Tag Archives: NanoQuebec

What is happening with Alberta’s (Canada) Ingenuity Lab?

Leave a reply

Alberta’s Ingenuity Lab (first mentioned here in a November 19, 2013 posting) seems to have been launched sometime in 2012 (or maybe 2013). It;s a province of Alberta initiative and at the time of I first heard of it I questioned the necessity for another nanotechnology institution in Alberta (or anywhere else in Canada for that matter).

Amuse bouche: a roundup of the Canadian nanotechnology scene

Since 2012/3 a great many things have changed. The National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT) seems to have become almost completely dormant; the same can be said for Canada’s NanoPortal and nanoAlberta.

Adding to this brief roundup of the nanotechnology scene in Canada, the province of Alberta lists their various facilities on their Nanotechnology and microsystems webpage. As that page was last updated on 2012 you may find the information no longer viable.

A quick search for NanoQuébec yielded Prima Québec; Pôle recherche innovation matériaux avancés (that’s research for innovation and advanced materials; I think). Finally, there is still a Nano Ontario.

Should anyone know of a Canadian ‘nano’ institution that should be included, please do let me know in the ‘comments’.

Ingenuity Lab: Basics

The University of Alberta’s Faculty of Engineering’s Engineering Research webpage (copyright 2002-2018) describes the Ingenuity Lab this way,

ingenuity Lab (the Nanotechnology Accelerator) is a large scale ($100M), 10-year, multidisciplinary research and development initiative co-located at the Faculty of Engineering,  the University of Alberta and the National Institute for Nanotechnology. Led by chemical engineering professor and Canada Research Chair holder Carlo Montemagno, iNgenuity is focused on groundbreaking bionanotechnology advances and innovative business practices that will enable Alberta to become a world-leading centre for nanotechnology innovation. (www.ingenuitylab.ca)

That’s a very large enterprise by Canadian standards.

After a great deal of initial promotion for both the lab and its director, Dr. Carlo Montemagno, the lab settled into a pattern of making bold announcements, many of which I covered here,

The blog search engine here privileges titles containing the search term (in this case, Ingenuity Lab) first and then restarts, in date order, all of the other ‘nontitle’ mentions. (I stopped with the titles.)

Last year (2017), there was a major change at the Ingenuity Lab, the director, Dr. Carlo Montemagno, moved to Illinois to become the Chancellor for Southern Illinois University (SIU). Unfortunately, I did not receive any response from Dr. Montemagno to the interview questions I sent him, twice, via email. I also emailed, once, SIU’s chief marketing and communications, Rae Goldsmith. For the curious, here are the questions,

(1) What differences did you experience as a researcher between the Canadian approach to nanotechnology (the National Institute of Nanotechnology is one of the Canada National Research Council’s institute’s) and the US approach (National Nanotechnology Initiative, a central funding hub and research focus for the US government)?

(2) Will your experience in Canada affect how you approach your work at SIU? Assuming, there is some influence, how will that experience affect your work at SIU?

(3) What are you most proud of achieving while leading Alberta’s Ingenuity Lab?

(4) Could you reflect on the trends you see with regard to nanotechnology not just in Canada and/or the US but internationally too?

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

My questions were pretty much puffballs. In the meantime, it seems Dr. Montemagno attracted some serious journalistic interest, from a February 21, 2018 article by Dawn Rhodes for the Chicago Tribune,

When Chancellor Carlo Montemagno took the helm at Southern Illinois University Carbondale in July [2017], he set to work on a plan to dismantle and rebuild academics at the struggling campus, which has hemorrhaged enrollment over the past several years. His idea was a bold one, rarely if ever attempted at a large public university: eliminate academic departments.

The plan drew ire as well as praise, opening some bitter fissures among faculty, students and staff. That discord seems to have grown in recent weeks, particularly as the chancellor has become embroiled in controversies that have intensified scrutiny of his leadership.

In January [2018], SIU student paper The Daily Egyptian revealed the university hired Montemagno’s daughter and son-in-law shortly after he assumed the chancellor post. The investigation showed that the couple’s work history traces the same path as Montemagno’s, with the pair having held jobs at the same institutions he worked at for the past decade.

There have also been complaints that Montemagno is too directly influencing other hiring at the university — which he denies.

Both issues are the subjects of separate ethics investigations, SIU system President Randy Dunn said.

Then on Thursday [February 15, 2018?], the chancellor said he used part of his relocation allotment from the university to help cover the costs of moving his daughter’s family to southern Illinois, as well, adding up to $16,076.45. Montemagno said “there was a misunderstanding about what could be covered in the move” so he picked up the tab for part of the added costs and reimbursed SIU for the remaining expense of moving his daughter’s household.

The revelation that the new chancellor’s family members received jobs at Southern Illinois, which cut dozens of positions just weeks before his arrival and in the midst of the two-year state budget impasse, irked many at the university. It also drew sharp retorts from a member of the Illinois Board of Higher Education.

In an interview Monday [February 19, 2018?], Montemagno said he recognized the optics of using part of his moving allowance for his daughter’s benefit and decided to pay back the university. But he said he never hid the fact that his family members were hired by SIU and he shrugged off criticism he has received in recent weeks. Although it caught some by surprise, SIU leaders had, in fact, approved the family hires as part of the chancellor’s hiring negotiations.

…

Rhodes’ article provides fascinating insight into the political struggles currently taking place at SIU. I encourage you to read the piece in its entirety if you have the time.

Ingenuity Lab: We are family

The appearance of Melissa Germain (Montemagno’s daughter) and her husband, Jeffrey Germain (Montemagno’s son-in-law), in the article was a bit of a surprise. Both were involved with the Ingenuity Lab. (I contacted Melissa Germain years ago to get on the lab’s media list to receive all their news releases. She agreed to put me on the list but I never received anything from them. Whether that was by accident or by design, I’ll never know. Jeff Germain was, for a time, the Ingenuity Lab’s interim director.)

Logically, this means that the University of Alberta hired not only Dr. Montemagno but also his daughter and son-in-law. As Rhodes’ article notes, it’s not unusual for faculty members to insist their spouses also be given jobs. The surprise here is that Montemagno’s daughter and her spouse were part of the deal, informal (SIU?) or otherwise (Alberta?).

In trying to find more information about the Ingenuity Lab’s budgets and financials (unsuccessful), I stumbled across the glassdoor.ca site (accessed March 5, 2018), which features some comments about the working environment at Alberta’s Ingenuity lab,

11 Jul, 2017

Helpful (1)

“Family Run Lab with Public Funding at the University of Alberta”
Current Employee – Anonymous Employee in Edmonton, AB
Doesn’t Recommend
Negative Outlook

I have been working at Ingenuity Lab full-time (More than a year)

Pros

-You will learn how to handle uncomfortable environment very well.
-There are some good researchers and staffs in the group.

Cons

– It is a public funded lab that controls by family members. This is not the issue for a private company, but it makes it really unacceptable for a public funded research group.
– The family members without required credentials can override any decision easily.
– The management team (the family members) spend lots of public funding for publicity
-Some of the group members bend easily with wind to stay … Show More

Advice to Management

-Presenting FALSE FACTS has expiry date! It is important to leave good name behind.
-Bringing family members without any credentials on board is not being wise.
– Just investing on gaining publicity is not enough. Nowadays, having output has the final say.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Copy Link

Other Employee Reviews for Ingenuity Lab

21 Mar, 2017

Helpful (3)
Ingenuity Lab Logo
“A family run business”

Former Employee – Anonymous in Edmonton, AB
Doesn’t Recommend
Negative Outlook

I worked at Ingenuity Lab full-time (More than a year)

Pros

Well funded lab with all the facilities located in the National Institute of Nanotechnology. The labs are at a great location and easy access to Tim Hortons.

Cons

All the administrative posts are filled with family members. No good communication between researchers and the director is surrounded by his trust worthy group of highly qualified politicians. The projects are all hypothetical and there is a lack of passion for hardcore fundamental research. They run as in commercial companies and does not belong in the NINT. They should relocate in the industrial areas of South Edmonton.

Advice to Management

Start publishing papers in peer reviewed journals rather than cheap publicity in local and national newspapers.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Copy Link

8 Feb, 2016

Helpful (2)
Ingenuity Lab Logo
“Clouded vision of ingenuity”
Former Employee – Anonymous Employee

I worked at Ingenuity Lab full-time (Less than a year)

Pros

Plenty of funding, this place will be in business for at least the next three years. Most of the people are a pleasure to be around.

Cons

There is noticeable friction between different team leads. Lack of information between groups has led to a few costly mistakes. It is run much more like a company than research group, results that can make money or be patent-able are the only goals.

Advice to Management

Ditch the yes-men family members that you have installed, and hire industrial trained scientists if you want the results you are looking for.

It’s hard to know if there is one disgruntled person waging a campaign or if there are three very unhappy people from a lab team of about 100 scientists. But the complaints are made several months apart, which suggests three people and generally where there’s one complain there are more, unvoiced complaints. Interestingly, all three complaints focus on the Ingenuity Lab as a ‘family-run’ enterprise. It seems that Montemagno, like a certain US president, prefers to work with his family.

According to this article in The New Economy, Montemagno came to Alberta because it offered an opportunity to conduct research in a progressive fashion,,

In 2012, Dr Montemagno was lured back to the world of research when the opportunity to lead a large-scale nanotechnology accelerator initiative in Alberta materialised. His background traversing agricultural and bioengineering, petroleum engineering, and nanotechnology made him an ideal choice to lead the exciting new programme. The opportunity was significant and he viewed Alberta as a land of opportunity with an entrepreneurial spirit; he decided to make the move to Canada. The vision of advancing technologies to solve grand challenges recaptured his imagination. The initiative is now branded as Ingenuity Lab. [emphases mine]

Located within the University of Alberta, Canada, Ingenuity Lab is an assembly of multi-disciplinary experts who work closely to develop technological advancements in ways that are not otherwise possible. Not only is Ingenuity Lab different to other initiatives in the way it operates its goal-orientated and holistic approach, but also in the progressive way it conducts research. In this model, limitations on creativity that surround the traditional university faculty model (which rewards individual success and internal competition) are overcome.[emphases mine]

Three (at least) employees seem to suggest otherwise. Still, there are situations where trusted colleagues, familial or not, migrate together from one employer to another. For example, Nigel Lockyer was the Director for TRIUMF (Canada’s particle accelerator centre; formerly, Canada’s National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics). He brought on board with him, Timothy Meyer someone with whom (I believe) he had a previous working/professional relationship. Lockyer is now the Director of the Fermilab (University of Chicago, Illinois, US) and guess who also works at the Fermilab? Lockyer and Meyer were quite successful at TRIUMF and they appear to be revitalizing the Fermi Lab, which until their tenure seemed moribund. (See: University of Chicago Sept. 27, 2017 news release: Nigel Lockyer appointed to second term as director of Fermilab; and Timothy Meyer’s profile page on the Fermilab website to confirm the biographical details for yourself.)

These days, the Ingenuity Lab (accessed March 5, 2017) lists Murray Gray, PhD, as their interim director. He is a professor emeritus from the University of Alberta. There is still an Ingenuity Lab website, Facebook account, and Twitter account. The Twitter account has been inactive since August 2017, their website is curiously empty, while the Facebook account boasts a relatively recent posting of a research paper.

Final thoughts

With all the money for science funding flying around, it seems like it might be time to start assessing the ROI (return on investment) for these projects and, perhaps, giving a closer eye to how it’s spent (oversight) in the first place. In Canada.

Other than an occasional provincial or federal audit that might or might not occur, is anyone providing consistent oversight for these multimillion dollar science investments? For example, the Canadian federal government recently announced $950M investment in five superclusters (see Feb. 15, 2018 Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada news release). One of the superclusters has to do with supply chains and AI (artificial intelligence. Here’s what Paul Wells in a Feb. 15, 2018 article for Maclean’s observed,

The AI supply-chain group from, essentially, Montreal (wait! I guess I’m just guessing about that) is comically gnomic. I could find no name of any actual person or company anywhere on the website. Only a series of Zen riddles. “Over 120 industrial and enabling institutions, from very large firms to start-ups, have joined forces in this journey,” the website says helpfully, “and we have strong momentum.”

You can see it for yourself here. Who will be providing oversight? At what intervals? And, how?

In searching for further information about funding and budgets, I found this (in addition to the feedback from disgruntled Ingenuity Lab employees), Dr. Carlo Montemagno received $556,295.06 in compensation and $40,215.81 for ‘other’ in 2016 and $538,345.35 in compensation and $37,815.98 for ‘other’ in 2015 (accessed March 5, 2018).

The information about Dr. Montemagno’s salary and benefits can be found on the University of Alberta’s Human Resource Services public Sector Compensation Disclosure page. Presumably, the 2017 figures have not yet been released, as well, Montegmagno’s 2017 salary .may not be disclosed for the same reason neither Melissa Germain’s nor Jeffrey Germain’s salaries are disclosed,

The Alberta government’s Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act (2015) requires that the University of Alberta disclose the name, position, compensation, non-monetary benefits and severance for all employees whose total compensation plus severance exceeds an annual threshold [emphasis mine]. Remuneration paid to members of the Board of Governors will also be disclosed. Disclosure must be published annually on or before June 30th for compensation paid in the previous calendar year. Employees who terminated between January 1 and June 30 that received pay in lieu of notice, pay during a period of notice and/or severance pay and the total of those amounts exceeds the threshold will be included on the disclosure list each December. The disclosure list will identify the name and the amount of severance. Any other compensation will be reported on the next June’s disclosure.

The Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act applies to more than 150 agencies, boards, and commissions, to independent offices of the Alberta Legislature, and to employees of Convenant Health.

For questions or concerns, please contact Wayne Patterson, Executive Director, Human Resource Services.

There may have been a good reason for Montemagno’s compensation of over 1/2 million dollars per year, for 2015 and 2016 at least. Researchers are expected to bring in money through research grants. I found one funding announcement for $1.7M from Natural Resources* Canada on the Ingenuity Lab’s news release page (accessed March 5, 2018).

Oddly, Dr. Montemagno was appointed chancellor at SIU on July 13, 2017 and his start date was August 15, 2017 (July 13, 2017 SIU news release). That’s unusually fast for an academic institution for a position at that level. Not to mention Montemagno’s position in Alberta.

SIU is not the only place to inspire Montemagno to dream (eliminate academic departments from their university as per Rhodes’ article). He dreamt big for Alberta too. From an Oct. 30,2015 article by Gary Lamphier for the Edmonton Journal,

…

Faced with so many serious challenges, it’s no surprise Alberta’s oilpatch and its once-envied economy are sputtering, prompting gleeful outbreaks of schadenfreude from Vancouver to Toronto.

But what if Alberta could upend the basic economic paradigm [emphasis mine] in which it operates? Suppose Alberta could curb its carbon emissions, thus shedding its nasty environmental reputation and giving it the social licence needed to build new oil pipelines, while diversifying the economy at the same time?

Sound impossible? Don’t be so sure. That’s Carlo Montemagno’s dream, and the world-renowned director of Alberta’s Ingenuity Lab, who heads a team of about 100 scientists, has a bold plan to do it. It’s called the carbon transformation project, and he hopes to pull it off by the end of this decade. [emphases mine]

If it works, the scheme would capture the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted at any one of dozens of Alberta industrial sites, from power plants to petrochemical facilities, without requiring any massive retrofits or the kind of multibillion-dollar investments associated with carbon sequestration.

Through a process employing artificial light, water and electricity, it would harness industrial CO2 emissions to create more than 70 commercially valuable carbon-containing chemicals, Montemagno says. Such chemicals could form the essential building blocks for dozens of consumer and industrial products, ranging from auto antifreeze and polyester fibres to food additives.

The plan is brilliant in its simplicity. Montemagno’s team aims to turn a bad thing — CO2 — into a good thing, one that creates value, wealth, and new jobs. And he hopes to do it without trashing Alberta’s existing oil-fired economy.

Instead, his concept involves simply tacking one more process onto the province’s industrial sites, thus creating valuable new feedstock for existing or new industries.

“If it all works, it means you can produce products you need to satisfy local economic needs, create more value from emissions, generate more revenue and more products,” says Montemagno, who has science degrees from Cornell University, Penn State, and a PhD in civil engineering and geological sciences from University of Notre Dame.

“The big argument today is, you burn fossil fuels and release CO2 into the atmosphere, and end up causing global warming,” he says.

“But the problem isn’t that you’re burning fossil fuels. The problem is you’re releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. So is there an opportunity to not release CO2 and instead capture and use it in other products? It’s really about stating the problem in the appropriate language.”

With funding from Alberta’s Climate Change and Emissions Management Corp., Ingenuity Lab is hard at work developing a $1.3-million demonstration project to prove the concept. Montemagno hopes to have an industrial-scale pilot project running in three to four years. [emphasis mine]

…

Montemagno certainly had an exciting plan. And, 2018 would be around the time someone might expect to see the “industrial-scale pilot project for carbon transformation” mentioned (2015 + three to four years) in Lamphier’s article. Where is it? When is it starting?

And now, Montemagno has some exciting plans for SIU?

 

With regard to hiring family members, the Chicago Sun-Time Editorial Board (Feb. 5, 2018 editorial) does not approve,

Here’s a pro tip for you chancellors at hard-up public universities who are thinking about hiring your own daughters:

Don’t do it.

Don’t hire your sons-in-law, either.

EDITORIAL

It looks bad, and nobody afterward will feel quite so confident that you are serious about getting your university’s finances in order and protecting important academic programs.

They might look at you, fairly or not, like you’re an old-time Chicago ward boss.

Carlo Montemagno was hired last year as chancellor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He makes $340,000 a year.

That’s a lot of money, but top university talent doesn’t come cheap, not even at a state university that has been forced to cut millions of dollars from its budget in recent years and has considered cutting seven degree programs.

Then, on Sept. 1, 2017, three months after Montemagno came on board, his daughter, Melissa Germain, was hired as assistant director of university communications, with an annual salary of $52,000. One month later, his son-in-law, Jeffrey Germain, was hired as “extra help” in the office of the vice chancellor for research, at $45 an hour.

Allow us to pause here to wonder why Montemagno, no stranger to the back-biting culture of university campuses, failed to foresee that this would become a minor flap. …

It didn’t seem to occur to the members of the Editorial Board that Montemagno had successfully pulled off this feat in Alberta before arriving at SIU. Also, they seem unaware he took a pay cut of over $100,000 ($340,000 USD = $437,996.28 CAD as of March 2, 2018). That’s an awfully big pay cut even if it is in Canadian dollars.

In any event, I wish the folks at SIU all the best and I hope Dr. Montemagno proves to be a successful and effective chancellor. (It doesn’t look good when you hire your family but it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong and, as for output from the Ingenuity Lab, everyone has a least one mistake and one failure in their working careers. For good measure, sometimes something that looks like a failure turns out to be a success. However, I think some questions need to be asked.

I offer my thanks to the student reporters at SIU’s The Daily Egyptian , Dawn Rhodes, and the Chicago-Tribune Editorial Board whose investigative reporting and commentary supplied me with enough information to go back and reappraise what I ‘knew’ about the Ingenuity Lab.

As for the Ingenuity Lab, perhaps we’ll hear more about their Carbon transformation programme later this year (2018). Unfortunately, the current webpage does not have substantive updates. There are some videos but they seem more like wistful thinking than real life projects.

To answer my own question, What is happening with Alberta’s (Canada) Ingenuity Lab? The answer would seem to be, not much.

If they are cleaning up a mess and this looks like it might be the case, I hope they’re successful and can move forward with their projects. I would like to hear more about the Ingenuity Lab in the future.

*’Natural Resource Canada’ corrected to ‘Natural Resources Canada’ on April 25, 2018.

A platform for nanotechnology collaboration: NanoTechValley

Leave a reply

A Nov. 10, 2014 news item on Nanowerk features a French company, NanoThinking, and its venture into a business and research platform for collaboration (Note: A link has been removed),

Following a conception period in close connection with innovation and nanotechnology professionals, NanoThinking now offers NanoTechValley: a collaborative platform dedicated to providers and users of nanotechnology, designed for two purposes: to stimulate the emergence of R&D projects and to offer access to cutting edge equipment proposed by the community.

Here’s more from a Nov. 2014 NanoThinking presentation document about NanoTechValley,

“Currently in a phase of emergence, the field of nanotechnology is still very atomized. This reality hampers the combination of the skills, projects and activities enclosed inside laboratories and industrial firms. The idea at the origin of our project was therefore to create a web platform which features would be designed specifically to foster the emergence of collaborative projects and arrange the meeting of offers and needs” explains Thomas Dubouchet, CEO at Nanothinking.

In order to address the needs of its future users, the platform includes the following features: secure access, possibility to share documents and hold discussion with multiple users, custom privacy settings and an invitation based system which will facilitate new participations in projects proposed by the community.

You can find out more about NanoThinking here (be sure to scroll down the page) and about NanoTechValley here.

This French project reminds me,  not only of Silicon Valley, but of a couple of NanoQuébec projects mentioned in a Sept. 19, 2012 posting (NanoQuébec sets up I-Nano, their version of an industrial dating service) and a May 13, 2013 posting (NanoQuébec and iNano get to the chapel while Canada Economic Development presides). While I described the project as a ‘dating service’, it could also be described as a platform designed to encourage collaborations between business and academe.

In any event, it’s good to see projects designed to help researchers connect with each other and connect with business partners wherever they may be located.

I last wrote about NanoThinking in a Dec. 30, 2013 posting which featured the company’s Global NanoTechMap.

NanoQuébec and iNano get to the chapel while Canada Economic Development presides

Leave a reply

ETA May 14, 2013: I changed a word the title to correct a typo: ‘wirh’ to while.

I described NanoQuébec’s iNano, an open web innovation platform,  as an industrial dating service in my Sept. 19, 2012 posting. so I thought I’d extend the metaphor by sending it to the chapel for the latest news about the project.

iNano, designed to match up the research community with industry-based nanotechnology challenges, and Canada Economic Development have now announced new funding for the platform, from the May 13, 2013 news item on Azonano,

The Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, today announced that the organization NanoQuébec has been granted financial assistance for a project to translate knowledge into commercial applications, while improving the innovation capability and competitiveness of Quebec’s small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

“Our Government is today giving a real boost to innovation, and thereby economic growth, by lending its support to NanoQuébec,” said Minister Lebel.

NanoQuébec is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to support nanotechnology innovation with a view to contributing to sustainable economic growth in Quebec.

Specifically, these funds will enable NanoQuébec to implement an open innovation pilot project aimed at generating technology transfers and strengthening ties between business and the research community. The project, which will last approximately 18 months, will also allow for a second testing of the iNANO open innovation web platform.

If I understand this properly, the iNANO project has been successful with helping various companies solve their problems/challenges and now the Government of Canada is granting NanoQuébec additional monies to create a new project which is focused on commercializing the solutions (?), as well as, allowing NanoQuébec to run the original iNANO challenge project a second time.

The May 7, 2013 (?) Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions news release, which originated the news item, provides a few more details about iNano and about the funding,

 ““Since the opening of the iNANO platform, we have already posed more than 120 industrial challenges to the research community. The collaborative projects set up through the platform will foster the development of innovations that will be a major competitive advantage for our businesses,”” noted Benoit Balmana, President and CEO of NanoQuébec.

The funding from the Government of Canada will contribute toward the hiring of a staff person to ensure the platform’s management and leadership, technology development, production of promotional tools and business prospecting.

““Our Government remains focused on four priorities, as outlined by the Prime Minister, that Canadians care most about: their families, the safety of our streets and communities, their pride in being a citizen of this country, and of course, their personal financial security,”” concluded Minister Lebel.

…

This assistance, granted in the form of a $171,000 non-repayable contribution, has been awarded through Canada Economic Development’s Quebec Economic Development Program.

I wish them  the best of luck with the challenges and the commercialization.

Note: There appears to have been a change of spelling from I-Nano to iNANO.

WAVE in Alberta (Canada); bringing your technology products to market

Leave a reply

May 5 – 8, 2013 are the dates for WAVE 2013, Alberta’s technology commercialization conference, being held at the Fairmont Chateau in Lake Louise, Alberta. The conference features 12 keynote speakers from industry (including Dr. Wagiuh Ishak of Corning Inc, Dr. Sergio Kapusta of Royal Dutch Shell, Stephen Graham of Maple Leaf Foods, and Travis Earles of Lockheed Martin) discussing 6 market areas (including health/medical, cleantech/conventional energy and agriculture/forestry).

The conference host and organizer is ACAMP (Alberta Centre for Advanced Micro and Nano Technology Products) a not-for-profit centre offering business support to micro and nano technology businesses. WAVE 2013 is the second such conference, the first being held in 2011. From the About WAVE page on the conference website,

From a Ripple in Research to a Powerful Wave in Marketing

The WAVE 2013 Conference and Exhibition builds on the success of our last conference WAVE 2011. WAVE 2013 exists to enable and encourage companies with investable hardware product technologies to showcase their state-of-the-art capabilities and bring them to market. There will be no poster sessions, academic papers, or student presentations.

Professionals representing domestic and international corporations are invited to take exhibitor space in order to network with other market strategists, distributors and representatives, manufacturers, materials producers, equipment suppliers, and investors.

This is an opportunity to expand your market and showcase your products. Networking areas are available free of charge and designed to allow attendees to meet privately to discuss business opportunities.

The bottom-line goal is bottom-line success.

The WAVE home page description offers more specifics as to how this conference is organized to maximize contact between participants,

Take your investable tech products to market

You may have a great investable technology product and not know it yet. Or you may know it, but can’t find partners and markets. In either case, it’s a big challenge to connect innovators with larger corporations and funding to help develop products and take them to market.

That’s what the Wave 2013 conference is all about… and we’re doing it in a very different way.
Connect with the right exhibitors

Typically, at large international conferences the exhibitors exhibit. The presenters present. The attendees listen and walk around exhibits looking for opportunities. Everyone is left to their own devices to make the right connections.

But at Wave 2013, we’re going to change all that. Every company that exhibits will also present to the entire audience. So exhibitors and attendees will understand where the opportunities are without all the frustration.
Actually meet the keynotes one-on-one

What about the big keynotes? There will be outstanding keynotes from a who’s who in the international tech space. And get this… they won’t just present and go home. At the presentations you’ll learn what they’re looking for and then they’ll be available for one-on-one meetings with you during the three days.

Plus, government officials from Alberta and across Canada will be in attendance, looking for new opportunities to invest and collaborate.
Find the right partners

So come. Exhibit. Present. Or join us as an attendee and pitch your product in one-on-one meetings. Some of the world’s most important companies in the tech space want to tell you what they’re looking for and hear about what you’re working on.

You can find more information about the conference in a brochure which oddly enough is on the NanoQuébec website here (scroll down about 1/3 of the way). I couldn’t find the brochure or the list of industry keynote speakers on the WAVE 2013 conference website (?)

NanoQuébec sets up I-Nano, their version of an industrial dating service

Leave a reply

I-Nano is an open web innovation platform but I like to think of it as an industrial dating service being operated by NanoQuébec (Canada). In any event, the project was announced May 2012 and has been successful according to the Sept. 19, 2012 news item on Azonano,

I-Nano was created to allow industrialists to submit technological challenges to the research community, find partners, discover avenues for solution, and be steered to the most suitable sources of financing. Phase 1 of this project dear to NanoQuébec generated considerable interest. In fact, over a period of 21 days, 58 industrial challenges were submitted to Quebec’s research community by 38 companies (including five from outside Quebec), 80% of which were SMEs.

Among the challenges presented by industrialists, we note the development of coverings limiting ice formation, anti-graffiti coverings, smart wear, filters for the purification of industrial liquids, and solutions designed to enhance the performance of solar sensors. The challenges published were viewed more than 4,500 times on the web platform. Overall, 80 researchers representing 27 teaching establishments and research centres proposed 130 solutions! Today, 27 projects with a total potential value of $8M are being carried out. Impressive results, particularly for a pilot phase!

The NanoQuébec Sept. 17, 2012 news release, which originated the news item, notes plans for the future,

Buoyed by this noteworthy success, NanoQuébec is now working on the implementation of I-Nano’s phase 2. The organization has concluded agreements with prestigious partners who will help make I-Nano the open innovation platform of choice across the country. In fact, it will be announcing the launch of this second phase within the coming weeks.

I was hoping for more details about this second phase but it’s good to know there’ll be more information about it soon. In the meantime, here’s the I-Nano webpage on the NanoQuébec website (English language version, you can switch to the French language version by clicking on Fr in upper right hand corner of the screen.

NE3LS November 2012 conference in Montréal

1 Reply

NE3LS is one of the worst abbreviations I’ve ever seen but, despite my opinion, it ([Nanotechnology] Ethical, Environmental, Economic, Legal and Social Issues—NE3LS) lives on. This March 12, 2012 posting on the Nanotechnology Development blog announces the 1st Nanotechnology NE3LS conference in November 2012,

Ne3LS Network (Network on ethical, environmental, economic and legal and social issues pertaining to nanotechnology) is organizing first International conference with the theme “The Responsible Development of Nanotechnology: Challenges and Perspectives”.  The conference will held at Montréal, Canada during November 1-2, 2012.

I have noted the difference between my guess as to what the N in NE3LS stands for and the Nanotechnology Development blog’s rendition. I’d usually stick with mine since there is an NE3LS research project at the National Institute of Nanotechnology and it’s highly unlikely that N  stands for network but the conference organizers are the ones claiming the N stands for Network on the conference home page.

The NE3LS Network was launched in March 2011 in Montréal, from the launch webpage,

The launch of the Ne3LS Network (Knowledge Network on the Ethical, Environmental, Economic, Legal and Social issues regarding Nanotechnology) took place on March 9, 2011. Guests of honour at this event included Dr. Fabrice Brunet, Director of the CHU Sainte-Justine, Dr. Guy Rouleau, Director of the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center, Dr. Joseph Hubert, Vice-Rector of Research and International Relations at the University of Montreal, Mr. Yves Joanette, President and CEO of the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRSQ), Mrs. Marie Larue, President and CEO of the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST)  and Mr. Luc Castonguay, Director of Academic Research at the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (MDEIE). The Ne3LS Network is the result of a collaboration between Québec’s research funding organizations, the MDEIE, the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST) and NanoQuébec.

Mr. Charles-Anica Endo, Executive Director, and Dr. Renaldo Battista, Scientific Director, took this opportunity to announce the winners of the network’s first call for projects, held in December 2010. In addition, the Axis Directors presented the multiple dimensions of nanotechnology, from their very definition to their governance and their associated risks. Attendees also had the privilege of hearing two world-renowned nanotechnology researchers, Mrs. Céline Lafontaine, sociologist, and Dr. Richard Martel, chemist.

One of the keynote speakers at the March 9, 2011 event, Céline Lafontaine, was mentioned here in my March 10, 2010 posting (scroll about 1/3 of the way down) in the context of the 2009 nanotechnology debates in France, which had been seriously disrupted to the point where some were cancelled.

Getting back to the NE3LS conference in Montréal, here’s a bit more information, from the conference home page,

The Network on ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues regarding nanotechnology development (Ne3LS) is hosting an international conference to initiate thought-provoking discussion on the responsible development of nanotechnology. The Ne3LS Network International Conference 2012 will explore the following themes within an international and multidisciplinary framework:

  • How to assess the risks of nanotechnology, scientific, economic, social, or environmental
  • Governance: What are the responsibilities of researchers, industry, government, and the general public in the development of nanotechnologies? What is the contribution of industry to the development of standards and regulations?
  • Can responsible development of nanotechnology foster innovation and contribute to economic development?
  • What are the impacts of nanomedicine and nanohealth on the health care system?
  • How can the public be best informed and consulted on nanotechnology issues?

Invited speakers will address each of these topics.

There is a Call for Papers Theme webpage with this,

… the international conference has issued a call for abstracts to address the following subthemes at concurrent sessions:

  1. Toxicity: new methods, new concepts?
  2. Occupational health and safety: how to adapt to nanotechnologies
  3. What are the environmental risks?
  4. Innovation and the economy and the challenges of globalization
  5. Public-private partnerships in risk-sharing?
  6. Nano-health: toward privatization of medical services?
  7. International regulations and political issues
  8. National regulatory standards: free exchange or “no data, no market”?
  9. Ethics: the precautionary principle and sustainable development of nanotechnologies
  10. Educate whom and how?
  11. What modalities could be used for public consultation and to what end?
  12. Nanofoods: can the genetically-modified food (GMO) scenario be avoided?

Here are the guidelines,

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

  • All presentations will be in English
  • The topic must be relevant to one of the 12 subthemes described in the Ne3LS Network International Conference 2012, Themes
  • Each oral presentation will be 20 minutes, followed by a 10-minute question period
  • Poster presentations will also be available
  • Abstracts will be selected as oral or poster presentation, at the discretion of the selection committee.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Those submitted by any other means will not be considered.

  • Closing date: all submissions must be received by Monday May 14, 2012
  • Cover letter: Please attach a cover letter specifying
    • Corresponding author: full name, address, telephone number, fax (if applicable), and email address
    • A short one-paragraph bio for each author, indicating relevant expertise and interest in the topic
    • Format: Word file
    • Language: English
    • Abstract
      • Word count: maximum 250 words
      • Structured as follows:
        • Author(s) (Last name, first name)
        • Title of presentation
        • Author affiliations (institution, country)
        • Text
        • 3-5 keywords
    • Font: standard font to prevent special characters from getting lost, e.g. Arial or Times New Roman, 12-point
    • In submitting an abstract, the author(s) agree that the abstract may be published among other documents associated with the Ne3LS Network International Conference 2012, Montreal, Canada.

SELECTION CRITERIA

  • Submissions will be evaluated by an international, multidisciplinary scientific committee
  • Principal criteria for selection will be:
    • Quality of the abstract
    • Relevance to the general themes and, more specifically, to the subthemes described in the Ne3LS Network International Conference 2012, Themes
    • Corresponding authors will be notified of acceptance by email by June 29, 2012
    • Notification of acceptance will indicate whether the presentation was selected as an oral or poster presentation
    • Authors whose abstracts are selected are expected to pay their registration fees at the latest by July 15, 2012.

You have almost two months to write up your abstract (nice to stumble across something a little earlier than usual so I’m not announcing a deadline that comes due in three days). Good luck!

For those who prefer French language information, here’s a link to the NE3LS (Réseau de connaisannces) French version website.

Canada-Japan Nanotechnology Workshop at the University of Waterloo

Leave a reply

Today (Nov. 21, 2011) and tomorrow (Nov. 22), the Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology (WIN) at the University of Waterloo is hosting a nanotechnology workshop celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Canada-Japan Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology. The Honourable Gary Goodyear Minister of State (Science and Technology) gave the opening remarks (from the Nov. 21, 2011 news release on the Industry Canada website),

“There are tremendous opportunities for international researchers and businesses to come to Canada and invest in research and development,” said Minister of State Goodyear. “This conference allows us to showcase opportunities in nanotechnology and promote stronger linkages with Canadian researchers and innovators. The relationship we are building will benefit the Canadian and Japanese economies.”

The conference drew a number of high-profile delegates, including His Excellency Kaoru Ishikawa, Ambassador of Japan to Canada and Mr. Yasuyoshi Kakita, Director of the Generic Research and Research Platform Division of Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

WIN’s workshop webpage offers more details about the Canada-Japan relationship and our mutual interest in nanotechnology,

Nanotechnology is identified in both countries as a priority area by the Expert Advisory Group (EAG) on Canada-Japan S&T Cooperation. Four major nanotechnology collaborations were recently identified by the Embassies of Japan and Canada for their on-going execution of annual workshops, proven mobility and exchange programs, research funding and number of projects initiated. These are: (in order of MOU signing).

– National Institute for Nanotechnology (NINT) & National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) – 2006
– NanoQuebec & Nagano Techno Foundation – 2009
– Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology (WIN) & National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS) – 2010
– McGill University & RIKEN – 2010

The Canada-Japan nanotechnology workshop is designed to bring Canadian and Japanese stakeholders together to highlight their success at a national level and for individual researcher teams to advance their collaborative projects. Scientists including Canadian Research Chairs in the field of nanotechnology, government representatives and administrators from leading universities and nanotechnology organizations will be on hand to discuss the future of nanotechnology and recommend paths ahead.

By coming together we will help define a nanotechnology road map for Canada and Japan cooperation that will identify future areas for research funding, commercialization and trade for our respective Governments and Embassies. [emphasis mine]

I’m not sure how they’re going to be able to define a nanotechnology road map for cooperation with Japan when there isn’t any kind of nanotechnology roadmap for Canada. You can check that out for yourself here.

I hope there will be more news from the workshop as it progresses.

New US nanotechnology legislation for health and safety proposed; SAFENANO reviews 2009

Leave a reply

After finding this announcement on Azonano (or you can find it on Senator Pryor’s site here),

U.S. Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) today introduced legislation to address potential health and safety risks about products that contain nanotechnology materials.

…

The Nanotechnology Safety Act of 2010 would establish a program within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assess the health and safety implications of nanotechnology in everyday products and develop best practices for companies who employ nanotechnology. The legislation authorizes $25 million each year from 2011 through 2015.

I went looking for a comment or news release about it on the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies website and was surprised to find nothing. In fact, I couldn’t find any commentary anwyhere in my very brief search this morning.

Meanwhile, SAFENANO (an initiative of the UK’s Institute of Occupational Medicine) has produced a review of  nanotechnology environment, health, and safety developments for 2009. They cover both developments in Europe and elsewhere. From the review,

In January, the International Standards Organisation ISO published a technical report ISO/TR 12885:2008 ” Health and safety practices in occupational settings relevant to nanotechnologies “. The report provides a general background the nanoparticle risk issues and describes in some detail current practices for risk assessment, exposure measurement and control which are appropriate for use with engineered nanoparticles. This report takes an encyclopaedic view but stops short of recommending which practices are appropriate for which materials under which circumstances, leading to disappointment for some users. This report is commercially available from ISO.
This was closely followed by a report from Canada published by Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), in collaboration with CSST and  NanoQuébec The document ” Best Practices Guide to Synthetic Nanoparticle Risk Management, Report R599 “, covered much of the same ground as the ISO document but in less detail. This document also introduced the idea of using a “control banding” approach based on that described by Paik and recommends that this approach is used where there is insufficient information for a quantitative risk assessment.

It is a very interesting and useful review which you can read here.

Shapeshifting cars and NanoQuebec adds a CEO

Leave a reply

Shades of Knight Rider and KITT! BMW announced a shapshifting car (more details here) yesterday. They don’t specifically mention nanotechnology but it’s hard to imagine how else they might accomplish their aims. I’ve read (skimmed) their seven page press release which has subheads like this “The interior: discourse between driver and vehicle.” (That doesn’t make sense unless the car is talking to you as it does in the tv series Knight Rider and there’s no mention of that capability.) It’s the “GINA Light Visionary Model” and It has some sort of fabric skin which is flexible and seems to be a replacement for the standard metal covering. Lots of hyperbole and excitement, very little detail.

NanoQuebec announced the appointment of  its first president and CEO, Dr. Robert Crawhall. His background is in telecommunications. More details here.