Monthly Archives: January 2012

Design, architechture, biomimicry, and a transdisciplinary project in the tropics

Getting a design project on the scale of developing a research station for the US Smithsonian Institute’s only research facility outside the US has got to be a thrill—especially if you’re a student looking for experience and résumé-building credits. Students from Arizona State University (ASU) got exactly that opportunity. From the Jan. 13, 2012 news release at ASU,

The graduate students [six teams of students from ASU’s Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts and the School of Life Sciences] are partners in the traveling studio program developed by The Design School at ASU, which journeyed to Gamboa, Panama, to collaborate with the program’s partner, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute.

The students’ assignment was to create biomimetic architectural and product-design concepts for a scientific field station on the Gigante Peninsula, a remote spit of land located in the Panama Canal Zone.

Here’s an ASU video of the instructors and students discussing the trip and showing off some of the design concepts,

ASU biologists and designers showcase biomimetic solutions for Smithsonian from ASU News on Vimeo.

ASU is hosting an exhibition of the students’ design concepts (posters) from Jan. 24 – Feb. 9, 2012. You can get more information about that here.

For anyone who’s not able to visit the exhibition and get more details, here’s information about some of the limitations the students were dealing with (from the news release),

The challenge of designing permanent structures on the Gigante Peninsula in Panama tests architects on multiple fronts, says White [Philip White, associate professor and ecological design strategist whose focus, besides teaching, is the development of ecologically intelligent products and systems]. Buildings are subject to insect infestations and periodic flooding. Obtaining sunlight for solar power and room lighting, as well as capturing cross breezes for natural cooling, requires destructive cutting of openings in the forest canopy. Such design challenges are what engaged architectural student Adam Tate’s interest. Tate developed plans [featured in the video] for a mobile research laboratory built on a floating pontoon structure, with joints and springs modeled after elements of the trap-jaw ant.

The exhibit will showcase Tate’s design, along with a backpack inspired by the musculoskeletal structure of the three-toed sloth, an umbrella derived from bats, which will resist wind torsion, and a design for a photovoltaic canopy based on lobster eyes – perfect for the challenges of the low light environment of the jungle.

This is not the only biomimicry project at ASU (from the news release),

Scientists at ASU have been using concepts of biomimicry in various studies across the campuses. For example, Ana Moore and Thomas Moore, both Regents’ Professors at ASU in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, have work that is funded by the National Science Foundation to use bio-inspired approaches to improve solar energy conversion. One of their projects is a photovoltaic cell that utilizes design concepts drawn from photosynthesis in leaves. Scientists Jeff Yarger and Gregory Holland also are deconstructing the molecular makeup of spider silk hoping to create stronger, light-weight materials, such as bulletproof vests and artificial tendons.

I hope one day to see some these designs taken from concept to product.

New research on nanoscale titanium dioxide shows toxic effects on marine life

Up till now, nanoscale titanium dioxide in water has not been viewed as toxic to marine life. A newly released study by researchers from  the University of California (UC) Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UC CEIN) in the Jan. 20 in the journal PLoS ONE suggests otherwise. From the Jan. 24, 2012 news release on EurekAlert,

“Previous experiments have suggested that TiO2 does not affect aquatic organisms, but these experiments used artificial lighting that generated much lower levels of UVR than sunlight,” Miller [lead author and assistant research biologist Robert Miller] explains. “In these new experiments, we used lights simulating natural sunlight.”

But now, the authors say, “We show that relatively low levels of ultraviolet light, consistent with those found in nature, can induce toxicity of TiO2 nanoparticles to marine phytoplankton, the most important primary producers on Earth.

So, the relatively low levels of ultraviolet light in natural sunlight can induce toxicity in titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Here’s the reason for the concern,

“Application of nanomaterials in consumer products and manufacturing is quickly increasing, but there is concern that these materials, including nanoparticles, may harm the environment,” says Miller. “The oceans could be most at risk, since wastewater and factory discharges ultimately end up there.”

In all of the kerfuffle that the Friends of the Earth (FoE) and The ETC Group (and I assume others as well) have made over nanoscale ingredients in sunscreens they seem to have ignored the impact that these ingredients, when washed off our skin and into our water supply, may have on aquatic life.  I wonder if that will matter in the end. I mean if it turns out that nanoscale titanium dioxide is going to kill/damage “… the most important primary producers on Earth”, does it matter if FoE and the others succeed in mobilizing opposition to its use for what most experts might consider the wrong reasons.

Two (Denmark & US) contrasting documents about nanomaterials and risk

The Danes released their NanoRiskCat (NRC) document in early December 2011 while the US National Research Council released its report on the US research strategy on environmental and health impact of engineered nanomaterials today, Jan. 25, 2012.

(BTW, There”s going to be an alphabet soup situation in this posting with two different NRCs [the catalogue] and the US National Research Council for starters. I’ll do my best to keep these entities distinct from each other.)

The documents represent an interesting contrast regarding approaches to nanomaterials and their risks. From the Jan. 25, 2012 Nanowerk Spotlight article about Denmark’s NanoRiskCat,

The project’s aim was to identify, categorize and rank the possible exposure and hazards associated with a nanomaterial in a product. NanoRiskCat is using a stepwise approach based on existing data on the conventional form of the chemical as well as the data that may exist on the nanoform. However, the tool still needs to be further validated and tested on a series of various nano products in order to adjust and optimize the concept and thereby to achieve a screening tool as informative and practical as possible.

Meanwhile, here’s the description of the US NRC’s latest report, from the Jan. 25, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Despite extensive investment in nanotechnology and increasing commercialization over the last decade, insufficient understanding remains about the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials. Without a coordinated research plan to help guide efforts to manage and avoid potential risks, the future of safe and sustainable nanotechnology is uncertain, says a new report (“A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials“)from the National Research Council. The report presents a strategic approach for developing research and a scientific infrastructure needed to address potential health and environmental risks of nanomaterials. Its effective implementation would require sufficient management and budgetary authority to direct research across federal agencies.

I find it interesting that the US government which has poured billions into its National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is still trying to develop a research strategy for environmental and health impacts while the Danish (who have likely spent far less and, to be fair, likely have less bureaucracy) have created an assessment tool designed to evaluate the exposure to and hazards posed by nanomaterials found in consumer and industrial use.

One other interesting tidbit, both the Danish and the US Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) were instigators of their country’s respective documents. The Danish EPA was one of the three funders (the other two were the Danish Technical University and the National Research Centre for the Working Environment) for their NanoRiskCat. The US EPA was one of the sponsors  for the strategy report. The other sponsors include the The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council.

I have to admit I’m getting a little tired of strategy documents and I’m please to see an attempt to evaluate the situation. I’m not sure which version (alpha or beta) of the tool they’ve released but there’s definitely some tweaking to be done as the Danes themselves admit,

It is the view of the Danish EPA that the traffic light ranking [I’m assuming they assign a colour [red, amber, yellow] as a means of quickly identifying a risk level in their documentation of specific nanomaterials) of the health effects may be further modified to obtain a better ranking in the various categories. Thus titanium dioxide in sunscreen is ranked as red due to lung effects of titanium dioxide, because the tool in its present form does not sufficiently take account of which type of health effects that are most relevant for the most relevant exposure route of the product. In this case the inhalational exposure of titanium dioxide from a sun screen seems less relevant.

Yes, I agree that exposure to nanoscale titanium dioxide via inhalation is an unlikely when you’re using a nanosunscreen. Although given some folks I’ve known, it’s not entirely out of the question. (It’s been my experience that people will inhale anything if they think they can get high from it.)

Davos, World Economic Forum, and risk

The World Econ0mic Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland started today, Jan. 25. 2012 and runs until Jan. 29. From the WEF’s home page, here’s what they have to say about the theme for this year’s meeting,

The contextual change at the top of minds remains the rebalancing and deleveraging that is reshaping the global economy. In the near term, this transformation is seen in the context of how developed countries will deleverage without falling back into recession and how emerging countries will curb inflation and avoid future economic bubbles. In the long term, both will play out as the population of our interdependent world not only passes 7 billion but is also interconnected through information technology on a historic scale. The net result will be transformational changes in social values, resource needs and technological advances as never before. In either context, the necessary conceptual models do not exist from which to develop a systemic understanding of the great transformations taking place now and in the future.

It is hubris to frame this transition as a global “management” problem of integrating people, systems and technologies. It is an indisputable leadership challenge that ultimately requires new models, bold ideas and personal courage to ensure that this century improves the human condition rather than capping its potential. Thus, the Annual Meeting 2012 will convene under the theme, The Great Transformation: Shaping New Models, whereby leaders return to their core purpose of defining what the future should look like, aligning stakeholders around that vision and inspiring their institutions to realize that vision.

The meeting is a big deal with lots of important and/or prominent people expected to attend. I usually get my dose of WEF’s annual meeting (sometimes there’s some talk about nanotechnology) from Dr. Andrew Maynard, Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center and owner of the 2020 Science blog. I’m not sure if he’s attending this year but he has already profiled the WEF Global Risks 2012 Report in a Jan. 11, 2012 posting on his blog.

The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report is one of the most authoritative annual assessments of emerging issues surrounding risk currently produced. Now in its seventh edition, the 2012 report launched today draws on over 460 experts* from industry, government, academia and civil society to provide insight into 50 global risks across five categories, within a ten-year forward looking window.

As you would expect from such a major undertaking, the report has its limitations. There are some risk trends that maybe aren’t captured as well as they could be – chronic disease and pandemics are further down the list this year than I would have expected. And there are others that capture the headlining concerns of the moment – severe income disparity is the top-listed global risk in terms of likelihood.

Risks are addressed in five broad categories, covering economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological risks. And cutting across these, the report considers three top-level issues under the headings Seeds of Dystopia (action or inaction that leads to fragility in states); How Safe are our Safeguards? (unintended consequences of over, under and unresponsive regulation); and The Dark Side of Connectivity(connectivity-induced vulnerability). These provide a strong framework for approaching the identified risks systemically, and teasing apart complex interactions that could lead to adverse consequences.

I’m always interested in ‘unintended consequences’. (When I worked as a frontline staff member for various bureaucracies, I was able to observe the ‘unintended consequences’ of policies devised by people who had no direct experience or had forgotten their experience.) So, I was quite interested to note these items in Andrew’s excerpts from the report,

Unintended consequences of nanotechnology. Following a trend seen in previous Global Risks reports, the unintended consequences of nanotechnology – while still flagged up – are toward the bottom of the risk spectrum. The potential toxicity of engineered nanomaterials is still mentioned as a concern. But most of the 50 risks addressed are rated as having a higher likelihood and/or impact.

Unintended consequences of new life science technologies. These are also relatively low on the list, but higher up the scale of concern that nanotechnologies. Specifically called out are the possibilities of genetic manipulation through synthetic biology leading to unintended consequences or biological weapons.

Unforeseen consequences of regulation. These are ranked relatively low in terms of likelihood and impact. But the broad significance of unintended consequences is highlighted in the report. These are also linked in with the potential impact and likelihood of global governance failure. Specifically, the report calls for

“A shift in mentality … so that policies, regulations or institutions can offer vital protection in a more agile and cohesive way.”

The report’s authors also ask how leaders can develop anticipatory and holistic approaches to system safeguards; how businesses and governments can prevent a breakdown of trust following the emergence of new risks; and how governments, business and civil society can work together to improve resilience against unforeseen risks.

Andrew has a lot more detail about the risks noted in the report, so I encourage you to read the post in its entirety. I was intrigued by this final passage with its emphasis on communication and trust,

The bottom line? The report concludes that

Decision-makers need to improve understanding of incentives that will improve collaboration in response to global risks;

Trust, or lack of trust, is perceived to be a crucial factor in how risks may manifest themselves. In particular, this refers to confidence, or lack thereof, in leaders, in systems which ensure public safety and in the tools of communication that are revolutionizing how we share and digest information; and

Communication and information sharing on risks must be improved by introducing greater transparency about uncertainty and conveying it to the public in a meaningful way.

One other comment, Andrew notes that he was ‘marginally involved’ (single quotes mine) in the report as a member of the World Economic Forum Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies.

Rail system and choreography metaphors in a couple of science articles

If you are going to use a metaphor/analogy when you’re writing about a science topic  because you want to reach beyond an audience that’s expert on the topic you’re covering or you want to grab attention from an audience that’s inundated with material, or you want to play (for writers, this can be a form of play [for this writer, anyway]), I think you need to remain true to your metaphor. I realize that’s a lot tougher than it sounds.

I’ve got examples of the use of metaphors/analogies in two recent pieces of science writing.

First, here’s the title for a Jan. 23, 2012 article by Samantha Chan for The Asian Scientist,

Scientists Build DNA Rail System For Nanomotors, Complete With Tracks & Switches

Then, there’s the text where the analogy/metaphor of a railway system with tracks and switchers is developed further and abandoned for origami tiles,

Expanding on previous work with engines traveling on straight tracks, a team of researchers at Kyoto University and the University of Oxford have used DNA building blocks to construct a motor capable of navigating a programmable network of tracks with multiple switches.

In this latest effort, the scientists built a network of tracks and switches atop DNA origami tiles, which made it possible for motor molecules to travel along these rail systems.

Sometimes, the material at hand is the issue. ‘DNA origami tiles’ is a term in this field so Chan can’t change it to ‘DNA origami ties’ which would fit with the railway analogy. By the way, the analogy itself comes from (or was influenced by) the title the scientists chose for their published paper in Nature Nanotechnology (it’s behind a paywall),

A DNA-based molecular motor that can navigate a network of tracks

All in all, this was a skillful attempt to get the most out of a metaphor/analogy.

For my second example, I’m using a Jan. 12, 2012 news release by John Sullivan for Princeton University which was published in Jan. 12, 2012 news item on Nanowerk. Here’s the headline from Princeton,

Ten-second dance of electrons is step toward exotic new computers

This sets up the text for the first few paragraphs (found in both the Princeton news release and the Nanowerk news item),

In the basement of Hoyt Laboratory at Princeton University, Alexei Tyryshkin clicked a computer mouse and sent a burst of microwaves washing across a silicon crystal suspended in a frozen cylinder of stainless steel.

The waves pulsed like distant music across the crystal and deep within its heart, billions of electrons started spinning to their beat.

Reaching into the silicon crystal and choreographing the dance of 100 billion infinitesimal particles is an impressive achievement on its own, but it is also a stride toward developing the technology for powerful machines known as quantum computers.

Sullivan has written some very appealing text for an audience who may or may not know about quantum computers.

Somebody on Nanowerk changed the headline to this,

Choreographing dance of electrons offers promise in pursuit of quantum computers

Here, the title has been skilfully reworded for an audience that knows more quantum computers while retaining the metaphor. Nicely done.

Sullivan’s text goes on to provide a fine explanation of an issue in quantum computing, maintaining coherence, for an audience not expert in quantum computing. The one niggle I do have is a shift in the metaphor,

To understand why it is so hard, imagine circus performers spinning plates on the top of sticks. Now imagine a strong wind blasting across the performance space, upending the plates and sending them crashing to the ground. In the subatomic realm, that wind is magnetism, and much of the effort in the experiment goes to minimizing its effect. By using a magnetically calm material like silicon-28, the researchers are able to keep the electrons spinning together for much longer.

Wasn’t there a way to stay with dance? You could have had dancers spinning props or perhaps the dancers themselves being blown off course and avoided the circus performers. Yes, the circus is more colourful and appealing but, in this instance, I would have worked to maintain the metaphor first introduced, assuming I’d noticed that I’d switched metaphors.

So, I think I can safely say that using metaphors is tougher than it looks.

Babies—natural physicists?

I don’t often get a chance to do cute but here we go,

Are these babies capable of physics?

I came across a Jan. 24, 2012 news item on Medical Xpress about research showing that babies intuitively understand physics (it makes sense when you see the reasoning),

In a review of related scientific literature from the past 30 years, vanMarle [Kristi vanMarle, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences at the University of Missouri] and Susan Hespos of Northwestern University found that the evidence for intuitive physics occurs in infants as young as two months – the earliest age at which testing can occur. At that age, infants show an understanding that unsupported objects will fall and that hidden objects do not cease to exist. Scientific testing also has shown that by five months, infants have an expectation that non-cohesive substances like sand or water are not solid. In a previous publication, vanMarle found that children as young as 10 months consistently choose larger amounts when presented with two different amounts of food substance.

For any parents planning to discuss physics with their babies or start them on a physics enhancement programme, vanMarle has a few words of advice,

“Despite the intuitive physics knowledge, a parent probably cannot do much to ‘get their child ahead’ at the infant stage, including exposing him or her to videos marketed to improve math or language skills,” vanMarle said. “Natural interaction with the child, such as talking to him/her, playing peek-a-boo, and allowing him/her to handle safe objects, is the best method for child development. Natural interaction with the parent and objects in the world gives the child all the input that evolution has prepared the child to seek, accept and use to develop intuitive physics.”

For those who want examine the research first hand,

“Physics for infants: characterizing the origins of knowledge about objects, substances and number,” is published in the January issue of WIREs Cognitive Science.

I suppose you could say we are natural physicists.

Science communication strategies and muzzles on Canadian scientists

A friend of mine phoned to tell me about Mark Hume’s Jan. 23, 2012 column (for the Globe and Mail) about science writers and the Canadian government’s policy of not allowing the writers to communicate directly with their scientists. I searched for the piece since I wondered if I’d missed any news about the situation since last summer.

I agree with a great deal of what Hume has to say about it all. He discusses some of the problems writers have encountered since these policies have been instituted and mentions Kathryn O’Hara’s 2010 letter protesting the situation on behalf of the Canadian Science Writers’ Association (CSWA). From the Jan. 23, 2012 column by Hume,

The CSWA represents more than 500 science journalists, publicists and authors in Canada. Ms. O’Hara recounted a series of incidents that occurred during the year leading up to her letter in which requests for interviews with researchers had been bluntly refused by public affairs handlers, or thwarted by them through endless bureaucratic delays.

The most egregious incident that I’ve come across was the one with Kristina (Kristi) Miller, a Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) scientist. From Hume’s Jan. 23, 2012 column,

The government’s stifling of Dr. Miller was so extreme that she was even told by DFO officials not to attend workshops at which experts were discussing salmon issues, out of fear media might attend and hear what she had to say.

I did mention the incident with Miller in an Aug. 19, 2011 posting (scroll down approximately 2/3 of the way) where I was giving an overview of scientific integrity policies in the US.

Briefly, Miller’s work was being read in that month’s issue of Science magazine, which is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and she was getting interview requests which were declined by the Privy Council Office. (For anyone unfamiliar with Privy Council Office, it supports the Prime Minister’s Office, in this case, Stephen Harper’s office.)

That big kerfuffle was six months ago (July 2011 was when Margaret Munro broke the story) and O’Hara’s letter was first published in Nature, Sept. 29, 2010. Why is Hume writing about this situation now?

There is no fresh incident to set off further discussion. Naturally, one expects that science writers are still upset given they deal with these policies on a daily basis but frustrations of this order are usually not considered worthy of news or column space.

I wonder if this is the beginning of a campaign by the CSWA being timed to coincide with the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 2012 meeting.

Guardian hosts live streaming convo on nanotechnology and health in an aging population

In one week, Jan. 31, 2012, the Guardian newspaper in the UK is inviting people (I previewed the process for participating and it is not limited to citizens of the UK) to take part in a live debate with the UK’s Minister of Science and Technology and an assortment of nanotechnology and nanomedicine researchers titled, How nanotechnology is prolonging life. From the Guardian’s nanotechnology event announcement page,

According to government figures, there are currently about 10 million people over the age of 65 in the UK and by 2050, that figure will have almost doubled to 19 million.

This changing demographic will place an unprecedented strain on health and social services. Fortunately more and more people are taking steps to ensure their old age is spent in good health and new medical advances that rely on nanotechnology are coming to the fore, which allow for better treatments, diagnosis and prevention of diseases associated with old age.

But what are the challenges and wider implications of using nanotechnology to prolong life and support a healthier, more independent ageing population?

The debate is being moderated by Alok Jha, science correspondent for the Guardian, and guests expected to participate include,

David Willetts, MP, minister for universities and science
Dr Mark Miodownik, head of the Materials Research Group, Kings College London
Professor Shervanthi Homer-Vanniasinkam, consultant vascular surgeon, Leeds General Infirmary
Dr Leonard Fass, director academic relations, GE Healthcare
Professor Peter Dobson, director for Oxford Begbroke and chief strategic adviser to Research Councils UK for nanotechnology
Professor Kostas Kostarelos, chair of nanomedicine, Centre for Drug Delivery Research, School of Pharmacy, University of London
Dr Donald Bruce, managing director, Edinethics

This is not the Guardian’s first nanotechnology debate, the paper hosted an online debate (a Q&A session with a nanotechnology expert [Dr. Mark Miodownik]) in mid-December 2011 (mentioned in my Dec. 16, 2011 posting).  So, it’s a bit strange they don’t do more than give the starting time for the debate, 3 pm GMT but no ending time since that information was given for the Dec. 2011 debate.

For those of us on the west coast of North America, this means a 7 am start. I believe you have to register to attend the session. Well, I don’t particularly want to register but I did try out the system.

I could choose my country but was much amused to note how they list the timezones. If I wanted to specify my timezone (PST), I’d have to choose either San Francisco or Tijuana. The Canadian choices included, Saskatchewan, Halifax, and Newfoundland (no mention of Labrador).

Good on Saskatchewan, Halifax, and Newfoundland but why were those three locations chosen in particular? These are very unusual choices and the equivalent of ignoring London (UK) while allowing people to choose Cornwall, Leicester, or Northunberland (pretending for a moment that they are in different timezones). No disrespect is meant to any region but it is unusual to see Ottawa, Toronto, and/or Montréal left out.

Nanoartist, Murray Robertson, and a more upbeat approach to emerging technologies

I came across a very interesting interview between Hank Pellissier (HP), the IEET’s (Institute of Ethics and Emerging Technologies) Managing Director, and Murray Robertson (MR), an artist who specializes in creating science images. From the Jan. 16, 2012 interview,

HP: If you could invent anything scientific, what would it be?

MR: Undoubtedly, a system that could provide accurate long range weather forecasts.

HP: What artists, and scientists, do you admire?

MR: John White (who accompanied Francis Drake on his 1565 expedition to North America) and Robert Fludd (“one of the last of the true Renaissance men”) are two artists for whom I have the greatest respect.

I am consistently amazed by the innovative work of many of the early pioneers in science including John Dalton, Joseph Black, Dimitri Mendeleev, Charles Darwin, Neils Bohr and Paul Dirac.

HP: If you could have nanobots in your body, what would they do?

MR: I would wish them to be dedicated to monitoring and maintaining my general health and well being.

Here’s one of Robertson’s images (downloaded from Nanotechnology Now’s webpage for Murray Robertson),

Inspired by the original foglet designs of Dr. J. Storrs Hall (see "Utility Fog") Nanotechnology is a generic image created (by Murrary Robertson) for the Royal Society of Chemistry, UK, "chemsoc timeline."

The interview is prefaced with this comment,

The population of techno-progressive artists is tiny, but perhaps accelerating. …

Here’s a little more about the IEET and its approach to technology and society (from their About page),

The IEET’s mission is to be a center for voices arguing for a responsible, constructive, ethical approach to the most powerful emerging technologies. We believe that technological progress can be a catalyst for positive human development so long as we ensure that technologies are safe and equitably distributed. We call this a “technoprogressive” orientation.

It’s nice to have a momentary respite from all the ‘doom and gloom’ scenarios, the ‘let’s hype it up so we can make money’ approach, etc.but I’m not sure about a group that calls itself ‘technoprogressive’ since that suggests (to me) a bias towards technology. Still, that is very attractive science image.

Are we creating a Star Trek world? T-rays and tricorders

There’s been quite a flutter online (even the Huffington Post has published a piece) about ‘Star Trek-hand-held medical scanners’ becoming possible due to some recent work in the area of T-rays. From the Jan. 20, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Scientists who have developed a new way to create a type of radiation known as Terahertz (THz) or T-rays – the technology behind full-body security scanners – say their new, stronger and more efficient continuous wave T-rays could be used to make better medical scanning gadgets and may one day lead to innovations similar to the “tricorder” scanner used in Star Trek.

In a study published recently in Nature Photonics (“Greatly enhanced continuous-wave terahertz emission by nano-electrodes in a photoconductive photomixer” [behind a paywall]), researchers from the Institute of Materials Research and Engineering (IMRE), a research institute of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) in Singapore and Imperial College London in the UK have made T-rays into a much stronger directional beam than was previously thought possible and have efficiently produced T-rays at room-temperature conditions. This breakthrough allows future T-ray systems to be smaller, more portable, easier to operate, and much cheaper.

For anyone who’s not familiar with ‘Star Trek world’ and tricorders, here’s a brief description from a Wikipedia essay about tricorders,

In the fictional Star Trek universe, a tricorder is a multifunction handheld device used for sensor scanning, data analysis, and recording data.

David Freeman in his Jan. 21, 2012 article for the Huffington Post about the research puts it this way,

Trekkies, take heart. A scientific breakthrough involving a form of infrared radiation known as terahertz (THz) waves could lead to handheld medical scanners reminiscent of the “tricorder” featured on the original Star Trek television series.

What’s the breakthrough? Using nanotechnology, physicists in London and Singapore found a way to make a beam of the”T-rays”–which are now used in full-body airport security scanners–stronger and more directional.

Here’s how the improved T-ray technology works (from the Jan. 20, 2012 news item on Nanowerk),

In the new technique, the researchers demonstrated that it is possible to produce a strong beam of T-rays by shining light of differing wavelengths on a pair of electrodes – two pointed strips of metal separated by a 100 nanometre gap on top of a semiconductor wafer. The unique tip-to-tip nano-sized gap electrode structure greatly enhances the THz field and acts like a nano-antenna that amplifies the THz wave generated. The waves are produced by an interaction between the electromagnetic waves of the light pulses and a powerful current passing between the semiconductor electrodes from the carriers generated in the underlying semiconductor. The scientists are able to tune the wavelength of the T-rays to create a beam that is useable in the scanning technology.

Lead author Dr Jing Hua Teng, from A*STAR’s IMRE, said: “The secret behind the innovation lies in the new nano-antenna that we had developed and integrated into the semiconductor chip.” ….

Research co-author Stefan Maier, a Visiting Scientist at A*STAR’s IMRE and Professor in the Department of Physics at Imperial College London, said: “T-rays promise to revolutionise medical scanning to make it faster and more convenient, potentially relieving patients from the inconvenience of complicated diagnostic procedures and the stress of waiting for accurate results. Thanks to modern nanotechnology and nanofabrication, we have made a real breakthrough in the generation of T-rays that takes us a step closer to these new scanning devices. …”

It’s another story about handheld (or point-of-care) diagnostic devices and I have posted on this topic previously:

  • Jan. 4, 2012 about work in Alberta;
  •  Dec. 22, 2011 on grants to scientists in the US and Canada working on these devices;
  •  Aug. 4, 2011 about a diagnostic device the size of a credit card;
  •  Mar. 1, 2011 about nanoLAB from Stanford University (my last sentence in that posting “It’s not quite Star Trek yet but we’re getting there.”); and,
  •  Feb. 5, 2011 about the Argento and PROOF initiatives.

I see I had four articles last year and this year (one month old), I already have two articles on these devices. It reflects my own interest, as well as, the amount work being done in this area.