Call me a fool, but I recently agree to join the editorial board of the new Springer journal Environment, Systems and Decisions (formerly The Environmentalist).  Actually it was a bit of a no-brainer – I’ve been looking for a journal to get involved with that more closely matched my interests in risk, technology innovation and decision-making for some time, and this fit the bill pretty well.

The newly re-branded journal is set to hit the streets next year, and to kick things off we are putting together a special issue on Scenario and Risk Analysis – details below (and also downloadable here).  If you are interested in submitting a paper for the special edition, the deadline for submission is June 30.

____________________________________

CALL FOR PAPERS:

SPECIAL ISSUE OF ENVIRONMENT, SYSTEMS AND DECISIONS  ON SCENARIO AND RISK ANALYSIS

Prospectus

Uncertainty about the future cuts across disciplines, e.g., natural sciences (sea level rise and climate patterns), social sciences (societal trends such as voting behaviors), etc. Uncertainty has different scales, e.g., individual (markets and retirement investing), global (pandemics, military wargaming), etc. Addressing future scenarios is essential to the strategies of individuals, organizations, communities, and nations. Scenario analysis is a multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach that effectively negotiates the risks and benefits associated with emergent and future conditions.

There is no consensus on how and when to conduct a scenario analysis. How do we elicit, formulate, and identify scenarios? How do we account for stakeholder biases? How can we manage the uncertainty? What are the best ways to mitigate future risks and maximize future opportunities?

This special issue of Environment, Systems, and Decisions will explore the theory, methods, and applications of scenario analysis, along with its linkages with other subject areas such as risk management.

Invitation

The Editors-in-Chief invite submissions in the area of Scenario Analysis. Papers are encouraged in, but not limited to, the following areas:

Theory
• Scenario development
• Uncertainty reduction
• Extreme and rare events
• Connection to risk analysis
• Scenarios and decision making • Scenario elicitation

Methods
• Impact analysis
• Simulation
• Forecasting
• Contingency planning • Strategic gaming
• Stochastic analyses

Applications
• Global climate change
• Environment and ecology • Technology and society
• Economic impacts
• Social issues
• Planning and policy

Contact Details & Schedule:

Inquiries regarding this Call for Papers should be directed to either/both of the Editors-in-Chief:
Dr. Igor Linkov, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center: Igor.Linkov@usace.army.mil Dr. James H. Lambert, University of Virginia: Lambert@virginia.edu

We welcome the submission of your abstracts anytime, with your papers by 30 June 2012 leading to publication of a special issue of Environment, Systems and Decisions in early 2013.

{ 0 comments }

For everyone who has struggled with team building exercises and writing course syllabuses, I thought you might enjoy this syllabus (in the approved format of course) for a much anticipated (ha!) faculty team-building exercise that I’m leading this week.

Enjoy!

COURSE TITLE

Camaraderie through adversary: The art of building functional teams.

PRE-REQUISITES

A thick skin and a willingness to make a fool of oneself. A sense of humor is also helpful.

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Having fun with others – whether you like it or not.

READING MATERIALS:

  • A Survival Guide for Working with Humans: Dealing with Whiners, Back-Stabbers, Know-It-Alls, and Other Difficult People by Gini Graham Scott (AMACOM, 2004)
  • How to win friends and influence people by Dale Carnegie (Pocket Books, 1990)
  • The complete idiots guide to idiots by M. Anne Thrope (Random Publications, 1998)

COURSE EVALUATION

  • Participation:                                    50%
  • Not being done for GBH:                25%
  • Being the last person standing:     25%

COURSE OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this course are:

  • To group-experience a series of cruel and unusual tasks
  • To demonstrate why if you want a job done properly – you do it yourself
  • To explore the aphorism “if you want a friend – get a dog!”
  • To entertain the instructor – who will not be participating in the tasks
  • To finish as fast as possible and head for the bar.

COURSE OUTCOMES

After taking this course, students will be able to:

  • Think critically (mainly about other team members)
  • Problem solve (in their head at least – problem solving in practice is not anticipated)
  • Express themselves verbally – and possibly through hand signals as well.
  • Work within a dysfunctional team to complete a meaningless task – sometimes.

MAJOR COURSE TOPICS

  • Milling around with bits of paper
  • Playing with a stick
  • Re-purposing random stuff from a sack
  • Being shackled to colleagues
  • Group hug (NO – there are some limits!)

 

{ 0 comments }

Nanoparticles, cosmetics and sunscreens – again!

by Andrew Maynard on May 3, 2012

Robin Erb has a good piece on cosmetics and safe ingredients in the Detroit Free Press this week – it tackles the very limited regulation over what goes into cosmetics, but balances this with a useful perspective on consumer choice and how this in turn can drive business decisions on what is used and how.  I mention it because the issue of nanoparticles in sunscreens comes up briefly, and I am quoted on the matter.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have been fairly vocal about the safety of nanoparticles in sunscreens.  I still contend that the weight of published evidence suggests that titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens do not present a significant when the relevant products are developed and used responsibly – and that the benefits of using this technology over others may in fact outweigh any residual risk.  But I’m also aware that this isn’t a closed issue – there are niggling questions on the use of photoactive particles, on nanoparticle sunscreen applications on delicate or compromised skin, and on dermal penetration of chemicals within the nanoparticles, that all need further research.  So I was surprised to read that my mind is apparently made up here!

After talking with Robin about cosmetics, sunscreen and nanoparticles, she sent me draft of my comments to check for factual accuracy before the piece went to press.  The original text read:

“…Agreed Andrew Maynard, director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health: “The industry seems reasonably well self-regulating.”

In his research, Maynard asked whether nanomaterials in sunscreen — the nearly molecular-sized particles that ease the lotion into our skin pores – are dangerous. His conclusion: They’re not.

“It was really surprising, to be honest,” he said.”

This was uncommonly generous of Robin by the way – many reporters will not do this (for good reason – they don’t want people interfering with the story), and in general I don’t expect it.

My response:

Hi Robin, and thanks for letting me see this – Scott’s comments are great here btw.

If you are able, could I just change one thing: instead of “In his research, Maynard asked whether nanomaterials in sunscreen — the nearly molecular-sized particles that ease the lotion into our skin pores – are dangerous. His conclusion: They’re not.”, is it possible to have something along the lines of “In his research, Maynard asked whether nanomaterials in sunscreen — the nearly molecular-sized particles that protect the skin from the sun – are dangerous. His conclusion: Not if they’re used responsibly”

It’s not as black and white admittedly, but there are still niggling uncertainties associated with the use of nanoparticles that I am on record as highlighting (as there are with other sunscreen ingredients), and it would look odd if I was quoted as saying something that seemed to contradict my usual message.

I should note at this point that, under these circumstances, my policy is to treat the reporter’s work with respect, and refrain from editing the text unless there is a compelling reason to do so.  But in this case I was concerned about the overstatement of my position on nanoparticle safety, and I thought that the technical error on the purpose of the nanoparticles being to ease the lotion into the skin pores should be addressed (in sunscreen the particles coat the skin and protect against UV exposure.  In some cosmetics, nanoparticles are used to help penetrate through the outer dead layers of skin cells – there may have been some confusion between the two here).

Robin responded back:

“Thanks for the response. No problem on tweaking the wording. I want it correct, of course.

Let me just ask this though: What would be an “irresponsible” use of sunscreen? I’m not trying to be funny – I just want to make sure the qualifier “if used responsibly” really translates for consumers.”

To which I replied:

“Understand – “responsible” can be a bit of an irresponsible blanket term :-)

Here, I mean using nanoparticles after giving possible health and environmental impacts due consideration, and doing everything possible to ensure minimal impacts and significant benefits. A bit of a mouthful, but feel free to tweak the quote. I won’t be able to respond as I’m about to board a plane back to Michigan from Denmark (hence the delay with this response) – but am sure whatever you arrive at will be fine.”

I may have been a bit generous with that last statement, as what was published on Monday came out as:

“Andrew Maynard, director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, agreed. “The industry seems to be reasonably well self-regulating.”

In his research, Maynard asked whether nanomaterials in sunscreen — the nearly molecule-sized particles that ease the lotion into our skin pores — are dangerous. His conclusion: They’re not.

“It was really surprising, to be honest,” he said.”

The adherence to the original text isn’t a particularly big deal, and to be fair I almost definitely didn’t express myself as clearly as I could have in the original phone interview.  But just in case you read this and thought that the book was closed on nano-sunscreens from my perspective – it’s not!

{ 4 comments }

Nano M&Ms?

by Andrew Maynard on April 20, 2012

Not in the technical sense I’m afraid, but thought it would be fun to post this image of nano-branded M&Ms.  They were used as part of a recent NanoDays session with local school kids exploring the broader implications of nanotechnology.

The only substantive link they have with real nano-enabled products as far as I can tell is the cost – they’re not cheap!

{ 0 comments }

It’s been hard to avoid the buzz surrounding nano quadrotors this week, following the posting of Vijay Kumar’s jaw-dropping TED talk – and the associated viral video of the semi-autonomous machines playing the James Bond theme.

The quadrotors are impressive – incredibly impressive.  But I’m sure I am not the only person watching these videos who felt a shiver of apprehension about where the technology might lead.

When people talk about emerging technologies – especially when the focus is on potential risks and unintended consequences – it doesn’t take long for the usual suspects to emerge: with nanotechnology, synthetic biology and geoengineering usually appearing toward the top of the list.  But I wonder whether focusing on big, well-publicized technology trends sometimes masks some of the less discussed but more important technology innovations that are already impacting on people’s lives.

Tim Harper and I underscored this concern in a report from the World Economic Forum last year where we suggested we should be focusing just as much on the innovations that build on synergistic connections between technology platforms (see below), because this is where many of the more significant disruptive and game-changing technologies will emerge.

It’s partly because of this that I have been so intrigued by the nano quadrotor work coming out of the GRASP lab at the University of Pennsylvania.

Technology innovation – building on technology platforms. World Economic Forum: Building a Sustainable Future

The nano quadrotors that Vijay Kumar’s team are developing are a prime example of synergistic innovation leading to a game-changing technology.  The quadrotors combine components from multiple technology platforms – sensors, materials, information processing and others – and as a result they present opportunities and risks that depend on the synergism between these platforms.  In other words, the potential disruption comes not from the platforms, but how they are combined into products.

Just thinking briefly about the potential impacts of the nano quadrotors, it’s not hard to see how it could shake things up.  In fact Chris Anderson, the curator of TED, tweeted after Vijay’s talk:

On the plus side, the nano quadrotor technology clearly opens new avenues into the areas of search and rescue, exploration and surveillance.  But it’s also frighteningly easy to see how it could lead down darker paths.  I’m sure I am not the first to have the sensation of dystopic Sci-Fi movies playing out before my eyes as I watch the video above.

Applications in military intelligence are a no-brainer – as well as in tracking terrorist activities, or any other activities that goverments and others want to monitor for that matter.  The swarming ability of the nano quadrotors also opens up intriguing new options for semi-autonomous offensive systems that are able to outsmart defensive screens.  And it’s not hard to imagine the devices being deployed on search and destroy missions, equipped with advanced face recognition capabilities and some suitably nasty toxin.  And that’s just after giving the possibilities a cursory thought.

Of course, the technology is almost definitely not as mature as the videos suggest – just yet.  The most impressive videos – including the nano quadrotors playing the James Bond theme – downplay the complexity of the external feedback and control systems needed and the limited range of the devices.  But this is where synergistic technology innovation that builds on advanced technology platforms comes into its own.

For instance, take these four possible limitations of the technology, and the likely availability of technology-based solutions (and I’m speculating a little here, not being a nano quadrotor insider):

Sensors:  To work effectively, the nano quadrotors need feedback – and lots of it.  In the lab, this is provided through a combination of on-board and remote sensors.  Although out of lab use is possible, it seems to be limited in part by the size, range, speed and sensitivity of on-board sensors at present.  This will change.  With advances in sensor technology that are already on the horizon, it will be easier to equip the devices with small, lightweight sensors that will allow increasingly autonomous operation.

Materials:  The nano quadrotors depend on lightweight, high performance materials to ensure minimum power requirements and maximum maneuverability.  Nanoscale science and engineering are already leading to a new generation of lightweight high performance materials that will further improve performance, as well as enabling further miniaturization.

Data processing: The current generation of nano quadrotors depend on incredibly powerful and sophisticated data processing capabilities.  The next generation will demand even more.  My guess is that there is still a shortfall between what can be achieved and what is needed for strong out of lab performance.  But we’re getting there.  There is still no end in sight to the exponential growth in processing power, or in smart new ways of using this power to process complex datasets on the fly.

Power.  Vijay Kumar estimates that the current crop of nano quadrotors consume 15 watts of power – giving them in my estimate a maximum of 10 – 20 minute operating time between charges using current battery technologies.  Not a lot if you are on an extended search and rescue mission!  But battery technology is still advancing rapidly, and over the next few years it is entirely conceivable that this range will be doubled or more.  Perhaps more intriguingly, it’s not too hard to imagine extending the range of a nano quadrotor to tens of miles by combining the its semi-autonomous behavior with hundreds of well-placed recharging stations.  And if those stations used wireless power-transmission technologies currently under development – and thousands of them were air-dropped over a region – the effective range of nano quadrotor swarms could be extended to hundreds of miles or more.

Even looking at these four potentially limiting factors on nano quadrotor performance and use, it becomes apparent that current technology platforms are close to providing solutions that will make this a viable, powerful, and probably highly disruptive technology.  Whether this will lead to a net gain or a net loss for society is by no-means clear yet.  What I think is clear is that focusing on the responsible development of technology platforms, to the exclusion of the innovations that arise at the intersections between them, runs the risk of us missing what is most likely to change the world we live in.

{ 0 comments }

Dip into Mind The Science Gap

by Andrew Maynard February 28, 2012

If you haven’t been reading the Mind The Science Gap blog, you really should. Ten Masters of Public Health students have been excelling themselves as they hone their ability to take published research and translate it into something accessible to a broader audience – all the while finding that elusive balance between simply telling a [...]

Read the full article →

Is Maynard going over to the nano-dark side?

by Andrew Maynard February 24, 2012

A few weeks ago I spent some time chatting with Howard Lovy for an article for the Nanobusiness Commercialization Association.  That interview was posted by Vincent Caprio on his blog a few days ago, and raised a few eyebrows – was I showing signs of becoming a nano-risk skeptic? I hope not, as as I [...]

Read the full article →

Are consumers risking skin cancer because of fears over nanoparticles in sunscreens?

by Andrew Maynard February 20, 2012

This has just landed in my email in box from Craig Cormick at the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education in Australia, and I thought I would pass it on given the string of posts on nanoparticles in sunscreens on 2020 Science over the past few years: At Australia’s International Conference on [...]

Read the full article →

Wonders and Worries – Retro nano at its best!

by Andrew Maynard February 19, 2012

Here’s an introduction to the “wonders and worries of nanotechnology” that I think is rather brilliant: It’s part of a series being produced by the Science Museum of Minnesota for the Nanoscale Informal Science Education network (NISE Net). The series is designed to stimulate discussions addressing the societal and ethical implication of nanotechnology – but [...]

Read the full article →

World Economic Forum: Top Emerging Technologies Trends

by Andrew Maynard February 16, 2012

For the past few months, the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies has been working on identifying some of the most significant trends in technology innovation.  Published yesterday by WEF, these represent ten areas that we as a council felt are likely to shake things up over the next few years in [...]

Read the full article →

Superstition and science – another A World Of Surprises video

by Andrew Maynard February 12, 2012

Another product of the A World Of Surprises project with James King and a bunch of extremely talented public health and science students.  This is a video from Gracie Trinidad, and explores the frisson between superstition and science through medieval paintings – with a contemporary twist at the end [make sure you watch to the [...]

Read the full article →

The Tale of Rhino Banana(TM)

by Andrew Maynard February 4, 2012

A product of the A World Of Surprises project with James King and a bunch of extremely talented public health and science students. The task was to explore the confluence between mundane and catastrophic risk, which the team does beautifully.  Love the technique, and the subtle touches (note the progressive effect of Rhino Bananas on [...]

Read the full article →

Exploring speculated catastrophe and mundane reality

by Andrew Maynard February 4, 2012

Credit: James King Last semester, speculative designer James King worked with myself and a small group of science and public health students at the University of Michigan to explore how a fusion of science and creative art can lead to new insights and modes of communication.  The exercise was part of the A World of [...]

Read the full article →

National Academy publishes new nanomaterials risk research strategy

by Andrew Maynard January 25, 2012

The US National Academy of Science today published its long-awaited Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials. I won’t comment extensively on the report as I was a member of the committee that wrote it.  But I did want to highlight a number of aspects of it that I think are [...]

Read the full article →

Mind the Science Gap – Helping science students connect with a non-science audience

by Andrew Maynard January 21, 2012

Cross-posted from the Scientific American Incubator blog: Studying for a Masters degree in Public Health prepares you for many things.  But it doesn’t necessarily give you hands-on experience of how to take complex information and translate it into something others can understand and use.  Yet as an increasing array of public health issues hit the [...]

Read the full article →

2012 World Economic Forum Global Risk Report

by Andrew Maynard January 11, 2012

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report is one of the most authoritative annual assessments of emerging issues surrounding risk currently produced. Now in its seventh edition, the 2012 report launched today draws on over 460 experts* from industry, government, academia and civil society to provide insight into 50 [...]

Read the full article →

Spare a comment – student science writers need your help!

by Andrew Maynard January 5, 2012

In a little over a week, ten of my University of Michigan Masters of Public Health students will embark on an intensive  science blogging course – and they need your help! Every week for ten weeks, each student will take a recent scientific publication or emerging area of scientific interest, and write a public blog [...]

Read the full article →

Innovation resolutions for 2012

by Andrew Maynard December 31, 2011

Note to self: When being swept up in the inevitable innovation frenzies* that 2012 will bring, don’t forget to: Be aware of where change is needed, and where it is not; Focus on inventiveness that will foster new solutions to pressing challenges; Develop the foresight to explore and respond to the consequences of actions arising [...]

Read the full article →

Brain candy for the intellectually incapacitated – the sequel

by Andrew Maynard December 22, 2011

Two years ago I posted links to ten (relatively) mindless online “games” as a bit of fun, and as something not too taxing to indulge in over the holiday break.  Having reached that point again where anything more intellectually challenging than tic tac toe makes my head hurt, I thought I would revisit and update [...]

Read the full article →

Chris Mocella and The Chemistry of Fireworks

by Andrew Maynard December 19, 2011

A couple of weeks back I had the pleasure of moderating an American Chemistry Society webinar on the Chemistry of Fireworks with pyrotechnics guru Chris Mocella.  It’s not quite emerging technologies, but Chris gave such an engaging talk that I thought I would post it here.  It’s a great intro to some chemistry basics, and [...]

Read the full article →