Tag Archives: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

A few comments about the UK National Nanotechnologies Strategy; NSERC and the naughty nanoscientist; Vancouver’s first NightHawk Festival

1 Reply

As I noted yesterday, the UK National Nanotechnologies Strategy has been released by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. (More about the strategy report here from the government website.) Andrew Maynard (2020 Science) has been quick off the mark with his very insightful analysis. A few tidbits from Andrew’s comments,

… there is no specific emphasis on exploratory science. The implicit assumption is that the machinery of knowledge generation – funding for exploratory research, and the expertise to generate new knowledge – is in place.  But this is a very rash assumption indeed.  Without strategic investment in funding exploratory nanoscale science, especially at the interface between disciplines, the UK is likely to loose out to other countries that recognize the need to drive innovation through knowledge creation.  The US and China in particular are steaming ahead here – without a clear research strategy, the UK is destined to become marginalized.

…

There are a number of places in the report where the data are suspect – especially in the section dealing with business, industry and innovation.  At the least, I would expect a Government-level report to get the facts right.  For instance, it is claimed that the UK is fourth in the world in terms of the number of nanotechnology patents applied for, after the US, Japan and Germany.  Yet the latest figures – published last year [abstract only, article is behind a paywall]– show the UK ranking 11th in terms of the number of patents filed in the country (in 2008, 68 nanotechnology patents were filed in the UK, compared to 3,729 in the US and 5,030 in China.  That’s around 0.5% of all nanotechnology patents filed in 2008).

While I have some doubts about using patents as a measure for scientific progress/leadership, I quite agree that one’s data should be accurate as possible.

Andrew also comments on the prophylactic quality of the public engagement they are recommending as well as many other aspects of the report. (my past posts on a similar concern from Jan. 14, 2009, Jan. 15, 2009, Jan. 16, 2009 and Jan. 19, 2009)

I have looked at the first few pages and will likely read on but am not able to offer the comprehensive and informed critique that Andrew (and his commenters) offer. I do have one quick comment of my own, the definition for nanotechnology on p. 6 of the report seems to suggest that milk is a nanotechnology product.

A nanometre is one-billionth of a metre,
or around 80,000 times smaller than the
diameter of a human hair.

Nanoparticles exist in nature. For example,
milk contains nanoscale droplets of fat and
every cell in your body relies on nanosized
protein complexes to function.

One definition of a nanomaterial is a
material with at least one dimension in the
nanoscale (between 1-100nm). They can be
particulate in nature, for example nano
titanium dioxide, fibre-like, for example
carbon nanotubes or sheet-like, for example
graphene. Nanomaterials can also be defined
in terms of their functionality, as opposed to
relying strictly on their size alone.

Nanotechnologies can be thought of as
any technology which either incorporates or
employs nanomaterials or involves processes
performed at the nanoscale.

If nanotechnology “incorporates or employs nanomaterials or involved processes performed at the nanoscale”, and milk contains nanoscale droplets of fat (employing a nanomaterial) then milk is a nanotechnology product. Defining nanotechnology is a bit of a problem and I think what happened here is that they were trying to be succinct. The other and larger problem is that there doesn’t appear to be a universal standard definition yet.

Last week featured a widely distributed article by Margaret Munro about Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Council (NSERC) banning a researcher (Daniel Kwok) from receiving funding due to alleged malfeasance. The brilliant engineer made international headlines (2003) with his colleague, Larry Kostiuk, when they developed a device that produces electricity from water. Over the years, this nanotechnology engineer has received almost $2M in funding from various federal agencies. Unfortunately, he appears to have used some of his grant monies for personal use. Since he has been found out he has returned over $24,500.

By 2005, the researcher’s ethics breaches came to light and then the case was turned over to the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) in 2006.  The researcher was banned from further funding in 2009. (There have also been accusations of plagiarism but no details are offered in Munro’s article due to the officials’ refusal to elaborate.) From the article in the Montréal Gazette,

The documents point to major problems with oversight of Canada’s multibillion-dollar research system — holes so glaring that one leading ethics expert says he hopes the case will jolt federal politicians into giving “marching orders” to Canada’s research councils and universities to get their act together.

“There is a public accountability here that is just missing,” says Michael McDonald, founding director of the centre for applied ethics at the University of British Columbia.

I’m never thrilled when I hear about people taking advantage of or cheating the system but, realistically, it happens. I’m not sure why McDonald is jumping up and down so hard. All institutions take forever to respond to breaches, assuming they do respond. They are as slow to pursue serious breaches of trust as they are to correct their own mistakes (I”m thinking of the Revenue Canada Agency and some of their well documented errors leading to the destruction of some people’s livelihood).

Before anyone starts developing new oversight policies, I think some questions need to be asked. Exactly what is the nature of the problem? Is there widespread malfeasance or is this a rare case? If it’s a rare occurrence, then what is the problem? One has to assume that things go wrong occasionally so what would be the point of burdening the system with additional red tape? Is the problem that it took NSERC too long to respond? Then design a response system that is timely without being precipitous, after all this someone’s career and livelihood at stake.

Unfortunately, I think the bureaucrats will respond in an hysterical fashion, developing new policies that make the grant application process more onerous than ever while likely not improving their own response issues.

To leave on a more cheerful note, Vancouver’s first Nighthawk Festival is on Sunday, March 21, 2010 at Crab Park (Vancouver), 2-9 pm. From the news release,

Welcome to the 1st Annual Nighthawk Aboriginal Arts & Music Festival.

The Nighthawk Aboriginal Arts & Music Festival is a project of the Downtown Eastside Centre For The Arts and will take place on Sunday March 21 at Crab Park, 2-9pm and is for and about community.

The intention of this festival is, at a grass- roots level, to share and celebrate our traditions and culture with the broader Lower Mainland community.

The NightHawk Aboriginal Arts & Music Festival will feature:

…traditional drummers …contemporary musicians/youth/adults

…traditional food …artisans from various disciplines

…a children’s teepee

We believe that this event is timely in its creation as our community continues to rebuild and strengthen; well-known aboriginal artists continue to receive increased recognition; youth continue to create innovative and new ways to communicate through the arts, and new young artists continue to develop their crafts – whether it be through performance or other disciplines.

Performers include:

INEZ, Murray Porter Band, Starmakerz featuring

HellnBack, Dalannah Gail Bowen & Straight-Up, Buffalo Spirit Drum, children’s performer Dennis Lakusta, Shakti Hayes & Buffalo Thompson, First Ladies Crew and Iskwew and more.

Vancouver, we invite you to join us as we launch the 1st Annual NightHawk Aboriginal Arts & Music Festival!

Happy weekend!

Off the deep end: an interview with Cheryl Geisler (part 3 of 3)

Leave a reply

Today is the last of the series on Cheryl Geisler and the new Faculty of Communication, Art and Technology (FCAT) at Simon Fraser University (Burnby, Vancouver, Surrey, Canada):

In addition to factors such as the global economy and faculty politics (used not pejoratively but in its most general sense), Geisler and her colleagues have to contend with an increasing emphasis from the tri-council funding agencies (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [SSHRC], Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR], and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council [NSERC]) on open-access to research and on proving to the public that the funded research has value.

From the recent Conference Board of Canada report on trademarks, patents, and copyright, Intellectual Property in the 21st Century by Ruth Corbin (as quoted by Michael Geist on his blog here),

In discussing the tabling of a new copyright bill, it notes:

Simultaneous support for “open-access” initiatives, where appropriate – such as facilitation of the use of government data with suitable safeguards, and readier access to publicly funded research – would help to unlock tremendous stores of knowledge and balance out the resources being expended on protection of rights.

From the SSHRC report, Framing our Direction, here,

Systematic evidence about the multiple short and long-term benefits of research in the social sciences and humanities will provide a solid foundation for decisions about levels of investment. In other words, our ability to enhance research activities is closely linked with our collective efforts to demonstrate the impact and value of social sciences and humanities research to society. For this reason, we will update our programs and policies to include a more complete accounting of research results. (final para. on p. 12 in print version, p. 14 on PDF)

The SSHRC report makes it quite clear that the quantity of funding it receives is liable to be affected by how the agency and its grant recipients are able to “[demonstrate] the impact and value of social science and humanities research to society.” No doubt the other members of the tri-Council are feeling the same pressures.

In responding to a question about how FCAT will make its research more easily accessible, Geisler drew on her experience as the head of the Language, Literature and Communication Department at Rensselaear, the oldest technological university in the US. “There certainly was the desire at the National Science Foundation and other federal programmes in the US for research to be more widely disseminated and to try to incorporate outreach activities and for the same reasons [as here in Canada].

For example, the School of Contemporary Arts will move into Woodward’s [Downtown Eastside] in the fall [2010] so now we’re planning for how we will partner with the community, what kinds of non-credit programmes we’ll offer, and [the] residencies [we’ll offer] for artists in the community. We also have 3 or 4 faculty members that work with policy leaders in the area of culture to try to understand how to manage cultural resources and growth and make them a greater social benefit.” She also pointed out that there are plans to situate the Surrey City Hall near SIAT as part of an initiative to create a new city centre in that municipality. All of this is in stark contrast with SFU’s main campus, built in 1965, and situated on a mountain top.

Regardless of its mountain top status, SFU has long made an effort to reach out to its various communities through its non-credit continuing studies programmes in Vancouver at Harbour Centre, the programmes at the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, and its longstanding presence in the Downtown Eastside through various School of the Contemporary Arts courses (Note: The school is slated to make a wholsale move into the area, Fall 2010). Unfortunately, many of these efforts fall short of reaching any community that is not in some way affiliated with the university

Geisler acknowledges that more could be done, “You have to give the public ways to option in, or to find out things or to give more clear access. That’s a good problem to work on.”

As for why she came to SFU, “I’ve always done interdisciplinary work and I led a department that had many of the same components that I saw here. In a way, I thought this was the perfect next step for me. There was no other department like mine and there’s no other faculty like [this one]. I had a sense that at FCAT there was a lot of potential and desire to interact across disciplinary boundaries and do exciting new work and I thought that’s [what] I would want to lead.”

The next and last question begged to be asked. Do you have any dreams, any fantasies about where it [FCAT] might go?

“What people do is very interdisciplinary in the sciences, in art practice, and in design practice but the academic structure is much more reified and rigid so that students’ curricular experience often doesn’t mirror what’s going on in professional practice and in knowledge generation. Also, I think one of the consequences [of curricular rigidity] is that the public is often alienated from the university because it’s cut off from what makes academics excited.

There’s a real potential for creating new processes and faculty structures that can be responsive and be reflective of more problem-based or opportunity-based alignments [that exist] for a few years to get [a] project done. [As opposed to] ‘we all do biology here and we always do it; and a hundred years from now there’s going to be a biology dept. Departments are structured ‘as if they will always be there’ because they reflect the way the world is. I’d like to see a more exciting, project-based [approach]. I don’t know exactly how to do that but I thought this would be a place to figure [it] out.”

Thank you to Dr. Geisler for the insights and your time.

Off the deep end: an interview with Cheryl Geisler Introduction, Part 1, Part 2

Happy Weekend!

Nanotechnology and site remediation; nano company gives aid to Haiti; nano commodity exchange; new Canadian photovoltaic research network; sensual nanotechnology

6 Replies

Tomorrow morning, Feb. 4, 2010, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) will be webcasting an event titled, Contaminated Site Remediation: Are Nanomaterials the Answer? It starts at 9:30 am PST and the webcast can accessed from here.  Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend the live webcast but I will try to listen to it when they post the feed on their site a few days later. I did post more information, including a link to PEN’s site remediation map, about this event here.

More or less coincident with this event and on a somewhat related note, there is a donation from the company Nanoscale to relief efforts in Haiti. From the news item on Azonano,

NanoScale’s products and expertise in chemical and biological decontamination will provide protection and odor control to those most affected. NanoScale has donated NanoZorb®, a portable decomposition decontamination system based on products originally developed for U.S. military decontamination applications, to selected groups to aid their recovery efforts.

While it is likely as much a public relations effort as relief, bravo!

I’ve come across many comments as to how nanotechnology could be helpful to the environment but most of the examples I’ve seen are in the energy sector (i.e., ways nanotechnology-enabled products can reduce energy use). I’m hopeful these site remediation and decontamination nanotechnology efforts will be helpful and won’t become future problems.

There is a new commodities exchange on the horizon, Integrated Nano-Science Commodity Exchange (INSCX). From the news item on Nanowerk,

INSCX™ – Integrated Nano-Science Commodity Exchange, a patent-pending project to develop a global commodity exchange platform for trade in nano objects, materials and commodities, has formalised an agreement with AssuredNano™ [SHE] to co-ordinate the global accreditation of supply onto the market platform which is scheduled to launch in the UK early 2011.

AssuredNano™ is the premier Safety, Health and Environment (SHE) accreditation scheme for organisations producing nanomaterials, nano-enabled products and users of nanotechnology in general. It promotes the responsible and proactive application of nanomaterial SHE good current practice within the nanomaterials and nanotechnology community.

…

INSCX™, is designed to provide the “hub to the wheel of nanotechnologies” where the interests of business can co-exist with those of state governments, regional authorities, specialist agencies, research bodies, and consumer groups to deliver ethical and commercial cohesion across nanotechnologies.

I’m trying to figure out how AssuredNano can supply accreditation when there are no internationally accepted standard definitions for terms such as nanomaterials. (The International Standards Organization [ISO] has developed definitions but I have not seen any indication that they have been adopted as standards.) The AssuredNano site does not provide any details about their accreditation scheme, as you can see for yourself here. I hope to see more detailed information before the exhange starts in 2011.

As I noted earlier, most of the nanotechnology environmental news is focused on energy. Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) just this week announced the establishment of a new solar photovoltaic research network headquartered at McMaster University. From the news item on physorg.com,

The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) announced $5 million in funding today for the establishment of the NSERC Photovoltaic Innovation Network. The Network is comprised of 29 top scientists and engineers working in the field of advanced solar cell research at 13 universities across Canada. Eleven private sector companies are also part of the network.

The Network aims to raise the status of solar photovoltaics (PV) as a renewable energy option in Canada by accelerating research and development and commercializing the outcomes.

Now on a completely different note, the sensual side of nanotechnology. From the news item on Nanowerk,

Pin-sharp projections, light that’s whiter than white, varnishes that make sounds if the temperature changes: at nano tech 2010 in Tokyo, Fraunhofer researchers present nanotechnology that is a veritable feast for the senses.

A mystical glow emanates from the display case. A white light appears out of nowhere. And a light source is invisible – at least at first glance. Only upon close examination does the source of the apparently supernatural illumination become visible: a light diode, smaller than a pinhead, passes through thousands of infinitesimal lens structures measuring only a few hundred nanometers, et voilà: beaming white light.

…

Nanotechnology not only puts an entirely new dimension before the eye, it also makes audible things that no ear could ever perceive before: like changes in temperature. A new varnish developed by researchers at the Fraunhofer Institute for Engineering and Automation IPA ensures that surfaces emit sound if they become warmer or cool off. The trick: carbon nano-tubes embedded in the varnish that conduct electricity …

In addition to sight and sound, I have one more sense to cover, touch. From the news item, Multitouch ‘Skin’ Transforms Surfaces into Interactive Screens, on physorg.com,

The DISPLAX Multitouch Technology, believed to be the first of its kind, has been developed based on a transparent thinner-than-paper polymer film. When applied to glass, plastic or wood, the surface becomes interactive. Significantly, this new multitouch technology can be applied to standard LCD screens as well, making it an attractive choice for LCD manufacturers. The new technology will also be available for audiovisual integrators or gaming platforms to develop innovative products.

The DISPLAX Multitouch Technology dramatically extends the capabilities of the interactive format. It can be applied to flat or curved, opaque as well as transparent surfaces up to three metres across the diagonal. It is hyper sensitive, allowing users to interact with an enabled surface not just by touching it but, for the first time, by blowing on it, opening up new possibilities for future applications. Currently, the technology can detect up to 16 fingers on a 50-inch screen. The number of fingers detected is expected to increase as development progresses.

It may take a while before pure white light or varnish that you can hear comes to market but the multitouch ‘skin’ is here as a harbinger of what is to come. Offhand, I’m not sure I want to hear varnish. It seems to me that it would be like having an alarm that I can’t shut off  which means I could be confronted with any number of products that are emitting sounds because they are too hot or too cold or nearing the end of their product lives or, worse yet, malfunctioning.

Cookie cutters; agility vs. rigidity; 2010 Canadian Science Policy Conference; Kate Pullinger GG 2009 award winner for fiction

1 Reply

Ever wonder about all that talk about critical thinking? Supposedly that’s what education does for you, i.e. encourages critical thinking. I mention it because there’s a great little essay on The Black Hole blog about critical thinking in higher education. It’s called, Science is like Baking: The Rise of the Cookie Cutter PhD. I did have one minor quibble,

Together, these forces do what I think we should be very very scared of… they apply pressure to churn out PhDs faster, with more papers, with less flexibility in ideas and more rigid (read publishable) research project designs. So, in the end, little effort goes into helping the PhD students think critically about their field – and while I don’t believe this style of training is as far gone in the Humanities… I think it’s coming, so get yourself ready!

Sadly, I believe that the process is already gaining momentum in the humanities.

Rob Annan at Don’t Leave Canada Behind has a very pointed (scathing) analysis of a pre-budget submission from the SSHRC/NSERC/CIHR tri-council to the House of Commons Standing Committee.  [SSHRC = Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; NSERC = Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; CHIR = Canadian Health Institutes Research] From his posting,

… What does this mean? Sounds to me like stable, long-term funding is to be sacrificed at the altar of increased flexibility. And what exactly is a “dynamic approach” to funding research? This bureaucratic nonsense speak could have real consequences for researchers. Does agility, dynamism, and responsiveness mean that the agencies will be rapidly changing funding priorities from year to year? Will the agencies just start chasing the hottest trends?

Annan’s concern about “agility, dynamism and responsiveness” as a funding agency priority would seem to contradict The Black Hole’s essayist’s concern “with more papers, with less flexibility in ideas and more rigid (read more publishable) research project designs.”

In fact, we could end up with a situation where both apply. Imagine this. (1) A researcher applies for a ‘trendy’ area of research thereby fulfilling the funding agency’s dynamic, responsive funding requirement. (2) The researcher or PhD student’s academic institution or employer constrains the researcher to pump out multiple papers from a rigid research design under the funding agency’s the rubric of being responsive and agile.

Frankly, I’d like to see a little more agility and dynamism but I’d like it see it applied effectively. Sadly, I believe that my little scenario is more likely than not. The funding agencies are scrambling for money and, with the best of intentions, will do what it takes to get more so they can fulfill their mandate of supporting research. Meanwhile, the academic institutions will pay lip service to agility and dynamism while they apply the principles of rigidity and conformity used in production lines to pump out more product (publishable papers, awards, etc.) so they can maintain themselves and provide (their raison d’etre) education.

On other notes: there is a 2010 Public Science in Canada | Strengthening Science and Policy to Protect Canadians conference coming up in May. The keynote speakers are Stephen Lewis in an as yet untitled talk and [David] Suzuki and [Preston] Manning on Science: A Public Dialogue.  (Is there a Canadian science conference or science event where Preston Manning isn’t giving a keynote address?) More details can be found here.

On a personal note, congratulations to the Governor General’s latest fiction award winner, Kate Pullinger for the Mistress of Nothing. She was one of the leaders and teachers in my master’s programme (Creative Writing and New Media) at De Montfort University in the UK. I’m grateful that I had a chance to study in the programme (which was canceled after its 3rd year). I was able to experiment with creative writing techniques and science writing and that was a privilege.

Be good to your nano and more money for science in Canada

1 Reply

The nano safety wiki project developed by the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON) is now open (beta version) and is called the Good Nano Guide.

This is a project that Nanotech BC has been involved with and was mentioned in my interview (Part 2) with Victor Jones (former Nanotech BC chair).  From the announcement in Nanowerk News,

The GoodNanoGuide is a practical tool for people who handle nanomaterials as well as an online repository of safety protocols. It has been developed by experts from the worlds of nanotechnology, occupational safety and business and is governed by an implementation committee from North America and Europe. All GoodNanoGuide content is freely available via the Internet. Visitors may add their comments by becoming “Community Members,” and experts may contribute and edit protocols by becoming “Expert Providers.”

Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology) announced funds to help science graduates develop skills that will help them to transition out of the classroom. Money will be disbursed through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council CREATE programme. From the announcement on Nanowerk News,

Projects consist of initiatives led by teams of excellent Canadian university researchers who see the value in helping students acquire personal and professional skills that are not part of their normal academic training. Students will have the opportunity to enhance their ability to work productively in a research environment that has become increasingly multi-disciplinary. Important areas of training include commercialization, communication and project management. While the primary focus is on natural sciences and engineering, training may also include interdisciplinary projects across the natural sciences and engineering and the social sciences and health domains. [emphasis mine]

It sounds like a good idea but I’m not sure how an academic researcher is going to be able to teach a graduate student to commercialize projects. It takes me back to my comments about government bureaucrats making decisions about commercial applications for science research. From where will they be drawing their experience?