Tag Archives: National Academy of Sciences

Marvel Studios internship contest for girls 15 – 18, in grades 10 – 12 (US-based entrants only) Deadline: March 26, 2016

As part of the publicity buildup for Marvel Studios’ Captain America: Civil War movie, the studios (owned by Disney Corporation) have announced the “Captain America: Civil War—Girls Reforming the Future Challenge” according to a March 11, 2016 news item on phys.org,

Five finalists will win a trip to California to present their projects. The winner will receive a weeklong internship at Marvel Studios.

The National Academy of Sciences is supporting Marvel’s “Captain America: Civil War—Girls Reforming the Future Challenge” to encourage girls to develop and embrace STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) skills.

David Bruggeman describes the contest in a March 11, 2016 posting on his Pasco Phronesis blog (Note: Links have been removed),

Marvel is apparently not content with occasionally taking over the global box office.  It wants credit for several future scientists.  In connection with its next major release, Captain America: Civil War, Marvel Studios announced its latest science-themed contest, Girls Reforming the Future (H/T io9).  Marvel has done this kind of contest before for several of its films, most recently last summer in connection with Ant-Man.  Also customary with these contests is some promotion by actors involved in the films.

You can find the Captain America Challenge website here,

Have you developed or dreamed of an amazing project you think could revolutionize the world, simplify our lives, help the disabled, or just make life on earth a little better, safer, or healthier?

MARVEL STUDIOS is searching nationwide for girls – just like you – ages 15 to 18 in grades 10 – 12 to explore their inner potential to reform the future with positive world change by creating an original and innovative project using STEM. One winner of MARVEL’S CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR – GIRLS REFORMING THE FUTURE CHALLENGE will be selected to receive an internship with MARVEL STUDIOS.

You may create a new project for the challenge or submit a project you previously developed for a class, for a science competition, or just for fun. Science, technology, engineering, or mathematics must be used in the creation of the project, and the project should have the potential to benefit humankind.

After completing your project, you will submit a short video demonstrating and explaining the benefits of your project, how STEM helped you develop the project, and why you would like an internship at MARVEL STUDIOS.

Five finalists will be selected and each will:

Receive a $500 High Yield Savings account from Synchrony Bank.
Receive a trip to Hollywood, California for the finalist and a parent or legal guardian for the opportunity to present their project to leaders in science and industry at MARVEL STUDIOS.
Will participate in a live global Broadcom Masters webinar during which they will discuss how their STEM skills enabled them to create their projects.
Have the opportunity to walk the red carpet at the World Premiere of MARVEL’S CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR on April 12, 2016.
Receive a tour of the Walt Disney Studios and Dolby Laboratories facilities.

One winner will be selected from the finalists to receive an internship opportunity at MARVEL STUDIOS.

Finalists of MARVEL’S CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR – GIRLS REFORMING THE FUTURE CHALLENGE will be notified by March 30, 2016. Each Finalist and their parent or legal guardian will travel to Los Angeles, California on Sunday, April 10, 2016.

MARVEL’S CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR – GIRLS REFORMING THE FUTURE CHALLENGE is proudly presented by DISNEY, MARVEL, DOLBY LABORATORIES, SYNCHRONY BANK, BROADCOM MASTERS, and the SCIENCE AND ENTERTAINMENT EXCHANGE, a program of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

All video submissions have to be uploaded by 9 p.m. PST on March 26, 2016.

If you need inspiration, here’s the video they’ve produced for the challenge (very intent on promoting the film) featuring two of the stars from the film, Emily VanCamp (Sharon Carter / Agent 13)
and Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch),

Good luck!

Defiance, a transmedia project, goes nano (for one episode anyway)

Defiance sounds more like the name for a warship than the title of transmedia (tv/games) science fiction project. It (both the tv series and the game) debuted with much fanfare in April 2013 on the US SyFy channel. Given the alien invasion aspect of the show I wasn’t expecting any nanotechnology but episode eight broadcast on June 3, 2013 has a character being ‘brought back to life’ by nanomachines according to the Defiance recaplet by Jacob Clifton for Television Without Pity,

In fact, Sukar’s first death was the result of a bit of Ark that contained nanomachines and were piloting his body around to save the Votans in town. She [Irisa] takes his comatose body back to the Badlands tribe, and I guess deals with the fact that what little guidance she had for dealing with her coming godhood is now gone, which has to suck. But then too, she seems to understand that miracles never look like miracles — that just because it was nanomachines doesn’t mean it wasn’t also a miracle — so that’s comforting.

I’m not entirely sure how the nanomachines piloted a dead (?) character’s body around town but I don’t think that was the recapper’s main concern. However, curiosity aroused I found some interviews with the science advisor for Defiance, Kevin Grazier. Here’s an excerpt from Grazier’s April 15, 2013 Q&A with Emilie Lorditch for Inside Science,

Kevin Grazier is a planetary physicist who worked at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory on the Cassini/Huygens Mission to Saturn and Titan, and is currently conducting research on long-term, large-scale computational simulations of Solar System dynamics and evolution. Grazier has also been a science advisor for numerous television shows such as “Eureka,” “Battlestar Galactica,” and the new SyFy show “Defiance.” …

IS: What is your typical day like?
KG:
My interaction with the writers and producers depends upon the show, and for each episode it frequently depends upon the writer. Some shows (“Eureka,” “Falling Skies”) have brought me in prior to the beginning of a season to recommend technology or elaborate on scientific concepts for the upcoming season. Some writers will have an idea for a story, and will chat with me before they even start writing. Sometimes writers solicit input at the story outline stage, sometimes at the first draft stage. Sometimes, on the less tech-heavy stories, I have no interaction until there is a completed script, and then I weigh in with my notes.
On a few occasions I’ve been called into the writers’ room to do a presentation when we’re planning a particularly big or blockbuster season finale. Sometimes I get called to help with the visual effects. That happened a lot on Eureka.
For two episodes of Eureka, I was even asked to write a several pages of book chapters. In these episodes characters opened books and, since we shot in high-definition, fans could freeze the frame and read the text – so the text had to be original, not copyrighted, and, most importantly, correct.
On Defiance, I’ve had more telecons [telephone conferences]  than I’ve had on previous series, primarily because our game designer, Trion Worlds, is located in San Diego. I’ve also been editing a lot of online content, which I’ve never got to do before. As I said, nothing is “typical.”
IS: What advice do you have for scientists who want to work as a science advisor?
KG: It’s actually a lot easier to break in these days than it was when I started. There is an organization, program of the National Academy of Sciences, called The Science and Entertainment Exchange. They pair up scientists as consultants to the productions that need expertise. If you’re a scientist, and are interested in consulting (usually non-paid, at least at first), they maintain a database of scientists and their areas of expertise. If science consulting is something that interests you, start there.
One of the most important recommendations I could offer is that to do the job well, to be able to relate to the writers with whom you’re working, it really pays to have taken a screenwriting class or three. When it was obvious that I was going to get continued work in the industry, I went to UCLA Extension and earned a certificate in television writing. That’s been supremely helpful.
When you have an inkling of how difficult it is to tell a story in 42 minutes, with a beginning, middle, and end, along with five act breaks, you’re a much better advisor.

That last response from Grazier gives me daymares as I imagine some science type who’s taken a few courses and decides s/he is not just a science advisor but also the head writer. I’ve seen the phenomenon at work. All some people need is a workshop or a course and suddenly, they’ve become experts.

The article about Defiance on ScriptPhD is not credited or dated but I’m assuming it was posted in the last few months,

ScriptPhD.com was very honored to have the opportunity to sit down with both series writer and co-creator and executive producer Michael Taylor, as well as the show’s scientific advisor Kevin Grazier, to get a better idea of the characters, storyline and what we can expect going forward.

Taylor, also a series writer and producer on breakout SyFy hit series Battlestar Galactica, was involved in the early development of the series, which took over one and a half years to re-conceptualize and bring to the small screen from its initial concept. “Keep in mind, the original draft [of the pilot] was very different,” Taylor says. “The Chief Lawkeeper role was prototyped as this older, wry Brian Dennehy-type of character, for example. Irathient warrior Irisa was more of a wide-eyed, naïve girl than she is in the current version. We even had about two to three episodes of the series done. But as we went along, we were finding it hard to keep thinking up episodes from week to week.” Which is when the series went back to the drawing boards.

And reimagine the series they did! Unlike the vast majority of sci-fi shows, which explore the process of warring factions integrating and co-existing, in Defiance, this has already occurred, something that Taylor calls a “cool experiment.” “The 30-year-war has already been fought, all that stuff is long in the past,” Taylor reminds us. “And now we are at the point where the 8 races are trying to co-exist together. …

As for integrating the video game concept, it predated the show by five years, which allowed writers to establish stories and character development that will happen separately from, albeit concurrently with, the action in Defiance onscreen. …

“We’ve seen time and time again small plot points that have become little tidbits, or plot points or even major points driving an episode when you get the science right,” Grazier notes. “Caring about the science [in a series plot] can be as much of a strength as it is a constraint.”

And while it’s true that the science of Defiance does seem a bit less obvious or upfront than in shows like BSG or Eureka, it’s no less important nor is it any less incorporated. “We have a really rich, really well thought-out backstory, and that is very much informed by the science,” Grazier says. “We know that the V-7 [Votan] races came from the Votan System. What happened to their system? Well, we have that [mapped out], we know that.” He also pointed to subtle implications such as in the first few minutes of the pilot. When Irisa looks up at the sleeper pods, she says, “All those hundreds of years in space just to die in your sleep.” Grazier notes: “The subtle implication is that the V-7 aliens don’t go FTL [faster than light]. So we have figured out where they’re from and how far away they’re from and which direction of the sky they’re from and how long it took to get here.”

In addition to its elemental role in the backstory, science has also also had fun ‘little’ moments in the show, like the importance of the terrasphere in defending the Volge attack in the pilot or the hell bugs (a genetic amalgam of several earth critters) in episode 3. Some of these small scientific details were even able to result in cool visual effects. For example, when the table of writers was discussing the ark falls, Grazier, an astrophysicist by training, noted that the conservation of angular momentum meant that these things would not land vertically, but rather horizontally, using the screaming overhead comets in Deep Impact as a touchstone. Sure enough, in the first few minutes, you see Nolan and Irisa tracking what’s about to be an ark fall and you see them screaming overhead. “That will, by the way, come into play in a later episode,” Grazier teases. “We know where the ark belt is. Where the ships were when they blew up, how far away they are.”

Sadly, I couldn’t find any details about Defiance’s nanotechnology aspects but both the articles I’ve excerpted feature intriguing science and insider information.

Call for nominations: US National Academies Communication Awards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2013 TIMELINE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nano as per story, communication, and 4-D microscopy

It’s been a very slow week but I finally found a few good things. First, a 4-D microscope has been developed by researchers at CalTech. The breakthrough was compared to Eadweard Muybridge’s breakthrough photographic work (he was the first to photograph proof that all four of a horse’s hooves left the ground while galloping) in the 19th Century. Ahmed Zewail, 1999 winner of Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Linus Pauling Professor of Chemistry at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) and his colleagues have published their findings in the November 21, 2008 issue of Science. With this equipment, scientists will now be able to observe the behaviour of atoms and molecules over space and time. There’s a more detailed article here.

In March 2009, there’s going to be an international advanced communication course regarding nanotechnology at Oxford University. It’s called ‘Public Communication and Applied Ethics of Nanotechnology’ but it seems more like a standard course on how a nonprofessional communicator should get their message out to the public, government agencies, and other interested parties. Oddly, they haven’t listed anyone’s credentials and most of this presenters seem to be academics. With session titles like “How do the media work,” Reviewing participants’ prepared press releases,” etc., I’d expect a few less academics to be presenting and more practitioners. If you’re interested, there’s a description of the event here and a brochure here.

The National Academy of Sciences in the US has a new initiative where they will ‘matchmake’ between filmmakers, scriptwriters, and other creative types with scientists in a bid for scientific accuracy in products from the entertainment industry. They had a symposium in Los Angeles this last Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2008. I find the idea interesting although I had an experience last year which points to at least one pitfall.

Before I get to the pitfall, I need to lead up to it. During last year’s national Science and Technology Week (Canada), Genome BC had an event where they invited the producers and actors from a tv programme called ‘Regenesis’ to a public dialogue. We sat at tables of about 8 – 10 people and listened to what they had to say about the science represented in the show. The lead played a geneticist who solved the week’s story crisis with his understanding of genetics. We watched a clip from the show and then proceeded to discuss it. Here’s my best description of the clip (memory may not be exact),

The lead researcher geneticist meets an adolescent male who’s in trouble. The geneticists run a DNA profile of this troubled adolescent and presents information in a courtroom science. We’re told that there are certain genetic markers that can indicate if someone is predisposed to addiction (and I think he also included violence). Apparently the average person will show 8 out of 40 (I think) potential markers, the troubled adolescent had 32 of the markers which was dramatically revealed to the court in an image of his DNA test results.

As we all should be, everyone at the table was concerned about the ethics but, surprisingly, no one questioned the science.  I don’t mean that the science was necessarily incorrect just that nothing is ever that cut and dried. I did pipe up and luckily there was a geneticist beside me who concurred although most of the people didn’t seem that convinced.

From a storytelling perspective, the problem is that the writer needs to heighten the tension for the demands of the story and most scientific results should be qualified in a nuanced fashion which does lend itself to dramatic tension. So, I’m glad they’re working towards more scientific authenticity but there is a limit to what they can do and still have an interesting story to tell.