Tag Archives: Global Research Report: China

A couple comments about science in Japan and China

Leave a reply

A few weeks ago there was a new global research report (written by Jonathan Adams, Christopher King, Nobuko Miyairi, and David Pendlebury) from Thomson Reuters that focused on Japan. From the news release,

This latest report, Global Research Report: Japan, found that:

For the period 2005-2009, physics proved to be Japan’s focus, with roughly 54,800 papers constituting just over 11 percent of the field

The average rate of citation is significantly below those of the other G7 nations. Japan scores 2 percentage points below the world average for the period 2005-2009

Regional collaboration with China and South Korea are likely to be of increasing significance as their domestic research bases grow – another illustration of an emerging Asia/Pacific regional network

This report suggests that Japan is underperforming. From the report,

We now turn to Japan, a G7 economy and the traditional scientific leader of Asia. Japan drove its post-war reconstruction at a phenomenal pace. The post-war baby-boomers, shaped by the nation’s industrious character, provided a committed labor force that enabled strong economic growth into the 1960s and 1970s. However, by the time Japan established its well-founded reputation for excellence based on the quality of its innovative industrial products, the nation was falling into a so-called “Lost Decade” after the economy peaked in the 1980s. This was followed by chronic economic stagnation which continues until today. (p. 3)

There are some opportunities,

The quality of research has improved markedly in some institutions across the Asia-Pacific region and that pattern is likely to become pervasive. The leading institutions will want to partner with established regional centers of excellence. Japan could benefit enormously in gaining access by joining with new partners with new ideas who are just a few hours’ flight away.

Is there a threat here for Japan? The lack of impetus in what has evidently been a very strong research base must be worrying for any policy maker. But regional diversification may be just the stimulus that is needed to rebuild the momentum that enabled Japan to do so well in the post-war period. There is no doubt about the national capacity for rapid and dynamic intellectual and technological advancement. The research challenges of disease, ageing, food security, information technology and social inclusion are all targets to which that capacity could be applied collaboratively with enormous mutual benefit across the region.

I was particularly interested in this report since Japan has been one of the leaders in nanoscience/nanotechnology research. Strangely there’s no mention of either. Here’s the list of main science fields which were included (and which I excerpted) in Table 1 on page 6 of the report,

Physics
Pharmacology & Toxicology
Materials Science
Biology & Biochemistry
Chemistry
Molec. Biology & Genetics
Microbiology
Neuroscience & Behavior
Clinical Medicine
Immunology
Engineering
Space Science
Plant & Animal Science
Geosciences
Agricultural Sciences
Computer Science

I assume research in nanoscience/nanotechnology has been included in several of these classifications. Personally, I think it would be useful to analyse a nanoscience/nanotechnology data subset to find out if it is consistent with or contradicts the conclusions.

You can check out other global reports from Thomson Reuters here. Note: I had to sign up in order to access the reports. It’s free and you do get announcements of newly published reports.

On the China front, there was a June 29, 2010 posting by Dave Bruggeman at Pasco Phronesis about scientific research in China. Dave was responding to an article in the Washington Post by John Pomfret,

Last year, Zhao Bowen was part of a team that cracked the genetic code of the cucumber. These days, he’s probing the genetic basis for human IQ.

Zhao is 17.

Centuries after it led the world in technological prowess — think gunpowder, irrigation and the printed word — China has barged back into the ranks of the great powers in science. With the brashness of a teenager, in some cases literally, China’s scientists and inventors are driving a resurgence in potentially world-changing research.

Unburdened by social and legal constraints common in the West, China’s trailblazing scientists are also pushing the limits of ethics and principle as they create a new — and to many, worrisome — Wild West in the Far East.

First, some of Dave’s response as he unpacks part of this article,

As I suspect this article could get some play in science advocacy and debates over economic competitiveness, I’ve read it a few times, closely. I find it a bit of a puzzle, because it manages to hint at a lot more than it explains. That the headline fails to note the complexity of the issue, which the article tries to express, is no surprise. Where things fall short is in the lack of a consistent theme to the piece and in the continued emphasis on the quantitative in assessing scientific output. [emphases mine]

Since Dave goes on to talk about some of the ethical issues as well I’m going to focus on one of the dominant and damning metaphors used to set this piece.

Conflating cucumbers and IQs is interesting but the kicker (a three word paragraph)  is the 17 year old researcher. We then have China “barging” into research with the “brashness of a teenager” who is “unburdened by social and legal constraints”  and “pushing the limits of ethics and principles” in a “Wild West.”  In case anyone should miss the point, Pomfret’s article ends with this,

“If I had stayed in America, the chances of making a discovery would have been lower,” he said. “Here, people are willing to take risks. They give you money, and essentially you can do whatever you want.” [emphasis mine]

The article carries a somewhat patronizing tone and a blithe disregard for attitudes commonly found in scientists (and others) everywhere not just in China. As for why there are more research checks and balances in what he describes as “The West,” that’s very simple. Researchers crossed ethical lines and public outcry necessitated changes.

For example, there’s the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment. In the 1920’s a charitable organization approached the US Public Health Service (PHS) about providing medication for men suffering from syphillis in parts of the US South. The project started and then the money ran out so someone decided to change the project. It now became an experiment where doctors could observe the effects of untreated syphillis. No one informed the men. The Tuskegee experiment was continued until the 1970s. From the Tuskegee University website,

While study participants received medical examinations, none were told that they were infected with syphilis. They were either not treated or were treated at a level that was judged to be insufficient to cure the disease.

Over the course of the project, PHS officials not only denied study participants treatment, but prevented other agencies from supplying treatment.

During World War II, about 50 of the study subjects were ordered by their draft boards to undergo treatment for syphilis. The PHS requested that the draft boards exclude study subjects from the requirement for treatment. The draft boards agreed.

In 1943, the PHS began to administer penicillin to patients with syphilis. Study subjects were excluded.

Beginning in 1952, the PHS began utilizing local health departments to track study participants who had left Macon County. Until the end of the study in the 1970s, local health departments worked with the PHS to keep the study subjects from receiving treatment.

The project was finally brought to a stop 1972 when Peter Buxton told the story of the Tuskegee Study to an Associated Press reporter.

Jaw dropping, isn’t it?

To get back to my point, ‘The West’ is not inherently more ethical and while Pomfret does indicate the source for at least some of the funding for this ‘Wild West-type’ (or is it adolescent?) research in China, I’m willing to bet that at least some of it comes from ‘Western’ business interests.

There’s also some implied criticism of the ‘West’ from the Chinese researchers. After all, we’re afraid to “take risks.”

I’d like to see some open and honest discussion (i.e., let’s abandon the imagined moral superiority on anyone’s part) about some of these issues around ethics, competitiveness, and risktaking.

Industrial production of carbon nanotubes?; Portland Art Museum’s China exhibit; scientific business not a good idea

Leave a reply

We hear a lot of hype about all the new products and materials that nanotechnology will make possible for us but it’s always at some unspecified future date or  something like ‘it will come to market in three to five years or, five to seven years’.  I’m still waiting for self-cleaning windows which, as far as I know, no one has promised to bring market at any time (sigh). There is a ray of light regarding new carbon nanotube-based materials according to an article by Michael Berger on Nanowerk. From the article,

For years now, nanotechnology researchers have been promising us carbon nanotubes as the basis for numerous breakthrough applications such as multifunctional high-strength fibres, coatings and transparent conducting films. Not to mention as a cure for cancer (see “Horeradish, carbon nanotubes and cancer therapy”) and a solution to the energy crisis. … CNTs are notoriously difficult to work with and, because researchers haven’t found efficient ways yet to assemble them, the resulting materials demonstrate only a small fraction of the possible single-object properties of CNTs. …

New research reported this week has now established an industrially relevant process for assembling carbon nanotubes that allows them to efficiently be made into fibers, coatings and films – the basic forms of material that can be used in engineering applications.

With the possibility of producing carbon nanotubes on a large scale, I would imagine some folks will be curious about health & safety and environmental issues. On occasion I’ve included information about research on carbon nanotubes and their resemblance to asbestos fibres. These carbon nanotubes are multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) and the ones being made ready for industrial purposes in Berger’s article are single-walled CNTs. I have not come across anything yet which suggests that single-walled CNTs resemble asbestos fibres.

Back to China. The Portland (Oregon) Art Museum has a major exhibit called China Design Now according to an article by Steve McCallion, The Portland Art Museum Transforms an Art Exhibition into a Social Platform, in Fast Company. From the article,

As I mentioned in previous posts, the Portland Art Museum brought China Design Now, the London Victoria & Albert exhibit, to Portland to attract a new audience and elevate Portland’s cultural discourse to a global level. The exhibition documents China’s impressive advancement in graphics, fashion and design over the last 20 years. In my last post  I discussed how the Portland Art Museum used story and metaphor to make the exhibition even more meaningful. The museum’s most significant innovation, however, is not in the content of the exhibition–it’s the museum experience itself.

I’m very enthused about this and would dearly love to get to Portland to experience the various shows, that’s right plural–shows not show. The museum folks encouraged artists and people working in galleries to put on their own shows as part of a larger dialog for Portland. The art museum also extended itself online,

To extend community involvement online, the museum created CDNPDX.org where sixteen different blog editors from the community contribute content and editorial perspectives daily. They are not museum employees, but people from the community that have insight into China and/or design, and are willing to contribute to the discourse for free.

While including potentially offensive underground comics and “amateur” art may make some traditional museum-goers uncomfortable, the museum believes that inviting people to be part of the experience is necessary to remain relevant and worth the risk.

Meanwhile at the Vancouver Art Gallery, we continue with the traditional art museum experience (sigh).

Following my concerns about introducing scientific methods into government bureaucracies, I found this somewhat related article by Linda Tischler (in Fast Company) about scientific methods in business. From the article, a portion of the interview with Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto,

Martin: Well, yes. With every good thing in life, there’s often a dark shadow. The march of science is good, and corporations are being run more scientifically. But what they analyze is the past. And if the future is not exactly like the past, or there are things happening that are hard to measure scientifically, they get ignored. Corporations are pushing analytical thinking so far that it’s become unproductive. The future has no legitimacy for analytical thinkers.

Fast Company: What’s the alternative?

Martin: New ideas must come from a new kind of thinking. The American pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce called it abductive logic. It’s a logical leap of the mind that you can’t prove from past data.

Fast Company: I can’t see many CEOs being comfortable with that!

Martin: Why not? The scientific method starts with a hypothesis. It’s often what happens in the shower or when an apple hits you on the head. It’s what we call ‘intuitive thinking.’ Its purpose is to know without explicit reasoning.

I’m relieved to see that Martin points out that scientific thinking does require creativity but his point that things which are hard to measure scientifically get ignored is well taken. While scientific breakthroughs often arise from a creative leap, the work (using the scientific method) to achieve that leap is painstaking and the narratives within the field tend to ignore the creative element. This is almost the opposite of an artistic or creative endeavour which also requires a creative leap and painstaking work to achieve but where narrative focuses primarily on the creative.

The scientific method for many is considered to be  rigorously objective and inspires a certain faith (at times, religious in its intensity). It is a tool and a very effective tool in some, not all, situations. After all, you use a hammer ti build something with a nail, you don’t use it to paint your walls.

As for the Thomson Reuters report on China, I tried but had no joy when trying to retrieve it.

Nano ties to protect against spreading the H1N1 virus; more about China and science

Leave a reply

Ties can carry viruses and germs just as easily as any other textile product so it makes sense that health and medical personnel would want to eliminate one more possible source of infection. The ‘nano’ tie (aka Safety Tie), which promises that you won’t inadvertently spread the H1N1 virus or other nasties,  is distributed by a company called SafeSmart.  From the company’s press release on Nanowerk,

Well before the swine flu outbreak, Florida-based SafeSmart developed a line of antimicrobial ties that has been widely accepted in healthcare, food service and other industries. SafetyTies, made of 100 percent nano-treated silk, have a built-in barrier that keeps dirt, liquids and bacteria out. In independent studies performed at BCS Laboratories of Gainesville, Florida, laboratory testing indicated that SafetyTies are 99.95 percent resistant to H1N1 influenza A.

I did try to find out about the “built-in barrier” but no details were offered in the press release or on the company’s website. Given that the tie is described as “antimicrobial,” I suspect they are binding silver nanoparticles to the silk and don’t want to make that information public.

The reluctance is understandable because of the concerns raised about silver nanoparticles, which are toxic, being washed off and ending up in the water supply. I recently noted a news item about Swiss researchers who published a study on washing silver nanoparticles off items of clothing and didn’t have time to include anything much more than links (the link to the study is no longer useful as the study is now behind a paywall). Michael Berger at Nanowerk has written in more depth about the research here. From Berger’s article,

“We found that the total released varied considerably from less than 1 to 45 percent of the total nanosilver in the fabric and that most came out during the first wash,” Bernd Nowack, head of the Environmental Risk Assessment and Management Group at the Empa-Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research, tells Nanowerk. “These results have important implications for the risk assessment of silver textiles and also for environmental fate studies of nanosilver, because they show that under certain conditions relevant to washing, primarily coarse silver-containing particles are released.”

I gather this research means that manufacturers can refine their products by using finer grained silver nanoparticles to minimize the number released through washing. All of which leads me to some other questions:

  • Should we insist that no silver nanoparticles be washed off?
  • Before considering that question, I’d like to find out if we had silver nanoparticles floating around in the water prior to the manufacture of textiles made by incorporating them into the fiber.
  • Did we ingest silver nanoparticles before we had antimicrobial fabrics?
  • Does the silver come off when you sweat and where does it go then? Could your sweat represent a bigger problem than the water supply?

There is at least one other line of query that can be taken as well. Is it a good idea to limit or eliminate our exposure to bacteria and germs? There are studies which suggest that our immune systems don’t work unless they’re stimulated by the very exposure we work so vigilantly to eliminate. I’m not suggesting that we expose people to dangerous diseases so they can build up their immune systems but this mania to eliminate all germs and bacteria from our personal environments seems ill-advised to me.

I found a news item about another report on China and its research output. From the news item on Nanowerk,

“If China’s research growth remains this rapid and substantial, European and North American institutions will want to be part of it,” said Jonathan Adams, director of research evaluation at Thomson Reuters. “China no longer depends on links to traditional G8 partners to help its knowledge development. When Europe and the USA visit China they can only do so as equal partners.”

I have requested a copy of the Thomson Reuters study, Global Research Report: China, mentioned. You can request your own copy from here.