Monthly Archives: May 2009

Some scoop on what happened to Nanotech BC: part 1 of an interview with Victor Jones

Leave a reply

Victor Jones who was a board member and chair of Nanotech BC kindly agreed to answer a few question about the organization and where it stands now. For anyone who doesn’t know, they recently had to suspend operations due to funding shortfalls. This is a the first of a three part series.

1) What was Nanotech BC’s purpose? Was it meant to raise awareness of nanotechnology in the general public? Was it industry/academic liaison?

ALL OF THE ABOVE  –  SEE  MISSION ON THE WEB SITE (here) – INCLUDING ANNUAL CONFERENCE,   WORKSHOPS; OUTREACH FOR BC LOCATED COMPANIES AND MARKET INFORMATION FOR RESEARCHERS, AND REPRESENTING BC RESEARCH AND COMPANIES AT OTHER CONFERENCES   IT DID DO THESE; INCLUDING REFERENCES FOR PROJECTS.   THE 2007/08 ASSET MAP – AVAILABLE ON LINE, LISTED THE RESEARCHERS AND COMPANIES  AND THEIR AREAS OF FOCUS.

(2) What happened? I understand the funding dried up but I never did understand where it came from. Did the federal government freeze/cutback on science funding have an impact? Or was it a lack of interest from the provincial government? Did the industry fail to support it?

FUNDING CAME FROM FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL AGENCIES  –  MOST NOTABLY  NRC-IRAP,   WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION (WED) AND THE MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT  (SBTED).   PROVINCIAL FUNDING WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO MATCH THE NRC AND WED FUNDING OFFER FOR SEVERAL MONTHS; HENCE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN AS AN OPERATIONAL ENTITY – SO IT IS ON PAUSE. BUT DISCUSSIONS ARE CONTINUING. THERE HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN ENCOURAGING WORDS,  BUT FUNDING FOR ALL SUCH ORGANIZATIONS IS DIFFICULT TO SOURCE

I thought the organization might be dead but it should like there is hope so maybe I should not have phrased that first set of question in past tense. Also, I’m sure the folks at Nanotech BC wanted to raise public awareness but the other projects Jones mentions took priority and in an organization that’s strapped for money and time it’s clear that something is going to be ignored. I wish that wasn’t the case but I do understand why. That said, I think more emphasis needs to be placed on public awareness here in BC.

As for funding, it’s discouraging to find out that the provincial government is dragging its metaphorical feet. Given the worldwide focus on nanotechnology and the amount of money being invested elsewhere (as I noted here and I recently looked at NanoQuebec’s annual report for 2007/8 and saw that that provincial government invested over $2M for that year), I’m surprised there isn’t more interest provincially. Of course, I can’t find a science policy on the BC government website so maybe surprise isn’t the right word.

I got an invite from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) to a congressional briefing. Yup, it’s in Washington, DC so I’m not likely to get there but if you are, there’s a panel discussion on May 20, 2009. You can contact emiller@keystone.org for more information.

The White House hosted a Poetry, Music, and SpokenWord event this last Tuesday (May 12, 2009). From the New York Times review,

Spoken word dominated the program, with poetry performances by Mayda del Valle (whose tribute to her abuela included the placenta reference), Jamaica Heolimeleikalani Osorio and Joshua Bennett.

The webcast will be available on whitehouse.gov. I checked this morning and could not find it so I hope it shows up soon.

Paul Corkum wins another award and OECD invitation-only conference on nanotechnology as an environmental benefit

2 Replies

Dr. Paul Corkum, mentioned here in my March 17, 2009 posting when he won the Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and Engineering, has won a 2nd award. This one is from the province of Ontario (Canada) and is called the Premier’s Discovery Award for Natural Sciences and Engineering. There’s more about his work in attosecond science both in my previous posting and here.

I keep hearing that nanotechnology could have some positive environmental impacts but this the first conference, OECD Conference on Potential Environmental Benefits of Nanotechnology:  Fostering Safe Innovation-Led Growth, I’ve seen that tackles the question.

The conference will provide an opportunity for governments, academia and industry to consider the state-of-the-art of nanotechnologies, their potential to bring environmental benefits and any potential human health and environmental safety concerns at the same time. In particular, the conference will address sustainability and life cycle aspects in a variety of sectors in which nanotechnology has the potential to give rise to environmental benefits. Thus, the conference will explore the environmental profiles of emerging nanoscale innovation with the goal of encouraging development of technologies that can result in environmental gain while addressing unintended consequences.

As I noted in the headline, it’s invitation-only. For more information about the conference you can go here or here. For anyone who’s not familiar with the abbreviation, OECD =  Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Liquid lenses and integrated research into nanotechnology safety

Leave a reply

A flexible, fluid micro lens has been created by engineers at Penn State University. Here’s why it’s interesting news (from Nanowerk News),

Like tiny Jedi knights, tunable fluidic micro lenses can focus and direct light at will to count cells, evaluate molecules or create on-chip optical tweezers, according to a team of Penn State engineers. They may also provide imaging in medical devices, eliminating the necessity and discomfort of moving the tip of a probe.

For more about the work, go here. On a sidenote, this is the first time I’ve seen a Star Wars metaphor used. Depending on the nature of the breakthrough, you usually get Spiderman, Harry Potter, or Star Trek if they’re using a science fiction metaphor.

In other news, the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) in Scotland will be leading a multi-million Euro project, Engineered NanoParticle Risk Assessment (ENPRA). From Nanowerk News (again),

The 3 ½ year IOM-led project, worth €3.7 million, harnesses the knowledge and capabilities of 15 European and 6 US partners including three US Federal Agencies: EPA, NIOSH and NIH-NIEHS. Under the coordination of Dr Lang Tran, IOM’s Director of Computational Toxicology, ENPRA will utilise the latest advances within in vitro, in vivo and in silico approaches to nanotechnology environment, health & safety (EHS) research to realise its aims.

There’s more about the project here. For anyone not familiar with the US abbreviations, EPA = Environmental Protection Agency, NIOSH = National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and NIH-NIEHS = National Institutes of Health – National Institute of Environmental Health and Safety.

I don’t know but this seems like a lot of governments and it could take them years to figure out what the multiple agency abbreviations stand for. Even so, bravo for taking the first steps.

Waiting for Martha

Leave a reply

Last April (2008), Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT) announced a new chairperson for their board, Martha Cook Piper. I was particularly interested in the news since she was the president of the University of British Columbia (UBC) for a number of years during which she maintained a pretty high profile locally and, I gather, nationally. She really turned things around at UBC and helped it gain more national prominence.

I contacted NINT and sent some interview questions in May or June last year. After some months (as I recall it was Sept. or Oct. 2008), I got an email address for Martha and redirected my queries to her. She was having a busy time during the fall and through Christmas into 2009 with the consequence that my questions have only recently been answered. At this point, someone at NINT is reviewing the answers and I’m hopeful that I will finally have the interview in the near future.

There is a documentary about Ray Kurzweil (‘Mr. Singularity’) making the rounds. You can see a trailer and a preview article here at Fast Company.

As you may have guessed, there’s not a lot of news today.

Copyright and The Economist, Two Cultures, and some spoken word iconoclasm

1 Reply

Thanks to the folks at Techdirt I found out that The Economist is having an interactive debate about copyright. They propose this, This house believes that existing copyright laws do more harm than good. They’ve invited two law professors to present competing pro and con views and readers can offer their own comments. It’s a lively debate and you can go check it out here.

I have mixed feelings on the topic although I lean towards agreement with this particular proposition. As someone who produces content, I don’t want to see anyone cheated of credit and/or monetary reward for their (my) work. Unfortunately copyright laws are being used to stifle the lively exchange of ideas and materials. For example, I just read a very bizarre interpretation of copyright in my local daily paper (The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, May 2, 2009) by Harvey Enchin. Apparently adding links to The Vancouver Sun website is infringing on their copyright. I’d rather not quote from him, even with attribution, as I’m sure he’d consider that an infringement. Can anyone out there explain how providing a link to a website e.g. The Economist infringes on their copyright? I haven’t appropriated their content (I have noted the text of the motion that propels the debate [in the interest of full disclosure, sometimes I quote from an article but never reproduce the article  in its entirety]). Plus, I am driving traffic to their website which, theoretically, should enable them to raise their advertising rates. Where’s the problem?

As far as I’m concerned, the whole area of intellectual property law (copyright, trademarks, and patents) is being appropriated by bullies who use existing legislation to intimidate the very people they claim to be protecting.

There’s a good discussion taking place on Andrew Maynard’s 2020 Science blog about C. P. Snow’s Two Cultures (humanities/arts and sciences). It’s a 1959 lecture that was eventually published and has proved to be quite influential. (Hmmm…Richard Feynman’s lecture, There’s plenty of the room at the bottom, was given in 1959…interesting year.) There’s also an editorial in Nature about Two Cultures. Both Maynard and the Nature editor claim that the ‘wall’ between the sciences and the humanities/arts is less formidable than it was 50 years *ago. I find it interesting that Maynard, a scientist, and the Nature editor (presumably someone versed in the sciences) are making the claim. Are there any writers or artists would agree? Here’s Maynard’s blog and Nature’s editorial. (The editorial is the one article which is not behind a paywall.)

Spoken word artist, musician, and poet, Heather Haley will be performing on Monday, May 11, 2009 at The Beaumont Studios, 315 West 5th Avenue, Vancouver, BC. Admission is $7 and the doors open at 7:15. From the news release,

AURAL Heather @ Vancouver City Limits.

Musical Showcase at Beaumont Studios
w/Christina Maria and Petunia with the Viper Band

AURAL Heather is the new weather! A unique, sublime fusion of song and spoken word by poet-iconoclast-vocalist Heather Haley and dazzling guitarist-producer, Roderick Shoolbraid.

You can check out some of Heather’s work here and you can check out the Beaumont Studios here.

*’ago’ added Sept. 12, 2017.

Nano sheds some light on incandescence and a Framing Nano report

1 Reply

The news caught my eye immediately,  ‘Scientists at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) have created the world’s smallest incandescent lamp‘. It reminded me of Oliver Saks’ memoir, Uncle Tungsten, which dwelled at length on his uncle’s light bulb factory and their mutual fascination with the filament. Very briefly, the scientists are exploring the boundary between two incompatible theories, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. There’s more here.

I mentioned the Framing Nano project  in a previous post (July 28, 2008), a European nano governance project. In January 2009, they released a report with an enormous title, ‘Framing Nano Project: A multistakeholder dialogue platform framing the responsible development of Nanosciences & Nanotechnologjes‘. It’s mostly concerned with risk and regulation in Europe but there’s also a bit of information the situation in other parts of the world. There is mention of Canada,

Australia and Canada are also rather active on nanoregulation. Both have important programmes on EHS (Environment, Health and Safety) research and have published in-depth reviews of their regulations to assess eventual limits when dealing with nanotechnology. Even though no specific laws have been set up, the adoption of a precautionary approach principle, when dealing with nanotechnology application, is envisaged in both countries. (p. 4)

The report does not cite source for its contentions about Canada, which means that I’m not sure what to make of it. Last year at the Cascadia Nanotechnology Symposium (March 2008), there seemed to be a general consensus that virtually no analysis had been done or was being done on whether or not existing regulatory frameworks could accommodate nanotechnology. Of course, the problem with these things is that the federal government is huge so it’s possible that none representatives from the National Research Council and other government agencies could be unaware of those developments. If you’re interested in the Framing Nano report, you can read more about it and/or get a copy of it here .

Vancouver’s new poet laureate

Leave a reply

I just saw and heard Brad Cran’s first event as Vancouver’s poet laureate. The inaugural poet laureate, George McWhirter was present at the City of Vancouver chambers today (May 5, 2009) at 3:45 pm along with the city council, mayor, and many of Cran’s supporters.

I enjoyed the poetry (both Cran’s and that of the children from grade two [not sure which school]). I gather he’s a community activist of some sort although I haven’t come across him before. His first poem was about the violence we’ve had recently. I’m not sure what the title was other than it had the word bullet in it. His poems are relatively brief and the few I’ve heard or read concern themselves with contemporary urban life. Cran made a point of mentioning the Downtown Eastside before reciting his poem about community. Then, it was the kids’ turn. It was about what you’d expect from a group of seven and eight year olds. Charming, funny, ofetn concerned with candy, ice cream, and pets, and with an occasional reference to contemporary social issues e.g. homelessness. Apparently, this is a preview of a longer piece with children that Cran plans to work on as part of his duties as Vancouver’s poet laureate.

Cran thanked everybody and their uncle and made special mention of a new book that George McWhirter edited,  A Verse Map of Vancouver. I think it was one of McWhirter’s poet laureate projects. Cran’s appointment, like McWhirter’s, is for three years.

A teeny, tiny invisibility cloak and some thoughts about science funding in Canada

Leave a reply

Scientists at the University of California (UC) Berkeley have developed a ‘carpet cloak’ which conceals an object underneath it from view. Of course, it’s a very small object measuring 3.8 microns by 400 nanometres. So, don’t get ready for your invisibility cloak yet. If you’re interested there’s a more detailed article, accompanied by a video, here.

There was an essay in the Saturday, May 2, 2009 issue of the Globe and Mail about Canada’s priorities for research and development funding. Written by Harvey Weingarten, president and vice-chancellor at the University of Calgary, the essay made some good points and it made me uneasy. Yes, infrastructure is important and Canadians can get better at commercializing their discoveries so I had no serious disagreement with anything in the essay.

I am, however, uncomfortable with the phrase ‘curiosity-driven’ research to describe research that does not have a commercial application either in the near future or shortly after that. My sense is that the phrase is becoming mildly pejorative. There’s an implication that it’s a waste of time (idle curiousity). To give Weinstein his due, he doesn’t dismiss curiosity-driven research out of hand, he simply drives forward towards his thesis, that Canada needs to learn how to better engage the private sector and to focus its funding efforts on areas where there is already expertise or where it can easily be established. He does mention balance with regard to his aims but I have a suspicion that his notion of balance is different than mine.

It seems like the Gobe and Mail has taken on a campaign to support the sciences. The May 2, 2009 issue had this essay and an extended piece on students pursuing science education and careers or, rather, how students are not pursuing them.

E-paper technology takes another step forward, spooky magnetic attractions, and the business of nano

1 Reply

If you’ve read Neal Stephenson’s ‘Diamond Age’ then you’ll probably remember a passage near the beginning where a main character unrolls his flexible screen before glancing at the daily news. We’re not there yet with e-paper because there’s a problem with brightness (reflectance of ambient light). Most e-paper screens give 40% reflectance and that’s not been enough until this week when Gamma Dyanmics took a step closer to achieving the e-newspaper dream with their electrofluidic display. They are working on a international joint project with the University of Cincinnati, Sun Chemical, and Polymer Visual. They’ve unveiled a prototype and published a paper in the May issue of Nature Photonics (this is behind a paywall). For a consumer-friendly article describing the work, go to Fast Company here. For more technically-minded descriptions go here for a longer version and here for a shorter version.

Thanks to Fast Company, I found this video called, Magnetic Attractions. Artists at NASA created a short video illustrating various magnetic forces. What makes it spooky? They even show the forces extending through walls. You can see it here.

You might want to take a boo at Howard Lovy’s March 2009 posting about nano business and nano possibilities on Small Tech Talk. It was written in response to this (from Lovy’s post),

It has gotten to the point now where Scott E. Rickert, chief executive of Nanofilm Ltd., has gone as far as to declare that “the era of endless exploration is over — at least as long as the economy stumbles.” Writing in IndustryWeek, Rickert expresses his impatience now with nanotech information that is not directly related to business.

“Nanobusiness is business. Period. First, last, always,” Rickert declares.

I like Lovy’s response to this. As for me, some of the business people have extremist positions not that far removed from those of some scientists who think that they should be allowed to research whatever they want and that business is a dirty word.