Scientists at the University of California (UC) Berkeley have developed a ‘carpet cloak’ which conceals an object underneath it from view. Of course, it’s a very small object measuring 3.8 microns by 400 nanometres. So, don’t get ready for your invisibility cloak yet. If you’re interested there’s a more detailed article, accompanied by a video, here.

There was an essay in the Saturday, May 2, 2009 issue of the Globe and Mail about Canada’s priorities for research and development funding. Written by Harvey Weingarten, president and vice-chancellor at the University of Calgary, the essay made some good points and it made me uneasy. Yes, infrastructure is important and Canadians can get better at commercializing their discoveries so I had no serious disagreement with anything in the essay.

I am, however, uncomfortable with the phrase ‘curiosity-driven’ research to describe research that does not have a commercial application either in the near future or shortly after that. My sense is that the phrase is becoming mildly pejorative. There’s an implication that it’s a waste of time (idle curiousity). To give Weinstein his due, he doesn’t dismiss curiosity-driven research out of hand, he simply drives forward towards his thesis, that Canada needs to learn how to better engage the private sector and to focus its funding efforts on areas where there is already expertise or where it can easily be established. He does mention balance with regard to his aims but I have a suspicion that his notion of balance is different than mine.

It seems like the Gobe and Mail has taken on a campaign to support the sciences. The May 2, 2009 issue had this essay and an extended piece on students pursuing science education and careers or, rather, how students are not pursuing them.