Tag Archives: United Kingdom

Brain-like computing with optical fibres

Leave a reply

Researchers from Singapore and the United Kingdom are exploring an optical fibre approach to brain-like computing (aka neuromorphic computing) as opposed to approaches featuring a memristor or other devices such as a nanoionic device that I’ve written about previously. A March 10, 2015 news item on Nanowerk describes this new approach,

Computers that function like the human brain could soon become a reality thanks to new research using optical fibres made of speciality glass.

…

Researchers from the Optoelectronics Research Centre (ORC) at the University of Southampton, UK, and Centre for Disruptive Photonic Technologies (CDPT) at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, have demonstrated how neural networks and synapses in the brain can be reproduced, with optical pulses as information carriers, using special fibres made from glasses that are sensitive to light, known as chalcogenides.

“The project, funded under Singapore’s Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) Advanced Optics in Engineering programme, was conducted within The Photonics Institute (TPI), a recently established dual institute between NTU and the ORC.”

A March 10, 2015 University of Southampton press release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, describes the nature of the problem that the scientists are trying address (Note: A link has been removed),

Co-author Professor Dan Hewak from the ORC, says: “Since the dawn of the computer age, scientists have sought ways to mimic the behaviour of the human brain, replacing neurons and our nervous system with electronic switches and memory. Now instead of electrons, light and optical fibres also show promise in achieving a brain-like computer. The cognitive functionality of central neurons underlies the adaptable nature and information processing capability of our brains.”

In the last decade, neuromorphic computing research has advanced software and electronic hardware that mimic brain functions and signal protocols, aimed at improving the efficiency and adaptability of conventional computers.

However, compared to our biological systems, today’s computers are more than a million times less efficient. Simulating five seconds of brain activity takes 500 seconds and needs 1.4 MW of power, compared to the small number of calories burned by the human brain.

Using conventional fibre drawing techniques, microfibers can be produced from chalcogenide (glasses based on sulphur) that possess a variety of broadband photoinduced effects, which allow the fibres to be switched on and off. This optical switching or light switching light, can be exploited for a variety of next generation computing applications capable of processing vast amounts of data in a much more energy-efficient manner.

Co-author Dr Behrad Gholipour explains: “By going back to biological systems for inspiration and using mass-manufacturable photonic platforms, such as chalcogenide fibres, we can start to improve the speed and efficiency of conventional computing architectures, while introducing adaptability and learning into the next generation of devices.”

By exploiting the material properties of the chalcogenides fibres, the team led by Professor Cesare Soci at NTU have demonstrated a range of optical equivalents of brain functions. These include holding a neural resting state and simulating the changes in electrical activity in a nerve cell as it is stimulated. In the proposed optical version of this brain function, the changing properties of the glass act as the varying electrical activity in a nerve cell, and light provides the stimulus to change these properties. This enables switching of a light signal, which is the equivalent to a nerve cell firing.

The research paves the way for scalable brain-like computing systems that enable ‘photonic neurons’ with ultrafast signal transmission speeds, higher bandwidth and lower power consumption than their biological and electronic counterparts.

Professor Cesare Soci said: “This work implies that ‘cognitive’ photonic devices and networks can be effectively used to develop non-Boolean computing and decision-making paradigms that mimic brain functionalities and signal protocols, to overcome bandwidth and power bottlenecks of traditional data processing.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Amorphous Metal-Sulphide Microfibers Enable Photonic Synapses for Brain-Like Computing by Behrad Gholipour, Paul Bastock, Chris Craig, Khouler Khan, Dan Hewak. and Cesare Soci. Advanced Optical Materials DOI: 10.1002/adom.201400472
Article first published online: 15 JAN 2015

© 2015 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

This article is behind a paywall.

For anyone interested in memristors and nanoionic devices, here are a few posts (from this blog) to get you started:

Memristors, memcapacitors, and meminductors for faster computers (June 30, 2014)

This second one offers more details and links to previous pieces,

Memristor, memristor! What is happening? News from the University of Michigan and HP Laboratories (June 25, 2014)

This post is more of a survey including memristors, nanoionic devices, ‘brain jelly, and more,

Brain-on-a-chip 2014 survey/overview (April 7, 2014)

One comment, this brain-on-a-chip is not to be confused with ‘organs-on-a-chip’ projects which are attempting to simulate human organs (Including the brain) so chemicals and drugs can be tested.

Safe Work Australia’s two new reports, Europe’s Nanodevice project, and the UK’s HSE nanomaterials handling

Leave a reply

Over the last few weeks in March (2013), there was a sudden burst of health and safety reports and initiatives released by Safe Work Australia, the European Commission’s Nanodevice project, and the UK’s Health and Safety Executive, respectively.

According to a Mar. 19, 2013 news item on Nanowerk, Safe Work Australia released two reports (Note: Links have been removed),

Safe Work Australia Chair Ann Sherry AO today released two research reports examining nanotechnology work health and safety issues.

The reports: Investigating the emissions of nanomaterials from composites and other solid articles during machining process and Evaluation of potential safety (physicochemical) hazards associated with the use of engineered nanomaterials are part of a comprehensive program of work on nanotechnology safety managed by Safe Work Australia which started in 2007.

The March 18, 2013 Safe Work Australia media release, which originated the news item,  provides some information about the approaches and models being used to analyse and develop policies,

In releasing the reports Ms Sherry noted the perceived safety risks of nanomaterials and that a precautionary approach is being taken by the Commonwealth towards nanomaterials under the National Enabling Technologies Strategy.“

While the risk to human health and safety from a number of these materials and applications is low some nanomaterials are potentially more hazardous, for example carbon nanotubes,” Ms Sherry said.

“The National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) has recommended carbon nanotubes be classified as suspected carcinogens unless product-specific evidence suggests otherwise.”

Under the model Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws all duties which apply to the handling of materials and to technologies in general also apply to nanomaterials and nanotechnologies. Minimisation of exposure to nanomaterials at work is essential until there is sufficient data to rule out hazardous properties. Research has shown if conventional engineering controls are designed and maintained effectively, exposure to nanomaterials can be significantly reduced.

As a result of the findings of these reports Safe Work Australia will prepare guidance material on combustible dust hazards including nanomaterials.

Here’s more about the reports (from their respective webpages),

Investigating the emissions of nanomaterials from composites and other solid articles during machining processes

This report by CSIRO considers the potential health risk of emissions from machining processes.

The report finds that significant quantities of material, which can present health risk, are emitted from composites by high energy machining processes like cutting with an electric disc saw or band saw. If the composite contains a hazardous nanomaterial, the health risk from the dust may be higher. Lower energy processes like manual cutting will result in lower exposures and lower potential health risk.

Evaluation of potential safety hazards associated with the use of engineered nanomaterials

This report by Toxikos Pty Ltd examines safety hazards associated with engineered nanomaterials and the implications in regard to workers safety.

The report finds that dust clouds of some engineered nanomaterials could give rise to strong explosions if the dust cloud contains a high enough concentration of nanomaterials and if an ignition source is also present. The report gives examples of these. However in a well-managed workplace, emissions from nanotechnology processes will be very significantly below the minimum dust concentration needed for an explosion.

A Mar. 20, 2013 news item on Nanowerk focused on the European Commission’s Nanodevice project,

European researchers in the Nanodevice project are investigating the safety aspects of nanomaterial production. Their plan laid down in 2009 was to develop new concepts, reliable methods and portable devices for detecting, analysing and monitoring airborne ENMs in the workplace. The latest feedback from the team suggests the project has delivered on its promise.

The project has concluded work on seven new ‘nanodevices’, which have been calibrated and tested for use in work environments exposed to nanoparticles. This work, alongside findings from materials studies and research into the association between ENM properties and their biological impacts, will appear in a new nanosafety handbook, called “Safe handling of manufactured nanomaterials: particle measurement exposure assessment and risk management”.

Complex research like this calls for an integrated, multidisciplinary approach,” confirms Nanodevice’s project leader, Dr Kai Savolainen of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.

What makes this particular health and safety project special is the focus on affordable monitoring for small and medium-size companies,

With affordable, portable equipment, even small companies can regularly measure their workers’ exposure to potentially harmful particles. When compared with a growing body of data from other workplaces, a more accurate assessment of risk and occupational health and safety emerges.

Prior to Nanodevice’s portable solutions, regular nanosafety checks could cost up to €200 000. The instrumentation hauled in from outside weighed hundreds of kilos and needed several experts to gather and analyse data from multiple sites. Big companies could afford this, but Europe’s important SME sector struggled with the cost.

“We’ve developed devices like a personal nanoparticle monitor for less than €200 that almost any company can afford and quickly learn to use,” says Dr Savolainen. Worn by a worker, the system collects exposure information, but needs to be plugged into a computer to download the data. This is not ideal, so Nanodevice is keen to develop this into a real-time sensing and monitoring device linked to the internet and databases.

“Today, lack of ‘big’ accurate data makes it hard to know if exposure values are too low,” explains Dr Savolainen, “so our work helps the scientific community build a large database on exposure levels in the working environment.” This means companies, regulators and stakeholders will have access to reliable information from which to base risk-assessment decisions and develop standards for occupational exposure levels for different types of ENMs.

“Thanks to our work, the ‘big picture’ is that people won’t have to be concerned about lack of information on exposure levels. This reduces uncertainty about ENM safety and fosters more innovation in nanosciences in general,” he concludes.

You can find out more about the Nanodevice project here.

Finally, the UK’s Health and Safety Executive released a guidance (I think we’d call them guidelines here in Canada) according to a Mar. 28, 2013 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

The UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has released a new guidance (“Using nanomaterials at work”; pdf)that describes how to control occupational exposure to manufactured nanomaterials in the workplace. It will help you understand what you need to do to comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) (as amended) when you work with these substances.

There’s more information about the guidance on the Using nanomaterials at work webpage where you can also find the document,

If you work with nanomaterials this guidance will help you protect your employees. If you run a medium-sized or large business, where decisions about controlling hazardous substances are more complex, you may also need professional advice. This guidance will also be useful for trade union and employee health and safety representatives.

This guidance is specifically about the manufacture and manipulation of all manufactured nanomaterials, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and other bio-persistent high aspect ratio nanomaterials (HARNs). It has been prepared in response to emerging evidence about the toxicity of these materials.

The control principles described can be applied to all nanomaterials used in the workplace. Any differences in the approach between control of CNTs and other bio-persistent HARNs to any other type of nanomaterials are highlighted in the text.

For anyone who wants a direct link to the guidance, go here.

Science and politicians in the UK

1 Reply

There’s an interesting post by scientist Emily Nurse about her experience shadowing British MP (member of Parliament), Gavin Barwell. From the Five things I learnt when shadowing an MP posting on The Guardian science blog, Life and Physics,

I was paired [as part of the Royal Societies Pairing Scheme programme] with Gavin Barwell, the new conservative MP for Croydon central. I applied for the scheme with the hope to educate myself about how political decisions about science are made, and to understand how us scientists can become more involved. The first part of the scheme consisted of a week in Westminster, two days of tours and talks about Science in government and parliament, then two days shadowing our respective pairs. The second part will involve reciprocal visits where the MPs/civil servants shadow their pairs for a day or two.

She notes five things she learned, I’m excerpting the three that I think are the most salient from a Canadian perspective,

1. There are a lot of scientific governmental and parliamentary bodies!

The ones we learnt about include: Chief Scientific Advisors Committee, Science Advisory Councils and Committees, Council for Science and Technology, Science and Engineering Advice in Emergencies (SAGE), Science and Engineering Assurance programme (SEA), Foresight Projects, Foresight Horizon scanning, the House of Commons and House of Lords Select Committees, House of Commons Library, The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)… etc! Wow… and, to be honest, I’m still very hazy on the subtle differences between them all.

2. The Science and Technology Select Committees really do look into how well government deals with scientific issues.

I sat in on one of their meetings dealing with an enquiry into “Scientific advice and evidence in emergencies” where they discussed how well prepared the government was in the volcanic ash crisis, whether decisions were evidence based, etc. See here for the transcript. What’s more, I learnt that it is possible for scientists to influence these enquiries by responding to calls for evidence or even making suggestions for enquiry topics. Good to know.

5. Some politicians really do see the value in science.

In the recent spending review the science budget was protected, in flat cash terms at least. It seems the government ring-fenced the budget in a realisation of the importance science plays in the economic growth of our country. I asked Gavin if politicians also valued the bigger picture too, science is not just about short-term economic gain but about advancing humanity on a global and very long term scale. Gavin certainly gets this, and I think some other politicians do too. During the week Gavin’s colleague Nicola Blackwood MP for Oxford West and Abingdon managed to secure a Westminster Hall debate on Science Research. A full transcript of the debate can be found here, in general it was extremely positive for science.

I thought points 2 and 5 helped me to better understand the importance of Preston Manning’s comment about scientists and politicians in Canada needing communicate more (noted in my June 24, 2010 posting), while point 1 had me somewhat envious that there are so many agencies that are designed for communication with politicians although there does seem to be confusing number of them.

I wonder if we’ll ever get the second half of the story, Barwell’s experience shadowing the scientist.

British election and science, lessons for Canadians?

Leave a reply

I’m finally getting around to posting about the British Election and its science aspect in a little more detail than I did in my April 23, 2010 posting now that’s it been held and a coalition is going forward.

During the election period, all three parties produced manifestos that included some mention of policies for science. The Canadian Science Policy Centre provides links to an analysis of the science policies (in the New Scientist journal) found in the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Labour parties’ election 2010 manifestos. Short story: not a lot of detail in any of them but there are differences.

In light of the election results and the roles the various parties are likely to play in the government once it is formed, I have given the Liberal Democrats more prominence by putting them first. While the Conservatives won far more seats, it would seem that the Liberal Democrats will have substantial leverage with their colleagues in a coalition government and it will be interesting to see if they use this leverage for science.

The Liberal Democrats (excerpted from the New Scientist commentary),

Today saw the Liberal Democrats publish their election manifesto – Change that works for you – which is the last of the big three.

Like Labour’s and the Conservatives’, the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto covers science policies affecting research and education.

Unlike the other two, however, the Liberal Democrats have also made commitments about scientific advice in government.

Liberal Democrats say they want to create a “dynamic environment for science and innovation”, but the focus of their commitments is firmly on the science side.

Although they recognise the importance of science investment to the economic recovery, they admit that the economic climate means that they cannot commitment to increased investment.

The Conservatives (excerpted from the New Scientist commentary),

Like Labour’s manifesto, published yesterday, science policies affecting research, innovation and education all get a mention.

With the Conservatives leading in the polls, scientists will be particularly keen to know what the level of their commitment to science is – especially after it has been said they are “a vision-free zone” when it comes to science policy.

In fact, the Conservation vision for science is upfront in the foreword to the manifesto, stating that they want “an economy where Britain leads in science, technology and innovation”.

Finally, Labour (excerpted from the New Scientist commentary)

Labour is the first party to publish its election manifesto – A future fair for all.

There is debate about the importance of manifestos, but they do set out what the parties’ political priorities would be. Science policies affecting research, innovation and education all get a mention in the manifesto, but none of those commitments rank as one of their 50 steps for a fairer Britain.

The economy is probably the biggest issue in this election, and it is in the first section on “growth” that science policy first is mentioned.

Labour takes the opportunity to highlight the “substantial” investment it has made in the research base since 1997. This is certainly true, as Labour has almost doubled investment in the research base between 1997 and 2007 in real terms.

It is harder to argue, as Labour claims, that it has “massively increased investment in research and development (R&D) as a proportion of national income.” In 1997, 1.77% of GDP was spent on R&D and in 2007 it was up to 1.81%. In both 1997 and 2007 was 0.55% of GDP was spent on R&D by government.

In terms of funding commitments, Labour says it will have a “ring-fenced science budget in the next spending review”.

(A ‘ring-fenced’ budget would be a commitment to a minimum guaranteed amount for funding.)

Richard Jones on his blog, Soft Machines, provides some insight into the use of ‘science’ social media during the 2010 election campaign. From his post,

Is there a significant constituency for science, that might impose any political price on cutting science budgets? This election has seen high hopes for social media as a way of mobilising a science voting block – see #scivote on Twitter. Looking at this, one sees something that looks very much like an attempt to develop an identity politics for science – the idea that there might be a “science vote”, in the way that people talk (correctly or not) about a “gay vote” or a “christian vote”. There’s a sense of a community of right-minded people, with leaders from politics and the media, and clear dividing lines from the forces of unreason. What’s obvious, though, is this strategy hasn’t worked – a candidate standing on a single issue science platform ended up with 197 votes, which compares unfavourably with the 228 votes the Monster Raving Loony Party got in my own, nearby constituency.

I would encourage you to read the entire post as Richard provides an insider’s (he’s a scientist who’s been involved in a number of important British science reports and advisory groups) view.

CaSE (Campaign for Science and Engineering) has posted an analysis of science policy in the new coalition government based on the manifestos and the coalition negotiation agreement. (Note: CaSE is a British science advocacy organization mentioned in this blog here.) From CaSE’s May 12, 2010 posting,

The dramatic election outcome gives the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats an opportunity to rethink and refine their election commitments. Science and engineering did not feature in the coalition negotiation agreement, but looking through the parties’ manifestos and additional commitments made in letters from David Cameron and Nick Clegg to CaSE, gives us a feel for what the future might hold.

Funding is always a key issue,

First, as ever, let’s talk about the money – do the parties agree on funding the research base? The Liberal Democrats committed to not cutting science spending in the first year of the new Parliament. Unfortunately, the Conservatives never wrote down strong commitments, although they did promise a multi-year settlement in recognition of the need for stability.

…

The Conservatives came close, but never actually committed to protecting science budget spending once it has been allocated. The Liberal Democrats stated that they would clearly define and then ring-fence this spending.

On how the money should be allocated, the Liberal Democrats support the Haldane Principle – that decisions on how the science budget should be spent are best made by those in the science community itself.

The poster (Hilary Leevers) also comments on private investment and education and skills but I’m more focused on science and engineering in government or ‘science advice’,

The Liberal Democrats made a series of strong commitments on scientific advice and policy making which we hope that they can persuade the Conservatives to adopt. First, they endorsed the original Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice, which was drawn up by the scientific community and underlines the independence and freedom of advisers to the Government. CaSE would like to see an adaptation of this incorporated into the new Ministerial Code.

The Liberal Democrats pledged to appoint a Chief Scientific Adviser to the Treasury and reinforce the powers of the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, as well as strengthening the role of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. They also said that they would like to see regular use of Randomised Controlled Trials in testing new social policy initiatives.

Finally, both parties committed to reform libel laws, as the Conservatives put it, “to protect freedom of speech, reduce costs and discourage libel tourism”, and more specifically for researchers from the Liberal Democrats, “to protect peer reviewed research from libel suits”. Reviewing libel laws to protect feedom of speech did actually make it into the coalition agreement.

As of today, David Willetts has been named Minister of State for Universities and Science, from the May 13, 2010 CaSE posting,

In our brave new coalition government, it seems that there will be two strong, respected and thoughtful advocates for science and engineering. David Willetts has been appointed Minister of State for Universities and Science in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) with Vince Cable as Secretary of State for BIS. Cable studied natural sciences with economics at Cambridge and, while his background is not in the sciences, Willetts has often engaged well with science issues in his former roles as Shadow Secretary for Education and then Innovation, Universities and Skills.

Dave Bruggeman (Pasco Pronesis blog) also notes Willett’s appointment in one of his recent postings and, in a previous posting, provided the numbers of newly elected British MPs with science experience,

The Times had estimated that the number of MPs with a science background and/or serious engagement with science issues would drop from 86 to 77. It dropped to 71.

Dave goes on to provide some thoughtful analysis as to what all this might mean in the context of Britain’s current economic situation.

It’s interesting to consider these British science election commentaries in relationship to the Canadian scene which features three national federal parties (only one of which has any mention of science in its policy platform [4 four bullet points in the Conservation party platform]). No science debates and no mention (that I can recall) of science in any Canadian election for the last 10 years, at least.

The current discussion about science in Britain is extraordinary by Canadian standards and my hat’s off to the Brits not only for ‘getting science to the table’ but for working so long and so hard to make sure that it stays there.

There are a couple rays of hope on the Canadian scene, the Canadian Science Policy Centre which will be putting on its second annual conference this coming October (I’ll post more about that as details are released).  There are also Canadian science bloggers such as:

  • Rob Annan at Don’t leave Canada behind who comments extensively on the Canadian science policy scene and offers in-depth analysis;
  • Pascal Lapointe and his colleague at Je vote pour la science (coincidentally they have a podcast about scientists as politicians, which includes some commentary about the recent British election); offer wide-ranging discussion on Canadian science policy and science; and
  • the folks at The Black Hole who usually comment on the situation for Canadian science postdoctoral ‘students’ while also offering thoughts on science education and literacy.

Not exactly a blog,

  • Science Canada functions as an aggregator of Canadian science policy news.

If you know of any other bloggers or developments on the Canadian science policy scene, please do let me know.