Category Archives: public relations

“Innovation and its enemies” and “Science in Wonderland”: a commentary on two books and a few thoughts about fish (2 of 2)

Part 1 featured my commentary on both Calestous Juma’s 2016 book, ”Innovation and Its Enemies; Why People Resist New Technologies” and Meanie Keene’s 2015 book, “Science in Wonderland; The scientific fairy tales of Victorian Britain.” Now for an emerging technology; genetically modified fish (AquAdvantage salmon) and my final comments on the books and the contrasting ways the adoption of new technologies and science is presented.

Fish

AquAdvanage salmon features as one of Calestous Juma’s contemporary emerging technologies. I mentioned the fish here in a May 20, 2016 posting when the fish was approved for consumption in Canada; this followed an earlier mention in a Dec. 4, 2015 posting when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the salmon for consumption in the US (from the 2015 posting),

…

For the final excerpt from the December 2015 issue, there’s this about genetically engineered salmon,

Genetically Modified Salmon: Coming to a River Near You?
After nearly 20 years of effort, the Food and Drug Administration has approved genetically engineered salmon produced by AquaBounty Technologies, as fit for consumption and will not have to be labeled as genetically engineered. This salmon is capable of growing twice as fast as a non-engineered farmed salmon in as little as half of the time, however, it’s still likely to be at least two years before these salmon reach supermarkets. Some groups are concerned about the environmental implications should these salmon accidentally get released, or escape, into the wild, even though AquaBounty says its salmon will be all female and sterile.

AquaBounty’s salmon (background) has been genetically modified to grow bigger and faster than a conventional Atlantic salmon of the same age (foreground.) Courtesy of AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. [downloaded from http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/06/24/413755699/genetically-modified-salmon-coming-to-a-river-near-you]

The link from the newsletter points to a June 24, 2015 article by Jessie Rack for US National Public Radio’s Salt on the Table program (Note: Links have been removed),

One concern repeatedly raised by critics who don’t want the FDA to give the transgenic fish the green light: What would happen if these fish got out of the land-based facilities where they’re grown and escaped into the wild? Would genetically modified salmon push out their wild counterparts or permanently alter habitat? In a review paper published this month in the journal BioScience, scientists tackle that very question.

Robert H. Devlin, a scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, led a team that reviewed more than 80 studies analyzing growth, behavior and other trait differences between genetically modified and unaltered fish. The scientists used this to predict what might happen if fish with modified traits were unleashed in nature.

Genetically modified salmon contain the growth hormone gene from one fish, combined with the promoter of an antifreeze gene from another. This combination both increases and speeds up growth, so the salmon grow faster.

Altering a fish’s genes also changes other traits, the review found. Genetically modified salmon eat more food, spend more time near the surface of the water, and don’t tend to associate in groups. They develop at a dramatically faster rate, and their immune function is reduced.

But would these altered traits help genetically modified salmon outcompete wild salmon, while at the same time making them less likely to thrive in nature? It’s unclear, says Fredrik Sundström, one of the study authors and an ecologist at Uppsala University in Sweden.

You may note the lead researcher for the literature review, a Canadian scientist was not quoted. This is likely due to the muzzle the Conservative government (still in power in June 2015 ) had applied to government scientists.

One last thing about AquAdvantage salmon, there is a very good Dec. 3, 2015 posting by Meredith Hamel focusing on their Canadian connections on her BiologyBizarre blog/magazine (Note: A link has been removed),

“For the first time anywhere in the world, a genetically engineered animal has been approved for human consumption” announced Peter Mansbridge on CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] news on November 20 [2015]. Members of society do not agree on how genetically modified fruits and vegetables should be labelled, if at all, but we are already moving on to genetically modified animals for human consumption. The AquAdvantage salmon by the US company AquaBounty can grow quicker and go to market twice as fast as regular farmed salmon using less feed. This genetically engineered salmon, whose fertilized eggs are produced at an inland facility in P.E.I [Prince Edward Island], Canada [emphasis mine] and raised at a facility in Panama, has been approved by the FDA after a long 20 year wait. AquAdvantage salmon could be the first genetically engineered meat we eat but opposition to approving it in Canada shows this salmon is not yet finished swimming against the current.

She goes on to describe in detail how these salmon are created (not excerpted here) and pinpoints another Canadian connection and political ramifications (Note: Links have been removed),

Head of Ocean Sciences Department at Memorial University [province of Newfoundland and Labrador], Garth Fletcher told The Star he was happy to see his creation get approved as he didn’t think approval would happen in his lifetime. Fletcher is no longer involved with AquaBounty but began working on this growth improved transgenic fish with other scientists back in 1982. On CBC news he said “the risk is as minimal as you could ever expect to get with any product.”

While the salmon is not approved in Canada for human consumption, some grocery store chains have already boycotted AquAdvantage salmon. The first step, the production of eggs in P.E.I has been approved by the federal government. Now there is a court battle with British Columbia’s Living Oceans Society and Nova Scotia’s Ecology Action Centre together challenging the federal government’s approval. They are concerned AquAdvantage salmon would be toxic to the environment as an invasive species if they were to escape and that this was not adequately assessed. Secondly they argue that Environment Canada had a duty to inform the public but failed to do so.

Natalie Huneault at Environment Canada told the National Oberver, “there were no concerns identified to the environment or to the indirect health of Canadians due to the contained production of these GM fish eggs for export.”

Anastasia Bodnar over on Biology Fortified does an excellent job of going through the risks and mitigation of AquAdvantage salmon (here and here) both with respect to safety of eating this meat product as well as in preventing escapee transgenic fish from contaminating wild salmon populations. The Fisheries and Oceans Canada document containing assessment of risks to the environment and health are found here. Due to the containment facility and procedures there is extremely low likelihood that any fertile genetically modified salmon would escape to an area where it could survive and reproduce.

The failure of Environment Canada to properly inform and have a discussion with the public before approving the P.E.I fertilized egg production facility will certainly have increased public mistrust and fear of this genetically engineered salmon. I think that if the public feel that this step has already taken place behind their back, future discussion about approving genetically engineered salmon as safe to eat, is only going to be met with suspicion.

…

Since the 2016 approval, AquAdvantage salmon, 4.5M tonnes has been sold in Canada according to an Aug. 8, 2017 article by Sima Shakeri for Huffington Post (Note: Links have been removed),

After decades of trying to get approval by in North America, genetically modified Atlantic salmon has been sold to consumers in Canada.

AquaBounty Technologies, an American company that produces the Atlantic salmon, confirmed it had sold 4.5 tonnes of the modified fish on August 4 [2017], the Scientific American reported.

The fish have been engineered with a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon to grow faster than regular salmon and require less food. They take about 18 months to reach market size, which is much quicker than the 30 months or so for conventional salmon.

The Washington Post wrote AquaBounty’s salmon also contains a gene from the ocean pout that makes the salmon produce the growth hormone gene all-year-round.

The company produces the eggs in a facility in P.E.I., which is currently being expanded, and then they’re shipped to Panama where the fish are raised.

Health Canada assessed the AquAdvantage salmon and concluded it “did not pose a greater risk to human health than salmon currently available on the Canadian market,” and that it would have no impact on allergies nor a difference in nutritional value compared to other farmed salmon.

Because of that, the AquAdvantage product is not required to be specially labelled as genetically modified, and is up to the discretion of retailers.

Scientific American has reproduced a piece by Emily Waltz (originally published August 4, 2017, the date Canadian consumers discovered the fish was being sold, in Nature). From the Aug. 7, 2017 Scientific American republication (Note: A link has been removed),

AquaBounty’s gruelling path from scientific discovery to market terrified others working in animal biotechnology, and almost put the company out of business on several occasions. Scientists first demonstrated the fast-growing fish in 1989. They gave it a growth-hormone gene from Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), along with genetic regulatory elements from a third species, the ocean pout (Zoarces americanus). The genetic modifications enable the salmon to produce a continuous low level of growth hormone.

AquaBounty formed around the technology in the early 1990s and approached regulators in the United States soon after. It then spent almost 25 years in regulatory limbo. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the salmon for consumption in November 2015, and Canadian authorities came to the same decision six months later. Neither country requires the salmon to be labelled as genetically engineered.

But unlike in Canada, political battles in the United States have stalled the salmon’s entry into the marketplace. …

Activists in both the United States and Canada have demanded that regulators reconsider their decisions, and some have filed lawsuits. …

Waltz includes this quote from an interested party,

The sale of the fish follows a long, hard-fought battle to navigate regulatory systems and win consumer acceptance. “Somebody’s got to be first and I’m glad it was them and not me,” says James West, a geneticist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, who co-founded AgGenetics, a start-up company in Nashville that is engineering cattle for the dairy and beef industries. “If they had failed, it might have killed the engineered livestock industry for a generation,” he says.

Canadians don’t necessarily respond in the same way that Americans do. The stem cell controversies to the south of us never reached the same fury and pitch although there were some significant impacts felt by the research community. Similarly the GMO (genetically modified organisms) controversies were felt here but in nowhere near the same degree as Europe. That doesn’t mean there won’t be problems this time but trying to determine how Canadians are likely to respond can be tricky especially when most of us don’t know much about GMO foods as Meham Abedi notes in her August 9, 2017 article for Global TV news (Note: Link have been removed),

On Wednesday [Aug. 9, 2017], an Angus Reid survey revealed that most Canadians admit they don’t know much about genetically modified organisms, but still want more transparency.

Of the 1,512 respondents, 24 per cent said they had “never heard of them” or only heard the term, 60 per cent said they “know a little bit about” GMO food, while only 16 per cent were “very familiar” with what it entails.

However, 83 per cent of Canadians surveyed said at least some GMO food labelling should [be] mandatory in grocery stores.

The report echos 2016 Health Canada findings that Canadians’ opinions on the products were defined by “confusion, misinformation, and generally low awareness/understanding.”

…

The Angus Reid survey was conducted between June 8-13, 2017 [emphasis mine], by 1,512 Canadian adults. It is considered accurate +/- 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

It’s hard to know how “confusion, misinformation, and generally low awareness/understanding,” is going to play out but it doesn’t seem a good idea to just sneak GMO salmon into the Canadian marketplace. Notably, Juma argues for more public education in his book and while it might not smooth the path as much as he and other innovation enthusiasts might prefer, it certainly couldn’t hurt.

It might also be useful to consider the idea that not all resistance is bad and to be avoided. Tess Doezema in her April 26, 2017 article (Skepticism About Biotechnology Isn’t Anti-Science) presents a persuasive argument suggesting that public concerns don’t deserve to be dismissed (Note: Links have been removed),

…

To many in bioscience and biotechnology circles, this [AquAdvantage salmon] is a case of politics contaminating science. In an open letter to President Obama in 2014, a group of “concerned international scientists and global technology company executives” argue this point:

The American people, and indeed all people everywhere, are best served by a trusted objective regulatory process truly based on sound science, a system which can be counted upon to evaluate and act on the applications it receives without fear of political interference.

These scientists and others offer a picture of a Manichean world divided into those who are for scientific and technological progress and those who are against it—a representation of the world that we have been seeing more and more of lately in reports of a “war on science.” But drawing this line is dangerous. The real problem here is the regulatory process itself, which forces dissent to take the narrow form of challenges to scientific data and methodology and ignores other questions about what’s at stake.

The FDA approval process for the AquAdvantage salmon took longer and included more opportunities for public comment than most products the FDA reviews. This unique openness to public input was balanced by a careful parsing of what counts as scientifically and contextually relevant and what does not. The agency received 38,000 comments in response to its draft assessment alone, but it determined that just 90 were worth considering [emphases mine]. The remaining comments were discounted as irrelevant because they did not directly address the details of the regulation process, or they raised issues beyond the mandate of the agency. These disregarded comments focused on a wide range of concerns, including patenting and ownership regimes of seed and crops; how deploying genetically modified corn and soy would affect the United States’ image around the world; continuing failures of existing market configurations to address inequality and food distribution; and the long history of multinational corporations central to the commercialization of biotechnologies, such as Monsanto, intentionally obscuring the negative impacts of their chemical products and byproducts while undermining human health.

…

Some might read the vast public preoccupation with a broad set of social, political, and economic issues as the contamination of science with politics. But I would suggest that this is actually a case of the reverse problem: seemingly endless conflict around the AquAdvantage salmon reflects the limitation of using narrow scientific terms to address questions of broad social, political, and economic significance. As things stand, the only legitimate way to engage in debates about the entry of the AquAdvantage salmon and other genetically modified organisms into our environments, meals, intellectual property regimes, and beyond is to contest its approval at the level of regulatory science. When the system asks the public to limit objections to narrow technical concerns, it undermines regulatory legitimacy and stultifies democratic debate—and perhaps most importantly, it contributes to the problematic discourse around science itself. When our modes of public deliberation strictly define what counts as a legitimate view on these issues, we end up portraying a good portion of the population as “against science,” when that in fact could not be further from the truth.

…

To position science on one side of these debates is not only patently false but detrimental to public discourse.

… Synthetic biology is billed as having the potential to transform the world in a way that will disrupt prevailing economic and geopolitical paradigms and “reshape the very fabric of life.” The one thing both sides of the fishy debate seem to agree on is that the AquAdvantage salmon is a “pioneer” technology, and what happens to this fish could set the stage for the role that biotechnology will play in our food system in the century to come. As one commentator opined for the New York Times:

We should all be rooting for the agency to do the right thing and approve the AquAdvantage salmon. It’s a healthy and relatively cheap food source that, as global demand for fish increases, can take some pressure off our wild fish stocks. But most important, a rejection will have a chilling effect on biotechnological innovation in this country. …

This framing suggests that biotechnological innovation is a necessary and unmitigated good. But for many, the prospect of a world radically altered by biotechnology conjures past experiences in which scientific “progress” didn’t go as planned—like the devastation and political instability ushered in by nuclear weapons. Similarly, to some, a dam looks like progress, development, and economic prosperity. But to others, it looks like the violent end of a way of life, heralded by the destruction of ecosystems and entire species.

…

Characterizing legitimate concerns about what kinds of technologies enter and help shape our world as “anti-science” is more likely to alienate than inspire “everyday Americans to identify with this vision of what science can do, and to believe in it.”

… perhaps we can make it productive in one way. Understanding the limitations of the process can help us think critically about how decision-making about synthetic biology going forward might be more open to a broader set of concerns and voices much earlier in the innovation process. The way forward is not drawing battle lines between those who are “for” or “against” science and closing down regulatory processes to all but the narrowest risk-based considerations. Rather, we should be forming and expanding spaces for a wide range of participants in creatively considering how to solve society’s biggest challenges. We need new ways of thinking and talking about technological promise and possibility in the world that we live in. [emphasis mine]

While Doersma is appealing to a US audience, her argument could be used internationally.

Final comments

Juma’s “Enemies of Innovation” and Keene’s “Science in Wonderland” are both worthwhile reads but it should be noted that Juma’s is the more ambitious. Keene is looking back and expanding the perspective in an area of previously mined children’s literature which hints at possible implications for our own time period..

For example, I think contemporary audiences might want to consider how much science, technology, and mathematics finds its way into our ‘fairy tales’ or super hero, space adventure, cartoons,, and other popular stories of today. Iron Man and his colleagues in one of the Avengers’ movies faced off with a robot/artificial intelligence entity, Ultron, suggesting potential existential risk; Star Trek’s impact on today’s technologies is widely acknowledged, and The Simpsons , a US animated programme, regularly embeds mathematics in its stories.

Juma examines history while attempting to extrapolate lessons for the future.It’s a courageous and worthwhile effort. While I’m not entirely comfortable with his top-down approach he knits together a comprehensive programme for policy makers and makes two point that I believe are too often overlooked, more agility is needed and these are global issues.

Artificial intelligence (AI) company (in Montréal, Canada) attracts $135M in funding from Microsoft, Intel, Nvidia and others

Leave a reply

It seems there’s a push on to establish Canada as a centre for artificial intelligence research and, if the federal and provincial governments have their way, for commercialization of said research. As always, there seems to be a bit of competition between Toronto (Ontario) and Montréal (Québec) as to which will be the dominant hub for the Canadian effort if one is to take Braga’s word for the situation.

In any event, Toronto seemed to have a mild advantage over Montréal initially with the 2017 Canadian federal government budget announcement that the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), based in Toronto, would launch a Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy and with an announcement from the University of Toronto shortly after (from my March 31, 2017 posting),

On the heels of the March 22, 2017 federal budget announcement of $125M for a Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy, the University of Toronto (U of T) has announced the inception of the Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence in a March 28, 2017 news release by Jennifer Robinson (Note: Links have been removed),

A team of globally renowned researchers at the University of Toronto is driving the planning of a new institute staking Toronto’s and Canada’s claim as the global leader in AI.

Geoffrey Hinton, a University Professor Emeritus in computer science at U of T and vice-president engineering fellow at Google, will serve as the chief scientific adviser of the newly created Vector Institute based in downtown Toronto.

“The University of Toronto has long been considered a global leader in artificial intelligence research,” said U of T President Meric Gertler. “It’s wonderful to see that expertise act as an anchor to bring together researchers, government and private sector actors through the Vector Institute, enabling them to aim even higher in leading advancements in this fast-growing, critical field.”

As part of the Government of Canada’s Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy, Vector will share $125 million in federal funding with fellow institutes in Montreal and Edmonton. All three will conduct research and secure talent to cement Canada’s position as a world leader in AI.

However, Montréal and the province of Québec are no slouches when it comes to supporting to technology. From a June 14, 2017 article by Matthew Braga for CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) news online (Note: Links have been removed),

One of the most promising new hubs for artificial intelligence research in Canada is going international, thanks to a $135 million investment with contributions from some of the biggest names in tech.

The company, Montreal-based Element AI, was founded last October [2016] to help companies that might not have much experience in artificial intelligence start using the technology to change the way they do business.

It’s equal parts general research lab and startup incubator, with employees working to develop new and improved techniques in artificial intelligence that might not be fully realized for years, while also commercializing products and services that can be sold to clients today.

It was co-founded by Yoshua Bengio — one of the pioneers of a type of AI research called machine learning — along with entrepreneurs Jean-François Gagné and Nicolas Chapados, and the Canadian venture capital fund Real Ventures.

In an interview, Bengio and Gagné said the money from the company’s funding round will be used to hire 250 new employees by next January. A hundred will be based in Montreal, but an additional 100 employees will be hired for a new office in Toronto, and the remaining 50 for an Element AI office in Asia — its first international outpost.

They will join more than 100 employees who work for Element AI today, having left jobs at Amazon, Uber and Google, among others, to work at the company’s headquarters in Montreal.

The expansion is a big vote of confidence in Element AI’s strategy from some of the world’s biggest technology companies. Microsoft, Intel and Nvidia all contributed to the round, and each is a key player in AI research and development.

The company has some not unexpected plans and partners (from the Braga, article, Note: A link has been removed),

The Series A round was led by Data Collective, a Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm, and included participation by Fidelity Investments Canada, National Bank of Canada, and Real Ventures.

What will it help the company do? Scale, its founders say.

“We’re looking at domain experts, artificial intelligence experts,” Gagné said. “We already have quite a few, but we’re looking at people that are at the top of their game in their domains.

“And at this point, it’s no longer just pure artificial intelligence, but people who understand, extremely well, robotics, industrial manufacturing, cybersecurity, and financial services in general, which are all the areas we’re going after.”

…

Gagné says that Element AI has already delivered 10 projects to clients in those areas, and have many more in development. In one case, Element AI has been helping a Japanese semiconductor company better analyze the data collected by the assembly robots on its factory floor, in a bid to reduce manufacturing errors and improve the quality of the company’s products.

…

There’s more to investment in Québec’s AI sector than Element AI (from the Braga article; Note: Links have been removed),

Element AI isn’t the only organization in Canada that investors are interested in.

In September, the Canadian government announced $213 million in funding for a handful of Montreal universities, while both Google and Microsoft announced expansions of their Montreal AI research groups in recent months alongside investments in local initiatives. The province of Quebec has pledged $100 million for AI initiatives by 2022.

…

Braga goes on to note some other initiatives but at that point the article’s focus is exclusively Toronto.

For more insight into the AI situation in Québec, there’s Dan Delmar’s May 23, 2017 article for the Montreal Express (Note: Links have been removed),

Advocating for massive government spending with little restraint admittedly deviates from the tenor of these columns, but the AI business is unlike any other before it. [emphasis misn] Having leaders acting as fervent advocates for the industry is crucial; resisting the coming technological tide is, as the Borg would say, futile.

The roughly 250 AI researchers who call Montreal home are not simply part of a niche industry. Quebec’s francophone character and Montreal’s multilingual citizenry are certainly factors favouring the development of language technology, but there’s ample opportunity for more ambitious endeavours with broader applications.

AI isn’t simply a technological breakthrough; it is the technological revolution. [emphasis mine] In the coming decades, modern computing will transform all industries, eliminating human inefficiencies and maximizing opportunities for innovation and growth — regardless of the ethical dilemmas that will inevitably arise.

“By 2020, we’ll have computers that are powerful enough to simulate the human brain,” said (in 2009) futurist Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity Is Near, a seminal 2006 book that has inspired a generation of AI technologists. Kurzweil’s projections are not science fiction but perhaps conservative, as some forms of AI already effectively replace many human cognitive functions. “By 2045, we’ll have expanded the intelligence of our human-machine civilization a billion-fold. That will be the singularity.”

The singularity concept, borrowed from physicists describing event horizons bordering matter-swallowing black holes in the cosmos, is the point of no return where human and machine intelligence will have completed their convergence. That’s when the machines “take over,” so to speak, and accelerate the development of civilization beyond traditional human understanding and capability.

…

The claims I’ve highlighted in Delmar’s article have been made before for other technologies, “xxx is like no other business before’ and “it is a technological revolution.” Also if you keep scrolling down to the bottom of the article, you’ll find Delmar is a ‘public relations consultant’ which, if you look at his LinkedIn profile, you’ll find means he’s a managing partner in a PR firm known as Provocateur.

Bertrand Marotte’s May 20, 2017 article for the Montreal Gazette offers less hyperbole along with additional detail about the Montréal scene (Note: Links have been removed),

It might seem like an ambitious goal, but key players in Montreal’s rapidly growing artificial-intelligence sector are intent on transforming the city into a Silicon Valley of AI.

Certainly, the flurry of activity these days indicates that AI in the city is on a roll. Impressive amounts of cash have been flowing into academia, public-private partnerships, research labs and startups active in AI in the Montreal area.

…

…, researchers at Microsoft Corp. have successfully developed a computing system able to decipher conversational speech as accurately as humans do. The technology makes the same, or fewer, errors than professional transcribers and could be a huge boon to major users of transcription services like law firms and the courts.

Setting the goal of attaining the critical mass of a Silicon Valley is “a nice point of reference,” said tech entrepreneur Jean-François Gagné, co-founder and chief executive officer of Element AI, an artificial intelligence startup factory launched last year.

…

The idea is to create a “fluid, dynamic ecosystem” in Montreal where AI research, startup, investment and commercialization activities all mesh productively together, said Gagné, who founded Element with researcher Nicolas Chapados and Université de Montréal deep learning pioneer Yoshua Bengio.

“Artificial intelligence is seen now as a strategic asset to governments and to corporations. The fight for resources is global,” he said.

The rise of Montreal — and rival Toronto — as AI hubs owes a lot to provincial and federal government funding.

Ottawa promised $213 million last September to fund AI and big data research at four Montreal post-secondary institutions. Quebec has earmarked $100 million over the next five years for the development of an AI “super-cluster” in the Montreal region.

The provincial government also created a 12-member blue-chip committee to develop a strategic plan to make Quebec an AI hub, co-chaired by Claridge Investments Ltd. CEO Pierre Boivin and Université de Montréal rector Guy Breton.

But private-sector money has also been flowing in, particularly from some of the established tech giants competing in an intense AI race for innovative breakthroughs and the best brains in the business.

…

Montreal’s rich talent pool is a major reason Waterloo, Ont.-based language-recognition startup Maluuba decided to open a research lab in the city, said the company’s vice-president of product development, Mohamed Musbah.

“It’s been incredible so far. The work being done in this space is putting Montreal on a pedestal around the world,” he said.

Microsoft struck a deal this year to acquire Maluuba, which is working to crack one of the holy grails of deep learning: teaching machines to read like the human brain does. Among the company’s software developments are voice assistants for smartphones.

Maluuba has also partnered with an undisclosed auto manufacturer to develop speech recognition applications for vehicles. Voice recognition applied to cars can include such things as asking for a weather report or making remote requests for the vehicle to unlock itself.

Marotte’s Twitter profile describes him as a freelance writer, editor, and translator.

5000th FrogHeart blog is a potpourri*

Leave a reply

2017 not only marks my 5000th post but entry into my 10th year of this blog (it was established in April 2008 but I didn’t publish anything until May 5, 2008), which means that in 2018, if all goes well, I will have completed 10 years.

I’ve been wanting to write about the baby bongo at the Los Angeles Zoo and this 5000th post is my excuse for focusing on something that has nothing to do with my usual topics. (Critics may point out that I’ve done this before but it’s been a very long time since I’ve gone this far afield.)

Baby bongo

I’ve never seen an animal which has both polka dots and stripes,

Los Angeles Zoo Male Bongo Baby by Jamie Pham

In some photos, those tufts of white fur in the ears look more like polka dots (see this Feb. 23, 2017 news item on phys.org).

A Feb. 22, 2017 Los Angeles Zoo news release tells the story,

A male, Eastern bongo calf was born at the Los Angeles Zoo on January 20, 2017 to five-year-old, first-time mother, Rizzo, and seven-year-old father Asa. The unnamed calf is special because he is the first bongo baby the Zoo has welcomed in over 20 years. The L.A. Zoo has always exhibited Eastern bongo [sic], a large antelope found in Kenya, but the Zoo recently made breeding the species a priority due to its dwindling numbers in the wild. Because of problems with logging and poaching, there are currently less than 100 individuals that survive in four fragmented areas in the Aberdares Forest and on Mt. Kenya.

“This birth is a true testament to the work zoos are doing to sustain critically endangered species,” said Josh Sisk, Curator of Mammals at the Los Angeles Zoo. “Babies like this little bongo calf engage visitors and allow the Zoo to spread their conservation message. It is our hope that he will one day father offspring of his own.”

The bongo are a precocial species, or relatively mature and mobile from the moment of birth. The calf was standing and walking within an hour of being born and observed nursing within the first 24 hours. He spent quality time bonding with his mother Rizzo behind the scenes until he was introduced to the rest of the herd, female Frenchy (5), female Sandy (12), and father Asa on Feb. 15. Also housed in the same habitat are two yellow-backed duikers, a forest-dwelling antelope found mainly in central and western Africa. The bongo calf has been very curious of new [sic] his neighbors and has expressed interest in getting to know them better.

The calf is large, standing at just under two feet tall and weighing 55 pounds at birth. He has a chestnut-red coat with 10-14 vertical white stripes, a coloration that is an effective camouflage for the bongo’s forest habitat in the wild. The adult bongos in the herd stand at around four and a half feet at the shoulder with the male weighing 800 pounds and the females averaging 500 pounds. Perhaps the most distinct physical characteristic that sets the bongo herd apart from other hoofstock in the Zoo’s collection are their large ears. Unlike many antelope that live on open plains, the bongo relies on hearing more than eyesight given the obstructions of the thick forest in which they reside in the wild. The baby was already born with ears measuring six inches in length! The adult bongos also have long, impressive horns measuring up to 40 inches in length. The calf can expect to start growing horns like the rest of the herd by the time he reaches his first birthdate.

Guests can now observe the male calf along with the rest of the herd in their habitat daily, weather permitting.

STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) toys a major revenue source for retailers?

Rina Raphael writes about the growing interest major retailers have shown in STEM toys in her March 3, 2017 article for Fast Company (Note: Link have been removed),

From code-teaching caterpillars to colorful chemistry kits, manufacturers and retailers alike are eager to cash in on a growing toy sector, known by the buzzworthy term STEM, that promises to deliver on science, technology, engineering, and math education.

Retailers are taking different approaches: Target, Best Buy, and Walmart are amping up their store aisles, while Toys “R” Us and National Geographic are producing their own line of STEM products.

One of the most surprising moves comes from Amazon, which recently launched a monthly STEM Club, an offshoot of the STEM Toys & Games Store it opened just two years ago. For $19.99 a month, kids receive new toys that promise to develop their skills.

“It’s making it more convenient than ever for parents to give their kids the gift of having fun while learning,” says Eva Lorenz, category leader of Toys & Games for Amazon. “STEM Club was designed with busy parents in mind.”

…

STEM sales still only account for two to three percent of the toy market, but the sector is “growing fast,” says Juli Lennett, toy industry analyst for NPD Group. Overall retail sales revenue in the U.S. reached $20 billion in the last year.

Amazon is taking advantage of that growth in a way that speaks to how people shop today. STEM is not mass market and likely never will be, but its fans are committed parents who take education seriously. “And once [Amazon] gets the consumer, they want to keep them,” says Lennett. “What better way to keep your consumer than with a continuity program that repeats… keeping them coming back month after month?”

Perception plays a big role in this industry. With STEM, parents are more inclined to spend money because they don’t necessarily view the purchases as “toys,” but rather as educational aids.

“The great marketing message for STEM is that it makes your kid smart and it’s educational and good for them, like eating an apple,” explains Lennett, noting there are both positive and negative aspects to that.

First, some parents want to leave playtime as was originally intended—for pure play, without any underlying agenda. The other issue is identifying criteria: What constitutes a STEM toy?

…

There are more than 50,000 toys on the market and industry insiders are actively attempting to track which toys belong in the educational prestige category. Some toys are more “soft STEM,” leaning more toward toyotic, while others are more serious products that may even boast snap circuits.

And then there is the truly dubious: At the 2017 International Toy Fair, “I saw a bag of sand with STEM on it,” Lennett recalls.

For industry experts, STEM criteria includes: When the child does something, does the toy change in some way? In that sense, asks Lennett, does a Rubik’s Cube count as STEM? “These are all questions we’re asking ourselves.”

Marissa DiBartolo, senior editor of The Toy Insider, agrees that many items across various categories can be considered STEM-related. STEM is “extremely important” for a child’s early education, she says, but notes that a toy doesn’t have the word “science” strewn on the box to be fit the category.

“If you break down the most basic concepts of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, you’re looking at things like sequencing, matching, building, planning, and more,” said DiBartolo. “More toys than you think are educational or at least have educational benefits.”

Proper labeling within the category is a top concern for Toys “R” Us. While some retailers might dedicate an aisle to STEM, Toys “R” Us labels items throughout the entire store. The iconic toy retailer also partnered with educators to produce their own private STEM brands, called Imaginarium and Edu Science, and to correctly identify all available qualifying merchandise.

“We don’t just slap on a label,” says company spokesman Candace Disler. “We ensure it’s well thought out.”

If you have the time, I suggest you read Raphael’s article in its entirety.

Logos and the City of Vancouver (Canada)

The new City of Vancouver logo, shown at the top, was commissioned to replace the former logo, shown on the bottom. (City of Vancouver)

That top logo just cost the city $8000. (sigh) After protest, a halt has been called on the rollout of the new logo/wordmark. Interestingly, it appears the new logo was being used on city stationery prior to the City Council vote approving it on Feb. 22, 2017. A March 1, 2017 online article by Kendra Mangione for CTV News details some interesting shenanigans,

While the roll-out of the new logo on some city assets has been put on hold, staff members are already using it on brochures and business cards being handed out in city buildings and through the mail.

Robertson said staff have been using it “for some time,” even before its use was approved [emphasis mine], because the old logo “basically wouldn’t show up in some applications.”

He said there was a bit of a transition period, then city staff decided they needed to get formal approval from council before using it in any more permanent ways.

With a report from CTV Vancouver’s Sarah MacDonald

View image on Twitter

Follow

Penny Daflos

✔ @PennyDaflos

Sooooo this is interesting. @CityofVancouver said they’d phase in new logo as items need replacing, but I just got this at info counter.

5:40 PM – 22 Feb 2017

Mike Howell in his March 1, 2017 article for the Vancouver Courier about the brouhaha provides some insight into the thinking at City Hall,

The proposed logo is done in Gotham font face, with a smaller point-sized “City of” in green stacked on a larger point-sized “Vancouver” in blue. It was supposed to replace a similar logo, set off by a lotus petal design.

In a Feb. 22 [2017] debate at city hall on the proposed logo, Robertson described the current logo as “lame.”

“It clearly isn’t doing its job anymore,” the mayor said. “And I think many would say it never really did its job as a bland logo with a squiggly bit on it that doesn’t mean anything to many people.”

A city report that went before council said the proposed logo “presents an updated image of the City of Vancouver as a modern, innovative and highly desirable place to live and work.” The report added the city’s “visual identity” had not been updated in more than 10 years.

“A simpler visual identity will not only be more easily recognized and understood by those for whom English is not a first language, but can be more easily adapted for social media channels,” the report said.

I gather Mayor Robertson has become an arbiter of aesthetic taste “… bland logo … .” I have to confess that I can’t fathom why the new logo is less bland than the old one. As for the report stating that the logo will “… be more easily recognized and understood by those for whom English is not a first language … .” I don’t understand how changing the colours makes the logo more easily understood. Is there anyone out there who could explain that for me? As for the new logo being more easily adapted for social media channels, presumably the logo will be shrunken down in size and experience tells me that a thick font such as this new one look like blobs in smaller sizes. I suppose you could use another font but doesn’t that rundercut the argument for a new logo?

Adding to the maelstrom is another logo, one for the City of Chilliwack,

The City of Chilliwack logo was commissioned in 2011. The new City of Vancouver wordmark was approved by council earlier this week. (City of Chilliwack/City of Vancouver)

As Rhianna Schmunk notes in her Feb. 24, 2017 CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) online news article, there is a similarity (Note: A link has been removed),

The entrepreneur behind the City of Chilliwack’s logo said he was left shocked and frustrated after he saw the City of Vancouver’s brand new wordmark, which bears a resemblance to his 2011 creation.

Dan Mansell said a friend tagged him in a Facebook post about the Vancouver’s new branding after it was approved by city councillors earlier this week.

…

Mansell said he thinks the two designs are “too close to be a coincidence.”

“If this was a city in Australia, I wouldn’t be so mad. If this was a city in a different part of Canada, whatever. But this … we share the same highway.”

“My bet is that the designer was researching other city branding and looked at what I did with the City of Chilliwack and maybe subconsciously copied it or got too fixated [on it],” he said. “But I obviously don’t know the process for sure.”

…

He declined to say how much he received for the project, but said it was “certainly less” than the $8,000 shelled out by Vancouver.

“That’s the extra infuriating part,” the designer said.

One final comment about this logo situation, the cost is much more than $8000. when you add up the cost of changing all of the branding. Yes, it’s stopped for now but I would like to know just how much the rebranding has cost to date given that city staff were already rolling out the new materials prior to approval by the city council.

So there you have my 5000th posting.

ETA March 3, 2017 at 2:20 pm PST: Drat! I made a mistake ‘pot pourri’ has been changed to ‘potpourri’.

Medical lectures in Vancouver (Canada): epidemiology of cancer and personalized* health

Leave a reply

Billed as a Public dialogue on “personalized health”, the Vancouver Public Library (central branch) will be hosting a panel of experts from the University of British Columbia (UBC) on Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2015 from 6 pm to 8 pm (from the Feb. 2, 2015 UBC announcement),

Experts from the University of British Columbia and affiliated health care organizations will discuss how health and health care are no longer a matter of “one-size-fits-all” but rather a complex confluence of our biology, behaviour and environment.

Speakers will discuss:

What can our DNA can reveal about our future health – and what it can’t.

How can molecular markers in blood reduce the need for invasive procedures, minimize guesswork, and prevent adverse drug reactions?

How do you want your DNA to be used for your care?

Can we stop – or slow down – brain failure?

How can we move from “sick care” (reactive) to “health care” (preventive)?

Featured speakers:

Pieter Cullis, biochemist

Bruce McManus, laboratory physician and scientist

Ida Goodreau, health care and health research administrator

Teresa Liu-Ambrose, physical therapy professor

Larry Lynd, health care economist

Details and RSVP: lsi.ubc.ca/talks

The logistics,

Wednesday, February 4, 2015
6 – 8 PM
Alice MacKay Room, Lower Level
Central Library, 350 West Georgia St

…

Getting there: Vancouver’s Central Library is located in Library Square which occupies a full city block: bounded by Homer, Hamilton, Robson and Georgia Streets. The Central Library is accessible by bicycle, bus, skytrain and car, with underground and street parking available. The Alice MacKay Room is wheelchair accessible.

I view this not as a public dialogue so much as a sales pitch. Here’s the real title of the event on the UBC webpage: Personalized Medicine: Your Life, Your Genes, Your Health and Happiness. Interestingly, Ida Goodreau (one of the experts) has some additional information about her current job title along with an important affiliation listed on the page: Adjunct Professor, UBC Sauder School of Business; Vice-Chair of Board of Directors, Genome British Columbia [emphases are mine]. The Genome British Columbia connection reminded me of a series of front page articles in the Vancouver Sun newspaper about genomes, authored by Brad Popovich, Genome BC’s chief scientific officer. I was not able to find the articles online but I did find this Vancouver Sun podcast about Popovich and genomes (including his own which was the subject of his first front page article in a Saturday paper).

I can’t help wondering if this ‘public dialogue’ along with Popovich’s articles aren’t part of a pull marketing strategy, i.e., convince people they want something and they’ll start demanding it. In this case, (1) get people to demand ‘personalized health care’ which requires personal genomic information. (2) the provincial ministry of health responding to public outcry/demand needs to acquire expertise and products which Genome BC can fulfill—for a price. For those who are unfamiliar with the situation, the genome projects in BC and elsewhere have produced much research but little of it has proved to be financially rewarding as was expected.

In any case, it could be an interesting experience although I wouldn’t expect any critical thinking or serious critiques of ‘personalized’ medicine.

The second event, presented by ARPICO (Society of Italian Researchers and Professionals in Western Canada), is billed as a public lecture. Scheduled for Friday, Feb. 6, 2015, it is titled: The Epidemiology of Cancer (event flyer), from the Feb. 2, 2015 reminder notice,

The Epidemiology of Cancer – Persistent pollutants and risk of cancer

Dr. J. Spinelli will review the epidemiology of cancer and what we know about the causes of cancer. He will the focus on the association between organochlorines and cancer, particularly lymphoma, including possible gene-environment interactions. Organochlorines (OCs) are a diverse group of organic compounds that contain chlorine. They include industrial products such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides such as DDT and chlordane, and by-products of industrial production and combustion such as dioxins and furans.

Dr. John Spinelli, PhD P. Stat. – Distinguished scientist and Head of Cancer Control Research at BC Cancer Agency, Professor at the School of Population and Public Health at UBC, and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science at SFU.

Dr. Spinelli’s research interests focus on the identification of environmental and genetic risk factors for cancer and in the interaction between genes and the environment, particularly for lymphoid cancer (lymphoma and myeloma) and breast cancer. He has contributed to the understanding of the etiology of cancer, including key findings on occupational and environmental causes.

He is also active in the development of statistical methodology for epidemiology and other areas of health research.

He is the principal investigator for the BC Generations Project, part of the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow Project, the largest health study ever undertaken in Canada and the author of over 240 peer reviewed publications.

Here are the logistics,

Date & Time: Friday, February 6, 2015, 8.00 pm

Location: Roundhouse Community Centre (Room B),
181 Roundhouse Mews, Vancouver, BC
(Yaletown-Roundhouse Sky Train Station, C21 & C23 Buses, Parking $3)

Refreshments: Complimentary coffee and cookies

Admission & RSVP: Admission is free. Registration required at info@arpico.org

I did a little digging and found this 2011 self-authored biography page for Dr. John Spinellli at the BC Control Agency,

My name is John Spinelli, and I am a research scientist in Cancer Control Research at the BC Cancer Agency. My background is probably quite different than most of the scientists and physicians at the BC Cancer Agency, as I did not study medicine or any of the hard sciences. Instead, I received my training in mathematics and statistics.

For me growing up, there were only two seasons: baseball and winter. I spent hours playing little league or wiffle ball in the backyard, or just throwing the ball against the wall of our house (breaking many windows in the process). When I wasn’t outside playing, I was poring over the many statistics collected in baseball; and I spent my time developing better ways to measure the value of baseball players and understanding the role of chance in sports.

With that background, it’s not surprising that I ended up in statistics, but I only realized this after first trying engineering, education, social work and psychology.

After I obtained my Master’s degree, I was hired at the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver to be a programmer-statistician — I loved the work. I helped oncologists evaluate treatments, develop models to better predict how patients would do, and assist with the design of new studies. Much of this work involved the application of new statistical methodology to better understand what the data was telling us.

I was also working on studies to understand the relationship between the environment and cancer — this excited me even more. In particular, I worked on several studies to look at the effects of carcinogens in the workplace.

This soon led to me developing my own research studies, for example looking at the cancer risks in aluminum workers and farmers. I realized that I wanted to be an independent researcher, so I had to move on from the Agency at the time in order to pursue my doctorate in statistics; but I hoped to return to the Agency later on and continue pursuing my research interests.

I hope Dr. Spinelli speaks in a fashion as charming and engaging as he writes.

* ‘p’ added to ‘ersonalized’, Feb. 3, 2015 at 12:31 pm PDT.

Part-time job at the Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology (SCWIST)

Leave a reply

The Vancouver-based Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology (SCWIST) has a part-time, contract position available. From the SCWIST Coordinator – MS Infinity Program job page,

The Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology (SCWIST) is a non-profit association that promotes, encourages and empowers women and girls in science, engineering and technology. Ms Infinity programs introduce girls to exciting career options and female role models in science and technology. Conferences and workshops with fun filled activities bring science alive. Girls are introduced to jobs from all areas of science and get the support they need when deciding how to take their interest in science further with e-mentor and role model programs.

POSITION OVERVIEW & KEY RESPONSIBILITIES

Title: Coordinator – MS Infinity Program
Type: Part-time contract (12 – 18 hours per week)
Start: ASAP
Application deadline: January 20, 2015
Reports to: Director of Outreach
Time Commitment: This is a 6-month contract, to be renewed based on grant funding

Coordination and promotion of ms infinity programming:

Volunteer recruitment and management

Volunteer training, development and communication (quarterly e-newsletter)

Preparation of promotional material and marketing of the program

Organization of and communication with the ms infinity committee

Communication with workshop/ event/ conference organizers

Promotion of ms infinity offerings to SCWIST members

Assistance in workshop, event and conference organization

Research of new workshop and event possibilities to extend the reach of ms infinity

Development of new educational workshops

Grant application, reporting and budget management

Coordination of the e-mentoring program:

Program administration

Recruitment of mentors and mentees

Organization of discussion topics

Qualifications:

A degree in science or education

Experience in informal science education and program coordination

Positive, enthusiastic attitude

Ability to present the Society well in the science learning and promotion community

Strong organizational and communication skills

Self-motivated with attention to detail

Experience in event organization and management, as well as experience managing budgets

Excellent knowledge in MS Office and social media tools

Additional application information is on the job page.

Become a press and communications officer for the UK’s Society of Biology

Leave a reply

The application deadline for the job is Monday, June 23, 2014 5 pm (London, UK time). Should you be living on the West Coast of Canada or the US (not sure about Mexico as that country curves east the further south you travel) move the time back 8 hours for a 9 am deadline.

Here’s more about the job (h/t Rebecca N) from the Press & Communications Officer posting on the Society of Biology’s Job Board,

Job title: Press & Communications Officer

Reports to: Director of Membership, Marketing & Communications

Overall purpose: To ensure, through proactive media & PR activity, that the Society has the profile and level of publicity to support the organisation’s vision and brand. To co-ordinate Biology Week and use it as a way to raise the profile of the Society of Biology and of the biosciences.

Contract: Permanent

Hours: Full-time

Salary: £25,000 to £29,000 (depending on experience)

Key responsibilities:

1.    Develop and lead a proactive and effective media strategy; build relationships with journalists, and act as the main point of contact for journalist enquiries; write press releases and news articles for the website; produce background briefings and prepare spokespeople for interviews, co-ordinating media interviews and requests; arrange media interviews and develop a public profile for key staff; monitor current issues and public opinion to inform the media strategy; work with Member Organisations and the Science Media Centre; ensure that all media communications comply with the Society’s brand identity and guidelines

2.    Develop a PR strategy; identify and exploit PR opportunities to maximise the Society’s policy work, to promote the Society as the unifying voice of biology, to promote the benefits of membership, and to promote key events; evaluate all PR activity

3.    Work with the Society’s branches and special interest groups to support and/or deliver regional/specialist press work

4.    Monitor the Society’s press and broadcast coverage, feeding this information back to staff and volunteers

5.    Assist in managing the media in a potential crisis situation, including availability outside normal office hours: ensure any negative coverage is swiftly and effectively responded to, including production of position statements prior to any media interest

6.    Maintain the media database with key contacts

7.    Co-ordinate Biology Week, including liaising with teachers and increasing the number of external events, and managing an intern

8.    Organise Biology Week events, including a reception in the House of Commons, and use the events to raise the Society’s profile

9.    Manage the Society’s social media outlets, including a blog, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, and increase its online following

10.    Work with team to produce photographs, videos and podcasts

11.    Co-ordinate citizen science projects, including the flying ant survey

12.    Carrying out such other duties as may be required, including occasional UK travel and stays overnight

This looks like it could be fun, ‘co-ordinate a citizen science flying ant survey’. And, seeing one of the other duties involves organizing a reception at the House of Commons, the requirement “Able to get on with people at all levels” seems more important than it might ordinarily. Although how one would evaluate the quality mystifies me. The rest of the requirements and more application details are available here.

Here’s more about the Society of Biology from its About us page (Note: Links have been removed),

The Society of Biology is a single unified voice for biology: advising Government and influencing policy; advancing education and professional development; supporting our members, and engaging and encouraging public interest in the life sciences. The Society represents a diverse membership of individuals, learned societies and other organisations.

Individual members include practising scientists, students at all levels, professionals in academia, industry and education, and non-professionals with an interest in biology.
Our vision is of a world that understands the true value of biology and how it can contribute to improving life for all.

Our mission is to be the unifying voice for biology, to facilitate the promotion of new discoveries in biological science for national and international benefit, and to engage the wider public with our work.

Good luck!

Keithly’s ‘How Nanotechnology Could Reengineer Us’ infographic*

Leave a reply

There’s a rather striking infographic from Keithley, a Tektronix company, making the rounds,

[downloaded from http://www.keithley.com/knowledgecenter/How-Nanotechnology-Could-Reengineer-Us]

Difficult to see here, I encourage the curious to check it out here on the company’s website and do keep in mind that this represents aspirational research. Assuming any number of technical difficulties can be surmounted, we may one day be able to repair brains, regrow teeth, etc.

The commentary on Reddit about this infographic is illuminating. From the How Nanotechnology Could Reengineer Us comments page in Futurology on the Reddit.com website,

Benchtop nano scientist (phd student) here. The choice of r/Futurology [section for this infographic] is a generous one — if there were an r/post-future-ology it might be a more accurate estimate. It is going to take a long, long time to translate “nanotechnology” — however you want to define it — into these medical advances. …

…

I’m in a nanomolecular engineering class right now, granted that it’s an undergraduate course I can say that the life regeneration aspect is too far in the future. The closest medical implementation I have seen I better targeted drug delivery and even that was all theoretical. And in the classes its just a whole bunch of quantum physics and chemistry and basic engineering tools. Full on regeneration I assume will be at least 20 years. Professors working in the field are even skeptical of the stuff above. Sure they’ll write the stuff in their grants but in reality it’s really far off.

…

I don’t know if you know much about pur current drug delivery mechanisms by they not as sophisticated as we think they don’t penetrate the cell and certainly have no effect on the DNA. The research I read was targeting the DNA penetrating the cell using a nanomolecular ligands that coated specific silencing RNA. Look up the research it is conducted by Suzie Pun.

…

I interviewed with Pun at UW when applying for BME PhD programs. Very cool work. I’m going somewhere else for grad school but still working on targeted siRNA delivery.

It has huge potential, but will take quite a long time to make it through the clinic and gain FDA approval.

…

Getting back to the infographic, I was quite happy to see a list of sources at the bottom. It’s reassuring to see what research they examined before producing their infographic. Too many people and institutions don’t* share the sources for their information.

Here’s some information about Tektronix, Keithley’s parent company, (from the its Wikipedia entry; Note: Links have been removed),

Tektronix, Inc. is an American company best known for manufacturing test and measurement devices such as oscilloscopes, logic analyzers, and video and mobile test protocol equipment. In November 2007, Danaher Corporation acquired Tektronix as a subsidiary.[2]

Here’s more from the About Keithley page,

Keithley, a Tektronix company, designs, develops, manufactures, and markets advanced electrical test instruments and systems for the specialized needs of electronics manufacturers in high-performance production testing, process monitoring, product development, and research.

Keithley has approximately 500 products that are used to source, measure, connect, control, or communicate direct current (DC) or pulsed electrical signals. Product offerings include integrated systems along with instruments and personal computer (PC) plug-in boards that can be used as system components or stand-alone solutions. Keithley customers include scientists and engineers in the worldwide electronics industry involved with advanced materials research, semiconductor device development and fabrication, and the production of end products such as portable wireless devices.

This infographic seems like an interesting public relations ploy as it has certainly gotten the company some attention.

* ‘don’t’ added to sentence on Sept. 29, 2014.

* ‘inforgraphic’ changed to ‘infographic’ on April 23, 2015.

Advice on marketing nano from a process engineering perspective

Leave a reply

Robert Ferris, PhD, is writing a series of posts about the ‘Process Engineering of Nanotechnology’ on the Emerson Process Experts blog. Before getting to his marketing post, I’m going to briefly discuss his Jan. 4, 2014 posting (the first in this business-oriented series) which offers a good primer on the topic of nanotechnology although I do have a proviso, Ferris’ posts should be read with some caution,

I contribute [sic] the knowledge gap to the fact that most of the writing out there is written by science-brains and first-adopters. Previous authors focus on the technology and potentials of bench-top scale innovation. This is great for the fellow science-brain but useless to the general population. I can say this because I am one of those science-brains.

The unfortunate truth is that most people do not understand nanotechnology nor care about the science behind it. They only care if the new product is better than the last. Nanotechnology is not a value proposition. So, the articles written do not focus on what the general population cares about. Instead, people are confused by nanotechnology and as a result are unsure of how it can be used.

I think Ferris means ‘attribute’ rather than ‘contribute’ and I infer from the evidence provided by the error that he (in common with me) does not have a copy editor. BTW, my worst was finding three errors in one of my sentences (sigh) weeks after after I’d published. At any rate, I’m suggesting caution not due to this error but to passages such as this (Note: Links have been removed),

Nanotechnology is not new; in fact, it was used as far back as the 16th century in stain glass windows. Also, nanotechnology is already being used in products today, ranging from consumer goods to food processing. Don’t be surprised if you didn’t know, a lot of companies do not publicize the fact that they use nanotechnology.

Strictly speaking the first sentence is problematic since Ferris is describing ‘accidental’ nanotechnology. The artisans weren’t purposefully creating gold nanoparticles to get that particular shade of red in the glass as opposed to what we’re doing today and I think that’s a significant difference. (Dexter Johnson on his Nanoclast blog for the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] has been very clear that these previous forays (Damascus steel, the Lycurgus Cup) cannot be described as nanotechnology since they were unintended.) As for the rest of the excerpt, it’s all quite true.

Ferris’ Feb. 11, 2014 post tackles marketing,

… While companies and products can miss growth targets for any number of reasons, one of the more common failures for nanotechnology-enabled products is improper marketing. Most would agree that marketing is as much art as science but marketing of nanotechnology-enabled products can be particularly tricky.

True again and he’s about to focus on one aspect of marketing,

Companies that develop nanotechnology-enabled products tend to fall into two camps—those that use nanotechnology as a differentiator in their marketing materials and those that do not. In the 5 P’s of marketing (Product, Place, Price, Promotion, and People), we are contrasting how each company approaches product marketing.

Product marketing focuses on communicating how that product meets a customer need. To do this, the marketing material must differentiate from other potential solutions. The question is, does nanotechnology serves as a differentiating value proposition for the customer?

As I understand it, communicating about the product and value propositions would fall under Promotion while decisions about what features to offer, physical design elements, etc. would fall under Product. Still, Ferris goes on to make some good points with his example of selling a nano-manufactured valve,

A local salesperson calls you up to see what you think. As a customer, you ask a simple question, “Why should we buy this new valve over the one we have been using for years?” What will you think if the sales-person answers, “Because it is based on nanotechnology!”? Answering this way does not address your pain points or satisfy your concerns over the risks of purchasing a new product.

My main difficulty with Ferris’ marketing post is a lack of clarity. He never distinguishes between business-to-business (B2B) marketing and business to consumer (B2C) marketing. There are differences, for example, consumers may not have the scientific or technical training to understand the more involved aspects of the product but a business may have someone on staff who can and could respond negatively to a lack of technical/scientific information.

I agree with Ferris on many points but I do feel he might address the issue of selling technology. He uses L’Oréal as an example of a company selling nanotechnology-enabled products which they do but their product is beauty. The company’s nanotechnology-enabled products are simply a means of doing that. By contrast a company like IBM sells technology and a component or product that’s nanotechnology-enabled may require a little or a lot of education depending on the component/product and the customer.

For anyone who’s interested in marketing nanotechnology-enabled and products based on other emerging technologies, I recommend reading Geoffrey A. Moore’s book, Crossing the Chasm. His examples are dated as this written about the ‘computer revolution’ but I think the basis principles still hold. As for Ferris’ postings, there’s good information but you may want to check out other sources and I recommend Dexter Johnson’s Nanoclast blog and Cientifica, an emerging technologies consultancy. (Dexter works for Cientifica, in addition to writing for the IEEE, but most of the publications on that site are by Tim Harper). Oh, and you can check here too, although the business side of things is not my main focus, I still manage to write the odd piece about marketing (promotion usually).

Work experience (science communication) opportunity in London (UK)

Leave a reply

Here’s a description of the opportunity being offered by Proof Communication,

Work experience opportunity in London Science Communication Firm

Richard Moss Director, Proof Communication

Proof is looking for a bright, ambitious young individual to undertake a couple of weeks of work experience in our London office. If you know of anyone seeking a real insight into the world of science communication and technical PR, please get in touch – info@proofcommunication.com

This was posted in one of my LinkedIn groups (Science Public Relations) fairly recently (Jan. 11, 2014 … I believe). I wasn’t able to find any additional information about the opportunity on the company website but Proof Communication does have this to say about itself on its homepage,

Proof specialises in helping science, engineering, and technology organisations communicate clearly with the people they need to influence.

We work for national science labs; international science facilities; global technology companies; European funded research projects; universities; multinational engineering businesses; and start-ups. Part of an international network of similar-sized agencies, we operate in more than 26 countries around the world. [emphasis mine]

We support organisations with complexity at their heart. We help them explain that complexity in ways that non-specialists can understand and appreciate.

Proof is a member of something called the Public Relations Network (PRN), which is how they can claim to have a global reach, from the PRN homepage,

PRN is a global collective of like minded Public Relations specialists, dedicated to providing high level consultancy and quality local support for worldwide PR campaigns. PRN has affiliate PR agencies based across Europe, Africa, America, AsiaPac and Australasia.

Our goal is your PR success.

The list of countries which hosts a member public relations company include: Australia, Morocco, Poland, Romania, China, Venezuela, Austria and more, with up to 26 countries in total. It seems the network accepts only one member agency per country.

Getting back to Proof Communication, good luck to the bright, ambitious young individuals applying for work experience!

Graphene hype; the emerging story in an interview with Carla Alvial Palavicino (University of Twente, Netherlands)

Leave a reply

i’m delighted to be publishing this interview with Carla Alvial Palavicino, PhD student at the University of Twente (Netherlands), as she is working on the topicof graphene ‘hype’. Here’s a bit more about the work from her University of Twente webpage (Note: A link has been removed),

From its origins the field of nanotechnology has been populated of expectations. Pictured as “the new industrial revolution” the economic promise holds strong, but also nanotechnologies as a cure for almost all the human ills, sustainers of future growth, prosperity and happiness. In contrast to these promises, the uncertainties associated to the introduction of such a new and revolutionary technology, and mainly risks of nanomaterials, have elicited concerns among governments and the public. Nevertheless, the case of the public can be characterized as concerns about concerns, based on the experience of previous innovations (GMO, etc.).

Expectations, both as promises and concerns, have played and continue playing a central role in the “real-time social and political constitution of nanotechnology” (Kearnes and Macnaghten 2006). A circulation of visions, promises and concerns in observed in the field, from the broadly defined umbrella promises to more specific expectations, and references to grand challenges as moral imperatives. These expectations have become such an important part of the social repertoire of nano applications that we observe the proliferation of systematic and intentional modes of expectation building such as roadmaps, technology assessment, etc.; as well as a considerable group of reports on risk, concerns, and ethical and social aspects. This different modes of expectation building (Konrad 2010) co-exist and contribute to the articulation of the nano field.

This project seeks to identify, characterize and contextualize the existing modes of expectations building, being those intentional (i.e. foresight, TA, etc.) or implicit in arenas of public discourse, associated to ongoing and emerging social processes in the context of socio-technical change.

This dynamics are being explored in relation to the new material graphene.

Before getting to the interview, here’s Alvial Palavicino’s biography,

Carla Alvial Palavicino has a bachelor degree in Molecular Biology Engineering, School of Science, University of Chile, Chile and a Master’s degree on Sustainability Sciences, Graduate School of Frontier Science, University of Tokyo, Japan. She has worked in technology transfer and more recently, in Smart Grids and local scale renewable energy provision.

Finally, here’s the interview (Note: At the author’s request, there have been some grammatical changes made to conform with Canadian English.),

What is it that interests you about the ‘hype’ that some technologies receive and how did you come to focus on graphene in particular?

My research belongs to a field called the Sociology of Expectations, which deals with the role of promises, visions, concerns and ideas of the future in the development of technologies, and how these ideas actually affect people’s strategies in technology development. Part of the dynamic found for these expectations are hype-disappointment cycles, much like the ones the Gartner Group uses. And hype has become an expectation itself; people expect that there will be too many promises and some, maybe many of them are not going to be fulfilled, followed by disappointment.

I came to know about graphene because, initially, I was broadly interested in nanoelectronics (my research project is part of NanoNextNL a large Dutch Nano research programme), due to the strong future orientation in the electronics industry. The industry has been organizing, and continues to organize around the promise of Moore’s law for more than 50 years! So I came across graphene as thriving to some extent on the expectations around the end of Moore’s law and because simply everybody was talking about it as the next big thing! Then I thought, this is a great opportunity to investigate hype in real-time

Is there something different about the hype for graphene or is this the standard ‘we’ve found a new material and it will change everything’?

I guess with every new technology and new material you find a portion of genuine enthusiasm which might lead to big promises. But that doesn’t necessarily turn into big hype. One thing is that all hype is not the same and you might have technologies that disappeared after the hype such as High Temperature Semiconductors, or technologies that go through a number of hype cycles and disappointment cycles throughout their development (for example, Fuel Cells). Now with graphene what you certainly have is very ‘loud’ hype – the amount of attention it has received in so little time is extraordinary. If that is a characteristic of graphene or a consequence of the current conditions in which the hype has been developed, such as faster ways of communication (social media for example) or different incentives for science and innovation well, this is part of what I am trying to find out.

Quite clearly, the hype in graphene seems to be more ‘reflexive’ than others, that is, people seem to be more conscious about hype now. We have had the experience with carbon nanotubes only recently and scientist, companies and investors are less naïve about what can be expected of the technology, and what needs to be done to move it forward ‘in the right direction’. And they do act in ways that try to soften the slope of the hype-disappointment curve. Having said that, actors [Ed. Note: as in actor-network theory] are also aware of how they can take some advantage of the hype (for funding, investment, or another interest), how to make use of it and hopefully leave safely, before disappointment. In the end, it is rather hard to ask accountability of big promises over the long-term.

In the description of your work you mention intentional and implicit modes of building expectations, could explain the difference between the two?

One striking feature of technology development today is that we found more and more activities directed at learning about, assess, and shaping the future, such as forecasts, foresights, Delphi, roadmaps and so on. There are even specialized future actors such as consultancy organisations or foresight experts, Cientifica among them. And these formalized ways of anticipating the future are expected to be performative by those who produce them and use them, that is, influence the way the future – and the present- turns out. But this is not a linear story, it’s not like 100% of a roadmap can be turned practice (not even for the ITRS roadmap [Ed. Note: International Technology Roadmap for Semi-conductors] that sustains Moore’s law, some expectations change quite radically between editions of the roadmap). Besides that, there are other forms of building expectations which are embedded in practices around new technologies. Think of the promises made in high profile journals or grant applications; and of expectations incorporated in patents and standards. All these embody particular forms and directions for the future, and exclude others. These are implicit forms of expectation-building, even if not primarily intended as such. These forms are shaped by particular expectations which themselves shape further development. So, in order to understand how these practices, both intentional and implicit, anticipate futures you need to look at the interplay between the various types.

Do you see a difference internationally with regard to graphene hype? Is it more prevalent in Europe than in the North America? Is it particularly prevalent in some jurisdiction, e.g. UK?

I think the graphene ‘hype’ has been quite global, but it is moving to different communities, or actors groups, as Tim Harper from Cientifica has mentioned in his recent report about graphene

What is interesting in relation to the different ‘geographical’ responses to graphene is that they exemplify nicely how a big promise (graphene, in this case) is connected to other circulating visions, expectations or concerns. In the case of the UK, the *Nobel prize on Graphene and the following investment was connected to the idea of a perceived crisis of innovation in the country. Thus, the decision to invest in graphene was presented and discussed in reference to global competitiveness, showing a political commitment for science and innovation that was in doubt at that time.

In the European case with its *Graphene flagship, something similar happened. While there is no doubt of the scientific excellence of the flagship project, the reasons why it finally became a winner in the flagship competition might have been related to the attention on graphene. The project itself started quite humbly, and it differed from the other flagship proposals that were much more oriented towards economic or societal challenges. But the attention graphene received after the Nobel Prize, plus the engagement of some large companies, helped to frame the project in terms of its economic profitability. And. this might have helped to bring attention and make sense of the project in the terms the European Commission was interested in.

In contrast, if you think of the US, the hype has been there (the number of companies engaged in graphene research is only increasing) but it has not had a big echo in policy. One of the reasons might be because this idea of global competition and being left behind is not so present in the US. And in the case of Canada for example, graphene has been taken up by the graphite (mining) community, which is a very local feature.

So answering your questions, the hype has been quite global and fed in a global way (developments in one place resonate in the other) but different geographical areas have reacted in relation to their contingent expectations to what this hype dynamic provided.

What do you think of graphene?

I think it’s the new material with more YouTube videos (this one is particularly good in over promising for example) and the coolest superhero (Mr G from the Flagship). But seriously, I often get asked that question when I do interviews with actors in the field, since they are curious to learn about the outsider perspective. But to be honest I try to remain as neutral and distant as possible regarding my research object… and not getting caught in the hype!

Thanks so much for a fascinating interview Carla and I very much appreciate the inclusion of Canada in your response to the question about the international response to graphene hype. (Here are three of my postings on graphite and mining in Canada: Canada’s contribution to graphene research: big graphite flakes [Feb. 6, 2012]; A ‘graphite today, graphene tomorrow’ philosophy from Focus Graphite [April 17, 2013[; and Lomiko’s Quatre Milles graphite flakes—pure and ultra pure [April 17, 2013] There are others you can find by searching ‘graphite’ in the blog’s search box.)

* For anyone curious about the Nobel prize and graphene, there’s this Oct.7, 2010 posting. Plus, the Graphene Flagship was one of several projects competing for one of the two 1B Euro research prizes awarded in January 2013 (the win is mentioned in my Jan. 28, 2013 posting).

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and Happy Holidays to all!