About 2020 Science

ABOUT THE BLOG:

A few years ago, a good friend twisted my arm to write an occasional blog on nanotechnology for the website Safenano.  A complete newcomer to the world of blogging, I decided to try my hand at this (to me, and at the time) rather novel form of communication.

I started out intending to use the blog in four specific ways – as a discipline, forcing me to pay attention to new developments; as an intellectual “sandbox” – allowing me to play around with half-formed ideas; as a way of conveying my expertise (or what passes for such) to a broader audience; and as a way of engaging with an eclectic bunch of readers.

Surprisingly, I was hooked in no time, and quickly realized that what I wanted to say and do extended well beyond the scope of Safenano.  So towards the back end of 2008 I launched 2020 Science – a personal and rather eclectic blog focused on the interface between science, technology and society.

Having learned a trick or two from Safenano, I was keener than ever to use the new blog to explore new ideas and engage with people.  The focus of the new blog was (and still is) science and technology in the 21st century – especially where they have an impact on decisions people make; whether they are politicians, manufacturers, activists, consumers or just people concerned and interested about the world they live in.

There’s quite a  lot of nanotechnology here, because it represents a major scientific and technological push, and also because I know a fair bit about the subject.  I’m also interested in other emerging technologies – synthetic biology and geoengineering are on the radar at the moment, but there are others that I touch on.

But more than emerging technologies, 2020 Science is about the relationships between science, technology and society.  As a result, I spend quite a lot of time exploring how to make sense of science and technology in a complex and not entirely rational society.  And as this is a personal blog, I occasionally throw something into the mix that just plain and simple interests me.

I also sometimes include guest blogs here.  These are usually requested, but if you have something to say and want to say it here – drop me a line.

ABOUT ANDREW MAYNARD:

I used to be a bona fide research scientist, but a few years back I entered the alternative reality of science policy and communication.  Under the delusion that “science,” “policy” and “communication” are not mutually exclusive, I’ve spent the past few years trying to make sense of what happens when all three come together.

I originally trained as a physicist – I got my Ph.D. from the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge in 1993, based on research into characterizing nanometer-scale atmospheric particles using what was then cutting-edge electron microscopy. After being told that this research was interesting but totally irrelevant, I turned to studying larger particles.

For several years I worked for the UK Health and Safety Executive studying the behavior of airborne particles, in an attempt to prevent diseases caused by breathing in too many of them.  But as the 1990′s progressed, the scientific community awoke to the realization that nanometer-scale particles weren’t as irrelevant as they first thought. And by a lucky turn of fate, my early interest in small particles suddenly became useful.

Having kicked off research into small particles at the Health and Safety Executive, I moved to the US equivalent in 2000 – the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) – to start up a research program into what were being called ultrafines.  It wasn’t long however before these efforts got caught up in the wave of nanotechnology – a technology based on making and using incredibly small stuff.

While at NIOSH, I helped get the agency on the road to developing a nanotechnology research program, and got sucked into the US National Nanotechnology Initiative – the mother of all nanotech initiatives.  I was still a bench scientist, but was increasingly being exposed to the politics of science.  Along with a handful of others, I helped temper the promotion of nanotechnology in the US with the idea of developing new technologies responsibly.

In 2005, I was poached from the US government.  Having clearly been too vocal on developing emerging technologies responsibly, I was asked to come on board as chief science advisor to a new project, funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.  The Project on Emerging Technologies was focused on helping ensure that as nanotechnologies advance, possible risks are minimized, public and consumer engagement remains strong and potential new benefits are realized.  Little did I know what I had let myself in for!

The following five years were a mad, hectic, thrilling baptism of fire into science policy, politics, communication and engagement.  It’s fair to say that the experience changed my perspective radically on the relationship between science and society.

After I’d remembered to keep breathing, I began to develop a deeper appreciation of the challenges people outside the science community face in making decisions in a complex world, where science is only one of many factors.  This more than anything perhaps laid the groundwork for the areas I explore in 2020 Science.

As I became immersed in the culture of DC, I was told that I would have to make a tough decision: Remain a scientist, or become a science policy wonk – there’s no middle way!  Being an obstinate fool, I decided that if there was no middle way, someone needed to make one.  So I did.  By luck or good management, I managed to straddle the worlds of science and policy; continuing to publish in the scientific literature while advising policymakers and other decision-makers.

But it was tough.  And quite honestly, was probably not sustainable.

Fortunately, an opportunity at the University of Michigan arose in 2009 that would enable me to build on this experience in a more sustainable way.

So from April 2010, I will be taking up an appointment as Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

This is a tremendously exciting opportunity.  The Risk Science Center is dedicated to providing a sound science base for dealing with risk and uncertainty when making decisions on human health, and on helping people make the best possible decisions for themselves and their organizations.  Working with a world class team, the next few years are going to be spent building the Center up.

Perfect for a scientist with a taste for policy, communication and informed decision-making.

Andrew Maynard.  March 2010

This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.