Monthly Archives: November 2011

YouTube unleashes five science channels

2 Replies

Friday, November 11, 2011 (Remembrance Day), YouTube unleashed 100 new TV channels. From Rob Waugh’s Oct. 31, 2011 article for the Daily Mail,

YouTube is to take a dramatic step away from its roots as a user-generated video site – launching 100 new professionally produced TV channels in partnership with stars such as Madonna and Ashton Kutcher.

The channels will roll out from this autumn, and will be free of charge, supported by Google’s advertising system.

The move is designed to turn YouTube – already available via many internet TVS – into a rival to cable and satellite TV channels.

In addition to the celebrity-driven channels, YouTube is also launching a number of science channels. From the James Grime Nov. 11, 2011 posting on the Guardian science blogs,

Google is investing in education and science, with five new YouTube channels dedicated to mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, physics – and spectacular demonstrations.

The five channels will be hosted by Brady Haran, Numberphile (mathematics and mathematicians) and Deep Sky (astronomy); Hank and John Green (brothers and vloggers) each with one science channel  (Grime was not able to offer details); and Steve Spangler, well-known for his coke and mentos experiment, and the director of National Hands-on Science Institute in the US .

I’m glad to see the interest in science and a little sorry to observe the lack of female-hosted science channels. For the record, I think the lack of female involvement is due to the fact that very few women have created science-oriented video channels and I believe it’s time to change that.

ScienceNordic opens its doors

Leave a reply

I got an exciting announcement today about a new science portal. From the Nov. 16, 2011 announcement,

ScienceNordic is a news service with science news in English covering the Nordic countries. Two Nordic science media, one Danish and one Norwegian, have joined forces to launch ScienceNordic.
The Norwegian Minister of Research and Higher Education Tora Aasland, who opened ScienceNordic.com, says she expects the new portal to make Nordic research more visible on the global arena.
The international science press is dominated by news from Anglo-American research institutions and periodicals –because they are published in English. [emphasis mine] But the scientific results created in the Nordic countries are just as strong and newsworthy, and ScienceNordic will report on them.
“This leaves a huge gap in the market for science news from the region, communicated to a broader audience in English. We intend to fill this gap,” says Vibeke Hjortlund, editor-in-chief at Videnskab.dk.
“We will, naturally, focus our efforts on areas where Nordic researchers have their particular strengths. This includes areas such as green technology, climate and the environment, oil and offshore technology, biotechnology, gender equality and the welfare state and its economy, says Nina Kristiansen, editor-in-chief at Forskning.no.
ScienceNordic will target the academic environment, the business community, international organisations and decision-makers with interests in scientific development, science journalists and members of the general public with a strong interest in science.
ScienceNordic will cover Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland – with an eye on Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Åland which are also part of the Nordic region.
Nordforsk, The Ministry of Education and Research in Norway and The Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education in Denmark has provided funds to establish ScienceNordic.

I quite agree about research published in English dominating science discussion. I often long for the ability to read more languages so I can better understand what is happening internationally; this new portal is very welcome news.

Here’s a sampling of what you can hope to find at ScienceNordic,

  • When a glacier calves into the ocean scientists see the same patterns that are found in brain impulses
  • Norwegians are still in a state of shock. How will the terrorist attacks on July 22 change the country?
  • Male circumcision leads to a bad sex life, according to new study.
  • Your smartphone can scan your brain, if you install the new Danish app.
  • How did a French, 13th century gold ring end up in inside a stone wall on a small Norwegian island?

It’s also possible to subscribe to the ScienceNordic newsletter: sciencenordic.com/newsletter.

Religion and nanotechnology but no spirituality?

1 Reply

Chris Toumey, a cultural anthropologist at the University of South Carolina NanoCenter, has written an article for Nanowerk about the impact that religious belief has on nanotechnology and other science issues. In the Nov. 16, 2011 article on Nanowerk, “Nanotechnology and religion,” Toumey opens with this,

Survey research indicates that religious belief will be a powerful influence in shaping public views about nanotechnology, while knowledge about nanotech will be less influential. And yet religious thought about nanotech has received little attention. We know that nanotechnology has evoked a large body of literature on moral and ethical issues, but almost all of this is expressed in secular voices, e.g., those of philosophers, ethicists, and scientists. Religious commentaries about nanotechnology have been much more rare. Now it is worth knowing what religious voices have said about nanotechnology, so that we might anticipate future religious reactions.

Toumey cites three studies, George Gaskell and colleagues’ 2005 paper, “Social Values and the Governance of Science“, Dominique Brossard et al.’s study  “Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology” (the abstract is free; the article is behind a paywall), and a third study compared the US and twelve EU nations “Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States” (the abstract is free; the article is behind a paywall)  as forming the basis for his own paper, “Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology,” to be published in the December 2011 issue of NanoEthics. From Toumey’s Nanowerk article,

Because of those considerations, I assembled a collection of seven religious reactions to nanotechnology from a variety of faiths. Four are documents from religious organizations that deliver official institutional positions, namely: a major American Lutheran denomination; the Catholic Bishops Conferences of the European Community; a coalition of German Protestants; and, a Muslim think-tank in the United Arab Emirates. The other three are: a certain line of Jewish thought about technology; a group of Catholic and Protestant who oppose transhumanism; and, a pair of focus groups, one in England and the other in Arizona US.

Two common themes appear in those religious reactions.

According to the first, many religious persons worry that nanotechnology will contribute to re-defining human nature in ways that are amoral or dangerous. … For the second theme, religious persons worry that the control of nanotechnology by irresponsible entities will lead to adverse consequences like inequality or injustice.

…

At any rate, these seven case studies remind us that those who create new technologies can benefit by listening to the voices of thoughtful religious people.

I find the discussion about the impact of religious belief on one’s attitudes to nanotechnology and other emerging technologies quite interesting. After all, the Amish drew the line at allowing electricity and subsequent modern technologies into their lifestyles. Drawing on that example, I wonder what other groups may choose to reject one or more new technologies based on their religious beliefs.

I have one other thought about these studies with their focus on organized religion as opposed to spirituality. I expect it’s easier to study a religious group rather then something so nebulous as spirituality but I think it would be interesting to attempt an investigation into the impact that one’s  ‘spirituality’ has on one’s response to emerging technologies.

In the meantime, it is possible to get a copy of Chris Toumey’s paper, “Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology,” by contacting him (Toumey@mailbox.sc.edu).

Nanocoatings in the U.S. prison system

Leave a reply

Apparently the US Federal Bureau of Prisons will be coating prison equipment with Nansulate. From the Nov.16, 2011 news item by Cameron Chai on Azonano,

Francesca Crolley, Industrial Nanotech’s Vice President of business development, said that recently, the company had worked with numerous correctional services to aid them with insulation, which meets the standards of a safe environment. Crolley defined that the Nansulate coating is a clean liquid-based insulation, which safely adheres to the equipment’s surface. Crolley added that the Nansulate coating used in a prison environment provides distinct advantages. Crolley also stated that the Nansulate coating can also be used to lower the temperature of hot surfaces and to enhance the equipment’s life by providing resistance to corrosion and moisture.

I found out a little more about Industrial NanoTech and its Nansulate coating on the company’s About page,

Industrial NanoTech, Inc. funds & participates in research with the world’s brightest scientists and leading laboratories. We produce materials that work for you… increasing productivity and efficiency. It’s not just talk and it’s not just theory… it’s amazing technologies.

…

…  Nansulate®, when fully cured, contains approximately 70% Hydro-NM-Oxide and 30% acrylic resin and performance additive. A liquid applied coating, it dries to a thin layer and provides exceptional insulation, corrosion protection, prevents mold, and prevents rust. Nansulate has proven to provide energy savings in a variety of industrial and residential insulation applications. Nansulate is also low VOC and environmentally friendly.

You can find out more about Nanosulate, which has its own website here.

I’ve included this bit about prisons and nanotechnology as I occasionally cover the military and police use of nanotechnology-enabled products and this fits in with that general theme.

Nanotechnology reaches its adolescence?

Leave a reply

They (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], the American Chemical Society [ACS], and the Georgetown University Program on Science in the Public Interest) will be hosting a discussion, Nanotechnology in the 2010s: The Teen Years, on Nov. 21, 2011 in Washington, DC.

This is part of a series, Science & Society: Global Challenges, hosted at the AAAS auditorium at 1200 New York Avenue. The reception starts at 5 pm EST, and the discussion begins at 6:00 pm and finishes at 7:30 pm. You do need to RSVP if you are attending at the AAAS  ‘Global Challenges’ webpage, which specifies, No powerpoint. No notes. Just candid conversations …

I did get a copy of the media release from the ACS, which you can view here in the Nov. 15, 2011 news item on Nanowerk.

From the media release, here’s a list of the expert discussants,

Experts:   Pedro Alvarez, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Rice  University

                    Omid Farokhzad, Brigham and Women’s
Hospital, Harvard Medical School

                    Debra Kaiser, Ceramics Division, National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Host:         David Kestenbaum, NPR [National Public
Radio]

Here are the questions they will be discussing (from the ACS media release),

Since the 1990s, nanotechnology has been lauded as the key to transforming a wide array of innovative fields from biomedicine and electronics to energy, textiles and transportation, inspiring the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in 2000.

Now in the 2010s, is nanotechnology coming of age? Is the anticipated explosion of new products such as lighting, electronic displays, pharmaceuticals, solar photovoltaic cells and water treatment systems coming to fruition, or is NNI still in its research and development infancy? How should the United States allocate funds for research with such a strong potential to deliver economic innovations? These questions and others will be addressed Monday, Nov. 21, as part of the 2011 Science & Society: Global Challenges Discussion Series.

The ACS podcasts these discussions but you may have to wait a few weeks before viewing the nanotechnology discussion. The most recent available podcast of a Global Challenges discussion is the Oct. 3, 2011 discussion about Cyber Attack. The Oct. 24 discussion about Fukushima and the Nov. 7 discussion about Infectious Diseases have not been posted as of 11 am PST, Nov. 16, 2011.

Omid Farokhzad, one of the Global Challenges nanotechnology experts, was last mentioned on this blog in conjunction with a deal his companies (BIND and Selecta) made with RUSNANO (Russian Nanotechnologies Corporation) in my Oct. 28, 2011 posting. He was also featured in part 2 (More than Human, which is available for viewing online) of The Nano Revolution series broadcast, Oct. 20, 2011, by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as part of The Nature of Things programming. I did comment on the episode in my Oct. 26, 2011 posting but did not mention Farokhzad.

Ian Chubb, Australia’s Chief Scientist, speaks at 2011 Canadian Science Policy Conference

Leave a reply

When the 3rd Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) opens tomorrow (Nov. 16, 2011), attendees will find a large number of sessions focussed on innovation. In fact, the keynote panel is titled, Big Picture Perspective on Science & Innovation Policy, and features three speakers all of whom are academics including Australia’s Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb. The other two speakers are Rémi Quirion, OC, Ph.D., CQ, FRSC, Chief Scientist & Chariman of the Board, Fonds de recherche du Québec and R. Peter MacKinnon, President, University of Saskatchewan
& member of the STIC [Science and Technology Innovation Council] State of the Nation Working Group. Here’s a description of the panel topic from the 2011 CSPC agenda page,

With continuing uncertainty about the global economy and with persistent public policy challenges that respect no borders, science and innovation policy is of increasing importance for governments and organizations across Canada and around the world.  How do leaders from various perspectives view the “big picture”?  What are the key challenges and opportunities in the decade ahead and how can science, technology and innovation help to address them?  How can states [nations] improve the performance of their science, technology and innovation systems to ensure better health outcomes, a safe and secure environment, and sustainable prosperity for their citizens?  How are macro-decisions on the state of science and innovation policy being made, and what foundations can support efficient national innovation systems?

Given that the world of academe is not known for its innovation, I always find it a bit odd to see these panels peopled by academics, especially when the speakers’ biographies don’t feature much in the way of innovative accomplishments.

I was a little curious to find out why an Australian (Ian Chubb) was included in this panel and on the ‘science culture’ panel. I did try to interview Chubb but he is making an extensive tour of Europe, Canada, and the US and did not have time to answer my questions. Luckily, I was able to find some information in a June 15, 2011 article by Lucinda Schmidt for the Sydney Morning Herald,

He began his third career, as chief scientist, on May 23 [2011].

”I’ve always loved science,” says the 67-year-old who grew up on the rural fringe of Melbourne, where there were plenty of opportunities for a curious boy to poke about in ant nests and wonder what made the stars twinkle.

He worked part time in a lab while completing his undergraduate degree then headed overseas for almost a decade, including six years at Oxford University doing his PhD.

”It was there that I realised I could probably cut the mustard [as a neuroscientist],” says Chubb, who returned to Australia in 1978 to lecture at Flinders University in South Australia.

After working as a neuroscientist for a number of years, Chubb changed career direction,

His second career included stints as deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Wollongong, chair of the federal government’s Higher Education Council, vice-chancellor of Flinders University for six years, then vice-chancellor of ANU for the past decade.

…

Chubb earned a reputation as a fearless but politically pragmatic advocate for tertiary education.

It would appear this second career will stand him in good stead as Australia’s chief scientist,

As chief scientist, Chubb’s political skills and forceful advocacy will be invaluable. His predecessor, the US physicist Penny Sackett, resigned halfway through her five-year term reportedly because of lack of government interest in her role.

Hopefully, Chubb will reach past the platitudes and give some insight into how he sees the role of a chief scientist and the political acumen necessary to make the position meaningful.

As I noted earlier, Chubb will also be speaking on the ‘science culture’ panel (along with Denise Amyot who was interviewed in my Nov. 15, 2011 posting here). He will be speaking about the ‘Inspiring Australia‘ initiative. The webpage for the initiative is a little disappointing in that it consists mostly of strategy documents, listings for two programmes which have the appearance of having predated this initiative (Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science and National Science Week Grants), and information about two Expert Working Groups ( Science and the media and Developing an Evidence Base for Science Engagement). The initiative itself is barely one year old.

I wish the organizers, speakers, and attendees an excellent conference.

Science culture panel and Denise Amyot at the 2011 Canadian Science Policy Conference

1 Reply

The 2011 Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) starts tomorrow, Nov. 16, 2011 and runs until Nov. 18, 2011. Denise Amyot, speaker on the 2011 CSPC Science Culture, Organized and Prioritized: Three National and International Initiatives panel and President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation, has very kindly given me an interview.

Here’s a little bit about Denise Amyot first (from the bio on the 2011 CSPC conference website),

Denise Amyot is currently, President and CEO of the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation whose mandate is to foster scientific and technological literacy throughout the country. The Corporation and its three museums – the Canada Agriculture Museum, the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, and the Canada Science and Technology Museum – tell the stories of Canadian ingenuity and achievement in science and technology.

She has worked both in National Headquarters and in regions in several federal departments including central agencies, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, National Defense, Natural Resources Canada, and Canadian Heritage. In her former three roles as Assistant Deputy Minister, she was respectively responsible for leading and managing leadership development programs and developing policies for employees and executives throughout the public Service of Canada, the corporate management services, as well as public affairs and ministerial services. She has worked extensively in policy and line operations in the context of programs and service delivery, in social, economic, and cultural areas. She also worked for few years with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Ms Amyot is the former President of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, Vice-President of the Head of Federal Agencies Steering Committee, and member of the Board of Governors at the Ottawa University and at the Algonquin College. She is the former President of the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada and former President of the Communications Community Office.

Ms Amyot has obtained a Master’s degree in Education and three Bachelor degrees in Biology, in Arts and in Education.

Now, here are the questions and answers:

The panel (Science Culture, Organized and Prioritized: Three National and International Initiatives) features you from the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation (CSTMC); Lesley Lewis, CEO of the Ontario Science Centre; Ian Chubb, Chief Scientist for Australia and is being moderated by Tracey Ross, ED for the Canadian Association of Science Centres. Could you describe the difference between a museum of science and technology and a science centre?

Science museums are distinctive from science centres as they are the steward of a collection that provides an historical perspective on a specific cross-section of society. Science museums use artifacts from their collection to interpret science and technology within society and help visitor acquire a deeper understanding on its developmental and evolutionary nature. Like science centres, science museums also engage visitors on various aspect of current science and offer experiential, hands on activities.

Could you give a little history of the CSTMC and explain why there are three museums?

The CSTMC was created 21 years ago to govern the Canada Science and Technology Museum and the Canada Aviation and Space Museum. The Canada Agriculture Museum joined the corporation in 1997. Previous to 1990 all national museums were managed through a single corporation which posed challenges considering the diversity of audience, needs and mandates of these institutions.

The three museums share a common vision of engaging all Canadians in appreciating their scientific and technological heritage, and awaken them to our country’s potential of creativity and innovation to solve today’s challenges and propel us in the 21st century.

How do you view science culture in Canada and how would you describe it in relation to the international scene?

There has never been a time in history when science and technology have had greater impact on the lives of our citizens or have been more important to our economic competitiveness, prosperity and societal well being. I understand science culture as the degree in which Canadians understand the basic of science, are able to make daily decisions informed by a basic understanding of science and use of scientific method (inquiry). Science culture is an important vector of economic prosperity. Science culture also informs the degree in which science is considered as a desirable field of study for youth (STEM) leading to fulfilling careers.

Sustaining a strong and vibrant science culture is essential to Canada’s long term economic, environmental and social success in a global world. The world is looking at Canada to develop an economic and societal model that will smartly develop new and innovative ways of sustaining the exploitation of its natural resources while creating an inclusive society that will harness the talent, creativity and potential of every citizen. In the last ten years, jobs in science and technology have seen the largest growth.

Last year an initiative from the CSTMC for an online science network/hub was announced. Can you talk a little about the initiative and what happened to it?

For financial reasons, we have taken a step back in this project and have decided to postpone activities for the time being. Inspiring Australia has put a similar idea forward earlier this year and with significantly more resources than those we had put forward. We are watching this closely, to see how they will go about this and what sort of engagement they will garner.

I see the need for a more active national dialogue on science beyond sharing information about research, or explaining how it will benefit us. We need an open and respectful two-way dialogue between the experts and the citizens, the converted and the agnostics, a dialogue that spans the nation and involves universities, schools, science centres and museums, governments, businesses, community groups, and individuals. To change our collective thinking about science, more efforts will need to be directed to this dialogue. But most importantly, it will require stronger collaborations and coordination between institutions nation-wide. Using emerging digital technologies and social media applications seem to be the way of the future and we remain committed to playing a role in this area.

I assume you’ll be talking about the initiative to benchmark science culture in order to measure future progress. Could you share a little bit about your talk (how do you go about benchmarking science culture; has anyone done it before; how long will it take; does it require government funding; and, if so, how much?) that could serve both as a preview and as some information for those of us who won’t be able to attend?

There is strong agreement that having a strong and vibrant science culture is fundamental to the future of our country. For years we have been in discussion, inconclusively, on how best to go about this. We have seen numerous initiatives. Many pilot projects. I believe that best policies are evidence-based and informed by compelling performance indicators. There is still a bit of work needed in the science community to identify broadly supported indicators that could best reflect the vitality of our science culture in Canada.

Canada’s science culture is shaped by the interplay of various public, private and non-profit players delivering a range of activities and tools designed to enhance understanding and interest, among Canadians of all ages, in science. There are hundreds of different formal and informal science education and awareness and awareness building programs in this country and we hardly can map out their contribution to the vitality of science culture in our country. We need to collect output and outcome indicators to start benchmarking our progress and devise an effective national strategy. For example we need to measure beyond literacy levels or number of graduates in STEM [science, technology, engineering, mathematics] to include such things as science coverage and audience in the media, public opinion on science and scientists and many other indicators used in other countries.

I’ve noticed that most of the discussion about innovation is centered on the notion of business; do you think that culture has a place at that table?

YES! Actually the concept of science culture reflects the fact that part of our general culture there has to be a strong dose of science. And creativity, innovation, risk taking, entrepreneurship. The business sector fully understands the crucial nature of a strong science culture as a driver to our country’s competitiveness.

Is there anything you’d like to add?

As members of the science community, it is our responsibility to ensure that Canadians recognize not only the great achievements of our scientists, but that they see how science-based evidence inform our everyday lives.

I believe that the same curiosity and joy of discovery experienced by young Canadians visiting our science museums and science centres can be shared by all Canadians. I believe that this can then be turned into an active commitment to make Canada a country where scientific discovery and innovation shape our identity as Canadians, and contribute to the health of our economy and to the vibrancy of our nation. Creative thinking and a spirit of entrepreneurship are at the heart of innovation. Creative thinking does not require a lot of raw material but is underpinned by a strong science culture. We need to foster and support that value.

Thank you Mme. Amyot for sharing your insights and enthusiasm about science culture and offering this preview of the 2011 CSPC ‘Science Culture’ panel in the midst of your busy schedule.

I am very grateful to you and Mike Harcourt, Tim Meyer, and David Kent for taking the time to answer my questions about your work and about your talks for the 2011 CSPC panels where you will be appearing over the next few days.

When commercializing nano, forget nano

Leave a reply

The news out of Europe is that when commercializing a nanotechnology-enabled product, you don’t need to mention the ‘nano’.  From the Nov. 14, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

Businesses in the nanotechnology field may even forget the word nano. To secure success they have to focus on solving customers’ problem and better communicate business opportunities that nanotechnologies may bring.

These are key insights from two EC funded initiatives, ProNano and NanoCom, which are joining their forces to tackle the issue of barriers to the commercialisation of European nanotechnologies. The two projects are different in scope, approach and methods. The former provides coaching and advise to research teams on their route to commercialisation, the latter will ultimately provide a roadmap and policy guidelines to support commercialisation of nanotechnology research.

…

But what does this actually mean for researchers in the nano field, who want to approach the market? We asked this question to Mr. Enzo Sisti from Veneto Nanotech, an organisation that manages the activities of the nanotechnology sector in the Veneto region in Italy.

According to Mr Sisti, the need to identify a proper business model is especially important whenever the outputs of nanotechnology research provide incremental improvement to existing products rather than create entirely new ones. If potential customers have a system or product that works, they can be reluctant to change, unless the benefits and value are clearly demonstrated. In such situations, nano businesses need to identify and propose a “window of acceptability”, based on technical parameters as well as on price competitiveness. Still too often, Sisti says, the focus of researchers is on technology only and not on problem solving in a customer’s perspective. It is, instead, important to provide sound and proved benchmarks on the cost/benefits that may incur form the adoption of innovation.

Sisti’s comments certainly suggest one approach to marketing but they imply that there’s nothing disruptive about adopting a new technology.

Atomic force microscopy and uncertainty

Leave a reply

Michael Berger at Nanowerk writes about the importance of determining uncertainty in his Nov. 11, 2011 article, A framework to evaluate the uncertainties of AFM nanomechanical measurements, on Nanowerk. It may seem oxymoronic trying to evaluate uncertainty but it’s done all the time.Take for example a political poll where they tell you how accurate it is likely to be, “19 times of 20.”  For another example, there’s also significance (p value) when analyzing statistical data. Here’s a brief description of p value from GraphPad,

Definition of a P value

Consider an experiment where you’ve measured values in two samples, and the means are different. How sure are you that the population means are different as well? There are two possibilities:

  • The populations have different means.
  • The populations have the same mean, and the difference you observed is a coincidence of random sampling.

The P value is a probability, with a value ranging from zero to one. It is the answer to this question: If the populations really have the same mean overall, what is the probability that random sampling would lead to a difference between sample means as large (or larger) than you observed?

…

Many people misunderstand what question a P value answers.

If the P value is 0.03, that means that there is a 3% chance of observing a difference as large as you observed even if the two population means are identical. It is tempting to conclude, therefore, that there is a 97% chance that the difference you observed reflects a real difference between populations and a 3% chance that the difference is due to chance. Wrong. What you can say is that random sampling from identical populations would lead to a difference smaller than you observed in 97% of experiments and larger than you observed in 3% of experiments.

You have to choose. Would you rather believe in a 3% coincidence? Or that the population means are really different?

In other words, which one has greater certainty? Getting back to nanotechnology, there’s this from Berger’s article,

“The atomic force microscope is used extensively for measuring the material properties of nanomaterials with nanometer resolution, unfortunately there is a lack of standards and uncertainty quantification in these measurements,” explain Robert Moon, an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Materials Engineering, and Arvind Raman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, both at Purdue University. “Other fields, such as six sigma standards in industry and beam corrections in scanning electron microscopy, have developed thorough methods for quantifying the uncertainty in a given measurement, model, or system. Broadly speaking these methods can be classified as uncertainty quantification. Without applying the methods of uncertainty quantification to AFM measurements it is impossible to say if the measurements are accurate within 5% or 100%.”

Moon and Raman at Purdue’s Birck Nanotechnology Center and collaborators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) including Drs. Jon Pratt and Gordon Shaw, have now presented a framework to ascribe uncertainty to local nanomechanical properties of any nanoparticle or surface measured with the AFM by taking into account the main uncertainty sources inherent in such measurements.

…

“Our findings demonstrate the inherently large uncertainty associated with certain types of AFM material property measurements,” Ryan Wagner, a graduate student in Raman’s group at Purdue, and the paper’s first author, tells Nanowerk. “Specifically, force-displacements measurements of elastic modulus on thin, stiff samples are very uncertainty because of poor indentation resolution. In addition, our work provides a general framework for evaluating uncertainty in force-displacement based elasticity measurements that is valid for all samples and AFMs.”

Berger’s article offers more details about the process of arriving at a framework for uncertainty and a link to the researchers’ paper.