Tag Archives: AAAS 2012

Electrochromic windows and censorship/communication deficiencies

3 Replies

It was an unexpected response to a series of follow-up questions about electrochromic windows at the University of British Columbia’s (UBC) Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS) that has* given me the excuse to discuss censorship and science in Canada.

I’ll start with the windows. I participated in a pre-AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 2012 annual meeting event in February held by the University of British Columbia. The event was a tour of UBC’s relatively new (opened Nov. 2011) CIRS facility. It was very popular and there were at least 40 of us present.Here’s a little more information from the CIRS About page,

CIRS activities have a regional focus and a global reach. Located on the UBC campus in Vancouver, British Columbia, CIRS is a hub of excellence around green design and building operations practices. We bring thought leaders from UBC and our region together to create and test solutions that work at home, and then share our experiences and knowledge with the public and professionals from across our province and around the world. [emphasis mine] A typical day at CIRS generates many interesting conversations and ideas.

Documenting our activities and communicating our lessons and successes are priorities at CIRS.

We use this website as our primary communication vehicle, showcasing the building design and construction process and the exciting research underway at CIRS. Through this website we aim to build a community of professional and interested people who can connect, share ideas and further accelerate sustainability. [emphasis mine]

We also connect with individuals face-to-face as much as possible through symposiums, workshops, building tours and other events held in the interactive spaces at CIRS.

During the course of the tour there was some discussion about community-building, outreach, etc. and we were informed that the facility is testing a couple of electrochromic windows, amongst other things. Later, I did ask for more information about the electrochromic windows at CIRS and was promptly rewarded with this from Ann L. Campbell,

My colleague Brian Lin passed along your question regarding the electrochromic windows at UBC. Here is the response I received from Alberto Cayuela, the Associate Director of CIRS. He kindly answered my question (what are these windows?) as well as your question regarding their use at CIRS:

We have a limited number of electrochromic windows in the building (fourth floor southwest corner). We are planning to do some research on them in partnership with BC Hydro. Essentially this technology enables the glass to darken or light when a low-voltage electric current is applied to the glass. There are energy benefits associated with blocking or letting heat through windows depending on the time of the year and desired outcome.

I invite you to join the community at www.cirs.ubc.ca where we will post research projects and results as they are undertaken.

The answer excited my curiosity since I’ve written about ‘smart’ windows a number of times, most recently in a Sept. 16, 2011 posting about Boris Lamontagne’s work at the Canada National Research Council and in a Sept. 7, 2011 posting about WANDA, the nanocrystal robot and its role in one of the US Dept. of Energy’s projects with electrochromic windows so I sent back more questions.

After waiting two weeks for a reply, I resent the questions and got a response this morning,

Dear Maryse,

I’m sorry that we are not going to be able to help you with your questions right now. There is no other information available beyond what I sent previously and what is in the online CIRS Technical Manual (and I know that is not much).

Good luck with your blog. I’m sorry we are not able to contribute.

Warm regards,

Ann

Ann L. Campbell
Manager of Communications
UBC Sustainability Initiative

They aren’t able to answer these questions, eh? From my Feb. 21 and March 6, 2012 email request:

Perhaps you could direct me to someone who could answer more specific questions about these windows for publication in my blog. It’s a topic I’ve mentioned on a number of occasions and am hugely excited to hear about this research. Here are the questions:

Who is answering these questions? (Perhaps include a brief bio.?)

Are these windows both electrochromic & photochromic?

Where did you get these windows from and what specific technology do they demonstrate? Could you describe that technology in more detail? e.g. Switch Materials, a local company offers electrochromic and photochromic films for windows or Boris Lamontagne at the NRC has a project with glass that includes curling electrodes, etc.

Exactly how big are these electrochromic windows and what percentage of the windows in the CIRS are electrochromic?

What kind of research are you doing with regard to these windows? Are you measuring their effectiveness, their aesthetic impact, the quality of light and its impact on wellbeing, etc.?

How many pilot programmes for electrochromic/photochromic windows are there in BC? (Is the one at CIRS the only one?)

Is BC Hydro hoping to encourage consumer use of these windows? Are they hoping this is the wave of the future?

I’m not sure why they weren’t willing answer at least a few of these questions, which seem relatively unexceptional, or even supply a reason of some kind for the failure to share information. It seems odd given their mandate which emphasizes outreach and communication.

I did look at the technical manual for the building and Campbell quite correctly noted that it doesn’t provide answers to my questions. I checked the information on lighting and searched for the terms ‘windows’ and ‘electrochromic windows’ in the building manual (the search function does not seem to be working).

The response from Campbell is a pretty standard bureaucratic response (I must give her credit for being significantly more polite than many others). The problem starts with the organization’s stated mandate of  ‘sharing’. I am assuming the intentions are good but the execution is a problem as it often is with mandates that include words such as  ‘sharing’, ‘interactivity’, ‘openness’, and/or ‘community building’, etc. in situations where that is not always possible.

There is another issue: a communications manager is acting as an interface or gatekeeper to the scientists. Note:  I’m not familiar with UBC or CIRS policies regarding direct contact with scientists. Campbell may have been acting as an interface or gatekeeper as a consequence of my initial request which was made to Brian Lin of UBC’s Public Affairs group, although the result seems roughly the same whether Campbell’s role as gatekeeper was intentional or accidental. It should be noted that she never explicitly denied access to a scientist and even if I did get access, there is no guarantee I would have received any answers (scientists aren’t always willing to talk). Still, could Campbell’s response be described as censorship? Before I try to answer that question, I’m going to touch on another situation.

Over the last few years the Canadian government has intentionally instituted a new strategy of insisting a communications professional act as an interface to government scientists. This ‘new’ practice has become a sore point for Canadian journalists who have described it as ‘muzzling scientists’. I certainly haven’t been happy about this added hurdle to getting questions answered as I noted most recently in my Jan. 24, 2012 posting but I’m still considering whether the practice could be described as censorship or not.

The AAAS 2012 annual meeting in Vancouver hosted an event about the ‘science muzzle’ and it was SRO (standing room only). I didn’t attend largely because it had a certain fevered quality I associate with mobs but it has stimulated a fair degree of discussion. Here’s a description of the session from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada webpage titled Unmuzzling Government Scientists,

 Across Canada, journalists are being denied access to publicly funded scientists and the research community is frustrated with the way government scientists are being muzzled. Some observe that it is part of a trend that has seen the Canadian government tighten control over how and when federal scientists interact with the media. As a result, media inquiries are delayed, and scientists are less present in coverage of research in Canada.

In 2008, Environment Canada ordered its scientists to refer all media queries to Ottawa, where communications officers and strategists would decide if the scientist could respond and help craft “approved media lines”.

Stories written for the CBC, Postmedia news, the journal Nature and others have then revealed how these communication restrictions had spread to other government departments.

And the situation is somewhat similar in the United States. A recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review details how restrictive practices established by George W. Bush’s administration still hold under the current government.

This panel will be an occasion to better understand the friction between the media and the governments.

Are the tightened communication strategies symptomatic of a worldwide trend in public and private sectors? Are they justified?

How do obstructions in communications with scientists compromise science research progression and undermine democracy? And in the end, what can be done to improve the situation? 

The February 17, 2012 posting on the Scientific Canadian blog provides some insight into these ‘obstructions’ (I have removed some links),

 I’ve had my own experiences with the phenomenon. Last spring, I interviewed Environment Canada scientist David Tarasick about how cold stratospheric temperatures led to more ozone depletion than usual in 2011. Although he was quite willing to talk to me, government policy required my questions to be submitted in advance by e-mail, and his written responses vetted by Environment Canada’s media relations department; I never did speak to him in person, and couldn’t ask any follow-up questions. More importantly, the whole process took about two weeks. If I had been writing for a daily publication instead of a monthly, the delay would have been unacceptably long. By contrast, his co-author on the paper, the University of Toronto’s Kaley Walker, was able to talk to me on the phone within 24 hours. But I was lucky; a few months later Postmedia News was prevented from speaking with Tarasick altogether.

Even though Environment Canada communication professionals eventually refused access to Tarasick, does that action constitute censorship? According to David Bruggeman’s Mar. 3, 2012 posting on his Pasco Phronesis blog, the answer is no,

 I am not trying to defend the Canadian government.  There is plenty to disagree with about their policies of limiting the dissemination of government conducted research results.  But because they allow this research to be published, the problem is one of transparency, and not of censorship. It doesn’t help those seeking to change the policies to call the bad behavior something it isn’t.  Utilize Canadian open records and open government laws (whatever might be the equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act) to fight for the information.

It might be helpful to know this about David Bruggeman, from Pasco Phronesis blog About page,

I have over 12 years experience in U.S. federal science and technology policy, conducting research and analysis in many subjects for the National Academies and other organizations while slogging through grad school. My education is in Politics (B.A.), Science, Technology, and Public Policy (M.A.), and Science and Technology Studies (need to write that Ph.D. dissertation). I currently work and blog for the Association for Computing Machinery as its Senior Public Policy Analyst.  (Disclaimer – opinions expressed here are strictly my own.)

I do agree with David’s call for clarity but I’m inclined to consider the ‘muzzle’ as a type of de facto censorship. While the research is published, as David notes, it is usually written in language that renders it inaccessible to virtually anyone who’s not an expert in that field. Reporters and other science communicators such as bloggers often act as translators of highly specialized and, at times, obscure research for a variety of audiences.

Direct access to the scientist or expert researcher allows the reporter/communicator to clarify and better understand the materials as they translate it for other audiences, particularly non expert audiences. Without direct access, the act of translation becomes highly difficult if not impossible. As a direct consequence, you have de facto censorship from every audience other than expert audiences.

Here’s the definition of censorship I found at Wikipedia,

 Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Given that definition and getting back to Campbell and her response to my electrochromic window questions, then it could be described as censorship if she’s withholding information (again, she did not refuse access to scientists [she contacted Alberto Cayuela for the first response], which differentiates this from the Environment Canada example). It is possible, although not likely, that the CIRS team does not have the information I requested in my follow up questions.

While I don’t like being on the receiving end, I do believe there are some situations where censorship is indicated. I’m not convinced that’s the case with the electrochromic windows at the CIRS but I am willing to entertain the possibility.

ETA March 9, 2012: Here’s a posting by Leigh Bedon (March 8, 2012) on Techdirt about the issue of the government limiting media access to scientists. The title, Canadians To Prime Minister: Don’t Censor Our Scientists, hints at Bedon’s perspective.

*’haz’ corrected to ‘haz’ on August 28, 2015.

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).

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.

Mike Lazaridis (Blackberry) at AAAS 2012 in Vancouver next month?

Leave a reply

Set to appear on Friday, Feb. 17, 2012 as a plenary speaker at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting, Mike Lazaridis will be speaking about The Power of Ideas.

Lazaridis’ presence (assuming he shows up) is likely to add a frisson of excitement given today’s announcement that he is stepping down as co-chief executive officer (CEO) of the company he helped found, Research in Motion (RIM) which produces the Blackberry mobile device. (Thorsten Heins, a four-year employee with the company and former Siemens AG executive, will be RIM’s new CEO.)

I was intrigued months ago when I saw Laziridis was scheduled to speak partly because of his company’s importance and current travails, partly due to his connection to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (as I recall he provides/ed much of the institute’s funding), and partly his communication strategies.

I’m inferring from the little I’ve been able to observe that Lazaridis does not perform well when criticized or attacked. There was a court case back in 2001 in the US, where Lazaridis seems to have engaged in a ‘pissing contest’ with a company I’ve often seen described as a patent troll, NTP Incorporated. I gather he initially dismissed the litigation as frivolous (did he dare them to sue?). Unfortunately he did that publicly, never a good idea when you’re engaged in a court case where people are likely to read your comments in the press. Five years later, RIM lost the case and had to pay NTP over a complicated legal argument (you can read more about that here). Frankly, it seems wrong that RIM should have had to pay money to a company that files patents for the sole purpose of suing other companies.

I’d dismiss the incident but, more recently, it took Lazaridis too long to apologize for a major service outage. In October 2011, service was lost by customers in Europe and elsewhere for three days before an apology was forthcoming. Interestingly, that was around the time the outage began to affect North American customers. Also, he’s been far less visible publicly over the last few months. (Note: Lazaridis has tended to be the public face/spokesperson for RIM, while Jim Balsillie, his co-CEO) had performed that function less frequently.)

I am looking forward to how Lazaridis performs in Vancouver in February 2012 at the AAAS meeting (Feb. 16-20).

Vancouver’s AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 2012 meeting preview

4 Replies

This morning (Jan. 19, 2012) Vancouver (or media types and various guests) were treated to what was billed as a ‘preview’ of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) 2012 meeting in Vancouver from Feb. 16-20, 2012.

The preview was well organized and proceeded quite smoothly although I’m not sure about its actual purpose. Generally, a press conference of this type is called to generate excitement and interest. The idea being that the now excited and interested media will report on the preview and upcoming event and pass that excitement and interest on to their various audiences. The process doesn’t stop there.

Our now excited and interested audiences are demanding more information about this event which drives the media to report about the event itself, generating excitement and interest in all the parties that keeps growing and developing throughout all of time.

There were a few moments in the preview where excitement and interest threatened to make an appearance. Julio Montaner, Director of the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, and Karen Bakker, a Canada Research Chair in Political Ecology at the University of  British Columbia, spoke with passion and fervour about their areas of expertise and for a few moments the room buzzed quietly. Happily, they will be both speaking at the AAAS 2012 meeting next month.

There was one other frisson of excitement. Richard Lee, MLA (member of the legislative assembly of British Columbia) for Burnaby North and a physicist, talked about the 200 students from schools in British Columbia (BC) who received a free pass for the meeting and a membership to the AAAS courtesy of the BC Innovation Council (BCIC) and the government of BC.

Otherwise, the preview was a bit lacklustre. They kept mentioning that Canada is world leader in some research areas without mentioning anything much other than health, specifically Montaner’s work. I was somewhat perturbed by the lack of specifics. Canada is not a world leader in many areas of science so why not mention them?

I was speaking to someone afterwards and noted that research in nanocellulose (specifically, nanocrystalline cellulose [NCC}) is an area where we shine (for now). His response was something along these lines “Not all the special interests can be mentioned.” Again, Canada doesn’t have that many research areas where it leads so, why not mention them? Of course, he’s a physicist and that area of research, nanocellulose, is more biology/chemistry.

Basically, I’m a little disappointed they didn’t use a little more imagination and creativity to produce this press event. I appreciate that the politicians and other officials need to be given their moment but something as silly as having that professor at the University of British Columbia who dresses up and performs as Charles Darwin make an appearance would have livened the proceedings.

I hope this preview is not a harbinger of the entire 2012 meeting experience. There is one ray of imagination, Meet the Scientists! events (Family Science Days), which will take place over two days. For example, there will be The Real Science of Alien Worlds, Indigenous Mathematics, Biodiversity Game: The Phylo Project, etc. (I got this information from a handout that was made available at the press conference.)

The meeting sessions themselves promise to be quite exciting because the AAAS does provide a broad exposure to all kinds of scientific research. By comparison, most scientific meetings are organized around a specialty, e. g., chemistry. (If you’re curious about the AAAS 2012 sessions, you can go here to browse the programme.)

The Vancouver Aquarium hosted this morning’s event and for that, I thank them. I got to touch a sea jelly (formerly, jelly fish) and talk to a few folks about the Arctic, the animals that live in the sea and/or on the ice, and the politics of the situation. It was, all in all, an unexpected treat.

ETA Jan. 22, 2012: I have added links to webpages for the AAAS 2012 meeting, Julio Montaner, and Karen Bakker. I also included a sentence stating where I received the information about the events for families.

Science comic books

Leave a reply

Some time before Christmas I came across (via Twitter, sorry I can’t remember who) a listing of comic books that focus on science. The list is on a University of Texas at Dallas web space for their CINDI educational website. From the CINDI home page,

The Coupled Ion Neutral Dynamics Investigation (CINDI) is a joint NASA/US Air Force funded ionospheric (upper atmosphere) plasma sensors built by the Center for Space Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas. This instrument package is now flying on the Air Force’s Communication/Navigation Outage Forecast Satellite (C/NOFS) launched in spring 2008. On this site you will find a collection of teaching and education resources for grades 6-9 about the CINDI project, the Earth’s atmosphere, space weather, the scale in the Earth-Moon system, satellites and rockets and more.

Amongst other outreach initiatives, they’ve produced a series of ‘Cindi’ comic books. Here’s a copy of one of the covers.

)”]This particular issue is intended for students from grades 6 – 9.

The Cindi series was featured in an article by Dan Stillman for NASA (US National Aeronautics and Space Administration). From the article,

… Cindi, a spiky-haired android space girl, and her two space dogs, Teks and Taks, are stars of a comic book series that just released its second installment. With more than enough colorful pictures to go around, the comic books serve up a hearty helping of knowledge about the CINDI mission and the ionosphere, with a side of humor.

“Science is threatening to a lot of people. And even if it’s not threatening, most people have this misconception that ‘science is too hard for me to understand,'” said Hairston, [Mark Hairston]who together with Urquhart [Mary Urquhart] dreamed up the Cindi character and storyline. “But a comic book is not threatening. It’s pretty, it’s entertaining, and it’s easy to understand. So we can get people to read — and read all the way to the end.

“It grabs their interest and attention, and once we have that, we can then smuggle an amazing amount of scientific ideas and concepts into their minds.”

Even for Cindi, it’s no easy task to explain how atoms become ions and what NASA’s CINDI instruments do as they fly aboard an Air Force research satellite. The first Cindi comic book — “Cindi in Space,” published in 2005 — breaks the ice with an analogy involving Cindi’s dogs.

Getting back to where I started, the organizers have created a list of other science-focused comic books including a series from the Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory (STEL) at  Nagoya University (Japan),which are manga-influenced. At this time, nine have been translated into English. Here’s copy of the cover from their latest,

Cover for What is the Sun-Climate Relationship? manga (STEL project at Nagoya University, Japan)

The Cindi folks also mention Jim Ottaviani and G. T. Labs, which has produced a number of graphic novels/comic books including, Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards about 19th century dinosaur bone hunters and a very bitter feud between two of them, and Dignifying Science which features stories about women scientists. I went over to the G. T. Labs website where they were featuring their latest, Feynman which was published in August 2011 (from the Feynman webpage),

Physicist . . . Nobel winner . . . bestselling author . . . safe-cracker.

Feynman tells the story of a great man’s life, from his childhood in Long Island to his work on the Manhattan Project and the Challenger disaster. You’ll see him help build the first atomic bomb, give a lecture to Einstein, become a safecracker, try not to win a Nobel Prize (but do it anyway), fall in love, learn how to become an artist, and discover the world.

Anyone who ever wanted to know more about quantum electrodynamics, the fine art of the bongo drums, the outrageously obscure nation of Tuva, or the development and popularization of physics in the United States need look no further!

Feynman explores a wonderful life, lived to the fullest.

Ottaviani’s Dec. 14, 2011 blog posting notes this about Feynman,

Though come to think of it, the context is sort of crazy, as in Feynman is nominated for the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s [AAAS] SB&F Prize, and it was also featured on Oprah.com’s “BookFinder” last week.

Congratulations to Ottaviani and G. T. Labs. (Sidebar: The AAAS 2012 annual meeting will be in Vancouver, Canada this February.)

CelluForce (nanocrystalline cellulose) plant opens

7 Replies

Before launching into the news about its manufacturing plant, here’s a little information about the company itself, CelluForce, a joint venture between FPInnovations and Domtar, from the About CelluForce page,

The company is a joint venture of Domtar Corporation and FPInnovations and was created to manufacture NCC in the world’s first plant of its kind, located in Windsor, Québec.

I wrote about CelluForce in my June 6, 2011 posting around the time it was launched and now its raison d’être, the manufacturing plant, is operational. From the Dec. 13, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

Members of the board, management and employees of CelluForce are pleased to announce the end of the construction phase and the start of operations at the first manufacturing plant for NanoCrystalline Cellulose (NCC) in the world.

…

For the last eight weeks, CelluForce has been progressively starting up the equipment for the first ever large-scale production of NCC. The nanomaterial will be produced in state-of-the-art facilities located at Domtar’s pulp and paper plant in Windsor, Quebec. Construction extended over a fourteen-month period. It required a total investment of $36M including the financial participation of both the Federal and Québec governments. The company is particularly pleased to have completed construction phase on time.

CelluForce President and CEO Jean Moreau declared, “Wood pulp is being delivered to the plant to test the new equipment and we are making progress on a daily basis. NCC will start to be produced by the end of the year, with production gradually increasing until it reaches a steady rhythm of 1,000 kg per day in 2012”.

For anyone who’s unfamiliar with NanoCrystalline Cellulose (NCC), I posted an interview with Dr. Richard Berry of FPInnovations who kindly answered some very basic questions on NCC in my Aug. 27, 2010 posting.

The opening of the CelluForce manufacturing plant is very exciting news given that Canadians have a worldwide lead in this research area. Being able to produce NCC in amounts that are meaningful at an industrial scale will make research easier not just in Canada but elsewhere too.

From the news item on Nanowerk,

CelluForce will, on a worldwide basis, market NanoCrystalline Cellulose for strength applications under the CelluForce Impact™ brand, and for optical applications of NCC under the CelluForce Allure™ brand.

I don’t think this video adds much information but it is very slick and entertaining,

Here’s a listing of applications that NCC can be used to produce (from the CelluForce Applications page),

NCC’s properties and many potential forms enable many uses, including:

  • Biocomposites for bone replacement and tooth repair
  • Pharmaceuticals and drug delivery
  • Additives for foods and cosmetics
  • Improved paper and building products
  • Advanced or “intelligent” packaging
  • High-strength spun fibres and textiles
  • Additives for coatings, paints, lacquers and adhesives
  • Reinforced polymers and innovative bioplastics
  • Advanced reinforced composite materials
  • Recyclable interior and structural components for the transportation industry
  • Aerospace and transportation structures
  • Iridescent and protective films
  • Films for optical switching
  • Pigments and inks
  • Electronic paper printers
  • Innovative coatings and new fillers for papermaking

One of the most notable attributes of this material is that it can be used to form iridescent coloured films that can be adjusted precisely, making it possible to revolutionize many applications, including, among others;

  • Security papers
  • Iridescent pigments
  • Switchable optical filters and barriers
  • Sunscreens
  • Cosmetics
  • Packaging
  • Coatings

I hope to hear more about CelluForce and its efforts with NCC.

On a somewhat related note, I wonder what’s happening with the NCC efforts in Alberta? I noted in my July 5, 2011 posting that an NCC pilot plant was being opened in that Canadian province but I haven’t heard anything since.

I also noted that there is going to be a session titled NanoCellulose: An Abundant, Sustainable, Versatile Biopolymer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Vancouver this February 2012 featuring a researcher from Alberta.

Here’s the session description and speakers,

Saturday, February 18, 2012: 3:00 PM-4:30 PM

Room 220 (VCC West Building)

Nanocellulose is a generic name for a new family of novel fibrils derived from plant cell walls or bacteria. Just as cellulose has been an abundant natural resource for millennia with substantial contributions to the development of civilizations, the unique nanocelluloses are sustainable biopolymers poised to have a major role in improving the quality of human life in this century. A rapidly expanding field of nanocellulose science has emerged with pioneering results, leading some to predict that the field could parallel history, where the 1920s studies on cellulose contributed to the discovery of polymers and led to the origin of polymer science. Fibrillated, crystalline, and bacterial nanocelluloses have unsurpassed versatility and strength for composite materials, films, medical implants, drug delivery systems, and a biomaterial rivaling Kevlar, which is made from fossil fuels. With cellulosic biofuels becoming a competitive alternative to fossil fuels, research in enzymology is targeting high-value nanofibrillated cellulose as a biofuel co-product. This symposium will present current findings that bridge multidisciplines, from genomics of tree and plant breeding, plant cell wall structure and function, advanced techniques for characterizing cell walls and nanocellulose, and specialized methods for isolating nanofibrils, to novel biomaterials. The speakers represent three international science and technology centers at the forefront of this new wave of cellulose research.

Organizer:

Barbara Illman, U.S. Forest Service

Moderator:

Barbara Illman, U.S. Forest Service

Speakers:

Theodore Wegner, U.S. Forest Service
A World View of Nanocellulose

Nils Petersen, National Research Council Canada
Nano-Scale Devices for Nanocellulose

Ali Harlin, VTT Technical Research Center of Finland
Nanocellulosic Technologies: A Success Story

It looks interesting but I would have liked to have heard from an FPInnovations researcher and the Brazilian researchers who are working on nanocellulose fibres from pineapples and bananas (my Mar. 28, 2011 and June 16, 2011 postings) and Israeli researchers who are working on NCC foams (my Aug. 2, 2011 posting). These panels are always difficult to organize as you try to get everyone in the same room at the same time although the panel does seem to be focused on wood products as a source for NCC.  (If you search Ali Harlin on LinkedIn, you’ll find paper and wood products are Harlin’s area of expertise.)

I notice Nils Petersen, one of the speakers, who in addition to being a National Research Council (NRC) scientist is also the Director General for Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology located in Alberta.

Australian government makes an unexpected nano announcement; San Diego, the Olympics of Science, and the AAAS; Manitoba high school student discusses copyright

Leave a reply

Late last week I wrote about a new report, Nanotechnology in Australia: Trends, Applications and Collaborative Opportunities, that was supposed to be launched today. The news article which originated the story was by Cheryl Jones of The Australian, who noted,

THE number of Australian companies in a nanotechnology market likely to be worth trillions of dollars within a decade has plummeted, according to an Australian Academy of Science report.

Federal government reports previously put at about 80 the number of companies engaged in the technology underlying a burgeoning global market.

But now there are only 55 to 60, say nanotechnology experts cited in the academy report, to be released next week.

Little work has moved from the benchtop to the market, the report says, and one obstacle to commercialisation is “often dysfunctional” university intellectual property services.

I checked and this item from the Government of Australia was announced instead (from the Azo Materials site),

The Rudd Government is introducing a comprehensive national framework to guide the safe development of new technologies such as nanotechnology and biotechnology as part of a $38.2 million National Enabling Technologies Strategy released today.

“Technologies like nanotechnology and biotechnology have enormous potential, but we can only realise that potential with the community’s support,” said Innovation Minister, Senator Kim Carr.

“Health, safety and environmental protection are paramount for the Government. This strategy is about ensuring we meet the highest standards while at the same time maximising opportunities to develop these cutting-edge technologies.

I’m not sure what happened to the report but this announcement was a bit of a surprise. Given the material cited in Jones’ story, I would have expected the government to pull back rather than invest more heavily. It seems the government has recognized the barriers noted in the report (which has yet to be released or even seen by anyone other than Cheryl Jones [see my posting here] ETA: my apologies to Ms. Jones, I did find the report days later here at a location I failed to check, for penance I will leave my original wrong-headed and now embarrassing comment) and decided to address the issues head on.

Meanwhile, the ‘Olympics of Science’ is finishing today in San Diego (Feb. 18-22, 2010), the 176th annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). From the AAAS site,

The 2010 AAAS Annual Meeting is coming to San Diego for the first time, bringing cutting-edge research and a host of free events for the public in its role as the United States’ largest general scientific conference.

Described in The Times Higher Education Supplement as “the Olympics of science conferences,” the Annual Meeting has long been known as the premier multidisciplinary science gathering in the United States. This year, it will continue its evolution to a prime international affair: When the 176th meeting of the society convenes from 18-22 February, scientists, journalists, and educators from more than 50 nations will be there.

Under the banner “Bridging Science and Society,” top researchers will discuss their findings in the context of global challenges in the environment, economy, health, and education. Attendees can explore research in the neurosciences, energy, astrobiology, public health, and environmental change, and learn how these advances directly affect courtroom trials, care for the elderly, sustainable cities, border security, and other public concerns.

As part of an unprecedented effort to share the excitement of scientific discovery with the public, AAAS’s Family Science Days and other free events offer a chance at hands-on learning for students of all ages.

I mention it not just because I’m currently experiencing Vancouver’s Winter Olympics but because, in 2012, the AAAS  will be hosting its annual meeting in Vancouver.  To get a better idea of what this means, I’ve excerpted parts of a story by Maggie Koerth-Baker on Boing, Boing about attending some of the presentations at the AAAS 2010 San Diego Meeting. First an excerpt from a nanotechnology presentation,

[David] Cahill [University of Illinois] is part of a team working to improve thermal insulation with nanotechnology. His goal: Create some kind of new material that will disrupt the transfer of heat energy between two objects. Getting it right would have big implications. For instance, we could drastically improve our ability to capture the waste heat from electrical generation and put it to use in other ways.One possible solution is silicon nanowires. These structures are normally baby-butt smooth, but as you make their surfaces more and more rough, the nanowires conduct less and less thermal energy. Right now, it’s not exactly clear why that trick works. But understanding it could put Cahill’s team on the right path.

He’s not the only one taking energy technology nano. Another researcher on the same panel, Yi Cui, Ph.D., of Stanford, is applying nanostructures to energy storage, in hopes of developing smaller batteries that can hold more power.

In fact, according to Cui, nanotech is absolutely essential to any future progress with batteries. Storage capacity for size has plateaued, he explained. To go further, we have to start making electrodes out of completely different—and probably completely new—materials.

Note: I’ve mentioned Cui and his work at Stanford University here. More from Koerth-Baker, this time it’s from a science history presentation on measurements and averages,

Before that [1761], obviously, scientists still made mistakes. Multiple measurements or experiments still yielded varying results. But they dealt with the variation in a very different way—they picked the answer they thought represented their best work.

To modern ears, that sounds like cheating—”You just randomly decided on the number you liked best? That’s science?” But, at the time, it was perfectly logical. Historically, scientists viewed themselves as craftsmen,[Jeff]  Buchwald said. If you were building a piece of fine furniture, you wouldn’t make a bunch and pick the average to display. You’d choose the finished version that was the best, and best displayed your woodworking skill.

Intriguing, eh? If you want to find out who introduced the concept of averaging scientific measurements and why he was too embarrassed to publish this in his first research, do read Koerth-Baker’s piece.

For my last bit, I’m back on the copyright trail and thanks to Techdirt for alerting me to this essay on file-sharing and morality written by a grade 12 student at Balmoral Hall School (all girls) in Winnipeg,Manitoba. Kamal Dhillon won the 2010 Glassen Ethics competition,

This year’s essay topic was: “Is it OK to download music, movies and games without paying?” There were about 80 entries from high schools in Winnipeg and across the province. The contest, held annually since 2007, is jointly sponsored by The Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics and The Department of Philosophy at the University of Manitoba. The winner receives $1,000. The Winnipeg Free Press publishes the winning essay.

From the Winnipeg Free Press (Feb.13, 2010 edition), an excerpt from Dhillon’s essay,

MILLIONS of people, mostly but not all young, engage in file sharing.

The multinational corporations who make and sell the material are not happy with this development. Their profits are threatened and they, in turn, are threatening to sue, for huge amounts of money, individuals who engage in file sharing.

I support the act of file sharing and argue that the free sharing of these forms of intellectual property would likely produce, overall, more good than harm for society.

It’s a thoughtful piece and well worth reading.