Monthly Archives: May 2010

Canada goes on a science spending spree (of sorts)

5 Replies

The Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) programme (part of the 2008 Canadian federal budget) has announced 19 new researchers are coming to Canada. According to the CERC FAQs (frequently asked questions) page, each researcher in this programme will receive,

$1.4 million annual award paid to the chairholders for seven years [which] will allow researchers to build the teams and acquire the tools they need to conduct world-class research.

Having your funding guaranteed for seven years is a highly attractive proposition, especially with the current economic situation. (Idle thought: I am curious as to the inside story about why only 19 of 20 grants were awarded.)

I understand we have achieved quite a coup and some extraordinary and accomplished scientists will be setting up shop in this country. Kudos to the government for the establishment of guaranteed funding for these scientific endeavours. Here’s Tony Clement (Minister for Industry Canada) offering an enthusiastic endorsement and back pat for his programme, first from the news release on the Industry website,

“The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of supporting leading-edge research and world-class researchers,” said Minister Clement. “The CERC program confirms Canada’s standing as a global centre of excellence in research and higher learning. [emphasis mine]This program supports our government’s commitment to ensuring Canada’s future economic growth by investing in innovation and research capacity in priority areas.”

then (from the article in Globe and Mail by Elizabeth Church and accessed through the Canadian Science Policy Research Centre),

“Canada has to become more than ever a magnet for talent,” said Industry Minister Tony Clement, in Toronto to name the successful applicants. The announcement, he said, builds on other federal initiatives, such investments in campus building projects as part of its stimulus spending and the Vanier scholarships for graduate students. All are central, he said, to the government’s innovation agenda.

“Talk is cheap. We are actually doing,” Mr. Clement said later in an interview, referring to critics in the science community who say the Harper government has not committed to research in the same way as U.S. President Barack Obama and other foreign leaders.

So let’s review, this programme has attracted 19 stellar scientists. That’s very nice but what about all the other scientists in Canada? Are they going to get guaranteed funding? Then there’s this, Where is the money for this CERC programme coming from? I found an answer of sorts in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper (Fears of brain drain as renowned British scientists move to Canada by Ian Sample),

Britain is to lose several of its foremost scientists next year following a recruitment drive to attract top brains to Canada.

The four researchers will leave their posts at UK universities for better-funded positions in institutions across the country.

The British researchers won four C$20m (£13m) awards created by the Canadian government, the most by any country outside the US, which is to lose nine scientists to the scheme. The C$20m is awarded over seven years and comprises C$10m from the scheme and $C10m from the university. [emphasis mine]

So, 19 x $20M = $180M/year x 7 years = $1.26B with 1/2 from the federal budget and the other 1/2 (or more?) from university budgets (much of it federal money).

ETA (May 21, 2010): Rob Annan (Don’t leave Canada behind) kindly corrected my arithmetic as per this (ps. quick note on the math re. funding. It’s 19 researchers x $1.7M annually ($3.4 accounting for matching funds). The $20M is the total commitment over seven years.) The rest of what Rob had to say is in the Comment section.

In another Globe and Mail article (accessed through the Canadian Science Policy Centre) by Steven Chase and Elizabeth Church,

For Ottawa, it was one of the biggest bets on scientific research in a generation. But for the man at the centre of Canada’s worldwide drive to recruit top scientists, it was a “ballsy” play that at times resembled a bidding war for NHL free agents.

Derek Burney said in some cases foreign universities and employers counter-bid furiously to keep star researchers during the just-completed global talent scout for Canada Excellence Research Chairs. The effort cost Ottawa $190-million in grants and netted 19 renowned scientists who are moving to Canada.

“It [was] almost like a hockey negotiation where you are trying to entice a player from another team. And the other team wants to hang on to them, and so they offer more money,” said Mr. Burney, who heads the selection board of the Canada Excellence Research Chair program set up by the Harper government.

During a global recession when deficit pressures would appear to demand restraint on all fronts, Canada instead travelled the world with a chequebook – looking to bulk up on the scientific innovation it hopes will strengthen economic foundations here at home. [emphases mine]

I’m glad to see that they are keeping tight control of the purse strings (where’s a sarcasm symbol when you need one?). Meanwhile in the UK, Sample goes on to note a possible reason for the British losses,

The moves come after several senior scientists in Britain warned that a brain drain was imminent as the new government prepares to make swingeing cuts in public spending that are likely to have a heavy impact on research funding.

At least one of the other researchers comes to us from California, a US state which is in such dire financial straits that there’s been talk of bankruptcy.

Two observations. First, I notice that none of these recruits are from Canada. I guess there’s an assumption that research excellence exists only outside of the country.

Second, “Talk is cheap” (Clement’s comment) is something that’s said when there has been too much talk and no (or not enough) action. I don’t think it fits a situation where there has been no talk.

In case it got missed, I have mixed feelings about this latest development. I hope it works out well and that the government doesn’t rest on this accomplishment but goes on to address Canada’s need for science policy, science education, science literacy, science communication, public engagement, encouragement for business support of science, and support for the academic science which is practiced in this country.

ETA (May 21, 2010): For another take on the matter, read Sumitra Rajagopalan’s opinion piece in the May 21, 2010 online edition of the Globe and Mail, When science gets political, long-term knowledge is lost. From the article,

Since Canada has lagged behind its Western counterparts in the manufacture and sale of high-tech products, this focus has been welcomed by industry. But this government’s interest isn’t really “applied science” but a more short-sighted “utilitarian science” – technologies that can quickly solve immediate, narrowly defined problems, rather than long-term investments in building knowledge. Worse, we are beginning to see an intertwining of scientific priorities with politics.

These trends are very apparent in some of the CERC choices. The biomedical and computing research chairs are beyond reproach, but some of the other choices reflect a narrow, utilitarian focus.

She goes on to thoughtfully support her point. I would highly recommend reading this, if you are interested in the issue.

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.

Music, art, and science

2 Replies

I recently stumbled across a couple of artistic and musical items about science on nanopublic (Dietram Scheufele’s blog) in a posting from Wednesday, May 12, 2010, When art meets science: “Symphony of Science.” (ETA, May 19, 2010: link to specific post) There’s  a reference to an interview with Adam Bly, founder and editor of SEED MAGAZINE (science-oriented magazine) talking about “What science can learn from the arts” on the Big Think website. It’s an excerpt from a 2008 interview with Bly, a Canadian born in Montréal, Québec, now living in New York City. In the same item, Scheufele features a video titled, “Symphony of Science” (SOS) from the website of the same name. From the SOS website,

The Symphony of Science is a musical project headed by John Boswell designed to deliver scientific knowledge and philosophy in musical form. Here you can watch music videos, download songs, read lyrics and find links relating to the messages conveyed by the music.

The project owes its existence in large measure to the wonderful work of Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, and Steve Soter, of Druyan-Sagan Associates, and their production of the classic PBS Series Cosmos, as well as all the other featured figures and visuals.

So there it is: music, art, and science.

Aftershocks from the May 2010 public science conference in Gatineau, Québec

Leave a reply

The first of this year’s two policy conferences on science in Canada (described on this blog here) has resulted in some after-the-fact media coverage. An article by Elizabeth Church, Presto, change-o: A Reformer, reinvented in the print edition (or Preston Manning: Proselytizer of science in the online edition) of the May 15, 2010 Globe and Mail focused on Preston Manning, one of the conference’s keynote speakers. (Manning has been interviewed for this blog, part 1 and part 2). From Church’s article,

…  Mr. Manning shared the stage with broadcaster and environmental icon David Suzuki at a conference in Gatineau, Que., organized by the union representing professional federal workers. He and Dr. Suzuki were paired up to show different perspectives on science policy, a spokeswoman for the event said, and to see how the two sides might meet.

“There are a lot of things that we agree on,” Dr. Suzuki said. “Our big disagreement is he thinks the free market is going to solve everything, which is total bullshit.”

Asked about his deep Christian convictions, Mr. Manning said they do not put him offside with scientific thought. One can think that genetic mutations and natural selection have something to do with the development of life, he explains, and also believe there is a direction to things that comes from God.

“Science explains what is going on,” he said.

Church’s article suggests a more lively interaction than Léo Charbonneau’s article (Bringing science to bear on policy) about the talk, written for University Affairs,

Mr. Manning was the founder of the Reform Party and a Member of Parliament from 1993 to 2001. David Suzuki is a scientist, well-known environmentalist and popular broadcaster.

The two were appearing in the opening keynote session at the second Science Policy Symposium organized by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and being held in Gatineau, Quebec, across the river from Ottawa, until tomorrow. The symposium has as its aim to strengthen science policy in Canada, an extremely important issue that deserves greater attention by the public, policy makers and government.

I admit I was hoping for perhaps a bit of fireworks between the two speakers, but they addressed each other politely, if somewhat formally, and mostly avoided any overt provocation.

Amongst other nuggets in Charbonneau’s article, Manning is calling for a national science communication conference.

It’s encouraging to see the coverage of the first of this year’s two Canadian science policy conferences and I hope the organizers of the second conference (taking place this October) experience as much or more success.

Writing about science in Canada

Leave a reply

While there is a dearth of science communication in Canada, there are many people working to change that. Canada’s science writers are getting to ready to gather at their 39th annual conference, At A Crossroads: Science Communication in the Digital Age, June 5 – 8, 2010 in Ottawa at the Canada Science and Technology Museum. I’ve excerpted part of the opening day’s programme (the group’s official name is the Canadian Science Writers’ Association [CSWA]),

1:15 pm – 2:15 pm

Conference welcoming remarks from CSWA President Kathryn O’Hara

Workshop: Using Canada’s new Science Media Centre

Penny Park, director Canada Science Media Centre

2:20 pm – 3:20 pm

Plenary panel: Social media, privacy issues and other public institution challenges in the digital age

Representatives from government new media teams discuss the perils, roadblocks and opportunities of promoting their science agendas online

– Christian Riel, new media, Canadian Institutes of Health Research

– Michael White, Senior Research Analyst, New Media, Parks Canada

– Dariusz Burzynski, Manager, Science and Technology Cluster, Strategic Science-Technology

3:25 pm – 4:25 pm

Kick-off event: “Outbreak!” interactive news simulation

A fictional emergency hits the capital, and its up to YOU and a panel of experts to assess and responsibly get the word out via digital media

This session will be followed by a moderated post-mortem discussion

The rest of the programme ranges from using a Twitter account to rouse more interest in your work to communicating with tomorrow’s science writers (teenagers) to reporting climate change to covering art/science projects.

What would happen if Canadian universities outsourced the grading of science, technology and mathematics assignments?

1 Reply

While I don’t usually blog about formal education, it is an important part of the science ‘environment’ and, last week. I came across a new development in US post secondary education  which could have an impact on Canadian post secondary education.  What could be the possible impact of outsourcing some of the duties usually associated with teaching assistants such as grading papers? A question that rose when reading this article by Andrea Belz in Beta News,

…  College professors are now outsourcing grading, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in April.

Teaching assistants (TAs) have provided that service for generations, but now it is going overseas. Recession-hit universities get even better deals outsourcing than they did with notoriously underpaid graduate students. Now, this work often ends up in the hands of credentialed Indian stay-at-home moms eager to work part-time.

…

In the sciences, department operating funds paid graduate students while they completed years of coursework; usually, doctoral students then eventually transitioned to receiving stipends from a professor’s research grants. In the humanities, the TA phase could extend even longer as students toiled away on their theses.

As Belz goes on to note, there’s a danger that graduate students from all faculties will simply abandon their studies. Since Belz roused my curiosity, I found the original article by Audrey Williams June in The Chronicle of Higher Education and found that, to date, it’s mostly business faculties (although the practice is not confined to them) who seem to have explored this option. From the article,

Lori Whisenant knows that one way to improve the writing skills of undergraduates is to make them write more. But as each student in her course in business law and ethics at the University of Houston began to crank out—often awkwardly—nearly 5,000 words a semester, it became clear to her that what would really help them was consistent, detailed feedback.

Her seven teaching assistants, some of whom did not have much experience, couldn’t deliver. Their workload was staggering: About 1,000 juniors and seniors enroll in the course each year. “Our graders were great,” she says, “but they were not experts in providing feedback.”

That shortcoming led Ms. Whisenant, director of business law and ethics studies at Houston, to a novel solution last fall. She outsourced assignment grading to a company whose employees are mostly in Asia.

June goes on to interview both critics and supporters for this practice  and does reiterate the point that students are more likely to persevere and improve their performance when they’re given substantive feedback on their efforts. She does not, as Belz does,  speculate as to the possible impact on the education system as a whole.

I have a question, is anyone suggesting that 1000 students in a class is too many? That number suggests a theatre or music performance not a teaching situation.

As for Whisenant, the professor featured in the excerpt, I find her reasoning odd and here’s why. If she has seven teaching assistants (TA) and 1000 students and assuming that she grades some of the papers herself, that works out to 125 papers to mark for each assignment. Presumably, her TAs are graduate students who are also taking courses and writing papers and/or working on their theses. So, reading/marking 125 assignments plus doing your own student work is a huge workload. So here’s my next question. How can Whisenant make this comment? “Our graders were great,” she says, “but they were not experts in providing feedback.” With 125 papers to mark one or more times in a semester (each student was producing 5000 words), the issue can’t be expertise in providing feedback. I don’t care how expert you are, you’ll never be able to give adequate feedback with that kind of a workload.

In speculating on which disciplines might lend themselves most easily to this type of outsourcing, I would have thought that sciences, mathematics, and technology (i.e. engineering and the like) programmes would be the most likely candidates. I find it fascinating that the uptake, so far, is with courses that heavily require written assignments.

I can see the advantages for undergraduate students in classes that are huge and/or online but the impact on graduate students seems nothing short of devastating unless remedies are applied before a crisis occurs.

In any event, I’m sure Canadian universities are watching with great interest.

Citizen science projects: solutions for Gulf of Mexico oil spill? Working with NASA to identify moon craters? Working with the US Geological Survey to better identify earthquake warnings?

4 Replies

You can find the projects I’ve listed in the headline (and others) at the Science Cheerleader website which was founded by Darlene Cavalier, from the About page in her own words,

The year was 1991, I was a senior at Temple University (where many thought I dual majored in cheerleading and mixology) and I was starved for cash. I supplemented my pitiable income by becoming a professional cheerleader for the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team. After a couple of exciting years sharing the spotlight with Sir Charles Barkley, I had to retire the skimpy outfits and pom poms, as “serious” work was calling. I was hired as a part-time temp to stuff envelopes for the Discover Magazine Technology Awards. Eventually, I was hired full-time by Discover (owned by the Walt Disney Company at the time) to run the awards and to manage business development activities for the company’s magazine group.

Darlene Cavalier in her cheerleading days

…

I returned to school at the University of Pennsylvania and dove into science history, sociology, and science policy to learn more about people like me: people with no hard academic background who are deeply interested in science, especially in its public faces in science policy and science literacy.

In the process, I uncovered a remarkable group of people I’d never seen or even heard about before. Scientific Citizens. Through their grass-roots, bottom-up efforts they aid research in a plethora of science fields by tagging butterflies, monitoring the health of water, keeping an eye on migratory patterns of birds, discovering new galaxies, and so much more.

Her May 13, 2010 post about the challenge that Andrew Revkin at the DotEarth New York Times blog set for researchers and other interested parties to come up with solutions for the current BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico offers some interesting insight into the politics of how BP is handling suggestions from outsiders along with commentary about the US federal Minerals Management Service which is charged, amongst other responsibilities, with overseeing oil rigs. She offers an excerpt of her May 13 , 2010 post here on Science Cheerleader and the full post here on DiscoverMagazine.com where she is a guest blogger during May 2010.