Tag Archives: Institute of Medicine

Call for nominations: US National Academies Communication Awards

Leave a reply

The Jan. 16, 2013 press release from US National Academies announced a call for nominations for communication in various media including books, film/radio/tv, magazine/newspaper, and online materials that have been published in the US,

The Keck Futures Initiative—a program of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, with the support of the W. M. Keck Foundation—will award $20,000 prizes to individuals or teams who have developed creative, original work that addresses issues and advances in science, engineering and/or medicine for the general public. Nominations are accepted in four categories: Book; Film/Radio/TV; Magazine/Newspaper; and Online.

ELIGIBILITY
To be considered for a 2013 Communication Award, the work should:

  • be accessible and appeal to a broad, public audience;
  • demonstrate clarity, creativity, originality, and accuracy;
  • address issues and/or advances in science, engineering, and/or medicine;
  • cover topics that have an impact on society; and
  • have been published, broadcast, or released in 2012, in the United States and in English.

Call For Nominations Now Being Accepted
Nominations will be accepted through February 8, 2013.  For more information about the process, please visit: http://www.keckfutures.org/awards/nominate.html.

NOMINATION FORM
Nominations must be submitted on the online nomination form at http://www.keckfutures.org/awards/nominate.html. Copies of the nominated work must be submitted as described for each category.  Self nominations are permitted. Please submit a nomination in the category that most closely fits the work(s) being nominated.  Supporting materials will not be returned. There is no nomination fee.

BOOK
Books must have been published in the U.S. in 2012 to be considered. Please submit two copies of the book. The publisher and year of publication must be printed on the book. Advance publication dates must include verification from the publisher.

FILM/RADIO/TV
Submissions must have aired on a U.S. station or have been released in U.S. theaters or on DVD in 2012 and may include a single story or movie, a series, or as many as six brief, unrelated stories. Please submit three CDs or DVDs labeled with the nominee’s name(s), the title(s) included on the DVD or CD, and the original airdate (with the name of the U.S. station and the program on which the stories aired) or release date. These must be submitted in protective cases and include authorization allowing the Keck Futures Initiative to reproduce the CD or DVD for review purposes (copyright release). Submission of copies of the program transcript is also encouraged. If you are not able to provide copyright release, please submit an additional 20 copies of the CD or DVD.

MAGAZINE/NEWSPAPER
Work in this category must have been published in the U.S. in 2012, and may comprise a single article or as many as four articles that are unrelated or that constitute a formal series. Please submit three original copies of each article clearly showing the byline and the name and date of the publication and authorization allowing the Keck Futures Initiative to reproduce the article for review purposes (copyright release). If you are not able to provide copyright release, please send an additional 20 copies of the article(s), or a PDF file of the article(s).

ONLINE
Work created specifically for the Web must have been posted online in 2012. Entries may include as many as six online articles, hypertext documents, podcasts, commentaries, etc., or any combination thereof. Preference will be given to nominations that make the best use of the medium, including multi-media presentations that incorporate a combination of videos, blog entries, interactive features, and/or other capabilities unique to this communication medium. Include links to the unique URLs for each work(s). Links, must be active through October 31, 2013.

2013 TIMELINE

  • February 8 – Nomination process closes.
  • Fall 2013 – Winners honored at a ceremony to be held in Washington D.C. Date TBD.

All nominations must be submitted online by February 8, and all supporting materials must be received by February 15, 2013.

For More Information
Visit www.keckfutures.org/awards for a complete listing of this year’s Selection Committee, information about the awards and to nominate.

I wonder if I could self-nominate, despite the fact that I self-identify as a Canadian science blogger; this blog is hosted by a US company. Does that constitute publication in the US? That $20,000 prize is tempting. Good luck to all who enter the competition.

Two (Denmark & US) contrasting documents about nanomaterials and risk

1 Reply

The Danes released their NanoRiskCat (NRC) document in early December 2011 while the US National Research Council released its report on the US research strategy on environmental and health impact of engineered nanomaterials today, Jan. 25, 2012.

(BTW, There”s going to be an alphabet soup situation in this posting with two different NRCs [the catalogue] and the US National Research Council for starters. I’ll do my best to keep these entities distinct from each other.)

The documents represent an interesting contrast regarding approaches to nanomaterials and their risks. From the Jan. 25, 2012 Nanowerk Spotlight article about Denmark’s NanoRiskCat,

The project’s aim was to identify, categorize and rank the possible exposure and hazards associated with a nanomaterial in a product. NanoRiskCat is using a stepwise approach based on existing data on the conventional form of the chemical as well as the data that may exist on the nanoform. However, the tool still needs to be further validated and tested on a series of various nano products in order to adjust and optimize the concept and thereby to achieve a screening tool as informative and practical as possible.

Meanwhile, here’s the description of the US NRC’s latest report, from the Jan. 25, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Despite extensive investment in nanotechnology and increasing commercialization over the last decade, insufficient understanding remains about the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials. Without a coordinated research plan to help guide efforts to manage and avoid potential risks, the future of safe and sustainable nanotechnology is uncertain, says a new report (“A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials“)from the National Research Council. The report presents a strategic approach for developing research and a scientific infrastructure needed to address potential health and environmental risks of nanomaterials. Its effective implementation would require sufficient management and budgetary authority to direct research across federal agencies.

I find it interesting that the US government which has poured billions into its National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is still trying to develop a research strategy for environmental and health impacts while the Danish (who have likely spent far less and, to be fair, likely have less bureaucracy) have created an assessment tool designed to evaluate the exposure to and hazards posed by nanomaterials found in consumer and industrial use.

One other interesting tidbit, both the Danish and the US Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) were instigators of their country’s respective documents. The Danish EPA was one of the three funders (the other two were the Danish Technical University and the National Research Centre for the Working Environment) for their NanoRiskCat. The US EPA was one of the sponsors  for the strategy report. The other sponsors include the The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council.

I have to admit I’m getting a little tired of strategy documents and I’m please to see an attempt to evaluate the situation. I’m not sure which version (alpha or beta) of the tool they’ve released but there’s definitely some tweaking to be done as the Danes themselves admit,

It is the view of the Danish EPA that the traffic light ranking [I’m assuming they assign a colour [red, amber, yellow] as a means of quickly identifying a risk level in their documentation of specific nanomaterials) of the health effects may be further modified to obtain a better ranking in the various categories. Thus titanium dioxide in sunscreen is ranked as red due to lung effects of titanium dioxide, because the tool in its present form does not sufficiently take account of which type of health effects that are most relevant for the most relevant exposure route of the product. In this case the inhalational exposure of titanium dioxide from a sun screen seems less relevant.

Yes, I agree that exposure to nanoscale titanium dioxide via inhalation is an unlikely when you’re using a nanosunscreen. Although given some folks I’ve known, it’s not entirely out of the question. (It’s been my experience that people will inhale anything if they think they can get high from it.)