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.
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 by the rather younger and infinitely more hip Marianne Baker.
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, I mainly wanted to pull together a few notes on the event as it stands at the moment. [click to continue…]
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 group of real-world scientists shattering this image in the on-line event I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out Of Here! [click to continue…]
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 as a comment on the original blog, I thought it deserved a wider airing – and so am posting it here.
I will respond to the response in a few days time. In the meantime, I would be extremely interested in what others think of the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens, based on my original piece and Georgia and Ian’s piece below. Please do comment – this seems to be an area that desperately needs some good and open discussion. [click to continue…]
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 questions I’ve answered today – hundreds it seem (although it’s probably less). I did see a note come round earlier that 1000 questions have already been answered by the team of scientists – and it’s just the first day.
Watching the reactions of my fellow contestants on Twitter, I think we’ve all had the same experience – gobsmacked by the volume and depth of the questions, followed by a rather rapid recalibration of how we go about answering them! [click to continue…]
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 while experiencing science as a spectator sport as you’ve never seen it before! And believe me, this is an event you’re not going to want to miss – especially if you have any interest whatsoever in engaging teenagers in science.
So, if you want to watch the fun, where do you begin?
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 using a given amount of nano-sunscreen over a certain amount of time. Something like:
“In the worst case, it is estimated that using [number] grams per day of sunscreen comprising [percent] TiO2/ZnO nanoparticles over [number] days could lead to an [percent] risk of the user developing [disease].”
This can be based on an extrapolation of the current state of the science to a worst case scenario. But it must be plausible. And the calculations/sources to get to the end number must be transparent.
I’m asking because I am interested to see whether it is possible to place an upper bound on the safety of nanoparticle-based sunscreens, and whether this will be useful in moving the dialogue over nano-enabled sunscreens away from ungrounded speculation, towards evidence-based discussion.
So that’s the challenge. I’m hoping my good friends at Friends of the Earth will rise to it.
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 about FoE’s stance on nanotechnology-enabled sunscreens. The recently posted article starts:
While you’re planning your summer vacation and thinking about what to pack, don’t forget the sunscreen — but make sure it doesn’t have manufactured nanoparticles in it!
But what is the reasoning behind this stance? Helpfully, FoE have also posted six cases of what they describe as evidence “of risks from manufactured nanomaterials in sunscreen.”
As these are evidence-based statements, I thought it would be worth while going through them, and taking a look at the evidence they are based on: [click to continue…]
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 most PhD’s prepare you for!
However, the participants have risen to the challenge admirably, and most profiles are up now – just in time for the web site going live to teachers.
Browsing through the profiles, there are some pretty smart and interesting people here – the competition’s going to be tough! Here are just a few entries that caught my eye: [click to continue…]
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 guest blog by Hilary Sutcliffe, Director of MATTER, a UK think tank which explores how new technologies can work for us all. The other day, I wrote a piece on the implications of synthetic biology where I suggested that we “need to place discussions on a science basis, and not get over-distracted by ethical [...]
Typical. One of the most anticipated technological breakthroughs in years hits the streets, and I’m completely off the web – holed up in an Italian hotel with no internet and no phone. I’m talking of course about J. Craig Venter’s team’s breakthrough in synthesizing a living organism, almost from scratch – published in the journal [...]
I can’t sleep, I’m distracted, I keep breaking out in a cold sweat. And the reason? I have a deceptively simple question going my head – and I don’t know the answer! The question… well, I’ll come to that in a minute. I’d rather put the moment of embarrassment off for at least a few [...]
Having recently finished Robert Winston’s “Bad Ideas? An Arresting History of our Inventiveness,” I was rather taken by his concluding “Scientist’s Manifesto” – a fourteen-point guide to help strengthen the relationship between science and society. As well as reflecting much of my own thinking, it embodies many of the ideas coming out of the science [...]
A guest blog by Barbara Herr Harthorn, Director of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California Santa Barbara. A couple of weeks back, my colleague David Guston wrote here about engaging the public on nanotechnology. In his piece he gave an excellent overview of the US government’s activities – or relative [...]
The politics of science fascinates me – the more so because there are still some naifs who think that science is apolitical. And like all politics, sometimes it gets nasty. I was reminded of this rather starkly while reading an interview with Ben Goldacre this morning in the latest edition of Imperial College’s science magazine [...]
Marc Saner at Carleton University in Canada sent this timeline of key nanotech policy events to me the other day. It’s probably the most comprehensive compilation of events influencing the development of nanotech policy in America, Europe and Australia I’ve seen to date – well worth taking a look at if you have any interest [...]
Does the US need more public participation in assessing technologies and their potential impact on society, and informing decisions on their development and use? Richard Sclove – author of a new report on technology assessment – thinks yes; but only as part of a new paradigm for technology assessment. The report, published today by the [...]
Language is often seen as a barrier to communication. But sometimes it provides a valuable buffer between hearing, understanding and responding, and allows unique perspectives that are often drowned out to be heard. A few weeks ago, I was interviewed by Brazilian TV presenter Luís Fernando Silva Pinto for the TV Globo program Ciência & [...]
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…
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.
