Monthly Archives: February 2012

AAAS 2012 the last day, Feb. 20, 2012

Hopefully I’m still making some sense as it’s been an exhausting few days and I’m not even going to the parties or expected to attend the 6:30 am meetings.

This last day featured one of my favourite talks. It was called, “Good Natured: From Primate Social Instincts to Human Morality” and was given by Frans B. M. de Waal. What really made the talk fascinating were the video clips which illustrated de Waal’s experiments with various animals. (I’m miffed that I can’t find any of these clips to embed in this posting because just hearing or reading about the animal’s behaviour isn’t the same.)

The best I can do is offer is this brief clip of de Waal speaking with Carl Zimmer (science writer mentioned in my Jan. 13, 2012 posting about his book on science tattoos). Here’s de Waal describing his experiments with Capuchin monkeys and the discovery he and his colleagues made about the concept of fairness amongst monkeys,

(You can check out more video clips of events held by the Templeton Book Forum here.)

At his AAAS 2012 talk, de Waals featured clips of elephants working cooperatively or not. Apparently, some of the elephants discovered that they could trick their partners into doing all of the work while still receiving the reward. de Waal is careful to note that his work is with mammals.

The very last session I attended was titled, “Misreporting Fukushima: A Failure of Science Journalism with Global Repercussions?” My hat’s off to Tracey Brown (Sense about Science) who moderated the session. Thank you and your colleague for keeping on time and for managing to get as many as questions heard and answered as possible. (There were lineups of people trying to ask questions and I’ve seen moderators disappoint a significant percentage of the questioners in this type of situation.) Brown did something simple, she aggregated the questions and gave a warning (10 mins., I think) before she wrapped up the session.

As for the ‘misreporting’, it’s one of the topics that people can talk about forever. It was good to hear from scientists and journalists (from the UK, Germany, and China) and audience members (from Japan, Canada, US, India, etc.) and, as you might expect, many dissenting opinions and perspectives were offered. I very much appreciated the civil and thoughtful discussion.

AAAS 2012, the Sunday, Feb. 19, 2012 experience: art/sci, HUBzero, and a news scoop from the exhibition floor

2 Replies

“New Concepts in Integrating Arts and Science Research for a Global Knowledge Society” at the AAAS 2012 annual meeting provided some thought provoking moments courtesy of Gunalan Nadarajan, Vice Provost at the Maryland Institute College of Art. It’s always good to be reminded that art schools are only about 300 years old and the notion of studying science as a separate discipline is only about 200 years old. We tend talk about the arts and the sciences as if they’ve always been separate pursuits when, as Nadarajan pointed out, they were part of a larger pursuit, which included philosophy and religion as well. That pursuit was knowledge.

Nadarajan mentioned a new network (a pilot project) in the US called the Network for Science Engineering Art and Design where they hope to bring scientists and artists together for collaborative work. These relationships are not always successful and Nadarajan noted that the problems tend to boil down to relationship issues (sometimes people don’t get along very well even with the best of intentions). He did say that he wanted to encourage people to get to know each other first in nonstressful environments such as sharing a meal or coffee. It sounded a little bit like dating but rather than a romantic encounter (or that might be a possibility too), the emphasis is on your work compatibility.

According to a blog posting by one of the organizers of the Network for Science Engineering Art and Design, Roger Malina, it is searching for a new name (search engine issues). You can get more information about the new network in Malina’s Feb. 19, 2012 posting.

“HUBzero: Building Collaboratories for Research on a Global Scale” was a session I anticipated with much interest and I’m glad to say it was very good with all the speakers being articulate and excited about their topics. I did not realize that there are a number of hubs in the US; I’m familiar only with the nanoHUB based at Purdue University in Indiana. (My most recent posting about this was the Dec. 5, 2011 posting about their NanoHUB-U initiative.)

nanoHUB and the others all run on an open source software designed for scientific collaboration. What I found most fascinating was the differences between the various hubs. Michael McLennan spoke about both the HUBzero software (which can be downloaded for free from the HUBzero website) and the nanoHUB, which services the nanotechnology community and has approximately 200,000 registered users at this time (they double their numbers every 12 – 18 months according to McLennan).

There are videos, papers, courses, social networking opportunities and more can be made available through the HUBzero software but uniquely configured to each group’s needs. Ellen M. Rathje (University of Texas, Austin) spoke at length about some of the challenges the earthquake engineers (NEES.org) addressed when developing their hub with regard to sharing data and some of the analytical difficulties associated with earthquake data.

Each group that uses the software to create a hub has its own culture and customs and the software has to be tweaked such that the advantages to adopting new work strategies outweigh the disadvantages of making changes. William K. Barnett whose portfolio includes encouraging the use of collaborative technologies for the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CSTI) had to adopt an approach for doctors who typically have very little time to adopt new technologies and who have requirements regarding confidentiality that are far different than that of nanoscientists or earthquake engineers.

I got my ‘scooplet’ when I visited the exhibition floor. The 2012 Canadian Science Policy Conference (2012 CSPC) will be held in Alberta as you can see in this Feb. 19, 2012 posting on the Government of Canada science site.

Apparently, there are two cities under consideration and, for anyone who’s been hoping for a meeting in Wetaskawin, I must grind your dreams into dust. As most Canadians would expect, the choice is between Edmonton and Calgary. I understand the scales are tipped towards Calgary (that’s the scooplet) but these things can change in a heartbeat (no, don’t get your hopes up about Wetaskawin). I understand we should be learning the decision soon (I wonder if Banff might emerge as a dark horse contender).

AAAS 2012 Saturday, Feb. 18, 2012 roundup: quantum computing, nanocellulose, religion & science in the classroom, and ESOF in Dublin

1 Reply

Strangely, I have an increased interest in quantum computing after attending a few session yesterday where I didn’t understand much of anything in detail. There was the ‘Quantum Computing: Current Status and Future Prospects” session where various speakers spoke eloquently about their discoveries and outstanding challenges. There was a plea for researcher to keep the field ‘open’ and not to focus exclusively on one line of research or one material (don’t focus solely graphene/silicon/carbon nanotubes/etc.) as the ‘holy grail’ of quantum computing. The other ‘quantum’ session, “Quantum Information Science and Technology: A Global Perspective,” featured researchers working in China, Singapore, Canada, Germany, and the US. Unfortunately, I only managed to attend part of the session. (One of the problems with conferences is the number of sessions being run simultaneously and trying to attend as much ass possible means makings all kinds of compromises. It’s a good problem to have.)

The “NanoCellulose : An Abundant, Sustainable, Versatile Biopolymer” session was partly concurrent with the Euroscience Open Forum (ESOF) press briefing so I managed to hear only two of their (nanocellulose) speakers, Ted Wegman of the US Forest Service and Nils Petersen, Director General of Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT). Wegman presented an overview of nanocellulose research progress in the US and its potential use in many products while Petersen focussed on the NINT research team and their projects. Petersen did mention the overall Canadian scene somewhat summarily.It was not the presentation described in the programme and it had the air of something cobbled together out of well worn material.

ETA Feb.19.12 at 9:50 am: Wegman mentioned two nanocellulose plants being readied in the US, one being in the state of Maine (100Kg/day?) and the other in the state of Wisconsin (opening in April/May 2012 and producing 20Kg/day). (I will check those numbers.)

The ESOF briefing promised some excitement at the July meeting in Dublin. They released their programming schedule and spoke at length about the science meeting and the related cultural activities being planned. (I’ll have more about that in a later posting.) The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) representative, Al Teich, noted that the US is having to grapple with a changing landscape regarding science and research (in other words, no longer being the ‘top dog’) and he explicitly stated that the ESOF meetings are fun. I guessed that from the previews (A tale of two cities and their science meetings: vibrant Dublin and sad sack Vancouver) but it’s nice to hear it confirmed.

One other thing, the “Beyond Evolution: Religious Questions in Science Classrooms” was one of those presentations I attended accidentally and I’m sorry I didn’t hear more. They were discussing science as process rather than doctrine and there was some discussion about the impact various religions had on scientific progress.

Discover Canadian innovation by staring deeply into your own navel and Mike Laziridis discusses manure (really) at the AAAS Fri., Feb. 17, 2012 afternoon events

5 Replies

It was an afternoon event (1:30 – 4:30 pm PST) at the American Association for the Advancement (AAAS) 2012 meeting in Vancouver, “Searching for the Right Space for Innovation.” I realized it was going to be a bunch of academics discussing their research about the Canadian scene; I just didn’t expect it to be so thoroughly self-involved. There was one moment of extreme excitement with everyone madly scribbling or keyboarding. David Wolfe from the University of Toronto mentioned that there is interest is funding risk science research and centres (apparently the Univ. of Toronto is about to open a risk science centre of its own). I’m pretty sure it was the smell of money that occasioned all the activity.

Given that this meeting attracts mainly US scientists and others from outside Canada, I was hoping for a more expansive view of Canadian innovation (the good, the bad, and the ugly). The relentless focus on the minutiae surprised me. I realize that for these academics what I perceive to be minutiae is vitally important. (That’s always true if you are deeply involved in a topic. I feel much the same way about passive and active voices but the only people who care to discuss this topic at length [I mean 20 or more minutes; occasionally you meet someone who’s prepared to argue you {the writer} into the ground but they usually lose interest as the discussion continues] are other writers.)

Given that the AAAS meeting is attracting academics from many different disciplines and from jurisdictions outside Canada, I found this discussion disappointing in its provincialism.

This session was followed by the big event of the day, the plenary lecture by Mike Lazaridis billed as “The Power of Ideas.” One of the founders of Research in Motion (RIM), the company that produced the Blackberry, Lazaridis is well known as a successful technology innovator. He recently stepped down (or was pushed) from his position (with Jim Balsillie) as co-president and co-CEO of RIM after a very bad year (2011) for that company.

In technology circles, there’s a phenomenon where the people who founded the company can grow it to a certain point but no further. Lazaridis and Balsillie grew their company well past the point where most Canadian entrepreneurs have to quit. RIM is quite an extraordinary accomplishment by any standard internationally and I’m not sure why Lazaridis and/or his handlers feel they have to gild it past levels considered tasteful by baroque standards.

Lazaridis is a good speaker and I wish the material had been better. I’m referring specifically to the part where he posed a thought experiment (his term for it) whereby the Blackberry is sent back in time to some giants in the field electronics, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell.Is there anyone who doesn’t realize that these 19th century geniuses would be hard put to understand the device?As for sending back some textbooks so they could read about the technology, unlike Lazaridis I’m not convinced that would be helpful. Apparently Lazaridis learned technology by reading the technical manuals first. Laziridis has a different starting point than either of these geniuses not least of which was a cultural context that allowed him to grapple with what was then a ‘new’ technology.

Lazaridis did announce that there will be a new centre opening, the Mike and Ophelia Lazaridis Quantum Nano Centre (QNC) at the University of Waterloo (Ontario, Canada). I gather the new opening date is later this year (2012); it was supposed to open during summer 2011.

There were some charming bits to the talk (high school experiences) and he’s charismatic. As for the manure, this was mentioned in the context of the first urban planning meeting ever held in the 1890’s in New York City. Lazaridis set this up as a joke asking us what we thought the big problem of the 1890’s urban environment could be. I imagine it was meant as a launch point for something more germane to the ‘big ideas’ theme but I knew the punchline (I happened to see an episode of Nova where this information was featured), was tired, and Lazaridis does not appear to have a gift for delivering a comic line so I left. There you have it: day one.

AAAS 2012: first day morning (Feb.17.12) session highlight: archaeoacoustics

3 Replies

This is going to be quick as there’s still a lot of conference to go. The 7:30 am press breakfast was scrumptious. There was an arctic presentation. Unfortunately, one of the speakers yelled into his microphone. One of those enthusiastic individuals who speaks loudly in the first place so he really didn’t need to have his voice augmented but then he got excited and that was just too much.

Sadly I did not arrive in time to hear all of the speakers at archaeoacoustics presentation organized by David Lubman. The two poeple I did hear, Steven J. Waller and Lubman were quire fascinating. They both study the acoustics one experiences in various archaeological sites such as Stonehenge, the Temple of Kukulkan at Chichen Itza and more. If I understand them rightly both researchers found that the builders of these sites were playing various acoustical properties to create their environments. I was particularly taken with the story about the Temple of Kukulkan which Lubman described as a sound recording device. I’ll see if I can get more about this later but the conference is about to start again.

Conference on public participation in scientific research

Leave a reply

It’s a bit complicated as this is actually a two-in-one deal. The Ecological Society of America (ESA) is holding an annual meeting in Portland, Oregon which runs Aug. 5 – 10, 2012. This meeting overlaps with the Conference on Public Participation in Scientific Research (PPSR) which runs from Aug. 4 – 5, 2012. Both meeting and conference are being organized through Cornell University (US). Organizers believe that many participants will want to attend both conferences.

John Ohab in his Feb. 15, 2012 posting on the SciStarter blog notes this,

A Conference on Public Participation in Scientific Research (PPSR) will be held in Portland, Oregon on August 4th and 5th, 2012. This landmark event will convene science researchers, project leaders, educators, technology specialists, evaluators, and others from across many disciplines (including astronomy, molecular biology, human and environmental health, and ecology) to discuss advancing the field of PPSR.

I have written about PPSR before but used the term ‘citizen science’. From the Citizen Science Central on Cornell University’s Lab of Ornithology website,

With the rapid growth and innovation of public participation in scientific research (PPSR), practitioners are in need of a venue for sharing insights across projects and fields of study. This landmark event will convene science researchers, project leaders, educators, technology specialists, evaluators, and others from across many disciplines (including astronomy, molecular biology, human and environmental health, and ecology) to discuss advancing the field of PPSR. The PPSR Conference is being held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA), a venue that has long been supportive of citizen science and that always welcomes practitioners from diverse fields. We hope that all who are interested in the future of the field of PPSR will join us this August!

There is currently a call for papers for the ESA meeting, deadline Feb. 23, 2012. Organizers have yet to open a call for the PPSR conference.

Rewire yourself tomorrow in Vancouver (Canada)

Leave a reply

I just received some information about Simon Fraser University (SFU) (Vancouver, Canada) about a new media party planned for this Friday, Feb. 17, 2012. It starts at 8 pm and finishes at 3 am. Here’s the notice I received,

FCAT Rewired at W2
Time: 8pm-3am
Place: W2 Media Café, 111 West Hastings, Vancouver
Cost: $5 in advance, $7 at the door

FCAT & SFU’s New Media Performance club are hosting FCAT REWIRED at W2: a new media party featuring EXPENDABLE YOUTH and Live PA by DKON!
New Media Performances including a projection installation (want to try your hand at some kinetic light painting?) TIX ONLY $5 in advance!

For anyone who’s curious about SFU’s FCAT, I do have a three-part interview with Cheryl Geisler (2010), Dean of the then new faculty (scroll down as these interviews are included as part of longer posts),

Part one

Part two

Part three

That’s it. Have a happy rewiring.

List of 10 emerging technologies with life- and globe-changing impacts

1 Reply

The World Economic Forum (WEF) holds a number of meetings around the world and has many working committees/councils. The Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies is tasked to examine trends and possible impacts that various emerging technologies and to discuss strategies for dealing with the impacts on our collective future.

The Global Agenda Council has just released a list of the trends expected to have major impacts in the near future (the rest of 2012).

From the Feb. 16, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Below, the Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies presents the technological trends expected to have major social, economic and environmental impacts worldwide in 2012. They are listed in order of greatest potential to provide solutions to global challenges:

1. Informatics for adding value to information The quantity of information now available to individuals and organizations is unprecedented in human history, and the rate of information generation continues to grow exponentially. Yet, the sheer volume of information is in danger of creating more noise than value, and as a result limiting its effective use. Innovations in how information is organized, mined and processed hold the key to filtering out the noise and using the growing wealth of global information to address emerging challenges.

2. Synthetic biology and metabolic engineering The natural world is a testament to the vast potential inherent in the genetic code at the core of all living organisms. Rapid advances in synthetic biology and metabolic engineering are allowing biologists and engineers to tap into this potential in unprecedented ways, enabling the development of new biological processes and organisms that are designed to serve specific purposes – whether converting biomass to chemicals, fuels and materials, producing new therapeutic drugs or protecting the body against harm.

3. Green Revolution 2.0 – technologies for increased food and biomass Artificial fertilizers are one of the main achievements of modern chemistry, enabling unprecedented increases in crop production yield. Yet, the growing global demand for healthy and nutritious food is threatening to outstrip energy, water and land resources. By integrating advances across the biological and physical sciences, the new green revolution holds the promise of further increasing crop production yields, minimizing environmental impact, reducing energy and water dependence, and decreasing the carbon footprint.

4. Nanoscale design of materials The increasing demand on natural resources requires unprecedented gains in efficiency. Nanostructured materials with tailored properties, designed and engineered at the molecular scale, are already showing novel and unique features that will usher in the next clean energy revolution, reduce our dependence on depleting natural resources, and increase atom-efficiency manufacturing and processing.

5. Systems biology and computational modelling/simulation of chemical and biological systems For improved healthcare and bio-based manufacturing, it is essential to understand how biology and chemistry work together. Systems biology and computational modelling and simulation are playing increasingly important roles in designing therapeutics, materials and processes that are highly efficient in achieving their design goals, while minimally impacting on human health and the environment.

6. Utilization of carbon dioxide as a resource Carbon is at the heart of all life on earth. Yet, managing carbon dioxide releases is one of the greatest social, political and economic challenges of our time. An emerging innovative approach to carbon dioxide management involves transforming it from a liability to a resource. Novel catalysts, based on nanostructured materials, can potentially transform carbon dioxide to high value hydrocarbons and other carbon-containing molecules, which could be used as new building blocks for the chemical industry as cleaner and more sustainable alternatives to petrochemicals.

7. Wireless power Society is deeply reliant on electrically powered devices. Yet, a significant limitation in their continued development and utility is the need to be attached to the electricity grid by wire – either permanently or through frequent battery recharging. Emerging approaches to wireless power transmission will free electrical devices from having to be physically plugged in, and are poised to have as significant an impact on personal electronics as Wi-Fi had on Internet use.

8. High energy density power systems Better batteries are essential if the next generation of clean energy technologies are to be realized. A number of emerging technologies are coming together to lay the foundation for advanced electrical energy storage and use, including the development of nanostructured electrodes, solid electrolysis and rapid-power delivery from novel supercapacitors based on carbon-based nanomaterials. These technologies will provide the energy density and power needed to supercharge the next generation of clean energy technologies.

9. Personalized medicine, nutrition and disease prevention As the global population exceeds 7 billion people – all hoping for a long and healthy life – conventional approaches to ensuring good health are becoming less and less tenable, spurred on by growing demands, dwindling resources and increasing costs. Advances in areas such as genomics, proteomics and metabolomics are now opening up the possibility of tailoring medicine, nutrition and disease prevention to the individual. Together with emerging technologies like synthetic biology and nanotechnology, they are laying the foundation for a revolution in healthcare and well-being that will be less resource intensive and more targeted to individual needs.

10. Enhanced education technology New approaches are needed to meet the challenge of educating a growing young population and providing the skills that are essential to the knowledge economy. This is especially the case in today’s rapidly evolving and hyperconnected globalized society. Personalized IT-based approaches to education are emerging that allow learner-centred education, critical thinking development and creativity. Rapid developments in social media, open courseware and ubiquitous access to the Internet are facilitating outside classroom and continuous education.

Members of the Global Agenda Council had this to say about the list (from the Feb. 15, 2012 news release from Cientifica),

Many of the technology trends are currently below the radar of most policy makers. Council member Tim Harper [CEO, Cientifica] emphasized that “Technology is a very powerful tool for change. If the Arab Spring demonstrated that many governments are still unsure how to respond to mature and simple to grasp technologies such as Facebook and Twitter, then they run the risk of being absolutely powerless in the face of science-based technological change.”

Innovation in nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technology is already helping solve pressing challenges as diverse as efficient “renewable” energy sources, malnutrition and hunger, access to clean water, disease diagnosis and treatment, “green” technologies, and global climate change and sustainability.

Council Chair Professor Sang Yup Lee at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) explained that “Accelerating progress in science and technology has stimulated a new age of discovery, and many of the technologies identified by the council are critical to building a sustainable and resilient future.” Regarding job creation through emerging technologies, Council Vice-Chair Javier Garcia Martinez said, “There are no generally applicable shortcuts in the path that goes from emerging technologies to new industries and job creation. This path includes sufficient and sustained funding leaving enough incentive to the founders and real focus on scale, reliability, and safety.” The report also cautions that without new understanding, tools and capabilities, ranging from public policy to investment models, their safe and successful development is far from guaranteed. Among the trends are advances in informatics, biotechnology, medicine, materials, education, and resource usage.

Informatics for adding value to information and handling “big data” for “data to decision” is highlighted, and has been the focus of idea generation during this year’s Davos forum. In particular, the intelligent technologies for creating valuable information out of noisy data need to be developed.

In the biological domain, synthetic biology and metabolic engineering are expected to become increasingly important in manufacturing new drugs and producing chemicals and materials from renewable resources. Systems biology and computational modelling and simulation of chemical and biological systems are playing increasingly important roles in helping design therapeutics, materials and processes that are highly efficient in achieving their design goals, while minimally impacting on human health, resources, and the environment. Innovative technologies for a second green revolution that provide security in food supply for growing population and biomass for biorefineries are also selected.

Nanomaterials designed and engineered at the molecular scale are expected to continue to provide novel solutions to energy, water, and other resource-based challenges. Also listed are breakthrough technologies that potentially turn carbon dioxide from a global liability to a valuable resource.

The list also includes wireless power, high energy-density power systems, personalized medicine and nutrition, and enhanced education technologies.

Director of World Economic Forum Andrew Hagan said, “We believe that these emerging technologies to be announced annually by the council will provide a chance for all stakeholders to link technology trends to the global megatrends and solutions to the mega-challenges. The challenge will not just be the new ideas but leaving the old ones behind.”

You can find out more about the Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies here.

Nano and Europe’s Chief Science Adviser

Leave a reply

In late November 2011 there was murmuring about the possibility that Anne Glover, then Chief Science Adviser for Scotland, was due to be announced as Europe’s first Chief Science Adviser (mentioned in my Nov. 24, 2011 posting). Now that the announcement has been made, Glover has been profiled in a Feb. 14, 2012 article by Jop de Vrieze for ScienceInsider.

Amongst other things she discusses Europeans and their attitudes towards risk and new technologies in the context of genetically modified organisms (GMO) and nanotechnology,

Q: You mean Europe is too risk-adverse when it comes to new technologies?

A.G.: If you take people’s opinions, for instance by looking at the Eurobarometer, people seem to be reluctant to accept innovative technologies. They are suspicious almost just because it’s new, rather than thinking: “Oh this is new, I need to find out more about it so that I can judge.” At the moment, we are way too much on the side of: “It is new I don’t want it, not even discuss it.” This leaves the door open for pressure groups which are against certain things and have a very loud voice. There should be more communication about the rewards of the technologies. I would like to balance that.

Q: Are you talking about genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?

A.G.: Yes, that is the most important example. In the beginning, decades ago, people were careful to get good regulations in place. Over time, it has been shown that GMO is not a risky technology. But people seem not to have all the information they need to make their own decision. It is not up to Europe to say: “You have to do this,” but give the information and let them choose.

Q: Has communication been the problem?

A.G.: Yes. And if we have the same misinformation that was used around GMOs in the relatively new field of nanotechnology, we could severely disinhibit our ability to contribute to that market. That would be an enormous loss for Europe.

She goes on to discuss her plans for the future, the budget necessary to get there and dealing with the European Commission’s bureaucracy.

FrogHeart attends AAAS 2012 annual meeting in Vancouver

Leave a reply

For my regular readers (assuming I have one or two), I will be at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2012 annual meeting being held in Vancouver. It starts today, informally. The publicized dates are Feb. 16 – 20, 2010 and the end result is that my publishing schedule will be changed. I hope to be blogging over the weekend instead of taking my usual rest. There may be changes as well but I haven’t determined what they might be.

I am very much looking forward to the meeting and the sessions. Today I’m off to a pre-conference event at the University of British Columbia (UBC). More about that later.