Tag Archives: Nanoclast

Over 2000 nanotechnology businesses?

Leave a reply

Nanowerk has announced a new, free feature: their Nanotechnology Company Directory. From the July 1, 2010 news item,

At the latest count, over 2100 companies from 48 countries are involved in nanotechnology research, manufacturing or applications – a number that keeps growing at a considerable pace.

With more than 1100 companies, the U.S. is home to roughly half of all nanotechnology firms. 670 companies are in Europe, 230 in Asia and 210 elsewhere in the world. Within Europe, Germany is represented with 211 companies, followed by the U.K. with 146 companies.

Over 270 companies are involved in the manufacture of raw materials such as nanoparticles, nanofibers and -wires, carbon nanotubes, or quantum dots. More than 340 companies are active in life sciences and pharmaceutical fields. The vast majority with well over half of all companies are involved in manufacturing instruments, devices, or advanced materials and components.

The news item goes on to provide a definition for what constitutes a nanotechnology company which is timely in light of Dexter Johnson’s June 30, 2010 posting (What Is a Nanotechnology Company Anyway?) at Nanoclast,

I stopped for a moment after reading [in an investment notice he’d received] this term “nanotechnology company” to consider what might actually constitute such a thing. Is Toyota a nanotechnology company as some nanotechnology stock indices have claimed? Is IBM a nanotechnology company because they are doing research into using graphene and carbon nanotubes in electronics? How about all the instrumentation and microscopy companies that give us the tools to see and to work on the nanometer and angstrom scale, are they nanotechnology companies? What about the flood of nanomaterials companies that started making carbon nanotubes in their basements that were going to revolutionize industry?

…

Despite figures ranging from one to three trillion dollars being dangled in front of people’s faces for the last 10 years, it doesn’t seem to have attracted the level of investment that would really make a difference in advancing the commercial aspirations of nanotechnologies if the recent PCAST meeting is any indication.

So the definition has an impact since entrepreneurs need to attract investment and, as  more than one of the participants in the recent PCAST meeting noted, moving the discoveries from the laboratory to the market place is a labourious process where there is a significant dearth of investment interest for a phase described as the ‘valley of death’ or, as one participant termed it, the ‘lab gap’. (My post about that particular PCAST meeting ‘The Golden Triangle workshop’  is here.)

The same day Nanowerk announced its new nanotechnology company directory, Christine Peterson at the Foresight Institute posted an item about a venture capital group known for investing in nanotech and microsystems,

Small investors who want to invest in nanotech startups have for years turned to publicly-held venture group Harris & Harris Group, which has focused on private companies in nanotech and microsystems.

With the economy down, and initial public offerings (IPOs) more rare, this strategy is changing.

Peterson is commenting on a Wall Street Journal blog posting by Brian Gormley,

In a June 28 letter to shareholders, Chief Executive [of Harris & Harris Group] Douglas Jamison said many of its private holdings are maturely nicely. Even so, volatility and risk aversion in the public markets are making it difficult for these companies [nanotech and microsystems] to go public.

Although the firm plans to continue investing in private companies, “We currently do not plan to make an initial equity investment in a private company until we get increased visibility into the timing of liquidity for our privately held portfolio,” Jamison wrote in the letter.

The firm, which has 31 private investments in its portfolio, expects to gain such visibility later this year. Jamison was not available for comment Monday.

“With the lengthening time between investment and return on investment in private venture capital-backed companies, we need to find a way to generate returns with greater frequency,” Jamison said in the letter.

“As a public company, we should not count on investors to wait five years between liquidity events. We will seek to position our investments so that we can demonstrate positive returns on investments on an annual basis.”

The valley of death or lab gap seems to be getting wider while venture capitalists who do know the industry pull back. Meanwhile, a standard investor is likely to experience confusion about what the term nanotechnology company means and just how much that ‘market’ is liable to worth.

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.

Not enough data to assess risk for nanoscreens?

7 Replies

I’m glad to see that the Friends of the Earth (FOE) civil society group (or nongovernmental agency) have responded to Andrew Maynard’s challenge. As I thought, the FOE has stated that it is impossible to assess the risk that nanoscreens (specifically the sunscreens’ titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles) present as there is not enough data.

The statement (posted in a June 15, 2010 posting on the 2020 Science blog) was made in response to a challenge by Dr. Andrew Maynard (blog owner) first issued in his June 8, 2010 posting (Friends of the Earth come down hard on nanotechnology – are they right?) and further detailed in another June 8, 2010 posting (Just how risky could nanoparticles in sunscreens be?).

FOE goes on to detail some of the problems associated with providing an answer (you can view the full statement in the first link provided in the second paragraph),

Andrew – thanks for the invitation to perform some complex risk assessment using several poorly understood variables. However we do have to point out that the world’s best minds don’t yet have enough information even to design reliable nanomaterial risk assessment processes, let alone to come up with a single ‘worst case scenario’ figure for long term health impacts of using nano-sunscreens.

The huge knowledge gaps plaguing nanomaterials toxicity and exposure assessment (along with preliminary studies suggesting the potential for serious harm) are key reasons for calls by Friends of the Earth Australia and United States for a precautionary approach to management of nanotoxicity risks.

I don’t think the sarcasm with which the authors (Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminato) open their statement is absolutely necessary but their main point is well made as it opens the door to a discussion about one’s perspective on and philosophy towards risk.

The impact that engineered nanoparticles of any kind could have on life is poorly understood and research is urgently needed. The research that has been undertaken on titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles does suggest some potentially serious problems could occur. I want to emphasize my phrasing here ‘could occur’ because to date we have no evidence that anyone using nanoscreens has had any health issues as a consequence of their use. Still, the laboratory research is concerning. So, how are we as a society and as individuals going to approach the risk?

The school of thought which supports the FOE’s application of the precautionary principle seems to be that any element of risk should curtail use until the engineered nanoparticles have been extensively tested and then declared safe. I’m not clear how testing under those conditions could ever proceed to human clinical trials. It would not be possible to test every single variable or, more importantly, every combination of variables which could result in a risk. The net result would be: no nanoscreens while people use possibly inferior to nanosunscreen products to protect themselves from the sun’s effects.

I’ve commented about the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and their assessment of nanosunscreens previously (here). Last year (2009), they, reluctantly, after an extensive meta analysis of the available research recommended nanosunscreens on the basis that there was no compelling data to suggest undue risks. The EWG has not adjusted its stance since then and, this year, are warning against sunscreens that use Vitamin A and oxybenzone as well as sunscreens that are applied in spray or powder forms.

In most circumstances I imagine that the FOE and the EWG would be natural allies as both NGOs are focused on health and safety issues. So it’s strange that the FOE did not mention the EWG report (as I noted here) in the FOE’s own 2009 report on sunscreens although they did cite research from Japan that supports the FOE’s position but was released after the EWG’s 2009 recommendations.

In the instance of nanosunscreens, there appears to be a sharp division of opinion between the two groups. I think this points to a major philosophical difference in their approaches to risk. Faced with identical (or almost so) data sets, the FOE wants to halt use until these nanoparticles are declared safe while the EWG suggests that these nanosunscreens might be safer than conventional products currently in the marketplace and recommends their use.

The approach as exemplified by the FOE is to insist on extensive testing and guarantees as to how and when nanotechnology-enabled products are safe before they ever get near the marketplace. This is the precautionary principle being applied. Given the complex environment we all navigate on a daily basis, I can certainly understand the stance. However, I am pragmatic by nature and since testing every single possible variable and combination of variables is impossible I am more inclined to consider the data that we currently have available as inconclusive. I have read some (not all) of the materials and I’ve noticed that the scientists’ conclusions are always expressed in very measured tones.

To illustrate my point about the “measured tones”, I’ve excerpted this from FOE’s response to Andrew’s challenge in the June 15, 2010 posting on 2020 Science,

FOE: Transparent micron-particle sized zinc oxide sunscreens are commercially available; a recent article suggests most titanium dioxide nano-sunscreens on the market could be doing more harm than good. No-one need use nanoparticles in order to produce a cosmetically and functionally acceptable sunscreen.

The article is in Nature Nanotechnology (behind a paywall) and it’s the published version of Dr. Amanda Barnard’s work using a computer simulation to establish potential toxicity. From the Nature Nanotechnology article,

… using this technique [computer simulation] it is possible to draw direct comparisons between the SPF, transparency and potential toxicity of nanoparticles used in sunscreens, based on fundamental nanoscale properties, and optimize these parameters numerically. In general, optimization decisions of this type are usually based on product testing under expected usage conditions, but the results presented here do complement traditional product and consumer testing activities, and can also be applied to other thermal or chemical conditions, or applied to any other material where a trade-off is necessary when balancing efficacy, aesthetics and an undesirable side effect. [emphases mine]

I gather Dr. Barnard is viewing the use of a computer simulation in research as a complement and not as a replacement for or an equivalent to traditional testing. In an interview with Anna Salleh for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Science Online website,

Dr Barnard found that the size and concentrations of nanoparticles that gave the best transparency and sun protection also gave the highest potential for production of free radicals.

“Where we have the highest sun-protection factor – and it’s pretty – it [the sunscreen] is also toxic, potentially,” she said.

“Ultimately we have to trade off. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.”

I’m not sure what sort of trade-off Dr. Barnard might be suggesting but it’s clear that she’s aware that the use of nanotechnology-enabled products such as nanosunscreens is not a simplistic ‘good (conventional sunscreens) vs. bad (nanosunscreens)’ situation.

Dexter Johnson makes note of the FOE’s response to Andrew’s challenge in his essay (Daring to Challenge NGOs on Nanotech Risk) on the Nanoclast blog with some pithy and thought-provoking comments.

I do have one major point of difference with Dexter, I find the FOE’s suggestion that the companies selling the nanosunscreen products should provide their testing information to be a good idea although I first saw it in a comment from Hilary Sutcliffe in the comments section of one of Andrew’s June 8, 2010 postings.

I do believe that NGOs are important players in the debate but the tenor of the FOE’s response to Andrew’s challenge makes it a little harder to hold on to that belief. From the June 15, 2010 posting on Andrew’s blog,

Andrew, we respectfully suggest that someone of your expertise and stature could play a more constructive role in these debates – debates which should not be limited to a question of technical risk assessment. [emphasis mine]

I think the challenge was very constructive indeed.

I did comment on this latest sunscreen discussion last week, Part 1 and Part 2 where I discuss the nature of risk, uncertainty and nanosunscreens.

European nanotech communication roadmap and Canada’s silence

1 Reply

Michael Berger in one of his articles on the Nanowerk website critiques a 188 page roadmap published March 2010 and  titled Communicating Nanotechnology: Why, to whom, saying what and how? from the European Commission. From Berger’s article,

“You cannot have an appropriate social dialogue on nanotechnology without an open-minded, consistent and even audacious communication roadmap aiming to bring everyone in.” So begins the foreword to a new Communication Roadmap by the European Commission on communicating nanotechnology in Europe. Very true! But coming from an organization that is not exactly known for a coherent and consistent, not to mention timely, approach to communicating across its many members, cultures and languages, it’s going to be interesting to see what they have come up with now.

I’ve not had time to do much more than a skim a few pages of the roadmap but, as Berger later points out, it’s good to see an attempt to list all of the nanotechnology communication activities undertaken by the European Commission to date. The list is specific to European Commission activities, I did not see any UK-based efforts listed, which means there’s communication about nanotechnology, not included on the roadmap, taking place that’s country- and or region-specific.

About the US, Berger had this to say,

… (the situation in the U.S. isn’t much better; on the contrary, they don’t even have this kind of communications roadmap) …

Meanwhile, the best I can say about the Canadian situation is that most of the communication about nanotechnology takes place behind closed doors. If anyone out there knows differently, please do let me know.

If you want to download the roadmap, go here (Berger noted some problems downloading but I didn’t have any when I tried later).

ETA (June 15, 2010): Dexter Johnson at Nanoclast offers some thoughts about this roadmap and other European efforts in their cycle of reports about nanotechnology (from his June 15, 2010 posting),

I have worked for the last six years at a European-based company where much of its work has been in consulting on nanotechnology. As an American in these circumstances I have come into contact with what at times has seemed to be the bewildering sensibilities of the European bureaucrat.

…  [mention of Michael Berger’s article about the European Commission’s latest nanotechnology communications report/roadmap]

This odd habit of always starting from scratch in these road mapping exercises seems to be one practiced in the UK as well.

Dexter goes on to extend the conversation with a discussion of the latest move by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to ban the use of nanosilver and long multiwalled carbon nanotubes in products and he includes a reference to Tim Harper’s latest posting about the matter on TNT log.

About the BP oil spill, greening the desert, and using bicycle power to recharge your mobile

Leave a reply

I found a couple more comments relating to the BP oil spill  in the Gulf. Pasco Phronesis offers this May 30, 2010 blog post, Cleaning With Old Technology, where the blogger, Dave Bruggeman, asks why there haven’t been any substantive improvements to the technology used for clean up,

The relatively ineffective measures have changed little since the last major Gulf of Mexico spill, the Ixtoc spill in 1979. While BP has solicited for other solutions to the problem (Ixtoc was eventually sealed with cement and relief wells after nine months), they appear to have been slow to use them.

It is a bit puzzling to me why extraction technology has improved but cleanup technology has not.

An excellent question.

I commented a while back (here) about another piece of nano reporting form Andrew Schneider. Since then, Dexter Johnson at Nanoclast has offered some additional thoughts (independent of reading Andrew Maynard’s 2020 Science post) about the Schneider report regarding ‘nanodispersants’ in the Gulf. From Dexter’s post,

Now as to the efficacy or dangers of the dispersant, I have to concur that it [nanodispersant] has not been tested. But it seems that the studies on the 118 oil-controlling products that have been approved for use by the EPA are lacking in some details as well. These chemicals were approved so long ago in some cases that the EPA has not been able to verify the accuracy of their toxicity data, and so far BP has dropped over a million gallons of this stuff into the Gulf.

Point well taken.

In the midst of this oil spill, it was good to come across a successful effort at regreening a desert. From the Fast Company article by Cliff Kuang,

Today, the Buckminster Fuller Institute announced the winner of its 2010 Challenge: Allan Savory, who has spent the last 50 years refining and evangelizing for a method of reversing desertification that he calls “holistic management.” The African Center for Holistic Management International, an NGO he helped found, will take home a $100,000 grant.

The Buckminster Fuller Challenge is meant to award big, sweeping solutions to seemingly intractable problems. …

… Savory’s prescription seems shockingly simple–and it’s taken him 50 years of work to convince others that he’s not crazy. The core of Holistic Management is simply grazing local livestock in super dense herds that mimic the grazing patterns of big-game (which have since disappeared). Those livestock in turn till the soil with their hooves and fertilize it with their dung–thus preparing the land for new vegetation in a cycle that was evolved over millions of years.

Savory works in Zimbabwe which is where the greatest success for this method is enjoyed but it has also been employed in the Rockies (between Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho Note: As a Canadian, I would not describe this area as the ‘northern Rockies’ as Kuang’s article does) and in the Australian outback.

… Savory’s African Center for Holistic Management has transformed 6,500 acres of land [in Zimbabwe]. There, even though livestock herds have increased by 400%, open water and fish have been found a half mile above where water had ever been known during dry season.

Bravo!

On a similar good news front, Nokia has announced a mobile phone charger that you can power up while riding your bicycle. From the Fast Company article by Addy Dugdale,

The Finnish firm’s [Nokia] Bicycle Charger Kit consists of a little bottle dynamo that you attach to the wheel of your bicycle to power up your phone as you pedal away. It comes with a phone holder that attaches to the handlebars using a hi-tech system composed of an elastic band and a plastic bag, in case of rain. Its price (in Kenya) is a little over $18 bucks, and it’s a wonder that no other phone manufacturer has thought of this before.

…

The Nokia Bicycle Charger Kit starts to work when you’re pedaling at just under 4mph and clicks off at 31mph. Hit 7.5mph and your bike will be charging your cell as quickly as a traditional charger would.

This reminds me a little of the projects where they try to create textiles that will harvest energy from your body that can be used to power mobile phones and other battery-powered devices that you carry around.

At last, Fast Company and IEEE’s Nanoclast brought together—by quantum computing

Leave a reply

Addy Dugdale at Fast Company has written an article about one of the latest advances toward quantum computing,

Quantum computing just got a little bit closer, after an Australian team of researchers unveiled a seven-atom transistor. Measuring just four billionths of a meter and embedded in a single silicon crystal, it acts as a switch on a chip and paves the way for faster processing in an even smaller package. The team, from the Centre of Quantum Technology at the University of New South Wales, did the tricky stuff by hand, which means that commercial versions of their breakthrough will be at least five years away.

The research is pretty exciting stuff and Dexter Johnson (Nanoclast at the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers]) helps put the feat into perspective,

The quantum computer is one of those technologies that gets held out as some sort of Holy Grail and remains just as elusive with those who have claimed to have achieved it being regarded with a high degree of skepticism.

One avenue that has been pursued in realizing a solid-state quantum computer has been the use of quantum dots as the building block.

Quantum dots are a strange phenomenon. Spectrum [an IEEE publication] Editor, Eric Guizzo, described them nicely in the quantum computer application as …

So as not to copy Dexter’s entire post here, let’s just say quantum dots can make the process of calculating much faster. But there are problems with using quantum dots as was noted in my May 12, 2010 posting about research at McGill University,

Dr. Peter Grütter, McGill’s Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Education, Faculty of Science, explains that his research team has developed a cantilever force sensor that enables individual electrons to be removed and added to a quantum dot and the energy involved in the operation to be measured.

Being able to measure the energy at such infinitesimal levels is an important step in being able to develop an eventual replacement for the silicon chip in computers – the next generation of computing. Computers currently work with processors that contain transistors that are either in an on or off position – conductors and semi-conductors – while quantum computing would allow processors to work with multiple states, vastly increasing their speed while reducing their size even more.

One other important feature noted in the research from McGill is that several dots may be piled on top of each other in such a way that there appears to be only one dot. Measuring the energy would allow researchers to recognize that situation. Maybe the folks in Australia and at McGill could work together? Of course that won’t fix everything as Dexter points out after the lead Australian researcher, Michelle Y. Simmonds, notes the importance of her team’s work,

The research, which was initially published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, marks the first time that it has been possible to dictate the placement and behavior of single atoms within a transistor, according to Simmons.

“We’re basically controlling nature at the atomic scale,” Simmons is quoted as saying. “This is one of the key milestones in building a quantum computer.”

[back to Dexter]

Well, there are issues such as entanglement, the coupling between quibits, to be addressed, but it is a step towards quantum computers.

Australia sees shrinkage in nanotechnology business sector?; Off the deep end: an interview with Cheryl Geisler (part 2 of 3)

6 Replies

There is a new report, Nanotechnology in Australia: Trends, Applications and Collaborative Opportunities, to be released Monday, February 22, 2010, which, apparently, claims that the number of Australian companies in the nanotechnology market has “plummeted.” Dexter Johnson, Nanoclast blog, on the IEEE website wrote the first item I read about this report which is being produced by the Australian Academy of Science and will be launched by the Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Minister, Kim Carr on Monday.

From Nanoclast,

The Australian Academy of Sciences in a soon-to-be-released report indicates that the number of nanotechnology companies in Australia is declining from an estimate of about 80 to around 55, and that the technology is simply not finding its way into commercial products.

According to the report, one of the key obstacles to this commercialization is “often dysfunctional” university intellectual property offices. I have covered this problem of poor tech transfer offices before when discussing a Cientifica report that came out late last year that recommended the following in order to start making money from nanotechnology: “Fire 90% of university tech transfer people and replace them with people who understand how small businesses and science based innovation actually works.”

Cientifica, mentioned in the excerpt from Nanoclast, is a company that’s been mentioned here before. Tim Harper, the principal, writes a blog (TNTlog) and has commented on the forthcoming report. From TNTlog,

My colleague Dexter Johnson (aka the Nanoclast) highlights a forthcoming report about the decline in the number of Australian nanotech companies, but it’s hardly surprising. Before anyone heralds the death of anything consider this:

* The global economy has resulted in a reduction of the number of companies in just about every sector of the economy. High streets where a third of the shops have closed are now common outside London, and everyone from estate agents to Starbucks have been rationalising, downsizing or going bust.

* As I mentioned back in 2001, most nanomaterials companies will go bust, some sooner, some later, but there is almost no way that anyone apart from large diversified chemical and materials companies can create a sustainable business in that sector. Of course if you told your VCs that nanotubes were the new gold you probably got closed down five years ago.

* Nanotech has been subject to a large amount of M&A [mergers and acquisitions] activity, Singular ID being snapped up by Bilicare for example, thereby disappearing from the Singapore register of nanotech companies and joining the Indian pharmaceutical industry.

* Most nanotech companies were start ups, and most start ups don’t survive too long, whatever the sector.

* I can think of plenty of companies making use of nanotechnologies that no one would consider being nanotech companies, so how a nanotech company is defined is also part of the problem.

I can’t believe I’m doing this but I agree with Harper on each and every point he makes in this excerpt. (For contrast, you can read my critique of one of Harper’s reports here in my July 24, 2008 post.) As for the rest of his post, I bow to his superior knowledge of the market reports and hype.

The original story was written by Cheryl Jones for The Australian. I’ve not been able to find a reference to the forthcoming report on  the Australian Academy of Science website.

As Harper points out the economy is global and affects everyone including Simon Fraser University (Vancouver, Burnaby & Surrey, Canada) where I interviewed Cheryl Geisler, Dean of the Faculty of Communication, Art and Technology.

Off the deep end: an interview with Cheryl Geisler (part 2)

Arriving at SFU on the heels of one of the largest economic meltdowns in decades and presiding over a new faculty during what is still considered a shaky economic recovery. Geisler is dealing with budgetary cuts and restraints. “Oh yeah, there were budgetary cuts this year across SFU, it was about 3%. [At the point] I think we’re pretty much flat in terms of the budget over the next three years but since salaries will not be flat that means other non-salary items have to suffer some re-organization.”

When pressed for more information, Geisler noted, “In the first instances you look for things that people are doing that they don’t really care about any more. Obviously, those can go [and that’s what we] more or less did this year. I always think it’s a bad idea to [say] we’ve got to cut, that’s a very demoralizing kind of goal. I’d rather think—ok—what can we create that’s new within the kinds of incentives, resources, and interests that we have. We might not be able to do everything we want but we can make sure that what we’re doing is what we really want to do.”

In looking at what any component of FCAT may want to achieve, it might be useful to cast an eye backward at each component’s history. The School for the Contemporary Arts started as a non credit cluster of courses in 1965 at SFU’s founding. By 1975 the programme had become an academic unit in the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies. In 1989 the centre was renamed a school, a name it retains to this day. No mention is made as to membership in any faculty other than interdisciplinary studies. (More details can be found here on their web page or here in the faculty’s wikipedia entry although there doesn’t seem to have been an update noting the school’s new home faculty). NOTE: I received the wikipedia information (never occurred to me to look there) after I posted part 1. Thanks Livleen! The entry also gives information that I’ll use to update contextual details about this interview that I posted on Feb.16.10)

Memory (mine) will have to serve for an abbreviated history of FCAT’s other components.

  • The School of Communication was an outgrowth from the Sociology/Anthropology Dept. It seems to have achieved departmental status by sometime in the late 1970s, presumably in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. At some point in the 1980s, the department of communication became a member of the Faculty of Applied Sciences.
  • The School of Interactive Arts and Technology (SIAT) got its start in the late 1990s as part of the Technical University in Surrey, BC. The university was absorbed by SFU sometime in the early 2000s where it resided in the Faculty of Applied Sciences.
  • The Master’s of Publishing Programme was instituted in the late 1980s and was an outgrowth of the Canadian Centre for Studies in Publishing which, itself, was at one time affiliated with or housed in the Department of Communication and, presumably, in the Faculty of Applied Sciences.
  • The Masters of Digital Media came about as an initiative from the consortium (University of British Columbia, British Columbia Institute of Technology, Emily Carr University of Art + Design) which manages the Great Northern Way Campus facility in Vancouver. The programme was instituted in 2007 and has not been anchored in a faculty.

(If you have more accurate historical or other information, please do let me know.)

The discussion about faculties is not purely academic (pun intended) as there has been an impact for SIAT, at least. “Yes, both schools (Interactive Arts & Technology and Communication) were in the Faculty of Applied Sciences but if you look at the research programmes for most of the [faculty members in Communication] there’s a strong critical analysis of media component which is more in line with the Humanities. Really, the move from Applied Sciences is affecting SIAT more. One of the consequences is that the students who are applying are not as technically literate. SIAT has a mix of Humanities and Art Practice and Science so they need to make sure they maintain and nurture that kind of mix even though there’s always a potential for drift towards design and they’re not [associated as closely] with the Computer Science Department [through their membership] in Applied Sciences anymore.”

I’m moving fast today so may have to make some changes when I review this post later. Tomorrow: part 3 where we discuss access to research, public outreach, and Cheryl Geisler’s ‘dreams’.

Off the deep end: an interview with Cheryl Geisler Introduction, Part 1, Part 3