Tag Archives: Victor Jones

Canadian federal nanoportal is open

1 Reply

I finally found the Canadian federal government nanoportal. It seems to have been open since 2009 which is a bit a mystery since the Health Canada representative (Christelle Legault) that I interviewed (in my April 26, 2010 posting) seemed unaware of its existence. Here’s the nanoportal. Oddly, it mentions Nanotech BC as a provincial nanotechnology advocate,

Nanotech BC has currently suspended its operations until suitable funding of its activities and new projects for 2009 can be ascertained.

Even more oddly, the page was updated (according to the notice in the left lower corner) March 15, 2011. I guess they don’t keep up with the news.

I mentioned Nanotech BC’s demise in my May 14, 2009 posting in part one (of a three part series) of my interview with Victor Jones, the former chair of the board.

In any event, I’m glad to have finally found the nanoportal.

Ununbium and ‘The Elements’ and an update of science policy doings in Canada and UK

Leave a reply

A new element, ununbium, is being added to the periodic table. There’s more about it here on Nanowerk News. Seeing the media release this morning reminded me of Tom Lehrer’s song, ‘The Elements‘ so I searched and found an animated version of the song here. Just scroll down and pick your connection type (dial-up or broadband).

On the science policy front, there was an announcement that a UK parliamentary  Science and Technology Committee has been approved/reinstated last week on the BBC News (online)

The committee will be made up of the same members as the existing Innovation, Universities, Skills, and Science Committee (IUSS).

Some MPs recently raised concerns that government science policy would be marginalised in the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

I commented on the new department and reporting structure on my blog here earlier this month. This comes at a time when Canada’s Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, seems to be fading out of the picture. You can read Rob Annan’s post about it here on ‘Don’t leave Canada behind’. As Rob points out, this comes on the heels of the SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humantities Research Council) situation regarding their approved funding for a joint Queen’s University and York University conference titled, ‘Israel/Palestine Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace‘. Goodyear apparently requested that in addition to the peer-review the proposal had already received before being approved that it be subjected to a second peer-review after the fact. There’s more here on Rob’s blog, starting June 10, 2009 and, for another viewpoint, you can check out Jacob T. Levy’s  blog here.

I got a comment from Andrew Maynard where he clarified a statement he made in his screencast and a few things about the Twitter science visuals that he offered in some of his latest postings. Thanks Andrew.

Yeah, that “classic” sort of crept into the screencast – by the time I had made ten botched attempts to record it, I guess the bubble charts were beginning to look a little old!

To be honest, I’m not sure how widespread they are. I used them here because it’s a convenient way to summarize data covering a large span – because the plotted area is related to the data being visualized, it is easier to compare very large with very small numbers.

In this way, I think the display offers some intuitive insight into what might be relevant. But I’m not convinced it provides much of an analytical insight. Which is one reason why it’s useful to have access to multiple visualizations I suspect. And probably more importantly, why I prefer to allow access to the root data.

My comments are in my June 23 and 24, 2009 postings and Andrew’s posts are here.

Friday, June 26, 2009, I got an update and other comments from Victor Jones (consultant and former chair of Nanotech BC) about Environment Canada’s plan to have Canadian businesses report on the nanomaterials they use in their products.

interesting summary on nanomaterials and yes the Canadian plan is working its way through the bureacracy. Similar issues of definitions and classifications make the effort far from simple. If ever there was a case of the devil in the small details – nano materials has it. Remember to to check out http://www.goodnanoguide.org for a community dedicated to prototcols for the safe handling of nanomaterials. For an intriguing look at this sub micro world check out http://www.gogetpapers.com/Papers/nanomaterials_lecture

Thanks Victor. I haven’t had a chance to check out Victor’s recommendations for other sources of info. but I will report back on them soon. If you are interested, there is a three part interview with Victor on this site, May 14, 15, and 19, 2009.

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?

Nanotech BC scoop: part 3 interview with Victor Jones

Leave a reply

Belated Happy Victoria Day! We (Canadians) just celebrated a long weekend and so I’m a day later than I planned for posting the third and final part of the Victor Jones (former chair of Nanotech BC) interview.

(5) I mistakenly guessed that Darren Frew (former executive director) was the Nanotech BC representative going to the big nanotechnology conference in Japan during February 2009 when in fact it was you. How did it go? NANOTECH 2009 – TOKYO – WAS  VERY GOOD.  THERE WERE  OVER 70  CANADIANS THERE AND BY ALL ACCOUNTS MOST FOUND IT VERY USEFUL FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH OR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT.  ONLY MYSELF FROM BC.    THE EMBASSY STAFF IN TOKYO WERE VERY HELPFUL AND THE CANADIAN BOOTH WAS BUSY.    ATTENDANCE REACHES ALMOST 50,000     FOLLOW ON WORK WAS PENDING

I COULD SAY A LOT MORE…..IT IS A FULL WEEK IN MEETINGS   SEMINARS AND TRADE SHOW….

(6) Where are things going? Will Nanotech BC rise again? Or will something new rise from the ashes? I LEAVE THIS TO MICHAEL (ALLDRITT – DIRECTOR – AT NRC-IRAP) AND THE BOARD  –  THERE ARE SEVERAL POSSIBILITIES……  THE LEGAL NOT FOR PROFIT ORG EXISTS AND ITS FUTURE IS OPEN.  THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THIS ARENA CONTINUES TO GROW AS  STATED STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE FOR MANY COUNTRIES, REGIONS AND CITIES.  NANOTECH BC  WAS A LEADER IN ITS ASSET MAP WORK – NOW BEING REPLICATED IN ALBERTA; AND BC HAS SOME WORLD CLASS WORK GOING ON;       THERE ARE SIMILARITIES TO THE VERY EARLY DAYS OF BIOTECH. / GENOMICS; BUT CHALLENGES TOO …..

I wonder why the province of BC was dragging its feet about funding the organization. Given the amount of money being invested by governments and business around the world, you’d think that there would be more interest. I did look for a science policy on the provincial government website and was not able to find one.

Two researchers (Jennifer Pelley and Marc Saner) from the Regulatory Governance Initiative at Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada) have produced a report outlining the regulatory approaches toward nanotechnology from five different jurisdictions. From Nanowerk News,

Authored by Jennifer Pelley and Marc Saner, this report investigates the question: “How have Canada and other jurisdictions reacted to the recent emergence of nanotechnology-based products in the marketplace (and what is the current state of affairs)?” Our survey focuses on five key jurisdictions: the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), the European Union (EU), Australia, and Canada.

There’s more about the report here and the report is here.

One final thing, Discover Magazine has a blog called ‘Science not Fiction‘ which features the ‘Codex Futurius’, a Q & A for science/fiction questions directed to experts. They have an answer to a question about grey goo.

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

Leave a reply

Victor Jones who was a board member and chair of Nanotech BC kindly agreed to answer a few question about the organization and where it stands now. For anyone who doesn’t know, they recently had to suspend operations due to funding shortfalls. This is a the first of a three part series.

1) What was Nanotech BC’s purpose? Was it meant to raise awareness of nanotechnology in the general public? Was it industry/academic liaison?

ALL OF THE ABOVE  –  SEE  MISSION ON THE WEB SITE (here) – INCLUDING ANNUAL CONFERENCE,   WORKSHOPS; OUTREACH FOR BC LOCATED COMPANIES AND MARKET INFORMATION FOR RESEARCHERS, AND REPRESENTING BC RESEARCH AND COMPANIES AT OTHER CONFERENCES   IT DID DO THESE; INCLUDING REFERENCES FOR PROJECTS.   THE 2007/08 ASSET MAP – AVAILABLE ON LINE, LISTED THE RESEARCHERS AND COMPANIES  AND THEIR AREAS OF FOCUS.

(2) What happened? I understand the funding dried up but I never did understand where it came from. Did the federal government freeze/cutback on science funding have an impact? Or was it a lack of interest from the provincial government? Did the industry fail to support it?

FUNDING CAME FROM FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL AGENCIES  –  MOST NOTABLY  NRC-IRAP,   WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION (WED) AND THE MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT  (SBTED).   PROVINCIAL FUNDING WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO MATCH THE NRC AND WED FUNDING OFFER FOR SEVERAL MONTHS; HENCE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN AS AN OPERATIONAL ENTITY – SO IT IS ON PAUSE. BUT DISCUSSIONS ARE CONTINUING. THERE HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN ENCOURAGING WORDS,  BUT FUNDING FOR ALL SUCH ORGANIZATIONS IS DIFFICULT TO SOURCE

I thought the organization might be dead but it should like there is hope so maybe I should not have phrased that first set of question in past tense. Also, I’m sure the folks at Nanotech BC wanted to raise public awareness but the other projects Jones mentions took priority and in an organization that’s strapped for money and time it’s clear that something is going to be ignored. I wish that wasn’t the case but I do understand why. That said, I think more emphasis needs to be placed on public awareness here in BC.

As for funding, it’s discouraging to find out that the provincial government is dragging its metaphorical feet. Given the worldwide focus on nanotechnology and the amount of money being invested elsewhere (as I noted here and I recently looked at NanoQuebec’s annual report for 2007/8 and saw that that provincial government invested over $2M for that year), I’m surprised there isn’t more interest provincially. Of course, I can’t find a science policy on the BC government website so maybe surprise isn’t the right word.

I got an invite from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) to a congressional briefing. Yup, it’s in Washington, DC so I’m not likely to get there but if you are, there’s a panel discussion on May 20, 2009. You can contact emiller@keystone.org for more information.

The White House hosted a Poetry, Music, and SpokenWord event this last Tuesday (May 12, 2009). From the New York Times review,

Spoken word dominated the program, with poetry performances by Mayda del Valle (whose tribute to her abuela included the placenta reference), Jamaica Heolimeleikalani Osorio and Joshua Bennett.

The webcast will be available on whitehouse.gov. I checked this morning and could not find it so I hope it shows up soon.