Tag Archives: Iran

Nanoremediation techniques from Iran and from South Carolina

1 Reply

Researchers in Iran have announced a method of removing mercury from water. From the Aug. 6, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

A research team from Martyr Chamran University of Ahvaz [Iran] succeeded in the elimination of mercury from aqueous media by using 2-mercaptobenzothiazole and by coating it on the magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles. Removal of mercury from water at lower concentrations was carried out by using the same compound successfully.

… According to the results of the experiments, the nano adsorbent is able to rapidly adsorb mercury at low concentrations. It causes the amount of mercury remaining in the environment to be less than the amount announced by WHO.

You can find the study (Fast and efficient removal of mercury from water samples using magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles modified with 2-mercaptobenzothiazole) behind a paywall in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.

Moving onto the work at Clemson University in South Carolina (US), researchers there have developed a dendrimer-fullerenol which could be used for cleaning up the environment and/or drug delivery. From the Aug. 6, 2012 news item on Nanowerk (Note: This seems to have been written by the study’s lead author, Priyanka Bhattacharya),

Our recent paper, “Dendrimer-fullerenol soft-condensed nanoassembly” [behind a paywall] published in The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, showed how the soft nanomaterial dendrimer can be used to remediate the environment from potentially toxic nanomaterials. Here, we used fullerenol – a 60 carbon molecule in the shape of a buckyball and functionalized with hydroxyl groups – as a model system. Such an assembly also has implications for drug delivery.

Here’s an image the researchers included with their published study,

Here we show that poly(amidoamine) (PAMAM) dendrimers of both generations 1 (G1) and 4 (G4) can host 1 fullerenol per 2 dendrimer primary amines as evidenced by isothermal titration calorimetry, dynamic light scattering, and spectrofluorometry. (downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp3036692)

Here’s a little more about the dendrimers,

Dendrimers are highly branched, polymeric macromolecules with a high degree of surface functionalities. Their branching determines their generation number (G) – the higher the generation, the greater the degree of surface functionalities. We used both G1 and G4 poly(amidoamine) (PAMAM) dendrimers and found that both these dendrimers hosted one fullerenol per primary amine on the dendrimer surfaces. However, G4 PAMAM dendrimers hosted fullerenols 40 times better than G1, simply because of their higher degree of surface functionalities. Based on our findings, we recommended proper loading capacities of fullerenols for G1 and G4 dendrimers in drug delivery and environmental remediation.

You can also find this news item in an Aug. 6, 2012 postingfeaturing images of the lead author (Priyanka Bhattacharya is a Ph.D. student at Clemson University’s College of Engineering and Science) on the ScienceCodex website,

Our group, led by my advisor Dr. Pu-Chun Ke and funded by the National Science Foundation, has delved into a crucial topic of frontier research termed “nanoparticle-protein corona”. In short, nanoparticles do not interact directly with living systems but are often coated with biological fluids in the form of a protein corona. Another direction in our group, through collaboration between Dr. Ke and Dr. David Ladner in Clemson’s Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences and funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to employ dendritic polymers for remediating oil spills.

(It’s unusual to see a news release written in the first person.)

I’m glad to see more research about exploiting nanotechnology for environmental cleanups.

Iran’s new international nanotechnology statistics website

Leave a reply

Iran’s international nanotechnology statistics website  is very Iran-centric as one would expect. (I find it’s always interesting to notice this elsewhere and then  consider how I take a Canada-centric focus for granted.) From the May 15, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Iran Nanotechnology Initiative Council (INIC) launched a website which monitors and analyzes scientific achievements and improvements of world countries in the field of nanotechnology based on continually updated statistical data.

The website is intended to track regional, mainly Iran, and global technological changes in the field around the clock.

The data is based on a set of keywords, which you can view here.

Greenish chemistry and silver nanoparticles in Iran

Leave a reply

Iranian scientists are using lecithin to synthesize and bind silver nanoparticles more tightly to wool according to this April 25, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

“Bearing the basic concepts of the green chemistry in the mind, we have managed to synthesize the nanoparticles both in the aqueous phase and over a woolen medium. We employed Lecithin to serve as the stabilizer and carrier of the silver nanoparticles through the woolen medium,” says Hossein Barani, a member of the research group [at Amirkabir University of Technology, Iran].

The goals targeted by this research project apparently include the synthesis of silver nanoparticles with the help of Lecithin as a biodegradable surface active agent, to apply environmentally friendly chemicals in the synthesis of nanoparticles, simultaneous synthesis and loading of the nanoparticles into the fiber structures which effectively improves the quality and durability of the washing.

“Lecithin acts as a stabilizer for the silver nanoparticles during their synthesis step and also is the vehicle by which the nanoparticles are transferred into the woolen fiber structures. The prepared silver nanoparticles possess approximate dimensions of 7 nm and are entrapped inside a liposomic vesicle,” Barani added.

Here are some of the advantages (from the news item),

“Simultaneous synthesis and loading of the silver nanoparticles is in favor of the loading efficiency and durability of washing. In addition, the presence of Lecithin boosts the loading quality, avoids excessive concentration of the nanoparticles upon the fibers’ surfaces, reduces the undesired yellowing of the fabric, and increases the antibacterial performance through a gradual release with lowest toxicity for fibroblast cells,” he reiterated.

Apparently, it would be fairly easy to transfer this process to industry (from the news item),

Barani also evaluated the commercialization of the method as promising, and said, “In case of industrial investment, the proposed approach can be implemented to the production line of textile companies with practical ease.”

Nano in Egypt and in Iran

1 Reply

It’s great to get some information about what’s going on in Egypt and Iran with regard to nanotechnology and Julian Taub at the Scientific American blog network has posted a couple of very interesting interviews about what’s happening in those countries.  From Taub’s Jan. 12, 2012 posting (Felafel Tech: Nanotechnology in Egypt), here’s a description of his interview subject,

Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Mottaleb is the leading nanotechnology consultant in Egypt and Director of the Nano Materials Masters Program and the founding director for the Center of Nanotechnology at Nile University. He also helped write a chapter for NATO Science for Peace on nanomaterial consumer applications, as well as numerous research papers and articles on the issue of nanotechnology for developing countries. I sit down with him to discuss the importance of nanotechnology, the state of technological progress and public nanotechnology education after the revolution, and Egypt’s future role in the global nanotechnology landscape.

After talking about the impact that the recent revolution has had on the nanotech industry (briefly: not much since there wasn’t much of a nanotech industry in the first place) in Egypt, Abdel-Mottaleb discusses the impact on nanotechnology research at his center,

It has slowed things significantly, because now our students have to try to use facilities wherever available in Egypt. This always depends on the availability of the equipment and the response costs for us to use the equipment and the facilities at other universities or research centers. We’ve rented some labs from some companies located near the university, which are not even adequate. Our research has slowed down, students are frustrated but committed to finish and go to work, and contribute to the society and to Egypt. It has affected us deeply, negatively, but we are committed to solve it.

A significant hurdle we are facing now is the fact that the Egyptian government has stopped our move into our new campus. Since 2007, we have been operating out of temporary facilities and awaiting the completion the campus. The government has granted Ahmed Zewail (1999 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry) the full use of our campus, and since May 2010, he is refusing to allow the university to move into the facilities. This is despite the fact that the facilities were partly funded by donations to the university and the facilities remain unused to date.  Several rounds of negotiations have failed due to his insistence on shutting down the university. He plans to build a new university (Zewail University). It is very difficult to us to understand his position and intentions. We hope that the international community will support us and not allow the shutting down of a very young and successful university.

In answer to a question from Taub about the best way to advance Egyptian R&D (research and development) in nanotechnology,

I think we need a national nano initiative. It needs specific and measurable targets that all the resources that are going to be allocated for nanotechnology are going to be put into that area, and achieving targets. We need a significant collaboration with the international community. We need to find a way to establish such bi-lateral collaboration schemes, and in the end, we need the facilities. We have a huge untapped human resource power here, I mean, it’s really wonderful to see a fresh graduate from university writing a full proposal and standing up and defending it on a very scientific level, and really holding a sound argument. Unfortunately they are unable to execute these proposals because of the lack of funding and the lack of facilities.

This is really the way out, and nanotechnology can affect the culture in this region. You can use the interdisciplinary thinking and push the idea that you cannot do something on your own, you need collaborations, you need to blend other disciplines, and this is very similar to having foreigners or people in different language speaking countries having to find a way to work together. Nanotechnology really instills that into the minds of the students, and gives them the opportunity to question and challenge the conditions or the dogmas they have, whether it is about science, or culture, or politics. Nanotechnology is a wonderful venue to promote intercultural dialogue, and interfaith dialogue. You can really see the opportunities.

I find that last bit about nanotechnology’s  interdisciplinary nature as having an impact on dialogue in many spheres (Abdel-Mottaleb mentions science, culture, and politics) quite interesting and something I’ve not seen in either the Canadian or US discourses.

Egypt and nanotechnology were previously mentioned  in my Nov. 21, 2011 posting (Egyptian scientists win cash prize for innovation: a nano test for Hepatitis C) and I have also mentioned Egypt, science, and the revolution in my Feb. 4, 2011 posting (Brief bit about science in Egypt and brief bit about Iran’s tech fair in Syria). That gives me a tidy segue to Taub’s Jan. 13, 2012 posting (Science and Sanctions: Nanotechnology in Iran).

Here’s a little bit about  Dr. Abdolreza Simchi, the interview subject, from Taub’s introduction,

Dr. Simchi is a distinguished nanotechnology researcher heading the Research Center for Nanostructured and Advanced Materials (RCNAM) at the Department of Material Science and Engineering of Sharif University, where he focuses on biomedical engineering and sustainable technology. Nanotechnology is a new and interdisciplinary field where scientists can engineer atom and molecules on the nanoscale, fifty thousand times thinner than a human hair.

Dr. Simchi represents a bridge between Iran and the West. He has received many awards for his work, not only from Iran, but also from Germany, the UK, and the UN. He earned his PhD in a joint program between Sharif University and the University of Vienna and then worked at the German technology institute Fraunhofer at the beginning of his career.

Before excerpting a few more items from Taub’s post, I’m going to introduce a little information about Iran and its nanotechnology initiative from Tim Harper, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Cientifica. I interviewed Tim in my July 15, 2011 posting (Tim Harper, Cientifica’s CEO, talks about their latest report on global nanotechnology funding and economic impacts), where he mentioned Iran briefly and, after his visit to Iran’s Nano 2011 exhibition, he discussed it more extensively on his own blog. From Tim’s Nov. 17, 2011 posting on TNTLog,

Iran has always been a source of fascination, a place of ancient culture and history and now a country making a lot of noise about science and technology, so I was pleased to be invited by the Iran Nanotechnology Initiative Council to attend the Iran Nano 2011 exhibition in Tehran.

…

The unique aspect of Iranian nanotechnology is that because of the various international sanctions over the past thirty years it’s not the kind of place where you can just order an AFM or an electron microscope from a major US or Japanese supplier. As a result there was lots of home made kit on display, from sputtering systems, through surface analysis to atomic force microscopes.

…

So, Iranian scientists have engineered their way around the embargo on selling high tech equipment of Iran – and there was no shortage of high-end laptops on display either – but so often science is not about how much stuff you have in your lab, but what you can do with it.

Here’s what Dr. Simchi had to say about sanctions in Taub’s interview (Jan. 13, 2012 posting),

I believe sanction has two faces. On one hand, it restricts the accessibility to facilities, equipment, and materials. This part is certainly disturbing the progress. However, I see another side that somehow is good! The sanction has limited the mobility of our students and experts. I believe the strength of the country is its talented and brilliant students and well-established academic media. This is the most important difference between Iran and other neighboring countries. Over three million students have now enrolled in Iranian Universities. Hundred thousands are now registered at graduate levels. This is a true strength and advantage of Iran. As far as the American and European banning of the mobility of Iranian students via visa restriction, we enjoy more and more from forced-prohibited brain drain.

What is the wonder in rapid development of Iran in scientific publication when thousands of talented graduate students join the university annually? This is a direct consequence of well-educated students, working hard even in a tough condition.  I am personally an example of this scenario (although I am not belonging to the upper 10% of talented scientists in Iran). I was unable to go to the US to visit Standford University due to the September 11 tragedy and was twice refused a visa to visit UC Berkeley. What would have happened if I had been successful to go to the US and possibly settle down? Up to now, I have graduated many talented students at SUT. They are really brilliant and I am very proud of them. Some of them left the country to continue their studies in Europe and the US but many are living in Iran and truly contribute to nanotechnology development.  Since my research area is not strategic and has no dual applications (mainly biomaterials and green technologies), I enjoy collaborating with many scientists in the US, Canada, Europe, South Korea, and Japan.

Simchi’s research focus is interesting in light of his specialty (from Taub’s Jan. 13, 2012 posting),

I am principally a metallurgist, and specifically a particulate materials scientist. However, I always look at science and technology side-by-side and shoulder-to-shoulder. In fact, it is of prime importance to me, as an engineer, to see where and how my research output might be utilized; the maximum and direct benefit for the nation and human beings are my utmost aims. In simple words, I look towards the national interests. My people suffer from cancer (Iran is a country with high-cancer risk), environmental pollution (for instance, Tehran is one of the most polluted cities in the world), and limited water resources (dry lands). Therefore, I keep trying to combine my knowledge on particulate materials with nanotechnology, i.e. size effect, to improve healthcare via biomedical applications of materials, and to combat environmental problems. I am particularly interested in developing nanoparticles for diagnosis and therapy and to use them in tissue engineering applications.

As for what Iran is doing with regard to commericalization, Tim notes this (from the Nov. 17, 2011 posting at TNTlog),

In terms of commercial products there were many on display. Agriculture was well represented, with fertilisers, pesticides, coatings to reduce fruit spoilage and even catalytic systems to remove ethylene from fruit storage facilities. Construction materials were another large area, with a wide range of building materials on display. Absent were areas such as semiconductors and medical devices, but once again their absence illustrates that INIC [Iran Nanotechnology Initiative Council] is focussing much more on the solutions demanded by Iranian industry rather than trying to compete with more advanced economies.

Tim’s view that the absence of medical devices at the exhibition he visited is evidence that INIC is focussed on industry solutions suggests Dr. Simchi’s interests in biomedical and tissue engineering applications may prove a little challenging to pursue. In any event, I heartily recommend reading Taub’s interviews and Tim’s posting in their entirely.

Tim Harper, Cientifica’s CEO, talks about their latest report on global nanotechnology funding and economic impacts

8 Replies

A big thanks to Tim Harper for both his insight and for taking the time to answer questions I had about the report, Report on Global Nanotechnology Funding and Impact (Global Funding of Nanotechnologies and Its Impact) released earlier this week on July 13, 2011.

(a) First, could you tell me a little bit about you and about Cientifica?

My background is hardcore nanotechnology – I spend years building and installing surface science instrumentation for VG Instruments, one of the first companies to commercialise the Scanning Tunnelling Microscope, or at least we did our best. But that was back in the days when a PDP 1-11 was the data system and successfully acquiring an image and interpreting it usually required a trip to Zurich to see Gerd Binnig and Heini Röhring [Note: They won the Nobel prize for their efforts on scanning tunnelling microscope]. I also spent a lot of time on Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry – hitting surfaces with beams of ions and then collecting what we knocked off.  After that I ran the electron microscopy section at the European Space Agency’s (ESA) labs in Holland before buying a lot of focussed ion beam systems and atomic force microscopes so that we could take things apart atom by atom if we suspected that they may fail half way to Mars!

Cientifica started off as a spin out in 1996 doing contract research for ESA before moving into networking scientists, advising venture capital firms about technology and producing information about nanotechnologies. Over the past ten years our work has been used by most governments, and we have been instrumental in designing or advising on a large number of national nanotechnology projects. After tracking nanotechnology for 12 years and usually being more or less right (blush) we have an increasing number of people who use us as a sanity check for projects and investments. But often the biggest successes are the least visible such as advising a client not to put a few hundred million dollars into manufacturing carbon nanotubes for which there was no channel to market.

(b) Is your latest report, 2011 Global Funding of Nanotechnologies and Its Impact, a successor of sorts (industrial sectors rather than countries are prominently listed) to your 2008 Nanotechnology Opportunities report?

It’s a progression from our first edition of the Nanotechnology Opportunity Report in 2002. In those days people just wanted to know what nanotechnology was, and to cut through a lot of the hype and disinformation. In 2002, 99.9% of people thought that nanotechnology was all about tiny robots. Ten years later it’s probably 90%, but at least the 10% involved in science policy, whether in government or companies know what nanotech really is. What people want now is some usable information  –  how does it affect my business or industry, and how can I take advantage of it. Most of our work is for private clients, who range from start ups through to multinationals and governments, and who tap our expertise in predicting the future impact of technology.

We still do a huge amount of work in industrials sectors, and we have publications in medicine and energy in the pipeline which we hope will allow people to cut through the hype and understand what (and when) the market opportunity will really be.

(c) Why did you choose to focus on nano R&D spending and potential economic impacts? Is it something to do with all of the talk about innovation?

We wanted to look first at the funding in both dollar and purchasing power parity terms as one R&D dollar gets more in China that it does in the US. There is a lot of national pride at stake about who is spending the most, and if you look at per capita spending it gets even more interesting. But getting technology to market isn’t just about making huge amounts of government money available. 90-95% of science funding doesn’t generate anything of any economic use (although it can be very useful for furthering scientific knowledge) so we need to look at how that 5-10% gets to market.  I have had a close relationship with the World Economic Forum for many years which also helps us move away from merely looking at science funding to looking at its economic impact, and we also use a lot of data from the World Bank, OECD [Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation], and various government studies when we try to model technology diffusion.

Over the years we have developed a quite sophisticated model that allows us to translate these various inputs into fairly good, and quite specific, market predictions. In the past 12 years some people have described our market forecasts as cynical or ultra conservative, but if you look back at what we’ve said and what actually happened, I think you’ll find that we were just being realistic. I know that some people want to see big numbers, but it must be all those years as a scientist that makes me satisfied with accurate numbers, no matter what the magnitude!

Innovation isn’t a problem, the academic system is stuffed to the gills with bright and innovative people, but convincing the rest of the world that they need your innovation is the stumbling block. When we looked at the ability of countries to take advantage of their technology funding, countries such as the US and Germany scored highly as they have plenty of commercial-facing research, a strong tradition of industry-academic partnerships, good government support for technology (and whatever individual academics may say it could be far far worse) and domestic industry hungry for technology to maintain their competitive advantage. What surprised us was the low ranking of the UK. While possessing some of the best universities in the world, the UK economy is predominantly service-based, and real estate and coffee shops tend to be less enthusiastic consumers of nanotechnology than chemical companies and auto manufacturers.

(d) It seems most countries are concerned/worried about the levels of their nano science research, their innovation, and consequent economic prospects. Is there any country that seems confident about its nano economic prospects and why do you think that is?

That is partly true, but most governments do not have a joined up strategy which can cause significant structural problems in the future. Post financial crisis, the emphasis has shifted to trimming budgets rather than making long term strategic investments, which is what nanotechnology is, and this gives us two major problems.

Firstly, there just isn’t enough support for early stage spin outs. There is a financial desert to cross between being a full time academic and having a company with enough proof of concept to attract angel or VC [venture capital] funding. Unless governments address this aspect it really doesn’t matter how much innovation is produced by the academic sector, most of it will go nowhere (other than the parts cherry picked by large companies). We really need to start thinking about the path that innovation takes to market, and to make that as smooth as possible.

Secondly, and more seriously, we are approaching a dangerous time in human history. Science and technology are moving faster than ever before thanks to the automation of lab systems and almost real time sharing of results through online journals. At the same time, people are increasingly distrustful of technology, perhaps as a result of it being so far removed from everyday life, which leads to whole areas of science such as GMOs [genetically modified organisms] or nuclear energy becoming tainted. So while we have increasing pressure on food, water, energy, health and every other resource caused by a rising global population, we are being denied the tools which could help improve the conditions of people across the globe. I’m deeply involved in an initiative that sprung from our emerging technologies work at the World Economic Forum, which involves the setting up of a global Centre for Emerging Technologies Intelligence, with the aim of ensuring that we can and will develop the technologies needed to provide clean water, better health and cheap food to the world, whether that comes from nanotechnology, industrial biotechnology, or any other emerging technology.  But the project is less about the technology than making sure that the importance of technology is recognised by governments and international organisations. It is no good running around firefighting crises when we could be thinking ahead and averting them. There’s still a long way to go, but we are talking to a number of governments who are keen to host the centre.

(e) I find it interesting that regions/countries (Alberta, Texas, Iran, and increasingly, other Middle Eastern countries) that have been dependent on oil as a source of wealth are heavily invested in nanotechnology. Are there any conclusions to be drawn from that?

Diversification is the name of the game. It is very dangerous for local or national economies to be dependent on a single sector, even when it is one as lucrative as oil & gas. We have done a lot of work in the Middle East, and the issue there is also one of employment. Most of the expertise for oil & gas is imported and in Gulf countries that have gone from fishing villages to major international cities within a generation there is a real need to provide employment for their youthful populations. Nanotechnology and life sciences are seen as industries of the future and are increasingly central to strategy in the Gulf.

Iran is a different case, and it’s a place I have visited several times to discuss nanotechnologies. While the world may have some issues with the Iranian government, the scientists and business people I deal with are just like the rest of us. Iran has some great science going on, and the US embargo has meant that they have had to be quite ingenious to get access to even basic instrumentation such as electron microscopes. However, there’s a large domestic market, and the Iranians are manufacturing everything from scientific instruments to nanomaterials. When the political issues are solved, I think a few people will be surprised by the level of sophistication of Iranian nanoscience. [Note: For an example of what Tim is referring to, see the Fast Company article (Using 3-D Printers To Mock Up New Teeth) by Morgan Glendaniel, as it mentions the impact that Iranian scientists have had on this new nano-enabled technology.)

(f) Is there anything that you couldn’t include in the report but wanted to? For example, a country that doesn’t register yet in terms of its spending or innovation quotient numbers but that you think is quietly gearing up.

Our dataset is very large, and this report is just the tip of the iceberg as we have clients who pay for the detailed information. As a result the published report just concentrates on the top level numbers for the major economies. There are a few places that really stand out though, such as Singapore. The science and technology infrastructure in Singapore is world class, but it is a small country with no real domestic market so the challenge will be commercialising the fruits of its nanotechnology projects. The current strategy is based on licensing to multinationals but that alone won’t justify the investment so I suspect we will see a lot more partnering around the region, leveraging Singaporean technology in regional markets as, for example, SingTel has successfully done.

A real disappointment is India, with their leading Scientist, CNR Rao, being recently quoted as thinking that the country is in danger of missing the boat. [Note: You can find some of the quotes in this July 8, 2011 posting.]  I have spent large amounts of time in India and I know the raw talent is there, but the creaky infrastructure and lack of political will means that they are currently performing way below their potential.

(g) I will be asking a question or two about the Canada and nanotechnology from a global perspective but I’d like to learn a little bit about the project/workshop you delivered for the Canadian government some years ago. As I recall, it was an analysis of the Canadian effort at that point in time. And, are there any plans for future presentations in Canada?

We did some work for the NRC [National Research Council] a few years ago and also attended a few conferences in Canada in the early part of the decade [2000s] but since then I haven’t been back, although judging from the activity that is going on and looking at where Canada is on the rankings then maybe I should spend more time there!

(h) Generally, how would you describe Canada and its role in the global nanotechnology effort?

Our numbers indicate that it is a good place to be, similar to Australia, The Netherlands, Singapore and the Nordic economies, which is what you would expect.  The US, Russia and China are way out in front with huge funding programs, so the way to compete is obviously to be smarter and find niches rather than trying to cover every aspect of what is a huge field. Knowing where you want the economy to go and nurturing the technologies that will help you achieve that is always a good strategy. But governments are usually terrible at picking winners. Most politicians and civil servants are often ill equipped to advise people on how to run a business, so creating the right environment for innovation and then letting entrepreneurs get on with it is probably the best option.

(i) Are there any suggestions you’d make to Canadian policymakers as to improving Canada’s situation?

Think I just answered that above. 😉 In a nutshell it’s not about how much; it’s about how effective the funding is.

(j) How much work is it to write a report like 2011 Global Funding of Nanotechnologies and Its Impact?

It is harder than it looks.  We have been collecting these numbers for the last 10 years but that’s only part of it. We also have to build and maintain relationships with a huge network of government agencies and scientists around the world so that we can understand which numbers are real.  A lot of governments are very happy to announce funding for nanotechnology, but that doesn’t actually mean that it is available and much of what what we try to do is confirm that all the funding we track is real cash and not just a political announcement.

(k) Is there anything you’d like to add?

After 12 years and almost $70 billion in funding we have to keep thinking about why we do science and how we can encourage its results to be translated into both economic and social well-being. The technology transfer process is very inefficient and the path is strewn with many obstacles. If this was a business process someone would have found a way to streamline it by now.

Thank you Tim Harper for going ‘over and above’ in answering my questions.

One final note, in addition to being a ‘serial tech entrepreneur’ (ETA July 18, 2011: I added the word tech to ‘serial entrepreneur’] and CEO (chief executive officer) of Cientifica, Tim co-owns a fashion boutique, Foxbat in the Spitalfields district of London, UK  (proving that people involved in nanotechnology have a broad set of interests).

Scientific collaboration: a royal society report

Leave a reply

The UK’s Royal Society has released a science policy report titled, Knowledge, Networks and Nations; Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. I have taken a brief glance at this 114 page report and am impressed with the analysis and the thoughtfulness and range of the discussion about the ‘global scientific landscape’. The authors claim this landscape is becoming largely collaborative while the research enterprise becomes multipolar, i. e., less dominated by a few countries (US, UK, Germany, Japan, etc.) as China, Turkey, India, Brazil and many others increase their scientific output. From the Royal Society’s webpage (http://royalsociety.org/policy/reports/knowledge-networks-nations/?utm_source=social_media&utm_medium=hootsuite&utm_campaign=standard),

Knowledge, Networks and Nations surveys the global scientific landscape in 2011, noting the shift to an increasingly multipolar world underpinned by the rise of new scientific powers such as China, India and Brazil; as well as the emergence of scientific nations in the Middle East, South-East Asia and North Africa. The scientific world is also becoming more interconnected, with international collaboration on the rise. Over a third of all articles published in international journals are internationally collaborative, up from a quarter 15 years ago.

If you’re interested in reviewing the report you can go here (http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/Influencing_Policy/Reports/2011-03-28-Knowledge-networks-nations.pdf) to access the PDF directly. I particularly noticed this bit in the executive summary,

Science is essential for addressing global challenges, but it cannot do so in isolation. A wide range of approaches will be required, including the appropriate use of financial incentives, incorporating non-traditional forms of knowledge, and working with the social sciences and wider disciplines. Science is crucial but it is unlikely to produce all the answers by itself: the science infrastructure works best when it is supported by, and enables, other systems. [emphases mine] (p. 7)

It’s good to see this notion that ‘science alone is not the answer’ stated elsewhere and it’s particularly good to see that it was stated by scientists themselves. (This is the point I was trying to make to the expert panel for the recent Canadian public consultation on innovation (aka Review of Federal Support to Research and Development)  in my Feb. 18, 2011 posting [http://www.frogheart.ca/?p=2836], in my March 15, 2011 posting [http://www.frogheart.ca/?p=3118], and in my submission.)

The recommendations in the Royal Society report include these (from the Royal Society wepage),

It makes 5 major recommendations:

1. Support for international science should be maintained and strengthened
2. Internationally collaborative science should be encouraged, supported and facilitated
3. National and international strategies for science are required to address global challenges
4. International capacity building is crucial to ensure that the impacts of scientific research are shared globally
5. Better indicators are required in order to properly evaluate global science

I don’t have anything to say about the recommendations other than they seem sensible. One final note, the visualization of the data is quite interesting and worth a look. I’d love to have made a copy and embedded one of their visualizations here but I guess they’re not quite as collaboratively-minded as they like to think of themselves because it’s not possible. (I always think that collaboration includes giving some of your material to another party.) I do urge you to visit here (http://royalsociety.org/knowledge-networks-nations-graph/) to see a figure representing the number of collaborative papers as a proportion of national output. Not your standard bar chart. If you glance through the report, you’ll see different types of these visualizations, some of which I understand better than others.

ETA April 12, 2011: David Bruggeman at his Pasco Phronesis made an insightful observation about Iran and the discussion that the Royal Society’s report has generated (from his April 7, 2011 posting, Meet the New Science Superpower…Iran),

Yeah, you read that right. New Scientist noted that in the Royal Society’s recently released report Knowledge, Networks and Nations that Iran has the fastest rate of growth in scientific publication in the world. I find that an interesting variation in the press coverage of the report, which is almost exclusively about how China is, once again, playing catch-up to the U.S. in scientific publishing.

Do take a look at the comments in full. There are more tidbits.

Brief bit about science in Egypt and brief bit about Iran’s tech fair in Syria

1 Reply

I came across (via Twitter) this article  in Nature magazine about scientists in Egypt and their response to the current protests, ‘Deep fury’ of Egyptian scientists,

As the protests against President Hosni Mubarak gather pace across Egypt, the growing possibility of regime change is inspiring hope among many sectors of the population. The swelling number of protestors has seen academics add their voices to the call for change (see ‘Scientists join protests on streets of Cairo to call for political reform’).

The article goes on to recount a Q & A (Questions and Answers) session with Michael Harms of the German Academic Exchange Service offering his view from Cairo,

How would you describe Egyptian science?

There are many problems. Universities are critically under-funded and academic salaries are so low that most scientists need second jobs to be able to make a living. [emphasis mine] Tourist guides earn more money than most scientists. You just can’t expect world-class research under these circumstances. Also, Egypt has no large research facilities, such as particle accelerators. Some 750,000 students graduate each year and flood the labour market, yet few find suitable jobs – one reason for the current wave of protests.

But there are some good scientists here, particularly those who have been able to study and work abroad for a while. The Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education has started some promising initiatives. For example, in 2007 it created the Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF), a Western-style funding agency. And Egypt is quite strong in renewable energies and, at least in some universities, in cancer research and pharmaceutical research.

(Harms has more interesting comments in the article.) I must say the bit about needing 2nd jobs was an eye-opener for me.

There’s been some talk about the role that social media may or may not played in the civil unrest in Tunisia and Egypt. Jenara Nerenberg in her article, Iran Tech Expo Features Nuclear Might, Doubts, Concerns, for Fast Company, highlights comments from a Nobel Laureate who has no doubts that social media played a role in those countries and suggests the same could occur in Iran.

In fact, Iran is holding a five-day technology fair (starting this Saturday, Feb. 5, 2011) boasting its accomplishments. It has held such fairs before but for the first time Iran is holding its fair in another country, Syria. From Nerenberg’s  Feb. 3, 2011 article,

“Technological achievements” appears to be handy code words for nuclear achievements, based on recent reports and statements. [sic] But rockets, satellites, nanotechnology, and aerospace technology are all expected to be exhibited.

The event also comes at a time when there is growing use of consumer technology for political purposes, as seen in the case of Tunisia and Egypt. Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi, in reference to recent events in those two countries, said, “I can tell you that thanks to technology dictators can’t get a good night’s sleep. As to what is going to happen in the future it is too early to say. But I can say the people in Iran are extremely unhappy with the current situation. Iran is like the fire underneath the ashes and the ashes can suddenly make way for the fire at the slightest event.”

I present these two bits because they point to the fact that science and technology are deeply entwined in society and have social impacts that we don’t always understand very well. There have been social uprising and revolutions that owed nothing to “consumer technology”. There are many questions to be asked including, does scientific or technological change somehow foment social unrest? Perhaps we should be calling on the philosophers.

Nano education in Colombia, in Russia and in Iran

1 Reply

In the last month there have been three nano education announcements. Dexter Johnson at Nanoclast featured a project with NanoProfessor (a division of NanoInk)  in Colombia. From Dexter’s May 26, 2010 post,

According to Tom Levesque, General Manager of NanoInk in the Americas, he visited a school in Bogota, Colombia where about 350 teenagers in conjunction with the NanoProfessor curriculum work with atomic force microscopes [AFM] and end up with better training than many receive at private universities in the country.

…

While making available an AFM for 350 kids seems almost as incredible as the idea that these kids have a better education than those at the best private schools, one has to wonder why this program has taken off in foreign countries and has not fared as well in the United States.

I too find the idea of an AFM for 350 kids extraordinary and his point about the initiative (or something else like it) not being widely adopted in the US, as I understand it, holds true for Canada.

Meanwhile, the Russians held an international conference on nanoeducation, May 18 – 20, 2010. From the news item on Nanowerk,

On May 18-20th the nanotechnology equipment manufacturer in Russia NT-MDT Co. and one of the main Russian scientific nanocenters the Kurchatov Institute held an international conference “Nanoeducation: the main approaches and perspectives”. The meeting had a unique format – the first educational international conference with trainings on working with nanoeducational equipment for teachers. 185 participants took part in the event, including representatives from Russia, the USA, Europe and CIS. The conference has become an essential part of Russian Government Federal Program.

The main goal of the conference was to overcome the gap between impetuous development of the modern nanoscience and the conservative system of education, especially in schools, where the teachers suffer serious problems in working with new equipment.

I find their direct approach to describing some of the issues quite refreshing. The topics covered were,

… controversial areas as contemporary approaches to nanoeducation, educational process organizing and leading, the newest educational technologies, international university cooperation all over the world concerning personnel trainings for teachers and professors and etc. The discussion has touched all the educational levels at schools as well as in universities.

In Iran, they’re launching a student competition (from the Fars News Agency item),

Iran’s Nanoclub (a club for students that works under the supervision of Iran Nanotechnology Initiative Council) plans to hold the first stage of Nanotechnology Olympiad for Students in a number of provincial capitals on June 25.

All students familiar with nanotechnology will compete scientifically in two stages in this scientific competition entitled ‘Nanotechnology Olympiad for Students’ throughout the country. The Olympiad will be held in two stages on June 25 and August 9, 2010.

The test for the first stage will be held in 2010-2011 educational year in 10 capitals of Iranian provinces that are more active in the field of nanotechnology and enjoy more students familiar with nanotechnology, according to statistics.

The Promotion and Public Education Workgroup of Iran Nanotechnology Initiative Council will give three 1000-dollar awards to the top three winners of the first Nanotechnology Olympiad for Students.

Very exciting news and if you know of any comparable programmes for children in Canada, please do let me know.

Peter Julian interview on tabling the first nanotechnology bill in Canada’s parliament (part 1 of 3); musings on oil-rich regions and nanotechnology

6 Replies

In mid-March 2010, Member of Parliament, Peter Julian, NDP (New Democrat Party) tabled the first Canadian bill (ETA June 22, 2010: Bill C-494) to regulate nanotechnology. Kudos to him for bringing nanotechnology into a national public forum and hopefully inspiring some discussion and debate.

Mr. Julian kindly agreed (thank you!) to answer some e-mail interview questions which I will be posting in a 3-part interview starting today where he answers questions about why he tabled the bill, the involvement of the NDP’s science shadow minister, and the state of the NDP’s science policy.

For anyone who’s not familiar with Mr. Julian, I got some biographical information from his constituency website,

Peter Julian

Member of Parliament, Burnaby–New Westminster
International Trade
Asia-Pacific Gateway
Deputy Critic Fisheries (West Coast Fisheries)
2010 Olympics

  • Has been the most active MP from Western Canada so far in the 40th Parliament.
  • First elected Member of Parliament for Burnaby-New Westminster in 2004 (by a narrow margin of 300 votes), and re-elected in 2006 (by 4,000 votes) and again in 2008 (by 7,000 votes).
  • Served as Critic on International Trade, Transportation, Persons with Disabilities, Gateways and the Vancouver 2010 Olympics in 39th Parliament; Critic on International Trade, the Treasury Board, Transportation and Persons with Disabilities in 38th Parliament.
  • Ranked fifth of 308 MPs in crafting of Private Member’s legislation in 39th Parliament including tougher drunk driving laws and eliminating toxic substances found in fire retardants.
  • Most active rookie in the House of Commons in the 38th Parliament.
  • Prominent critic of Harper Conservatives’ softwood lumber sellout. Called “the Iron Man” by CTV’s David Akin for determination to stop the sellout.
  • Previously a financial administrator, community activist and manual labourer. Served as National Executive Director of Council of Canadians – (founding member), former Executive Director of the Western Institute for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (WIDHH).
  • Instrumental in building the British Columbia Disability Employment Network
  • Former National Policy Coordinator and Assistant and Acting Federal Secretary of the New Democratic Party of Canada.

Now on to the interview:

What was the impetus for including nanotechnology as part of this bill? i.e. was there some specific incident or has this been an ongoing concern?

The major forces for including my bill on nanotechnology were; the concerns raised by constituents, the progressive work done by the European Union (including the EU Council Directive on cosmetic products and the January 2010 report of the UK’s House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Report). In contrast Canada has made minimal progress towards ensuring that nanotechnology discoveries are safely introduced into the marketplace, environment, and to Canadians.

The exponential increase in applications and products using this type of technology makes updating the regulatory framework necessary. A regulatory vacuum cannot persist if the commercial and societal promises of nanotechnologies are to be fulfilled. There are trade and safety implications involved.

A modernized regulatory framework, based on precaution given the rapid evolution of nanotechnologies, would help ensure that Canadians will be protected from unintended effects. At the same time, it would enable Canadian businesses to enjoy a predictable regulatory environment for investment and innovation, for nanotechnology is a key driver in Canada’s continued growth via sustainable development.

The following are the key components of Bill C-494:

A) A definition of Nanotechnology definition based on “nanometre scale” (1-1000nm),

B) Prescribed Government of Canada research and studies, with the precautionary principle providing direction for a ‘life-cycle’ approach to nanotechnology, and,

C) A Nanotechnology Inventory established and published.

I believe that the definition contained in Bill C-494 constitutes the first legislative body effort since UK House of Lords Committee recommended a similar nanometre scale definition.

Was the NDP’s science shadow minister involved in this bill? What was Jim Malloway’s contribution?

As you may know, private members bills are at the initiative of individual MPs. I have consulted with the NDP Environment and Health critics, in addition to our own research, library of Parliament support, and input from civil society. Jim Malloway and the NDP caucus support the principle of Bill C-494 and share the view that Nanotechnologies present a tremendous opportunity for Canada and that is why safety must be ensured.

Is there going to be more interest in science policy from the NDP?

The NDP is focused on securing sound foundations for science policy by making sure the government has enough resources to support the development of science while monitoring the consequences. We are also focused on ensuring that funding for post secondary education is appropriate and the resources and knowhow of the public sector are not trivialized and outsourced. The civil service needs a critical mass of expertise to support a healthy science development policy. We must encourage and preserve independent research at the university level and make sure that it is not subservient to corporate funding. Science must be allowed to evolve regardless of the commercial aspect. Our small caucus is focused on helping create these conditions where Canadian science and its applications can flourish in both private and not-for-profit spheres, with appropriate regulatory safeguards.

Tomorrow: Mr. Julian answers questions about the ‘precautionary principle’ and the research that supports his bill.

Peter Julian interview Part 2, Part 3, Comments: Nano Ontario, Comments: nanoAlberta

Oil-rich regions and nano

I had a few idle thoughts on seeing a notice on Nanowerk in mid-March that Iran has published a national nanotechnology standard. From the notice on Nanowerk,

The committee of Iranian nanotechnology standardization chose 49 main words in nanotechnology by means of ISO, BSI, and ASTM published standards and translated their definitions into Persian in cooperation with a team from Persian Language and Literature Academy.

The words like nanotechnology, nanomaterials, nanoparticle, nanoscale, nanotube, nanosystem etc have been defined in this standard.

(I did click on the link for the publication but unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be an English language version available.)

I find it interesting that there is so much activity on the nanotechnology front in Iran and other other oil-producing regions including Alberta (Canada) which hosts the National Institute for Nanotechnology and gets a great deal of funding from the Alberta provincial government. Texas, also known for its oil, hosts a leader in nanotechnology research, Rice University which is celebrating its 25th anniversary as the site where ‘bucky balls’ or buckminster fullerenes were first discovered. In Saudi Arabia, they opened KAUST (King Abdullah University for Science and Technology) in September 2009. While the ambitions range far beyond (the Saudis hope to establish a modern ‘House of Wisdom’) nanotechnology, its research is an important element in the overall scheme of things. I guess the reason that all these areas which are known for their oil production are so invested in nanotechnology is that they know time is running out and they need new ways to keep their economies afloat.