Category Archives: interviews

Interview with Julie Freeman about her nano art show at the UK’s House of Lords

Leave a reply

An invitation arrived in my email box from the BioCentre in the UK for a nanotechnology workshop and reception featuring some ‘nanotechnology’ art work at the House of Lords. I was pleased to notice that the artist, Julie Freeman, was someone I met a few years ago at the 2009 International Symposium on Electronic Arts (ISEA) in Belfast. As attending the event was not possible, I decided to approach Julie for an interview and she kindly answered my questions.

Before launching into the interview, here’s a little more information about the BioCentre’s 2nd workshop in a series titled, Revolution, Regulation and Responsibilities; Technology & Democracy in the 21st Century (from the PDF) ,

Products, Privacy & People: Regulating on the Nanoscale Monday 28th February 2011, 14:00, House of Lords, Committee Room 3

The manipulation of matter at the nanoscale represents a ‘rebound revolution’ reframing our understanding and engagement with science and technology. As nanotechnologies continue to evolve the promised nano structures which offer novel and new properties currently present unknown hazards. Nanoparticles have been found to pass through the skin, offering exciting possibilities of targeted drug delivery. Conversely, given their size nanoparticles could also interfere with the functioning of proteins on the surface of cells, or be taken up into cells and bind to intercellular proteins. How crucial is public awareness of these issues? Should there be a mandatory labelling system for nano products? This becomes all the more important as nanomaterials are adopted commercially and taken up into global supply chains.

Nanotechnology will present new possibilities for collecting new data and intensifying debate and discussion surrounding ongoing questions of privacy. There is the potential for tiny senses to be embedded in clothes, products or even bodies which could record and collect a multitude of data, including the movement of people, products, health and financial details.

Increasingly, it appears that the distinction between human and machine could become blurred through the convergence of biology, nanotechnology, information technology and even neuroscience. If some of the grander ideas which nanotechnology would seemingly promise are believed to be true, then fusion between people and technology could occur like never before. Yet public and civil society debate remains limited despite dramatic efforts to frame the significance of such developments ranging from Eric Drexler’s ‘grey goo’ scenario, to technology guru Bill Joy’s Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, to Ray Kurzweil’s imminent expectation of the sci‐fi “singularity”.

As attempts are made to develop effective and proportional regulation in response there is also the inevitable tension between divergent approaches to risk management on the national, regional and global level. One thing is for certain, transdisciplinary discussion, fresh thinking and understanding is essential if we are to avoid a repeat of the GM foods debacle and re‐emergence of the ‘yuck’ factor. Through short expert presentations, panel and Q&A discussions you are invited to join us as we discuss and examine the regulatory issues at the nanoscale.

A drinks reception will follow the symposium during which the work of Julie Freeman, Artist‐in‐residence at Microsystems and Nanotechnology Centre, Cranfield University, will be on display. [emphasis mine]

Now, here is the interview with Julie Freeman,

a) Which work (or works are) is being shown at the House of Lords on Feb. 28, 2011? [if you have any images of the piece or pieces, I would be happy to include them.]

A set of 16 A3 prints from the Nano Novel collection, which are part of the In Particular project.

(b) How did your work come to be selected for this display? Was it specifically created for this show or was it chosen as something that would be relevant to the workshop themes “of revolution, regulation and responsibilities surrounding the issue of emerging technologies?”

Each of the works are accompanied by two pieces of text, one factual, one fictional. The factual texts describe a process, issue or reaction that is related to the nanoscale, so although there is a broad range – from how nanoparticles are moved to the future of self-diagnostic implants – some of them address issues of regulation and revolution. The director of a UK think tank called BioCentre asked me if I would like to exhibit the work at the seminar. I had been previously asked to show work at a BioCentre event, but it was too complicated to install just for a few hours. As the Nano Novels work are framed prints they are the most portable piece of work I have ever created, so are ideal for an exhibition with a quick turnover!

(c) Could you discuss some of the challenges of representing the invisible (that which occurs at the nanoscale) and some of the specific challenges, technical and/or conceptual, that you encountered with the work being shown at the reception?

The work shown, as I mentioned, were digital prints. The prints are the first stage in the In Particular project, kind of a way for me to contextualise nanotechnology in a way that I could understand it. I have prototype works in progress that are proving tricky to realise – at the nanoscale materials take on different properties and behaviours. Stresses and strains that act at the macro level are different at the nanoscale so even creating something as seemingly simple as a rigid nanothin film is very complex. I think the challenge for artists working in the realm is how to avoid the obvious, how to depict something that is beyond our sensory perception, and how to create work that is true to a nanoprocess or material without simply showing it at a macro scale.

(d) How does someone with an MA in Digital Arts from the Lansdown Centre for Electronic Arts, Middlesex University, London come to be associated with the Microsystems and Nanotechnology Centre at Cranfield University?

I knew when I started my MA that I wanted to work with life and technology – life in terms of living biology. My MA show consisted of a fish tank containing 4 rudd that were tracked and created a soundscape (a precursor to a future larger project called The Lake**), so although it took ten years, it was a natural progression for me to end up working in a laboratory with scientists.

The residency was instigated by Professor Jeremy Ramsden, Chair of Nanotechnology at Cranfield University. He says “I’d read a very interesting book by Cyril Smith* in which he argues that the primary motivation for new technology was aesthetic” so he thought an artist on his team would push the technology in a new direction. He approached a local arts agency, HAPPEN, who had visited my work The Lake, which is another piece of work that involved much scientific collaboration, and they brokered the relationship. We quickly ascertained that we had a lot of common curiousity, so we collaborated on a funding proposal and were very fortunate to be successful.

*C.S. Smith, The Search for Structure: Selected Essays on Science, Art and History, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.) (1981).

**http://www.juliefreeman.co.uk/lake/

(e) What are you currently working on now (nanotechnology-influenced or not)?

I have been working on ideas that bring my love of data together with the bionanotech area, the fusion of biology and technology at the ‘invisible’ level. Consequently I’m working on some new kinetic objects that incorporate nanomaterials and utilise conversational network activity to give them dynamic actions. I can’t say much more, but it’s an ambitious one!

(f) Is there anything you’d like to add?

Thanks for being in touch. Great blog!

You’re welcome and glad you enjoy the blog.

You can find out more about Julie Freeman and her work at her website, Translating Nature.

ETA Mar. 8, 2011:  Julie Freeman sent two pictures from her show at the House of Lords.

Nano Novels at UK's House of Lords, Feb. 28, 2011. Photo: Julie Freeman

And then, the crowd arrived.

Feb. 28, 2011 reception at UK's House of Lords where Nano Novels shown. Photo: Julie Freeman

Interview with Vive Nano’s CTO, Darren Anderson, and CEO Keith Thomas

2 Replies

I first mentioned the Canadian company, Vive Nano, in my Nov. 9, 2009 posting when it received $3.8M from the Ontario government through that province’s Innovation Demonstration Fund. They’ve been mentioned here since (June 25, 2010 posting about their Frost & Sullivan Technology Innovation Award and Oct. 11, 2010 posting about their marketing efforts in India) and, after my good intentions ran out, I finally got a chance to interview Darren Anderson, Vive Nano’s  Chief Technology Officer and (ETA Mar.1.11) Keith Thomas, President and Chief Executive Officer.

(a) Can you tell me a little bit about why the company is called Vive Nano and give me a brief company history, e.g. was it a spin-off from a university; how many founders are there; how did you get to know each other, etc.?

The company was founded by 6 scientists at the University of Toronto.  The scientists had been working together for years and a number had participated in a course called Entrepreneurship 101, which is run by an Ontario-funded organization called MaRS.  [You can find MaRS here.] We decided to pursue a non-traditional route, instead of joining academia or a research lab – and we have not looked back since.  We spun the company out of the university in 2006 and it really got going in 2007 when the full management team joined and outside investment was brought in.

We chose the name Vive Nano because we felt it would work well across cultures.  When we heard the word vive we thought of life; we felt that it had a strong, vibrant and forward thinking feel.   And we felt that it mirrored our company values:  smart, open and responsible.  We strive to be smart in how we execute our work, open to new ideas and responsible in the application of what we do for the greater good.

(b) The Vive Nano website states that your main focus is developing products for the ‘catalyst’ and ‘crop protection’ industries. Could you give me a little more detail about that? For example, I associate crop protection with pesticides, is that what you mean?

A large part of our work is on improved crop protection formulations that can positively impact crop yields and lower environmental impact.  We work with bioinert and biodegradable polymers in place of the solvents currently used to deliver crop protection products.  We are developing products, including pesticides that have the potential to dramatically reduce the amount of chemicals used by farmers, leading to cleaner air, cleaner soil and cleaner water.  We’re enthusiastic about working in crop protection because the safety standards are very stringent and we’re working with partners with tremendous resources and commitment to ensuring product safety.  Vive Nano also works with catalysts, specifically on materials that help to improve the air we breathe and water we drink.

For our efforts, Vive Nano has been recognized as one of Canada’s Top 10 companies, as a leading green technology company by Deloitte, as one of the 2009 Green 15™, and by Canadian Business magazine as the winner of Canada’s Clean15 competition.  In addition, Vive Nano has received other market recognition including:

·       Frost & Sullivan North American Technology of the Year Award – 2010
·       Next 10 Emerging Cleantech Leaders Award Winner – 2009
·       Ontario Premier’s Cleantech Mission to India

(c)  ‘Partnering on projects’ is also mentioned on the website. Could you explain how what you mean by partnering and what kinds of projects and products you have or are currently partnering on?

Vive Nano partners with a range of companies, from small Ontario businesses to Fortune 500 firms.  We develop the products in conjunction with our partners, who provide project goals and market access.  We are not able to talk about most of our projects, but one of our key projects is to reduce the use of solvents in delivering crop protection products so that the products are more environmentally friendly.  We also have smaller projects to develop advanced glass coatings and to clean water.

(d) The website features a description of Vive Nano Product Stewardship where you state: “… prioritization process to ensure product information for products with known toxic effects, physical hazards or potential consumer exposure is provided to our stakeholders in a timely manner.” Could you give some examples of you how provide this information since you sell products such as nano silver, nano cerium oxide, nano zinc oxide, and nano magnetite, all of which, by the way, are subject to a ‘call for information regarding testing procedures’ by the State of California’s Dept. of Toxic Substances Control.

We are members of Responsible Care® and are committed communicating information about our materials to all of our stakeholders, including our employees, our customers, our collaborators and the general public.   We make Product Stewardship Sheets for our materials available, which provide a product description, the chemical identity, uses, and any known health or environmental effects or potential for exposure, as well as risk management information.

We recognize that the state of knowledge relating to health and environmental effects of nanotechnology is in its infancy and as a result we are taking a conservative approach with respect to the design and manufacture of our materials. We continually monitor legislative requirements regarding nanomaterials and aim to exceed all current guidelines with respect to occupational health and waste streams, including water and air emissions.  Much of the concern surrounding exposure to nanomaterials is regarding aerosols, thus we endeavour to work with our materials in liquid form whenever possible.

As I mentioned at the start, we want to be responsible in what we do for the greater good.  We are working with the Canadian National Institute of Nanotechnology in Alberta on a federally funded multi-million dollar project to ensure that all of our products we develop are safe throughout their product lifetime.  We are also participating in a McGill University study to look at product safety.

I’m going to shift focus with these next questions:

(e) Vive Nano was featured in an Oct. 27, 2010 guest column written by Hari Venkatacharya on the subject of Canadian technology firms and the Indian market. Is this involvement part of a larger strategic focus on international markets and/or where there specific reasons for focusing on the Indian market?

Cleantech is global, by nature.  For several years, we have been working internationally, though mostly focused on developed economies.  A few years ago, when developed economies were having issues with the recession, we made a strategic decision to work with a key developing economy and chose India.  There was a sound business case and good demand for our products.  We also were able to successfully work with Hari to access top level decision makers in that market.

(f) What have you learned from your work in the Indian market?

First, focus is important.  India is too vast, so we don’t have an India strategy, but rather a Maharashtra strategy.  Second, cost is important.  India really forced us to drive down our costs – the economics in India are based on volume, not margin.

We also found it important to put things in writing – as prep or follow-up to phone calls, as we had some significant noise issues, especially with poor quality phone lines.  We had a number of times where we would speak to someone on their cellphone in traffic and have difficulty picking out enough words to understand what they meant.

Lastly, we found we needed to be there, in almost constant contact in person.  We found that progress came in waves.  If you were about to go to India, were there, or had just left, there was progress; otherwise other priorities came to our customers’ minds.  We were just one of probably dozens of opportunities from Germany, France, and the US that kept coming to them.  SO we needed to go back.  And back.

(g) What kind of a market (or markets) is there for your products in Canada?

As I mentioned, a lot of our work is on making better crop protection products.  These will support the $150 billion Canadian agriculture industry, which employs one out of every seven Canadians.  We anticipate that they will result in significant environmental and waste reduction benefits.  We are also working on coatings to improve the energy efficiency of glass and improved catalysts can potentially deliver major advances in water and air purification. Canada has an environmentally-aware population and a desire to be a leader in clean technologies, so we think it’s a great place to be.

(h) Are you working on any new products or partnerships that you can discuss at this point?

One thing that we are very excited about is our anti-reflective glass coating.  It can improve light transmission noticeably.  It is a very different application from our crop protection work, but uses the same underlying technology.

(i) Is there anything you’d like to add?

Nothing I can think of.

I would like to add just a bit more about Darren Anderson. From Vive Nano’s Management Team page,

Darren Anderson, Ph.D. was the founding President of Vive Nano. Dr. Anderson currently oversees all technical direction at the company, including product development, strategic direction, and intellectual property. He is the author of 4 issued patents, 24 pending applications, 10 refereed papers, and over 40 conference presentations and publications. He earned his Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Toronto as an NSERC Doctoral Fellow.

Plus, I want to say Thank You for taking the time to answer my questions in detail that I much appreciate. I look forward to hearing more about Vive Nano in general, about the new glass coating product, and about the product safety projects with Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology and with the researchers at McGill soon.

ETA Feb.28.11: I understand from Darren Anderson that Keith Thomas, Vive Nano’s President and CEO answered some of the questions. So, thank you to Keith Thomas. Here’s his biography from Vive Nano’s Management Team web page,

Keith Thomas is a proven entrepreneur and was most recently CEO of Vector Innovations, which was backed by a number of well regarded venture firms and successfully exited. He has led a number of large-scale projects, restructuring companies in 3 countries at New York-based Tandon Capital, managing strategy and operations projects at Booz Allen & Hamilton and completing corporate finance transactions at Citibank in the US and Europe. He is a member of the Young Presidents Organization (YPO) and holds an M.B.A. from Columbia University, an M.A. in Economics and a B.A.Sc. in Engineering from the University of Toronto.

Interview with Baba Brinkman who performs his Rap Guide to Evolution in Vancouver on Feb. 20, 2011

2 Replies

Peer-reviewed and rap music are terms that don’t usually go together unless you’re talking about Vancouver-based rapper, Baba Brinkman.  (ETA Feb.17.11 Baba’s website) The performer has developed a rap about evolution that’s been extensively toured in the UK. Sunday, February 20, 2011, Brinkman brings his evolution rap home to Vancouver (Canada) for a performance at the Railway Club presented by the Centre for Inquiry and others. From the event webpage,

The Centre for Inquiry Vancouver, Radio Freethinker and CiTR 101.9FM are proud to present Baba Brinkman and the Rap Guide to Evolution!

Baba brings his rationalist rap back to his home for a special show of his popular spoken word rationalist rap – The Rap Guide to Evolution! The New York Times has said that this is the only hip-hop show to talk of mitochondria, genetic drift, sexual selection or memes. For Brinkman has taken Da rwin’s exhortation seriously. He is a man on a mission to spread the word about evolution — how it works, what it means for our view of the world, and why it is something to be celebrated rather than feared.

Baba’s work has been called:

“Brilliantly conceived and effervescently performed…not only is it factually correct, it’s also dazzlingly intelligent…after seeing this show, you’ll never look at a hip-hop music video in the same way again!” – The Scotsman

Event details:

Sunday, February 20th 2011 at 9:00 pm – 12 am
The Railway Club, 579 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver BC
Tickets: $8 at the door
Special Guests: Aaron Nazrul & the Boom Booms

Prior to his Sunday performance, Baba very kindly answered some interview questions:

(a) Is this the first time you’ve given a performance of ‘The Rap Guide to Evolution’ in Vancouver? And how did this performance come about?

This won’t be the Vancouver première of the Rap Guide to Evolution since I was featured as part of the 2009 Vancouver Evolution Festival with performances at UBC, SFU, and at a club venue in Gastown, but the show has evolved considerably over the past two years and it is my first performance in Vancouver since achieving any recognition for the show.  In terms of the show’s origins, I was performing a rap adaptation of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales a few years back and encountered a geneticist named Dr. Mark Pallen at the University of Birmingham in the UK who challenged me to “do for Darwin what I did for Chaucer”. Dr. Pallen had a grant from the British Council to organize a Darwin Day celebration in 2009 and he commissioned me to write the show for his event, and then after that I brought it to the VanEvo festival, the Cambridge Darwin Festival, the Edinburgh and Adelaide Fringe Festivals, and numerous college campuses, plus an off-Broadway showcase in New York, so it’s been a busy couple of years.

(b) I understand this ‘evolution’ rap was commissioned and is the only ‘science peer-reviewed’ rap in existence. How much research did you do on evolution before you started rapping about it? What did you learn that you didn’t know?

I got the commission officially in September 2008 so I had approximately five months to read-up on evolutionary theory before I started rapping about it. I read books by E O Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Joseph Carroll, Dan Dennett, D S Wilson, Geoffrey Miller, and Mark Pallen’s own “Rough Guide to Evolution”. There were other books as well but those are the authors that significantly influenced the writing. What I learned is that the explanatory power of Darwin’s theory is far more vast that I had imagined when first accepting the challenge. I was familiar with evolution from taking biology and human origins courses at University, but I had never heard of Universal Darwinism or Evolutionary Psychology or Costly Signaling or any number of key concepts that ended up featuring heavily in the show.

(c) How has your rapping practice (scientific and otherwise) evolved?

My rapping practiced has evolved in the same way that everything else evolves, gradually and haphazardly in response to changing environmental circumstances. For instance, I would never have guessed when I started rapping at the age of 19 that I would end up in a science rapping niche, but each step seems to have followed effortlessly enough from the last along the way. I still attend to the same stylistic and musical concerns as before so that I keep improving my skills, but the content has taken some surprising turns. There’s an apt expression in hip-hop for this process (also the title of a Too-Short album): Get In Where You Fit In.

(d) Is there anything you’d like to add?

The Rap Guide to Evolution will be transferring to New York for an off-Broadway run in a couple of months, so come see the show while you can, since I might not be back for another two years at this rate!

I’m hoping to get there for Baba’s performance and his last comment definitely provides motivation in addition to the incentive provided by the sweet sounds of his special guests, Aaron Nazrul & the Boom Booms.

I have featured Baba and his work previously in these posts:

Nanocrystalline cellulose interview with Dr. Richard Berry of FPInnovations

5 Replies

Nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) is one of the most searched items on this blog so it seemed like a good idea to send some questions about it to a Canadian company, FPInnovations, that has been a leader in  its development.  [Edited for typo, July 7, 2011] Dr. Richard Berry, program manager for FPInnovations very kindly answered. First a little biographical information,

Dr. Richard Berry is the manager of the FPInnovations Chemical Pulping Program and he has been the leader of the nanotechnology initiative at FPInnovations for the last several years. Dr. Berry is a key contributor to ArboraNano. His scientific accomplishments include work on the elimination of chlorinated dioxins and the development of a variety of bleaching technologies. Dr. Berry has overseen the industrial application of his numerous inventions. He is the author of more than eighty peer-reviewed publications and patents. The prestigious 2009 Nano-industry award from NanoQuébec was given to him for his exceptional contribution to the development of Nanocrystalline Cellulose. The initiatives Dr. Berry has spearheaded in recent years have allowed Canada to position itself as a world leader in the development of this new nanotechnology industry.

Now for the  interview:

Q: In light of the new Domtar-FPInnovations plant [mentioned here in my July 16, 2010 posting] which is going to be built in Windsor, Québec, could you tell me a little about nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC). I have looked at your information sheet which notes that cellulose is: milled then hydrolyzed with the NCC separated and concentrated so it can be treated chemically for new uses.  In layperson’s terms, what’s cellulose?

A:         Cellulose is the most abundant polymer on earth and is the major constituent of all plants; cotton is 100% cellulose. Cellulose is made of chains of glucose molecules and these arrange into amorphous (soft) and crystalline (hard) regions. These structures provide flexibility and strength respectively to the fibres that are made of cellulose.

The hard crystalline regions are separated from the soft amorphous regions in the process that we are using which also causes the separation of the crystallites in the crystalline regions. These crystallites are nanocrystalline cellulose and have a needle shape approximately 200nm in length and 10 nm in diameter

Q: What does hydrolyze mean, in simple terms?

A:         Hydrolyze in this process means that we break the bonds between the glucose molecules. This reaction occurs far more rapidly in the soft amorphous regions of the cellulose structure leaving the hard crystalline regions largely intact

Q: After [Edited for grammar, July 7, 2011] all this processing, do you have nanocrystalline cellulose and how would you describe what nanocrystalline cellulose is?

A:         The process is to produce nanocrystalline cellulose but many of the processing steps are to ensure that the process is closed cycle and that the acid used is recovered and that the dissolved glucose can be separated to make energy, ethanol or higher value chemical products.

Nanocrystalline cellulose is the basic physical building block of plants which therefore have used nanotechnology for eons. The crystallites are the reinforcement elements providing strength in wood, paper and fibres.

Q: Does the process use up the entire log or are parts of it left over? What happens to any leftover bits?

A:         We are starting from the bleached chemical pulp which is, to a large extent, cellulose. The left over bits have actually been processed as part of the chemical pulp mill processes. The acid used is recovered and reused and the sugars are converted into other products; in the demonstration plant they will be converted into biogas.

Q: I understand you won’t want to give away any competitive advantages but could you describe at least partially the sort of chemical processing involved for these new applications?

A:         In some applications, there is no processing needed at all. In other applications, the formulation used allows the NCC to be effective. In further applications, surface modification is required to maximize the properties.

Q: Is the new plant (Domtar-FPInnovations) meant to be used for producing nanocrystalline cellulose particles for shipment elsewhere? Or will there be work on applications using the nanoparticles? If so, on which application(s) are you concentrating your efforts?

A:         The plant presently is for producing various grades of nanocrystalline cellulose for shipment elsewhere. The applications are being developed with partners in the new industry sectors that we are targeting. Amongst others, we have partners for applications in coatings, films and textiles.

Q: Is FPInnovations involved with the ArboraNano Centre of Excellence programme and its efforts to encourage NCC use in industries not usually associated with forest products? What might involvement entail?

A:         FPInnovations is one of the founding members and had a significant role in setting up ArboraNano.  Our involvement presently is as a supplier of NCC through our pilot plant in Pointe Claire and as members of both the Scientific Committee and Board of Arboranano.

Q: Assuming FPInnovations is attending the 2010 TAPPI [International Conference on Nanotechnology for the Forest Product Industry] in Finland, can you give me a preview of the company’s proposed presentation(s) at the conference?

A:         Representatives of FPInnovations will be at the conference but our involvement will be limited because much of the material we have developed is proprietary to ourselves and to the partners that we have. Our focus at this stage is commercial development.

Q: What kind of research is being done on possible health, safety and environment issues with regard to NCC?

A:         From the very beginning of our project, 20% of our funding has been spent on these issues. We are glad to say that the research has shown that NCC is in the category of “practically non toxic”, and mammalian studies done to assess inhalation, ingestion and dermal risk have all shown the material to be in the lowest category of risk. These results show that the size of a particle is not a determinant of its risk but as with chemicals it is the specific material that is critical in determining toxicity.

Q: Are there plans, at some point in the future, to list NCC on Charles McGovern’s Integrated Nano-Science Commodities Exchange or will your product be listed on some other commodities exchange?

A:         We do not view NCC at the moment as a commodity; it is a very specialized group of materials. We hope it will take a long time before it becomes a commodity.

Thank you very much Dr. Berry.

On a related matter, I was fortunate enough to receive a copy of the documentation that the Canadian federal government provided in response to Member of Parliament, Peter Julian’s (NDP), question about nanotechnology funding from 2005/6 – 2008/9. The response from Natural Resources Canada highlighted funding provided to FPInnovations in fiscal year 2007/8 of $2,308,000 and in fiscal year 2008/9,  a further, $3,2570,000 for a total of $5,565,000. Natural Resources Canada did not fund any nanotechnology research in 2005/6 or 2006/7.

One final note, former president and chief executive officer of FPInnovations, Ian de la Roche, PhD, will be the keynote speaker at the 10th Pacific Rim Bio-Based Composites Symposium Oct. 5-8, 2010 in Banff, Alberta. (Thanks to Joel Burford at Alberta Innovates Technology Futures for the information.)

Ideas becoming knowledge: interview with Dr. Rainer Becker (part 2 of 2)

Leave a reply

ETA Mar. 11, 2013: I was notified by Rainer Becker that his participation was cancelled and the organizers took the project in another direction. Consequently, much of what follows is no longer relevant. However, Dr. Becker had a few questions for me which are answered here.

Before getting to part 2 of Dr. Becker’s interview, I’m including this abbreviated introduction for anyone who hasn’t had a chance to read part 1 yet. From the April 22, 2010 news item on Nanowerk,

How do sensational ideas become commonly accepted knowledge? How does a hypothesis turn into certainty? What are the ways and words that bring results of scientific experiments into textbooks and people’s minds, how are they “transferred” into these domains? Science philosopher Dr. Rainer Becker has recently started dealing with such questions. Over the next three years, Becker will accompany the work of Professor Dr. Frank Rösl’s department at the German Cancer Research Center (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, DKFZ), which studies cancer-causing viruses. He is one of three scientists in an interdisciplinary joint project which is funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) with a total sum of approximately € 790,000.

…

In his future project, the philosopher [Becker] will study in real time, so to speak, how natural science data are being obtained, processed and communicated. As a “researcher of science”, he will observe the laboratory work from the perspective of the humanities and cultural science, he will do research in archives and will interview scientists.

In part 1, Dr. Becker discussed the interdisciplinary nature of the whole project and some of the theorists who’ve influenced his own work. Now on with part 2 of the interview about Dr. Becker’s project about how ideas become knowledge. ETA Mar.25.13: Photograph of Rainer Becker removed at his request.

5. I see mention of archives and scientists in the news release about your project and am wondering if you will be considering groups who are not scientists, e.g. clinical medical personal and/or patients as well. And if you do, how will you go about this?

A: Though the study will be more on knowledge (and according practices) and not so much ‘sociological’ in a broad sense, I already attended several formal and informal interviews with scientists (ranging from traditional to the point of focus group approaches in my own talks/seminars) – and, of course, non-scientists in the field, for example, as you mentioned, personal (so called ‚TA’s, also‚ simple workers’) and their special perspectives on the field.

Contact with patients though is a bit hard not least due to several concerns – at least of the institution I observe (and that at the same time formally is my employer) in my field, the DKFZ, do exist something called the ‘Krebsinformationsdienst’ – a phone-service for interested on the wide topics surrounding cancer. As I learned it is not a potential link to patients – because of privacy concerns. Though it would be a necessity – not at least a theoretical and practical one (you might recall Foucault’s topic of the ‘doublette’) – to talk with patients, it could become a little bit hard. I plan on talking to organized groups of concerned persons but have not done it yet. Also it could be interesting if scientists and patients could meet in a new way (not so much the ‘from bench to bedside’ way is done).

Another interesting field: All the concepts of ‘patient action groups’ etc. – they constituted a while back. All this groups and their relation to professionals surely changed the last 30 years: this could also be a field of inquiry. I’ll have to take a look. And: Surely I am highly interested to talk to patients, but its not so simple to get contacts…

6. How will the results be disseminated? I expect you will publish the study and present at conferences but are you planning other means of disseminating the information as well? e.g. a blog

A: Beside the publication of a study and presentation of the results first of all we are planning to do a book series – 8 to 14 books, a round 100 pages each (German-speakers might know the ‘Merve’-format: this is something we are thinking about); we have some titles yet, the first and second one is in the making. I progress writing on my first text for the first book in the series (on ‘strangeness’).

Blogs could be an option, but not yet – and if so, it would rather be a secondary option. Maybe – or relatively sure – we’ll open a internet-page with newest infos (with rss-feed).

7. Is there anything you’d like to add?

A: The last answer could also be my first Question: what do you do? what is your interest in a study like mine? What is your ‘mission’ (statement) – esp. of your blog? And what do you think: what significance do blogs have today in the field of science and its ‘communication’ (or ‘critique’ and each digital ‘companions’)?

Thank y0u,  it’s an unexpected treat to be asked questions and very disconcerting as I’m not used to it. Plus, it’s hard work coming up with answers.

(a) What do you do?

I’m a writer who specializes in science and technology topics and for the last few years I’ve focused on nanotechnology. I suppose you could also call me an independent scholar as I’m not associated with an academic institution and I occasionally give presentations at academic conferences about nanotechnology, new media, writing, and storytelling.

(b) What is your interest in a study like mine?

It is a long and winding story, which I will cut down as best I can:

In the 1990s, I was working on contract for a large telecommunications company and had the privilege of working for them a few times over a number of years. The time between the contracts was broken up so there were periods of 6 months or more where I was working on contracts for other companies. I noticed when I’d return to the telecommunications company that people would tell me I was using the terminology incorrectly. At first, I thought I’d misremembered but it kept happening and eventually I realized that I had (more or less) preserved the terminology’s meaning while the people working for the company had continued to develop it.

This notion was borrowed from something I came across about 20 years ago. I was working towards my undergraduate communications degree and while working on a paper about linguistics and  cultural issues I came across this notion about preserving/changing language and meaning over time in the context of immigrant communities. One of the more dramatic examples is in Quebec (where my mother is from) which hosts a population that has managed to preserve language and culture over a couple of centuries while the parent culture and language in France kept changing.

Also like most Francophones I’ve met, I’m always been interested in language and in my case that includes how words accrue meaning. My interest in your study is that the process of ideas becoming knowledge would seem to have a natural affinity with linguistics and communication, i. e., how words accrue meaning and how we communicate that meaning.

(c) What is your ‘mission’ (statement) – esp. of your blog?

My own mission statement or ‘raison d’être’, in its most general sense, is to assist communication between groups that don’t communicate well. Specifically, I am interested in taking science concepts and facilitating communication about them with and between various communities or cultural groups. Although sometimes I find that the communication is already taking place but it’s unrecognized as it’s occurring by means that are not privileged as ‘science communication’.

To this day, I’m not sure how I became so interested in nanotechnology which has been my focus for the last 3.5 years. I suspect it has to do both with the sound of the prefix ‘nano’ and its scale as scientists work directly with atoms and molecules. In high school, I used to fantasize that atoms were planets and that there were multiple universes existing at different scales and that the planet earth might really be an atom. As for those fantasies, I may have been influenced by Jonathan Swift’s ‘Gulliver’s Travels’ as well as science fiction television programmes that had people popping in and out of various time periods.

This blog is a way of expressing some of my ideas about science and technology, in this case nanotechnology, while noting and linking to the range of discussion that currently exists. I like to include pop culture (and, occasionally, high culture), business, science, philosophy and more because I view the process where words accrue meaning and/or meanings as one that requires communal engagement from a wide range of sectors. This blog has also allowed me to explore new ideas and connect with people of similar and new interests. Unexpectedly, I sometimes find myself engaged in a discovery of and discussion about Canadian science policy and another one on copyright, patents, and trademarks.

(d) And what do you think: what significance do blogs have today in the field of science and its ‘communication’ (or ‘critique’ and each digital ‘companions’)?

I have long been interested in the impact that new technology has on writing and thinking. (During that communications degree, I was forced to read Walter Ong’s book, Orality and Literacy, loathed it and dismissed it. In subsequent years, I have become haunted by it and the thesis that writing itself is a technology which affects thinking [the kinds of thoughts we have and the way in which we think them]. This also links to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis but going into that will  make this a much longer posting.) It seems to me that this too has an affinity with your study of ideas passing on into knowledge.

In any event, I ended up taking a master’s degree in Creative Writing and New Media (at De Montfort University in UK) where we discussed some of these ideas and more while exploring various media.As I learned, there are a number of discussions taking place about this technology and writing issues from a number of perspectives (I am getting to the science but it’s part of this larger movement).

What impact does using icons instead of words have on reading and writing? Are we using more visual data to communicate where words would have been used previously? (Note: I recently saw a visual data abstract for an article I was reading in a peer-reviewed science journal.) Are we gong to call this mashing together of words, visual, and auditory data transliteracy or multimodal discourse or something else? (The naming of things is important because while words can accrue and change meaning they also impose it.) Are the media which allow and encourage us to mash words, visual, and auditory data exerting influence on the science discussion and on the research itself? Those are some of questions that influence me and by extension this blog.

Given that I’m not particularly inclined to the technical, my own projects default to simpler technologies such as blogs and wikis while I keep an eye on more elaborate projects such as the math group that meets in 2nd Life (virtual reality) to play around with data in 12 dimensions, at least that’s their aim. There was also a nanotechnology project on 2nd Life’s Science Island. (I haven’t heard much about that one recently.)

Elsewhere on this blog, I have noted a science songs website (somewhere there’s one for medical songs) and that the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) ran a ‘Dancing with scientists’ contest in 2009 while the American Chemical Society (ACS) ran a couple of video contests that same year. One of the winning ACS videos was called, The Nano Song where you could learn about nanotechnology concepts from singing puppets. (It’s meant for adults and it does a pretty good job of explaining things.) YouTube hosts any number of science videos from business and academic institutions as well as from individuals.

As for where blogs (software) and ‘digital companions’ (hardware) belong in the science discourse, I’m going to make reference to two recent studies that have focused on the science discourse and the internet. The first suggests that people who learn about science concepts  on the internet (e.g. reading blogs) tend to be better informed than people who learn about those concepts via traditional media such as newspapers and television. The second study suggests that Google may be affecting the online science discourse by nudging search strategies in particular directions. While the specific focus is nanotechnology, something about the larger science discourse can be inferred from the data.

If you’re interested in these studies, here are the references (I’ve copied these from my previous posts on these studies):

(1) Citation: Anderson, Ashley A.; Brossard, Dominique; Scheufele, Dietram A. The changing information environment for nanotechnology: online audiences and content. Journal of Nanoparticle Research (DOI 10.1007/s11051-010-9860-2) forthcoming May 2010 issue.

(2)  Dietram Scheufele, member of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s research team, posted more about this newest paper on his nanopublic blog (May 7, 2010—I’ve tried to provide the link to the individual posting but if this doesn’t work, you have the date). For anyone interested in reading the team’s paper (Narrowing the nano discourse?), Scheufele provides a link for seamless guest access (click on the post’s title) to the paper on the Science Direct website.

As for information about ‘digital companions’, I haven’t come across anything yet although I am curious about the impact these much smaller screens have and it seems to me that Twitter (a true child of mobile phones and digital companions) which forces concision  is a likely area of future study for its impact on science discourse.

In any event, this blog allows me to gather and link information together in ways that stimulate my thinking and, hopefully, my readers’ thinking. The comments are hugely helpful in this process. The blog also acts as a repository and allows me to revisit my ideas months or even years later with fresh eyes.

Thank you for your time. [to Rainer]

Thank you for your interest! [from Rainer]

Ideas becoming knowledge: interview with Dr. Rainer Becker (part 1 of 2)

3 Replies

ETA Mar. 11, 2013: I was notified by Rainer Becker that his participation was cancelled and the organizers took the project in another direction. Consequently, much of what follows is no longer relevant. However, the discussion about knowledge and ideas and Becker’s theorists may be of some interest.

I’m very pleased to publish this interview (part 1 today) with Dr. Rainer Becker on a topic (how an idea becomes knowledge in the field of science) that has long interested me. First, some information about the research project and Dr. Becker from the April 22, 2010 news item on Nanowerk,

How do sensational ideas become commonly accepted knowledge? How does a hypothesis turn into certainty? What are the ways and words that bring results of scientific experiments into textbooks and people’s minds, how are they “transferred” into these domains? Science philosopher Dr. Rainer Becker has recently started dealing with such questions. Over the next three years, Becker will accompany the work of Professor Dr. Frank Rösl’s department at the German Cancer Research Center (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, DKFZ), which studies cancer-causing viruses. He is one of three scientists in an interdisciplinary joint project which is funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) with a total sum of approximately € 790,000.

…

Becker’s mission in Heidelberg is part of a research project entitled “Transfer knowledge – knowledge transfer. About the past and present of the transfer between life sciences and humanities.” The project is carried out by DKFZ jointly with the Center for Literary and Cultural Studies (Zentrum für Literatur- und Kulturforschung, ZfL) in Berlin. Project leaders are Professor Dr. Frank Rösl of DKFZ and Dr. Falko Schmieder of ZfL. It comprises three individual projects in which forms of knowledge transfer related to three different constellations of science history are studied in a cultural-scientific approach.

Dr. Becker’s project,

The third and final project, which is pursued by Rainer Becker at DKFZ, deals with the question of the relevance of current knowledge concepts such as the one that understands and experimentally studies cancer as a consequence of viral infections.

“I am pleased that we will explore the relevance of tumor virology across disciplinary borders and I hope we will gain fundamental insights into how scientific discourses develop and how they are ultimately accepted in scientific thought collectives,” said departmental head Frank Rösl about the relevance of the current project.

This is not Dr. Becker’s first such project, his doctoral thesis touched on some of the same themes of how scientific discourse develops,

Rainer Becker wrote his doctoral thesis while he was employed at the Institute of Philosophy of Darmstadt Technical University. There he made parallel studies of the social history of the computer and the “universal science” of cybernetics. Back then he already chose a topic that transcends borders between humanities and natural sciences. “While I was working on my doctoral thesis, I explored the question of ‘transfers’ – namely between technology, natural sciences and philosophy in the 1940s: The development of computers and cybernetics would not have been possible without prior conceptual and metaphorical ‘transfers’ between life sciences and technical sciences.”

In his future project, the philosopher will study in real time, so to speak, how natural science data are being obtained, processed and communicated. As a “researcher of science”, he will observe the laboratory work from the perspective of the humanities and cultural science, he will do research in archives and will interview scientists. It is for good reason that the project is located at DKFZ, because this is the place where findings from basic biological research become relevant for medicine and the public. Thus, the Nobel Prize-winning discovery by DKFZ’s former Scientific Director, Professor Harald zur Hausen, that particular viruses cause cervical cancer has led to a vaccine against this type of cancer.

Now for the interview:

1. First, congratulations on receiving funding for such a fascinating line of query. When does the project start and what is the period of time during which it will run?

A: Indeed, the funding delighted all of us. My sub-project in Heidelberg started in late October 2009, it will be supported for 3 years.

2. Will you be working alone or will you be working with an interdisciplinary team?

A: Currently I am doing my study in Heidelberg on my own, getting assisted locally by one of the project leaders, a biologist highly interested in interdisciplinary work: Prof. Frank Roesl, head of the department where I am doing my research. The other project leader, Dr. Falko Schmieder and two other science philosophers support me in Berlin, at the Center for Literary and Cultural Research (ZfL). Like me, both of them work on their own sub-projects while getting support by Dr. Schmieder: he does ensure the convergence of the sub-projects. We discuss the topics during our regular meetings – but also via email, skype, wikis for sharing documents etc.

Because the main focus of the project is historical, both of the other sub-projects work –like me in the past – in a more historical way: they try to elucidate the current situation in the Heidelberg lab of 2010 – molecular biological work on supposedly tumourgenic viruses – by working in archives, on in part comparable fields, but different time scales: (a) Dr. Birgit Griesecke – mainly doing studies on Ludwig Fleck – is working on the 1930s, (b) PD Dr. Peter Berz – researching contexts esp. around Jacques Monod – is working on the 1970s. Both help me to understand the current scientific situation in the corresponding historical context.

We also try to get additional funding options for one or two other researchers (e.g. sociologists, communication scientists) supporting our work in a interdisciplinary way.

3. Are there any theorists that have influenced how you are approaching this project?

A: The whole project is closely related to the work of the Polish bacteriologist and sociologist of science Ludwig Fleck. Its main theoretical references point to him – by as well trying to ‘refresh’ his approaches in ways more adequate to the current scientific situation: not only everything that happened after the ‘linguistic turn’ and all the concerns on ‘media’, but also dealing with questions on the significance of ‘things’ in the labs around 2010. This confrontation of Fleck with the present research raises several questions, for example:

Do apparatuses reflect or even materialize special sorts of scientific ‘thought-styles’?

Do specific ‘thought-collectives’ gather or even get constituted around special lab equipments to what extent do they form prior styles of thinking – what kind of ‘migration-background’ has each ‘thing’ with what implications and what styles of local adoption?

What exactly is the correlation between assemblages of things, humans, animals, discourses and what Mary Douglas coined ‘worlds of thought’ – and their inhabitants / participants?

What is their contribution to the specific local – and the same time globally connected – scientific way of worldmaking (in the field of cancer research)?

What political implications potentially are embedded in all that fields – from specific ways of problematisation to its effects?

My own theoretical background was mainly influenced by the philosophical tradition of structuralism and so called ‘post-structuralism’, especially Michel Foucault – so phenomenological traditions also interest me. Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, J.-F. Lyotard, M. Serres and M. de Certeau framed my more traditional approaches to political philosophy on the one hand (from Plato, Hobbes, Kant, Nietzsche, Weber, Arendt to the early/middle Frankfurt School, French Postmodernist to current debates on ‘radical democratic’-thinkers as well as philosophical experiments like tiqqun) but on the same time on the other hand to different fields of knowledge, esp. concerning the relation technology – art – bios (I wrote my dissertation on a ‘coevolutionary’ history of the ‚universal machine’/ computers and ‘first’ cybernetics in connection to what Foucault termed ‘biopower’ – coming from Canguilhem and handing this concept over to E. Fox-Keller, I. Hacking, D. Haraway and L. Kay).

In my field, a biological laboratory dealing with viruses and cancer, Michel Serres’ thoughts on different phenomena of ‘inbetween’/’3rds’ as well as Foucault’s spatial approaches in their connection to knowledge/power (heterotopia, taxonomy/order, diagrams like ‘panoptism’) currently form reflections of my experiences more and more – as well as my contention with prominent ‘first wave’ researchers in the field of science/laboratory studies, e.g. B. Latour (esp. the ‘early’), K. Knorr-Cetina, H.J. Rheinberger (esp. beyond his Heidegger-References), P. Rabinow (both theoretical and practical work) and D. Haraway (esp. ‘when species meet’), flanked by what could be coined a wide field of ethnology in the broadest sense (C. Lèvi-Strauss, M. Douglas, C. Geertz, E. Goffman): ethnology of the own, western culture interested me since my first contacts with poststructuralism/Nietzsche. In that range, scientific and everyday practices and their relation to ‘strangeness’ of the field (for the lab-practitioners, for me) more and more comes to focus (think of the concept of ‘problematisation’) – and also theorist of  ‘practice’ keep framing my attention (A. Pickering, K. Sunder-Rajan, M. de Certeau). I hope the projects (my colleagues and mine) will contribute something at least in that latter field.

4. The description in the press release for how you plan to go about your project reminded me of Bruno Latour’s Laboratory Life where he described the creation of a ‘scientific fact’. Obviously you won’t be repeating that work, so I’m wondering if you could describe your process and goals in more detail.

see (3)

Tomorrow: more details about the project and how the research will be disseminated.

Interview with Charles McGovern, Chief Executive Officer, INSCX (part 3 of 3)

Leave a reply

This is part 3 of Charles McGovern’s interview. I’ve copied the following paragraphs over from part 1 of the series.

I’ve been curious about the Integrated Nano-Science and Commodity Exchange (INSCX) since it was announced in February 2010 (first mentioned on this blog, Feb. 3, 2010) and on learning that the CEO (Chief Executive Officer), Charles McGovern, would be presenting at the Nano Materials 2010 Conference (June 8 – 10, 2010, London, England), I sent him a series of questions about this new exchange.  He very kindly answered my questions and supplemented them with more questions and answers for a comprehensive view of the proposed INSCX.

I am posting all my questions (italicized) and many of the additional questions in this series of interview postings. (The entire set of questions and answers will be available at the INSCX website prior to the Nano Materials conference in June.)

In the document I received from Charles, there is a legal disclaimer which I’m reproducing here,

This document reflects views held by INSCX exchange in response to questions posed by the interviewer. The replies should not be construed as a formal invitation to use engineered nanomaterials for the purposes of speculative investment. INSCX exchange is primarily a commercial exchange which permits non-commercial memberships for the purposes of agency broking and qualified speculative investment fully appreciative of risks to capital committed for such purposes. In addition the exchange expresses the view that comments other than those expressed herein listed in any published interview should be noted as attributable to observations expressed by the interviewer where appropriate.

So, here is part 3: the international scene, how INSCX is being funded, a  preview of Charles McGovern’s Nano Materials 2010 presentation, etc.,

Q: Are you expecting participation from countries outside the EU? If so, how have you prepared for that?

A: Yes we do expect and invite participation from outside the EU. INSCX will operate as a global market in the Asian, European and North American time zones. It follows therefore the exchange will ensure member compliance with both its own rules and regulations and whatever legislation and regulation is applicable in the countries where members supply and/or receive engineered nanomaterials. INSCX are  obligated to ensure member and customer compliance with existing and future national and international regulations pertaining to the manufacture, use, application and/or exchange of engineered nanomaterials. This compliance apart from being a commercial necessity for any industry expecting capital support to drive supply capacity and demand is also law.

Q: Can you tell me something about or offer a preview of the topic for the speech you will deliver as a keynote speaker at the NanoMaterials 2010 event?

A: The conference organised by IntertechPIRA and NanoCentral is a welcome development in the interests of furthering commercial discussions to explore how best to pursue the safe, beneficial and profitable commercialisation of nanomaterials. The exchange has been invited to address the conference alongside institutions such as Lloyds of London, Cranfield University, Cientifica not to mention corporations of the caliber of Intel and Bayer to name but a few. We are also aware and supportive of the approach adopted in Canada and Australia in addition to the work of platforms such as Minam and NANOfutures. These are collectively very encouraging developments warranting universal industry collaboration.

We already have developed working relations with many of the attendees to NanoMaterials2010 and are keen to explore how best the exchange can drive increased trade flows across engineered nanomaterials. The wider nanobusiness community should be encouraged by the development, as within the body of speakers represents both expertise in nanoscience and commerce. The uniting of both science and business can only be positive for the wider development of the industry. Outside of the EU we are also well aware of similar encouraging developments in the United States and Asia.

As regards our own presentation, this will focus on the commercial merits of the exchange project to suppliers and users of nanomaterials in addition to highlighting regulatory benefit and our efforts to create capital frameworks of excellence to support and nurture emerging nanobusiness on a global scale.

Q: Capital networks of excellence?

A: Capital in our view needs to support nanoscience and nanotechnology, and let’s not forget the broad technology offers investors a lifeline to achieve sustainable returns through the structured investment of risk capital. We fully believe capital can brought to bear to support nanobusiness provided we as an industry act now to put our own house in order. Self‐regulation is the first of many steps we should take. No‐one needs to convince the exchange as to the potential of the industry, and without revealing too much at this stage, a great deal of behind‐the‐scenes effort which already involves the exchange and participants disposed to the workings of Wall Street and the City of London are underway to convince the global capital market to rally to the support of the fledgling industry. More will become apparent as we progress in due course.

Q: I noticed that you have a number of speaking engagements planned for May. Is this for raising awareness or for raising funds?

A: Yes our speaking schedule is busy at present and we have made several presentations thus far both in private within the City of London and to the recent Royal Society UK‐Russia collaborations seminar. Our engagements relate to explaining to the nanocommunity the reasons why it needs the exchange and are

not part of any internal fund‐raising exercise. We are involved with the Scotland based Institute of Nanotechnology and the British Chamber of Commerce to discuss a variety of relevant topics. A more intense schedule of commercial engagements is earmarked in the run up to formal launch of the exchange trading platform both within the UK and overseas particularly within the financial markets of the United States and Asia.

Q: How is a commodity exchange funded?

A: All of the world’s commodity exchanges are managed by commercial corporations. These exchanges are funded in the normal way through capital investment, whether public or private equity and are sustained by deriving revenue through levying exchange clearing and member fees. INSCX exchange has acquired the resource to deliver by first quarter 2011 the world’s first dedicated commodity exchange platform for engineered nanomaterials and the capacity to set industrial specifications for trade. The exchange when it is ready will follow a formal IPO route. In the interim we will be sustained through clearing and member fess derived from increased trade flows across engineered nanomaterials in the same manner as traditional commodity exchanges are.

Q: I noticed that you’ve started a business called Nano Capital Markets, which is related to and in addition to the exchange? Can you explain the relationship? Plus, I notice there’s mention of Assured Nano which applies some sort of vetting process for the INSCX. Is this agency at arms‐length or is this another venture of yours?

A: Firstly, we need to separate AssuredNano from Nano Capital Markets. Nano Capital Markets (NCM) is the brokerage arm of NanoTech Partnership and the first appointed Broker/Dealer to the INSCX exchange. The role of NCM is to act as agent and principal to execute trade in listed instruments based on the physical supply of accredited and compliant engineered nanomaterials. As membership levels on INSCX from within the global securities and commodity industry increases, NCM will be one of a series of approved Broker/Dealers servicing customer requirements in the broad suite of raw materials. INSCX exchange does not trade, nor does any established commodity exchange trade for that matter, rather INSCX provides the facility for member firms of the exchange to trade. NCM is a wholly separate entity from INSCX exchange and will similar to any member of the exchange be held subject to exchange rules and regulations and any legislation governing the manufacture, use, application and/or exchange of engineered nanomaterials.

AssuredNano are wholly independent from both NCM and INSCX exchange and not another business venture as has been suggested. The role of AssuredNano is to coordinate the accreditation of all supply onto the marketplace using standards of evaluation set by AssuredNano itself. AssuredNano offers, for the first time, a way for responsible manufacturers to address nanomaterial SHE concerns based upon the use of good current practice. In so doing it provides a demonstration to all stakeholders in nanomaterials and nanotechnology that SHE issues are being taken seriously and tackled responsibly and that the health and safety of people exposed to nanomaterials or nano‐enabled products will be ensured. Most importantly, AssuredNano is designed by industry experienced SHE experts to deliver a commonsense and realistic approach to nanomaterial SHE.

Q: Who controls INSCX?

A: INSCX exchange is to be managed by an independent Board of Governors elected from across expertise in nanoscience, specialist academic disciplines, the professions and the securities and commodity industry. The Honorary Chairman of the Board is a former head of international trading at the Wall Street investment house, PaineWebber who has decades long experience in the securities and commodity markets not to mention playing a pivitol role in developing momentum on Wall Street to use the fledgling NASDAQ market during the 1970s.

The Board also contains an elected representative who acts as a lead consultant on commodities to UNCTAD, another who is the current chair of nanotechnology at one of the world’s most respected business universities. The chair of the Board is the current CEO of NanoCentral, Assurednano are also represented as are specialist academic disciplines in applied mathematics and advanced computing. All Board members are not shareholders in the exchange operating company and are obligated to the exchange membership to ensure the exchange’s rules and regulations are adhered to. Another function of the Board is to further discussion within nanoindustry, industrial demand and national governments to develop further commercial cohesion.

Q: When is the exchange to launch?

A: Formal live trading launch is scheduled first quarter 2011. By June the exchange’s official website will be uploaded at www.inscx.com enabling users to register and to ensure compliance in legislation governing the manufacture, use, application and exchange of engineered nanomaterials. Membership is open to any global organisation that agrees to abide by exchange compliance rules, and dedicated Market Managers are set aside to help registrants regardless of fiscal size use the exchange and its extended networks of capital and business support excellence. INSCX is committed to enabling existing and emerging nanobusiness demonstrate to global capital its true economic value and societal potential and equally committed to ensuring capital is disposed to fully appreciate the significance of the generic fields of nanoscience and nanotechnology. We can only encourage our industry to become involved with the exchange project.

Q: Is there anything you’d like to add?

A: INSCX exchange offers a great deal of commercial flexibility necessary to drive trade flows across engineered nanomaterials and will on launch provide a fast, effective and transparent route to the international physical nanomaterials markets enabling the wider industry to grow reliant first and foremost on its own strengths.

Thank you Charles McGovern, CEO, INSCX.

Interview with Charles McGovern, Chief Executive Officer, INSCX (part 2 of 3)

Leave a reply

This is part 2 of Charle’s McGovern’s interview. I’ve copied the following paragraphs over from part 1 of the series.

I’ve been curious about the Integrated Nano-Science and Commodity Exchange (INSCX) since it was announced in February 2010 (first mentioned on this blog, Feb. 3, 2010) and on learning that the CEO (Chief Executive Officer), Charles McGovern, would be presenting at the Nano Materials 2010 Conference (June 8 – 10, 2010, London, England), I sent him a series of questions about this new exchange.  He very kindly answered my questions and added more questions and answers for a comprehensive view of the proposed INSCX.

I am posting all my questions (italicized) and many of the additional questions in this series of interview postings. (The entire set of questions and answers will be available at the INSCX website prior to the Nano Materials conference in June.)

In the document I received from Charles, there is a legal disclaimer which I’m reproducing here,

This document reflects views held by INSCX exchange in response to questions posed by the interviewer. The replies should not be construed as a formal invitation to use engineered nanomaterials for the purposes of speculative investment. INSCX exchange is primarily a commercial exchange which permits non-commercial memberships for the purposes of agency broking and qualified speculative investment fully appreciative of risks to capital committed for such purposes. In addition the exchange expresses the view that comments other than those expressed herein listed in any published interview should be noted as attributable to observations expressed by the interviewer where appropriate.

So, here is Part 2:  self-regulation and paradigm shifts:

Q: What do you mean by Self‐Regulation?

A: All commodity exchanges have developed through a process of self‐regulation. National governments have never in the history of capitalism developed the industrial process of trade, using commodity exchanges. Rather they have encouraged interest in a given resource to first come together to agree working processes of trade using the commodity exchange methodology and then sought to develop a legislative framework based on the outcome. Self‐regulation is the process where trade Supplier, Purchaser and Investor have come together since the 16th century to agree standards and trade process across metals, grains, polymers, fibres, fuels, electricity and several other raw materials holding universal application across the world of global business. It is not a new concept in a business context, and certainly one nanoscience and nanotechnologies needs to embrace in the context of the raw nanomaterials base underpinning either.

Q: Commodity exchanges are regulated?

A: Yes primarily by those who participate using the commodity exchange in question in accordance with the respective exchange’s rules and regulations. Government in the context of financial regulation relates in the main toward ensuring the interests of private investment capital committed to speculative gain trading listed raw materials or commodities is safeguarded. Private capital being individual savings invested with mutual or specific commodity funds who in turn invest for return in commodities, or shares using individual savings. The New York Stock Exchange opened for business in the 1790’s, but the Securities and Exchange Commission did not materialise until the 1930s in the aftermath of the Great Depression where individuals had lost their savings in the 1929 crash. Similarly the US Congress created the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in 1974 as an independent agency with the mandate to regulate commodity futures and option markets in the United States, while the world had used commodity exchanges for centuries prior to this legal development.

Q: Will INSCX be regulated?

A: Yes INSCX will be regulated by its members as a commercial commodity exchange following the historical Self‐Regulatory approach. Self‐regulation is by definition much stronger than a reliance of formal legislation. Speculation on INSCX will only be permitted by qualified funds set aside solely for the purpose of speculation, to be used by professional investors who fully understand risk to investment capital, and not personal savings of individuals held in various investment funds which invest for gain in traditional listed commodities. INSCX will of course follow appropriate industry standards as established within the financial community, but is primarily a commercial as opposed to investment marketplace meeting the needs of trade interest in nanomaterials. The exchange will by definition also ensure member adherence to any formal legislation and regulations governing the manufacture, use, application and/or exchange of engineered nanomaterials. As global capital support for nanomaterials develops traction INSCX will move to structure the regulated listing of engineered nanomaterials as investment‐grade commodities in their own right. Progress toward investor acceptance of nanomaterials as investment-grade commodities can only develop gradually. INSCX as a commercial exchange initially is the point of departure toward that aim.

Q: Nanotechnology is not the new asbestos?

A: No‐one is saying that it is least of all INSCX exchange. What is being said it simply that it becomes easier for ill‐informed opinion to snipe at the wider industry when we ourselves fail to develop self‐regulatory frameworks, practically ignore government requests for collaboration, waste scarce capital convening talking to ourselves conferences whilst continuing to develop universal trade associations that are akin to having a coffee producer talking to a wheat farmer or a steel magnate in a practical commercial context. We need to accept a need for change as opposed to waiting for national governments to tell us we have to change, and adopt a maturity that can openly embrace criticism however genuine, ill‐informed or loaded against the development of the wider industry.

Q: Regulation is developing in nanoscience, how can INSCX help?

We are fully conscious of the economic infancy of nanoscience and nanotechnologies and applaud the efforts of nanobusiness, academia and regulators to date. The lack of an industrial self‐regulatory framework is a constructive criticism expressed in the common interest and should not be construed as a loaded side‐swipe. Bear in mind it took centuries for society to achieve the trade efficiencies we have today in the context of traditional materials and assessing our current industry situation in light of the historical fact is warranted. INSCX exchange is disposed to bring into being the missing component of selfregulation.

The exchange will reflect the interest of business engaged in the supply and use of engineered nanomaterials and is uniquely capable of reflecting business and capital concerns to government given the fact we have the input of expertise in nanoscience and capital investment within the ruling body of the exchange. All established commodity exchanges regularly liaise with national governments reflecting business concerns. Suppliers and Purchasers of engineered nanomaterials can use INSCX to present a unified and specific voice to national governments. The fact our interest in seeking to secure increased trade flows across engineered nanomaterials meets with the common shared interest our industry has with capital and national government, that being to ensure exploitation to benefit both commerce and society is a feature of all business.

No responsible industry has a commercial interest in pursuing a course of action which opens the door to the possibility of future legislative sanction arising from negligence or unsafe products. It is not a matter where nanoscience and nanotechnology can afford to pontificate any longer as to whether or not it should work with government, it is a necessity dictated through any sensible appreciation of commercial logic.

Q: Nanoscience and nanotechnologies will create a paradigm shift?

A: Yes neither the paradigm shift, nor the accelerating nature of nanoscience and nanotechnology cannot and is not being played down or ignored by the exchange. In fact the opposite is the case insofar as we understand the significance both in the context of science and more importantly as regards how the innovations can be structured to sustain commercial and societal benefit. INSCX is geared to encourage innovation fully appreciative of the radical nature of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The question is not will a paradigm happen, but when and how?

Q: How will INSCX solve the paradigm dilemma?

A: To assume INSCX exchange alone can solve the paradigm dilemma is to belittle the efforts of science and national governments who have grappled with the dilemma for the best part of a decade. How does society structure a technology that threatens to move in effect from the wheel to the jet engine to the space station in a decade never mind over a few centuries? How do we deal with issues such as molecular self‐assembly, the use of programmable matter, or at the more simple level with a throw‐away culture in society which is confronted by materials that have better wear, tear and abrasion qualities? These are all exciting developments of fundamental concern to more than just ourselves here at INSCX. What INSCX exchange can do is add another means for vested interests to assess and structure toward the inevitable paradigm shift.

Q: How can INSCX help?

A: In the first instance all business requires the scarce resource of capital, to further investment in plant capacity all the way to the product delivery to the shop counter. Capital reallocation is always a protracted process. Despite ambitious and inflated assumption to the contrary, world capital resource is acting out a watching brief toward nanoscience and nanotechnology. There has been selective as opposed to universal capital support, while most nanobusiness remains cash‐starved reliant on public as opposed to private sources of funding. Equally the industry has not reached a position where it can withstand the conditions of private capital investment as displayed by the IPO performance of many nanobusinesses throughout the past decade. There have been notable collapses and stock price performance has generally been discouraging. We personally believe nanobusiness is adopting too keen a disposition toward seeking third‐tier equity listings. This is not the way forward in our opinion, and actually not necessary, as there are other options which should be obvious to our industry.

The exchange process followed by INSCX will provide a basis for capital to first assess the merits of reallocation in favour of nanoscience and nanotechnologies by proving the fundamental economic value to attribute the raw nananomaterials base underpinning nanoscience and nanotechnologies. Secondly, the commodity exchange process will provide industrial demand with the opportunity to quantify the essential commercial variables of price, standard, supply and indemnification delivering into being an efficient process of global trade based on the increasing use of engineered nanomaterials. Increased demand and access to exchange facilities such as hedging, syndication of supply and trade finance will benefit nanoproducers. Thirdly, INSCX have contracted a leading global measurement and characterisation company to establish industrial standards in characterisation methodology and practice alongside industry and established links with ISO Committee 229 for the purposes of developing more uniform materials specifications. Finally, INSCX within the UK already work with DEFRA to deliver into being a working reporting structure similar to that employed by the US CFTC in the context of engineered nanomaterials. The reporting structure will enable market participants to trade anonymously with full provision for legislative inquiry when ordered in law to reveal counterparties to any trade executed on the exchange.

The cumulative effect will be to present a situation where capital reallocation and national governments can be disposed to structure the economic usefulness of innovation. The market process has been used as the core foundation through which society has sought to achieve an orderly transition from old to new  innovation all throughout economic history. INSCX exchange cannot alone solve the dilemma, it can provide a further basis to move toward a solution.

Tomorrow is part 3: the international scene, how INSCX is being funded, a preview of Charles’ Nano Materials 2010 presentation, and more.

Interview with Charles McGovern, Chief Executive Officer, INSCX (part 1 of 3)

1 Reply

I’ve been curious about the Integrated Nano-Science and Commodity Exchange (INSCX) since it was announced in February 2010 (first mentioned on this blog, Feb. 3, 2010) and on learning that the CEO (Chief Executive Officer), Charles McGovern, would be presenting at the Nano Materials 2010 Conference (June 8 – 10, 2010, London, England), I sent him a series of questions about this new exchange.  He very kindly answered those questions and added more questions and answers for a comprehensive view of the proposed INSCX.

I am posting all my questions (italicized) and many of the additional questions in this series of interview postings. (The entire set of questions and answers will be available at the INSCX website prior to the Nano Materials conference in June.)

In the document I received from Charles, there is a legal disclaimer which I’m reproducing here,

This document reflects views held by INSCX exchange in response to questions posed by the interviewer. The replies should not be construed as a formal invitation to use engineered nanomaterials for the purposes of speculative investment. INSCX exchange is primarily a commercial exchange which permits non-commercial memberships for the purposes of agency broking and qualified speculative investment fully appreciative of risks to capital committed for such purposes. In addition the exchange expresses the view that comments other than those expressed herein listed in any published interview should be noted as attributable to observations expressed by the interviewer where appropriate.

So, here is Part 1 (this part is a primer for someone like me, someone who doesn’t know much about commodity exchanges):

Q: I have a nebulous understanding of commodities exchanges. Could you explain the purpose of a commodity exchange and how it differs from a stock exchange?

A: The fundamental difference between a stock and a commodity exchange relates primarily to what is permitted for trade. A stock exchange such as the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) facilitates trade in equity, shares of listed corporations such as IBM, whereas a commodity exchange, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) for example, facilitates trade in commodities, fuels, grains, agricultural produce and so forth.

Q: Why a Nano Commodity Exchange now?

A: The answer relates to what engineered nanomaterials are, and the role commodity exchanges play in the business world. We have filed intellectual property to create a commodity exchange dedicated to facilitate trade in accredited materials derived in whole or in part from application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies.

Nanomaterials, while being precision engineered, are nonetheless in a commercial context raw materials, in much the same context as Crude oil, wheat or metals are raw materials used to manufacture, or refine fuels, flour, or base metals used across many sectors of industry. Many commentators have trumpeted the commercial potential of nanoscience and nanotechnologies, but few have focused on what global business actually needs to make industrial use the technology platform a commercial reality.

Q: What do you mean by a Commercial Reality?

A: There is no doubt that nanoscience and nanotechnologies are finding applications in today’s business world, but in a fragmented manner which threatens commercial sustainability of individual and collective nano‐business models. Common sense dictates that nanomaterials being the raw materials base of nanoscience and nanotechnology are regarded for what they are, namely raw materials used to further process toward application and/or product and not something because of scientific nomenclature that remains beyond the comprehension of global business leaders. Wonder solutions are nothing new in the business world, what translates wonder to commercial fact, i.e. world industry actually using the wonder solution as opposed to viewing with mere incredulity and of late some annoyance, is how a trading model can operate to use the wonder solution to make commercial progress whilst also serving to sustain any business model engaged in the supply of the wonder resource.

Q: What relevance then is a Commodity Exchange?

A: The role of any commodity exchange is to structure the trade process to facilitate the allocation of competing interest across resources and materials, raw materials or commodities to use the more general term.

Q: What is the business relevance of a commodity exchange?

A: The relevance of the commodity exchange is nothing new. Since the 16th century business has used the methodology of a commodity market to structure the trade processes in raw materials, whether it be metals, oils, grains or products. Industrial suppliers and purchasers of commodities use these exchanges to quantify price, material standard, indemnity and supply capacity, while national governments rely on these self‐regulating markets to shape legislation and supervise national interests in the allocation of raw materials resource. Capital investment bases its perception of risk/reward afforded any economic sector on first establishing the variables of price, supply capacity, indemnity and standard associated with the suite of raw materials any economic sector relies on to further manufacture toward application and/or end‐product. The methodology of a commodity exchange enables these competing interests to interact to ensure commercial cohesion.

Q: Can you provide an example?

A: Several could be provided. Imagine how the world economy would use grains, metals, oils or whatever without some organised process of trade? Imagine a giant such as Boeing continuing its commercial reliance on the raw material of aluminum in the absence of a commodity exchange where the raw material traded openly? A simple example to illustrate the relevance of a commodity exchange would be to assess the relevance in a common business activity, say a transport company reliant on fuel, or a refining company reliant on Crude oil. How could a refining company manage its affairs with cohesion if it could not quantify the commercial variables or price, standard, supply capacity or indemnification associated with Crude oil? Equally, how much would a transport company, reliant on say diesel fuel, a derivative of Crude oil, price a transport business model in a situation where no‐one could guarantee the quality, supply or price of either Crude oil or diesel? How would a capital lender or investor assess the commercial worth of either the transport business or the refinery, and more to the point what government reliant on Crude oil and transport to drive the economic progress of the economy could permit continuance of such as fragmented process or commercial interaction in the interests of sound economic management or societal benefit?

Q: Nanomaterials are different?

A: Exactly how are they different in a commercial context from any other raw material used in a process of manufacture, application or end product? Oil is a different raw material or commodity from wheat, electricity differs from metal, a carbon nanotube differs from Ti02, but all are raw materials used to make some application or product? Granted oil is refined into petrol whereas a Carbon nanotube is derived through CVD. Before the combustion engine arrived few outside of informed circles knew what refining meant as is the case now with CVD. The difference is I can call a broker to tell me the price of oil, I can source well over a hundred different grades if I so desire, the same for several metals or wheats and the exchanges where they trade ensures if I pay for something I am assured quality product, standard, indemnity, delivery whilst not having my business model held to the benign grace of a single supplier. I can also supply or source the material forward, unwind my currency exposure and access trade financing.

Within nanomaterials I cannot do any of this, as these facilities are provided through a commodity exchange, but yet as a business I am expected to transform my business model to rely of these as alternative raw materials. Nanomaterials may be unique, precision engineered enabling a host of applications but these attributes are of no benefit whatsoever if I cannot establish certain variables or adopt trade techniques using these materials to benefit my business model. I can satisfy all my requirements using traditional materials so why should I change to use a suite of materials where I have no assurances? These are often typical of the blunt arguments presented by the real business world when we suggest they consider the wider use of nanomaterials. Sooner rather than later we all need to listen to what exactly is being said instead of burying our heads in the proverbial sand of scientific wonder and wishful thinking.

Q: What is the solution?

A: Solutions in business are never easy. Nanoscience and nanotechnology can help itself to attract hard as opposed to soft investment capital. Our industry needs to develop self‐regulation as a cornerstone of its future development. By hard I mean hands‐on where commercial management deficiencies are addressed and solved so as to ensure commercial sustainability and return for medium to long term value investment. Science and research are vital components toward commercial and societal benefit, but science and research needs to deliver commercial results. Results mean sales, profits and investor returns not just promise of a return.

With all due respect to the scientific community, the art of selling or financial management are not component parts of the scientific curriculum, nor is the appreciation of capital investment. We have to play to collective strengths as investor tolerance of failed technologies has been stretched to breaking point through hard experience this past decade alone. In short we need to employ as many salespeople and investment professionals as we do scientists and researchers who can carry the message of nanoscience into the world of global capital while developing visibility in trade process to gain commercial traction.

Thank you Charles for taking the time to explain the basics of commodities exchanges and why the time is ripe for a nano materials commodity exchange  in such a clear way. Tomorrow there’s commentary on self-regulation and paradigm shifts.

Interview about memristors with Forrest H Bennett III

17 Replies

In response to my posting about memristors the other day, Forrest Bennett made intriguing comments which I followed up with some questions that he has kindly taken the time to answer. I usually split the interviews over a few days but this time I think it’s best that the interview remain in one piece. First a few biographical details, then the Q & A. [Square brackets indicate a detail that I’ve added for clarification.]

Forrest H Bennett III is a senior research scientist at Genetic Programming, Inc. He has published 55 papers and a book, “Genetic Programming III: Darwinian Invention and Problem Solving”. He holds 7 patents in machine learning, automatic programming, analog circuit design, molecular mechanics, modular robotics, programmable smart membranes, reconfigurable hardware, and control systems.

Q & A

> 1.. Could you expand your comment [in response to my blog posting of April 5, 2010] that memristors have potential by indicating what those are?

The main potential of memristors is to replace current flash memory devices. Flash memory is used in almost all digital products: cell phones, cameras, camcorders, USB memory sticks, music players, ebooks, PDAs, and increasingly netbooks, notebooks, tablets, and servers. Flash memory is currently a $20 billion market and growing. Flash memory storage is preferred over hard disks because it is smaller, faster, lower powered, and inherently more reliable because it has no moving parts.

So there is a large and growing demand for inexpensive higher capacity flash memory. This requires chip makers to shrink these flash memory chips ever smaller and smaller. The problem is that this is getting quite challenging, and will become more so in the next few years.

Memristors could meet this demand for low-cost high-density memory. Memristors are inherently simple, small, fast, and low powered. Moreover, engineers at HP claim that they can construct memristor memories in 3D instead of just the 2D of current flash technology. Memristors are not exotic to manufacture, and hence could be quite inexpensive. In fact, current memristors are produced using standard chip production facilities, but not yet in sufficient quantities for productization.

There is also a lot of discussion recently about using memristors to build “neuromorphic” systems. Neuromorphic systems are supposed to work analogously to the way brains work. Memristors could be used to build neuromorphic systems that are smaller, faster, and cheaper than could be built using conventional digital technology. The reason that memristors are considered for this task is that mathematically they behave similarly to the synapses in neurons.

> 2.. Is the criterion (or one of them) for defining a new fourth element circuit that someone assigns a unique measurement for the element?

There isn’t really a rigorous way to define what a new circuit element would have to look like. But there are three arguments against the idea that a memristor is a 4th circuit element:

First, the weakest argument is that memristance is measured in the same units (ohms) as resistors, whereas the standard 3 circuit elements each have their own units of measure. This is a very simple and intuitive way to think about it, but it’s not a rigorous argument.

Second, a stronger argument is based on what we now know about memcapacitors and meminductors. Now you might be temped to regard memcapacitors and meminductors as the 5th and 6th new fundamental circuit elements, but nobody does. Why?

If you stand back and look at the actual behavior of these 6 circuit elements, it is very clear that they naturally fall into two groups. One group is the normal resistor, capacitor, and inductor. The other group contains the new memresistor, memcapacitor, and meminductor. There is no way to consider the memristor to be the 4th element of the first group. The unmistakable distinction between these two groups is that the first group are “linear” elements, and the second group are “nonlinear” elements. What does that mean?

In a linear element there is a very simple relationship between the inputs and the outputs. So if you double the input, it doubles the output. If you cut the input in half, it cuts the output in half.

But in a nonlinear element the relationship between the input and the output can be much more complex. In fact, nonlinear elements can have arbitrarily complex relationships between inputs and outputs.

The third and strongest argument against the 4th element idea actually comes from Chua’s own 2003 paper, “Nonlinear Circuit Foundations for Nanodevices”, which is a wonderful paper. It actually contains an idea even more exciting than the idea of a “4th element”. He shows an entire periodic table of circuit elements! Not only that, it’s an infinite periodic table of circuit elements! If you think he might just be pulling elements out of a hat, I must point out that he proves in this paper that all of these circuit elements are *required* if you want to be able to build all possible circuits.

Now if you look at this periodic table of circuit elements, you will see that they fall naturally into 4 classes. There is one class that contains both capacitors and memcapacitors, another class that contains inductors and meminductors, and another class that contains *both* resistors and memristors. That is the strongest argument against the “4th element” idea: Chua’s own paper puts resistors and memristors into the *same* class of elements.

You may have noticed that I mentioned only 3 of the 4 classes in the periodic table. That’s right, there *is* a 4th class of devices that you’ve never heard discussed, but it’s not memristors!

> Does Chua still theorize that the memristor is a fourth circuit element?

Yes, he is still sticking by that as of 2003 at least. If you want to call memristors the 4th, memcapacitors the 5th, meminductors the 6th, then you are forced keep going through the entire periodic table and talk about the 7th, 8th, and so on up to infinity. That’s fine. However, you can not say that a memristor is as different from a resistor as a capacitor is from an inductor – that’s not true. And you can see that it’s not true by looking at Chua’s own periodic table.

> 3.. In mentioning the memcapacitors and meminductors along with memristors, you suggest that all of them are non-linear “generalizations” and more accurately viewed as subsets rather than new categories. Could you explain the concept of a non-linear generalization in language that could be understood by a non-technical audience?

(See above explanation of linear vs nonlinear.)

Since a linear element is a very restricted special case, and a nonlinear element can be arbitrarily complex, that means that linear elements are subsets of nonlinear elements. Which means that nonlinear elements are generalizations of linear elements. (I think you said it backwards.) [Yes, I did.]

> 4.. Are there any analogies or metaphors that you could suggest that a writer (such as myself) could use when trying to explain memristors and such to a non-technical audience?

Electrical current is analogous to water flowing in a pipe. The diameter of the pipe acts like a resistor. If you make the pipe smaller, there is more resistance to the water flow. Similarly, if you make the electrical resistance larger, there is more resistance to electric current flow.

In our water example, the memristor is much like a pipe in that its size controls the resistance to the water flow. And both resistance and memristance are measured in ohms.

The difference with a memristor is that the more water that flows through the pipe, the bigger the pipe gets – so the resistance goes down. Then if you run the water through the memristor in the opposite direction, the pipe gets smaller and smaller, and the resistance goes up. So with a memristor, you can control how big the pipe is by which way you run the water through it, and by how long you run the water through it.

> 5. Is there anything you’d like to add?

So why are memristors useful? Sticking with our water analogy, I can make the pipe bigger or small depending on which way I run the water through it. And, when I turn off the water, the pipe stays at whatever size it’s at. So the pipe has a memory. This means that I can use it to store data. I can run water through it in one direction to make the pipe big, and treat the big pipe like a stored digital ONE. Or can run water through it in the other direction to make the pipe small, and treat the small pipe like stored digital ZERO. Presto! We have a digital storage device. It may not sound very exciting when described like this, but the excitement is about just how small, low powered, simple, and 3D these devices can be.

But memristors can store more than just ONEs and ZEROs. They can also store intermediate values between ONE and ZERO depending on how long and hard I push the water through the memristor. This is what makes a memristor useful in simulating a neural synapse.

Thank you Forrest for your memristor insights.