Back in July, the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) posted a Request For Information in the Federal Register for input to the next NNI strategic plan – to be published later this year. The closing date for comments was a couple of weeks ago now. I got mine in in the nick of time. My responses to the seemingly endless questions asked by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy are probably of interest to relatively few people (although if you are suffering from insomnia, you can read them here). But I thought it might be worth posting my preamble to the specific questions and answers, as it begins to get into some of the more complex social, economic and political issues being faces as the National Nanotechnology Initiative heads for its second decade.
Response to: NNI Strategic Plan 2010; Request for Information (FR Doc. 2010–16273) Submitted August 15 2010:
For nearly ten years, the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has set the pace for national and international research and development in nanoscale science and engineering. Without a doubt, increasing our understanding of how matter behaves at the nanometer scale, and using this knowledge to both enhance existing technologies and to create innovative new ones, holds the promise of significant economic and societal benefits. In a world where the needs of a growing population threaten to outstrip increasingly limited resources, and many global challenges – from disease to hunger to renewable energy – remain unresolved, technology innovation is critical to enabling a sustainable future. Yet investing in research and development is just the first step in ensuring responsible, relevant and successful technology solutions. As the NNI enters its second decade, there needs to be an increasing focus on how to translate technology innovations into solutions that work, if the US is to reap the benefits of the considerable investment being made in this area. [click to continue…]
I couldn’t resist finishing the August in the Archives series with this piece on “silent rave” syndrome, which I am sad to say still seems to inflict the emerging technologies community!
Originally posted October 5 2008
The silent rave might seem a rather bizarre social phenomenon; a group of strangers converging in a public place and dancing to their own individual iPod soundtracks. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the emerging technology community has been indulging in the new tech-equivalent of silent raves for some time now.
These suspicions are probably the delusional by-product of jetlag. But traveling back from the latest in a long line of multi-stakeholder nanotechnology meetings last week, the analogy hit a chord… [click to continue…]
The more the debate over what precisely nanotechnology is goes on, the more inclined I am to think that it’s something of an illusion. Sure, nanoscale science is real. And there are clearly technologies that exploit this. But are they nanotechnologies, or are they simply clever uses of science, technology and engineering across multiple length scales to do something different? In other words, does nanoscale science simply lead to… technology? This piece from September 2008 hints at this line of thinking as it grapples with what “nanotechnology” actually means.
Originally posted September 3 2008.
Amidst the cacophony of debate swirling around the true meaning of nanotechnology, I head a voice or reason last week. The voice was that of Dr. Bernd Sachweh of BASF, speaking at the European Aerosol Conference in Thessoloniki.
I paraphrase, but the essence of Bernd’s point was this:
‘Nano’ is not a thing or a product. It has no intrinsic value. Rather, ‘nano’ adds value; it changes the properties and the worth of something that already exists.
I must confess, I rather like the idea of ‘nano’ as adding value, rather than being an entity in and of itself. It’s hard to come up with of an example where engineering something at the nanoscale leads to behaviour or functionality that is independent of the starting material. Rather, the great potential of nanotechnology would seem to be in taking raw materials and engineering them in ways that lead to the emergence of novel scale-related properties, which can then be used in new and innovative ways. [click to continue…]
Most manufacturers of nanomaterial-based sunscreens try to make sure that the material they use doesn’t generate harmful chemicals in the presence of sunlight. But the paper this piece was based on suggested that some photoactive materials might be slipping through the net.
Painted metal roofs are cheap, convenient, and usually very durable. But over the past two years, a rash of accelerated ageng has blighted pre-painted steel roofing in Australia. And intriguingly the aging—which affects the coating—seems to be localized to small patches, taking on the form of fingerprints, handprints and even footprints.
The culprit it seems is sunscreen that is spilt or otherwise transferred to the roofing by construction workers during installation. And not any old sunscreen—this would appear to be a uniquely nano phenomenon. But I get ahead of myself… [click to continue…]
While the DIY Biotechnology community has grown considerably since this post, the piece still captures something of what is still a young movement, and one that challenges assumptions about top-down technology innovation.
Read Thomas L. Friedman’s “The World is Flat” or Neal Stephenson’s “Cryptonomicon”, and you get a glimpse into how the hacker culture that emerged at the tail end of the twentieth century revolutionized the digital world. Will a confluence of emerging technologies—including information tech, biotech, and nanotech—lead to a similar revolution in the biological world? [click to continue…]
Even though it was written a couple of years ago, this post remains very relevant as people continue to make sense of nanotechnology. Maybe it’s time to revisit yellow-technology!
Nanotechnology as an overarching concept is great for sweeping statements and sound bites, but falls short when it comes to real-world decision-making. As nanoscale technologies are increasingly used in everything from antimicrobial socks to anti-cancer drugs, perhaps its time to rethink how we talk about the myriad diverse technologies that fall, slip or are forcibly squeezed under this all-encompassing banner.
At last year’s Bernstein Symposium, I had the pleasure of listening to National Public Radio science journalist Richard Harris talking about the latest greatest technology-not nanotechnology, but yellowtechnology. A rather liberal re-interpretation of Richard’s lecture goes something like this: [click to continue…]
I couldn’t resist reposting this piece, as it captured so well my frustration at the time of spending so much time in meetings – usually for someone else’s benefit. Sadly, I didn’t learn the error of my ways – my travel schedule has, if anything, got worse since then!
My worst nightmare—I’m sitting at the back of a small plane (by the bathroom), my knees up round my ears (because someone else with a bigger case got to the overhead storage before me), and a small child screaming its head off two rows down. But unlike a nightmare, this is reality, and waking up to a better life is not an option! What did I do to deserve this? The polite answer—agree to speak at yet another nano-meeting! [click to continue…]
This was based on a piece I originally wrote for Nano Today – the blog was a slightly extended version of what was published. Although it was written two years ago, it’s still surprising how few people realize that breathing in nanoparticles is an everyday fact of life, and that to make sense of new risks from engineered nanoparticles, we need to understand what we are already experiencing.
Read some accounts of nanotechnology risks, and you might be forgiven for concluding that a single engineered nanoparticle can kill you. Of course, a little critical thinking soon dispels this notion—we are constantly bombarded with incidental nanoparticles from sources that include cars, incinerators and fires; we have been since birth. And as critics of “risk extremists” often point out, we seem to be doing just fine in this nano-rich environment. But does this mean that the potential risks associated with engineered nanoparticles are little more than a myth? [click to continue…]
In February 2008, the National Academy of Engineering launched 14 grand challenges for engineering. These were the inspiration for this post, but rather than focus on the challenges themselves, I thought it would be interesting to consider how science and technology are going to help address them. Over two years on, the ideas I was writing about here seem more relevant than ever – as I write this, I am putting the finishing touches to a World Economic Forum report that echoes many of the challenges I outlined back in March 2008.
Can current approaches to doing science sustain us over the next one hundred years? An increasing reliance on technological fixes to global challenges — including nanotechnology — demands a radical rethink of how we use science in the service of society.
Over the next century we will perhaps be facing the greatest challenge in the history of humanity: sustaining six billion plus people on a planet where natural resources are running scarce and our every action results in a palpable environmental reaction. Progress towards sustainability will only come through integrating relevant science with socially-responsible decision making. Yet the science policy dogmas of the 20th century may be stretched to breaking point in the face of 21st century challenges.
And these challenges are immense. The U.S. National Academy of Engineering recently published 14 “grand challenges for engineering” — the culmination of a year-long project exploring and reviewing the greatest technological challenges facing us in the 21st century. At the top of the list is development of economical solar energy and fusion-energy, followed by crafting carbon sequestration methods, improving access to clean water, creating improved medicines, preventing nuclear terror, and eight other pressing needs. The challenges are a stark reminder of the limitations of our current capabilities, and what needs to change if we are to continue growing as a society in harmony with our surroundings. [click to continue…]
I‘m going to be taking a break from 2020 Science over the next few weeks, as I finally make the move with my family from DC to Ann Arbor. But rather than let the blog languish, I thought I would use this as an opportunity to revisit some of my old posts. So through August, I will be digging up and re-posting blogs from summer 2008 that still have some relevance.
These will be posted every Tuesday and Thursday through August – starting on August 3. You can get them delivered automatically via email by following this link. Or you can simply check in each week to see what’s new.
Either way, I hope you enjoy the retrospective.
And if you do, please feel free to leave a comment, or retweet the posts on Twitter (you can use that little retweet badge at the top of the page!).
Have a great summer, and see you all in September.
Cheers,
Andrew
______
The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here
Sitting in a meeting on informal science education recently, I was intrigued to see a respected academic working on her knitting. And she wasn’t the only one. Now I may have had a something of a sheltered life, but in over twenty years of attending scientific conferences and workshops, I think this was the first time I had come across public acts of wool-work.
I was fascinated.
This was reinforced the other week when, following Tweets from a science policy event at the British Library the Science Blogging Talkfest in London, Stephen Curry announced “I can confirm that @alicebell is indeed knitting.”
Alice Bell's "leaf scarf" - clearly, knitting is about more than woolly jumpers and never-ending scarves!
As well as being a lecturer in science communication at Imperial College, Alice Bell is also something of a knitting maven. So I asked her whether there was anything I should be reading to explore this new-found fascination with knitting in meetings.
Instead, Alice threw me down the metaphorical rabbit-hole! Who knew there was such a rich intersection between science, math, and working with yarn?
I was aware of the work on modeling hyperbolic geometries by Daina Taimina of Cornell University, using crochet. (can I mention crochet in a knitting blog?) But, as I’m discovering, there’s a whole sub-culture of knitting and crocheting science out there! [click to continue…]
A few weeks ago, I set Friends of the Earth a challenge - What is your worst case estimate of the human health risk from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens?
The challenge came out of an article from FoE on nanomaterials and sunscreens, which I subsequently critiqued on 2020 Science. Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminto from FoE kindly responded to my challenge – not by rising to it as such, but by fleshing out the justification for the position that they take on nanomaterials and sunscreens.
That post led to a useful discussion on the issues, with comments from the NGO community, regulators and respected scientists – it’s one that I would highly recommend anyone interested in nanomaterials and sunscreens reading.
To wrap things up (for the time being), I thought it would be worth reflecting on some of the issues raised by Georgia and Ian in their response, and the ensuing discussion: [click to continue…]
I love books – the old fashioned kind, printed with ink on paper. As a kid, books were my source of education, inspiration and entertainment. As an adult, I still find there’s something oddly satisfying about picking up a sheaf of printed and bound pages and immersing myself in them.
Last September regular readers of 2020 Science will recall that I was somewhat taken aback at having to fork out $100 for a Texas Instruments graphing calculator as my son started 7th grade math.
One academic year on, was the purchase worth it? (Yes, despite my shock, we did reluctant acquiesce to the school’s dictate and fork out the $100 on a TI-83 graphing calculator).
Did it boost my son’s IQ to dizzying new heights? Did it make all the difference between genius and dunce in his Algebra I Honors class? Did it actually help him learn?
ASME – the organization that used to be known as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers – has just launched a series of educational podcasts on nanotechnology that are well worth checking out.
Between now and next February, the ASME Nanotechnology Institute will be posting new video and/or audio podcasts on their website every couple of weeks, covering a wide range of nanotechnology topics.
The podcasts are free, but you need to register with the site first before you can access them at http://nano.asme.org/Nano_Educational_Series.cfm However, to give you a feel for series, here’s the introductory video:
You may recognize one of the presenters I spent a grueling four hours filming with ASME last year for the series – so it’s good to see I don’t look too worn out and exhausted in the video.
I’m not sure where else I will be appearing in the series – we covered a huge range of topics during filming – but expect to see at least one podcast with me addressing some of the environmental and human health aspects of nanotechnology.
Overall, this looks like a well-produced and informative series of podcasts, that should be well worth following if you have an interest in nanoscience and nanotechnology.
With apologies to Chris Mooney, and all the many scientists that really do get the need to listen to people. And also with a rather large tongue in my cheek:
Dear Mr Mooney,
I’ve been way too busy this week doing important sciency stuff to engage with the trivialities of the popular press. But this morning I stumbled across your protestations in last Sunday’s Washington Post. You know – the ones about scientists not listening enough to the public?
Choke? I’m still trying to remove bits of masticated Cheerios from my polyester labcoat!
Mr. Mooney, which planet are you on?! Haven’t you realized yet that the public are just a bunch of raving loonies, obsessed with their own views and impervious to reason? What on earth would justify me listening to their misinformed and irrelevant bleating? [click to continue…]
An hour or so ago, the final winners of I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here were announced. To my surprise, I made it to the last two standing in the Silicon Zone yesterday, and have been on the edge of my seat today waiting to see whether I was going to be ousted [...]
Today was a tough day on I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here – three live chats almost back to back, followed by the first evictions. And believe me – even though I live to fight another day, the evictions were traumatic! But more of that below. At the end of a long day, [...]
The way science is taught, the way it’s portrayed on TV and in the press, he way it’s promoted by science-advocates and science bloggers, often seems to adhere to a rather pompous and hubristic view of science as the ultimate bastion of truth and certainty. So it’s been rather refreshing this week to see a [...]
Last week, I posed Friends of the Earth a challenge – “What is your worst case estimate of the human health risk from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens?” Georgia Miller of FoE Australia and Ian Illuminato of FoE in the US have kindly provided a detailed response. Rather than just keep this [...]
It’s a quarter to one in the morning Eastern Time, and I’ve just polished off the last question of the day on I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here! I should be heading off to bed, but I wanted to capture some initial thoughts on this exercise first. I’ve lost count of how many [...]
If you want to participate in the rather fab science event I’m A Scientist, Get me Out Of Here I’m afraid you are out of luck – unless you happen to be one of the 100 scientists and 8000 teenagers taking part. But you can still get a thrill from watching the competition unfold on-line [...]
Following up from my previous post, here’s an open question to Friends of the Earth: What is your worst case estimate of the human health risk from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens? What I am interested in is a number – a probability of a specific human health impact being caused by [...]
Friends of the Earth (FoE) do not like nanoparticle-based sunscreens. This has been evident for some years – back in 2006 the organization published the report Nanomaterials, Sunscreens and Cosmetics: Small Ingredients, Big Risks, and every year since then they have had something to say on the subject. This year’s web-based piece leaves now doubt [...]
Reading the Twitter feeds, it seems that a number of scientists participating in I’m A Scientist, Get me Out of Here have struggled with their profiles. It’s one thing to design an elegant experiment or write a smart paper – but describing yourself in three words or telling a joke that’s actually funny isn’t something [...]
The global financial crisis of 2008-09 laid bare the inadequacies of global systems in an increasingly interdependent world, and highlighted the need to rethink the “architecture of global cooperation” – the idea at the core of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Initiative. As the World Economic Forum publishes and discusses the outcomes of this [...]
The good folks at I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here have just posted a new video on YouTube about the event. It gives a great overview of what I’m A Scientist is all about, and what makes it special: I particularly like the comment “It’s different from a normal science lesson because you [...]
Catching up with my email after a long day off the net, I see that a group of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) are urging EPA not to allow the use of an alleged nanotechnology-based dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico. The letter from thirteen organizations was covered in a piece by Andrew Schneider on AOL [...]
Last week’s announcement from the J. Craig Venter Institute that scientists had created the first-ever synthetic cell was a profoundly significant point in human history, and marked a turning point in our quest to control the natural world. But the ability to use this emerging technology wisely is already being dogged by fears that we [...]
As you’ll have realized from my post last week, I will be competing in I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here in in a couple of weeks’ time. I’m going to be attempting to capture the event from my perspective through a series of rather shorter, more informal blogs than I usually post – [...]
A scientist with an unhealthy interest in the dark side – policy, communication and all that. When not writing and talking about science and technology, he directs the University of Michigan Risk Science Center. More...
2020 Science is…
A personal blog about science and technology in the 21st century. Written by Professor Andrew Maynard it tackles some of the knottier questions raised by science and technology, such as “where is technology innovation taking us?”, “what is the role of science in society?” and “how can science and technology be developed responsibly?” More…
Revieweing paper about GOD nanopatricles! Just glucose oxidase-coated particles sadly, but the acronym is throwing up some fun sentences! 12 hours ago
@hilarysutcliffe Like... "where have you been for the past ten years?!" Re: Guardian nano piece 16 hours ago
RT @thenanoclast: Nanotechnology's Shift from R&D to Commercialization Urged: While an emphasis has been articulated on moving towar... ... 19 hours ago
I spent a grueling four hours filming with ASME last year for the series – so it’s good to see I don’t look too worn out and exhausted in the video.
