Monthly Archives: June 2011

Nanomaterial regulatory frameworks: what’s all the fuss?

1 Reply

I’ve dug up more information on nanomaterials and regulatory frameworks but before I launch off into the discussion I think it might be interesting to take a look at this graphic of a plant’s potential uptake of various nanomaterials as it illustrates some of the reasons why there’s so much interest in this topic.

Downloaded from the June 7, 2011 article, Nano & The Food Chain: Another Puzzle by Gwyneth K. Shaw for the New Haven Independent (the graphic was originally published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry),

”]

Shaw’s article is about a study (Interaction of Nanoparticles with Edible Plants and Their Possible Implications in the Food Chain [this is behind a paywall]) by researchers at the University of Texas at El Paso, which reviews current studies in the field and suggests that as nanoparticles enter the food chain we need to consider cumulative effects.

Meanwhile, the discussion about developing regulatory frameworks and whether or not we need to have a definition for nanomaterials before setting a regulatory framework continues. From the June 7, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

The Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union organized a high level event on September 14, 2010, bringing together representatives of various associations (consumers, environmental protection, workers, industrial federations), scientists, regulatory experts as well as national and European regulatory bodies, in order to review the legislative initiatives in progress with regard to nanomaterials and to establish an operational framework for the management of incidents in the short term and to achieve improved risk management in the long term.

Initially I confused this meeting with the March 2011 meeting mentioned in my April 14, 2011 posting but I gather there are a number of meetings (some of which seem remarkably similar) on the topic with various European Union groups and subgroups. The September 2010 meeting was under the auspices of the European Union and the March 2011 meeting was under the auspices of the European Commission (which I believe is part of the European Union bureaucracy). In any event, the September 2010 meeting resulted in a set of objectives being set (from the news item),

THE [European Union] PRESIDENCY CONCLUDES THAT, IN ORDER TO protect the workers, consumers health and the environment, and at the same time guarantee the development of a secure and sound economy based notably on innovation and societally acceptable industrial applications that create quality jobs, THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES MUST BE REACHED, IN RELATION TO NANOMATERIALS, PRODUCTS CONTAINING NANOMATERIALS AND NANOTECHNOLOGIES:

1) REGARDING THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK:

  • to effectively address their potential risks and uncertainties, at the earliest, and thus ensure a high level of environment and health protection;
  • to consider their challenges transversally, across sectors, disciplines and regulations;
  • in parallel, to implement specific regulatory measures to deal with their particularities;
  • to appropriately inform and consult consumers, workers and citizens;

    2) REGARDING SCIENCE, RESEARCH, INNOVATION AND KNOWLEDGE:

  • to develop the necessary scientific knowledge in a global, coordinated and open manner;
  • to be proactive and to anticipate when dealing with the risks and uncertainties of new technological developments.

    IN CONSEQUENCE, THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS HAVE TO BE TAKEN:

  • to take up responsibilities at the Member States level and, during a transitory period, draw up coordinated and integrated national strategies and concrete measures in favour of risk management, information and monitoring;
  • to develop urgently a regulatory definition for nanomaterials that must include nanomaterials all along their lifecycle, including into substances, products, articles, wearing residues and waste; [emphasis mine]
  • to consider nanotechnology as a priority into a future 2nd Environment and Health Action Plan, including inter alia basic and applied research related to them, their specific potential risks, their traceability and the link between innovation, environment and health safety;
  • to clarify the various issues that remain presently unaddressed in the Commission proposals to adapt REACH to the nanomaterials and, in addition to the adaptations to the guidances to include significant modifications into the REACH 2012 review, including the lowering of the tonnage triggers for nanomaterials, modifications to data requirements in REACH annexes, consideration of nanomaterials as new substances, annexes V (exemptions) and XIII review (PBT, vPvB) and the inclusion in REACH of a definition of nanomaterials and articles containing nanomaterials;
  • to increase public and private resources, especially the financial inputs to the OECD WPMN, with the goal of obtaining results to be used for regulatory purposes as soon as possible;
  • to develop harmonized compulsory databases of nanomaterials and products containing nanomaterials;
  • such databases must be the base for traceability, market surveillance, gaining knowledge for better risk prevention and for the improvement of the legislative framework;
  • to take into account, in the design of such databases, the need for providing information to the citizens, workers and consumers regarding nanomaterials and products containing nanomaterials as well as the industry’s need for data protection;
  • claims made on labels of products containing nanomaterials must be regulated and the requirements to inform the consumer of the presence of nanomaterials in consumer products must be defined;
  • to consider sustainability, societal benefits, demands for public participation, and ethical considerations in the public investments in innovative technologies;
  • to establish a systematic, balanced and appropriate link between on the one hand the assessment of risk, early warnings and uncertainties and on the other hand the public investments in innovative technologies in general and nanotechnologies in particular, including financing mechanisms that take such a link into account;
  • to consider research in toxicology and ecotoxicology of nanomaterials, as well as their fate along the whole lifecycle as a high priority.

There is a school of thought that a regulatory framework can be put in place without establishing a definition beforehand as per my April 15, 2011 posting where I mentioned Dr. Andrew Maynard’s proposal and expressed some hesitation. I see Dexter Johnson (of the Nanoclast blog on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website), after interviewing Rudolf Strohmeier, Deputy Director General, Directorate General for Research & Innovation for the European Commission at the EuroNano Forum 2011 in Budapest, Hungary, has weighed in with this in his May 31, 2011 posting,

Below is an audio recording I made of my exchange with Mr. Strohmeier. Interestingly, according to him, the definition was necessary for educating EU citizens as much as for developing regulations. …

In fairness, I didn’t really get a chance to follow up with Mr. Strohmeier to see if he could see the problems that arise when you arbitrarily arrive at a definition that may not always reflect the latest science on the topic. Nonetheless, I can’t help but think that a definition that is as much about mollifying the public as it is about good science has inherent risks itself. [emphases mine]

I take Dexter’s and Andrew’s point about the potential problems that creating a definition for what I’m going to call ‘public relations purposes’ could cause but I still haven’t grasped how one would create a regulatory framework without a definition of some kind (but maybe that’s just the writer in me).

All of this certainly puts the Canadian situation into perspective. There’s an interim definition in place. As for a regulatory framework, it appears that the government (Health Canada) favours a case by case approach as per their plans to investigate nanosunscreens (noted in my June 3, 2011 posting).

Robot swan dances to Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake

Leave a reply

The Swedes have created a robotic swan that dances to Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. From the CultureLab’s Oct 8, 2010 posting (Robot prima ballerina debuts) on the New Scientist website,

Computer scientist Lars Asplund from Mälardalen University in Västerås, Sweden, and theatre director Kerstin Gauffin, at the university’s Eskilstuna campus, came up with the idea when discussing how close machines can come to being human.

“We wanted to show that robots aren’t just industrial, functional machines,” explains Asplund. “We can actually connect with them emotionally.”

The 1-metre tall robot has 19 joints, making it just flexible enough to do ballet. Professional dancer and choreographer Åsa Unander-Scharin created the 4-minute dance routine to the Swan Lake remix.

“The dance routine is extremely well done,” says Gauffin. “Nobody will be able resist the desperation, beauty and fragility in this swan, which is fighting for its life.” She thinks it’s a shame that robots are often associated with war and industry.

The robot ballerina premiered at a book fair in Gothenberg, Sweden, Sept. 23, 2010 (more from the CultureLab article).

Gauffin says that most people were fascinated with it, but that the hectic and noisy environment at the book fair might not be the ideal place to experience the routine.

They must have had some test performances before the first one for the general public at the book fair because Clay Dillow’s Sept. 21, 2010 article on the PopSci website provides a contrasting view of audience reactions,

In America, the animalistic automatons at Chuck E. Cheese entertain (and sometimes terrify) children with their inelegant, slack-jawed singing, spastic motions, and soulless, lifeless eyes. It’s a stark contrast with Sweden, where a robot swan is literally moving people to tears with a four-minute, professionally choreographed routine, dramatically executed to Tchaikovsky’s “Swan Lake.” [emphasis mine]

The Dying Swan moves sometimes gently, sometimes with energetic passion, but apparently always beautifully, leading the few people who have witnessed its dance to describe it with words like “touching” and “beautiful.” In other words, its display conjures adjectives not usually associated with the motions of a robot.

If you’re curious, here’s a video of the robot swan performing Swan Lake,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOzf3C2Z5UQ&feature=related

I found the piece poignant although some pointe work is needed.

Construction materials and a McGill University physicist

Leave a reply

At the Construction Specifications Canada (CSC) conference, May 25 – 29, 2011 in Montréal, PeterGrutter, a physics professor at McGill University (located in Montréal, Québec) noted that nanotechnology will have a huge impact on the construction industry. From  Greg Meckbach’s June 7, 2011 article for the online version of the Daily Commercial News and Construction Record,

“Fundamentally, you can change a lot of the properties, curing times, energy consumption in major building materials by using various types of nano materials” he said.

Grutter made his remarks during a presentation at the CSC annual conference at Montreal’s Delta Centre Ville.

He said silicon dioxide has a “huge potential benefit” because if you reduce the size of the silicon particles to nanometer-scale, you could form concrete with fewer pores.

“It will stop infiltration of water and that infiltration of water is what leads to degradation of concrete.”

Grutter added iron oxide can increase tensile strength and abrasion resistance of materials but he stressed he cannot predict how quickly advances in nanotechnology will be widely used in construction.

Grutter did go on to comment about possible health issues in a way that suggests his investigation of the topic has been hasty,

In addition to cost, there are concerns about contamination and the health effects on people exposed to nanomaterials, he said.

“In the construction industry, if you use nanoparticles, the workers can be exposed to these particles and someone might live there,” he said. “We might not see these potential benefits implemented in society that quickly.”

Assessing health risks is time consuming, Grutter said. [emphases mine]

“… workers can be exposed to [nano]particles and someone might live there,” seems a little sketchy doesn’t it? As for the time it takes to assess health risks, I’m not sure what point Grutter is making with that comment. Still I have to say that I’m thrilled about this next bit,

Another potential application is self-cleaning walls, where the material emulates the properties of hydrophobic leaves.

Instead of sliding off, water rolls off, and with surface tension the water brings dirt off with it, so it remains self cleaning.

“It would be really cool, because essentially what that means is that to clean off sides of buildings you would just have to wait for it to rain.”

Self-cleaning buildings? Does this mean there’ll also be self-cleaning windows? I hope so.

Bacterial art lovers

1 Reply

With all the emphasis on eradicating bacteria (with signs everywhere telling you to wash your hands, often will illustrated instructions), it’s easy to forget that some bacteria are necessary for health. It also turns out that some bacteria can help us preserve art works. From the June 7, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

Researchers at the Institute of Heritage Restoration (IRP) and the Centre for Advanced Food Microbiology (CAMA), both from the Polytechnic University of Valencia (Spain), are beginning to experiment with this new technique on the frescoes of Antonio Palomino from the 17th century in the Church of Santos Juanes in Valencia.

They have shown that a certain type of micro-organism is capable of cleaning works of art in a fast, specific and respectful way as well as being non-toxic for the restorer or the environment.

Here’s the background on the problem the art restorers were trying to fix (from the news item),

The project came about when the IRP [Institute of Heritage Restoration] was in the process of restoring the murals of the Church of Santos Juanes that were virtually destroyed after a fire in 1936 and were improperly restored in the 1960s. The researchers tested new techniques for filling with transferred printed digital images in spaces without painting, but had great difficulty dealing with salt efflorescence, the white scabs caused by the build up of crystallized salts and the enormous amount of gelatine glue remaining on the pulled-off murals.

With the problem defined, the researchers then investigated a technique developed in Italy that looked promising (from the news item),

Therefore, Rosa María Montes and Pilar Bosch travelled to Italy to learn from the authors about the pioneering studies that used bacteria to remove hardened glue that was very difficult to treat with conventional methods.

The restoration of the Campo Santo di Pisa wall paintings was performed under the direction of Gianluiggi Colalucci, restorer of the Sistine Chapel, and his colleagues Donatella Zari and Carlo Giantomassi who applied the technique developed by microbiologist Giancarlo Ranalli. The researcher had also been testing with black crusts that appear on sculptures and artistic monuments.

The team returned to Spain to practice the technique and add some refinements (from the news item),

Back in Valencia, the multidisciplinary team perfected this method and trained the most suitable strain of Pseudomonas bacteria to literally eat the saline efflorescence found in the lunettes of the vault behind which pigeons nest.

“By the action of gravity and evaporation, the salts of organic matter in decomposition migrate to the paintings and produce a white crust hiding the work of art and sometimes can also cause the loose of the painting layer” says Pilar Bosch.

These scientists have managed to reduce the application time, and have also innovated in the way of extending the bacteria. According to Dr. Bosch: “In Italy they use cotton wool to apply the micro-organisms. We, however, have developed a gel that acts on the surface, which prevents moisture from penetrating deep into the material and causing new problems.

“After an hour and a half, we remove the gel with the bacteria. The surface is then cleaned and dried.” Without a wet environment, the remaining bacteria die.

Here’s a picture that demonstrates the advantages of the new process according to whomever wrote up the caption in Spanish (I may have gotten the translation wrong),

Las ventajas del nuevo proceso (The advantages of the new process) image downloaded from RUVID website

If you do have the Spanish language skills you can read the article as it was written originally here.

I have from time to time (in my Sept. 20, 2010 posting and Oct. 26, 2009 posting) featured a different nano art restoration technique as it’s practiced by Piero Baglioni’s (Correction Mar. 1, 2013: Name was changed from Pier Baglioni) team on projects in Mexico and Italy. Baglioni and his cohorts use a technique involving a micro-emulsion partially derived from cellulose. From an Oct. 26, 2009 article written by Michael Berger on Nanowerk,

The solution developed by Baglioni and his team has been to develop a micro-emulsion cleaning agent that is designed to dissolve only the organic molecules on the surface of a painting or other artwork. This emulsion is not only suitable for removing the aged coating on paintings but also for the removal of aged organic varnishes from the surface of easel paintings or gilded surfaces, as an alternative to gels traditionally used in conservation.

The cleaning agent is made by dissolving the volatile solvent p-xylene in water and thickening it into a gel with hydrophobically modified hydroxyethylcellulose (hmHEC) – a gelling and thickening agent derived from cellulose. This oil-in-water emulsion has a microstructure of tiny droplets of oil-coated water trapped in the cellulose chains, and these will dissolve organic polymers on the painting’s surface, thereby restoring the original, clean finish.

CelluForce springs forth from the FPInnovations/Domtar partnership

2 Replies

New company, CelluForce (a joint venture between FPInnovations and Domtar), has sent out a rather odd (from my perspective) news release. From the June 3, 2011 news release on the University of British Columbia website,

Domtar and FPInnovations are pleased to announce CelluForce, the corporate identity chosen for their new joint venture, launched in July 2010. CelluForce will manufacture nanocrystalline cellulose, a recyclable and renewable nanomaterial, that will be commercialized throughout the world. The new company’s identity was developed to reflect both the origin of the nanomaterial, extracted from tree cellulose, and one of the multiple properties of the product to be sold by the new company.

That was expected, here is one of the unusual bits (from the news release),

The typeface of the CelluForce logo uses two colours, to clearly illustrate the fundamental value of the partnership between two entities in the company — partnership between the two co-shareholders as well as with CelluForce employees and customers. The name is topped
with a “C” formed of numerous tetrahedrons, which combine the blue and green colours that symbolize each partner. The spray of tetrahedrons gives a sense of forward movement, like the new technology’s leap into the future. The logo was designed to be easily animated on multimedia platforms. The company’s temporary website, www.celluforce.com, already displays the brand’s new visual identity.

This is the kind of information I’ve seen in employee handbooks or given as part of an employee orientation so that people get the company logo/brand identity right when they’re ordering materials and/or representing the company. I’ve never before observed anyone sending out a news release explaining it to all and sundry.

I am a little more interested in the nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) and its manufacture (from the news release),

Nanocrystalline cellulose will be produced in a large-scale commercial demonstration plant using cutting-edge technology. The plant is currently under construction on the site of Domtar’s pulp and paper mill in Windsor, Quebec. The construction of the demonstration plant is progressing quickly, and it should be operational in the first quarter of 2012. The plant’s operations will be managed by a team of committed employees who have enthusiastically agreed to tackle the colossal challenge of getting a new plant up and running. For several weeks now, the management team has been preparing to welcome all the workers who are set to undergo training in June.

As far as I can tell, they don’t actually have any NCC enabled-products at this point (from the news release),

With regard to this major milestone, John D. Williams, President and CEO of Domtar, stated, “Emerging from a strategic alliance between two leaders in their respective industries, CelluForce creates new partnerships to develop innovative technology in growing markets. Domtar will bring its vast manufacturing experience to the table to produce a green nanomaterial that, like paper, comes from trees. We will therefore develop new applications for our market pulp.”

For his part, Pierre Lapointe, President and CEO of FPInnovations, stated, “Thanks to a revolutionary technological breakthrough developed by FPInnovations and an exceptional government-industry partnership, the CelluForce team will benefit from a nanomaterial of high quality, which is stable, abundant and unique in the world, namely nanocrystalline cellulose, or NCC. With the combined strengths of FPInnovations researchers and Domtar staff, CelluForce will continue to develop new commercial applications and new market areas for NCC.

Jean Moreau, the new company (CelluForce) president and CEO (chief executive officer), discussed the importance of the brand identity,

“Our new brand reflects who we are, how we want to position ourselves in our target markets and the innovation that differentiates us within our industry. The name “CelluForce” reminds us that one of the main characteristics of the nanocrystalline cellulose is the great strength it provides to the materials to which it is added, but the name also represents the strength of our relationships with our shareholders, our partners
and our customers, which is one of the company’s core values. It was essential that this feature be one of the key elements of our corporate identity.”

Good luck to them all and I’d be very interested from anyone who’d care to comment about the practice of sending out a news release explaining the corporate brand in such detail.

ETA June 6, 2011: (1) Here’s the CelluForce website (under construction). (2) Interestingly the announcement for the new company was made on Friday, June 3, 2011 just before the industry’s 2011 TAPPI International Conference on Renewable Nanomaterials is being held from Monday, June 6, 2011 to Wednesday, June 8, 2011 in Washington, DC.

Canada’s plans for nanosunscreens mentioned at Europe’s Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue and sunscreens in Australia

Leave a reply

I posted (April 14, 2011) about the March 29 – 30, 2011 Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue which took place in Brussels (Belgium). I took note of a fierce debate over a nanomaterials definition. (The debate was whether there should be an interim definition or if they should wait until they had enough information to create a finalized definition.

Thankfully a reader has recently redirected my attention to this meeting as I had failed to notice that Canada made a presentation at the meeting. Consequently, I have found more information about Canada’s nanotechnology activities as they pertain to safety through an international organization. (I have searched the Health Canada website and the Canadian federal nanoportal and am unable to locate this presentation on either site.)

The presentation (all 15 slides) was given by Ratna Bose, Ph. D., Manager, Nonprescription Drugs Evaluation Division; Bureau of Gastroenterology, Infection, and Viral Diseases; Therapeutic Products Directorate. There is a Health Portfolio Nanotechnology WG (I imagine this means working group). Here’s how the portfolio is organized and managed (from slide #3),

• Chaired by Science Policy Directorate
• Co-ordinates activities and facilitates information sharing on nanotechnology and nanomaterials within HC
• Includes representatives from Directorates regulating nanomaterials
• Each Directorate is responsible for policies and guidances specific to their respective jurisdiction

Here are the products Health Canada regulates (from slide #5),

Health Canada Regulated Products that May Contain Nanotechnology

• Drugs
• Medical devices
• Biotechnology products
• Tissue engineering products
• Vaccines
• Natural Health products
• Food Ingredients, packaging, manufacturing process

I notice that the head states that the products may contain nanotechnology, which seems odd. They might contain nanomaterial(s) and/or be nanotechnology-enabled but they can’t contain nanotechnology in the same way they contain biology. Plus, I thought Agriculture Canada regulated food (I will check this out).

This is what they are proposing for future work (from slide #12),

Regulatory Perspective
Develop standardized risk assessment methods
Develop regulatory, product-specific guidance documents
Build regulatory capacity/expertise

Scientific Perspective
Continue participation in international activities (e.g., ISO, OECD)
Explore collaborative work to develop methodologies to detect, characterize and measure NMs by working with industry as well as domestic and international partners

Awareness Perspective
Develop public engagement and risk communication strategies
Engage industry stakeholders

Under Awareness Perspective they’ve linked public engagement and risk communication together. Is risk communication the only reason they’re planning public engagement?

The slides indicate that there will be a case study developed around nanosunscreens. From slides 13 & 14,

Sunscreens are regulated as drugs in Canada, subject to either the Food and Drug Regulations or the Natural Health Product Regulations depending on the active ingredient and claim.

The Sunburn Protectants Monograph outlines active ingredients and their concentrations, as well as appropriate warnings, directions for use, and claims which are generally considered to be safe and effective.

The nanomaterial based sunscreens are excluded from the Sunburn Protectants monograph.

In order to satisfy the Safety & Effectiveness requirements of the Regulations, safety data are being requested.

I wonder where the safety data is coming from?

Meanwhile, there was a May 23, 2011 post by Dr. Andrew Maynard on the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Blog about a recent nanosunscreen event in Australia. From the posting,

Last week, the Victoria branch of the Australian Education Union (AEU) passed a resolution recommending that “workplaces use only nanoparticle-free sunscreen” and that sunscreens used by members on children are selected from those “highlighted in the Safe Sunshine Guide produced by Friends of the Earth” as being nano-free. The AEU also resolved to provide the Friends of the Earth Safe Sunscreen Guide and Recommendations to all workplaces their members are associated with. Given what is currently known about sunscreens – nano and otherwise, I can’t help wonder whether this is an ill-advised move.

The debate over the safety or otherwise of nanoparticle-containing sunscreens has been going on for over a decade now. Prompted by early concerns over possible penetration through the skin and into the body of the nanosized titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide particles used in these products – and potential adverse impacts that might result – there has been a wealth of research into whether these small particles can actually get through the skin when applied in a sunscreen. And the overall conclusion is that they cannot. There have been a small number of studies that demonstrate that, under specific conditions, some types of nanoparticle might penetrate through the upper layers of the skin. But the overwhelming majority of studies have failed to find either plausible evidence for significant penetration, or plausible evidence for adverse health impacts [emphasis mine] – a body of evidence that led the Environmental Working Group to make an about-face from questioning the use of nanoparticle-containing sunscreens to endorsing them in 2010.

If you’re interested in the nanosunscreen discussion, I highly recommend Andrew’s writing on the subject, the report by the Environmental Working Group, and the report by the Friends of the Earth for a comprehensive view of the discussion.

As for me, I believe, given the information at hand, that nanosunscreens are relatively safe for most adults and I reserve the right to change my opinion should new information emerge. Meanwhile, I look forward to learning more about Health Canada’s nanotechnology safety efforts and hope that one day the information will be easily accessible on the Health Canada website or the federal nanoportal. Who knows maybe there’ll be a public engagement exercise on the topic of nanosunscreens?

Media piracy study and Canada’s International Development Research Centre

Leave a reply

Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC) helped to fund (along with the Ford Foundation) a massive study on media piracy in emerging economies led and published by the US Social Sciences Research Council in March 2011. It was a global effort also supported by Brazil’s Overmundo Institute and the Center for Technology and Society, Getulio Vargas Foundation; India’s Sarai: The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and The Alternative Law Forum; South Africa’s The Association for Progressive Communication; Russia’s The Centre for Independent Social Research and The Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology; and the US’s The Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property. I half expected to see China listed too and I find the absence surprising.

It was a March 8, 2011 posting by Mike Masnick on Techdirt that alerted me to the study. (from the posting),

… much in the report is extremely forward-looking and thinking. It goes into great detail how fascinating and innovative new business models are appearing around the globe where “piracy” is rampant, and suggests that we really need to rethink the idea of “piracy” in those markets. It highlights how almost all of the policy discussions in the west concerning infringement focuses on “enforcement,” but that may be the wrong way to go about it. The research, instead, points out that a better focus may be on setting up the structures for successful business models to emerge — which include local firms who can compete on prices …

The 440 page report, Media piracy in Emerging Economies, is available under various licensing agreements (free and pay).

Yesterday (June 1, 2011), I received a media advisory from the IDRC informing me of a panel discussion being held tomorrow, June 3, 2011,from 2 pm to 4 pm EDT in Ottawa (if you can’t get to the live panel discussion, you can view it via livestreaming webcast). From the media advisory,

Media Piracy in Emerging Economies, a landmark study co-funded by Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC), made headlines around the world earlier this year. The controversial study determined that this “global scourge” was better described as a global pricing problem: high prices for media goods, combined with low incomes and cheap digital technologies. The report underscored that attempts to police piracy aren’t working and that, in some cases, global enforcement has led to unintended negative socio-economic consequences.

In a panel discussion at IDRC on June 3, three internationally renowned experts will discuss the implications of media piracy for the global economy. Media Piracy in Emerging Economies editor Joe Karaganis, from the American Assembly at Columbia University, and one of the researchers, Ronaldo Lemos, from Brazil’s Center for Technology and Society at the Fundação Getúlio Vargas School of Law (who will appear via live stream), will be joined by technology law expert Michael Geist, from the University of Ottawa, to debate the issues as they relate to Canada and the world. [emphases mine]

You can to this page to register for the live event or click through to the livestreaming website.

2011 World Science Festival preview

Leave a reply

Christina Smith of the 2011 World Science Festival, which is taking place in New York, June 1 – 5, 2011, very kindly notified me of a preview for the festival and for a livestreaming option. Here’s the preview (from the livestream channel website for the 2011 World Festival),

You can find a schedule of events which indicates the ones that are going to be webcast live. (Here’s my May 5, 2011 posting about this year’s festival.)

Canadian federal nanoportal is open

1 Reply

I finally found the Canadian federal government nanoportal. It seems to have been open since 2009 which is a bit a mystery since the Health Canada representative (Christelle Legault) that I interviewed (in my April 26, 2010 posting) seemed unaware of its existence. Here’s the nanoportal. Oddly, it mentions Nanotech BC as a provincial nanotechnology advocate,

Nanotech BC has currently suspended its operations until suitable funding of its activities and new projects for 2009 can be ascertained.

Even more oddly, the page was updated (according to the notice in the left lower corner) March 15, 2011. I guess they don’t keep up with the news.

I mentioned Nanotech BC’s demise in my May 14, 2009 posting in part one (of a three part series) of my interview with Victor Jones, the former chair of the board.

In any event, I’m glad to have finally found the nanoportal.

Sick and tired of the ‘social media is changing how science is practiced’ narrative

Leave a reply

The whole ‘social media is changing ______’ puzzles me. You can fill in the blank with science/government/social relationships/etc. It’s always the same notion. Somehow social media is engendering changes the like of which we’ve never seen before.

  • The February 2011 overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt was all due to social media, as is the current social unrest in many Middle Eastern Countries.
  • Social relationships are being negatively impacted (nobody talks to anybody else anymore or it’s opening new avenues for relationships)
  • The practice of science is being changed by the use of social media.
  • etc.

Mostly I’m concerned with the one about science since I recently ended up on a panel where the discussion turned on this topic. I think there are a lot of things having an impact on how science is practiced and trying to establish the role social media is playing, if any, is a little premature.

We had Rosie Redfield on the panel. Rosie is a professor at the University of British Columbia who was part of the ‘arsenic life’ story that took the internet by a storm in late November/early December 2010. (Confession: I got caught up in the excitement in my Dec. 6, 2010 posting and recanted in my Dec. 8, 2010 posting.) Recently, there’s been a story about ‘arsenic life’ by Carl Zimmer for Slate magazine titled, How #arseniclife changed science. Here’s Zimmer’s set up (from the Slate article),

On November 29, NASA announced that it would soon hold a press conference to “discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life.” Wild speculation ran amok—perhaps scientists had found living things on one of Saturn’s moons. At the press conference, the scientists did not unveil an actual extraterrestrial, but they did have big news. A new paper had just been published in the journal Science, they said, which described bacteria that seemed able to build their own DNA from arsenic. If that were true, it would be an historic discovery, because no such ability has ever been found among Earth’s life-forms.

The paper was published online in late November and attracted a great deal of discussion and criticism almost immediately on blogs (Rosie Redfield’s RRResearch amongst them) and on twitter via the hash tag topic, #arseniclife. The print version of the paper, along with critical letters, will appear in the June 3, 2011 issue of Science.

Here’s Zimmer’s take on what makes this particular scientific dust-up different,

For those of us who have been tracking #arseniclife since last Thanksgiving, however, today comes as an anticlimax. There’s not much in the letters to Science that we haven’t read before. In the past, scientists might have kept their thoughts to themselves, waiting for journals to decide when and how they could debate the merits of a study. But this time, they started talking right away, airing their criticisms on the Internet. In fact, the true significance of the aliens-that-weren’t will be how it helped change the way scientists do science.

Zimmer goes on to describe this new practice,

Redfield and her colleagues are starting to carry out a new way of doing science, known as post-publication peer review. Rather than leaving the evaluation of new studies to a few anonymous scientists, researchers now debate the merit of papers after they have been published. The collective decision they come to stays open to revision.

Post-publication peer review—and open science in general—is attracting a growing number of followers in the scientific community. But some critics have argued that it’s been more successful in theory than in practice. The #arseniclife affair is one of the first cases in which the scientific community openly vetted a high-profile paper, and influenced how the public at large thought about it.

Post-publication peer review existed before social media as per ‘cold fusion’ (Wikipedia essay). I remember it because I wasn’t particularly interested in science at the time but this was everywhere and it went on for months. There was the initial excitement and enthusiasm (the ‘cold fusion’ scientists were featured on the cover of Times or Newsweek or maybe both in the days when those magazines were powerhouse publications). Then, as the initial enthusiasm died down, the storm of scientific criticism started (those other scientists may not have had social media but they made themselves felt). The story took place over eight to 10 months and achieved public awareness in a way that scientists can only fantasize about these days.  By comparison, the arsenic story blew up and disappeared from public consciousness within roughly two weeks, if that.

Social media may yet change how science is practiced but I wouldn’t use Zimmer’s story about #arsencilife to support that belief, in fact, I think it could support another idea altogether.

The ‘arsenic’ story was, by comparison, with ‘cold fusion’ greatly truncated and most members of the public never really heard about it and, as a consequence, were not exposed to the furious debate and discussion as they were with  ‘cold fusion’.  They did not get exposed to how science ‘really works and therein lies a problem because they did not see the uncertainties, the mistakes, and revised ideas.

As for what factors may be having an impact on scientific practice, I’d suggest reading Identifying good scientists and keeping them honest on The Black Hole blog by David Kent. Here’s an excerpt,

In a February 2011 interview with Lab Times, Cambridge scientist Peter Lawrence1 reflects on his own career and complains that “the heart of research is sick” as he charts the changes in the way in which science is pursued.  Briefly, he cites impact factors and the increased need to assign metrics to scientists (# of publications, H-index, etc) as main drivers of producing low quality research and unfairly squeezing out some good scientists who do not publish simply for the sake of publishing.  Impact factor fever runs deep throughout laboratories but, most damagingly, exists at the funding agency and university administrative level as well.

ETA June 17, 2011: For anyone who’d like to read some updated and contrasting discussion about the #arseniclife aftermath for scientific practice and science education there are two June 16, 2011 guest posts for Scientific American, one from Rosie Redfield and the other from Marie-Claire Shanahan. Plus, if you are interested in more details about the cold fusion story and the role electronic communication played, check out Marie-Claire Shanahan’s post,  Arsenic, cold fusion and the legitimacy of online critique, on the Boundary Vision blog.