Monthly Archives: January 2011

Nano on Chuck tv show

Leave a reply

For those who aren’t familiar with it, Chuck is a tv show about spies done in a light-hearted fashion. Tonight’s (Jan. 17, 2011) episode features a nanochip (from The Futon Critic),

01/17/2011 (08:00PM – 09:00PM) (Monday) : CHUCK PLANS A SECRET MISSION WHILE ON ANOTHER SECRET MISSION IN FRANCE — When an assignment brings him to a French vineyard, Chuck (Zachary Levi) juggles tracking down a nano-chip with trying to create the perfect romantic getaway for Sarah (Yvonne Strahovski). Back at the Buy More, Lester (Vik Sahay) comes to Big Mike (Mark Christopher Lawrence) for his own romantic problems.

It’s been a while since I’ve seen anything ‘nano’ mentioned on a fictional tv show, I hope they manage the storyline a little better than the last folks did (my July 20, 2010 posting about The Jensen Project).

Butterflies inspire anti-counterfeiting measures

2 Replies

The Morpho butterfly is a singularly beautiful blue impossible for artists to reproduce with pigments as the colour is due to nanostructures which cause the wing’s unique optical properties. (Image copied from Wikipedia essay on Morpho butterflies.)

Photograph of a Blue Morpho butterfly (Morpho menelaus) by Gregory Phillips.

The butterfly has excited a lot of interest in the nanotechnology field and this morning (Jan. 17, 2011) research scientists (Clint Landrock and Bozena Kaminska) based at Simon Fraser University (Vancouver, Canada) announced that in an effort to eliminate currency fraud they have found a way to duplicate the butterfly’s optical properties on paper currency. It all starts with holes (from the Jan. 17, 2011 news release),

Imagine a hole so small that air can’t go through it, or a hole so small it can trap a single wavelength of light. Nanotech Security Corp., with the help of Simon Fraser University researchers, is using this type of nano-technology – 1,500 times thinner than a human hair and first of its kind in the world – to create unique anti-counterfeiting security features.

…

How this works is microscopic gratings composed of nanostructures interact with light to produce the shimmering iridescence seen on the Costa Rican morpho butterfly. The nanostructures act to reflect and refract light waves to produce the morpho’s signature blue wings and absorb other unwanted light.

The highly advanced wing structures are the result of many millennia of evolution, and only recently have Nanotech’s scientists discovered how to reproduce these structures reliably. While others have talked about the possibility of re-creating it, Nanotech has made this a reality.

The U.S. Treasury, which produces up to 11 billion banknotes annually, is a potential customer for Nanotech’s product. The new U.S. $100 bill, designed with state-of-the art security features, was supposed to be introduced in February 2011 but it’s been delayed due to some manufacturing issues.

…

According to Blakeway [Doug Blakeway, SFU Venture Connection’s entrepreneur in residence and also CEO and chairman of Nanotech Security Corp.], Nanotech’s product – which has attracted the attention of treasuries internationally – is superior to holograms and can’t be duplicated.

“Nobody has ever done this,” he said. “We have succeeded while everybody is still trying to duplicate or imitate a butterfly’s wing because it absorbs light and gives off the color. There’s no color pigment – there’s nothing like a dye or anything else. It’s a hole that traps light and releases color.

“You can’t copy or scan it in, you can’t inkjet it on paper, you can’t do any of these things. It’s extremely sophisticated and expensive to make the shims and dyes to produce, but very inexpensive to produce it at the end. Anywhere you can think of where a hologram is being used today, our technology can replace it. It’s more secure than a hologram. You can’t lift it off – we can put it onto metal, plastic, or paper.”

There is a video clip of a Discovery Planet item about the scientists’ presentation at the recent Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show. (Note: The clip is about 11 minutes long and the ‘Morpho’ money item is partway through.)

I’m a little puzzled about whether or not this is really the first time (as Nanotech Security Corp. claims) someone else has been able to reproduce the butterfly’s optical properties since there is a company in Japan, Teijin, which produces ‘Morphotex’, a textile that has the same properties as the butterfly. This was mentioned in my July 19, 2010 posting which also features an image of Donna Sgro’s dress made from the textile.

Nanoscience: the next 50 years?

2 Replies

Tomorrow, Jan. 15 2011, there’s going to be a Kavli Futures Symposium titled, Plenty of Room in the Middle: Nanoscience – The Next 50 Years. This a symposium is being hosted (as you may have guessed) by the Kavli Nanoscience Institute at the California Institute of Technology where (from the Jan. 12, 2011 news item on Nanowerk),

… an assembly of pioneering scientists will gather to focus on four key topics in nanoscience: atomic-scale assembly and imaging, mesoscopic quantum coherence, the “nano/bio nexus” and nanotechnology frontiers. Co-chairing the symposium are Michael Roukes, co-director of the Kavli Institute of Nanoscience at the California Institute of Technology, and IBM scientist Donald Eigler.

Unfortunately, they do not seem to be webcasting this event but there’s a transcript of a recent teleconference amongst three of the pioneering nanoscientists who will be gathering to discuss Feynman, his legacy, and the future. (The transcript is embedded in the news item on Nanowerk.)  The three scientists are:

  • IBM scientist Don Eigler
  • Angela Belcher Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) materials scientist
  • David Awschalom University of California physicist

Here’s an excerpt from the transcript which gives you a preview of what they’ll be talking about tomorrow. This bit is where David Awschalom is discussing convergence in the sciences,

I believe that the broad umbrella of nanoscience is rapidly dissolving the traditional barriers between these disciplines, and maybe wiring them a bit together with the idea that now people are thinking about atoms and materials as arbitrary forms, not in the historical sense. Physicists are now using biological systems, and biologists are exploiting solid state devices and microfluidic devices within a myriad of research efforts. People are thinking much more broadly than in the past and, as Don [Eigler] says, I think it’s the discoveries in science that are driving this direction. When I look at the students who are entering the university system, they’re highly motivated by the idea of breaking down the normal barriers and focusing on the new scientific opportunities that emerge. I agree with Don. I think the idea of labeling things is wrong. This merging is going to happen very naturally. It’s already happening. For example, some researchers are thinking about photosynthesis as a quantum process, and [asking] whether photosynthesis is driven quantum mechanically in certain plants – exploring the concept of coherent energy transfer in biology. If so, it is possible to control this flow with exquisite precision. When you look in the literature, there are growing numbers of laboratories working in these cross-disciplinary areas; not because they’re suddenly interested in biology but they realize that biological systems could be tuned and engineered to explore unique scientific missions. So yes, I do believe that this merge is inevitable. I don’t think it’s going to be because of funding, or because of labeling, as Don says, but it’s where the interest is, and it where the new frontiers are in science.

I find this to be very interesting since it fits in very well with a recent presentation that MIT researchers made at a forum hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) earlier this month. From the Jan. 5, 2011 news item on Azonano,

A new model for scientific research known as “convergence” offers the potential for revolutionary advances in biomedicine and other areas of science, according to a white paper issued today by 12 leading MIT researchers.

…

The report, “The Third Revolution: The Convergence of the Life Sciences, Physical Sciences and Engineering,” noted the impact that convergence is already having in a broad array of fields.

Just as advances in information technology, materials, imaging, nanotechnology and related fields — coupled with advances in computing, modeling and simulation — have transformed the physical sciences, so are they are beginning to transform life science. The result is critical new biology-related fields, such as bioengineering, computational biology, synthetic biology and tissue engineering.

At the same time, biological models (understanding complex, self-arranged systems) are already transforming engineering and the physical sciences, making possible advances in biofuels, food supply, viral self assembly and much more.

What’s fascinating to me is that there doesn’t seem to any consideration of the societal implications of all this boundary crossing or convergence. Frankenfoods (genetically modified food) created a major panic because people were not comfortable with crossing certain types of boundaries. Once you take the ideas being proposed by the Kavli nanoscientists and the MIT researchers from theory to application, another dimension can open up.

Not all applications are hugely upsetting to society but some have the potential to cause havoc and they don’t necessarily have to cross boundaries. For example, computers created huge problems. I once had a technical writer tell me that she found bullet casings in some of the computerized equipment they received back from some small towns in northern British Columbia (Canada). People were afraid for their jobs. And, when I was working in the library system at the University of British Columbia, a librarian tried to sabotage the system; she didn’t use a gun or a rifle. Instead, when they were transferring information from card catalogues to online catalogues the librarian [started] taking large chunks of catalogue cards home with her, effectively hiding the information.

Stories like the one about the librarian might seem amusing now but there was genuine anguish and panic over the advent of the computer into daily life. Personally, I think the changes these nanoscientists are discussing are more profound and potentially disturbing.

London Science Festival explores avant garde fashion designer Alexander McQueen’s science

Leave a reply

I just came across these London Science Festival folks on Twitter this morning (thank you Ruth Seeley). They have a website featuring a number of interesting postings including this  from Dec. 31, 2010 about fashion designer Alexander McQueen and science,

Image copied from London Science Festival website.

The festival itself will run from Oct. 19 – 26, 2011. Here’s more about the event and the organizers from the About page,

Welcome to to virtual home of London Science Festival!

London Science Festival is a brand new festival for London in 2011, which was founded with the mission to inspire and engage the public in all things scientific, from natural science to science in its most cultural contexts.

We created this Festival blog so you can follow us over the next year as we build a science festival. We’ll also be sharing interesting events and exhibitions from our friends and partners.

Right now, we’re finalising agreements with our committee and institutional partners – but, there will be an open application process which will be announced in the New Year, so any individual or organisation can apply to host an event within our programme.

Note the dates of the Festival, 19-26 October 2011, and get in touch (info@londonscifest.com) if you would like to recommend a project, or discuss ideas for collaboration.

You can keep updated on Festival news via this site, our Twitter page, Facebook page, or our self-subscribe mailing list.

Science Online 2011

2 Replies

There’s a big meeting (5th annual) about science and the web, Science Online 2011, which will start in a few hours in the Research Triangle Area of North Carolina. Good news! Those of us unable to attend in person will be able to view livestream presentations or the webcasts will be available later when they’ve been archived. All of this is courtesy of the National Association of Science Writers (NASW).

I have long wanted to attend this conference and here’s why (from their About page),

ScienceOnline2011 is the fifth annual international meeting on Science and the Web. On January 13-15th, 2011 [NOTE: The programme lists Jan. 13  – 16, 2011 as the dates] the Research Triangle area of North Carolina will once again host scientists, students, educators, physicians, journalists, librarians, bloggers, programmers and others interested in the way the World Wide Web is changing the way science is communicated, taught and done.

Here’s a sampling from their programme page,

Saturday, January 15th: 10:15-11:15am

Experiments with the imagination: science and scientists through the medium of fiction – Jennifer Rohn and Blake Stacey

Can we stimulate a wider interest in and appreciation of scientists and what they do via the medium of mainstream fiction, whether be it novels, plays, movies or TV dramas? And how can we leverage online tools to help? Is it possible to entertain and educate without becoming too pedantic or pedagogical, and how do we define “scientific accuracy” in the context of made-up stories? This session will explore the world of imaginary science and how we can leverage its powers without compromising our scientific principles.

Saturday, January 15th: 11:30am-12:30pm

The Entertainment Factor – Communicating Science with Humor – Brian Malow and Joanne Manaster

How do we find a balance between education and entertainment? When reaching out to the public, how do you increase the fun factor and audience engagement without diluting the science? There seems to be growing interest in this question and awareness that some science programming is too dry or boring. But, even though Brian is an entertainer, he is not a fan of much of what passes for science on television. In a lot of flashy programs, there’s really no interesting science content at all. Let’s talk about this and related issues.

Saturday, January 15th: 2:00pm-3:00pm

Blogs, Bloggers and Boundaries? – Marie-Claire Shanahan, Alice Bell, Ed Yong, Martin Robbins and Viv Raper

Science blogging is often seen as an opportunity for science and science communication to be made more open and in doing so, help connect people. Blogging thus might be seen as a chance to break down cultural boundaries between science, science journalists, and various people formerly known as audiences. But do these traditional roles still affect blogs, bloggers and their readers? Are blogs still producing a rather traditional form of popular science, one that largely disseminates knowledge, maintaining a boundary between those who are knowledgeable and those who are not? Or do they provide new opportunities for these boundaries to be blurred? Similarly, do blogs help foster cross-disciplinary communication or simply allow bloggers to keep talking to ever more niche audiences? They allow science writers to connect with more people, but do they end up as an echo chamber where writers only talk to more of the same people? And how can bloggers tell if their writing is actually making a difference? This discussion will explore the boundaries that are maintained and blurred through science blogging, including the value of some of these boundaries and the importance of being aware of them.

Saturday, January 15th: 3:15pm-4:15pm

Science-Art: The burgeoning fields of niche artwork aimed at scientific disciplines – Glendon Mellow, David Orr and John Hawks

* Is science-inspired art a new zeitgeist, or just cyclical?

* An overview of science’s influence in art history, and how the internet changes its influence.

* What makes something “science art” anyway? How does it differ from fantasy or scientific illustration?

* Dinosaurs. Hominids/archaeological reconstruction. Space art (how about those NASA animations, do they count?)

* Also, how is online altering the dynamic?

How to explain science in blog posts – Scicurious, Joanne Manaster, Maryn McKenna, Vivienne Raper, Eric Michael Johnson, Brian Mossop, Carin Bondar, Melody Dye, Christie Wilcox, Ed Yong and the engaged audience.

Many science bloggers dream about attracting a mass audience, but what’s the secret to popular and readable blogposts? Do you have to write about orgasms, duck sex and dinosaurs or are there other ways to draw a crowd? This session will discuss how to make your blog an effective tool for getting the public excited about science… and masturbating squirrels.

Saturday, January 15th: 4:45pm-5:45pm

Video: from YouTube to TV to Hollywood and back: Mini Science Film Festival- Joanne Manaster and Carin Bondar

What are some of the best science videos on the internet? Who is making them and how are they doing it? We will provide a screening of several of our favorites and open the floor for discussion of what works and what doesn’t. What kind of science topics/stories make for great video presentations? Which bloggers are using video posts, and what kinds of techniques do they employ? What is the future of video production and science?

Demos:

1) I’m a Scientist, Get me out of Here! 60% of school students taking part in I’m a Scientist visit the site at home, in their own time, after doing it in class. How do you make science engagement fun, and engage students who aren’t usually interested in science? We’ll show you how IAS works, and why. (Sophia Collins)

2) Blogging with the invisible community and why it might matter – Project Exploration’s blog, blogging strategy with students; blogging about science as a way to get and keep youth and girls from historically underrepresented populations involved with science and scientists. (Gabrielle Lyon)

3) N.C.Zoo (Russ Williams and Mark MacAllister) – Highlight several NC Zoo Education programs, including FieldTripEarth, the conservation education website operated by the North Carolina Zoological Society.

Sunday, January 16th: 9:00am-10:00am

Talking mathematics on blogs and wikis! – Blake Stacey and Maria Droujkova

Using computer programming and simulations as educational tools! We had a great time chatting over these things last year, even though we were stuck in the little room behind the coat closet. Since then, the Math 2.0 interest group grew, and several people are eager to run some math sessions at the conference. Online math communities is the topic.

Sunday, January 16th:11:30am-12:30pm

Communicating Science. Have you ever wondered, “What the hell’s the point?” – Darlene Cavalier

Bloggers, journalists, educators, policymakers and (sometimes) scientists are taking great strides to inform the public of the latest, greatest scientific breakthroughs. Academic fields have sprung up to study best practices and increase “public understanding of science” with the hope of creating a scientifically literate populace. While this is all helpful in delivering tools needed to understand the world, or, in many cases, simply for pure edutainment, did you ever wonder if your motivated (“non expert”) readers could do more with the news and information you’re providing? Otherwise, what the hell’s the point? There are, indeed, efforts underway to harness the power of an informed citizenry to shape science and science policies via citizen science and participatory technology assessment efforts, to name two emerging activities. But more can be done to give purpose to your work. Getting the public from here (passive sponges) to there (actively engaged participants) requires work. Whose responsibility is that? Yours. Mine. Ours. We’ll explore all of this and more, including a brief (entertaining) look at of some of the unorthodox methods the Science Cheerleader uses to turn “average” folks onto science.

Web 2.0, public and private spaces in the scientific community, and generational divides in the practice of science – Janet Stemwedel and Helene Andrews-Polymenis

I was at a meeting of NSF PIs, trainees, and program officers back in May to talk about how blogging might fit into scientific work/training, and became aware of a huge generational divide on the appropriateness of the use of “new technologies” of all sorts. The divide can best be summed up in the words of a PI who said (to students at the meeting talking about their use of such technologies), “Why is it that your generation feels compelled to do in public what the rest of us know to do in private?” I think this is a HUGE issue in the practice of science (and one with interesting epistemological and ethical issues). Would love to see someone from The Third Reviewer participating in this one, as well as some open notebook/open science folks, and possibly folks blogging about what it’s like to lead a scientific life. Would also welcome a designated curmudgeon to stand up for the old ways.

Sunday, January 16th:2:00pm-3:00pm

Blogging networks and the emerging science communications ecosystem – Arikia Millikan (Wired), Brian Mossop (PLoS), Bora Zivkovic (Scientific American and ScienceInTheTriangle), SciCurious (Scientopia), Amos Zeeberg (Discover), Lou Woodley (Nature Network), Martin Robbins (Guardian and Lay Scientist), Andrew Thaler (the Gam), Mark Hahnel (science3point0), Craig McClain (Deep Sea News), Brian Krueger (LabSpaces), Rachel Pepling (CENtral Science), Alok Jha (the Guardian), Leslie Taylor (Talking Science), Richard P. Grant (Occam’s Typewriter), Maria Jose Vinas (AGU network, via Skype), Eva Amsen (the Node, via Skype)….

A round-table with editors and community managers of blogging networks and big group-blogs in “hot seats”, audience asks questions, gives suggestions, criticisms, etc. What’s the (changing) role of an online editor on a site aggregating independent blogs? “Merely” a bloggers’ assistant for bug fixes and spam busting or a signposter to content, online marketer, creator of community or what? How closely do you monitor your community’s behaviour? Do you know visit times/bounce rates/preferred pages for all your archive and how easy is it to predict what will be “good” (high traffic?) content? Do you encourage “basics posts” and “explainers”? Do you worry if posts are not “newsy” enough?

There is much, much more and I tried to bring it all here but the word count got ridiculous.

Canadian business triumphs again! US company acquires Cananano Technologies

4 Replies

As I have noted on more than one occasion, the ‘success’ model in Canadian technology-based businesses is predicated on a buy-out, i.e. develop and grow your business so you can sell it and retire. The news about Canadian Nano Technologies (Canano) fits very well into this model. From the Jan. 12, 2011 news item on Nanotechnology Now,

Arkansas-based NanoMech, Inc. announced today that it has acquired Canadian Nano Technologies, LLC (Canano).

Canano (www.CanadianNano.com) provides custom engineered nanopowders designed to solve unique problems, adding value to products that span multiple industries including electronics, agriculture, solar energy, and aerospace. The company was founded to develop and commercialize applications of pure metal nanopowders. Using a proprietary gas condensation process partially based on research carried out at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Canano produces a wide variety of high-quality nanoparticles. Their proprietary process is unique and offers significant improvements over other nanoparticle production/collection processes.

NanoMech is a leading designer and manufacturer of nanoparticle-based additives, coatings and coating deposition systems.

…

Richard Tacker, Founder and CEO of Canano said, “Our customers have seen the value that our custom-engineered nanopowders bring to their products, and as a result the demand for our materials is growing rapidly. By joining NanoMech we can take advantage of their excellent management team, nanomanufacturing expertise, and scale up our production capacity to serve existing and future customers.”

The Canadian technology certainly has some interesting applications,

The nanopowder technology applications include advance methods of improving: nutrient replacement fertilizers and environmentally safe pesticides and conductive inks for printed circuit boards, RFID’s, photovoltaic printed solar cells, solar connectors, surface coatings, new generation ballistics, RF shielding, self-cleaning surfaces, solar heaters, condensers , silicon wafers, solid rocket fuels, and primers. Other applications include textiles, nano fabrics for clothing and car seat covers, odor free materials, cosmetics, sunscreens, deodorants, lip balm, cleansing products, surface protectants, cleaning chemicals, antibacterial coatings, scratch resistant surfaces, thermal barriers, super hydrophobic, dielectrics, wound dressings, lighter, stronger sports equipment, smart materials, air purifiers, water filtration and bio-aerosols, safety, sun and high definition glasses, non-reflective and smart shielding, odor free refrigerators and washing machines, automotive parts, chip resistant paints, non-corrosives, cement, concrete, and fuel savers, and much more.

Meanwhile, the discussion about innovation in Canada continues as we try to figure out why we aren’t better at innovating as per a Jan. 12, 2011 article by John Lorinc for University Affairs. (Thanks to Rob Annan for the tip via Twitter.) Lorinc notes in his article,

In its ninth report on the state of Ontario’s competitiveness, the task force headed by Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto’s Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, argues that low productivity in the country’s manufacturing heartland has led to low prosperity, revealing an “innovation gap.” Professor Martin writes that public policy is more concerned with science-driven inventions that, while very important to society, won’t necessarily lead to products and services that consumers want – and thus products and services that could improve Ontario’s innovation capabilities. [emphasis mine]

I am not sure that a focus on ‘science-driven inventions’ is the big problem. Certainly our inventions seem attractive to large foreign companies and corporations as per the Canano experience and many others. The article even points out that Apple is currently pursuing RIM, which is, for now, the largest Canadian technology company.

The perspective from William Polushin from McGill  is closer to my own,

For many years, William Polushin has taught a core international business undergraduate course at McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management. Each year Mr. Polushin (who’s also founding director of the Desautels program for international competitiveness, trade and innovation) polls his students about their attitudes towards entrepreneurship and innovation by asking whether they see themselves as the next Bill Gates – in other words, as individuals who will come up with an innovation that could be a game-changer. Year after year, the response rate is consistent: only about 10 percent say they see themselves in this kind of role. By comparison, at a recent conference on North American competitiveness in Mexico City, he asked the students in the audience to raise their hands if they saw themselves running their own businesses in the future. “Well over half put up their hands,” he says.

The results of his straw polls tell a story. Canada has not been especially successful at fostering an innovation mindset among successive generations of business grads and entrepreneurs. Mr. Polushin says, “We don’t have a strong risk orientation in our own country.” [emphasis mine] Most of his students aspire to work in large companies, even though the supply of Canadian-based multinationals continues to shrink due to consolidation. The result, he says, is that much R&D and innovation activity occurs elsewhere.

For a bit of contrast,

Although he’s based at the epicentre of Ottawa’s policy machinery, veteran Statistics Canada economist John Baldwin has a message that runs sharply counter to much of the conventional wisdom that emanates from the capital’s think tanks. “There’s an awful lot of innovation taking place,” says Dr. Baldwin, director of StatsCan’s economic analysis division. The problem is that Canadian policy doesn’t recognize it as such.

I think that’s true too and illustrates the point that discussion about innovation in Canada is complex and nuanced. I recommend reading Lorinc’s entire article.

Todd Babiuk’s article for the Edmonton Journal, Canada failing to create culture of innovation, provides an insider’s perspective from Peter Hackett,

He was, for five years, the president and CEO of a now-shuttered endowment fund called Alberta Ingenuity. The mandate of Alberta Ingenuity, devised to be independent of the provincial government, was to encourage and support innovation in science, technology and engineering. This innovation would lead to spinoff companies that would create fabulous wealth and opportunity for Albertans, attract talented people, and diversify the economy.

Then, all of a sudden, he wasn’t the president and CEO of an independent organization. Alberta Ingenuity has been replaced by Alberta Innovates, and it is operated by the department of Advanced Education and Technology.

“What I take from it, in terms of lessons, is it’s thrilling to watch a group of people take a great product to the market,” said Hackett, in his current office at the University of Alberta’s National Institute for Nanotechnology, where he is a fellow. Before he arrived in Alberta, Hackett did similar work at the National Research Council in Ottawa, spinning Canadian research into businesses.

“But in 15 years of an innovation agenda, honestly,” he said, “governments have accomplished nothing.”

…

On a YouTube video shot at the Canadian Science Policy Centre in late 2010, Hackett criticizes the Canadian government’s unhelpful and backward interventions into business, through the tax system.

“If you’re making a profit, we’re going to help you. But if you’re growing, we won’t. [emphasis mine] In the U.S., it’s completely the other way around. That’s why they have a lot of small companies that grow into big companies.”

In the same video he outlines, briefly and rather devastatingly, the problem with venture capital in Canada. “Government’s intervention into venture capital has ruined the ability for Canadian companies to grow,” he says.

… “We created a tax break for investing in venture capital,” he said, in his office. “So it was about the tax break, not this great company: Facebook, whatever you like. It’s absurd!”

Point well taken regarding the tax break for venture capital. As I recall, there were similar issues with film funding tax breaks. These were addressed and finally, real movies as opposed to ‘tax break’ movies got funded. Part of the problem with government tax programmes such as tax breaks for venture capital funding or film funding is the law of unintended (and counterproductive) consequences and the extraordinarily long time it takes to resolve them.

There was one other point in Hackett’s interview, “If you’re making a profit, we’re going to help you. But if you’re growing, we won’t,” which is well illustrated by Rob Annan’s Nov. 30, 2010 posting (on the Researcher Form blog) where he discusses this phenomenon in the context of Medicago,

Medicago is a Canadian company that produces vaccines in tobacco plants instead of using traditional egg-production techniques. This allows a much more rapid development and deployment of seasonal and pandemic vaccines. Their proprietary technology, currently in phase I and II clinical trials, was developed in Canada thanks in part to government funding …

They’ve been awarded numerous Canadian business and technology awards. They have translated these investments and successes into millions of dollars in private sector investment and a public listing on the TSX. Not bad for a company based out of Quebec City.

So what’s wrong with this obvious success story?

Medicago made the news this week because the US Department of Defense is investing $21-million to build a 90,000 sq ft state-of-the art production facility in North Carolina. The facility will be able to produce 120-million pandemic vaccine doses annually or 40-million seasonal vaccine doses annually. In a news release, the US government recognizes the company’s ability to bolster domestic vaccine supply, respond more rapidly than traditional methods, and bring “hundreds of good paying jobs” to the region.

The 90,000 sq ft facility in North Carolina will dwarf the current estimated 15,000 sq ft dedicated to production in Quebec City, and will inevitably shift the company’s focus south.

The Canadian government’s response?

According to CBC news, Health Canada remains committed to egg-based vaccines …

While it’s discouraging to read about, I like to find hope in the fact that innovation in Canada is being discussed and folks seem to be interested in finding ways to promote and nurture innovation in Canada.

Talking nanoscience in Alberta

1 Reply

I was wondering what had happened to nanoAlberta (now part of Alberta Innovates Technology Futures) as there hasn’t been any news from the orgnaization in several months. Radio silence broke yesterday, Jan. 11, 2011*, with the announcement of a Let’s Talk Nanoscience event for grade 11 and 12 students at the University of Alberta,

Let’s Talk NanoScience is a one-day symposium for Grade 11 and 12 students hosted by Let’s Talk Science volunteers from the University of Alberta in partnership with the National Institute for Nanotechnology – Canada’s flagship nanotechnology institute. The goal of this symposium is to introduce senior level high school students to graduate students and researchers, as well as to the cutting-edge advancements in science and technology that are happening in their own backyard.

When: Friday, February 25, 2011, 9 a.m. – 3:15 p.m.

Where: Tory Lecture Theatres & Tory Building, University of Alberta

Cost: This event is provided free of charge, courtesy of Let’s Talk Science, the National Institute for Nanotechnology and the Faculty of Science, University of Alberta

There are more details including an agenda at the Let’s Talk Nanoscience webpage. At first I thought this was a science outreach project and a soft sell for nanotechnology studies but this is a little less soft sell and more of a straightforward recruiting event aimed at eager high school students.

One of the host organizations, Let’s Talk Science, does produce a number of what I would call science outreach events (from their About page),

Let’s Talk Science is an award-winning, national, charitable organization. We deliver science learning programs and services that turn children and youth on to science, keep them engaged in learning and develop their potential to become 21st century citizens, innovators and stewards.

Founded in 1993 by Bonnie Schmidt, PhD, Let’s Talk Science has excited, inspired and engaged more than 2 million children, youth, educators and volunteers in science, engineering and technology.

Our approach to science education engages children and youth — from the very early years through high school — with fun, exciting hands-on/minds-on activities that improve their understanding of physical and life science, mathematics and technology. This approach builds critical life skills, including problem-solving, communication and teamwork, and accounts for the fact that each individual learns in their own unique way.

Let’s Talk Science stretches from coast-to-coast, reaching children, youth and educators in every province and territory through our wide range of science education programs and services.

*December 3, 2019: ‘ Jan. 11, 2010’ changed to ‘ Jan. 11, 2011’.

Lasers and Paul Corkum

Leave a reply

The Canada Science and Technology Museum is going to be featuring a public talk by Paul Corkum (mentioned in my May 13, 2009 posting and my March 17, 2009 posting) about the past, the present, and the future for lasers. Titled, Catching Electrons with Light; Celebrating the past, present, and future of the laser in Canada, the event will be held on Jan. 20, 2011 at 7 pm. From the Museum’s event page,

Presentation by Dr. Paul Corkum, University of Ottawa and National Research Council of Canada

Laser technology, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2010, is undergoing a revolution. Extremely short laser pulses are providing a powerful new tool in the study of the smallest structures on Earth. The laser’s incredible speed is making it possible to “photograph” electrons, bonds breaking, or atoms rearranging themselves within molecules during a chemical reaction – the very essence of chemistry.

Dr. Paul Corkum of the University of Ottawa and the National Research Council of Canada will discuss recent advances in laser technology. Before the lecture, examine lasers from the Museum’s collection, as well as the National Research Council’s first laser, a recent major acquisition for the Museum. Dr. Alex Szabo of the NRC will be present to share how he and Dr. Boris Stoicheff developed the first Canadian laser in January 1961.

Admission is free. RSVP by January 19, 2011. rsvp@technomuses.ca

I’m glad to hear of this interesting event. I wish they’d webcast these things. It doesn’t have to be livestreamed; all they have to do is video the event and post it online afterwards so those of who don’t live in Ottawa can have access. Perhaps even that is just too expensive?

Nanomaterial growth system sold to L’École Polytechnique et L’Universite de Montreal

Leave a reply

NanoGrowth-Catalyst produced by Surrey Nanosystems has been sold to L’École Polytechnique de Montréal, the Université de Montréal, and the University of Surrey’s (England) Advanced Technology Institute. From the Jan. 10, 2011 news item on Azonano,

These leading research organisations have chosen the NanoGrowth-Catalyst as a platform for their work on materials including carbon nanotubes, silicon nanowires, graphene and nanoparticles for semiconductor, optical device and other applications. The growth system’s multi-chamber design ensures the purest nanomaterial processing conditions by continuously maintaining the substrate under vacuum, from the deposition of catalysts to growth of materials.

…

The Advanced Technology Institute (ATI) is a partner to Surrey NanoSystems and has already been using an earlier version of the NanoGrowth system for around four years to support its research into next-generation semiconductor and photonic device technologies. ATI is the first customer to receive the new NanoGrowth-Catalyst, and the system’s advanced processing resources are now starting to play a role in its work. Facilities including the rapid infrared heating process and a water-cooled chuck are helping ATI to grow ordered carbon nanotube (CNT) structures while maintaining the substrate below 350 degrees C. Low temperature processing is critical as CNTs are typically grown at around 700 degrees C – a level that is incompatible with CMOS semiconductor fabrication. This pioneering semiconductor-related work is currently the subject of a current ATI paper in the journal Carbon†.

“The top-down infrared heating technique provided by this tool allows us to localise energy delivery very accurately”, says Professor Ravi Silva, Head of the Nano-Electronics Centre at the Advanced Technology Institute. “The system provides unparalleled control of processing parameters, giving the required flexibility to support research into nanoelectronic materials – including carbon nanotubes, graphene and silicon nanowires – enabling us to overcome roadblocks to ongoing semiconductor development.”

“Some researchers are still relying on simple thermal furnaces to develop nanomaterials”, explains Ben Jensen of Surrey NanoSystems. “The NanoGrowth system’s comprehensive suite of deposition and processing capabilities, plus end-to-end processing in vacuum, gives both researchers and commercial developers precise and automated control over catalyst deposition and material growth, to explore nanomaterial capabilities and turn ideas into repeatable production processes.”

The folks in Montréal will have a special function added to their system (from the news item),

It will also incorporate a unique form of rapid thermal growth for nanomaterials developed to prevent the agglomeration of catalyst particles. The configuration of the tool was specified by Professor Patrick Desjardins, Director of the École Polytechnique’s Department of Engineering Physics.

Jan.11.11 (today) attend a livestream broadcast of Google’s Science Fair/Competition opening

Leave a reply

Grrl Scientist’s Punctuated Equilibrium blog (one of the Guardian newspaper’s science blogs) has posted about the launch of Google’s first global online science fair. From the Jan. 11, 2011 posting,

But thanks to the internet, kids from around the world now have the ability to participate in the world’s first online global science competition, the Google Science Fair! Together with CERN, LEGO, National Geographic and Scientific American, Google has created a new kind of online science competition that is global, open and more inclusive than ever. Students aged 13-18 from around the world are invited to design interesting, creative science projects that are relevant to today’s world and to compete for awesome once-a-lifetime experiences, scholarships and real-life work opportunities.

…

Submission deadline: 4 April 2011.

The livestream broadcast for the fair’s opening can be seen on the Google Science Fair website from 9 – 10:30 am PST (1700 – 1830 GMT).

ETA Jan.11.11 9:35 am PST: It seems the launch was on Eastern Standard Time. Drat!  To make up for it, here’s the video that was used to publicize the fair,