Monthly Archives: October 2009

Quantum realities and perceptions (part 1)

Leave a reply

(This is going to be a ‘philosophical’ entry.) The more I read about nanotechnology and look into the science, the more I wonder about the nature of reality. Serendipitously, the Dalai Lama was in Vancouver (Canada) recently which occasioned an article (by Peter McKnight of the Vancouver Sun, Saturday, Sept. 26, 2009, p. C5) titled Exploring the nature of reality; Buddhism and  science are not always in agreement, but they still have much in common.  (The Dalai Lama is quite interested in science and he supported a series of dialogues between scientists and Buddhists which started in 1987.(

From the Buddhist perspective, reality is an illusion so there cannot be indivisible particles such as electrons and quarks which, according to scientists, are the basic building blocks for matter.  Consequently, you cannot use measurements (of charge, mass, and spin angular momentum) to prove their existence as the measurements themselves are illusory. From the article,

The Dalai Lama put it this  way: “things and their properties are mutually dependent … one can speak of an entity only in relation to attributes, and one can speak of attributes only in relation to an entity. Once you have conceptually removed all the attributes, it is nonsensical to speak of what remains.”

These Buddhist concepts are in sharp contrast to what many scientists believe, i.e. there are indivisible objects and matter is real.

Getting back to Buddhism, it reminds me a little of Bruno Latour’s work, Laboratory Life; The Construction of Scientific Facts, where he points out that the practice of science is very much informed by perception, social relations, and belief.

As as I’m concerned, it’s always been a’ best guess’ scenario and one proceeds with a theory as long as it works. I found out that I am not alone; there is a philosophy for thinkers like me, ‘instrumentalism’. From the article,

… [scientific] theories are seen as ways of explaining, predicting and controlling phenomena, and concepts like electrons are viewed as constructs that help us to make predictions and control nature. Instrumentalism therefore doesn’t deny reality. If it did, there would be no chance of making accurate predictions because there would be nothing to predict and nothing to control. Rather, instrumentalism merely says that our scientific theories don’t get to the ultimate truth about reality. But they work, and that’s what’s important.

(If you want to read more from the article, go here.) As noted earlier, I’ve been playing with these ideas as I’ve been exploring nanotechnology and the quantum world. In reading about nanotech and quantum realities, it’s always a leap of the imagination. The descriptions of what occurs at the atomic and molecular levels contradicts the sensory input I receive. Take this for example from an article by Michael Berger (Shaking hands with a virus — getting all touchy-feely with nanotechnology) on Nanowerk,

So while your ‘reality’ tells you that you are sitting in your chair right now as you are reading this, reality at the subatomic level means that you are not really sitting in your chair – thanks to the repulsion of your and the chair’s electrons you are actually floating on it at a height of a fraction of a nanometer.

This a complete contradiction of what I perceive and yet scientists say it’s so and on the basis of their work have made all kinds of quantum discoveries which have been applied to real world products.

In common with quantum particles, my objects too can be measured (they have weight, dimension, hardness, state [gas/liquid/solid], etc.) My perceptions and my measurements are the only proof I have of reality and yet according to scientists there is another reality at the nano scale and their means of proving that ‘nano’ reality is similar to mine.This all leads to the question I started with, what is the nature of reality? (more next week)

On a somewhat related note, I’ve got a lovely short story from Bruno Breathnach, A simple glass of water, which has a very Buddhist flavour.

Happy weekend!

Nano magazine; quantum tamers; insight into Intel; science publicity hounds

Leave a reply

I found a new magazine, nano: The Magazine for Small Science,  this morning (thanks to Andy Miah). There’s an eclectic range of material some of which you can access  for free here.  I’m particularly interested in the ‘Nano’ versus nano article by Andrew Carruthers as it’s all about marketing and branding and how nanotechnology branding should not be left to marketing communications departments in various businesses. He uses Apple’s iPod Nano and Tata’s Nano Car as two examples of businesses that used the word nano to brand their products. I understand that neither product is considered truly nano-based which makes the examples rather telling since they are branding exercises that could be described as purely ‘fantasy’.

Carruthers does mention ‘Silver Nano’ products (which are nano-based) marketed by Samsung but there is no comparison of the marketing strategies or even a discussion of the difference between ‘fantasy’ and genuine nano products. That said, I have no idea what his constraints were with regard to word count.

Carruthers states the main issue this way,

Like so many areas of research, nanotechnology can be discussed quite easily with people who understand it, but can effortlessly mutate into a perfect nightmare when explaining it to people who do not. At some time or another, many of us will have been placed in a position where it was necessary to explain our professions and areas of research to people who may not understand them. On many occasions, such people seem keen yet are completely dumbfounded by colourful explanations. There is a sense of dismay [emphasis mine] as they and others ‘misinterpret’ descriptions, ask seemingly unrelated questions, and generally find endeavours at explanation incomprehensible and bewildering. In the main, people are quite genuinely either oblivious to nanotechnology, or have a decidedly skewed notion of ‘what it does’. This chasm within public understanding can be quite easily filled by other means, and the real difficulty is when that chasm becomes filled by marketing communications, rather than fact.

I don’t agree with him about having a “… sense of dismay …”  when people misunderstand or misinterpret information as I think those interactions provide useful data for the person who’s doing the explaining. Sometimes a ‘wrong’ question points you in a completely direction because it wasn’t the question that was wrong, it was you.

In my opinion,  marketing communication and pop culture are for most people the top purveyors of science information, like it or not. The challenge is finding a way to get your own messages out there and heard by using some of the same strategies or even incorporating some of the ‘noxious’ marketing communication messages. I’m not sure whether Carruthers would agree with me or not but, given the tone of his article, I think not. You can read the article for yourself here.

Quantum Tamers; Revealing our weird and wired future is a documentary being presented October 17, 2009 at the Quantum to Cosmos (Q2C) festival in Waterloo, Canada. From the Azonano news item,

The documentary brings together a stellar line-up of quantum experts to explore promising future technologies involving super quantum computers, ultra secure quantum codes to safeguard our communications, and even teleportation.

Although quantum principles are not fully understood, quantum technologies are already responsible for many advances in technology we already use including lasers and their many applications, magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs), modern micro circuitry, plus CDs and DVDs.

For more about the festival including details about when and where the documentary will be shown, go here.

Since the January 2009 announcement, by Paul Otellini, Intel CEO, that Intel would be investing $7B US to retool three  plants for the manufacture if 32 nanometre chips, I’ve been interested in Intel’s progress. This morning I found an article by Ellen McGirt on Fast Company which details Intel’s latest reinvention. I was intrigued to note that the $7B US investment was mentioned without a single hint that it’s a nanotechnology initiative.  From page 5 of the article,

When he [Otellini] made the unusual decision to travel to Washington, D.C., early this year to announce his $7 billion bet on U.S. manufacturing, “no one knew where the bottom was [in the economy], and there was a lot of uncertainty,” he recalls. The business case for U.S.-based facilities may not have been clear to others, but to Otellini, it’s right out of the Intel playbook: If the company controls manufacturing, it can control quality. “Now, we’re going to be a generation ahead.” He had another motive, too: “I wanted to get the attention of the government and to send a message to other companies that Intel was investing in the United States at a time of great uncertainty, and that we should reinvest together in the infrastructure of the country.” If this was a considered effort to improve Intel’s standing for future infrastructure projects, it’s not one other companies have picked up on. The response from other business leaders, he says, has been mute. “On the other hand, the President called and said that it was the only piece of good economic news since he’d been inaugurated,” Otellini says.

It’s an interesting article not least for how the writer portrays the various personalities.

I had a little wake-up call this morning on reading one of Andrew Maynard’s recent posts (here) where he is excoriating the publicity practices of some peer-reviewed journals. He mentions two articles that I have posted about here (the China deaths and the Canadian nano safety article from yesterday, October 15, 2009) and notes that the articles are being held back from public scrutiny for rather long periods while they are being made available to journalists and science writers with the effect that they are not receiving the scrutiny that they should. I had vaguely noticed that the first article was not available when I went looking and that the access information for the article I mentioned yesterday was vague but I didn’t make much of it. So, thanks Andrew for making me stop and think about it.

Body computing; Canadian scientists talk about nano safety

1 Reply

Did you know that a pedometer is considered body computing? I had not realized that before reading Chris Dannen’s Fast Company article, Million-Dollar Question: Who Owns Your Genetic Data? The body computing concept includes implanted, digested, or wearable devices that transmit health data.  From the article,

But the fundamental shift that comes with body computing, says Dr. Leslie Saxon, cofounder of the Body Computing Conference, is “dignifying the patient by allowing them access in a connected world.”But does access equal ownership?

This, of course, was written in the US and I believe that they have  a different legal approach than the one we have in Canada to issues such as owning genetic material. Still, it’s food for thought as we devise new means to monitor health and interface with computers.

In a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Nanotechnology, Patricia Dolez of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the École de technologie supérieure in Montreal (Canada) along with her colleagues have published a paper which suggests that the current safety gear may not be adequate for protection from handling potentially noxious nanomaterials.

Nanotechnology and European NGOs; 2009 Nobel in Physics has Canadian connections; China’s nanotechnology roadmap; Canada Research Chair Hongbin Li

1 Reply

Lately (as in this year), there’s been a lot of substantive interest in regulating nanotechnology:

  • the recent joint Transatlantic Regulatory project which brought together the London School of Economics, Chatham House, the Environmental Law Institute and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) for a report and a series of presentations.  (I discussed the PEN presentation here.)
  • the recent announcement from the US Environmental Protection Agency about their new nanomaterials research which will presumably result in discussion about regulations. (I mentioned the announcement here.)
  • the January 2009 announcement by Environment Canada that they would be conducting a one time nanomaterials inventory. This type of announcement offers the distinct possibility that future regulation may be on the agenda. (I first discussed  this initiative in my Feb. 3, 2009, Feb. 4, 2009, and Feb.8, 2009 postings.)

Now a new group has issued a report, the European Environment Bureau (from the news item on Nanowerk),

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB), Europe’s largest federation of environmental citizens’ organisations, launched a report (“Nanotechnologies in the 21st Century – A Critical Review of Governance Issues in Europe and Elsewhere (October 09”)  outlining the critical governance structures needed for the safe development and use of nanotechnology.

You can read more here.

As I noted in my headline, the 2009 Nobel Prize for Physics has some Canadian connections. From the Fast Company article by Kit Eaton,

Half the prize went to Charles Kao for work that led to long-distance fiber-optic communications. Born in Shanghai, he was educated in the U.K. and worked in one of the early companies that became the current Nortel (emphasis mine). This is where he did research into the fiber-optic systems available at the time, which had been puzzling scientists and engineers by not nearing their theoretical efficiency, and remaining good only for short-distance signaling. Kao’s experiments proved the reason behind these inefficiencies was impurities in the glass making up the fibers–this effected the refractive index of the medium as well as how much light was wasted by scattering instead of being neatly piped down the fiber to the receiving electronics.

…

The other half of the prize was shared by Canadian (emphasis mine) Willard Boyle and American George Smith for their co-invention of the Charge-Coupled Device. This little optically-sensitive chip, with its neat shift-bit way of getting data from the individual light-sensitive pixels to the data pipe that connects the sensor to a computer, is basically the invention that made possible the whole field of digital photography.

If you have any interest in China’s science and technology scene, Springer and the Chinese Academy of Sciences have announced that they are publishing a series of reports, roadmaps for the next 40 years.  The first reports are out on Oct. 14, 2009 and there will be more in 2010. I see that one of the 2010 reports will be on nanotechnology. For more details, you can go here.

I almost missed the announcement that Dr. Hongbin Li at the University of British Columbia has received a Canada Research Chair in Molecular Nanoscience and Protein Engineering. Congratulations Dr. Li! I posted a two-part interview in 2008 that  Dr. Li kindly granted me here and here.

Happy T Day! Robots; Nano-enabled prosthetics; ISEA 2009 aesthetics and prosthetics; Global TV (national edition): part 2

2 Replies

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone as Canada celebrates.

Since I have mentioned military robots in the not too distant past, this recent headline Two Military Robots That Rival the Creepiest Sci-Fi Creatures for Kit Eaton’s Fast Company article caught my eye. One of the robots, Big Dog (and its companion prototype Small Dog), utilizes artificial intelligence to navigate terrain and assist soldiers in the field. The larger one can carry heavy loads while the smaller one could be used for reconnaissance. The other robot is a cyborg beetle. Electrodes have been implanted so the beetle’s flight patterns can be controlled. There are two videos, one for each robot. It is a very disconcerting experience watching the beetle being flown by someone standing in front of a set of controls.

Keeping with the theme of planting electrodes, I found something on Azonano about a bio- adaptive prosthetic hand. Funded by the European Union as a nanotechnology project, here’s more from the news item,

What is unique about the sophisticated prototype artificial hand developed by the SMARTHAND partners is that not only does it replicate the movements of a real hand, but it also gives the user sensations of touch and feeling. The researchers said the hand has 4 electric motors and 40 sensors that are activated when pressed against an object. These sensors stimulate the arm’s nerves to activate a part in the brain that enables patients to feel the objects.

…

Led by Sweden’s Lund University, the researchers continue to work on the sensory feedback system within the robotic hand. The hurdle they need to cross is to make the cables and electric motors smaller. Nanotechnology could help the team iron out any problems. Specifically, they would implant a tiny processing unit, a power source and a trans-skin communication method into the user of the hand to optimise functionality.

It’s a fascinating read which brought to mind an ISEA (International Symposium on Electronic Arts) 2009 presentation by Dr. Lanfranco Aceti (professor at Sabanci University in Istanbul, Turkey). Titled The Aesthetic Beauty of the Artificial: When Prosthetic Bodies Become an Art Expression of Empowering Design Technologies, the presentation was a revelation. Dr. Aceti’s research yielded a rather surprising insight from a doctor in London, England who specializes in prosthetics. According to the doctor, women want limbs that most closely resemble their original but men (under 50 years old usually) want limbs that are metallic and/or look high tech. Lanfranco suggested that the men have been influenced by movies. Take for example, Wolverine (Wikipedia entry here) where the hero’s skeleton has been reinforced with metal and he can make his claws (now covered with metal) protrude from his arms at will. You can view Lanfranco’s site here or a simple biography about him here.

A few months back I posted about  prosthetics and design student projects and I’m starting to sense a trend emerging from these bits and pieces of information. There is the repair aspect to prosthetics but there is also an increasing interest not just in the aesthetics but in the notion of improving on the original. At its most extreme, I can imagine people wanting to remove perfectly healthy limbs and organs to get an improved version.

I got a chance to see part 2 of Global TV’s (broadcast in Canada) nanotechnology series, Small Wonders. As I’ve noticed that my link for part 1 of the series is no longer useful I am providing a link to part 2 which will land you on the search page. If you don’t see part 2 listed, go to the mutimedia tab which is just above the search results and where you can find part 1 and I assume, at some point, part 2.

As I hoped, they focused on nanotechnology projects in the materials field in part 2 of the series. They noted that nanotechnology-based materials in sports equipment and clothing are already available in the market place. An interview with Dr. Robert Wolkow at the National Institute of Nanotechnology and at the Physics Dept. at the University of Alberta, featured a discussion about replacing silicon chips with more efficient materials built at the molecular level.

Global TV (national edition) and nanotechnology; EPA develops a ‘kinder to animals’ nanomaterials research strategy

Leave a reply

Wouldn’t you know it? Just as soon as I finish my ‘science communication in Canada’ series, Global TV’s national news starts broadcasting a series on nanotechnology. Interestingly, the focus in part 1 is on medicine only. There was no mention of any other kind of application or the fact that we already have many nanotechnology-based products available in consumer markets. Maybe they’ll mention these other sectors in subsequent parts of the series.

They too (it was one of the problems I mentioned at my recent conference talk at ISEA 2009) were stuck for ways of communicating nanotechnology and so reverted to the human hair example (i.e. a nanometer = 1/100,000 of a human hair). I f you want to see part 1 of the series, it’s here.  Oh, they have beautiful graphics.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced a nanomaterials research strategy which I mentioned here in my Oct. 1, 2009 posting and they’ve already revised it. This time it’s all about the animals. According to the news item on Azonano,

Importantly, the research strategy articulates the goal of identifying non-animal methods that may ultimately be able to preclude the perceived need for any in vivo testing. The EPA appears to have taken to heart the principles outlined in the National Academy of Sciences’ report ‘Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy,’ which calls for increased use of current non-animal technologies and biological understanding that is more precise, relevant, and that will improve hazard assessment.

There’s more at Azonano. I’m glad to see that the effort to move away from animal testing is being embraced.

Science communication in Canada (part 4b); NanoArt 2009; future nanoelectronics

Leave a reply

Most science public relations (pr) and marketing efforts (including public engagement) in Canada are made by government agencies.  There is a communications officer (actually, it’s usually a team of communications officers) in every government-funded science-oriented agency (e.g. National Research Council, the National of Institute of Nanotechnology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, etc.)

In part 3 of this series (Sept. 21, 2009), I mentioned the impact a gag order placed on Environment Canada scientists in January 2008 has had on Canadian science journalism. It’s fair to assume that the gag order also has had an impact on people whose government agency job is science pr.

My guess is that an already cautious science pr and marketing community has become more controlling and more worried.  Take for example the nanomaterials inventory (mentioned in earlier postings) that was announced not by Environment Canada but, in February 2009, by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies based in Washington, DC. It’s somewhat disconcerting to have a Canadian government initiative announced in the US first. It’s possible that there’s no connection to the gag order but I cannot recall any Canadian government initiative being announced in another country first.

I have another example of a science pr oddity but it’s based on memory because I didn’t think to save the article and I can’t find it online. As memory serves, months after the 2008 federal election there was an article in a paper that I read stating that an important Canadian science advance done in conjunction with (US) NASA had been suppressed during the election campaign. The information was announced later in the US (again). The article noted this was the first time that information about an advance attributable to Canadian scientists was suppressed during an election campaign, apparently, due to concerns that the announcement would be prejudicial.

In what universe does someone read about a scientific advance and immediately praise or condemn (depending on how you view the advance) a political party? I cannot recall the last time a local candidate got a boost or fell  in the polls when the government announced a scientific advance. Even a biotechnology advance (with biotech being one of the most contentious science sectors in terms of public perception) would not be likely to have that kind of impact. Note that I said unlikely not impossible and that is where the problem lies. There are risks associated with science pr and marketing.

Whether it’s a government, a business, or a non-for-profit agency, there’s always the risk of embarrassment (your data is incorrect), the risk that popular opinion will rise against you, and/or the risk that someone more persuasive will slant your data to prove the case against you. These risks don’t pertain to science alone but there is a specific problem associated with science. Most of us are intimidated by it and, if you’re not, it’s hard to get information that is slanted for an adult who doesn’t have a science background. (Tomorrow’s installment will feature some current science pr initiatives and it will  be last of this series.)

Now for a couple of quick announcements. Chris Orfescu’s NanoArt 2009 competition  is calling for submissions (from the Azonano news item),

The artists can participate with up to 5 images (artworks). All submitted works will be exhibited on the nanoart21.org site until March 31, 2010, together with artist’s name, a short description of the artistic process, and artist’s web site and e-mail. The top 10 artists will be exhibited on nanoart21.org site for one full year and will be invited to exhibit at the 3rd edition of The International Festival of NanoArt. The previous editions of the festival were held in Finland and Germany.

There are more details on the Azonano website.

Michael Berger (Nanowerk Spotlight) has an article on future nanoelectronics which contradicts much that you may have learned about electricity and electronics in high school. From the article on Nanowerk,

Nanotechnology-enabled electronics of the future will be invisible, i.e. transparent (see “Invisible electronics made with carbon nanotubes”), or flexible, or both. One of the areas [John Rogers’ group at the University of Illlinois] focus on is creating materials and processes that will allow high-performance electronics that are flexible and stretchable (see our previous Spotlight “Gutenberg + nanotechnology = printable electronics”)

That’s it.

Science communication in Canada (part 4a); Italian nano

2 Replies

For this fourth part, I’m going to focus on science public relations (pr) and marketing and  public engagement in Canada. In my view, these activities are part of the science communication spectrum but they are not synonymous with it as others suggest (see part 2 of this series).

This should have been pretty short as there is very little science pr or marketing in Canada but I will be contrasting the situation here with  elsewhere. As for public engagement in Canada, that  has tended to be focused on biotechnology, which is not currently a hot topic, consequently, there is little activity at the moment.

To get the best sense of what I mean by science pr and marketing let’s contrast the efforts here with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the US.

The organization’s name suggests two meanings (a) scientists discuss and critique their work thereby advancing research and (b) advancing science in the public eye. The AAAS holds a very large annual meeting which anyone can attend if they can pay the registration fee. From the AAAS 2010 conference website,

AAAS President and Nobel Laureate Peter C. Agre invites you to join a diverse array of leading scientists, engineers, educators, and policy-makers at the association’s 176th meeting. It will attract attendees from all U.S. states and territories as well as more than 50 countries

This is well attended by journalists and you will notice, if you pay attention to the presentation titles and abstracts, that after a meeting, stories about these presentations start appearing. The first stories usually directly reference the meeting but you can also see stories up to one or two  or even more years later. For example, the first discussion of the ‘CSI effect’ on forensic science and public expectations was held at a AAAS  annual meeting (I think it was the 2005 meeting). There have been many media stories since about the CSI effect.

From a pr/marketing perspective, this is an excellent effort. Last year, the AAAS even added a little flare to their efforts by holding a ‘Dancing with the Scientists’ video contest. You can read more about the contest here at the TierneyLab blog on the NY Times website.

The American Chemical Society (ACS), in addition to its usual meetings,  has also gotten into the act and has held two video contests that focus on describing and explaining nanotechnology. (You can find more about these contests in my July 21, 2009 and Feb. 23, 2009 postings.)

There are no comparable organizations of scientists in Canada. There is the Canadian Science Writers Association which has this on its website,

We stand for “excellence in science communication in Canada”, representing nearly 500 journalists, students, scientists, communications officers, and policy makers
in Canada and abroad.

Weirdly, you cannot access their events page unless you are a member. This seems like an odd policy since most organizations market to new members through their events and it stands as an example of the tentative kind of science communication that is practiced in Canada. (more on Monday)

Two quick items, (a) Andrew Maynard has found a fabulous Italian nano wine commercial from the 1970’s. There was no nanotechnology associated with either the production of the wine or the packaging; I guess someone just liked the word nano. Do watch the video, it’s very ’70s. (b) Rob Annan on Don’t leave Canada behind has posted more comments on the basic vs applied science debate which is taking place in the US (and in Canada too). He excerpts and cites some provocative material about the ‘false’ dichotomy.

Happy weekend.