Tag Archives: PEN

Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation tidbits; TAPPI and the nanotechnology forestry conference in Alberta; a modern House of Wisdom

I caught only part of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) event, Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation, due to two factors. (1) I was busy posting here and so was late to the live webcast. (2) About an hour after I started watching, something (either my system choked or the Wilson Center facility was having difficulties or I lost broadband speed for some reason) happened and the live webcast became unwatchable.

This was an international collaborative project titled, Regulating Nanotechnologies in the EU and US. Researchers from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Chatham House, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), and PEN at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars worked together to produce a report, a briefing paper, and a slide presentation about their findings and recommendations that can be downloaded from here.

The Washington, DC presentation was yesterday (Sept. 23, 2009) at the Wilson Center facility. There were two panels and I missed the introduction for the first group but I did recognize the moderator, David Rejeski who’s PEN’s executive director. The discussion was about the report and the recommendations.

One of the more interesting bits was the mention of a discrepancy between the UK and EU food industries submissions to some sort of inquiry. The UK representative claimed there are 2 nano type food products on the market (in the UK, i.e. Europe) while in an earlier meeting elsewhere an EU representative claimed there are 20 such products on the market in Europe. No one was able to explain the discrepancy, which is troubling.

As for the participants in the project, there was general agreement that some sort of regulatory system needs to be developed quickly. Amongst other recommendations:

Voluntary reporting of the use and manufacture of nano materials should be made mandatory.
There should be a ‘technology label’ for food and cosmetic products that contain nanomaterials.
A global approach to nanotechnology regulation that draws together major players such as China and India, as well as many others, needs to be adopted.

There was some mention of Canada at one point. I believe the speaker was referring to an Environment Canada initiative, i.e. a one-time inventory of nanomaterials used in manufacturing products which is mandatory. (I commented on this matter in my Feb. 3, 4, and 6, 2009 postings.) I haven’t heard anything about their progress lately but it is used as an example of a mandatory nanotechnology inventory. Interestingly, they never mention that it is supposed to be one time only.

As for the second panel (moderated by Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor for PEN), this was oriented to some of the practicalities of introducing nano regulation into current regulatory environments. At least, I think that’s what it was about as things began to malfunction shortly after the introductions.

TAPPI (Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry) held a nanotechnology forestry conference in Alberta this last June. I should have mentioned it at the time but, trite as it is, better late than never. From today’s news item about the conference on Nanowerk,

More than 180 nanoscience experts from 12 countries met in June to discuss the potential of nano-enabled biomaterials. Held in Edmonton, AB, Canada, and co-sponsored by TAPPI and the Alberta Ingenuity Fund, the conference revealed developments for revolutionizing paper and wood products, as well as capturing sustainability-focused markets with bionanocomposites and capitalizing on wood-derived nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) and nanofibrillar cellulose (NFC).

The 2010 conference will be held in Helsinki, Finland.

The House of Wisdom existed from the 9th to 13th centuries CE (common era) in Baghdad. Originally intended as a library whose main purpose was for the translation of books from Persian into Arabic, the House of Wisdom became a centre for the study of the humanities and sciences that was unrivaled in its time. One of its great scholars (Al-Khawarizmi) is known as the ‘father of algebra’. They invented the library catalogue where books were organized according to subjects. Note: I was recently at the oldest library at Trinity College in Dublin and the guide mentioned that those books are organized on the shelves by size, weight, and the colour of their bindings. (I got my information about the House of Wisdom here in Wikipedia and from a Nanowerk Spotlight article by Michael Berger.)

I mention the House of Wisdom because of Berger’s article which uses it as a metaphor to discuss a modern attempt to recreate the ‘house’, this time, in Saudi Arabia. A new, 36 square kilometer, science/technology campus/city called the King Abdullah University for Science and Technology (KAUST) opened yesterday on Sept. 23, 2009.

From the article,

Much more than a future elite university, the vision behind KAUST is to create the nucleus of a modern society, free from the strict religious dictates of a conservative Islamic culture, and laying the foundation for a science and technology based society of future generations.

This sounds quite ambitious for a conservative Islamic country that doesn’t have public entertainment facilities such as cinemas or theaters – they are regarded as incompatible with Islam; where most schools have focused on religion much more than on science and other modern knowledge; and where a strict interpretation of Islam imposes many restrictions on women’s daily lives.

This all is supposed to change with mega projects like the $8bn Knowledge Economic City (KEC), the King Abdullah Economic City (KAEC) a $26.6 billion project that will generate more than 500,000 jobs upon completion in 2016; and nearby KAUST, intended to catapult Saudi Arabia’s education system into the 21st century and prepare its society for the time after oil. This move to a knowledge-based society is a top priority for the country – in 2009 alone, 25.7% of Saudi Arabia’s budget has been allocated to educational development.

As an oil-producing country, Saudi Arabia is getting ready for a time when there won’t be any left to pump out of the ground. Do read the article as there’s much more about the facilities which, according to Berger, “… will enable top-notch nanotechnology research.”

It reminds me a little of the situation in Alberta where they are currently trying to extract oil from sand only because the oil that was easy to access is almost gone while heavily investing in emerging advanced technologies such as nanotechnology.

Alberta and Texas collaborate on nanotechnology and greenish energy; a meta analysis of public perceptions of nanotechnology risks; how scientists think

3 Replies

The Premier of Alberta (Canada), Ed Stelmach, has signed a memorandum of understanding with Rice University (Texas, US) President, David Leebron, to collaborate through nanoAlberta (Alberta Advanced Education and Technology) and the Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science and Technology (Rice University). The two institutions will collaborate in the energy, environmental, medical, agriculture, and forestry sectors. From the news item on Azonano,

Wade Adams, director of the Smalley Institute, said the interests of nanoAlberta and those of his team at Rice are perfectly aligned. “We want to help them figure out how to extract oil from their resources in a more environmentally friendly way, a more efficient way and one that will cause less damage to their own territory as well as provide oil for the needs of the human race, as they become a more important source of it.”

When I read the title for the item I thought they were referring to green or bio fuels but, as you can see from the quote, the intention is altogether different. From a pragmatic perspective, since we have to depend on fossil fuels for a while longer, it’s best if we can find more environmentally friendly ways to extract it while developing other renewable sources.

This reminds me of the recent invite I received from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) for the Perverse Incentives: The Untold Story of Federal Subsidies for Fossil Fuels event held on Sept. 18, 2009. Unfortunately, the webcast isn’t available quite yet but I think that in light of this memorandum it could be interesting viewing and might provide a critical perspective on the initiative.

PEN is holding another somewhat related event on Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009 at 12:30 pm EST, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology, and Biofuels: What does the public think? If you’re in Washington, DC, you can attend the event live but you should RSVP here, otherwise there’s a live webcast which is posted a few days later on their website. (There’s a PEN event tomorrow, Sept. 23, 2009 at 12 pm to 2:30 pm EST, titled Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies. If you wish to attend the live event, you can RSVP using the link I’ve posted previously. If you’re interested in this event, in June I posted a more complete description of it here.)

One more Canadian development on the nanotechnology front, a meta analysis of 22 surveys on public perceptions of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology has been published at Nature Online as of Sept. 20, 2009. The article (lead author from the University of British Columbia, Canada) is behind a paywall but you can read more about it in the news item on Nanowerk (from the news item),

Previous studies have found that new and unknown technologies such as biotechnology tend to be regarded as risky, but that’s not the case for nanotechnology, according to this research. People who thought nanotechnology had more benefits than risks outnumbered those who perceived greater risks by 3 to 1 in this study. The 44 percent of people who didn’t have an opinion either way surprised the researchers. “You don’t normally get that reluctance,” says Terre Satterfield of the University of British Columbia in Canada, lead author of the study and a collaborator with CNS-UCSB [Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California, Santa Barbara].

In almost three years of scanning, I don’t think I’ve ever seen two announcements that both feature a Canadian nanotechnology development of sorts. This is a banner day!

Topping today off, I’m going to segue into How Scientists Think. It’s a paper about how scientists creatively problem solve. From the news item on Physorg.com,

Her [Dr. Nancy J. Nersessian] study of the working methods of scientists helps in understanding how class and instructional laboratory settings can be improved to foster creativity, and how new teaching methods can be developed based on this understanding. These methods will allow science students to master model-based reasoning approaches to problem solving and open the field to many more who do not think of themselves as traditional “scientists.”

I’ve been interested in how scientists think because I’ve been trying to understand why the communication with ‘non scientists’ can be so poor. To some extent I think it is cultural. After years of training in special skills and a special language, scientists are members of a unique occupational culture, which has given birth to many, many subcultures. People who are immersed in their own cultures don’t always realize that the rest of us may not understand what they’re saying very well. (Try reading art criticism if you don’t have an understanding of art history and critical theory.) That’s my short answer and, one of these days, I’m going to write a paper with my long answer.

I had every intention of writing another part of my science communication series today but I have a couple of projects to start or finish and these series postings take more time than I have to spare.

Science communication in Canada (part 2)

3 Replies

Today I’m going to discuss science journalism. There’s not a lot of science journalism as the Science Day report notes,

In communicating science issues, the media fall far short. Science-focused stories rarely make the news in Canada, and when they do, often fail to adequately explain either the science or its significance. It seems that Canadian news editors and producers assume that the public considers science uninteresting or complicated. The European media, in contrast, appreciating that science can hold readers’ and viewers’ attention, routinely cover science news. Scientists, for their part, too often do not engage the world beyond their labs and institutes. When they do venture out, they sometimes fail to succinctly convey the gist or broader relevance of their research to the public, industry and government.

Contrary to the media’s assumptions, a surprisingly large number of Canadians share a keen interest in science. When conveyed properly, science news can capture the public’s imagination. And scientists are perfectly capable of conveying science to a wide audience.

I also found out recently that science journalism is not science communication; that field was described to me (by a member of the School of Journalism at the University of British Columbia) as public relations and marketing. Interesting, non? I view science communication more broadly but I can understand why it’s viewed that way. First, communication departments are often charged with public relations, media relations, and/or marketing communication initiatives. (Note: I don’t know if it’s still true but 15 years ago people in communication departments viewed their roles as distinct from public relations and/or marketing communication. Personally, I always found the lines to be blurry.) Second, there is a longstanding snobbery about public relations, communication, etc. in the journalism community.

Getting back to science journalism, I think pretty anyone will agree that there’s not much coverage of the science scene in Canada. You’re not going find many science stories in your local papers or on the radio and tv unless you make a special effort. In terms of general science magazines that are not being issued by a government agency, only two spring to mind. SEED and Yes Mag for Children and unfortunately I’ve never seen either magazine on the news stands. As for broadcast programmes, there’s SPARK and Quirks and Quarks on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Radio and Daily Planet on the Discovery Channel (a Canadian offshoot station of a US television channel). SPACE: the imagination station (another offshoot of a US television channel [Syfy] which focuses on science fiction and fantasy) does cover the odd science story but they insert the news bits between programming and I’ve never been able to discern a schedule. Please let me know if I’ve missed anything.

I’d like to note is that the term science story also includes medical stories, health stories, and environment stories which members of the news media believe are of much interest to the general public (and even they don’t get great coverage). The consequence is that other sciences tend to get short shrift in the competition for news coverage when there are so few outlets.

I will have more next week on this. In the meantime, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) has a new event coming up on Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009 at 12:30 pm EST in Washington, DC. The event is titled, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology, and Biofuels: What does the public think? If you’re in Washington, DC and want to attend, you can RSVP here or there will be both a live webcast and a posted webcast after the event, no RSVP required.

Finally, Rob Annan (Don’t leave Canada behind) is digging deeper into the issue of entrepreneurship in Canada and how we can nurture it here. He also provides some resources that you may want to check out or you may want to let him know of your network.

Preston Manning Interview (part 2 of 2); Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Events; ASTC Conference

1 Reply

Here are three (yesterday, I mistakenly said there would be two) more of Mr. Manning’s answers,

Do you know of any areas where Canadians are leading in science and technical innovations?

Some of the areas where Canada is at the leading edge in science and technology include cellular communications and genetic science (Toronto), space technology and robotics (the Canada Space Agency, the Canadarm, etc.), immunology and disease control (Winnipeg), in situ oil recovery (Ft. McMurray and Calgary), etc. The Canadian scientists who have won Nobel prizes also indicate some of the areas where Canada has led or is leading in science.

In your speech you mention the macro level for allocating science funds and make some suggestions for the Science and Technology Innovation Council regarding a more transparent and open process for decisionmaking and developing a structure and set of principles. (a) I’m surprised this hasn’t been done before! (b) How would you operationalize (or implement) your suggestion if asked to do so?

My suggestion was that the federal government through Industry Canada direct the Science, Technology, and Innovation Council (STIC) to make clear the structure, processes, and principles upon which funds are allocated.

Here is the last question,

This one is on a somewhat different topic. I understand that you are still a member of the NINT board. (Please do correct me if this information is incorrect.) What is your view on the Canada nanotechnology scene given that unlike many countries (US, China, Saudi Arabia, Denmark, Germany, Russia, etc.) have nanotechnology initiatives/policies, Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance has shut its doors, NanoTech BC is struggling for existence, and NINT has gone through an identity change (it no longer has its own website or unique identity online)?

With respect to the current state of nano-science and nanotechnology in Canada, you would have to consult experts in this field to get a definitive answer. But it is my impression from my exposure to the National Institute for Nanotechnology at the University of Alberta that modest but steady progress is being made. I think it is important to distinguish between the media and public-relations hype which invariably surrounds a new science and technology, and over-promises, and the reality of the slow and painstaking step-by-step progress of the development of any science or technology.

Thank you Mr. Manning for taking the time to answer my questions. The answer to the last question is particularly interesting to me (given the purpose for this blog) and certainly bears out some of my own experience. There is much hype but the real work is ‘slow and painstaking’. Mr. Manning will be a keynote speaker, along with Gary Goodyear, Minister of State for Science and Technology, at the Canadian Science Policy Conference on Oct. 28 – 30, 2009 in Toronto. Details of the conference here.

I got this information from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) but it seems to be a Wilson Center event more than anything else. NOTE: The times listed are EDT.

On September 18th the Wilson Center and Environmental Law Institute will release new data on the flow of energy (in BTUs) and the flow of dollars (in terms of subsidies) through the U.S. economy. We hope you can join us for:

Perverse Incentives: The Untold Story of Federal Subsidies to Fossil Fuels

The ongoing debates about biofuels, cap and trade legislation, and paths to energy independence have focused public attention on energy and climate issues like never before, with policymakers taking a heightened interest in renewable energy and its economic viability. Against this backdrop, the Environmental Law Institute and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars have completed a comprehensive study of federal subsidies to fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Our data reveal surprising facts about where public funds are going and how our current energy policy may actually undermine the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Join us on September 18, 2009, from 9 a.m.-11 a.m. in the 5th floor conference room at the Woodrow Wilson Center as we discuss our findings and their implications for future energy and climate change policy. The event will also be webcast live at www.wilsoncenter.org.

A light breakfast will be served starting at 8:30 a.m.

To attend this event, RSVP to

mcmurrin@eli.org.

No RSVP is required to view the webcast.

There’s another event, one I’ve mentioned before, on Sept. 23, 2009 on Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies. I have the details here in my June 30, 2009 posting. As usual with a PEN event, there will be a webcast (12 – 2:30 pm EDT) or if you’re going to the live event, you can RSVP here.

The ASTC (Association of Science and Technology Centers) is having its conference Oct. 31 – Nov. 3, 2009 in Fort Worth Texas. NISE Net (Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network) will be hosting a few events and is offering nine conference sessions. From the NISE Net newsletter, here are the conference sessions,

Interpreting the Nanoworld through Juggling, Drama, Art, and Media

Public Engagement with Science and Technology Policy: How Far Should We Go?

Making the Invisible Visible: Visualizing Emerging Science with Artists

Dimensions of Public Engagement: Finding Your Footing in a Paradigm Shift

Public Impact Results for the Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE) Network

Creative Programming and Current Science Learning

Sustainable Diversity Workshop: Conversation and Tools for Inclusivity

Science Alliance: Advancing Science Communication by Bridging Diverse Organizations

Public Engagement in Current Science and Global Issues

Wish I could go (and the Canadian Science Policy conference too). ASTC conference details can be found here.

I should also mention that the online consultation for Canadian copyright is drawing to a close on Sept. 13, 2009. If you are interested in making a submission, you can go here.

Let’s close the week with some nano haiku. From the NISE Net newsletter,

Nano, oh nano
With surface area so
Small, but big impact

by Keith Ostfeld of the Children’s Museum of Houston.

Happy weekend!

Preston Manning Interview (part 1 of 2) and PEN’s nanotechnology product inventory

6 Replies

After my informal series on innovation in Canada (July 13 – 15, 2009), I contacted Mr. Preston Manning as I mentioned his speech at Science Day in Canada (Ottawa) on May 27, 2009 in the context of the series and asked him some questions which he has kindly answered. For the introduction, I have taken the liberty of copying some biographical information about Mr. Manning from his website, the Manning Centre for Building Democracy,

Mr. Manning served as a Member of the Canadian Parliament from 1993 to 2001. He founded two new political parties – the Reform Party of Canada and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance – both of which became the official Opposition in the Canadian Parliament. Mr. Manning served as Leader of the Opposition from 1997 to 2000 and was also his party’s critic for Science and Technology. In 2007 he was made a Companion of the Order of Canada.

Since retirement from Parliament in 2002, Mr. Manning has released a book entitled Think Big (published by McClelland & Stewart) describing his use of the tools and institutions of democracy to change Canada’s national agenda. He has also served as a Senior Fellow of the Canada West Foundation and as a Distinguished Visitor at the University of Calgary and University of Toronto. He is a member of the Institute of Corporate Directors and is an Institute Certified Corporate Director.

He is also according to the National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT) a member of their board.

In your May 27, 2009 speech you mentioned that Canada’s beginnings are based in science and technology as per the establishment of the Geological Survey of Canada. This contrasts with the line of thought which suggests that Canadians have always been “drawers of water and hewers of wood” as per Harold Adams Innis’ staples theory. Can you reconcile these two views or do you consider them to be competing views? And why do you hold this opinion?

It’s true that Canada, particularly in the beginning, had a resource-based economy (Innis’ theory). But it is also true that Canada made a very early commitment to science and technology through establishing the Geological Survey of Canada. The Survey identified the water, wood, and other natural resources that Innis’ theory focuses on.

There are two more questions and answers from this interview which will be posted tomorrow. Meanwhile, I’ve been getting information from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) about various upcoming events (more about those tomorrow) and about their product inventory. From the news release about the product inventory,

Over 1,000 nanotechnology-enabled products have been made available to consumers around the world, according to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). The most recent update to the group’s three-and-a-half-year-old inventory reflects the increasing use of the tiny particles in everything from conventional products like non-stick cookware and lighter, stronger tennis racquets, to more unique items such as wearable sensors that monitor posture.
“The use of nanotechnology in consumer products continues to grow rapidly,” says PEN Director David Rejeski. “When we launched the inventory in March 2006 we only had 212 products. If the introduction of new products continues at the present rate, the number of products listed in the inventory will reach close to 1,600 within the next two years. This will provide significant oversight challenges for agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission, which often lack any mechanisms to identify nanotech products before they enter the marketplace.”
Health and fitness items continue to dominate the PEN inventory, representing 60 percent of products listed. More products are based on nanoscale silver—used for its antimicrobial properties—than any other nanomaterial; 259 products (26 percent of the inventory) use silver nanoparticles. The updated inventory represents products from over 24 countries, including the US, China, Canada, and Germany. This update also identifies products that were previously available, but for which there is no current information.

You can view the rest of the news release here and you can view the inventory here. It’s interesting to see that so many(60%) products have silver nanoparticles which have been a matter of great concern regarding their impact on humans and other species as they enter the water supply. One note, the inventory includes products that may no longer be on the market.

One last bit before I sign off for today, I went to a luncheon welcoming a new dean (Dr. Cheryl Geisler) for a new faculty, the Faculty of Communication, Art, and Technology, at Simon Fraser University (SFU in Vancouver, Canada). They’ve taken a disparate group of departments and schools housed in different faculties to create this new faculty and Geisler is the founding or inaugural dean.

The audience was a mix of SFU brass (academic, administrative, and board of governors types) with business interests (Boeing, IBM, and the local business media guy, Peter Ladner) and the arts community (Max Wyman, Christopher Gaze, Terry Hunter, and Dalannah Gail Bowen) along with many others whom I did not recognize.

In her speech, Geisler did a good job of bringing together the disparate pieces of her portfolio and emphasizing her interest and belief in community both internally and externally to the university. She lost focus a few times, notably towards the end of the speech portion and during the ‘town hall’ portion of her presentation. I think maintaining focus is going to be one her biggest challenges since in addition to the disparate groups being united in the new faculty (being called FCAT for short) her portfolio is spread on multiple campuses (Burnaby mountain, Harbour Centre, Surrey, and the new Woodward’s building in the downtown eastside). I hope to have more from Geisler soon as she has indicated she’ll give me an interview for this blog.

The geography of US nanotechnology institutions and enterprises; nanoparticle hazards

1 Reply

Every state (and the District of Columbia) in the US has been “nanoteched.” The Project on Emerging Nanotechnology (PEN) has just released information that they have listed over 1200 (an increase of 50% since the last data gathering project 2 years ago) universities, government laboratories, and businesses that are involved in nanotechnology research, development, and commercialization. They have also produced an interactive map to display the information. (media release on Azonano and also on Nanowerk News where they include an editorial note that their directory has over 1600 nanotechnology agencies listed)

Sadly, later this week the European Respiratory Journal will be publishing a paper that examines the deaths of two female workers in China who worked with and were exposed to nanoparticles over a period of 13 months. Azonano has posted what I suspect is a media advisory that Dr. Kristen Kulinowski of Rice University and director of the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON) is available to answer for questions about the paper. Kulinowski and ICON have been instrumental in the development of the GoodNanoGuide (still in beta), a wiki featuring safe handling procedures for nanomaterials. From Azonano,

The paper to be published by the European Respiratory Journal this week examines the case of seven female workers, ages 18-47, who were exposed for up to 13 months to nanoparticles in a polyacrylate material air-sprayed onto polystyrene. All suffered shortness of breath and pleural effusions, an excess of fluid in the pleural cavity that surrounds the lungs, and were admitted to hospitals where examinations revealed nanoparticles in chest fluid and lodged in cells. The women who died were 19 and 29.

According to Kulinowski, a “conventional chemical hygiene plan” could have afforded protection to the workers.

Transatlantic nanotechnology, kids learning about nano, and a bit about Playboy bunnies

2 Replies

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) will be hosting an event in September 2009,

Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

September 23, 2009

Nanotechnology will impact our lives on a global scale. Over the past year experts from the London School of Economics (LSE), Chatham House, Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies have been examining issues of transatlantic regulatory cooperation.

The main purpose of this event is to discuss recommendations from this research effort that are part of a forthcoming report by LSE and ELI being published by Chatham House. It also is aimed at generating and examining new ideas to enable greater transatlantic cooperation on nanotechnology oversight today and in the future.

The forthcoming report will be launched in the European Union at Chatham House, London UK, September 10 – 11, 2009.

If you can get to PEN’s event in Washington, DC, registration is here. (If you can’t get to Washington, the event will be webcast, live and also archived for later viewing). As for the London event, you can go here to the London School of Economics for more details. Or you can register for it by emailing: Ms. Carmen Gayoso (nanotech@lse.ac.uk)

I’d heard of the Nano Brothers before but, until this morning, I’d never seen their act. It’s part of a clip from a kid’s PBS series (dragonflytv) where the two hostesses (Ebony and Jasmine) investigate nanotechnology and what the measurement one billionth of a metre actually means. There’s a transcript and a clip here.

Physorg.com alerted me to this tidbit. The Lower Key Marsh rabbit in Florida was declared an endangered species in 1990, today there are fewer than 300 rabbits, which are also known as Playboy Bunnies (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri). They are subspecies of marsh rabbit named to honor Hugh Hefner after his organization donated money to support field research. There are more details in the media release on physorg.com here.

credit: Rosanna Tursi (downloaded from physorg.com)

Good on Hugh Hefner and it was smart of the researchers to find a new way to publicize their bunny’s plight.

Entanglement issues and open source synthetic biology

2 Replies

According to current thought, entanglement makes quantum computing possible and the more of it you have, the more powerful the quantum computing. Scientists, David Goss at the Institute of Mathematical Physics in Braunschweig, Germany; S. T. Flammia at the Perimter Institute in Waterloo, Canada; and Jens Eisert at the University of Postdam, Germany) have recently published findings which suggest that there is such a thing as too much entanglement. There’s more in the article on physorg.com including this description of entanglement,

Entanglement, explains both Eisert and Gross, represents correlations in behavior. One system is related to another on a global scale, each affecting the other. In quantum computing, the way systems are entangled – correlated – can help scientists perform powerful computational tasks. However, entanglement is about more than just correlations. “Entanglement introduces a certain randomness into the system,” Gross says. “This randomness appears in the measurement outcomes. However, as the entanglement goes up, so does the randomness. When entanglement increases to a certain point, there is so much randomness that the system ends up being about as useful as coins tossed into the air. You don’t get any useful information.”

Now onto synthetic biology. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) has a June 17, 2009 event (9:30 am to 10:30 am PST) titled, Synthetic Biology: Feasibility of the Open Source Movement.

According to the website description, this event is about IP issues and synthetic biology. From the website,

Will this open source movement succeed? Are life sciences companies ready for open source? What level of intellectual property (IP) protection is necessary to secure industry and venture capital involvement and promote innovation? And does open source raise broader social issues? On June 17, a panel of representatives from various sectors will discuss the major challenges to future IP developments related to synthetic biology, identify key steps to addressing these challenges, and examine a number of current tensions surrounding issues of use and ownership.

The focus will be on US law, which is significantly different than Canadian law but if you’re interested, there will likely be a webcast posted on their site afterward or if you’re in Washington, DC, you can RSVP here to attend.

Nanotech BC scoop: part 2 interview with Victor Jones

4 Replies

The next part of the interview focuses on just how many companies in Canada could be defined as selling nanotechnology-based products and Jones’ role with Nanotech BC. He also provides more information about the organization’s projects.

(3) How big is the nanotechnology industry in BC? and in Canada? i.e. how many companies?

BC HAS ABOUT 15 CO; ALBERTA CLAIMS ABOUT 40 CO AND THEN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC HAVE A SIMILAR NUMBER EACH.   BUT BC ALSO HAS A LARGE ~~ 120 OR SO – RESEARCHERS – RESEARCH EFFORT COVERING A DIVERSE AREAS OF ADVANCED MATERIALS, COATINGS; LAB ON A CHIP, QUANTUM PHYSICS, DRUG DELIVERY AND NANO BIO WORK ON-GOING.   MOST OF THIS IS STILL IN LABS AT UBC – AMPEL;   ALSO SFU – 4D LABS AND UVIC HAS SOME EXCELLENT WORK TOO. E.G. ONE BC COMPANY IS   A LEADER IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A QUANTUM COMPUTER. ONE SPECIALIZES IN COATINGS….ETC.

NANO IS NOT AN INDUSTRY – IT IS A BROAD ENABLING TECHNOLOGY – A GENERAL PURPOSE TECHNOLOGY ( GPT) AND THEREFORE GETS EMBEDDED INTO A RANGE OF PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES WHERE MANIPULATION OF MATTER AT THE ATOMIC SCALE ENABLES MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PROCESSES NOT OTHERWISE ACHIEVABLE.   SO FAR MOST OF THE MATERIALS ARE FINDING APPLICATION IN COATINGS, TEXTILES; COMPOSITE MATERIALS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS E.G. SUNCREEN/ HAIR CARE.; ADVANCED ELECTRONICS….   SEE THE WOODROW WILSON PROJECT ON EMERGING NANOTECHNOLOGIES. (here) ADOPTION TIMES FOR NEW MATERIALS ARE OFTEN YEARS IN THE MAKING, BUT SOME 800 PRODUCTS USING NMATERIALS ARE IN THE MARKET NOW.

(3) Can you tell me about your role with Nanotech BC given its current situation? I’ve seen your website and am wondering if you might be able to tell me a little more about what you do professionally.

I AM NO LONGER A BOARD MEMBER SO I HAVE NO OFFICIAL CAPACITY WITH NANOTECH BC NOR DO I SPEAK FOR THE ORGANIZATION. OF COURSE I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION BUT NOW REFER ENQUIRIES TO MICHAEL ALLDRITT – DIRECTOR – AT NRC-IRAP WHO HAS BEEN A GREAT SUPPORTER OF THE PROJECT GOING BACK TO 2001.

I CONTINUE TO DO CONSULTING IN THE ARENA OF CANADIAN STANDARDS WORK ON NANOMATERIALS AND ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT OF WWW.GOODNANOGUIDE.ORG.   THIS WEBSITE WAS A CONCEPT OF ICON ( RICE U) WHICH WAS ASSISTED THROUGH NANOTECH BC AND OTHER CANADIAN ORGANIZATIONS AS I ARRANGED THE FUNDING FOR THE BETA STAGE. IT IS NOW OPEN TO WORLD INVOLVEMENT IN SHARING PROTOCOLS FOR THE SAFE HANDLING OF NANOMATERIALS.   MY ROLE WITH THE ICON COMMITTEE WAS TO ROUND UP THE CANADIAN FUNDING TO REACH THIS STAGE AND AS A MEMBER OF THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE WORK THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE FUNCTIONALITIES. THIS PROJECT CONTINUES AND IS INTERNATIONAL IN SCOPE WITH AN EXCELLENT COMMITTEE. – REPS FROM NIOSH EPA ETC…   AS OHS PROCESSES WILL BE KEY TO BOTH RESEARCHER/ INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF NANOMATERIAL ENABLED PRODUCTS   I EXPECT INTEREST IN THE SITE AS A SOURCE FOR OHS INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC AND SPECIALISTS TO GROW. (OHS = Occupational Health and Safety)

If I read Jones’ response correctly, we have almost 100 companies in Canada that are producing nano-enabled products. I’m not sure I worded that sentence so well but point well taken about the nonexistence of a nanotechnology industry (as I referred to it in my question) per se. One of the difficulties writing about nanotechnology is its rather amorphous quality. I made some comments along with other people on Andrew Maynard’s blog (2020 Science) about these difficulties.

I did not realize that BC hosts a company which is a leader in quantum computers. That’s pretty exciting stuff as is the work on occupational health and safety. Part 3 of the interview will be posted on Monday, May 18, 2009.

Some scoop on what happened to Nanotech BC: part 1 of an interview with Victor Jones

FrogHeart

Commentary about nanotech, science policy and communication, society, and the arts