Tag Archives: environment

Upstream engagement and nano plus some quick bits

Upstream engagement is a term used to describe a type of public engagement/consultation/understanding of science exercise. The idea is that if you inform people (the public mostly) about discoveries and innovations after the fact that they are more likely to reject them. So using the metaphor of a river, it’s easier to affect the flow of the river (public opinion) upstream than it is downstream where it has gotten bigger and more powerful.

The example that’s often used to illustrate the point is biotechnology and, as the thinking goes, the public engagement/consultation/understanding projects were started too late (too far downstream) to have an effect on the panic that occurred. To restate, if people had been better informed and more science literate they would not have panicked as they did.

Since I’ve just written a number of postings explaining my thinking about the use of public engagement/consultation/understanding projects as prophylactic treatments for public panics, I’ll move on to another goal for these projects: information gathering from the public with an intent to collaborate. But I’m doing that in a posting later this week.

It looks like Alberta is about to get $3.3M from the Canadian federal government to look into environmental issues posed by nanotechnology. They are planning to have a panel headquartered in Alberta at the National Institute of Nanotechnology in Edmonton. 13 scientists, five universities, three government departments,  and two national institutes of research will be cooperating on this panel. (I’m not sure what they mean by cooperation as it’s not explained but you can take a look at the article here.) It’s not a done deal yet.

If your dream is to have your nanotechnology writings appear in a nanotechnology encyclopedia, then SAGE Publications has a deal for you. They are looking for authors. For more detail, go to this article here or you can contact Susan Moskowitz, Managing Editor, Author Recruitment, Golson Books Ltd., her email is nano@golsonmedia.com.

ICON database and Michael Crichton, RIP

The International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON) has announced a new tool for researchers. ICON has a nano-environment, health, and safety search function that will allow researchers to analyze ICON’s database of citations. The tool, which looks nifty, is located here.  For more details about tool capabilities and about the possibilities opened up to researchers, there’s the Nanowerk article.

I saw this reprint of an interview with Michael Crichton, a writer who died last week, discussing his then-new novel Prey. It’s illuminating to discover just what he thought of nanotechnology (one of the emerging technologies dramatised in Prey) and roles of the sciences, technology, and the humanities in society. The interview is here.

Green nano and too much intellectual property

US Congress approved the reauthorization of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Act in June 2008. First approved in 2003, this new version of the act includes, for the first time, provisions for “a proactive research plan to account for environmental, health, and safety issues involved in nanotechnology research.” There’s more from the news release here. Jim Hutchison, a chemistry professor from the University of Oregon, is one of the leaders in ‘green’ nanotechnology and one the prime advocates for the new inclusion to the act. There’s an interview with Jim Hutchision here.  The Senate was supposed to be considering the revised bill now (during September 2008) but, given the financial services and structure situation in the US, I would imagine that this bill will be set aside for a time.

There’s a new report from the The Innovation Partnership (based in Canada) suggesting that intellectual property laws are stifling innovation and cutting off whole areas of research. The discussion centers largely around biotechnology but the freezing of innovation is felt everywhere not just in the sciences. There are more details in an article (which mentions nanotechnology at the end) here and in the report here. I gather that the report is advising that a new model for intellectual property law be adopted.

The entertainment industry (music, movies, books, etc.) is engaged in huge fights over intellectual property issues. (1) JK Rowling (Harry Potter books) just won her case against a publisher who was producing a Harry Potter lexicon. I gather that from a legal perspective (even with the current intellectual property laws in place) she shouldn’t have won and would likely lose on appeal. Of course, does the publisher have enough money to continue with an appeals process?  (2) The Canadian government introduced a draconian Copyright Act or revision to the current act which would make keeping a copy of an old tv programme illegal after a period of time. In other words, if you videotaped Buffy the Vampire Slayer eight years ago when it was on tv and you still have a copy, you’d be in violation of the new act. The proposed Act would create any number of new legal violations and I gather these new provisions were heavily influenced by some US-based lobby group.  From the writer’s perspective, I’m torn. I’m happy to share my work but I wouldn’t be happy to have someone copy my work and subsequently make a fortune from it.  I guess it’s a question of being fairly compensated for my work and getting acknowledgment of my contribution.

Getting back to JK Rowling and the lexicon, she’s gotten more than adequate compensation for her work from various sources and the lexicon attributes the work to her. The author of the lexicon has gone through the books and created a reference for anyone who reads Rowling’s books. Arguably the lexicon assists sales of her books because now a reader can look up a reference to a character in Book 5 who was first introduced in Book 2 and not mentioned since. The lexicon makes things easier for the reader.