Monthly Archives: September 2009

Science Day aftermath and a Field of Dreams

I had no idea that the organizers of the Science Day event (May 27, 2009 in Toronto, Canada) were going to generate a report.  Thanks to Rob Annan for digging it up (you can see his comments about the document here and you can find the document itself, here). Two items that got my attention were:

  1. Attracting and nurturing talented researchers and entrepreneurs
  2. Communicating science is essential

As Rob notes. the report is a little fuzzy about operationalizing these  fine ideas (and others mentioned in the report).  Notice this from the report,

Our education system must train people – scientists included – to be entrepreneurs, not employees, imbuing an ethos of creativity and risk-taking amongst all citizens.

There is already some sort of granting programme (CREATE) whereby graduate students are supposed to be developing their entrepreneurial spirits. I mentioned it here and the problem from my perspective is this: how does a graduate student learn to be entrepreneurial from a senior researcher who’s a tenured professor in an academic environment? Where did the senior researcher get their experience?

As for an “… ethos of creativity and risk-taking …” we do have that, sort of. Generally speaking it gets knocked out of you by the time you’re 40 or, in too many cases, before graduating from grade school. The report does note the lack of substantive support for this grand new ethos but there is scant (no) attention paid to how it will be achieved. Perhaps they imagine a Field of Dreams situation whereby, if you think it, it will happen.

The second item that caught my attention, Communicating science is essential, is a concept I am in sympathy with when taken in its broadest sense. However, my experience, admittedly not vast, of talking to scientists about communication suggests that scientists tend to believe science communication is unidirectional (“I will tell you about my fabulous work and you will listen devotedly and then you will support it”). In fact, the examples used in the report illustrate my point,

Consider just two examples. Public lectures about theoretical physics, held monthly at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, draw standing-room only crowds. A recent ad campaign on Toronto public transit, featuring photos and factoids about the cosmos, generated so much interest that the Astronomy department at UofT [University of Toronto], which developed the campaign, plans to run a similar promotion in Montreal. In a society dominated by rapidly advancing technology, science stories – told well – naturally resonate with the public.

I like this model and, in some situations, it works very well. The problem is that it’s incomplete. Communication is multi-layered and multi-leveled and the science literacy model that’s being touted in this report is limited as it fails to take into account complexity.

I’m glad to see a science policy discussion brewing even if my comments are critical.

Storytelling for scientists only; self-erasing paper/ink; library news

I checked out the (Canada) National Science and Technology Week (October 16-25, 2009) website yesterday and found more events (in BC) than the last time I checked in late July/early August. Oddly, one of the events, Storytelling for scientists, is not open to the public. I’m quite disappointed that I’m not allowed to attend as I think it’s a very promising sign of what I hope will be better outreach. ( I got my refusal from someone at the Geological Survey of Canada, which is quite a coincidence since the Survey was recently mentioned here by Preston Manning while discussing his recent speech about science and innovation  in Canada.)

After scanning the science (nanotechnology) news for the last three years, it seems to me that Canadian scientists have been lamentably slow to find ways and means to discuss their work in ways that are engaging and meaningful to people who don’t have a vested interest in the sciences. Yes, there are events for children but I haven’t seen anything much for adults.

Michael Berger over at Nanowerk has written up a very good description of a new technique for creating self-erasing pictures. It caught me eye because of the pop culture reference to Mission Impossible and then there was this,

“While writing with light can be both rapid and accurate, photochromic ‘inks’ are not necessarily optimal for transforming light-intensity patterns into color variations, because they have relatively low extinction coefficients, are prone to photobleaching, and usually offer only two colors corresponding to the two states of photoisomerizing molecules,” explains Bartosz A. Grzybowski, a Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering and W. Burgess Chair in Physical Chemistry and Systems Engineering at Northwestern University.

I love the idea of ‘writing with light’ and, even better, the explanation of the technology has great clarity. (couldn’t resist the word play)

I have a longstanding interest and fascination with libraries and in light of the recent cuts to the library system here in BC (Canada) and my recent experiences at ISEA (International Symposium on Electronic Art), this item on the Shifted Librarian blog about the mobile devices, libraries, and policy session at the American Library Association (annual meeting?) caught my attention,

Question for Eli: when we talk about mobile devices, we mean digital content. is it a given we’re moving towards this licensing model for digital content, when libraries have traditionally purchased “things” and lending them under first sale doctrine? how do libraries maintain their rights under these threats of DMCA, etc.

Eli: this is really THE question for libraries in the 21st century; holding something of a copy that exists in 10,000 places in the world is worthless – that’s not the value; you have the whole world in your pocket
the rest of the world has skipped the 20th century and gone straight to the 21st; we no longer provide value by providing a copy of something that exists elsewhere
it’s what doesn’t exist anywhere else, which means creating it, which is usually letting your patrons create that
no longer bringing the world to your community, but bringing your community to the world and making it accessible
you’re (the library) the only one that cares about that content being out there
possible future where DRM triumphs & RIAA, etc. get everything they ever wanted and there’s no room for libraries
but could have an uprising against copyright and everything being free to everyone, although this is equally dangerous to libraries
will come down to digital ownership of rights
important not to forget that a major role of the library is to aggregate the buying power of the community and provide access
best thing we can do is produce and assist in the creation of new knowledge
don’t want to get involved in the DRM nightmare and find a value proposition that is meaningful to users in the networked 21st century

If you’re not familiar with the acronyms (I don’t know all of them either), DRM is Digital Rights Management, RIAA is Recording Industry Association of America, and (US) DMCA is Digital Millennium Copyright Act (I had to look up the last two).

This discussion provides an interesting contrast with the item about the cuts to the BC library system on the Think City website. Both are concerned with purchasing power and community access but one from the perspective of our mobile device future and one from the perspective of a 90-year old system that needs to be maintained.

Videos about how nano will change the world; NISE Net Annual Meeting; catch up mode (innovation in Canada)

The American Chemical Society held a 2nd NanoTube Video contest (mentioned in my July 22, 2009 posting) about how nanotechnology will change the world and has announced the winners. The top prize of $500 was awarded to Natalie Herring, et al (University of North Carolina) for NanoGirls about solar nanotechnology. You can see the top winning video and get more details on Nanowerk News here.

I don’t know how I missed it but NISE Net (Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network) is having its 2009 annual meeting in San Francisco, Sept. 14 – 16, 2009. I caught the notice on Andrew Maynard’s website, 2020 Science, where he gives a preview of what he will be discussing at the meeting, ‘The low down on nanotechnology safety, 10 helpful resources‘.

I also checked out his entry on Helter skelter nanotechnology which is a comment on a news release (from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies where Andrew works) which appears to have been translated and retranslated with some interesting results as the original makes its way back to English. It reminded me of my favourite (to date) CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) online news item.  It’s a 2008 announcement for a new nanotechnology-type centre in Alberta and the writer decided to provide an explanation of nanotechnolgy. From the news item,

Nanotechnology, which is Latin for “dwarf technology,” [emphasis mine] has medical and industrial applications. It is the science of building machines on an atomic and molecular scale, or the making or manipulating of tiny particles such as atoms and molecules on the scale of a nanometre, which is one-billionth of a metre.

Yes, nano is from classical/ancient Greek (I blush to admit I missed that in my delight with ‘dwarf technology’). If you want to see the phrase in its native habitat, go here. It’s in one of the final paragraphs.

As for innovation in Canada, I’ve been catching up on Rob Annan’s Don’t leave Canada behind postings. His latest, Why funding for basic research is essential, provides some interesting statistics (which he sources) on Canadian academic research. In short, we do well by our academic research; it’s the industry research which is a problem (Canadian business does not do much of its own research and, these days, is doing less, see the statistics Rob presents) so tying academic research to industry does not solve the problem.

Preston Manning Interview (part 2 of 2); Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Events; ASTC Conference

Here are three (yesterday, I mistakenly said there would be two)  more of Mr. Manning’s answers,

  • Do you know of any areas where Canadians are leading in science and technical innovations?

Some of the areas where Canada is at the leading edge in science and technology include cellular communications and genetic science (Toronto), space technology and robotics (the Canada Space Agency, the Canadarm, etc.), immunology and disease control (Winnipeg), in situ oil recovery (Ft. McMurray and Calgary), etc. The Canadian scientists who have won Nobel prizes also indicate some of the areas where Canada has led or is leading in science.

  • In your speech you mention the macro level for allocating science funds and make some suggestions for the Science and Technology Innovation Council regarding a more transparent and open process for decisionmaking and developing a structure and set of principles. (a) I’m surprised this hasn’t been done before! (b) How would you operationalize (or implement) your suggestion if asked to do so?

My suggestion was that the federal government through Industry Canada direct the Science, Technology, and Innovation Council (STIC) to make clear the structure, processes, and principles upon which funds are allocated.

Here is the last question,

  • This one is on a somewhat different topic. I understand that you are still a member of the NINT board. (Please do correct me if this information is incorrect.) What is your view on the Canada nanotechnology scene given that unlike many countries (US, China, Saudi Arabia, Denmark, Germany, Russia, etc.) have nanotechnology initiatives/policies, Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance has shut its doors, NanoTech BC is struggling for existence, and NINT has gone through an identity change (it no longer has its own website or unique identity online)?

With respect to the current state of nano-science and nanotechnology in Canada, you would have to consult experts in this field to get a definitive answer. But it is my impression from my exposure to the National Institute for Nanotechnology at the University of Alberta that modest but steady progress is being made. I think it is important to distinguish between the media and public-relations hype which invariably surrounds a new science and technology, and over-promises, and the reality of the slow and painstaking step-by-step progress of the development of any science or technology.

Thank you Mr. Manning for taking the time to answer my questions. The answer to the last question is particularly interesting to me (given the purpose for this blog) and certainly bears out some of my own experience. There is much hype but the real work is ‘slow and painstaking’. Mr. Manning will be a keynote speaker, along with Gary Goodyear, Minister of State for Science and Technology, at the Canadian Science Policy Conference on Oct. 28 – 30, 2009 in Toronto. Details of the conference here.

I got this information from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) but it seems to be a Wilson Center event more than anything else. NOTE: The times listed are EDT.

On September 18th the Wilson Center and Environmental Law Institute will release new data on the flow of energy (in BTUs) and the flow of dollars (in terms of subsidies) through the U.S. economy.  We hope you can join us for:

Perverse Incentives: The Untold Story of Federal Subsidies to Fossil Fuels

The ongoing debates about biofuels, cap and trade legislation, and paths to energy independence have focused public attention on energy and climate issues like never before, with policymakers taking a heightened interest in renewable energy and its economic viability. Against this backdrop, the Environmental Law Institute and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars have completed a comprehensive study of federal subsidies to fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Our data reveal surprising facts about where public funds are going and how our current energy policy may actually undermine the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Join us on September 18, 2009, from 9 a.m.-11 a.m. in the 5th floor conference room at the Woodrow Wilson Center as we discuss our findings and their implications for future energy and climate change policy. The event will also be webcast live at www.wilsoncenter.org.

A light breakfast will be served starting at 8:30 a.m.

To attend this event, RSVP to

mcmurrin@eli.org.

No RSVP is required to view the webcast.

There’s another event, one I’ve mentioned before, on Sept. 23, 2009 on Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies. I have the details here in my June 30, 2009 posting. As usual with a PEN event, there will be a webcast (12 – 2:30 pm EDT) or if you’re going to the live event, you can RSVP here.

The ASTC (Association of Science and Technology Centers) is having its conference Oct. 31 – Nov. 3, 2009 in Fort Worth Texas. NISE Net (Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network) will be hosting a few events and is offering nine conference sessions. From the NISE Net newsletter, here are the conference sessions,

  • Interpreting the Nanoworld through Juggling, Drama, Art, and Media
  • Public Engagement with Science and Technology Policy: How Far Should We Go?
  • Making the Invisible Visible: Visualizing Emerging Science with Artists
  • Dimensions of Public Engagement: Finding Your Footing in a Paradigm Shift
  • Public Impact Results for the Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE) Network
  • Creative Programming and Current Science Learning
  • Sustainable Diversity Workshop: Conversation and Tools for Inclusivity
  • Science Alliance: Advancing Science Communication by Bridging Diverse Organizations
  • Public Engagement in Current Science and Global Issues

Wish I could go (and the Canadian Science Policy conference too). ASTC conference details can be found here.

I should also mention that the online consultation for Canadian copyright is drawing to a close on Sept. 13, 2009. If you are interested in making a submission, you can go here.

Let’s close the week with some nano haiku. From the NISE Net newsletter,

Nano, oh nano
With surface area so
Small, but big impact
by Keith Ostfeld of the Children’s Museum of Houston.

Happy weekend!

Preston Manning Interview (part 1 of 2) and PEN’s nanotechnology product inventory

After my informal series on innovation in Canada (July 13 – 15, 2009), I contacted Mr. Preston Manning as I mentioned his speech at Science Day in Canada (Ottawa) on May 27, 2009  in the context of the series and asked him some questions which he has kindly answered. For the introduction, I have taken the liberty of copying some biographical information about Mr. Manning from his website, the Manning Centre for Building Democracy,

Mr. Manning served as a Member of the Canadian Parliament from 1993 to 2001. He founded two new political parties – the Reform Party of Canada and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance – both of which became the official Opposition in the Canadian Parliament. Mr. Manning served as Leader of the Opposition from 1997 to 2000 and was also his party’s critic for Science and Technology. In 2007 he was made a Companion of the Order of Canada.

Since retirement from Parliament in 2002, Mr. Manning has released a book entitled Think Big (published by McClelland & Stewart) describing his use of the tools and institutions of democracy to change Canada’s national agenda. He has also served as a Senior Fellow of the Canada West Foundation and as a Distinguished Visitor at the University of Calgary and University of Toronto. He is a member of the Institute of Corporate Directors and is an Institute Certified Corporate Director.

He is also according to the National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT) a member of their board.

  1. In your May 27, 2009 speech you mentioned that Canada’s beginnings are based in science and technology as per the establishment of the Geological Survey of Canada. This contrasts with the line of thought which suggests that Canadians have always been “drawers of water and hewers of wood” as per Harold Adams Innis’ staples theory. Can you reconcile these two views or do you consider them to be competing views? And why do you hold this opinion?

It’s true that Canada, particularly in the beginning, had a resource-based economy (Innis’ theory). But it is also true that Canada made a very early commitment to science and technology through establishing the Geological Survey of Canada. The Survey identified the water, wood, and other natural resources that Innis’ theory focuses on.

There are two more questions and answers from this interview which will be posted tomorrow. Meanwhile, I’ve been getting information from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) about various upcoming events (more about those tomorrow) and about their product inventory. From the news release about the product inventory,

Over 1,000 nanotechnology-enabled products have been made available to consumers around the world, according to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). The most recent update to the group’s three-and-a-half-year-old inventory reflects the increasing use of the tiny particles in everything from conventional products like non-stick cookware and lighter, stronger tennis racquets, to more unique items such as wearable sensors that monitor posture.
“The use of nanotechnology in consumer products continues to grow rapidly,” says PEN Director David Rejeski. “When we launched the inventory in March 2006 we only had 212 products. If the introduction of new products continues at the present rate, the number of products listed in the inventory will reach close to 1,600 within the next two years. This will provide significant oversight challenges for agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission, which often lack any mechanisms to identify nanotech products before they enter the marketplace.”
Health and fitness items continue to dominate the PEN inventory, representing 60 percent of products listed. More products are based on nanoscale silver—used for its antimicrobial properties—than any other nanomaterial; 259 products (26 percent of the inventory) use silver nanoparticles. The updated inventory represents products from over 24 countries, including the US, China, Canada, and Germany. This update also identifies products that were previously available, but for which there is no current information.

You can view the rest of the news release here and you can view the inventory here. It’s interesting to see that so many(60%)  products have silver nanoparticles which have been a matter of great concern regarding their impact on humans and other species as they enter the water supply. One note, the inventory includes products that may no longer be on the market.

One last bit before I sign off for today, I went to a luncheon welcoming a new dean (Dr. Cheryl Geisler) for a new faculty, the Faculty of Communication, Art, and Technology, at Simon Fraser University (SFU in Vancouver, Canada). They’ve taken a disparate group of departments and schools housed in different faculties to create this new faculty and Geisler is the founding or inaugural dean.

The audience was a mix of SFU brass (academic, administrative, and board of governors types) with business interests (Boeing, IBM, and the local business media guy, Peter Ladner) and the arts community (Max Wyman, Christopher Gaze, Terry Hunter, and Dalannah Gail Bowen) along with many others whom I did not recognize.

In her speech, Geisler did a good job of bringing together the disparate pieces of her portfolio and emphasizing her interest and belief in community both internally and externally to the university. She lost focus a few times, notably towards the end of the speech portion and  during the ‘town hall’ portion of her presentation. I think maintaining focus is going to be one her biggest challenges since in addition to the disparate groups being united in the new faculty (being called FCAT for short) her portfolio is spread on multiple campuses (Burnaby mountain, Harbour Centre, Surrey, and the new Woodward’s building in the downtown eastside). I hope to have more from Geisler soon as she has indicated she’ll give me an interview for this blog.

2009 ISEA (International Symposium on Electronic Arts) talks

It’ll be impossible to describe everything at ISEA in this or even several postings and I’m eager to get back to nanotechnology.  So, I’m going to summarize ISEA keynote speeches  briefly today and then fit in various observations about the sessions over the next week or so, as there’s room.

I didn’t manage to get to the opening keynote speakers as the travel agent I used decided that attending the first few days was not a priority for me. (Yes, I’m still steaming about that and more but enough about the travel agent.)

The first keynote speaker (for me) was Clive van Heerden of Philips Design (part of Royal Philips Electronics), the creative director for their Probes program. He seems to be some sort of futurologist who rather than simply speculating actually designs new objects that might be sold as products one day. I have oversimplified this vastly as the Probes Program seems to be an adventure into social science as much as it is designing future-oriented products. You can check out their Food Probe here which features a “diagnostic” kitchen.

“Ubermorgen.com is an artist duo from Austria” (that’s straight from the program notes) who gave an enthralling, provocative, and disturbing presentation about their work. According to Wikipedia (retrieved Sept.9.09),

Ubermorgen focuses on exploring contemporary legal issues, especially those of security, privacy and copyright. Übermorgen is the German word for “the day after tomorrow” or “super-tomorrow”.

You can go to their site here. You should know that their latest work is about extraordinary or irregular rendition and so there are images of people (some of them children) being shackled. These are not pictures of actual prisoners but people who have agreed to participate in their art project.

One of the best questions asked at the ubermorgen.com session was about the art duo’s research. What type of research and fact checking did the pair do? The process seems to be informal and they rely on the number of stories and mass of information which supports the claims rather than checking out individual stories. In short, they talk to a lot of people and they read a lot and then they distill the information which they use for their pieces.

The Sala-Manca Artist Group based in Israel presented something that struck a chord with me. They examined the use of pastoral images (starting from the 1920s) to attract immigrants and visitors to Israel. So much of the tourist work done for Vancouver (where I live) relies on the pastoral images that I’ve taken it for granted. Being presented with something that seemed familiar but referenced in ways that are unusual (to me) made me view landscape painting from a different, more politicized perspective. (Pun was unavoidable.)

Moritz Waldemeyer was one of my favourites largely due to the fact that he’s an engineer and he discussed the issues involved with creating fabulous, out of this world design pieces that are partly machinery. He’s worked with Bono, Hussein Chalayan, and Swarovski Crystals amongst many other clients. (Oh, and he worked with Clive van Heerden at Philips Design earlier in his career.) The images are stunning but what really makes it for me is hearing about the technical issues and the work required to pull off these feats. For example, Chalayan designed dresses that transformed as the models walked down the runway while Waldemeyer was tasked with making it happen.

“Mika ‘Lumi’ Tuomola is concept designer, writer, dramaturge and director – and occasional performer – for procedural, participatory New Media.” (Again, this is straight from the programme notes.) He had a big hit on Finnish tv with a musical romance between a hot young (30ish) rock star (male) and older (looking late 50ish) cabaret singer (female). Viewers were invited to text the show and affect the progress and outcome of the relationship. Multiple options were shot for each episode and they received millions of texts as the relationship progressed from one episode to the next. What they hadn’t anticipated was that people would start writing their own scenarios for what they’d like to see happen next. I was much struck by the fact that the project was entertaining and attractive in a way that a lot of new media projects aren’t. His next project is an opera about Alan Turing (considered the father modern computer science). It provided an interesting contrast with the other piece which had a more light-hearted air although that was due to viewers’ choices. Tuomola had created a darker ending for the romance where the older woman starts on a course of plastic surgery but the viewers wanted a happy ending.

The final keynote was Sadie Plant. From the Wikipedia entry (retrieved Sept.09.09),

Sadie Plant (born 1964 in Birmingham, England) is a British author and philosopher.

She gained her Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Manchester in 1989, then taught at the University of Birmingham‘s Department of Cultural Studies (formerly the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies) before going on to found the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit at the University of Warwick, where she was a faculty member. Her original research was on the Situationist International and contributed to the Situationist-inspired magazine Here and Now (published between 1985 and 1994), before turning her attention to the social potential of cyber-technology.

Sadie Plant left academia in the early 1990s to pursue a writing career.

I was very excited to hear a writer speak at this conference and, sadly, was disappointed. She told a great story (she’s a good speaker) but it’s one I’ve heard many times before, i.e. mobile phones are opening new opportunities particularly in the developing world.

Tomorrow: Preston Manning.

Back from the 2009 International Symposium on Electronic Arts

I was a little optimistic about being able to blog while I was in Ireland and Northern Ireland for the 2009 International Symposium on Electronic Arts (ISEA). I’d forgotten just how jampacked conference schedules can be.

First off, my presentation (Nanotechnology, storytelling. sensing, and materiality which was part of the Posthumanism: New Technologies and Creative Strategies track) was on Aug. 26, the first day (thank goodness), and according to the moderator, it went well. It’s the first time I’ve had a relatively full room for one of my presentations. Of course, I had a typo on my first slide … I’d misspelled my name. We had some good discussion after my talk which is usually a sign that people have been engaged at some level.

I was excited and thrilled to find out that the moderator for the session was Andy Miah (you can find him here or here) as I know he’s been interested in nanotechnology (he had a nano project for a PhD student a few years back).  He’s currently a professor at the University of the West of Scotland and much in demand at various conferences and symposia.  His interests are broad ranging from literature, sciences, philosophy, and more. I found out from him on the last day of the conference that 40% of the submissions for my track were accepted.

I also got to meet Julie Freeman, an artist who worked with Jeremy Ramsden (scientist) to produce: in Particular; Nano Novels – Art & Science from the Tiniverse. She very kindly gave me a copy of their work and I have to say it was a thrill to meet her. If you’re interested in the “novels”, go here. (I think the word novel is being used in a form of word play as is “particular” i.e. playing off nano particle.) If you’re interested in Julie Freeman’s work, go here.

Unfortunately my notes are nowhere near as coherent as I imagined them to be but I will be blogging more about the conference in the next day or so. Also, I will be posting an interview with Preston Manning later this week.