATES?
The first SOCRATES project was in the European Union and ran from 2017 to 2019. The research topic was focused on social robots with a special emphasis on their use in eldercare.
The second SOCRATES (SOcial Co-creation of Robotic Aging TEchnologieS) project (the survey somehow informs this project) is Canadian and currently ongoing. The research topic (from Julie Robillard’s New Frontiers in Research 2018 Exploration Grant summary‘ enter Julie Robillard’s name in the ‘Filter items’ field to quickly access the project) is focused on “Improving independence and quality of life for older adults can be realized by complementing human care with robotic assistive technologies.” The SOCRATES (two) grant runs from 2018 – 2021.
Getting back to the matter at hand, the survey I took seemed more focused on people with dementia than older adults in general and how any of it would result in ‘co-creation’ is a mystery to me.
Where are the older adults and ‘co-creation opportunities’?
As far as I can tell, the answer to both questions is ‘they are nowhere’ visible as part of this project. Yes, a few people associated with AGEWEll; Canada’s aging and technology network (mentioned at the of the survey) are probably over the age of 50 (or even 60) but there doesn’t seem to be a concerted effort to integrate older people into that organization or SOCRATES (Canadian version) for planning purposes.
As for the older researchers, they tend to be professionals in the field of geriatrics, gerontology, robotics, assistive technologies, etc. So, they’re still working and they have spent years inside echo chambers and other self-reinforcing environments.
Years ago I came across the term ‘downstream public consultation’. This survey is an example of that; the social robots have been designed and the participant is asked how they feel about it. The information gathered may or may not be used but it’s not integral to the social robot project itself.
There is also ‘upstream public consultation’ but that is much more work and more difficult. It does mean that the objects of the research (in this case, older adults) could have some say in the design and implementation of the programmes and/or technologies.
Old age has much in common with childhood and/or with poverty. The default position is that you are not treated as someone with a valid opinion or idea. Someone is always trying to research you and, more often than not, help you by getting to you to do something whether you like it or not.
It’s often well meaning research but you are always aware that you are the object and the one with all of the social capital/clout is the researcher. I am of course describing a power imbalance.
The power imbalance always exists but it is severe where older adults, children, and the poor are concerned. I don’t know that it can ever be wholly resolved but I do wish researchers would acknowledge its presence in the materials describing their research. For example,look here.
Blind spot: when do you think the internet was invented?
I find it fascinating that one of the concerns often expressed and almost always assumed in the gerontology/geriatric/artificial intelligence/robotics/telecommunications (an more) communities is that older adults are technologically/digitally illiterate.
Let’s think on this.
From Evan Andrews’ December 18, 2012 article for History television channel, “Who Invented the Internet?” (article updated October 28, 2019), Note: Links have been removed,
As you might expect for a technology so expansive and ever-changing, it is impossible to credit the invention of the internet to a single person. The internet was the work of dozens of pioneering scientists, programmers and engineers who each developed new features and technologies that eventually merged to become the “information superhighway” we know today.
Long before the technology existed to actually build the internet, many scientists had already anticipated the existence of worldwide networks of information. Nikola Tesla toyed with the idea of a “world wireless system” in the early 1900s, and visionary thinkers like Paul Otlet and Vannevar Bush conceived of mechanized, searchable storage systems of books and media in the 1930s and 1940s.
Still, the first practical schematics for the internet would not arrive until the early 1960s [emphasis mine], when MIT’s [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] J.C.R. Licklider popularized the idea of an “Intergalactic Network” of computers. Shortly thereafter, computer scientists developed the concept of “packet switching,” a method for effectively transmitting electronic data that would later become one of the major building blocks of the internet.
The first workable prototype of the Internet came in the late 1960s with the creation of ARPANET, or the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network. Originally funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, ARPANET used packet switching to allow multiple computers to communicate on a single network.
…
Did you notice the date I highlighted? (Andrews does an excellent job of summarizing the events that led to the internet and the world wide web and it’s not a long read, “Who Invented the Internet?“)
The stereotype that almost all older adults are technologically/digitally illiterate
As I and others have noted, people were developing and building the internet some fifty years ago. Following on that thought, it seems certain that some of these people are now older adults.
Not everyone was a pioneer ‘building’ the internet but there were many, many people whose jobs were automated early (in the 1970s and 1980s) and required to use computers. Strangely, these early adopters were not the professionals, it was their office staff (clerks and secretaries).
The word ‘required’ means that older office staff needed to learn how to use these systems if they wanted a pension.
I’ve described two assumptions that are often made. (1) Older people are technologically/digitally illiterate. (2) Professionals jumped to learn new technologies. And, since professionals were often men in the 1970s and 1980s, here’s no. (3) Men are the most tech savvy.
The assumptions are not necessarily incorrect but they are problematic when applied thoughtlessly as a stereotype for an entire population.
(I have commented on the ‘age and tech savvy’ assumption elsewhere, most notably in my March 8, 2021 posting (scroll down to the ‘Older generation has less tech savvy’ bullet point, about 60% of the way down).
Is loneliness in older people different than loneliness in youth?
I haven’t seen any research that suggests there’s a difference in loneliness at different stages of one’s life meaning I have missed it or, perhaps, the question hasn’t been asked.
It’s striking to me that all of the research I’ve seen on social robots is focused on seniors and assuaging their loneliness. Suggestions for young people tend to other, more people-oriented or pet-oriented solutions. Could social robots for seniors lead to greater isolation from society?
In the SOCRATES research summary on Dr. Julie Robillard’s Neuroscience, Engagement, and Smart Tech (NEST) Lab research page, there’s this, “… A recent systematic review of controlled trials analyzing the impact of social robots on the well-being of older adults suggests [emphasis mine] that social robots can improve nine quality of life outcomes, including reducing loneliness, stress and anxiety. [emphasis mine] …”
I appreciate the delicacy of using the word ‘suggests’, meaning that based on the previous trials, these researchers can’t conclude with certainty that a social robot will reduce loneliness, etc.
Final thoughts
The researchers never to think to explain why these social robots are pet-like rather than one of the other types. What was striking to me was that the survey didn’t have a single question about play or teaching the robot how to do things or modifying/customizing the robot.
Getting back to stereotypes and older people, there’s nothing terribly wrong with the survey or the research intent; I just wish that a little more imagination and thought had been put into questioning some of the assumptions for the Canadian SOCRATES project and others of its ilk. And if the researchers did question some of the common assumptions about older people, I wish that they had made that clear in the research summary and/or the survey materials.
Gerald Bronner, Paris Diderot University, France
Gordon Gauchat, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, United States
Mehita Iqani, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
Kyoko Sato, Stanford University, United States
Peter Weingart, Bielefeld University, Germany