Blockbuster movies aren’t usually noted for their scientific accuracy and education potential.  But since its release last week, Steven Soderburgh’s Contagion seems to be challenging the assumption that Hollywood can’t do science.

The other day I posted a piece about how director Steven Soderburgh and screenwriter Scott Z Burns’ attention to detail and plausibility left me with a sense of optimism after watching the movie, despite its disturbing theme.  This was due in large part to the involvement of three science experts – Ian Lipkin (Professor of Epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columblia University), Laurie Garrett (senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations) and Larry Brilliant (President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund).

Larry Brilliant is well known for his work on eradicating the smallpox virus.  He was also a past Executive Director of the philanthropic arm of Google, and is currently President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund. Yesterday afternoon, I had the chance to chat with him on the phone about the movie, his involvement, and his thoughts on its importance.

What was quickly apparent in our conversation is that the idea of using film as a medium to help people better understand the threats epidemics and pandemics present is one that Brilliant has long been interested in.  While Executive Director of Google.org, he supported production of the Oscar-nominated documentary The Final Inch – a film about the historic global effort to eradicate polio. Given the success of the documentary in bringing a global issue (and public health success story) to the attention of millions of people, Larry was interested in how the medium of film could be further used – in particular to alert people to the plausible threat presented by pandemics, and the measures that are necessary to curtail their global impact.

And in Steven Soderburgh and Scott Z Burns, he found the ideal partners.

Well before he became President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund, Brilliant was interested in exploring how humanity can prepare for low probability high impact events like pandemics.  As he explained, he is particularly concerned over how we go about developing expertise and resources to tackle such events, especially where short term and local thinking does little to prepare society for eventualities that demand a globally coordinated and informed response. Brilliant emphasized that devolving responsibility to local communities and private organizations just doesn’t work here – you need the resources and reach of national and international government organizations, together with long term investment in expertise and people, in order to respond rapidly and globally to a fast-moving viral infection.

But how do you get that message across – especially at a time when long term strategic measures against catastrophic risks are being ditched in favor of short term economic and political gains?

Movies, according to Brilliant, are part of the toolbox for raising awareness and helping people understand how some challenges are just too big to be privatized. Unfortunately, films that build on fantasy rather than plausibility have led to the medium being marginalized as a vehicle for science-based communication and education.  But in the case of Contagion, Larry felt that with the combination of a “brilliant” director and screenwriter, together with a cast of dedicated and engaged actors (on whom Larry lavishes praise and admiration – especially for Matt Damon and Kate Winslet), the scene was set for a movie which was was emotionally engaging yet grounded in plausible reality.

The scenario developed within the movie is clearly fictional – it hasn’t happened yet.  But as Larry noted, because of the science that went into the movie, what emerges is a series of events that are not beyond the realms of possibility – and in fact, given enough time, are highly probable. As fellow consultant Laurie Garrett wrote the other day on the CNN website,

‘Contagion’ is part reality, part fantasy, totally possible

When asked whether he was pleased with the results, Brilliant gave an unqualified and very enthusiastic affirmative.  As well as high praise for the cast and production team, he was pleased with the way that the response to the pandemic was portrayed in the movie.  As he pointed out, the White House and UN are notable by their absence.  Rather, the heroes – the people who identify, track and eventually tackle the pandemic – are government-employed public health professionals.  To him, this is a highly realistic portrayal of how a pandemic is likely to play out, and a stark warning against cutting investment in public health because of short term thinking and a potentially catastrophic lack of understanding.

At a time when public health agencies in the US are facing significant cuts, this was a key message for Brilliant. Contagion is plausible reality wrapped up in a strong narrative – to Brilliant and others, it’s not a case of if such a pandemic will occur, but when.  And what Burns and Soderburgh have done is provide us with glimpse of our best hope for surviving this eventuality – assuming we haven’t abandoned our trained and prepared public health professionals in the meantime because we didn’t have the intelligence and foresight to recognize their importance.

This is a key message that Brilliant hopes will come through loud and clear as people watch and talk about the movie.  And it’s one that he hopes will have sticking power – with the movie stimulating conversations and action for many years to come.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/09/14/contagion-plausible-reality-and-public-health-in-conversation-with-larry-brilliant/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2011/08/01/the-science-of-vidcon-connecting-with-science-engineering-through-youtube/ http://2020science.org/2011/08/01/the-science-of-vidcon-connecting-with-science-engineering-through-youtube/#comments Mon, 01 Aug 2011 21:29:23 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4279

Where I cover science at this year’s VidCon YouTube convention, take a look at science and engineering more broadly on YouTube, and suggest that for next year’s VidCon the organizers should bring together some of the leading science projects on YouTube with grass-roots science-advocates like Charlie McDonnell and Hank Green.  It’s a long post, but hopefully worth reading to the end!

This weekend I was dragged off to VidCon by my kids – my daughter is part of an up and coming YouTube channel, and reliably informed me that this was The Place to Be!

I thought I would use the opportunity to learn more and write about science and the online video community.  Expecting a convention of YouTubers to be full of narcissistic wannabe’s, videos of kittens and songs about double rainbows, I didn’t have much hope about finding something to write about it here.

How wrong I was!

Organized and hosted by brothers John and Hank Green (the vlogbrothers on YouTube), VidCon is emerging as the premier convention for people seriously into YouTube.  This year – the convention’s second – there were some 2,400 attendees, with a claimed 2,000 on the waiting list.  To my untrained eye, the demographic was predominantly teens between 12 – 16; mainly female (around a 3:1 female:male ratio if I had to take a guess).

But what really grabbed my attention was that this was a crowd that was hungry for science – not what I expected at all!

What kept on coming back to me over the two days was that, at a time when there are still enormous challenges to women pursuing an interest in science and engineering, I was surrounded by hundreds of teenage girls at a popular culture convention, getting excited about science.

And this got me wondering whether the science and engineering community is taking as much advantage of this as it could.

In some ways I should have expected this emphasis on “nerdyness” (if you’ll forgive the expression) at the convention.  Some years ago, John and Hank Green set up NerdFighters – an online community of teens interested in more than just the latest fashion (John is a prize-winning author of teen novels, while Hank runs the blog EcoGeek, co-owns the record label DFTBA, and is a Billboard-charting musician). The community, which has been incredibly effective in connecting teens together around the world, has always had a emphasis on science and technology.  And it is associated with some of the biggest names on YouTube, such as musician and on-line personality Charlie McDonnell.  So you would expect a convention hosted by John and Hank to attract a certain number of nerds.

But this was a convention totally over-run with people with a keen interest in connecting with others on everything from science and technology to the arts and humanity. It seems that when you strip away the outer fluff from YouTube, this is what the core community looks like – people looking to connect with others to listen and talk about stuff that interests them.  And rather a lot of that stuff includes science, technology and engineering.

I should have cottoned on to this on the first day when astronaut Mike Massimino (@astro_mike on Twitter) got up to speak.  Apart from John Green repeating over and over “we had an ASTRONAUT at VidCon!” I was surrounded by teens shouting out “we love science!” as Mike spoke to an audience of over 2,000 YouTubers.

The next morning, I tweeted the following, impressed by both the audience and their hunger for science and technology:

To which John Green replied:

The performance in question was Hank Green singing “Strange Charm: A Song About Quarks” (which I did hear live).  Here’s a brief clip of Hank leading 2,000 YouTubers in the chorus at VidCon:

And here’s the full song with lyrics, because you can’t make out much above the crowd in the above clip:

Hank has a style that is reminiscent of a modern Tom Lehrer in many ways, although his subject range is far broader.  His latest CD – which includes Strange Charm – hit the Billboard charts recently; not bad for someone who sings about fundamental physics!

But this was only a prelude to an even bigger science-hit at the convention.

One of the most anticipated talks at VidCon was that of British YouTube superstar Charlie McDonnell.  Charlie has over a million YouTube subscribers on his main channel, is lead singer in the hit band Chameleon Circuit (also Billboard-charting, and inspired by the UK hit series Dr. Who), and has had nearly 150 million views of his videos on YouTube.  He is also passionate about science, and has posted a couple of science videos – most recently one on light, which has already had over one and a half million views.

Before his presentation, Charlie asked his Twitter followers what he should talk about.  This is how he responded to one tweet:

Not only was this presentation live to over 2,000 VidCon attendees.  It was also broadcast live on the YouTube home page, and linked to on every YouTube page.

Which means that a rather lot of people will have heard YouTube celebrity Charlie McDonnell talking about the importance of science and science literacy in today’s society.

More than anything, from my perspective VidCon was about a community of teens hungry to connect with science and technology, and grassroots celebrities responding to this hunger.  But apart from Mike Massimino, the more “mainstream” science community was notable by its absence.

Which led me to wonder what exactly is going on with science on YouTube – something I must confess I haven’t really thought about much in the past.

Of course I’m aware of a lot of the science education and science promotion videos that have been posted (some of them mine) – many of them aimed at instructing and informing viewers, and to be honest many of them getting lost in the YouTube noise.  But I’m not that familiar with what is out there.

However, after putting the word out on Twitter that I was on the lookout for effective YouTube science content, I was pleasantly surprised by what people sent me.  Clearly the science community is having a bigger impact on YouTube than I realized.

Joanne Manaster (@sciencegoddess on Twitter) reminded me of the excellent PsiVid blog over at Scientific American.  The blog, written by Joanne and Carin Bondar, is highlighting some of the more interesting and successful science video projects currently going on.  Recent posts include one on Bill Hammack, aka The Engineer Guy. With over 40,000 subscribers to his channel, Bill’s YouTube videos regularly get hundreds of thousands of views, and attracts hundreds of comments.

Joanne also has her own successful science channel on YouTube – she was responsible for the Liquid Nitrogen Frozen Gummy Bear video posted a couple of years ago which so far has had over 230,000 views.

Then there’s the Periodic Table of Videos from the University of Nottingham (thanks Beverley Gibbs for the call-out, and video journalist Brady Haran whose project this is).  I was aware of these videos but hadn’t paid them much attention before writing this blog.  I should have done!  Their YouTube channel has over 49,000 subscribers, and so far has racked up a total of over one million views.  Nottingham University scientists are also responsible for the equally successful Sixty Symbols YouTube channel.

The NurdRage YouTube channel was one that I wasn’t previously aware of.  With over 87,000 subscribers and over 1.1 million video views, it’s described as “Science nerds doing experiments for other science nerds” (you can follow the creators as @NurdRage on Twitter).

Then there are the viral science videos like the Zheng Lab – Bad Project – one of a number of Lady Gaga science videos (link here for more on Lady Gaga science videos from PsiVid).  Thanks to @aehrens for the reminder here on Twitter.  Since being posted this video has attracted nearly 3 million views.

And I couldn’t end this post without including The Symphony of Science. These autotune mashups of well known scientists have had a phenomenal impact.  The Carl Sagan – A Glorious Dawn video (below) for instance has attracted over six million views since being posted nearly two years ago.

And these are just some of the YouTube science resources out there – there are many others (feel free to post the ones I didn’t mention in the comments).

So there is a vibrant community using YouTube to present stuff about science – and it’s far more successful and widespread than I had realized. But this is a community that was largely absent at VidCon.  And I wonder whether this is because, as a science community, we are still struggling to make the transition from education to interaction – from telling people about stuff to being active members in a larger community.  Because without a doubt, VidCon was about a large and rapidly growing community of people who are using online video to engaging with each other and build strong communities, rather than just tell people stuff.

Of course, instruction has an important role to play in building a society that can develop and use science effectively.  But when it comes to online video (and social media more generally), should be thinking in terms of building “science connections” more than “science engagement” or “science literacy”?  This is exactly what people like Charlie McDonnell and Hank Green are doing – they are connecting with a wide community of people in a very significant way – not because they are promoting science, but because they are interested in stuff that others also find interesting.  And because some of these interests involve science, technology and engineering, a new generation of teens is realizing that it’s cool to talk about “nerdy” stuff, that there’s a whole load of others out there with similar interests, and that being into science is OK.

Just imagine what might happen if these science and YouTube communities came together more.  Could more widespread science connections lead to more effective science engagement and a better informed and equipped generation for living in a science dominated world?  It’s not beyond the realms of possibility, but it will require scientists laying aside their pedagogical instincts and becoming part of a community that digs science, but sometimes also gets a kick out of fluffy kittens and double rainbows.

Postscript.  Next year, VidCon will be held at the Anaheim Convention Center in LA, and I suspect will attract a much larger crowd than this year.  As planning gets underway for the event, it would be really good to see participation from some of the big names in science communication on YouTube, and a greater integration of science and technology YouTube communities into the program.  John and Hank Green are already working on a science and technology project, and Charlie McDonnell has committed to doing more Fun Science videos.  Could the VidCon organizers combine these with work of Nottingham University, Symphony of Science and others to create a truly unique YouTube Science Connection experience?

Update 7/6/11.  Just in case you are interested in a taste of what VidCon was like from a teen’s perspective, here’s my Daughter’s video recap.  Enjoy:

OK so it’s a slightly misleading title, but I did want to draw your attention to the rather splendiferous Risk Science Blog.

When I took over as Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science last year, I wanted to find ways of connecting researchers and students here with a broader audience.  And what better way to do this than through a blog.  So earlier this year we launched the Risk Science Blog – an eclectic collection of news items, commentaries and opinions with the common thread that they all have something to do with making sense of public health risks in an increasingly complex world.

Since the launch, I have been extremely excited by the quality of the pieces that have been posted.  We have junior and senior faculty (including the Dean of the School of Public Health) writing for us, as well as students.  And we are beginning to develop a core of regular contributors – each with their own unique perspective on health risks and opportunities.

If you have any interest in unique and insightful perspectives on contemporary risk issues that will inform, challenge and sometimes amuse you, please check out the blog.

And that title?  So I cut and paste rather indiscriminately here, but over the past few months we have posted pieces on the Fukushima Daiich incident, zombie apocalypse preparedness, hand washing, and vaccine risk communication.  Just not all at once!

Please enjoy and pass on!

Oh, and if you want to follow the Risk Science Center on Twitter, Facebook, Vimeo or Linkedin as well, just follow the links!

OK so this is a shameless plug for the University of Michigan Risk Science Center Unplugged series of discussions (if you’ll forgive the pun) – and specifically the live/webcast event we’re having on the health impacts of the Gulf Oil Spill on April 14.

But I actually think the series is good enough for a bit of a plug here – not that I’m bias!

Fist a confession though: I get really bored with hour-long PowerPoint presentations and talking head monologues (sometimes, even when I’m the speaker!).  More significantly, I think there are better ways of exploring contemporary issues than just watching a series of slides and listening to someone drone on.  So when we were thinking about a format for the Risk Science Center to start tackling knotty human health risk-related issues, we tried to come up with something a little different.  The thought process went something like this:

• Lets ditch slides, because they’re tedious.
• And while we’re at it, let’s avoid long expositions from dull speakers.
• Rather, why don’t we get a bunch of experts from different perspectives to discuss issues candidly…
• …in a way that’s engaging to a wide range of people…
• …with the opportunity for the audience to throw their questions into the mix…
• …and with a strong moderator to keep things on track and stop them getting boring.
• And why not make things web-interactive – with on-line resources, questions and answers, video streaming, ever a Twitter hookup?

The result was the Risk Science Unplugged Presents… series – interesting people talking about interesting stuff, without the hassles of PowerPoint.  And fully web-interactive, so that people can watch and participate, even if they are not in Ann Arbor.

I’m rather excited about the series – but then I guess I would be.  Our first one was on nanotechnology.  The next – coming up on April 14 (10 – 11 am Eastern Time) is on the human health impacts of the Gulf Oil spill – and we have a stellar lineup, including:

• The deputy Director for Program from NIOSH,
• a PI on the recently launched NIEHS GuLF STUDY,
• an MD
• and an environmental lawyer.

So please check out the series, and join us if you can on the 14th – either in person, or via the webcast.  And please spread the word around – come September we will be kicking off a new series of Unplugged events.

And just to make things as easy as possible for you, there are the key links:

• Gulf Oil Unplugged
• Webcast (live on the 14th, archived after that)
• Twitter feed (posts with the hashtag #umrscup appear here)
• Q&A (post a comment, ask a question – you know you want to!)
• Additional resources

Enjoy!

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog

[Transcript]

I’ve occasionally been accused of thinking big when it comes to Risk Science. So I was rather chuffed to hear former Executive Director of Google.org Larry Brilliant out-big me on every point as he delivered the 10th Peter M. Wege lecture here at the University of Michigan a couple of weeks ago.

Larry was talking about sustainable humanity, and the need to actively work toward a global society that overcomes problems (some old, some emerging) and continues to get better. But threaded through the lecture was the theme of risk, and the urgent need we face to become more educated and informed on the risks that humanity faces, and how together we can overcome them.

Many of the themes that emerged are near and dear to my heart, and are reflected in the Risk Science Center’s vision – enabling evidence-based and socially-responsive action on human health risks in a rapidly changing world. In fact, the lecture and Larry’s following answers to questions were so relevant to the Center that I felt like saying – next time someone asked what we were about – to simply say “what he said!”

Much of this was encapsulated in the following response to a question from Larry following the lecture:

We need a whole new generation of leaders, leaders who are cross-trained in governance, who understand risk literacy, who can communicate complex problems in simple ways, who truly believe in democracy, and who are willing to engage with their constituents in a way that ups the conversation. So people know what the hell they’re voting for. And what the consequences and the risks that they’re taking on. We’ve reached the stage where the public is being used as if it were the ultimate re-insurer. What happens when a nuclear power plant us built on an earthquake fault and things go bad? It’s paid for by the tax payers in ways that we haven’t contemplated. Who has done the risk cost benefit analysis of continuing to use fossil fuels? So these are not things that we normally train students with. It’s a shame but I think that the three “r’s” of reading, writing and arithmetic must have a fourth “r” added: risk; as we understand the ever-more risky world that we have inherited and the complex interrelated-ness of the factors that lead to it.

Of course, enabling sustainable humanity is about far more than risk. But, as Larry so eloquently indicated, we neglect developing a deep and sophisticated understanding of risk and how we should be responding to it at our peril.

The transcript of Larry Brilliant’s lecture can be read here, and the lecture and Q&A session can be listened to below:

[Track 1: Introductions. Track 2: lecture. Track 3: Q&A]

Dr. Larry Brilliant is Dr. Larry Brilliant is president of the Skoll Global Threats Fund, and a University of Michigan School of Public health alumnus.

The videos of the lecture and the following question and answer session can be watched here.

Cross-posted from The Risk Science Blog

Several months ago, I was asked by a colleague if I fancied co-authoring a review on nanotoxicology for a copy of Toxicological Sciences celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Society of Toxicology (coming out later this year).

Fool that I am, I agreed.  Interestingly though, as I and my co-authors (Martin Philbert and David Warheit) grappled with a topic we were all, to be frank getting a little fatigued with, it became clear that “nanotoxicology” as it is currently understood is merely a step towards a much bigger field of the “new toxicology of sophisticated materials”

The review is currently available here as an Advance Access publication from Toxicological Sciences.  In it we start by reviewing the history of the emergence of nanotoxicology as an integral part of the field of nanotechnology, and continue to examine some of the key toxicology-based challenges presented by engineered nanomaterials.

Yet we conclude that, despite the current flurry of activity in researching the toxicity of nanomaterials, the field of nanotoxicology is suffering from something of an identity crisis:

“There is a strong sense that emerging, novel and complex materials that have been engineered at the nanoscale may exhibit unusual or unanticipated toxicity from a conventional perspective, and that research is needed to understand and address how these designed-materials might cause harm in ways that are not readily understood at present. This concern is supported by a growing body of research which indicates that some nanometer scale materials do demonstrate biological behavior that is mediated by physical form as well as chemical composition. Yet a clear identification and formulation of the problems being faced remain elusive.

For example, what is meant by the “nanoscale” is far from clear, meaning that there is considerable ambiguity over which materials are embraced by “nanotoxicology.” Widely accepted definitions of nanotechnology refer to a size range of approximately 1 – 100 nm “where unique phenomena enable novel applications”. Yet these are largely definitions of convenience, not of science. And while the definitions defining the field of nanotechnology have been important in driving new science and technology   innovation, it is not clear how they apply to a new material’s propensity to cause harm in unexpected ways.”

This is not to say that the questions and issues raised by nanotoxicology are not important.  On the contrary, we note that

“there is an array of increasingly sophisticated materials that are emerging from advances in science, technology and engineering that do demand careful consideration of the new risks they might pose.”

But we suggest that new thinking on how the potential safety challenges presented by these “sophisticated materials” is needed.

“In this respect a differential approach to toxicology studies is required – one which helps identify where emerging materials and products deviate from established ones in their potential to cause harm, and focuses research on narrowing the resulting knowledge gap.

Undoubtedly, materials intentionally designed and engineered to behave in specific ways because of their fine structure are at the forefront of the new challenges being faced in toxicology. These materials increasingly demonstrate biological behavior that results from a synergistic interaction between chemical composition and physical form. But whether these new challenges can be confined to a narrow size scale implied by “nanotoxicology” is debatable.

Rather, we would argue that a broader perspective is needed on the challenges presented by novel and functional materials, that captures the idea of “sophisticated materials.” These are substances that arise at the intersection of scientific disciplines and technology platforms, and demonstrate novel and even time and context-dependent functionality based on their engineered and increasingly complex physicochemical structure.

While many of these materials will depend on nanoscale engineering, decoupling the materials from the underlying technology – or technologies – is helpful in formulating science-based questions regarding their toxicity. In this respect, the toxicology challenge presented by sophisticated materials is to understand and address the hazards presented by materials that have the ability to enter the body, interact with it and elicit an adverse response in ways that are not adequately understood through a conventional and chemical composition-dominated perspective on toxicology.”

We conclude the review by suggesting that

We can now begin to appreciate the challenges presented by simple nanoscale materials such as TiO2, ZnO, Ag, carbon nanotubes and CeO2. But these simple materials are merely the vanguard of a new era of complex materials, where novel and dynamic functionality is engineered into multifaceted substances. If we are to meet the challenge of ensuring the safe use of this new generation of substances, it is time to move beyond “nano” toxicology and towards a new toxicology of sophisticated materials.

Maynard, A. D., D. Warheit and M. A. Philbert (2011). “The New Toxicology of Sophisticated Materials: Nanotoxicology and Beyond.” Tox. Sci. Advance Access.  DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq372

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog.

As it did last year, the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos has left me with a daunting task – how do I summarize the highlights of the meeting in a single, short post?

The answer of course is that I can’t – Davos is so complex, diverse and multi-layered that no single account could do it justice. But sitting here waiting for the flight home, I wanted to capture at least something of the past few days.

World Leaders – world issues

This year saw the usual parade of world-leaders passing through Davos, selling their wares in public, while cutting deals in private.

In public and private, the unfolding events in North Africa, the Moscow terrorist attack and the world economy dominated discussions.

As is fairly typical at Davos, not too much that was startling or new was announced in public. But this is a meeting where off the record meetings and encounters are everything. And given the isolation, camaraderie and personal access that pervades Davos, the barriers to meaningful exchanges are perhaps lower here than at almost any other gathering of the great and good.

As one person pointed out to me – many delegates simply cannot afford to bring their usual entourage, meaning that the chances of conversations that get to the heart of issues – rather than leading a carefully choreographed dance around them – are reasonably high. And of course this is further enabled by the many social occasions that smooth the way for serious conversations.

Business leaders – revealed values. This stripping away of the buffers between public personas and the people behind them is one aspect of Davos that continues to fascinate me. It’s one of the few places I know if where you can get a sense of who someone really is, not who the PR machinery tries to convince you they are (again, because most people end up having to leave the PR machinery at the door). And no-where do I find this more revealing than in talking with business leaders.

It may be because the World Economic Forum actively develops partnerships with organizations that share its commitment to improving the state of the world, but I’m encouraged by the number of high profile CEO’s and business leaders I speak with here who are motivated by far more than bottom-line dollars. A cynic might claim that it’s all part of the PR machinery, which managed to sneak past the barriers. But I don’t think it is. There’s no need for these people to spend a week of their busy schedule talking about how to make the word a better place – and what excites and inspires them – unless they really mean it.

Davos provides a rare glimpse of the idealists still alive and beating in these world-wise corporate leaders. Of course, talk is a lot easier (and cheaper) than action, and these people have to deal with colleagues, shareholders, stakeholders and an economic landscape that doesn’t necessarily allow their true values and passions to flourish . But I suspect that one of the “positive dangers” of Davos is that, having revealed their inner-self to others who have the capacity to fan the flames, many business leaders emerge just that little more motivated to look beyond the bottom line, and toward changing the world for the better.

Global risks – global opportunities

This year, global risks were a central theme of the Davos meeting. The World Economic Forum formally launched the new Risk Response Network, and risk permeated many of the sessions. The aim is to establish resources and mechanisms to respond to emerging global risks more effectively than in the past – whether they are associated with natural disasters, social collapse, financial melt-down or technological failure.

While most of the discussions revolved around avoiding risk or managing the consequences, there were a few that touched on actively mitigating risk – and supporting global economic and social growth through new approaches to risk. These included developing the means to actively reduce risks through technological, policy and social mechanisms. But they also included the need to increase resilience within global institutions, infrastructure and communities – so that when things go wrong, the system can respond and adapt quickly and effectively.

This need for resilience was highlighted in a final session on global risk I was participating in, as we considered what lessons can be learned from events in Tunisia and Egypt on our dependence on and the fragility of the internet.

Science and technology – more than entertainment

Science and technology were more prominent than usual at this year’s meeting. There were packed-out sessions on the current state of science, and on contemporary issues such as the nature of the universe and personalized medicine. Yet there was still a sense that this was entertainment for delegates – a light distraction from the serious business of putting the world right, and something for accompanying partners to attend.

Nevertheless, there were indications that this is changing. The World Economic Forum has established a science advisory council that will be looking at how science can be better-integrated into the program in future years. A number of conversations I had with scientists and technologists – and there were a surprising number of them at the meeting – revolved around their desire to see science and technology rise up the agenda. And business leaders like Ellen Kullman – CEO of DuPont – were vocal about the need to pay more attention to technology innovation in building a better world.

As this is one of the aims of the Global Agenda Council I chair, it was good to see the beginnings of a groundswell toward shifting from science and technology as the Davos entertainment, to making them a significant part of broader discussions on building a sustainable future.

Social media – WEF goes grass-roots?

The use of social media was huge at this year’s meeting.

I’m not sure whether the impact is there yet – that will come – but content generation was significantly higher than previous years. Over 400 delegates were tweeting from the meeting, providing real-time insight into proceedings. Delegates were also encouraged to record short YouTube videos responding to questions posed by members of the public – and many did (including a number of prominent participants). Many delegates contributed guest blogs to the WEF blog, providing further insight into the meeting. And FaceBook marketing director Randi Zuckerberg (sister of Mark) conducted livestream webcast interviews with everyone from Tony Blair to Bill Gates to Bono.

Having seen social media in action at this year’s meeting, I’m convinced that this is the beginning of a powerful outreach and engagement by WEF that breaks the established boundaries of the organization – watch this space!

Real lives – strong inspiration

There are numerous misconceptions about Davos – many of them characterizing it as a meeting where gray men in gray suits with gray imaginations get together to schmooze with other, equally gray men, usually with no appreciable outcome. But as anyone who has been a part of the meeting can attest to, this is about as far from the truth as you can get.

At the heart of Davos is a common desire to change the world for the better. Invited participants are carefully selected according to what they do – not just who they are (even the celebrities are here because of the initiatives they are involved in, rather than the star status attached to them. And paying participants are carefully filtered and cultured to encourage a meeting where common values permeate the conversations.

This is perhaps best summed up in this year’s closing session, where Klaus Schwab, the Executive Chairman of WEF, spoke with Christine Lagarde, the French Minister of Economy, Nick Vujicic, President of Life without Limbs, and two of the Davos Global ChangeMakers – Raquel Silva and Dan Cullum.

The topic was “Inspired for a lifetime”. Unusually for a meeting characterized as full of “gray men”, there was hardly a dry eye in the house. (you wouldn’t have known at the time, but I’ve yet to speak to someone who was there who didn’t admit to tearing up at times). But I’m convinced that this wasn’t because of an overtly emotional program – it was simply because the delegates recognized in the panelists a common desire to act to make the world a better place.

Without the context of the preceding four days, the session might have come across as overly sentimental. But with the weight of Davos behind it, it was grounded in a reality that transcended mere sentimentality.

But don’t just take my word for it – the closing session of Davos 2011 can be viewed below.

A few weeks ago, I gave a talk at the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati under the slightly provocative title “Small Gods and the Art of Technology Innovation”.  The talk is now available on-line (slides and audio at least) – and viewable below – through the excellent work of the folk at CAC.

Rather sneakily, I used the opportunity to talk to a (mainly) lay audience about risk science in the 21st century – did I get away with it I wonder…?

Dan Sarewitz has a rather provocative commentary in Nature this morning, where he suggests that proposals to increase basic research may be good politics, but questionable policy.

The headline alone is probably enough to get some science-advocates’ blood boiling, whether they go on to read the piece or not: “Double trouble? To throw cash at science is a mistake” does nothing if not throw down the gauntlet to an already sensitive science community.

Beyond the provoking banner, Dan raises  serious if uncomfortable issues – there must come a point where investment in science is balanced within a much broader social context, and the consequences of not allocating funds elsewhere are weighed against the benefits of supporting research – especially blue skies research.  But reading the piece reminded me of an associated debate which seems to get rather less air time – the personal responsibility that comes with government research funding.

It’s an inescapable fact that, for every dollar, pound or Euro that governments invest in research, someone, somewhere is getting less money to spend on what they think is important.  In some cases, re-allocations may have minor social consequences.  In others, reduced spending elsewhere in favor of science may be profound impacts on the lives of individuals – especially those at the margins of society.

This delicate and never-perfect balance of limited resources between competing needs is at the heart of policy making.  Resource allocation is never simple, always contentious and more often than not a compromise between equally worthy needs.  But this means that in a socially responsive society, every hard-won government dollar comes with a burden of responsibility – to use it as effectively as possible to improve the lives of the the people who the government was elected to serve.

Which means that government-funded researchers should be probably be asking themselves (repeatedly): “How does my work benefit the society that is supporting it?”  Or, of they are brave, “Are people suffering because government dollars are supporting my research rather than going elsewhere?  And if so, what should I do about this?”

The answers may be as metaphysical as “my research provides insight into the nature of reality” to as broad as “the new knowledge I generate enriches the human experience” or as practical as “my work will help cure cancer.”  But the important thing surely is to ask the questions – and to act on the answers that come back.

I’m an ardent supporter of government-funded science, and I strongly believe (I use the word advisedly) that basic research is critical.  But it is not a right.  Every hard-earned dollar spent on research is a dollar less for someone else to do some good with.  Which means that we need to be prepared as scientists to ask the hard questions, and to grapple with uncomfortable answers.

If we do, the result will surely be science that plays a stronger, more integrated role within society – irrespective of absolute funding levels.

Back in the mists of time, I was approached with a crazy proposition – would I help co-edit a book on nanotechnologies regulation!  In a moment of weakness I said yes, and a little more than two and a half years later, the book is finally about to hit the shelves.

I actually think the resulting International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies rather a useful, coherent and engaging collection of chapters – my co-editors Di Bowman and Graeme Hodge did a wonderful job encouraging a bunch of top thinkers in the field to write under occasionally whimsical but always relevant titles.

To whet your appetite prior to the book’s release sometime in November, here’s a sneak peak at the contents:

PART I:    Concepts and Foundations

1.    Introduction: the regulatory challenges for nanotechnologies

Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard

2.    Philosophy of technoscience in the regime of vigilance

Alfred Nordmann

3.    Tracing and disputing the story of nanotechnology

Chris Toumey

4.    The age of regulatory governance and nanotechnologies

Roger Brownsword

PART II:    Frameworks for Regulating Nanotechnologies

5.    Nanotechnology captured

John Miles

6.    The scientific basis for regulating nanotechnologies

David Williams

7.    The current risk assessment paradigm in relation to the regulation of nanotechnologies

Qasim Chaudhry, Hans Bouwmeester and Rolf F. Hertel

8.    Regulating risk: the bigger picture

Karinne Ludlow and Peter Binks

9.    Producing safety or managing risks? How regulatory paradigms affect insurability

Thomas K. Epprecht

PART III:    Case Studies in Regulating Nanotechnologies and Nano-Products

10.    The evolving nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety landscape: A business perspective

Oliver Tassinari, Jurron Bradley and Michael Holman

11.    Regulation of carbon nanotubes and other high aspect ratio nanoparticles: approaching this challenge from the perspective of asbestos

Robert J. Aitken, Sheona Peters, Alan D Jones and Vicki Stone

12.    Approaching the nanoregulation problem in chemicals legislation in the EU and US

Markus Widmer and Christoph Meili

13.    A good foundation? Regulatory oversight of nanotechnologies using cosmetics as a case study

Geert van Calster and Diana M. Bowman

14.    Therapeutic products: regulating drugs and medical devices

Rogério Sá Gaspar

15.    Regulatory perspectives on nanotechnologies in foods and food contact materials

Anna Gergely, Qasim Chaudhry and Diana M. Bowman

16.    Regulation of nanoscale materials under media-specific environmental laws

Linda Breggin and John Pendergrass

17.    Military applications: special conditions for regulation

Jürgen Altmann

18.    Regulating nanotechnology through intellectual property rights

Gregory N. Mandel

PART IV:    The Future Regulatory Landscape

19.    The role of NGOs in governing nanotechnologies: challenging the ‘benefits versus risks’ framing of nanotech innovation

Georgia Miller and Gyorgy Scrinis

20.    Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears

Christoph Meili and Markus Widmer

21.    The role of risk management frameworks and certification bodies

Thorsten Weidl, Gerhard Klein and Rolf Zöllner

22.    Risk governance in the field of nanotechnologies: core challenges of an integrative approach

Ortwin Renn and Antje Grobe

23.    International coordination and cooperation: the next agenda in nanomaterials regulation

Robert Falkner, Linda Breggin, Nico Jaspers, John Pendergrass and Read Porter

24.    Transnational regulation of nanotechnology: reality or romanticism?

Kenneth W. Abbott, Douglas J. Sylvester and Gary E. Marchant

25.    From novel materials to next generation nanotechnology: a new approach to regulating the products of nanotechnology

J. Clarence Davies

PART V:    Conclusion

26.    Conclusions: triggers, gaps, risks and trust

Andrew D. Maynard, Diana M. Bowman and Graeme A. Hodge

More information on the International Handbook on Regulating Technologies can be found here.  The anticipated publication date is late November.

You’ve heard the rumors and read the hype – but what really goes on at the Singularity University, based at the NASA Ames campus in Silicon Valley?  Nature’s Nicola Jones recently went along to take a look, and her report has just been posted – it’s well worth reading.

The Singularity University was co-founded in 2008 by Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis – two people not known for being shy and retiring when it comes to new ideas.  The mission is to

“assemble, educate and inspire leaders who strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies in order to address humanity’s grand challenges”

Each year the University runs an intense ten-week summer school for graduates, leading to something that Nicola – from a brief visit this August – describes as a “think tank mashed with a geek adventure camp and a business-networking cocktail party”.

When Nicola was writing her piece, she contacted a number of people – including me – for opinions and insight into the Singularity University. This is what I wrote:

Hi Nicola,

This is a bit of a tough assignment for me as I can only assess the SU from what I read on the web, and what I know of various people involved.  I’m actually quite envious of you spending some time there – would love to hear how it comes across on the ground.

From what I know and have read about the SU, I am a little conflicted in my thoughts.  On the one hand, I don’t buy into the vision that some of the people involved preach – I think that Kurzweil’s concept of the singularity is naive for instance, and that a number of the people involved in the SU – while extremely bright – have a somewhat narrow perspective on how science, technology and society work.  But…

…that said, there are two aspects of the SU that excite and intrigue me:  First is the idea of bringing innovative and imaginative thinkers together in a high intensity environment.  Academia is notoriously conservative, and this often has a limiting influence on research and its application that can hold back innovation.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it means that progress is often slow and steady, but is more likely to be grounded on tested truths.  Yet there are occasions where less constrained thinking could lead to significant innovation – this is becoming increasingly the case I suspect as different technologies begin to converge and open up possibilities of synergistic and non-linear advances.  It’s even possible to argue that disruptive or non-linear innovation – new advances that make a break from previous ones, rather than being evolutionary – are only really possible within a system that encourages intellectual risk-taking.  Over the past 50 to 100 years, science fiction writing has been the stimulus for many scientists to follow unconventional lines of thought.  I’m not sure how acceptable it is these days though for scientists to claim they were inspired by fiction – it certainly doesn’t fit the mould of how kids are taught science works!  So maybe there is a need for opportunities that allow scientists and engineers to let their imaginations run a little wild.  And just as science fiction can stimulate sound science and technology, maybe we shouldn’t get too hung up about how realistic or grounded some of the ideas floating around in the SU are.

The second aspect that excites and intrigues me is the idea of encouraging new and innovative thinking on technology-based solutions to pressing problems.  I’m a firm believer in the importance of science and technology in delivering solutions to global problems in today’s increasingly interconnected and resource-constrained world.  Looking to a future where nine billion people plus are struggling to survive and thrive on a planet where energy, water and other natural resources are increasingly at a premium, it is hard to imagine solutions that don’t rely on new applications of science and technology.  Yet the conventional ways that we use science and technology almost definitely are not up to the job of ensuring a sustainable future.  We have a naive trust in science and technology to deliver innovative solutions to problems, but we still struggle to invest with foresight in technology innovation.  We haven’t yet cracked how to ensure technology innovation solves the problems we need it to solve, rather than the problems it can solve (we are good at creating devices we never knew we needed, while people still die of disease, starve and go without water).  And we struggle to ensure the responsible development and application of innovation, in ways that benefit people without causing undue harm.  Part of the problem is that we are trapped on outmoded ways of doing things – we need a shakeup in how science and technology are developed and used to benefit society.  And this is where the SU seems to remove some of the constraints on thinking about what is possible that have limited our effective use of science and technology.

I still have my reservations about a program that runs the risk of running close to pseudoscience at times.  But without the benefit of experience, I would be prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt as a generator of innovative thinking that might possibly help ensure the effective use of science and technology in improving society around the world – as long as there are checks and balances to ensure imaginations are grounded at some point in the possible, rather than fantasy.

Inevitably, it’s my reservations about the Singularity University that come out in Nicola’s piece more than my excitement.  But that’s how these things go.

Having read the Nature piece, I still have my concerns over some aspects of the Singularity University.  But I must confess, if the call came asking me to head out there to help out – even if it was just making the tea – you wouldn’t  see my feet for dust! This is a place that calls out to my inner-geek – big time!

Without a doubt, the world needs spaces where people can inspire each other to think big ideas and to think about what it would take to make them work – without the constraints of pedants, skeptics and naysayers.  The Singularity University is one of those spaces.

Yet at some point, we also need spaces where people can inspire each other to think big and innovative ideas about how technology and society can come together to build a sustainable future – not just an exciting one.

I’m not sure that space exists yet.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/09/15/ten-weeks-to-save-the-world-nature-does-the-singularity-university/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2010/07/25/knitting-science/ http://2020science.org/2010/07/25/knitting-science/#comments Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:08:04 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3464

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!

Alice pointed me to this piece she wrote last year that touches on science and mathematics-themed knitting.  Based on an interview with Wired UK, it explores a seemingly growing fascination with knitting on the web.  Alice used the piece to explain why the explosion of the web-based knitting community is about more than just a “nerdish inclination” to use knitting as a way of realizing coded information and expressing science-themed ideas.  But this is certainly an aspect of knitting that she is no stranger to.  According to the Wired article, she has

…knitted a scarf that depicts the power spectrum of cosmic radiation, and other Ravelry users have recreated the emission spectrum of caesium and  reimagined Klein bottles as hats.  But why are knitters looking to science – or, indeed, scientists turning to knitting? [Ravelry is a popular knitting website]

“I think it’s partly the maths,” Bell says.  “Creating objects out of coded formulae – that’s what a knitting pattern is.”

Knitting patterns as code for complex three dimensional structures – it’s an idea that makes perfect sense when you think about it.  After all, DNA uses sequences of four molecules to code for complex protein structures, so why not use deceptively simple “knit one purl one” – type sequences to construct complex shapes?

The Rosalind Scarf, by Alice Bell

Of course there are limitations here as you would expect, but it’s surprising what can be done with a ball of wool and a few needles.  Alice sent me this link to Wooly Thoughts – the work of a husband and wife team of mathematical knitwear designers.

The “illusion knitting” is pretty impressive – where the image only becomes apparent when the piece is viewed at the correct angle.  Continuing the DNA theme, Alice Bell has used the technique for what she calls her “Rosalind Scarf” (after Rosalind Franklin, naturally), which only reveals its embedded double-helix structure to those that know how to see it – messages within messages here methinks!

Knitting and crocheting as a means of creating complex geometrical forms has a long and illustrious history.  Alan Turing was often seen knitting Möbius strips and other shapes in his lunchtime apparently, according to this 2008 MSNBC piece.  The work of Taimina and others on exploring hyperbolic planes – and their relevance to biology – has been groundbreaking (I know it’s crochet, but Margaret Wertheim’s TED talk on crochet coral and complex math is excellent here).  There’s even a book on how to do explore math through knitting – Making Mathematics with Needlework: Ten Papers and Ten Projects.

And then there are the knitters who use their craft to visualize three dimensional objects.  From dissected frogs to neurons to three dimensional models of the brain.  Everything is fair game here, as this beautiful sequence of images from Discover Magazine illustrates.

Interested in DIY-microbes?  Forget synthetic biology – just download a knitting pattern!  The Big Microbe Knit at last year’s Manchester Science Festival featured instructions to create everything from a Salmonella bacterium to an H1N1 virus.

Karen Nordberg's knitted brain

Clearly there’s a rich and complex intersection between science and knitting.  This is knitting as a method of storing, transmitting, manipulating and using information, as a way of realizing complex mathematical concepts and structures, and as a form of visualizing the world we live in in new and insightful ways.  It’s an area that is begging to be explored more thoroughly in the blogosphere.

But that’s a blog that will have to wait. In the meantime, I wanted to extract myself from the rabbit hole Alice Bell kindly opened up for me, and get back to where I started – knitting in scientific meetings.

So why don’t we see more knitting in scientific meetings?  Is it simply that these meetings are still often dominated by men, who – lets be honest – haven’t embraced knitting to the same extent as women have?  Are public displays of knitting deemed unprofessional and unbecoming at scientific conferences?  Or is it just that we’re a bunch of stuck-in-the-mud fuddy duddys, who are scared stiff of being pushed outside our comfort zone?

Do It Yourself biology - knitting-style

Knitting in meetings doesn’t seem to distract people if done discretely.  I suspect some knitters find it a useful way to remain focused on what is going on around them while keeping their hands busy.  And of course, if it’s a particularly tedious meeting, knitting is a less obviously antisocial way of coping than pulling out a good book or falling asleep!

There are even some suggested rules for knitting in meetings posted on the WhatIfKnits blog.  I particularly like rule 5:

Don’t be flashy. Certain kinds of knitting—socks on multiple double-points, for example, or colorwork involving several balls of yarn—can be particularly attention-getting for non-knitters, even if you have them mastered and don’t need to refer to patterns and the like (see 2). Remember, you knit because knitting is fascinating, but you don’t want to fascinate anyone else when there’s other work at hand.

To be honest, having seen meeting-knitting in action and reading about science-related knitting, I’m tempted to brush up on long-neglected knitting techniques (I think the last time I knitted something, I was elementary school age) and try some myself!

I wonder what the reaction would be if I calmly took out my (still hypothetical) needles and wool at the next scientific meeting I attend, and started to knit?

Would I attract the admiration of my fellow scientists as I challenged preconceived notions of what it means to be a male scientist in a notoriously conservative culture?

Or would I simply make an ass of myself?

I suspect the latter – although I’m not sure I’d ever have the guts to try it out and see.  But I must confess, I do like the idea of scientific meetings that are informal enough for people to indulge in public knitting.  And I have a suspicion that knitting isn’t such a bad way of maintaining concentration in such situations – as long as the rules are followed!

And of course, there is the intellectual stimulation of being involved in something that goes far beyond making scarves and woolly jumpers.

Maybe it is time for scientists to shrug off their cultural inhibitions, and embrace their inner-knitters!

Now, where to begin…

Update 7/26/10 – Huge apologies to Alice Bell for getting the venue where she was spotted knitting wrong (see comments below)!  It was, in fact, a Science Policy event at the British Library on July 12.

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?

I asked him.

Me: So, Alex, how was math with your handy dandy Ti-83 graphing calculator?

Alex: I never used it.

Me? What?!!

Alex: It broke moths ago (exasperated parent look at this point!).  Anyway, we never used them in class.

Me: What, never?

Alex:  We didn’t really do anything that needed a calculator.

A little shocked at this revelation, I turned to my Daughter.  She’s just finished 9th grade pre-International Baccalaureate Geometry, and also has a mandatory Ti-83 graphing calculator.

Me: So, Jade, surely you used your calculator in math this year?

Jade: Sure.

Me: (relieved – this was a $100 investment after all):  Great.  What did you use it for?

Jade: Some addition.  We used the Sin, Cos and Tan keys a bit.  Occasionally I used it to multiply numbers by Pi.

Me:  … (that’s the sound of a gobsmacked parent picking themselves up from the floor!)

Last September, I asked Alex’s math teacher how essential this required purchase was.  His response?  The stuff we do this year, you could do it all on a calculator you got from a bubble gum machine! I liked this guy already! (He also turned out to be a kick-ass math teacher).

As it turned out, Alex doesn’t recall one single lesson where they actually used a calculator – of any sort.

But the TI-83 or TI-84 graphing calculator was still a required piece of kit.  The school supplied list stated categorically that

“ALL Algebra I and Algebra I Honors are REQUIRED to purchase a TI-83 plus or TI-84 calculator”

So I turned to the school principle.

She informed me that the Texas Instruments graphing calculators we essential for the algebra courses.  Questioned about Alex’s math teacher – who actually advised me against purchasing a TI calculator – I was told he was such a smart guy that he didn’t need the calculators to teach math… but that the same couldn’t be said for the other math teachers.

I’m still trying to make sense of that one.

She also pointed out that the TI graphing calculators are essential for the Standards Of Learning (SOL) tests that the students take each year.

That was last September.  This morning while writing this, I asked my daughter whether she had needed the calculator in her 9th grade math SOL.  As it turns out, the 9th grade students taking the math SOL were each provided with a TI-83 calculator.

And what did she use it for in the exam?  “A little bit of addition.”  That’s it.

I asked Alex the same question.  Turns out he was also provided with a TI-83 calculator in his SOL.  He used it for doing sums he couldn’t be bothered with doing in his head or on paper.  That’s it.

In his words, the calculator wasn’t needed.

Both kids passed their SOLs with flying colors by the way, despite not using the TI-83 as anything more sophisticated than a glorified abacus.

So why is Fairfax County VA insisting on kids’ parents forking out for a calculator that is many times more expensive and complex than is needed for the math courses being taken?

Beats me!

In the meantime, the school supply list still states that

ALL Algebra I and Algebra I Honors are REQUIRED to purchase a TI-83 plus or TI-84 calculator.

With over 9,000 students moving up a grade in the Fairfax County school system next September, that’s a bucket load of calculators parents will be purchasing that are, in all probability, not going to be used.

Texas Instruments must be laughing all the way to the bank!

_____________________________________

End Notes

I should be clear that I have nothing against the TI graphing calculators – they have their fan base, and there are plenty of people who get great satisfaction from using them.  But I do object to students being locked in to one make of calculator that, by all accounts is far more sophisticated than is needed (As a number of people have pointed out, there are other makes of graphing calculator, and some rather smart iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad apps now available..  Bot none of these are allowed in school systems that are locked in with Texas Instruments calculators). I also have grave concerns about curricula that depend on an outmoded technology to teach stuff that can either be done with pencil and paper, or on a computer.  And call me old-fashioned, but I thought that good math teaching was all about developing mental skills and understanding, not how to press buttons!

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.

And who won?

Before I reveal that, I must say that this has been a brilliant event, brilliantly run by the folks at Gallomanor.  I’m sure there has been frenetic activity behind the scenes, but Sophia Collins, Shane McCraken and a whole host of staff and moderators have done an incredible job of coordinating 100 scientists, several thousand kids, an unbelievable number of live chats and a seemingly inexhaustible stream of questions.  And all the while keeping their sense of humor!

Then there are the scientists.  The four other scientists in the Silicon Zone were fabulous – Paula Gilfillian, Emma Pilgrim, Andrew Leitch and Marianne Baker.  Putting the competition aside (and I seriously don’t know why the students ended up voting for me rather than the others), everyone did a wonderful job of engaging with the kids and providing great answers.  Don’t believe me?  Check out their answers to the questions, and I can guarantee you’ll end up thinking “wow – this is so good they should have won!” – many of my answers were plain and mundane by comparison.

And the students?  What a great bunch!  Their questions stretched and challenged all of us – as well as leading to rather more laugh out loud situations than is probably proper in scientific circles!  Okay so there were some who tested our patience (you know who you are…), but what an enriching experience!

And the winner?

Well, to be honest – it’s the students!  What better way to inspire the next generation of science-savvy individuals than by getting them excited about science in the classroom.

Brilliantly done I’m A Scientist!

Oh, and if you really want to know who the last scientists standing were, here’s the full low-down.

Update:  If you’re inspired to take part in I’m a Scientist 2011 – you can already sign up here!

Update 9/6/10 – Oops, a gremlin crept into Marianne Baker’s link!  Now fixed.  You can also read her blog at Purely a Figment of your Imagination.

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.

Andrew – thanks for the invitation to perform some complex risk assessment using several poorly understood variables. However we do have to point out that the world’s best minds don’t yet have enough information even to design reliable nanomaterial risk assessment processes, let alone to come up with a single ‘worst case scenario’ figure for long term health impacts of using nano-sunscreens.

The huge knowledge gaps plaguing nanomaterials toxicity and exposure assessment (along with preliminary studies suggesting the potential for serious harm) are key reasons for calls by Friends of the Earth Australia and United States for a precautionary approach to management of nanotoxicity risks.

We explain below why your risk assessment challenge is impossible given these data gaps. We also point out that given that different people with different skin types are likely to experience different exposure levels, positing any single ‘worst case scenario’ figure is inappropriate. Obviously you are aware of these serious limitations. This does prompt us to question the intent of your challenge.

Further, we strongly suggest that your challenge is directed to the wrong people. Why not demand that the manufacturers of nano-sunscreens provide you with the data to demonstrate that their products are safe? Why not challenge the regulators to explain their failure to keep nanomaterials that behave as extreme photocatalysts out of sunscreens?

Better yet, why not support a discussion about the role of the precautionary principle in the management of uncertain new risks associated with emerging technologies? Why not explore the importance of public choice in the exposure to these risks? Why not contribute to a critical discussion about whose interests are served by the premature commercialisation of products about whose safety we know so little, when there is preliminary evidence of risk and very limited public benefit? Transparent micron-particle sized zinc oxide sunscreens are commercially available; a recent article suggests most titanium dioxide nano-sunscreens on the market could be doing more harm than good. No-one need use nanoparticles in order to produce a cosmetically and functionally acceptable sunscreen.

Andrew, we respectfully suggest that someone of your expertise and stature could play a more constructive role in these debates – debates which should not be limited to a question of technical risk assessment.

Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminato
Friends of the Earth Australia and United States
http://nano.foe.org.au
http://www.foe.org/healthy-people/nanotechnology-campaign

Why determining a single figure for ‘worst case scenario’ health harm associated with using nano-sunscreens is not possible

In 2004 the UK’s Royal Society recommended that nanoparticles be treated as new chemicals, subject to new safety testing before they could be used in products, and face mandatory labelling. Six years on, none of those things have happened.

The development and validation of nano-specific risk assessment processes may take years. As the European Food Safety Authority pointed out last year in relation to the risk assessment of nano-foods: “Although, case-by-case evaluation of specific ENMs [engineered nanomaterials] may be currently possible, the Scientific Committee wishes to emphasise that the risk assessment processes are still under development with respect to characterisation and analysis of ENMs in food and feed, optimisation of toxicity testing methods for ENMs and interpretation of the resulting data. Under these circumstances, any individual risk assessment is likely to be subject to a high degree of uncertainty. This situation will remain so until more data on and experience with testing of ENMs become available” (EFSA 2009, p2-39).

When it comes to sunscreens, a key component of risk assessment – determining likely exposure – is not yet possible because we do not yet understand what quantities of nanomaterials may be absorbed into the skin from sunscreens and in what circumstances. Skin penetration studies to date have largely failed to look at important variables such as skin condition (including damage through sunburn, injury or eczema, or thin skin present in the young or elderly), skin flexing (eg through exercise) and the role of substances in sunscreens that can act as penetration enhancers by increasing skin permeability. Further, most skin penetration studies have used excised skin in in vitro studies which is likely to underestimate actual penetration.

In your earlier blog you point out that research by Professor Brian Gulson at Macquarie University and by scientists at Australia’s CSIRO which shows radio-isotope labelled zinc from sunscreens in the blood and urine of human volunteers is not yet published. True enough – also that these researchers are not yet able to say whether or not the absorbed zinc they detected is in particle or ionic form. Nonetheless, the results do show that zinc in sunscreens does not simply remain on the outer layers of dead skin cells, as some have claimed. Many questions remain: the one clear answer is that more research is required.

One interesting point about Brian Gulson’s study underscores the impossibility of determining any single ‘worst case scenario’ figure for health harm. Professor Gulson told the ICONN conference in Sydney this year that one woman with sensitive skin suspended her participation in the trial after four days due to an adverse reaction. The levels of isotope labelled zinc in her blood were also substantially greater than that of other people in the trial. Are people with sensitive skin more likely to experience substantially greater skin penetration by nano-ingredients in sunscreens? Could this put a minority of the population at greater health risk? We don’t yet know.

A further constraint on calculating your requested ‘worst case scenario’ figure is the paucity of long-term and multi-generational nanotoxicity studies. This is a very serious limitation. Potential health harm from exposure to many nanomaterials may be more likely to manifest in the long term, rather than immediately. This point was made in 2004 by global reinsurance giant Swiss Re (2004). Swiss Re emphasised that as with asbestos, the significant time lag between exposure to nanomaterials and the onset of health harm is the greatest challenge for insurers attempting to calculate risk.

You ask for a ‘worst case scenario’. One worst case scenario is the accelerated development of skin cancer in people using nano-sunscreens, despite their wearing sunscreens for sun protection. We are copying below an extract of comments made by Dr Maxine McCall of the Australian CSIRO to the ABC’s 7.30 Report in late 2008.

“There’s the concern that there could be free radical generation on the skin, potentially damage, when the nano particles get into cells in the body if they don’t dissolve,” Maxine McCall, head of the CSIRO’s nano safety research, said. “Because they could interact with proteins in the cell or with DNA which codes – which has the genetic information – the worst case scenario, I suspect, could be development of cancer. We don’t know. That’s what we’re trying to find out.”

Dr McCall told the 7.30 Report that it would be two to three years before the CSIRO could reach a conclusion on nano sunscreens. “At the moment, we just don’t have enough information to make informed decisions,” she said.

Nanomaterials that behave as photocatalyts have been found in five of six Australian nano-sunscreens tested by Barker and Branch (2008). Sunscreens containing both nanoparticle titanium dioxide and zinc oxide were demonstrated to have a photocatalytic effect. Some of these photocatalysts were so extreme that they accelerated sun damage to pre-painted steel roofs by up to 100 times. Clearly the effects on human skin of nano-sunscreen use will differ from a pre-painted steel roof. Will these extreme photocatalysts penetrate human skin and persist in particulate form in sufficient quantities to cause long-term health harm? We don’t know.

Another worst case scenario is harm to the developing brains and reproductive systems of unborn babies, following maternal exposure to sunscreens. If nanoparticles from sunscreens are absorbed into a pregnant woman’s bloodstream, it is possible that they could pass across the placenta to the unborn baby. A recent study showed that polystyrene nanoparticles up to 240nm in size can be transported through a human placenta [note to Andrew: in your earlier blog you state that this “research was aimed at working out how to get beneficial drugs to the fetus”. The motivation of the study is arguably irrelevant. However in this instance the study is clearly designed to explore the potential for risky nanoparticle exposure in utero].

Animal studies have found altered gene expression, harm to the brains and reproductive systems and minor neuro-behavioural alterations in mice born to mothers exposed to titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Will nanoparticles of titanium dioxide be absorbed from sunscreens into the bloodstreams of pregnant women in sufficient quantities, and will they persist in particulate form in sufficient quantities, to harm unborn babies? Again, we don’t know. This will require much further research.

In the meantime, regulators faced with substantive knowledge gaps struggle to formulate an appropriate public policy response to uncertain but potentially serious risks. Challenging community groups to calculate the technical risk of a worst-case scenario of wearing nano-sunscreens to justify their asking product manufacturers to undertake basic safety research seems more than a little retrograde.

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?

Here are three ways you might start:

1.  Random dipping

Simply open the home page of I’m A Scientist and dive in

You’ll notice the log-in panel to the right – just ignore this.

From this screen you have two options – pick a Zone to browse (there are twenty of them – ten themed zones, and ten general ones), or check out the latest questions (the panel to the right):

If you select a Zone, you can then explore the questions and discussions going on there (see below).  Each has five scientists, and around 400 teenagers pummeling them with questions.

2.  Zone-watching

Given the craziness of 8000 teenagers quizzing 100 scientists, you might prefer the relative sanity of concentrating on just one Zone.  There are twenty to choose from – ten focus on specific areas, while the remaining ones are science free-for-all’s.  You can either select your Zone of preference from the home page of I’m A Scientist, or from the drop-down menu at the top right of each page:

Once you enter a Zone, you can either view the most recent questions asked in that Zone from its home page, or you can check out what the Zone’s scientists have been up to by clicking on the “Scientists” tab .

This is what the Silicon Zone – my home on I’m A Scientist – looks like:

Check out the latest questions and comments under each scientist to see how they are doing.  Or click on an individual scientist to get the low-down on all their recent activity.

From the Zone Home page (accessed from the the top left tab), you can also explore all the questions students in this Zone have asked.  Simply go over to the “Recent Questions” box on the right of the screen, and select “View all answered questions”.  This brings up the full list of questions for this Zone:

3.  Scientist-rooting

Finally, you can opt to root for one of the 100 scientists taking part in I’m A Scientist.  To track their progress – and see whether they survive the week two “expulsions,” simply click on the scientist’s image from the Zone pages.  This is what my page looks like, but of course you have ninety-nine other worthy souls to root for as well

And finally, when you do click on a question, this is what you will get:

As scientists respond to the question and students comment on the responses, a conversation builds up, and the fun really begins!

There are plenty of other ways to enjoy I’m A Scientist – live chats between students and scientists are scheduled throughout the two weeks that you should be able to tap into for instance, and you can follow the I’m A Scientist back-stories on Twitter by using the hashtag #IAS2010.  There’s also a Twitter group of scientists involved in the event.

So log on, tune in, and immerse yourselves in one of the most innovative and exciting teen-science events in recent years.

But be warned – once you get hooked, there’s no going back!

Update 6/13/10 – I should have also mentioned that you can pull up a list of answered questions for each scientist from their profiles.  This is my list – similar lists are available for the other contestants.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/06/13/a-spectators-guide-to-im-a-scientist-get-me-out-of-here/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2010/05/26/as-scientists-create-the-first-synthetic-cell-the-future-safety-of-synthetic-biology-will-depend-on-sound-science/ http://2020science.org/2010/05/26/as-scientists-create-the-first-synthetic-cell-the-future-safety-of-synthetic-biology-will-depend-on-sound-science/#comments Wed, 26 May 2010 15:34:34 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3238

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 have embarked down a dangerous and morally dubious path.

It’s no surprise therefore that, hot on the heels of last week’s announcement, President Obama called for an urgent study to identify appropriate ethical boundaries and minimize possible risks associated with the breakthrough.

This was a bold and important move on the part of the White House.  But its success will lie in ensuring the debate over risks in particular is based on sound science, and not sidetracked by groundless speculation.

The new “synthetic biology” epitomized by the Venter Institute’s work – in essence the ability to design new genetic code on computers and then “download” it into living organisms – heralds a new era of potentially transformative technology innovation.  As if to underline this, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce will be hearing testimony from Craig Venter and others on the technology’s potential on May 27th – just days after last week’s announcement.  But the technology also raises serious ethical and safety concerns: Is it right and proper to meddle with the fundamental basis of life?  What happens if the technology gets into the wrong hands? And what might occur when synthetic life meets the natural world?

Questions like these have challenged scientists, ethicists and decision makers for many years, and with good reason – our headlong charge into advanced genetic manipulation is taking us into uncharted and uncertain territory.  But the breakthroughs made by Craig Venter and his team place a new urgency on developing policies, ethics and research strategies in support of safe and acceptable synthetic biology.

The ethics in particular surrounding synthetic biology are far from clear; the ability to custom-design the genetic code that resides in and defines all living organisms challenges our very notions of what is right and what is acceptable.  Which is no doubt why President Obama wasted no time in charging the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to look into the technology.

But in placing ethics so high up the agenda, my fear is that more immediate safety issues might end up being overlooked.

It’s not that safety isn’t on the radar – there is already tremendous speculation over the potential impacts of synthetic biology.  But with one or two exceptions (including work from the J. Craig Venter Institute), there seems little science behind many of these conjectures.  And actions based on speculation alone may endanger the tremendous good that could come from this rapidly emerging technology, while potentially opening the door to unintended consequences.

Rather, scientists, policy makers and developers urgently need to consider how synthetic biology might legitimately lead to people and the environment being endangered, and how this is best avoided.

What we need is a science-based dialogue on potential emergent risks that present new challenges, the plausibility of these risks leading to adverse impacts, and the magnitude and nature of the possible harm that might result.  Only then will we be able to develop a science-based foundation on which to build a safe technology.

Synthetic biology is still too young to second-guess whether artificial microbes will present new risks; whether bio-terror or bio-error will result in harmful new pathogens; or whether blinkered short-cuts will precipitate catastrophic failure. But the sheer momentum and audacity of the technology will inevitably lead to new and unusual risks emerging.

And this is precisely why the safety dialogue needs to be grounded in science now, before it becomes entrenched in speculation.

In six months’ time, the President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues will be presenting President Obama with its findings and recommendations on the implications of synthetic biology.  Hopefully as well as grappling with the ethics of nanotechnology, their recommendations will also address the potential and plausible risks associated with the technology, and the science that is needed to ensure its safe development and use.

Because without sound science guiding the safety dialogue, there is every chance that synthetic biology will be derailed by mistrust, misinformation and misunderstanding.

And if this happens, it’s hard to see how anyone can win.

The quality’s a bit flaky, but I thought I would upload this video for a bit of fun.  It’s the first – and possibly the last – time I will simultaneously attempt to unravel the mysteries of nanotechnology… while baking a cake!

Filmed at the National Museum of American History as part of Nanodays 2010, the presentation was part of a public dialogue on  nanotechnology.  My task: help set the scene for a discussion on who should oversee the responsible development of nanotechnology.

Wanting to try something a little different, I thought I would play around with cooking as an analogy for nanotechnology.  The analogy is a useful one – I only scrape the surface of where it could be taken here.  But whether it was a wise decision to actually cook in public – well, I’ll leave judgment on that one to you!

One thing the video doesn’t show is how the cake turned out.  I would like to say that it was light, moist and delicious.  However, just in case someone posts pictures of the actual result, I have to be straight with you – it sucked!  Personally, I blame the lab oven provided by the Smithsonian – I can cook, honest!  Perhaps a bonus lesson though is that, even with the best preparations, unanticipated consequences are always possible – whether baking a cake or making the latest nanotech-enabled gizmo!

A lot of things keep me up at night – everything from the trivial (“did I remember to brush my teeth?”) to the to the profound (“does it matter?” ).  But recently, I’ve been plagued more than usual in the wee small hours by the challenge of developing sustainable and resilient technologies.

Blame it on reading about too many fictional futures where post-apocalyptic dystopias dominate, but I do worry about how to ensure a secure future that depends on highly complex and specialized technologies.

Here’s my problem:  Technologies – or rather, the understanding and skills to use specific technologies – can just as easily be lost as gained.  Just because we as a global society can do something clever now, doesn’t mean that people 10, 20, 50 years down the line will still be able to do it.  Securing and maintaining technological advances requires effort – take our eyes off the ball, and the technology innovation-equivalent of entropy begins to eat away at progress.  And the more dependent we become on complex technologies, the more effort it seems we need to expend to support this dependency.

Which all makes me wonder: Are we are destined to hit a point where our global intellectual capacity is so taken up with maintaining the technological status quo, that we will loose the capacity for further technological innovation?  Or even worse; are we heading for a technology innovation impasse ends up degenerating into an uncertain and unenlightened future?

I have to say, I’m not an optimist here – that is, unless we learn how to build effective technology ratchets.

A mechanical ratchet, as everyone knows, is a device that allows movement in one direction only. By comparison, a technology ratchet can be considered as something that allows technology development to move forward, but prevents or inhibits it from moving backward.  The idea is to find ways to hold onto ground gained through technology innovation, without having to constantly expend huge amounts of effort in doing so.

This is a significant challenge.  Up until the point that we started using our heads and creating our own destiny, the progress of humans – and our evolutionary precursors – was underpinned by a rather robust biological ratchet: evolution.  Evolution is a well-honed ratchet mechanisms that ensures the successes of one generation are passed on to the next though random mutation and natural selection. In effect, progress is hard-wired into an organism’s genetic code, meaning that each subsequent generation is spared the hassle of learning the rules of survival from scratch.  But when we humans started to think for ourselves, we left this biological ratchet behind, leaving us dependent on “soft-wired” technologies that each new generation needs to be taught.

Fortunately, we’ve managed to develop some technology ratchets that have made the process of transferring knowledge from one generation to the next a little easier.  Skills like making fire, using wheels and growing crops have propagated successfully from generation to generation for thousands of years, so we must be doing something right.  But how effective are these ratchets, and are they up to the task of sustaining technology innovation in the 21st century?  The history of technology development has been “lumpy” to say the least – as civilizations have come and gone, technological ground has been lost as well as gained – suggesting that the technology ratchets of the past might be a little creaky, to say the least.

Living in what is probably the most technologically advanced and technology-dependent age of humanity to date, I’m not sure we can rely fully on old and worn technology ratchets – if we are to prevent a precarious technology-dependent society collapsing like a pack of cards at the slightest provocation, we need to proactively develop effective technology ratchets that underpin sustainable and resilient progress.

So what sort of technology ratchets should we be building?  Here are four ideas for starters:

Open-access knowledge-repositories. These used to be called libraries!  Whether stored on paper, digitally, or within cultural and social memories, widespread access to resilient and durable knowledge-bases is an important technology ratchet.  Where knowledge is privileged, easily corrupted, or temporal, it becomes increasingly hard to ensure its endurance across generations.  Ironically, while we now have access to more information than ever before, the resilience and accessibility of the “knowledge” associated within this information is by no means certain.

Skills transfer mechanisms. I was tempted to say “education” here, but what most people consider as education is part of a broader technology ratchet that ensures the skills of one generation are passed on to successive ones.  This includes knowledge transfer.  But it also includes the ability to use this knowledge.  Skills transfer mechanisms will depend on formal education – including “book-learning” and-on-the job training.  But they will also depend on learning in less formal situations – skills passed on by parents and peers, or through social interactions.  I suspect sustainable technology innovation will require more people to acquire and pass on more skills than ever before in order to succeed – and we are going to have to find new ways to achieve this.

Redundancy. Biology works so well because it has built-in redundancy.  The same information is carried by billions of cells, and there are often multiple pathways to achieving the same end.  The result is incredible resilience – throw a curve-ball at biology, and it adjusts and adapts.  It’s something that we could learn from in ensuring resilient technology innovation – redundancy as another technology ratchet.  It’s somewhat counter-intuitive, but developing multiple technology approaches to the same end lessens the chances of loosing critical knowledge and skills.  The way technology innovation currently works, redundancy often falls by the wayside (think technology monopolies for instance).  I suspect we will need to find ways to  overcome this in developing resilient and sustainable technology solutions in the future.

Cultural integration of science and technology. How can technologies be sustained in a society where those dependent on the technology haven’t the first idea of how it works – or what to do if it goes wrong?  When everything is going okay, the current model is one that works well.  But its a model with very little resilience – meaning that when things go wrong (as they are sure to do), things quickly degenerate into a mess.  The alternative is to embed an understanding and appreciation of technology – and the underlying science – within society itself.  Cultural integration of science and technology  provides an effective technology ratchet for preventing slippage in the face of new challenges.  As well as facilitating the passing-on of knowledge and skills across generations, it disperses understanding throughout society and enables informed decision-making in the face of emerging issues.  Unfortunately, many of today’s cultures do not respect science and technology to the degree that is necessary for this technology ratchet to be effective.

Astute readers might spot that these are not new ideas.  But framing them in the context of technology ratchets possibly is.  And maybe – just maybe – by framing them in this way, new light will be shed on how to use them to underpin sustainable and resilient technological progress.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that all this talk of technology ratchets is the product of chronic insomnia, and I ought to stick to safer ground in the early hours – like teeth, for instance.

But I suspect that there’s mileage in the concept.  It seems painfully inefficient to have to support each advance in technology with a sustained and long-term effort to maintain the advance – not to say precarious.  Wouldn’t it be better to develop more effective ways for each generation to lay a solid technological foundation for the following generation to build on – one that isn’t high maintenance?

That, to me, sounds like a technology ratchet.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/03/07/why-we-need-technology-ratchets/feed/ 16 http://2020science.org/2010/02/17/why-i-dont-believe-in-technology-innovation/ http://2020science.org/2010/02/17/why-i-dont-believe-in-technology-innovation/#comments Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:14:52 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2921

Sitting here in Denver Airport, I think I have finally lost my faith in technology innovation.  And the reason?  That fiendish creation of the Gates empire, Microsoft Word.

Like a good believer, I have persevered with my faith in technology innovation as a driver of social progress.  There have been niggling doubts for sure.  But I’ve held fast – until now.  While struggling this evening with yet another a MS Word document that didn’t survive the traumatic transfer from a PC to (horror of horrors) a Mac, everything become clear – the promise of technology innovation is nothing but a myth, created to feed our insatiable desire for change.

Eighteen years ago, I was writing my thesis – on a Mac – using an early incarnation of Microsoft Word.  I typed, and what appeared on the screen matched what came out of the printer.  I added equations – complex ones at that.  I included textbook-quality diagrams.  And my final thesis looked as good as anything I’ve produced since.

The system worked – it made my life easier. And it worked from a single 3 1/2 inch disk (remember those?) that contained the Mac’s operating system, the word processor, and all the documents I was working on.

So what has changed in the intervening eighteen years?  How has technology innovation improved my life as I type away?

These days, I type into the latest version of Word, and the system hangs up on me.  I try adding equations, and can’t get the formatting right.  I attempt to include diagrams, and the program places them everywhere but where I want them to go.  I open documents from PC-using colleagues, to be faced with text and images in places they were never meant to be.

And all this from a program that now takes up well over 50 times the disk space of its predecessor, and needs a super-computer to run on.

So much for progress.

But it gets worse.

People actually use this program.  They take it’s flaws in their stride.  They go to great lengths to explain how, when things go wrong, you are the problem.  They enthuse over the thousand and one features that contribute precisely nothing to good writing. They even change their work habits to match the program’s foibles.

In other words, they adapt to fit the technology.

This I find deeply disturbing.  People, it seems, don’t strive to do things better.  They strive to do things different.  And technology innovation gives them the opportunities they so avidly seek – even if it makes life harder.

How else do you explain a society that, in eighteen years, has so thoroughly embraced a product that enables them to do less for more?

Of course, my judgment might be slightly clouded by the current dogs-dinner of a document sitting in front of me that I’m expected to read and edit.  Maybe technology innovation really does improve people’s lives sometimes.  Maybe I should hold off on forming the Tech Innovation Unbeliever’s Association for now.

But it does make you wonder whether we’re addicted to the change that technology innovation brings, rather than the progress it promises.

And if we are, I wonder what the treatment is – tech innovation rehab?

I can see the queues forming now for the Microsoft Word Recovery Center.

Written in Ommwriter – which is not made by Microsoft

Well, I’ve survived my first “Davos” and lived to tell the tale.  I feel I should write about how profoundly important and influential these meetings are (and without a doubt, they are).  But it’s two o’clock in the morning, and I wanted to wrap up this blog series with a minimum of effort before hitting the sack.  So instead, here’s a quick overview of how “my Davos” went (as the phrase goes):

Anticipation: Without a doubt, this was the most anticipated meeting of the last few years for me.  The WEF Annual Meeting at Davos is the stuff of myth – the place where you can rub shoulders with the likes of Bono and Angelina Jolie, where political sparring partners hash out deals, where you can find yourself chatting to presidents and prime ministers – and not know it ’till half way through the conversation, and where chance encounters in the gents can lead to new deals.  I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to being a little excited to have been invited.

Confusion: All first-timers said the same thing to me when asked – working out what’s going on and where is a monumental task when you get here.  It’s not that WEF runs a poor show – quite the contrary, this meeting runs with Swiss precision.  But the combination of geography, snow, security, and multiple meeting tracks – not all of them publicized – is a little overwhelming.  I commented to a colleague in WEF on the third day here that I constantly had the feeling that there was a party going on somewhere I hadn’t been invited to.  he responded that there are probably at least five parties, not just one – that’s what it’s like until you begin to find your feet.

Cynicism: By the second day, I was beginning to wonder whether there was anything more to this meeting than bagging names to drop, finding backers for business deals, and partying.  In all the apparent confusion and chaos, it was hard to see anything of worth going on.  The WEF tag line is “Committed to improving the state of the world.”  They certainly seemed committed to meetings – lots of them.  But was there any real substance here?

Admiration. As I began to get the measure of the meeting though, it’s true worth began to shine through.  There are a lot of intangibles here – benefits that are very real, but hard to quantify.  It slowly began to dawn on me that there’s a lot less hot air here than it at first seemed.  Davos creates something of a safe environment where people can relax and get down to business without being burdened by too much posturing.  It’s also a great leveler. The assumption is that everyone here has something of value to bring to the meeting, and so is worth talking to.  A number of times I found myself talking to seemingly ordinary people, just to discover how extraordinary they were.  Not just the prominent public figures either  – this place is teeming with smart, inspirational people most readers probably wouldn’t know from Adam.  And everyone is eager to talk – I’ve never been to a more sociable meeting.  Sit down anywhere and the chances are that the person next to you will introduce themselves and strike up a conversation.  I thought at first it was because people were desperate to network.  But it’s more than that – somehow, Davos seems to remove the inhibition that usually stops complete strangers from talking about anything and everything under the sun.  When you get used to it, it’s incredibly invigorating.

Awe. And finally, I ended the meeting on a note of something approaching awe.  In amongst the business and political leaders at Davos, WEF – under the direction of the organization’s Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab – brings in a huge variety of other people.  The key here is that people are invited to the meeting who have the potential to make a difference, whether they are thought-leaders, activists, social entrepreneurs, whatever.  The bar for admission isn’t who you are, but what you can do.  This makes for an incredibly rich and diverse group of people.  But on top of this, the meeting celebrates potential, not status.  And to see this, you just need to look at the closing session of the meeting this year.  At the end of a meeting attended by some of the world’s most influential leaders, who did Klaus Schwab choose close with?  Six young “Global Change Makers” – each under 20 (the youngest was 16), and committed to making social change happen.  This is the point I think that I realized how special this meeting is.  In one of the most prominent sessions of the meeting, Klaus invited these six kids to talk about how they see the world, and how their outlook can inspire others to rethink and rediscover their values.  I was genuinely moved – not something that usually happens to me at events like this!  More than anything else, this closing session demonstrated that Davos is not about celebrities or power mongers or networking or having fun – it’s about inspiring people to change the world for the better.

Of course, there’s a lot that’s frustrating about the meeting as well – it isn’t perfect by a long way. But its potential to enable things to happen is real, and it is unique.

So all in all a very worth while trip.  I just need to start working on my invitation for next year now!

________________________________________

For more information on the “Global Change Makers” check out their web page, and their YouTube channel.  The closing session at Davos featuring them can be seen here – but you need to fast forward past the first 60 minutes of the video.  I’d encourage you to do it though – these kids are inspiring.  I should add a warning that the session included the Archbishop of Cantebury, who tended to get a little preachy at times.  But don’t let that deter you.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/01/31/davos-2010-wrapup-inspired-by-youth/feed/ 5 http://2020science.org/2010/01/18/no-small-matter-taster/ http://2020science.org/2010/01/18/no-small-matter-taster/#comments Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:28:38 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2826

To accompany the review just posted of Felice Frankel and George Whitesides’ book “No Small Matter: Science on the Nanoscale” the authors kindly allowed me to post this series of excerpts.  What I wanted to capture here was the synergy between the images and the prose – and how together they pull the reader in.

This is just a small taste (bad pun – sorry) of what the book offers.  If you enjoyed it and want to see more – I’m sure you know your way to a good bookstore by now.

As people seem to expect this these days, I should be clear that this is an independent review, using a copy of No Small Matter purchased from my own hard earned cash!

Ten years ago at the close of the 20th century, people the world over were obsessing about the millennium bug – an unanticipated glitch arising from an earlier technology.  I wonder how clear it was then that, despite this storm in what turned out to be a rather small teacup, the following decade would see unprecedented advances in technology – the mapping of the human genome, social media, nanotechnology, space-tourism, face transplants, hybrid cars, global communications, digital storage, and more.  Looking back, it’s clear that despite a few hiccups, emerging technologies are on a roll – one that’s showing no sign of slowing down.

So what can we expect as we enter the second decade of the twenty first century?  What are the emerging technology trends that are going to be hitting the headlines over the next ten years?

Here’s my list of the top ten technologies I think are worth watching. I’m afraid that, as with all crystal ball gazing, it’s bound to be flawed. Yet as I work on the opportunities and challenges of emerging technologies, these do seem to be areas that are ripe for prime time.

Geoengineering

2009 was the year that geoengineering moved from the fringe to the mainstream.  The idea of engineering the climate on a global scale has been around for a while. But as the penny has dropped that we may be unable – or unwilling – to curb carbon dioxide emissions sufficiently to manage global warming, geoengineering has risen up the political agenda.  My guess is that the next decade will see the debate over geoengineering intensify.  Research will lead to increasingly plausible and economically feasible ways to tinker with the environment.  At the same time, political and social pressure will grow – both to put plans into action (whether multi- or unilaterally), and to limit the use of geoengineering.  The big question is whether globally-coordinated efforts to develop and use the technology in a socially and politically responsible way emerge, or whether we end up with an ugly – and potentially disastrous – free for all.

Smart grids

It may not be that apparent to the average consumer, but the way that electricity is generated, stored and transmitted is under immense strain.  As demand for electrical power grows, a radical rethink of the power grid is needed if we are to get electricity to where it is needed, when it is needed.  And the solution most likely to emerge as the way forward over the next ten years is the Smart Grid.  Smart grids connect producers of electricity to users through an interconnected “intelligent” network.  They allow centralized power stations to be augmented with – and even replaced by – distributed sources such as small-scale wind farms and domestic solar panels.  They route power from where there is excess being generated to where there is excess demand.  And they allow individuals to become providers as well as consumers – feeding power into the grid from home-installed generators, while drawing from the grid when they can’t meet their own demands.  The result is a vastly more efficient, responsive and resilient way of generating and supplying electricity.  As energy demands and limits on greenhouse gas emissions hit conventional electricity grids over the next decade, expect to see smart grids get increasing attention.

Radical materials

Good as they are, most of the materials we use these days are flawed – they don’t work as well as they could.  And usually, the fault lies in how the materials are structured at the atomic and molecular scale.  The past decade has seen some amazing advances in our ability to engineer materials with increasing precision at this scale.  The result is radical materials – materials that far outperform conventional materials in their strength, lightness, conductivity, ability to transmit heat, and a whole host of other characteristics.  Many of these are still at the research stage.  But as demands for high performance materials continue to increase everywhere from medical devices to advanced microprocessors and safe, efficient cars to space flight, radical materials will become increasingly common.  In particular, watch out for products based on carbon nanotubes.  Commercial use of this unique material has had it’s fair share of challenges over the past decade.  But I’m anticipating many of these will be overcome over the next ten years, allowing the material to achieve at least some of it’s long-anticipated promise.

Synthetic biology

Ten years ago, few people had heard of the term “synthetic biology.”  Now, scientists are able to synthesize the genome of a new organism from scratch, and are on the brink of using it to create a living bacteria.  Synthetic biology is about taking control of DNA – the genetic code of life – and engineering it, much in the same way a computer programmer engineers digital code.  It’s arisen in part as the cost of reading and synthesizing DNA sequences has plummeted.  But it is also being driven by scientists and engineers  who believe that living systems can be engineered in the same way as other systems.  In many ways, synthetic biology represents the digitization of biology.  We can now “upload” genetic sequences into a computer, where they can be manipulated like any other digital data.  But we can also “download” them back into reality when we have finished playing with them – creating new genetic code to be inserted into existing – or entirely new – organisms.  This is still expensive, and not as simple as many people would like to believe – we’re really just scratching the surface of the rules that govern how genetic code works.  But as the cost of DNA sequencing and synthesis continues to fall, expect to see the field advance in huge leaps and bounds over the next decade.  I’m not that optimistic about us cracking how the genetic code works in great detail by 2020 – the more we learn at the moment, the more we realize we don’t know.  However, I have no doubt that what we do learn will be enough to ensure synthetic biology is a hot topic over the next decade.  In particular, look out for synthesis of the first artificial organism, the development and use of “BioBricks” – the biological equivalent of electronic components – and the rise of DIY-biotechnology.

Personal genomics

Closely related to the developments underpinning synthetic biology, personal genomics relies on rapid sequencing and interpretation of an individual’s genetic sequence.  The Human Genome Project – completed in 2001 – cost taxpayers around $2.7 billion dollars, and took 13 years to complete.  In 2007, James Watson’s genome was sequenced in 2 months, at a cost of $2 million.  In 2009, Complete Genomics were sequencing personal genomes at less than $5000 a shot.  $1000 personal genomes are now on the cards for the near future – with the possibility of substantially faster/cheaper services by the end of the decade.  What exactly people are going to do with all these data is anyone’s guess at this point – especially as we still have a long way to go before we can make sense of huge sections of the human genome.  Add to this the complication of epigenetics, where external factors lead to changes in how genetic information is decoded which can pass from generation to generation, and and it’s uncertain how far personal genomics will progress over the next decade.  What aren’t in doubt though are the personal, social and economic driving forces behind generating and using this information. These are likely to underpin a growing market for personal genetic information over the next decade – and a growing number of businesses looking to capitalize on the data.

Bio-interfaces

Blurring the boundaries between individuals and machines has long held our fascination. Whether it’s building human-machine hybrids, engineering high performance body parts or interfacing directly with computers, bio-interfaces are the stuff of our wildest dreams and worst nightmares.  Fortunately, we’re still a world away from some of the more extreme imaginings of science fiction – we won’t be constructing the prototype of Star Trek Voyager’s Seven of Nine anytime soon.  But the sophistication with which we can interface with the human body is fast reaching the point where rapid developments should be anticipated.  As a hint of things to come, check out the Luke Arm from Deka (founded by Dean Kamen).  Or Honda’s work on Brain Machine Interfaces.  Over the next decade, the convergence of technologies like Information Technology, nanoscale engineering, biotechnology and neurotechnology are likely to lead to highly sophisticated bio-interfaces.  Expect to see advances in sensors that plug into the brain, prosthetic limbs that are controlled from the brain, and even implants that directly interface with the brain.  My guess is that some of the more radical developments in bio-interfaces will probably occur after 2020.  But a lot of the groundwork will be laid over the next ten years.

Data interfaces

The amount of information available through the internet has exploded over the past decade.  Advances in data storage, transmission and processing have transformed the internet from a geek’s paradise to a supporting pillar of 21st century society.  But while the last ten years have been about access to information, I suspect that the next ten will be dominated by how to make sense of it all.  Without the means to find what we want in this vast sea of information, we are quite literally drowning in data.  And useful as search engines like Google are, they still struggle to separate the meaningful from the meaningless.  As a result, my sense is that over the next decade we will see some significant changes in how we interact with the internet.  We’re already seeing the beginnings of this in websites like Wolfram Alpha that “computes” answers to queries rather than simply returning search hits,  or Microsoft’s Bing, which helps take some of the guesswork out of searches.  Then we have ideas like The Sixth Sense project at the MIT Media Lab, which uses an interactive interface to tap into context-relevant web information.  As devices like phones, cameras, projectors, TV’s, computers, cars, shopping trolleys, you name it, become increasingly integrated and connected, be prepared to see rapid and radical changes in how we interface with and make sense of the web.

Solar power

Is the next decade going to be the one where solar power fulfills its promise?  Quite possibly.  Apart from increased political and social pressure to move towards sustainable energy sources, there are a couple of solar technologies that could well deliver over the next few years.  The first of these is printable solar cells.  They won’t be significantly more efficient than conventional solar cells.  But if the technology can be scaled up and some teething difficulties resolved, they could lead to the cost of solar power plummeting.  The technology is simple in concept – using relatively conventional printing processes and special inks, solar cells could be printed onto cheap, flexible substrates; roll to roll solar panels at a fraction of the cost of conventional silicon-based units.  And this opens the door to widespread use.  The second technology to watch is solar-assisted reactors.  Combining mirror-concentrated solar radiation with some nifty catalysts, it is becoming increasingly feasible to convert sunlight into other forms of energy at extremely high efficiencies.  Imagine being able to split water into hydrogen and oxygen using sunlight and an appropriate catalyst for instance, then recombine them to reclaim the energy on-demand – all at minimal energy loss.  Both of these solar technologies are poised to make a big impact over the next decade.

Nootropics

Drugs that enhance mental ability – increasingly referred to as nootropics – are not new.  But their use patterns are.  Drugs like ritalin, donepezil and modafinil are increasingly being used by students, academics and others to give them a mental edge.  What is startling though is a general sense that this is acceptable practice.  Back in June I ran a straw poll on 2020 Science to gauge attitudes to using nootropics.  Out of 207 respondents, 153 people (74%) either used nootropics, or would consider using them on a regular or occasional basis.  In April 2009, an article in the New Yorker reported on the growing use of “neuroenhancing drugs” to enhance performance. And in an informal poll run by Nature in April 2008, 1 in 5 respondents claimed “they had used drugs for non-medical reasons to stimulate their focus, concentration or memory.” Unlike physical performance-enhancing drugs, it seems that the social rules for nootropics are different.  There are even some who suggest that it is perhaps unethical not to take them – that operating to the best of our mental ability is a personal social obligation.  Of course this leads to a potentially explosive social/technological mix, that won’t be diffused easily.  Over the next ten years, I expect the issue of nootropics will become huge.  There will be questions on whether people should be free to take these drugs, whether the social advantages outweigh the personal advantages, and whether they confer an unfair advantage to users by leading to higher grades, better jobs, more money.  But there’s also the issue of drugs development.  If a strong market for nootropics emerges, there is every chance that new, more effective drugs will follow.  Then the question arises – who gets the “good” stuff, and who suffers as a result?  Whichever way you look at it, the 2010′s are set to be an interesting decade for mind-enhancing substances.

Cosmeceuticals

Cosmetics and pharmaceuticals inhabit very different worlds at the moment.  Pharmaceuticals typically treat or prevent disease, while cosmetics simply make you look better.  But why keep the two separate?  Why not develop products that make you look good by working with your body, rather than simply covering it?  The answer is largely due to regulation – drugs have to be put through a far more stringent set of checks and balances that cosmetics before entering the market, and rightly so.  But beyond this, there is enormous commercial potential in combining the two, especially as new science is paving the way for externally applied substances to do more than just beautify.  Products that blur the line are already available – in the US for instance, sunscreens and anti dandruff shampoos are considered drugs.  And the cosmetics industry regularly use the term “cosmeceutical” to describe products with medicinal or drug-like properties.  Yet with advances in synthetic chemistry and nanoscale engineering, it’s becoming increasingly possible to develop products that do more than just lead to “cosmetic” changes.  Imagine products that make you look younger, fresher, more beautiful, by changing your body rather than just covering up flaws and imperfections.  It’s a cosmetics company’s dream – one shared by many of their customers I suspect.  The dam that’s preventing many such products at the moment is regulation.  But if the pressure becomes too great – and there’s a fair chance it will over the next ten years – this dam is likely to burst.  And when it does, cosmeceuticals are going to hit the scene big-time.

So those are my ten emerging technology trends to watch over the next decade.  But what happened to nanotechnology, and what other technologies were on my shortlist?

Nanotech has been a dominant emerging technology over the past ten years.  But in many ways, it’s a fake.  Advances in the science of understanding and manipulating matter at the nanoscale are indisputable, as are the early technology outcomes of this science.  But nanotechnology is really just a convenient shorthand for a whole raft of emerging technologies that span semiconductors to sunscreens, and often share nothing more than an engineered structure that is somewhere between 1 – 100 nanometers in scale.  So rather than focus on nanotech, I decided to look at specific technologies which I think will make a significant impact over the next decade.  Perhaps not surprisingly though, many of them depend in some way on working with matter at nanometer scales.

In terms of the emerging technologies shortlist, it was tough to whittle this down to ten trends. My initial list included batteries, decentralized computing, biofuels, stem cells, cloning, artificial intelligence, robotics, low earth orbit flights, clean tech, neuroscience and memristors – there are many others that no doubt could and should have been on it.  Some of these I felt were likely to reach their prime sometime after the next decade.  Others I felt didn’t have as much potential to shake things up and make headlines as the ones I chose.  But this was a highly subjective and personal process.  I’m sure if someone else were writing this, the top ten list would be different.

And one final word.  Many of the technologies I’ve highlighted reflect an overarching trend: convergence.  Although not a technology in itself, synergistic convergence between different areas of knowledge and expertise will likely dominate emerging technology trends over the next decade.  Which means that confident as I am in my predictions, the chances of something completely different, unusual and amazing happening are…  pretty high!

Update, 12/27/09  Something’s been bugging me, and I’ve just realized what it is – in my original list of ten, I had smart drugs, but in the editing process they somehow got left by the wayside!  As I don’t want to go back and change the ten emerging technology trends I ended up posting, they will have to be a bonus.  As it is, drug delivery timelines are so long that I’m not sure how many smart drugs will hit the market before 2020.  But when they do, they will surely mark a turning point in therapeutics.  These are drugs that are programmed to behave in various ways.  The simplest are designed to accumulate around disease sites, then destroy the disease on command – gold shell nanoparticles fit the bill here, preferentially accumulating around tumors then destroying them by heating up when irradiated with infrared radiation.  More sophisticated smart drugs are in the pipeline though that are designed to seek out diseased cells, provide local diagnostics, then release therapeutic agents on demand.  The result is targeted disease treatment that leads to significantly greater efficacy at substantially lower doses.  Whether or not these make a significant impact over the next decade, they are definitely a technology to watch.

Update 12/29/09  Which emerging technologies do you thing will trend over the next decade?  Join the discussion on the 2020 Science Facebook page.

2020 Science is something of a labor of love – it’s a website where I explore my thoughts and ideas surrounding the interface between science, technology and society beyond the constraints of my “day job” (currently Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson Center).  I like to think I bring a balanced and, on a good day, sophisticated perspective to the stuff I write about.  So I was intrigued and just a little taken aback when Jim Thomas at ETC Group, recently pointed out that, actually, I’m quite obviously flying the flag for the established pro-technology innovation camp.

Jim was right – up to a point.  I do adhere to the “ideology” that if we are to survive the future, we need to get a lot smarter in how we develop and use technology.  But I also hope that I’m aware enough to recognize that there are other very different, but equally legitimate, perspectives on the role of technology innovation in society.  So this got me thinking – maybe I should invite a group of people with a range of different perspectives on tech innovation to write a series of guest blogs on the subject.  I’d find it useful.  But more importantly, I think people reading this blog would find it useful.

After speaking to a few friends within the Civil Society community (including NGOs like ETC Group, NRDC and Friends of the Earth), the idea took shape:  I would dedicate a week’s worth of blog space to ten different thought-leaders, asking each of them to address a single question:

“How should technology innovation contribute to life in the 21^st century?”

With no editorial control from me (bar framing the question), and a few simple guidelines on length and style, my hope was that this would provide something of a unique perspective on the role of technology innovation in society – including its potential downsides – and demonstrate that the future depends on responding to and working with many value systems, not just the apparently prevalent ones.

I should in all honesty point out that the thought of handing over the blog to a bunch of NGOs for the week scared the life out of me.  As it turns out, the process has been overwhelmingly positive.  Not only did these writers from a range of organizations graciously agree to write for the blog – they produced articles that without exception inform, challenge and enlighten.

The series starts next Monday (Dec 14) and ends on Dec 18.  Each day, I will be posting two guest blogs from the series; one in the morning, one in the afternoon.  The complete lineup can be found here.

Do look out for them and read them – they all well worth the time.  I don’t expect everyone will agree with everything that’s written – that’s OK.  But do me a favor – if you don’t agree (or even if you do, or have additional points you would like to make or questions you would like to ask), please do add comments to the blogs – that’s what the “Leave a Comment” box is there for!

With that, all that remains is for me to thank my ten guest bloggers – who without exception the gave of their time and energy with great generosity, and far exceeded my expectations.  Thank you.

__________________________

The ten guest bloggers are:

Marcy Darnovsky, Center for Genetics & Society

Gregor Wolbring, University of Calgary

Georgia Miller, Friends of the Earth

Geoff Tansey, Food Ethics Council

Jen Sass, Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC)

Richard Owen, University of Westminster

Richard Worthington, Loka

George Kimbrell, International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA)

Tim Jackson, University of Surrey

Jim Thomas, ETC Group

See the full series details at “Technology innovation, life, and the 21st century – ten alternative perspectives“

Update, 12/15/09 – Richard Owen was added as a late substitution for Debra Harry

I sat down this morning to write a light-hearted blog about the UK government’s “Science: So what? So everything” campaign.  The angle was going to be:

Why write about this when people want to read about this?

But the more I dug around, the more apparent it became that this is an initiative that seems to have lost its way – and in need of more than a cheap quip about substance (ab)use…

The “Science: So what? So everything” campaign was launched with a flourish by the British government Department for Business Innovation and Skills last January.  It was aimed at engaging people in science, and shaking off the perception of science as being elitist.  A string of celebrities – including Terry Pratchett, Bill Bryson and David Attenborough – put their weight behind the campaign as Prime Minister Gordon Brown kicked it off.

According to the British Science Association,

A key aim of the campaign is to reach and spark interest in science among a wider audience, dispelling the myth that science is too difficult or out of bounds for all but scientists. The involvement of well-known figures from the media and popular culture will help to convey this message. As well the help of celebrities, the campaign has enlisted the support of UK research councils, learned societies and other government departments and hopes to extend its reach with the involvement of business and other organisations outside the world of science.

So what has happened since then?

I ask because British Science Minister Lord Drayson as just embarked on a review of the campaign.  As he announced on Twitter earlier this week:

I’m afraid as a scientist I don’t fit into Lord Drayson’s target audience here.  But his tweet – and some of the responses to it – did drive me back to the Science: So What? campaign to see what was going on.

And I must confess, what I found was a little disappointing.

The “campaign” (more about those inverted commas in a second) revolves around the Science: So what? So everything website.  This is a slick website – it’s attractive, it’s neatly laid out, it draws you in to a series of articles that are related to science.

But it’s a website, not a campaign!

In fact, the more I browsed, the clearer it was that the Science: So what? website is little more than a mediocre popular science portal, with a hint of government science evangelism about it.  I’m not even sure I would have known that this was the hub of a campaign if it hadn’t been for Lord Drayson’s tweet, and archived news coverage of the launch (the original BIS press release isn’t available by the way as far as I can tell – links like the one here lead to dead ends).

If this is a campaign, where’s the action plan?  Where are the deliverables and the indicators of success?  More to the point, where are all those celebrities who were brought in to launch it – and the accompanying publicity machine?

So let’s forget about the “campaign” for a moment, and just look at the website.

The website is certainly visually attractive and functionally smooth.  But does it succeed in reaching out to an audience and engaging people – does it, in the words of mjrobbins, “add value?”

I’m not sure it does.  There are a ton of great science websites and blogs out there – most of them offering far more in the way of reader-oriented content.  If you want information on the latest science news, to be titillated and entertained by science and technology, or to to be enlightened by the view from the lab bench, you are spoilt for choice.  So why would anyone visit – and re-visit – Science: So what?

I’m struggling with this.  It’s not that the content is bad.  It’s just that there’s equally good or better stuff elsewhere.  The articles are limited compared to what you get at New Scientist, the BBC or Discover Magazine (for instance).  There is no community here – a key driver of site visits and loyalty (where are the links, the guest articles, the commentaries, the controversial discussions?).  The “events” page seems rather limited in scope. There’s a DIY Science page with three (three!) articles on it, two of them discussing that old chestnut of putting Menots mints in coke.  And the “get involved” page – judging by the number of comments received – hasn’t inspired many to actually get involved.

I don’t really want to diss Science: So what? – it’s a laudable effort to address a very real issue, and the website is trying to make a dent within a tough web space.  And at the end of the day it is an experiment in using new media to reach out on science.  Tim Jones, who publishes the science and technology blog Zoonomian, wrote “I can also see this is something of a sandbox for experiment, so deserves to be cut some slack” on the Science: So what? metablog.

But he also points out the need for review and decision-making on the website, and highlights a number of areas requiring attention.

Looking at where Science: So what? doesn’t hit the mark for me, and where it might do better, two issues scream out.

The first deals with engaging people.  Despite trying to move away from an old-school science communication framework, it still seems to set out to inform rather than engage.  It smacks of messages that someone thinks people should be reading, rather than content that people want to read.  In other words, despite efforts to move away from this rather outdated stance, it’s “preachy.”

Take the opening paragraph on the “about” page:

In the UK, many of us don’t value science as much as we should, but it lives beneath the surface of everything we touch and taste. It’s the key to our prosperity, one of the driving forces of our economy, and it creates thousands of jobs that keep Britain at the leading edge.

This is about telling readers what’s good for them, not asking them what they think.  Okay so it’s a message that I and many scientists have a lot of sympathy for.  But as a first step to pulling people in? I’m not sure I would be so brave as to use it!  The art of selling is knowing what your customers want, not telling them what they should want – something that seems to be missing here.

Of course, I may be wrong and Science: So what? may be thronging with visitors.

I haven’t seen any web stats for the site so it’s hard to speak with any authority here.  About the only indicator of engagement I do have is a post that links directly back to 2020 Science.  As far as I can tell, I have only had one referral from Science: So what? since that post was published (Tim Jones had a similar experience with the link to his blog).  Contrast this to a link to 2020 Science posted in the comments on P.Z Myer’s blog Pharyngula on November 15 – from which I had 148 referrals in ten days.

This is a dubious comparison in many ways, but it does beg the question why an associate professor at the University of Minnesota seems to be engaging people on science far more effectively that the UK government.

Then, there is the problem of this being a government website.

Think about it.  Where’s the first place you would turn to for broad, unbiased, eclectic, entertaining and educating information on science.  The government?  Not me!  If there’s one thing you can guarantee with a government site is that there will be a constraining agenda behind it – and why would I elect to have my science input filtered by an organization I know is trying to feed me specific information for a predetermined purpose?

This brings me back to where I started – my “Why write about this when people want to read about this?” question.  Engagement is partly about building communities that can have the conversations they want – which is why there’s been considerable chatter on the web today about LilWizz’s piece, but nothing as far as I’m aware on the Science: So what? article.

It’s hard to imagine Science: So what? posting pieces about feeding new-borns opium draughts.  Yet without this freedom to truly engage, it’s even harder to imagine Science: So what? reaching out to the audience it so desperately wants to.

So what’s the answer?  I’m not sure I  have any great answers, but here are four things that BIS might think about:

• Develop a strategic, multi-faceted and transparent campaign to establish science as an integral part of British society, with the web site being just one component of this.
• Make key celebrities, scientists, communicators and organizations central pillars of the campaign.
• Support bloggers, producers, broadcasters and other communicators in developing networks and communities around science and technology – without heavy-handed government interference.
• Further develop efforts to engage people in science and technology – enabling them to be an active part of the process, rather than passive bystanders.

Much more is needed than this if science and technology are to be developed and used effectively within society.  But it’s a start.

When the Science: So what? So everything campaign was launched, Pallab Ghosh wrote on the BBC website

Without a sustained long-term plan, however, there’s a risk that any momentum this latest campaign generates will be lost and go the way of previous attempts to turn the public’s obvious admiration of science into something that’s a part of their daily lives.

Sadly, his crystal ball seemed to be working pretty well that day.  Nevertheless, integrating science into society remains an important issue.  The UK government started well with the Science: So What? campaign.  Maybe it’s now time to get out of the sandpit, and start to build something more concrete.

But don’t take my word for it – check out Science: So what? So everything for yourself.  Talk about it on the Science: So What? metablog.  And don’t forget to get back to the ever-accessible Lord Drayson on Twitter with your thoughts and ideas.

For the next three days I will be participating in and blogging from the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda in Dubai.  If last year’s summit – described as the “World’s largest brainstorming” – is anything to go by, we’re in for an intense few days.  The summit draws on the WEF’s Global Agenda Councils, and creates a forum for over 700 thought-leaders representing over 90 countries to mix and match ideas on issues as diverse as catastrophic global risks to the role of faith in society, and sustainable consumption to the future of entertainment.

This year, the Summit is focused on contributing to the World Economic Forum’s Global Redesign Initiative (GRI) – a multistakeholder dialogue addressing the challenges of the 21st century. Tapping into expertise within industry, governmental, civil society, academic and media communities, the GRI is addressing six themes:

1. Creating a Values Framework considers the universal values needed for constructive coexistence in an interdependent world characterized by cultural diversity.
2. Mitigating Global Risks and Addressing Systemic Failures – includes all eventualities and risks which may have adverse consequences on a global level.
3. Strengthening Economies encompasses all aspects of economic growth and development.
4. Enhancing Security speaks to the need for global, national and human security.
5. Ensuring Sustainability addresses human behaviour in the global ecosystem.
6. Building Effective Institutions reflects on the necessary institutional context for effective global governance.

Discussions over the next three days will revolve around these themes, as well as feeding directly into the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters.

Last year, I found it intriguing and more than a little worrying that, while many of the issues being addressed by the Global Agenda Councils depend on science and technology innovation, science and technology were not central to the discussions.  Hopefully this year will see a shift in emphasis.  The good news is that we now have a Council on Emerging Technologies (which I participate in), which will be working with a number of other Councils to help establish science and technology-grounded discussions.

Whether or not we achieve as much integration as I would like remains to be seen.  Either way, if last year was anything to go by, we’re in for a stimulating, challenging and exciting few days.  I must confess, I get a tremendous buzz out of dropping in on intense conversations in areas I know nothing about, with experts I would normally never cross paths with – and experiencing the mental light bulbs flash on as we compare notes and exchange ideas.  And with 700 smart people cloistered together for three days, I can guarantee there are going to be a lot of bulbs lighting up in Dubai this weekend.

Of course, the location helps – but it’s the people that matter.  Really…

If all goes according to plan, I’ll be posting each day between now and Sunday November 22nd on how the Summit’s going from my perspective, so stay tuned.

First thought I have to get there.

Signing off from JFK, waiting for the flight out to Dubai.

As scientists, how we love to rail against the incompetence of the media.  As self-proclaimed keepers of the truth, we decry – usually rather vocally – the misinterpretation and misuse of our precious studies.  And as we commiserate together on the injustices of the world, we inevitably get to thinking that if only journalists could see the world as we do and get that down in writing (or on tape), things would be so much better.

Except, it isn’t always the journalists who are to blame for how science is portrayed in the media!

Take this case that landed in my metaphorical in-tray this morning for instance:

Yesterday, Texas A&M University put out a news item with the title “Technology may cool the laptop.” The piece starts:

Does your laptop sometimes get so hot that it can almost be used to fry eggs? New technology may help cool it and give information technology a unique twist, says Jairo Sinova, a Texas A&M University physics professor.

Aided by a short video, Professor Sinova, a co-author on the research being referred to, notes that

Laptops are getting increasingly powerful, but as their sizes are getting smaller they are heating up, so how to deal with excessive heat becomes a headache… “Theoretically, excessive heat may melt the laptop,” he adds. “This also wastes a considerable amount of energy.”

This is an important issue, although I suspect that the vision of melting laptops goes a little far.  But it gets you wondering what this amazing new breakthrough is that is going to prevent those embarrassing laptop melt-downs and inadvertent griddle emulations.  The answer? The Spin Injection Hall Effect, or SIHE – a relatively recently discovered phenomenon that results in electrons with different “spin” in a semiconductor leading to a measurable magnetic field.

The paper that the Texas A&M University news item refers to is “Spin-injection Hall effect in a planar photovoltaic cell” in the journal Nature Physics.  It appears in the September edition of the journal.  It’s an interesting and scientifically sound paper.  It describes work where an experimental semiconductor device is used to show that the Spin Injection Hall Effect can in principle be used to encode information in the spin state of electrons, then “read” that information back.

It is research that could be useful to new ways of transmitting and storing information in the future.

But keeping laptops cool?  Hardly!  And certainly not imminently.

So what’s going on here?  How do we get from some pretty esoteric research on electron spin to preventing “laptop-burn?”

The most generous explanation is that, in one possible future, this science could underpin technologies that lead to lower energy microprocessors, and that this is what the researchers latched on to in an attempt to make their work relevant to a broad audience. But this is an incredibly huge leap.  It’s the scientific equivalent of playing the lottery – speculation in the extreme.  There’s a small chance that the science might lead, through a long chain of events, to microprocessors 12 – 50 years down the line that are faster and more efficient.  But making your MacBook Pro run cooler?  Give me a break!

Another explanation is that Texas A&M wanted to sex the research up – raising their profile at the expense of informed science reporting.

Or maybe someone just got hold of the wrong end of the stick – or the wrong stick entirely.

I’m not sure which of these is closer to the truth.  But what is clear is that this type of misrepresentation of the science at source is not uncommon, and it is highly damaging to understanding of and engagement in science within society.

In this case, the assumptions and speculations behind the laptop claims weren’t clarified, and little attempt was made to distinguish between the science and the fantasies it inspired.  As a result, media outlets that picked up on the story simply propagated the misinformation – including Science Daily.  And as many readers would not have access to the original paper, they would not have the means to test the claims being made.

If research institutions misrepresent the science they are involved in, what hope is there for informed science coverage in the media?  And more importantly, how on earth are people to get an informed sense of emerging science and technology, and engage in a meaningful dialogue on its development and implementation?

I’m all for imagining where different avenues of research might lead.  But fantasizing about future applications as if they are just around the corner is naive at best, and just plain cynical at worst.  And the sad thing is, it ends up further disengaging people from the process of science and technology innovation – robbing them of the ability to participate effectively in a science and technology-driven society.

Effective science coverage in the media is under threat, and there many factors at play here.  But surely this makes it even more important that scientists and research institutions don’t simply add to the problem.  I’m probably being a little unfair picking on Texas A&M here – they aren’t the only ones feeding the media with questionable material.  But it seems that if the science community is serious about good science reporting, it needs to get its own house in order before pointing too many fingers at others.

After all, journalists and others reporting on science and technology are only as good as their sources.  Garbage in, garbage out, no matter how hot or cold the laptop is running!

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/10/30/do-scientists-encourage-misleading-media-coverage/feed/ 32 http://2020science.org/2009/10/11/is-too-much-choice-bad-for-the-health/ http://2020science.org/2009/10/11/is-too-much-choice-bad-for-the-health/#comments Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:29:38 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2311

Sunday morning breakfast – a croissant, a coffee, and a stress-free morning.

But wait a minute…

I wonder how healthy all that butter is?  When did I last have my cholesterol levels checked?  Were they high?  Will my crisp, moist butter croissant push me into a French pastry-coronary?

And how about the coffee?  Didn’t I hear that caffeine gives you cancer?  Maybe that was just the Daily Mail on another cancer scare spree.

But there’s no smoke without fire…

Bother – what am I going to do?  I can already feel the panic rising!

Hang it all, I’ll just head out to MacDonald’s for a Sausage Egg and Cheese McGriddle, with a couple of hash browns on the side.  After all, didn’t someone say it’s healthy to start the day with a good breakfast?

Okay so I’m not really sitting down to croissants and coffee (more’s the pity), and I’m not going to rush off for a MacDonald’s breakfast.  But it is a Sunday morning, and with my brain in weekend mode (i.e. slow, relaxed, prone to roaming, uninformed speculation…), I found myself ruminating over something a friend said in an email a few days ago…

It concerned apparent resistance to having H1N1 flu shots in some quarters – an issue that is still bubbling away in the news.

I’m not going to write about the H1N1 vaccine directly – that would be irresponsible given my limited knowledge and my Sunday morning torpor.  But the issue does raise an interesting question of what happens when we are forced to consciously make decisions we might usually take for granted.

Martye’s email came on the tail of the latest poll from the Associated Press and GfK on people’s intentions to be vaccinated against H1N1.  The poll suggested that people were more wary of the new vaccine than “normal” flu vaccines, even though each year’s batch of flu vaccines is tailor made for that year’s prevalent virus strains – something that Martye had witnessed himself anecdotally.

He wondered how this played into people’s trust of science, scientists and government, and the role of mis-information in the decisions people make.

Because this is a Sunday morning, and there are important Sunday morning things to do (like find those croissants), this is a question that will have to wait until another day.  But it did get me thinking about the degree to which too much information, or a particular focus on an issue, can create a quandary by shifting the decisions we make from the subconscious to the conscious level.

As a species, we’re pretty adept at letting the subconscious parts of our brains do the heavy lifting when it comes to making decisions.  Just imagine how tedious life would be if we needed to analyze the pros and cons of every move or decision we made – much like the coffee and croissant illustration above, we would become paralyzed by indecision.  But we’d also more than likely end up making decisions that were more based on what we were comfortable with, rather than what was good for us.

This raises a real dilemma though, and one I don’t have a good answer to.  A major thrust of what I do is advocating for and enabling informed, evidence-based decision-making.  It’s something I believe in strongly – that in a science and technology-driven society, people should be enabled to make the best possible decisions for themselves and their society based on good evidence and strong scientific principles.

Yet it seems that where the decisions people need to make are far from black and white, forcing them to think about things could end up leading to choices that are more harmful than helpful.

The H1N1 flu vaccine seems to be a case in point.  If it was rolled out as just another annual flu vaccine, many people would have accepted it without question – the decision-making would have been at the subconscious level.

But because the issues of its importance and possible downsides have been raised explicitly, people are being forced to make a conscious decision whether to have it or not.

And kicking up the decision-making process from the subconscious domain to the conscious level has led to confusion and indecision.

So what should we do?  Should complex decisions be left in the hands of “experts?”  Should information – evidence – be withheld from people who don’t have the ability to process and use it?  Should we just accept that others are more informed than we are – and trust them?

At this point, every bone in my body is screaming that transparency, access to information and personal decision-making autonomy are moral obligations in a mature society, and that a hierarchical technocracy is not the way to go. Yet, if this is the case, we need to face the fact that more information isn’t necessarily a good thing on its own.  We need to develop the social tools to use it wisely, empowering individuals to make decisions that benefit themselves and society without leading to undue paralysis and harm.

This is a tough task.  I’m sure there are mountains of scholarly works that address it.  But I’ve yet to see any clear routes forward emerge.

Yet if we are going to cope with new challenges in a world where information spreads like wildfire, it seems more important than ever to work out how to empower people to make responsible and informed decisions on risks and benefits, without becoming paralyzed, or forced into relying on comfortable but possibly unhelpful decision-making shortcuts.

It seems that too much choice could be bad for the health.  But I suspect that not enough choice – and a lack of help, guidance and other tools for making informed decisions – will be worse for the health in the long run.

But that is most definitely a Monday morning problem.

Now, back to that croissant and coffee…

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/10/11/is-too-much-choice-bad-for-the-health/feed/ 14 http://2020science.org/2009/09/28/so-you%e2%80%99re-curious-about-nanotechnology%e2%80%a6/ http://2020science.org/2009/09/28/so-you%e2%80%99re-curious-about-nanotechnology%e2%80%a6/#comments Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:53:17 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2283

Curious, concerned or just plain confused about nanotechnology?  The new website Nano & Me might be just what you are looking for.

Nano & Me - a new website for everything nanotech

Funded in part by the UK department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and developed by the Responsible Nano Forum, Nano & Me is aimed at providing clear and balanced information on an emerging technology more usually associated with hype and speculation.  I’ve been aware of the pending website for some time, but it’s only recently that I’ve had the chance to test-drive it.  And I must confess, I am impressed – Nano & Me is quite possibly the best one-stop-shop for down to earth information on nanotech around.  Whether you simply heard about nanotech on the radio and want to know more, were wondering why your tennis racquet was nanotech-enabled, or are scratching your head over the latest nanotechnology claims and counter-claims, there’s something here for you…

There’s been tremendous investment in nanotechnology over the past ten years or so – for instance, in 2008 a whopping $18 billion was invested in nanotech R&D by governments businesses and others around the world according to Lux Research. Not surprisingly, a certain level of “marketing” has accompanied this investment—we’re told nanotechnology will transform our lives, solve global problems, stimulate economies and create jobs.  On the flip side, there are plenty of groups—researchers even—warning that the new technology could cause more problems than it solves if we don’t get our act together.

So you’ve heard that nanotech is the next big thing, that it is important, that it could be dangerous, what’s your next step—where can you get an honest perspective that cuts through the hype and tells you want you need to know?

Surprisingly, your options are remarkably limited.  You could pick up a popular book on nanotechnology – Nanotechnology for Dummies say, or Richard Jones’ Soft Machines.  But these are not for the faint hearted—you need to be pretty dedicated to learning about the science of the small to get through them.  Alternatively, you could check out the various websites dedicated to nanotech—the US National Nanotechnology Initiative website for instance, or Nanotechnology Now.  But most of these sources present nanotechnology in a certain light —even if it’s simply a desire to tell you how great nanotech is.  And to be honest, most of them are impenetrable unless you know exactly what you’re looking for.

The sad fact is that if you have a passing interest in nanotechnology, you don’t have an advanced degree in science or technology, and you have no stomach for hype, your options are limited.

It’s this void that Nano & Me attempts to fill.

Nano & Me was established through funding from the UK Government and the Esme Fairbairn Foundation to be an information hub for nanotechnology, and a focus of debate for anyone interested in its development, its use and its implications.  Quoting from the website,

“Nanoandme.org is a website for anyone who wants to know more about nanotechnology. You might have heard something on the news you wanted to check out, or be a small business thinking about using a nanomaterial and want to know about regulation or safety issues. You could be a school child needing information for a project or just be curious to know what on earth it is.”

On opening the website, you are faced with an attractive scene of urban and rural bliss, dominated by a central signpost directing you to different areas on the site.  Despite its seeming simplicity, this opening screen is deceptively sophisticated.

First off—and admittedly this may be a cultural thing—it draws you into the site.  This looks like a welcoming and comfortable space to find out about nanotech in.

Secondly, the central signpost directs users to where they would like to go in an intuitively clear way—whether you are interested in what nanotech is, where it’s being used, safety issues, regulation, or social and ethical issues.

But here’s the clever bit—pass your cursor over the hospital, the cosmetics commercial, the flowers, and a hundred and one other parts of the opening screen, and you are provided with access to more information on how nanotechnology relates to these areas.  Here’s an example:  Place the cursor on the bottle of sunscreen and you get:

“High factor nano sunscreens are transparent, not white and gloopy.”

along with a link to more information.  Or select the river, and a bubble appears telling you that when it comes to water treatment,

“nanoparticles bind with pollutants in contaminated water and help to clean it up.”

I like this interface.  It’s attractive.  It’s engaging.  And it provides a fast and intuitive portal to more information in areas that users are likely to be interested in.

Clicking on the signpost takes users to one of six areas on the website: What is nano? Nano products;  Nano safety; Social & ethical; Regulation; and The nano debate.  Each area follows a similar format:  The right side of the page list the various topics covered, “chapter-style,” while the center of the page provides clear and concise information on the current topic.  The left of the page provides links to more in-depth information on the topic selected.  While surrounding the main content are links to other related resources, and relevant nano-factoids.

To give you a feel for how this works, this is a screenshot of the “Nano products” page:

Nano and Me products page

Down the right hand side of the page are the chapters—twelve areas where nanotechnology is making a difference to the products we use.  Clicking on one – Environment, say—brings up basic information on how nanotechnology is being used in that area, and what the pros and cons are.

Nano and Me environmental products page

To the left of the screen are links to further information, including future directions of nanotechnology uses in the environment, and safety issues.  While to the right is a link to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Consumer Products Inventory—a free web-based inventory of consumer products allegedly based on nanotechnology.

While the content changes according to which area of the website is being viewed, the format is similar—starting off with simple information, but allowing viewers to delve deeper into it if they want.  This is an approach that seems to work well.  You don’t feel overwhelmed with information.  But you are given the option of finding out more if you want.

Rather than go through each section, it’s far better if I leave you to explore the website yourself.  I think you will be pleasantly surprised at both how easy it is to navigate, and how relevant the information is—whether you are a complete nano-novice, or have been interested in the field for some time.

This is an impressive website from a number of angles.  For one, it seems to avoid the trap of either hyping up nanotechnology’s promise, or placing undue focus on possible risks.  Rather, it provides an honest perspective of where we’re going with this, what the possibilities are, and where the speed bumps might be.  But it also does all of this in an incredibly intuitive way.  I can imagine young kids having no problem using the site and learning something.  At the same time—and this is really smart of the website designers—Nano & Me is sophisticated enough to appeal to adults.  And not only those with a passing interest in nanotech—I have a sneaking suspicion this will find its way onto the bookmark list of policy makers, researchers and non-government organizations engaged in nanotech as well!

The bottom line here is that nanotechnology isn’t the most significant thing happening in the world, but it is important—and more and more people are trying to work out what on earth it’s all about and what it means to them.  Nano & Me fills a vital gap here.  For anyone who struggles with science and technology, it’s the perfect way of learning about nanotechnology without being intimidated.  But it also has enough depth to satisfy anyone faced with making tough decisions on nanotech—from whether to buy the latest nano-cosmetic to whether to regulate the next nano-material.

And—importantly—it provides a forum for anyone – anyone – to get involved with the nano debate.  If you are excited, concerned, or just plain confused about nanotech—this is the place for you to make your voice heard.

The Nano & Me website is a work in progress, and users are encouraged to chip in their thoughts on where it can be improved.  But even so, it’s pretty slick.  It may not be perfect.  But at this point, it’s the best all-round go-to place for information on nanotechnology.

My recommendation: Use it!

Where’s the best place to look for down to earth information on nanotechnology safety?  Surprisingly, given how much time I spend speaking and writing about the subject, I don’t think I have ever sat down and compiled such a list.  But while preparing for this year’s annual meeting of the Nanotechnology Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net) (surely the coolest nanotech meeting around by the way!) it struck me that such a list might actually be useful.

So here’s my first cut at some places you might want to look if you are interested in nanotech safety.

It’s by no means exhaustive, and it was compiled primarily to support my talk at the NISE Net annual meeting this week.  But it might be of some use – especially if you are interested in the subject, but don’t know where to start.

In putting the list together, I’ve tried to focus on papers and websites that are informative and trustworthy (in my opinion), that you don’t need a PhD in nanotoxicology to get something out of, and that are freely available. In each case, I have tried to provide some idea of what each resource covers, and who might find it useful.

There are bags more good resources out there – this is just a start.  But hopefully, it’s a useful one.

Nano & Me

Nano & Me

What is it? A website targeted at providing readers with clear and accessible information on nanotechnology.  Created by the UK-based Responsible Nano Forum and the Together Agency, and supported by the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), it covers everything from what nanotech is, to where it’s being used.  The website’s coverage of safety issues is simple, clear and balanced.

Who should use it? Anyone who wants to know more about nanotechnology, but especially newbie’s to the subject.  No science required.

What I like about it: A slick website that puts the information you are looking for at your fingertips, without being condescending or confusing.  Highly recommended.

Link: http://www.nanoandme.org

Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties

Royal Society

What is it? An influential 2004 review of the opportunities and challenges of nanotechnology, from the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Chapter 5 provides an excellent overview of the potential risks presented by some products of nanotechnology, and is still relevant five years on.

Who should read it? The report was written for the UK government, but you don’t need a degree in science to understand it.  A slightly meatier read than the Nano & Me website.

What I like about it: Informed, authoritative, relevant and readable.

Link: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm

Risk Assessment of Products of Nanotechnology (SCENIHR)

SCENIHR

What is it? A detailed technical report on the current state of the science on nanotechnology safety from SCENIHR – the European Directorate General for Health and Consumers Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.

Who should read it? This is a technical document, and will probably be more soporific than stimulating to anyone not steeped in nanotechnology safety research and policy.  But if you can get over this barrier, it contains a wealth of information.  There is also a lay version of the report available online though, that is well worth checking out.

What I like about it: Its depth and relevance.

Link: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_023.pdf [PDF, 500 KB]

Nanotoxicology:  An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles.

Oberdörster, Oberdörster and Oberdörster,

What is it? A review paper on “nanotoxicology” written in 2005 by the father, daughter and son team of Günter, Eva and Jan Oberdörster.

Who should read it? Researchers, regulators, decision makers and anyone else interested in nanoparticle toxicity.  This is an academic review paper, so you probably wouldn’t want to read it if you only had a passing interest in nanotechnology safety.  But for anyone who isn’t scared of a bit of science, it provides an excellent review of the field that is still relevant four years on.

What I like about it: Günter Oberdörster is one of the foremost authorities on nanoparticle toxicity, and this paper expertly sets out the important questions surrounding nanoparticle toxicology.  Highly recommended reading.

Link: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7339/abstract.html

Nanoparticles, human health hazard and regulation

Seaton et al.

What is it? A recent review paper by Anthony Seaton, Lang Tran, Rob Aitken and Ken Donaldson that provides a unique and highly informative overview of nanoparticle safety from the perspective of the workplace.

Who should read it? Anyone trying to make sense of the possible risks presented by engineered nanoparticles, and how to avoid them.

What I like about it: Well-presented arguments that frame engineered/manufactured nanoparticle risks in the context of what is already known, and what still needs to be known.

Link: http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/08/31/rsif.2009.0252.focus.full

Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An information exchange with NIOSH

Approaches to Safety Nanotechnology

What is it? A compendium of information on nanotechnology safety in the workplace, from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Who should read it? Anyone responsible workplace safety. The report is also a mine of information for readers of all backgrounds who are interested in the safety of engineered nanomaterials.

What I like about it: A comprehensive and periodically updated evaluation of the state of the science on nanomaterial safety, from one of the world’s foremost workplace safety research organizations.

Link: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/

National Nanotechnology Initiative website

National Nanotechnology Initiative

What is it? The official website of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  The website includes a section on environmental, safety and health aspects of nanotechnology.

Who should read it? Anyone interested in the US government’s take on nanotechnology safety.

What I like about it: It’s a window into what the US government – one of the leading funders of nanotechnology research and development – are doing in this area.

Link: http://www.nano.gov/html/society/EHS.html

International Council On Nanotechnology website

ICON

What is it? A multi-stakeholder organization set up by the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) at Rice University.  For info. on nanotechnology safety, check out the backgrounders, the news feed (also on Twitter) and the ICON blog.

Who should use it? The ICON backgrounders, blog and news feed are relevant to anyone interested in the latest developments in nanotech safety.

What I like about it: Comprehensive news on nanotechnology safety, and background papers that explain complex science in a simple way.

Link: http://icon.rice.edu/

SAFENANO website

SAFENANO

What is it? An information resource on nanotechnology safety, from the UK-based Institute for Occupational Medicine.  A great source of news, analysis and opinions.

Who should use it? Anyone interested in the latest on nanotechnology safety, with a focus on the workplace.

What I like about it: Down to earth information.  I also contribute to the SAFENANO blog though, so I might be biased!

Link: http://www.safenano.org/

2020 Science website

2020 Science

What is it? OK so this is a little self-serving, but I write so much about nanotechnology safety that I thought I should include 2020 Science here.  For a list of nanotech safety-related blogs, check these out, or start off with Ten things everyone should know about nanotechnology safety.

Who should use it? Anyone who wants to find out more about issues around nanotechnology safety.

What I like about it: Mmm, I don’t think I’m the best qualified person to answer that.

Link: http://2020science.org

In restricting myself to ten resources here, I’m sure I have failed to mention many that others would have included.  So if you have a publicly accessible website, paper or other resource on nanotechnology safety you think people would find useful, please do mention it in the comments below.

Update 09/15/09:  Linked screenshots to respective websites

How exactly did I get hooked on science?  It’s not something I’ve thought about too much before. But an invitation to discuss how to inspire the next generation of scientists, technologists and engineers next week has got me thinking…

Next Monday (Sept 7) I’m taking part in a discussion on science role models, as part of the British Science Festival – hosted by the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).  It’s shaping up to be a fascinating event, and certainly not one to miss (you can sign up for it here) – not least because it is happening in the virtual world of Second Life (a first for me).  The discussion will be delving into what inspires people to get into science, technology, engineering and mathematics – and how those of us already hooked can help to inspire others.

I don’t want to give too much away before Monday – although I can reveal that the great Dr. Karen James of Twitter, Mashable and The Beagle Project fame will be a co-panelist, and that the event will be the place to be between 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM London time on Monday.

However, to limber myself up for the big event (while providing something of a teaser), I thought I would delve into my own past and revisit some of the inspirations that led to me becoming a scientist.

So without further do (apart to apologize for cultural references that may not make sense to all readers), here are ten inspirations from my youth that got me hooked on science:

1.  My father. I know it’s a bit of a cliché – for which I apologize – but looking back, my father undoubtedly played a major role in sparking my interest in science.  He was a technician for most of his working life – starting off in TV’s, moving on to nuclear power with the UK Atomic Energy Authority, and later on working as a lab tech in a sports science department.  He was fascinated by science and technology and what it can be used for (still is), and his spirit of inquiry, questioning and investigation rubbed off – big time.  He also taught me the value of a good technician – without which most scientists would be marginally less productive than a two legged horse.

2.  A defunct radio. When I was around four, someone kindly provided my preschool with a large old fashioned radio – with large Bakelite knobs, impressive dials, and valves (or “tubes” as Americans quaintly refer to them).  It didn’t work, but I was absolutely convinced that I could fix it; and spent hours fiddling around in its innards with a screwdriver.  I failed (nothing to do with my age I’m sure – the previous donors had given us a real dud!), but the experience was the beginning of a long love affair with anything electrical.

3.  My first home chemistry kit. I can’t remember what was in that first kit or even who made it.  What I do remember is being able to replenish it from the local chemist – something that you can’t do these days sadly – and  “augmenting” it with exotic new additions. Irresistible

4.  DIY Science books. Where would I be without local libraries?  Not where I am now I suspect!  I used to devour books on science experiments for the home.  The experiments often didn’t work, I must confess (good training for later days).  But armed with an arsenal of basic household supplies, a good tome from the local library, and my augmented chemistry kit, I was in kid-heaven.

5.  Jacques Cousteau. I still remember the feeling of anticipation – sitting in front of the TV in my pajamas, way after my proper bed time, waiting for the latest nautical adventure from Cousteau and his crew.  Looking back, it was the sense of discovery that had me glued to the set on these rare occasions – I wanted to be informed and inspired, not entertained.

6.  “Teach Yourself Atomic Physics.” I owe so much to this little book (possibly by James Moncur Valentine – I can’t be sure) – which must have gone out of print decades ago.  It was my father’s, but I purloined it and poured over it for hours on end, trying to understand the mysteries of the universe.  I even started to tell people I was going to be a nuclear physicist when I grew up (I was rather young at the time).  I only achieved half of my childhood dream (the physicist bit) – but that was in part because of this book.

7.  Judith Hann. Actually, I would include many of the old Tomorrow’s World team – Raymond Baxter, Michael Rodd, Bob Symes and a number of others. The program had its critics, and in later years tried too hard to grab fleeting attentions – becoming rather shallow.  But as a child growing up, Judith and the others were an inspiration.

8.  Doctor Who. Okay so this one took me by surprise as well – was I really inspired by an individualistic fictitious character with an authority complex?  Looking back, I think I was.  I have a sneaking suspicion – never articulated until the confessional of this blog, that I wanted to be just like John Pertwee or Tom Baker – using science and superior intellect to save the world while cocking a snoot at the establishment.  Come to think about it, I suspect I still do…

9.  Isaac Asimov. There are a number of science-realistic fiction writers I could insert here: Arthur C. Clarke, Brian Aldiss, H. G. Wells – I read them all.  And while many (not all) of them fell short of writing good “literature,” they nevertheless set my mind ablaze with new ideas and new possibilities.  If this was what science was about – I wanted in!

10.  Mr. Tranquada. Mr. Tranquada (I think I have the name right – it was a long time ago) was a high school physics teacher I had for one year only. I had two other physics teachers at high school who were less than inspirational – although the pot-smoking hippie brought an interesting flavor to the subject, until he got busted!  But the year I had Mr Tranquada was a revelation.  He wasn’t flash.  He didn’t strain to entertain.  And he could be a real sarky so and so.  But when he taught, it was as if he opened a window into a universe of full of new ideas – and the more I experienced, the more I wanted.  He also taught me that there’s no such thing as a stupid question – one of the more important lessons of my youth.

These weren’t my only inspirations that led to me becoming a scientist – but they are amongst the more prominent ones.  Interestingly, there weren’t too many traditional role models there (unless you count Doctor Who of course…)  The people who attracted me were those who expanded my knowledge and understanding – it was what they offered that hooked me, not who they were.  I wonder whether this is just a personal predilection, or whether it hints at something more universal.

Finally, as I compiled this list, I was intrigued by the things that didn’t get me hooked on science as a youth.  Here are just three:

1. My careers advisor. Mr. Barlow was his name.  I asked him once what it took to become a research scientist.  His answer: “You don’t want to do that!”

2.  Dead people. I’m sorry to admit it, but dead scientists just didn’t do it for me.  Things are a little different now. But then, given Newton or an apple, I’d go for the apple.

3. Carl Sagan. Okay, so I may be the only scientist of my generation to admit to not being inspired by the great Carl.  Not having a TV when Cosmos was shown in the UK may have something to do with this   But it just goes to show that you don’t always need a superstar to get someone hooked on science.

Well, that’s the introspective retrospective over.  If you have your own thoughts and ideas on how to hook people on science, join us on Monday -  in the flesh if you are at the British Science Festival, or via Second Life if you are not – details here.

See you there.

Initial reflections on the new Royal Society report “Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty”

After many months’ hard work, the Royal Society’s much-anticipated report on geoengineering was published today.  Aimed at presenting “an independent scientific review of the range of methods proposed [for geoengineering the climate] with the aim of providing an objective view on whether geoengineering could, and should, play a role in addressing climate change, and under what conditions,”  it provides what is perhaps the most authoritative and comprehensive assessment of the options to date…

I suspect that, like most climate change-related reports these days, “Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty” will have ideologues on both sides of the aisle up in arms.  It dares to consider the option of actively engineering the climate on a planetary scale to curb the impacts of global warming, and advocates further research into geoengineering.  In doing so, it will no doubt simultaneously enrage deniers of anthropogenic climate change, and those who fervently maintain that technological fixes are not the solution to the consequences of humanity’s excesses.

Yet for anyone mature enough to consider the merits of evidence-based and socially-responsive decision-making, the report offers a clear and insightful perspective.

From the outset, the report presents geoengineering as a far from ideal but perhaps necessary option to curbing global warming.  In the foreword, Lord Rees – President of the Royal Society – stresses that “nothing should divert us from the main priority of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.”  Even more strongly, the top headline message of the report states

“The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.  No geoengineering method can provide an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution to the problem of climate change.”

Yet, as the report’s authors point out, neither can we afford to be complacent in assuming that global emissions of greenhouse gases will be curbed sufficiently to avoid widespread economic, social and political impacts over the coming decades.  In the event that active interventions are needed, the report’s subtext is clear: we will need to face the scientific, social and political challenges up-front, openly and honestly if we are to have a hope of making smart decisions.

By taking a balanced and systematic approach, the report establishes a strong technical and social framework for assessing geoengineering options.  On a scientific and technical level, two classes of geoengineering approaches are identified: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques, and Solar Radiation Management (SRM) techniques.  Each class is addressed separately in the report.  Within these two classes, nine plausible geoengineering “solutions” are explored and assessed: biochar, enhanced weathering, carbon dioxide air capture, ocean fertilization, surface albedo alterations (urban and desert), cloud albedo modification, stratospheric aerosols and space reflectors.  These are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness, affordability, timeliness and safety.

The report summarizes the assessment of each solution in a useful graphical representation (shown below), which also includes three additional technologies not discussed extensively in the text (afforestation, carbon capture and storage at source – CCS – and bioenergy with carbon storage, or BECS).

Preliminary overall evaluation of geoengineering techniques, from the Royal Society report Geoengineering the Climate, Sept 1 2009

While the numbers assigned to effectiveness, affordability, safety and timeliness are somewhat qualitative (hence the error bars – which merely denote large uncertainties), this representation gives a sense of which geoengineering approaches might be the more promising ones.  In crude terms, the ideal method would be represented by a large green circle to the upper right of the chart.  Under these criteria, using stratospheric aerosols to scatter sunlight away from the earth comes closest to the ideal.

Interestingly, the recently-publicized approach of painting roofs white (and other urban surface albedo raising ideas) doesn’t fare too well in this assessment. Using biochar to sequester carbon dioxide is also surprisingly low  against all four criteria.  However, while this visualization may be useful for getting a feel for the pros and cons of different geoengineering options, the report cautions that diagrams like this are “no more than preliminary and approximate and should be treated as no more than a preliminary and somewhat illustrative attempt at visualising the results of the sort of multi-criterion evaluation that is needed” to make sense of complex and uncertain geoengineering options.

Beyond the technical options for geoengineering, a substantial portion of the report is dedicated to addressing societal issues.  Chapter 4 establishes a discussion framework that includes governance of geoengineering in the light of risk and uncertainty, ethical issues, oversight of research and development, public and civil society engagement, and economic factors.  These issues are approached with seriousness and respect, and exert a strong influence over the report’s subsequent recommendations.  It is telling that the report’s authors acknowledge that

“The greatest challenges to the successful deployment of geoengineering may be the social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance, rather than scientific and technical issues.”

The report winds up with seventeen recommendations, ranging from the development and deployment of specific geoengineering solutions, to global governance and public engagement.  These should be read and digested in their entirety by anyone interested in geoengineering, in the context of the full report, and so I’m not going to regurgitate them here wholesale.  But I did want to highlight a few of the recommendations that I suspect will strike a particular chord with proponents and opponents of geoengineering, and anyone in the business of making tough decisions on the best way forward.  They also give a good feel for the tone and emphasis of the report:

1.1 Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change and, in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions of at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and more thereafter.  Nothing now known about geoengineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts. [emphasis added]

1.2 Emerging but as yet untested geoengineering methods such as biochar and ocean fertilisation should not be formally accepted as methods for addressing climate change under the UNFCCC flexible mechanisms until their effectiveness, carbon residence time and impacts have been determined and found to be acceptable.

3.1 Geoengineering methods are not a substitute for climate change mitigation, and should only be considered as part of a wider package of options for addressing climate change.  CDR methods should be regarded as preferable to SRM methods as a way to augment continuing mitigation action in the long term.  However, SRM methods may provide a potentially useful short-term backup to mitigation in case rapid reductions in global temperatures are needed.

5. The Royal Society, in collaboration with other appropriate bodies, should initiate a process of dialogue and engagement to explore public and civil society attitudes, concerns and uncertainties about geoengineering as a response to climate change.  This should be designed so as to a) Clarify the impact that discussions of the possible implementation of geoengineering may have on general attitudes to climate change, adaption and mitigation; b) Capture information on the importance of various factors affecting public attitudes, including: novelty/familiarity, scale of application and effect, aesthetics, the actors involved, centralization of control, contained versus dispersed methods and impacts, and the reversibility of effects; c) Provide participants with objective information as to the potential role of geoengineering within the broader context of climate change policies, the difference between CDR and SRM, and their relative risks and benefits.

6.1 The governance challenges posed by geoengineering should be explored in more detail, and policy processes established to resolve them.

7.1 The Royal Society in collaboration with international scientific partners should develop a code of practice for geoengineering research and provide recommendations to the international scientific community for a voluntary research governance framework.  This should provide guidance and transparency for geoengineering research and apply to researchers working in the public, private and commercial sectors.  It should include a) consideration of what types and scales of research require regulation including validation and monitoring; b) the establishment of a de minimis standard for regulation of research’ c) guidance on the evaluation of methods including relevance criteria, and life cycle and carbon/climate accounting.

On a first reading, this is a balanced, sober and authoritative report on the development and deployment of geoengineering options to address climate change.  It clearly lays out the technical approaches available, and provides a robust expert perspective on their relative merits.  But its strength lies in the broader social, ethical and political framework within which it positions these options.

The result is a report that neither promotes or denigrates geoengineering, but takes a long hard look at how to ensure the safest and most effective use of geoengineering, should it become necessary.

It’s too early to say whether this will be a truly seminal report in the history of managing global climate change – although my money is on it having a significant and lasting impact.  But it is certainly a considered and mature report. And it clearly establishes the need to take geoengineering – and all of its social, ethical and political ramifications – seriously.

The question is, are we mature enough to act on it?

Inevitably, time and consequences will tell…

Download the full report: Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty [PDF, 4756 kb]

Related blogs:

Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics?

Geoengineering goes mainstream

Steve Chu’s White Revolution

Geoengineering: Are we grown up enough to handle it?

Geoengineering options: Balancing effectiveness and safety

Update 9/3/09 – the figure above has been updated to reflect a typograpical correction made to the original (the top right effectiveness/affordability tag was incorrect).  Thanks to everyone who pointed the error out – and to the RS for fixing it so fast!

Asked to conclude the Fourth International Conference on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health in Helsinki this year, I rather rashly came up with the above title for my talk—thinking that I would find inspiration in the multitude of new research on nanotech safety being presented at the meeting.

As it turns out, events conspired against me and I ended up unavoidably missing most of the conference!

Faced with the tricky task of wrapping up a meeting that I had been embarrassingly absent from, I decided to share a rather more personal perspective on nanotechnology safety—my own reflections on things I think people should know.

This list is far from complete, and is heavily biased towards workplace safety.  And given that it was prepared for a crowd of conference attendees who were most likely maxed out on nano and more interested in where the nearest bar was, it’s a little light on detail.

Nevertheless, it is hopefully interesting and informative, and causes at least one person other than myself to stop and think afresh about how to ensure safety in the face of a new and rapidly developing technology.

So without further ado, and in reverse order, here is my highly subjective list of ten things everyone should know about nanotechnology safety…

10.  There’s no such thing as “nanotechnology safety”

Actually, this isn’t quite true.  Nanotechnology safety is clearly an important and legitimate goal.  It’s just that when you get down to the business of protecting people and the environment, the big idea of “nanotechnology” can become more of a hindrance than a help.

These are just two traps that discussing “nanotechnology safety” can open up:

First, we have the problem of definitions.  If we are going to discuss “nanotechnology safety,” we need to know what we are talking about.  Unfortunately, the generally accepted definition of nanotechnology—“the understanding and control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications” is what the US National Nanotechnology Initiative uses—is one of expedience, not of science.  It serves the purpose of stimulating new research and technology innovation in an exciting new area brilliantly.  But it doesn’t clearly define a set of products and processes that have common and specific safety issues; and it was never intended to.

As a result, attempts to apply the generally accepted definition of nanotechnology to material and product safety ends up in a messy mismatch.  Materials that are probably benign come under suspicion, while others that we should be worried about potentially slip the net.

Second, there is the problem of generalities.  The products of nanotechnology are infinitely varied; each behaves in a different way and potentially presents a different set of risks.  This is obvious when we think about it.  Comparing the potential benefits and risks of scanning tunneling microscopes, semiconductor chips and smart drugs (for instance) is nonsensical, even though each can legitimately be claimed as a product of nanotechnology.  The trouble is, focusing on “nanotechnology safety” seems to result in rationality by-pass sometimes, leading to the questionable assumption that nanotechnology presents a common set of safety problems, which can be solved by a common suite of safety solutions.

In the extreme, this type of generalization can lead to experiences with one nanotech product being applied to others—safety concerns over titanium dioxide nanoparticles in sunscreens being driven by inhalation studies using carbon nanotubes for instance; or consumers potentially avoiding “nano” branded goods because they heard that “nanotechnology” isn’t “safe.”

Perhaps more to the point though, nanotechnology—like most technologies—is safety-neutral.  It isn’t the technology so much as what is done with it that is important.  Which means that rather than talking about “nanotechnology safety,” it makes a lot more sense to talk about the safe handling, use and disposal of specific materials, products and processes that arise from its application.

9.  We’re living in a post-chemistry world

Having debunked the idea of “nanotechnology safety,” I should really talk about what might be important when it comes to working with and using the products of nanotechnology as safely as possible—because without a doubt, some of its uses will lead to new safety challenges.

One class of products that raises some interesting safety questions is “nanomaterials”—materials engineered at the nanometer-scale so they exhibit scale-specific properties.  These materials are intentionally designed to do what they do because of their physical form, as well as their chemical makeup.  So it seems reasonable to ask whether what they look like at the nanoscale also leads to new safety issues.

Of course, for physical form to be relevant to human health or the environment, the material first has to get to where it can do harm.  For people, this means that chunks of it need to be small enough to be inhaled, ingested, or penetrate through the skin.  No exposure—no harm.

However, for nanomaterials that can get into the body, there will be some cases where their physical form—their size, shape, physical structure—can lead to them being dangerous above certain concentrations.

But here’s the rub.  Over the past fifty plus years, we’ve got used to assessing the likely risks associated with materials by considering their chemistry alone.  As a result we have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to materials that are potentially harmful because of something more than just their chemical composition.

This is a bit of an oversimplification of course.  In the field of occupational health we have had to deal with asbestos and other fibers that cause harm because of their chemistry and their physical form.  And it’s long been recognized that different sized airborne particles present different risks if inhaled.  But these are the exceptions rather than the rule, and there is still a tendency when assessing risks to ignore physical form, or to struggle with what to do with it.

However, as engineered nanomaterials become increasingly sophisticated, this will need to change if we are to work with them safely.  We are living in a post-chemistry world, where functionality and safety depend on more than just what something is made of.  And if we are to ensure the safety of emerging engineered nanomaterials, we need to learn how to survive and thrive in this world.

8.  Current understanding of nanomaterial risks has more holes than a Swiss cheese

So we know that we might need a new perspective on the potential risks associated with engineered nanomaterials and how to manage them.  But here we hit a problem—when it comes to answering questions that seem to be important, there’s a distinct dearth of information.

Quantifying the human health risks (for example) associated with a material—a normal step in ensuring their safe use—requires answers to many questions, including:

• How can the material enter the body?
• Where does it go and how does it change once it gets there?
• What aspects of the material end up causing harm?
• How much material is needed for serious harm to occur?
• How should the toxicity of the material be assessed?
• How will people end up being exposed to the material?
• How should exposure be measured? And
• Can exposures be adequately controlled?

When it comes to new nanomaterials, these are just some of the questions we still don’t have complete answers to.  And they only address occupational exposures.  What happens when these same nanomaterials get out into the environment?

If we are going to get a good handle on working safely with engineered nanomaterials and other products based on nanotechnology, these holes will eventually need to be filled.  And as the diversity and sophistication of engineered nanomaterials continues to grow, research into assessing and managing their possible risks will need to be well funded and strategically targeted if it is to keep up.

7.  Engineered nanomaterials are accomplished shape-shifters

It is probably something of an exaggeration to refer to nanomaterials as shape-shifters, but without a doubt, one of the big challenges of ensuring the safety of engineered nanomaterials is that their behavior changes depending on where they are, and where they’ve been.  A freshly minted nanoparticle may have a surface that is crammed full of highly active chemicals.  Ten minutes later, these chemicals may have lost their potency—with a resulting reduction in the material’s ability to cause harm.  Small particles may agglomerate with others to form large particles over time.  Or large agglomerates may separate out into smaller ones once inhaled.  Particles moving through the air might pick up a coating of other chemicals in their vicinity and, if inhaled, will behave differently to “naked” particles.  Nanoparticles in the lungs or blood may become shrouded in specific biological molecules that dictate where they go and how the body responds.  Nanoparticles may be suspended in liquids, compressed into pellets, or embedded in plastics.  Nanotechnology-enabled products may shed material that changes as it moves through the environment, and moves through the environment differently as it changes.  And nano-products disposed of at the end of their life may once again liberate nanomaterials that bear little resemblance to the stuff they were originally made of.

In short, the qualities that make a nanomaterial potentially harmful change over the material’s lifetime.

This complicates matters when it comes to ensuring safety.  Just because a nanoparticle in a workplace is considered safe, doesn’t mean that it will still be safe several steps down the road.  The converse is also true—a nanomaterial that needs to be handled with care in the workplace may be relatively benign after it has been incorporated into a product.

There are no easy answers to dealing with this shifting risk profile.  But one thing is certain: If engineered nanomaterials are to be used safely, their potential for causing harm, and the means to manage this, needs to be considered across their life cycle.

6.  The technology’s new, but that doesn’t make old safety practices redundant

In the face of a new and, in some cases, radically different technology, there is a temptation for imaginations to go into overdrive and assume that these new technologies automatically demand new safety measures.

Fortunately, even though we are facing a nanotechnology safety future that is complex and riddled with holes, we do have some tricks at our disposal for helping to ensure the safer handling of nanomaterials.

It seems that established occupational hygiene practices go a long way to preventing exposures and reducing risks.  Guidance from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), BSI, the International Standards Organization (ISO) and others makes it very clear that by taking reasonable precautions with how materials are handled, control measures are established and workers are protected, the chances of something untoward happening are reduced substantially—even if hard data on a new material’s toxicity are lacking.

Undoubtedly there will be situations where conventional practices don’t go all the way to ensuring the safe use of nanomaterials—just one more reason why more research is needed. But we do know that airborne nanoparticles can be removed from the air with conventional local exhaust ventilation systems; that air filters do a good job of reducing exposures; and that bad workplace practices increase the chances of harm occurring, whether the materials being handled are nanoscale or not.

So the good news is that we don’t need to throw out decades of experience with working safely with nanomaterials.

On the other hand, it’s probably not a good idea to be complacent—old tricks may work with new technologies, but probably only up to a point.

And just to be clear, there is a world of difference between safe and safer.

5.  Lower exposures mean lower risks

Continuing the theme of old tricks, reducing risks through controlling exposure does seem to be an area where established wisdom has a role to play with engineered nanomaterials.

As a rule of thumb, lowering exposure levels is likely to reduce potential risks from nanomaterials, even in the absence of hard toxicity data.  With few exceptions, the human health risks of materials tend to follow a general trend of increasing response with increasing dose.  There are subtleties here involving the shape of the relationship between dose and response, the period over which effects occur, how dose is measured and whether a dose exists below which no response is observed.  But these aside, most of our experiences with harmful agents—whether gases, liquids or particles—suggest that less stuff means lower risk.

This is helpful when handling new engineered nanomaterials, because we can be reasonably sure that every step towards lowering exposures is a step in the right direction.  It means that equipped with the most basic exposure control technologies and an instrument capable of measuring some aspect of the nanomaterial concentration, potential risks can be reduced.

But helpful as this approach to reducing risk is, there is a problem: how low is low enough?

4.  Measurement without meaning is like a car without an engine

If you measure the concentration of nanoparticles in a workplace—say you measure the number or mass of particles per cubic meter—what does that measurement mean?  And how can you use it to increase safety without impacting unnecessarily on operating costs?

Exposure measurement is a tricky subject.  Numbers—hard data—can be comforting.  But without a clear idea of their relevance, they can also be misleading. A measurement of airborne nanomaterial concentration can be used to reduce exposure, but how far should it be reduced?  Alternatively, measurements can be used to try and eliminate exposure altogether.  But there’s always that lingering doubt that exposures are occurring below the instrument’s detection threshold.  And rather annoyingly, the lower the concentration of material an instrument will detect, and the harder it will be to get a zero reading.

In other words, measurements without the means to interpret and use them are a bit like a car without an engine—pretty, but useless!

The reality is that without guidance on how to interpret and act on them, measurements can cause more problems than they solve—especially if the cost of reducing exposures to some arbitrary level becomes prohibitively expensive.

What would be helpful here is a benchmark against which exposure measurements can be assessed—a reference that enables measurements to be translated into actions.  Where solid risk-related data are available, these benchmarks are the exposure limits set by governments and other organizations familiar to any occupational hygienist.

But what do you do in the absence of such limits?

One option is to take a stab at estimating reasonable benchmark limits, based on the best available information. For instance, in “Nanotechnologies – Part 2: Guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials,” BSI has recommended a series of rules –of-thumb, based on reasonably well-understood materials, which help establish working benchmark levels for new and untested materials.  The idea is that in the absence of any better information, exposure limits for analogous materials are used as a starting point.

The methodology is rough and ready, and doesn’t sit well with every expert.  But at least it provides a useful way of assigning meaning to measurements; as long at the working benchmark levels do not become set in stone.

3.  When the data run out – innovate!

This question of measuring exposure in the absence of well-established exposure limits is just one part of a larger issue—how do you make smart safety decisions in the absence of good information?

Even if we can use established practiced to lower risks, we are still faced with a barrow-load of unknowns and uncertainties that pull the rug out from under conventional approaches to quantifying and managing risks.  And even if did manage to fill in all the current knowledge-holes, the chances are that we would be facing a whole new set of uncertainties sooner rather than later.

So what do we do – apart from panic?

The answer is: Innovate! More than ever in the future, we will have to rely on new and innovative approaches to managing risks; ones that enable decisions to be made in the absence of hard data.  Something of this was seen in the observation that lower exposures mean lower risks—a concept that enables risks to be reduced even in the absence of toxicology data.  Yet more inventive approaches will be needed if engineered nanomaterials are to be used safely in a world where a science-based understanding of the risks looks increasingly like a Swiss cheese, no matter how hard we try.

Vladimir Murashov and John Howard recently highlighted some possible innovations in the journal Nature Nanotechnology. Writing on essential features for proactive risk management, they discussed a number of ways to manage risk in a data-deficient world.  In particular, they stressed the need to consider “soft” (or qualitative) approaches to assessing and managing risks such as using expert judgment, and control banding.

These recommendations are a good start.  But much more is needed if we are to learn to make smart choices in the face of uncertainty.

2.  It’s good to talk

The adage “a problem shared is a problem halved” is rather a trite one, but it does contain a grain of truth.  Where companies and workers face difficult challenges in ensuring the safety of their workplaces, drawing on the collective wisdom of the community can be a great boon.

In their article, Murashov and Howard stressed is the need for global stakeholder cooperation in ensuring the safe use of engineered nanomaterials.  This makes perfect sense.  Safety shouldn’t be a competitive issue—it’s in everyone’s interest to share information and experiences that will prevent harm to people or the environment. Information sharing encourages faster, better solutions to challenges. It allows smaller outfits to tap into a wealth of experience and expertise that would otherwise be beyond their reach. And it reduces the chances of competitors making a mess of “nanotechnology safety” in a way that undermines the credibility of the technology as a whole.

The good news is that people are talking—not as much as they should perhaps, but at least the lines of communication are open.  The NanOEH2009 conferences is a great example of information sharing, and there are many more—ISO and OECD initiatives for instance, and the work of the International Council On Nanotechnology.

But I wanted to highlight one initiative in particular, in part because I had a small hand in the initial idea, but mainly because I think it has great potential to get the global nanotechnology safety community working together to find solutions to the challenges they face.  And that is the Good Nano Guide.

Designed as a community forum and resource, this is developing into an important place for learning about other people’s experiences of working safely with nanomaterials, and for sharing your own.  As people begin to contribute to it and use it, it could turn into an open-access goldmine for know-how on working as safely as possible with engineered nanomaterials.

1.  People matter

And finally my number one thing that everyone should know about nanotechnology safety—people matter.

This may seem simple, or obvious, but it’s something that can get left out of the equation all too easily.

At the end of the day, human risk research is about protecting people from injury, disease and death, and ensuring a high quality of life.  It isn’t about the buzz of new discovery.  It isn’t about getting rich and famous.  It isn’t about making a profit.  And it isn’t about sustaining ideologies.

All of these have their place, and in many cases are good and important.  But the primary focus of risk research should be the people it ultimately impacts.

This is part of the culture of risk-based research professionals who have come up through schools of public health, government research labs and similar institutions.  It may get buried at times.  But generally there is that recognition that the rewards of the work are more safe and healthy people, and fewer injuries, diseases and deaths.

(It goes without saying that a similar ethos exists for environmental risk research)

But when it comes to nanotechnology risk research, I am concerned by the influx of researchers and decision-makers into the field that don’t come from this culture of focusing on people’s health and safety.

This is a very personal perspective, and I may be wrong.  But it seems that with increasing interest in, and funding available, for nanotechnology-related risk research, there has been a shift in emphasis away from traditional risk-research experts and towards researchers with primary expertise in other areas—chemistry, materials science and drug development for example.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  But it does mean that research programs, strategies and policies are increasingly being influenced by people who lack a professional cultural bias toward focusing on the individuals their work and decisions will affect.

That is not to imply that these people do not care—in many cases, they clearly do.  But without that ingrained culture of putting others first, I wonder whether there is a danger of nanotechnology risk research being driven more by political expediency and the promise of economic gain, and less by the need to protect people.

If this isn’t the case, I am willing to stand corrected.  But if it is, we need to work out how to get people back at the center of the nano-risk enterprise.  This may need some careful thought over where research funding goes and how strategic research decisions are made.   But I suspect it will also rely on the willingness of the emerging nanotechnology safety community to rethink and reaffirm its values.

At the end of the day, despite the clear economic and social justifications, getting nanotechnology “right” will be a hollow achievement if we end up neglecting the very people who will make its success possible.  Let’s hope we don’t.

In the wake of a new study linking “nanotechnology” to two deaths and five additional cases of lung disease, the emerging technology of the ultra-small could be in for a rough ride.  Yet the real risk is that in the rush to use or even abuse the findings, the science and it’s true relevance are overlooked.

It’s never good news when a new technology is associated with a death.

The emerging area of nanotechnology has had a fairly smooth ride so far.  Sure, there have been questions over possible new health risks associated with some of its more esoteric offerings.  But no one has actually got sick from the technology.

Until now it seems…

A new study to be published in the European Respiratory Journal describes seven cases of unusual and progressive lung disease and two deaths amongst workers at a Chinese factory, and pins the likely cause on nanoparticles—which the authors link inextricably with nanotechnology.

The study presses a number of emotional and political buttons that are likely to elevate its significance—workers died; a new class of material, already under suspicion, is implicated; and in the journal’s press release, parallels are drawn with asbestos—a material that continues to be associated with tens of thousands of deaths around the world each year.

As news coverage surrounding the study gathers momentum, there will be the temptation for opponents and proponents of nanotechnology to either parade it as proof of nanotech’s dangers, or to dismiss it as ill-conceived, flawed and irrelevant.  But either approach would be a serious mistake, and in the long term could jeopardize the safe, successful and beneficial development of nanotechnology.

For years it’s been speculated that nanotechnology-derived materials—including nanoparticles—could present new health risks.  Some materials begin to exhibit novel physical and chemical properties at the nanoscale.  Nanometer-sized particles can get to places inaccessible to larger particles.  And particle size, shape and surface area have been linked to unusual biological behavior for some materials.  Backed by an increasing number of lab studies, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the potential health impact of some nanomaterials depends on more than just chemistry.

But hard data on any actual risks associated with nanomaterials remain tantalizingly elusive.  More to the point, no one has knowingly got sick after being exposed to an engineered nanomaterial yet.  And while proactively avoiding potential nanomaterial-related risks sounds awfully laudable, industry and governments are notoriously loath to take serious action on avoiding possible dangers in the absence of actual bodies.

This presents groups advocating proactive risk management or a precautionary approach to emerging technologies with a dilemma—how do you convince decision-makers to take action before people fall ill, rather than in response to a tragedy?  To some of these groups, this new study could well be seen as just the leverage they need to press for more risk research, stronger regulation, and less rapid nanotechnology commercialization.

On the other hand, industries and governments have a vested interest in ensuring the tens of billions of dollars they have invested in nanotechnology turns a profit—financially, politically and socially.  I may be being over-cynical here, but I can’t see them passively sitting by while a study associating nanotechnology with lung disease threatens to undermine this investment.  At the very least, the scientific integrity of the new study will be examined minutely.  And if it is found wanting, the temptation will be to dismiss it as flawed and irrelevant.

Unfortunately, neither of these approaches will help avoid similar incidents occurring in the future, or support the development of safe nanotechnologies in the long run.

This new study adds to a growing body of research into the potential health impacts of nanoparticles.  Eventually, it will no doubt play a role in helping to understand and avoid the potential dangers associated with some nanomaterials under some conditions. But on its own, it is limited and incomplete.  At the end of the day, the study says little about the potential hazards of nanoparticles in general, and next to nothing about the possible dangers of nanotechnology.  If the sad deaths of the two workers and the lung disease of their five colleagues were used to press home a preordained nanotechnology agenda, it would amount to little more than a cynical misuse of the data—not a move that is likely to encourage evidence-based decisions on either workplace safety or safe nanotechnology.

Yet to dismiss the study as flawed and irrelevant would be equally foolish.  The reality is that two workers died and nanoparticles were implicated, at a time when increasing numbers of nanoparticle-containing products are entering the market.  As the details of the study become known, people are going to want to know what the findings mean for them—whether there are risks associated with emerging nanotechnologies, and what government and industry are doing about it.  If nanotech-promoters downplay or even discredit the work, the move is more likely to engender suspicion than allay fears in many quarters.  And once again, evidence-based decision-making will be in danger of being sacrificed in favor of maintaining a set agenda.

Fortunately, there is a middle way; one that hopefully the proponents and opponents of nanotechnology—and all those in between—will take.  And this is to be science-grounded yet socially responsive in how the study is assessed and acted upon.

This is not a perfect study.  There are key pieces of information missing that prevent its application to nanoparticles more generally.  Yet I believe the questions it raises on the safe development of nanotechnology transcend its limitations.  The study places emerging nanotechnologies in the spotlight, and forces consumers, developers and decision-makers to think afresh about how they might be used safely.  Irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the tragic illnesses and deaths reported, the study will prompt people to ask how safe they are while working with and using products based on nanotechnology.

And where there are no satisfactory answers, these same people are going to want to know why.

Posturing in response to the study will only alienate people and hamper progress towards the science-informed development of safe and beneficial nanotechnology.  Rather, this is a chance for everyone with an interest in safe and beneficial nanotechnologies start working together towards science-grounded progress that ultimately serves everyone’s needs.

Talking together about the way forward is a good start, but to be effective it must lead to informed actions. Given the current lack of knowledge on the potential risks of some nanomaterials, these will depend on well-funded, strategic research that addresses the many existing information gaps.  While this new knowledge is being generated—a process that could take decades—innovative new approaches will be needed for working with and using the products of nanotechnology as safely as possible.  And to cap it all, decision-makers—from manufacturers to workers to policy-makers to consumers—will need access to clear, relevant and understandable information on nanotechnologies, and what they mean to them.

Working together along these lines, the groundwork will be laid for making progress that is based on the best possible science, yet doesn’t ignore the concerns and aspirations of the people it touches.

Tragically, the lung damage experienced by the seven Chinese workers in the European Respiratory Journal study could most likely have been prevented if accepted occupational hygiene practices had been followed. Ultimately, this is a story of a human failing, not an emerging technology.  Yet it does stimulate important questions that will need addressing if the long-term benefits of nanotechnology are to be realized.  The question is, are we prepared to put aside preconceived notions and work together to find effective answers?  I hope we are.

Okay, so there may be a dash of hyperbole there, but following up on the success of his Exquisite Corpse of Science project (see my previous post), Tim Jones is hatching an ambitious plan to create the world’s largest interconnected montage of drawings representing peoples’ impressions of, aspirations for and concerns about science.

The plan is really simple – and it involves you!

Simply send a sketch of what science means to you to Tim at corpse@communicatescience.com, and he will do the rest.

There are some simple rules:

1.  Draw – in your own style and without getting hung up on technical or artistic ability – what you think is important about science

2.  Anyone can participate – young, old, scientists, science drop-outs, stay at home mums (or dads), janitors, Nobel prize winners, even economists – everyone is welcome.

3.  The picture should be connected to points roughly one and two thirds of the way along the edge of the page (each side and top to bottom) – allowing your doodlings to be connected to every one else’s.  If this sounds confusing, take a look at the example below.

4.  The picture should be square.  It can either be drawn free hand and scanned, or drawn directly on the computer.  Either way, it should be 1000 pixels by 1000 pixels large when finished.

5.  The final compressed file is smaller than 500 KB.

6.  You should sign your art work

7.  And if you want – feel free to add an audio commentary.

More details can be found on Tim’s blog – which I would encourage you to read – together with some really good explanations on what on earth all this is about!  I’d especially recommend watching the video at the end of the page.

Any questions – pop over to Tim Jones’ blog Zoonomian and post it in the comments section here.

And while I (and Tim) are probably being a little tongue in cheek about this being the biggest science-art project in history, with enough submissions it could be.  So be a part of history, and get drawing!!

[Update 7/22/07 - check out my entry here, then feel inspired to grab a pen and produce something better - it won't be hard ]

According to a new public opinion survey from the UK Royal Academy of Engineering, the great British public is cautiously enthusiastic about the emerging field of synthetic biology.

Last summer, the  Washington DC-based Synthetic Biology Project published a survey of US awareness and attitudes towards synbio.  The new  study builds on that work by taking a look what people in the UK make of synthetic biology.  Drawing on a 1000-person strong phone survey and a more in-depth exploratory dialogue with 16 participants, it provides insight into current awareness of synthetic biology, potential public perception speed bumps, and some possible routes toward greater public engagement in the technology’s development.

I’ll probably write about the report in more depth at a later date—some of the recommendations from the dialogue are particularly interesting  as is the process of empowering people to make informed recommendations on an emerging technology such as synthetic biology.  But for now, I’ll limit myself to some initial impressions from reading the report:

The overall impression from reading the report is that people in the UK are cautiously optimistic about the future beneficial development and use of synthetic biology. However, this optimism is tempered by concerns over possible safety issues, unresponsive or inappropriate regulation, and fear-mongering in the media.

It is clear that the participants in the dialogue faced a steep learning curve when it came to synthetic biology, but that with help most of them were able to come up to speed on what the technology entailed, and what the potential implications were.  None of the 16 dialogue group participants had previously heard of synthetic biology.  In the telephone poll, only 33% of respondents had come across the term previously—the same level of awareness was found amongst US respondents the Wilson Center study.  However, after two evenings of learning bout and discussing synthetic biology, a number of participants in the dialogue had a clear grasp of the essence of what synthetic biology is about, what it can potential be used for, and some of the challenges its development raises.  It was noted though that there are next to no good sources of information available that provide a lay audience with clear information on synthetic biology.

Generally, people were excited about the potential applications of synthetic biology. Using re-programmed microbes to produce biofuels and medical drugs were seen as positive applications – with greater emphasis given to biofuels, as an application that had the potential to make a difference to a greater number of people in the near future.  There was less enthusiasm and more concern expressed for applications that would lead to the release of modified microbes into the environment, such as might occur in pollution remediation.

Effective risk management was clearly a concern. Regulation was seen as important for the success of synthetic biology, but only if it didn’t stifle innovation.  Participants generally felt that synthetic biology practiced by amateurs outside the confines and constraints of established organizations—garage biotech—is a bad thing, and should be discouraged.

There was concern that the media could undermine the development of synthetic biology by scaremongering, and that efforts are needed to educate and inform people about the technology – thus allowing informed impressions to be made that weren’t unduly influenced by the media.  This may be a particularly British perspective given the state of science reporting in some UK media outlets.  But I found it interesting that the dialogue participants were sufficiently enamored with synbio that they didn’t want the media to upset the cart here, while at the same time they (presumably) represented the readership that the UK media write for.

There didn’t seem to be much concern over scientists “playing God” and creating new life-forms. In fact—and this I found surprising—there seemed to be some question over whether engineered microbes were actually alive.  Treating modified or new microbes as non-living commodities conveniently circumvents a number of ethical issues here.  But I wonder whether this attitude will persist as synthetic biology develops.  And if it does, I can’t help wondering whether this raises ethical issues in and of itself.  In contrast to microbes, there seemed to be a consensus that tinkering with “higher” life forms was questionable.

There seemed to be strong support for the UK government investing in synthetic biology—along with some bemusement that Britain was already ahead of most other countries in the field.

Overall, these results should be seen as good news for synthetic biology.  They suggest the opportunity exists for strong partnerships between members of the public and scientists, government and businesses in developing the field and translating it into useful applications.  But there is also an underlying note of caution—get things wrong, and synthetic biology could become another genetically modified organisms fiasco—or worse.

The hope is that scientists, government and business learn from past mistakes, and work with regular people to develop synthetic biology in an acceptable, relevant and responsible way.  This report is a great initial step toward doing this.  It’ll be interesting to see what comes next.

If there’s one thing that’s guaranteed to unite global warming “denialists” on both sides of the aisle, it’s geoengineering – the intentional planet-wide manipulation of the environment.  At least, you might be left with that impression after reading the comments following a thoughtful piece in Monday’s Wall Street Journal by Jamais Cascio.

It’s Time to Cool the Planet. Wall Street Journal. Credit: Viktor Koen

Cascio describes himself as a “reluctant advocate” of geoengineering.

“Many of us who have been watching this subject closely have gone from being skeptics to advocates. Very reluctant advocates, to be sure, but advocates nonetheless.”

Fraught with uncertainty and risk as geoengineering is, he argues that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will not be sufficient in the short term to curb the impacts of global warming.  Rather, direct intervention is necessary to give us a bit of breathing space.

Interestingly, he does not advocate geoengineering as a technical fix to a manmade problem.  He goes to great pains to stress that he believes reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the only long-term solution to the impact of human activities on climate change.  But geoengineering could give us more time to come up with workable solutions to achieving this.

“What geoengineering can do is slow the increase in temperatures, delay potentially catastrophic “tipping point” events—such as a disastrous melting of the Arctic permafrost—and give us time to make the changes to our economies and our societies necessary to end the climate disaster.

“Geoengineering, in other words, is simply a temporary “stay of execution.” We will still have to work for a pardon.”

Cascio also does not shy away from the potential risks as well as the social and political challenges associated with such direct action.

“Any kind of geoengineering would also face other issues. Most prominent are the political concerns. Since geoengineering is global in its effects, who determines whether or not it’s used, which technologies to deploy, and what the target temperatures will be? Who decides which unexpected side effects are bad enough to warrant ending the process? Because the expense and expertise required would be low enough for a single country, what happens when a desperate “rogue nation” attempts geoengineering against the wishes of other states? And because the benefits and possible harm from geoengineering attempts would be unevenly distributed around the planet, would it be possible to use this technology for strategic or military purposes? That last one may sound a bit paranoid, but it’s clear that any technology with the potential for strategic use will be at the very least considered by any rational international actor.

“There are also more mundane questions of liability. If, for example, South Asia experiences an unusual drought during cyclone season after geoengineering begins, who gets blamed? Who gets sued? Would all “odd” weather patterns be ascribed to the geoengineering effort? If so, would the issue of what would have happened absent geoengineering be considered relevant?”

Yet at the end of the day, he believes that, despite the very real problems associated with taking direct action, the alternatives are worse.

This is a finely written piece, and well worth reading.  It lays out the pros and cons of geoengineering in a carefully reasoned way.  It doesn’t contain much science admittedly.  But then I wouldn’t expect it to – it’s an opinion piece, and the supporting science isn’t that hard to track down.

The article also spotlights what I suspect is going to be the biggest challenge to any effective use of geoengineering – getting a disparate bunch of people across social political and geographical boundaries to work together.  I fear that, while we now have the beginnings of technologies to tackle global problems, our mindset remains too parochial to implement them wisely.  Constrained by outmoded ways of thinking and acting, we are simply too immature as a species to make good decisions on a global scale.

The answer is deceptively simple – we need to grow up.  This won’t be easy.  I’m not even sure it is possible – which doesn’t bode well for humanity.  But if we don’t find ways of making wise decisions on technology uses that potentially affect everyone, things are going to get messy.

Perhaps climate change and the threat/lure of geoengineering are the jolt we need to find innovative ways of working toegther that transcend conventional boundaries and blinkered perspectives.  I don’t know.

I do know though that progress won’t happen without innovative thinking, open dialogue and a little humility on all sides.  Jamais Cascio’s piece offers the hope that these challenges, although complex, are not beyond our reach; if only we can tackle them with the maturity they demand.

Sadly, the comments on the Wall Street Journal piece suggest we still have a lot of growing up to do.

Should live tweeting and blogging from scientific meetings be controlled?

Back in May, Daniel MacArthur – a researcher and blogger – wrote a number of on-the-spot blogs on the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) Biology of Genomes meeting.  By all accounts a number of people were tweeting and blogging from the meeting.  But Daniel had the misfortune to come under scrutiny from Genomeweb – a web-based news service – because of his actions. As ScienceInsider reported yesterday, Genomeweb complained to the conference organizers that Daniel was reporting from the meeting without having to abide by the rules governing professional journalists attending the conference.  As a result, the rules are being changed – according to ScienceInsider, the meeting’s registration form will be revised “such that all participants will agree that if they are going to blog or twitter results, they need to let CSHL know in advance and get the presenter’s okay.”

Judging by discussions on the web today, the story has hit a nerve.  More importantly, it has raised a thorny issue that really needs to be tackled as the way people communicate changes: 

What’s OK and what’s not when you’re at a scientific meeting?

As a blogger and Twitter user, as well as a regular speaker at scientific meetings, it’s a question that is directly relevant to me.  Reading the discussions today and talking with people on Twitter about the issue, I was forced to think a little more carefully about how I make decisions on when to tweet or blog, and when not to…

I do have my own set of rather fuzzy internal guidelines, but I’ve never attempted anything as formal as writing them down.  However, given the rising significance of this issue, I thought it might be worth thinking through them a little more systematically.

I’m still trying to work out what the appropriate boundaries are here, so what you are getting is more my current thought processes than any definitive answers – think of it as live -logging from my brain.  As a consequence, I could well change my mind – completely – at some future date.  But this is where I am at the moment.

First off, it’s worth thinking about why people blog or tweet, what the purpose of scientific meetings is, and the role of the established media at these meetings.

Blogging and tweeting: Are bloggers and tweeps citizen-journalists?  I don’t think we are on the whole.  Certainly, some people use blogs and Twitter to report on events.  But many others simply use the media as a way of communicating their own thoughts, observations and reactions to others. This is not journalism.

My own stuff is a mix of expert opinion, observations on stuff that grabs my interest, and occasionally factual information that I think others will be interested in.  I don’t “report” – I’m not a reporter, and I couldn’t hope to do it with nearly the skill of someone having the appropriate training.

There is a potential problem though when social media commentators – which is what a lot of us are I guess – are treated as reporters, and the stuff we write is judged accordingly.  However, placing the same code of ethics and restrictions on bloggers and Twitter users as professional journalists makes little sense – the problem is not one of what is being written as how it is being read.  Rather, new solutions are needed to the new challenges raused by social media.

Scientific meetings: Scientific meetings come in all shapes and sizes.  Some are invitation only; others are open and accessible to anyone.  Some are designed to hash out areas of uncertainty between experts; others to present results to a broad audience.  Some are held to expose research to rigorous peer review; others to establish scientific authority.  Acceptable reporting practices will undoubtedly differ from meeting to meeting.  I would be very surprised if anyone thought that live-tweeting from a private meeting was acceptable.  But a running commentary on a public keynote given by established expert would be a very different matter in my eyes.

Scientific meetings and the media: Once upon a time, scientific conferences were predominantly about exchanging and examining new information with your peers – at least, they were in my field of research.  Reporters just weren’t a part of the equation.  Now, major conferences tend to be a media-fest – with the scientific community clamoring to have their messages and stories heard by all and sundry.  There’s tremendous pressure to “sell” studies to the media – to work out what might appeal to a broad readership, then dress it up so it’s as attractive as possible.  If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the press releases and media coverage surrounding something like an American Chemical Society meeting.

As a result there is a tendency – at some conferences at least – for presentations to be less about peer to peer review and discussion, and more about broad dissemination and promotion.  In this context, people want their work to be communicated in the media – but on their terms.  In other words, they love the media when they feel they are on control, but get antsy if they feel that control slipping.

Trying to pull this together, it seems clear that as social media stretches and challenges the established way of doing things, there’s going to have to be some adjustment on both sides.  I think it’s fair to say that there are probably boundaries to appropriate live-tweeting and blogging that still need to be hashed out.  But conference organizers and speakers also need to adapt to changing circumstances.  And I don’t think that this means treating citizen commentators as journalists.  But I do think that, among other things, it means shedding attitudes that treat the media – social or otherwise – as something to be controlled and used, rather than worked in partnership with.

Which brings me to how I approach tweeting and blogging.  I’ve live-tweeted from meetings in the past, as well as blogged on meetings.  I have also made conscious decisions not to comment in any form on meetings on occasions.  I don’t think I have got it right in every case.  But I haven’t had too many complaints either.  So how do I determine what I do and don’t do?

Here’s a first stab at trying to describe my decision-making process:

In general: Irrespective of the setting, I tend to ask whether the information being presented is confidential, whether it is sensitive in any way, and whether others would benefit from reading about it on Twitter or 2020science. There has been at least one occasion where I decided not to live-tweet from a public meeting because I thought it would embarrass the speakers unnecessarily.  There have been other occasions where I have live tweeted to provide people not at the meeting a sense of what someone is saying, as they say it.

This only applies to formal presentations and public comments.  Publicly commenting on private conversations is absolutely out as far as I’m concerned, and I will only write about side conversations the person I’m talking to knows my intentions beforehand.

Invitation-only meetings: Definitely no live tweeting, and no blogging unless express permission is given.

Meetings with clearly stated reporting limitations: Generally, no live tweeting, and abiding by the rules when it comes to blogging.

Expert presentation & discussion of non-peer reviewed data. If the aim of the meeting is to seriously assess and discuss someone’s unpublished research, I would hesitate to live tweet.  I might blog – but only if it seemed appropriate given the state and significance of the research.

Open conferences (i.e. anyone who pays can attend) where researchers are reviewing the state of knowledge, presenting published data, or clearly think they are the bees knees and everyone should know it. These I see as fair game for live tweeting and blogging – without the permission of the speaker.

Public meetings, where anyone can attend and there is no entrance fee. Open season as far as tweeting and blogging go.

I will probably modify these with time and experience – it’s a first stab after all.  But I think it’s a necessary one.  Widespread communication through social media is a reality, it is challenging how things are done, and a new equilibrium needs to be found between those providing information and those using and distributing it.  The danger is that without some honest soul-searching by everyone involved, the new equilibrium could be more detrimental than beneficial.

And on a final note, Daniel MacArthur wrote a very gracious yet insightful response to Genomeweb’s concerns – evidence (if you needed it) that serious commentations are committed to getting this right, for everyone’s benefit.

Back in April, the folks at the PBS station THIRTEEN asked me to answer 13 questions on nanotechnology and the environment for their website feature Green Thirteen.   The questions ended up covering most of nanotechnology – what it is, what it’s good for, what the downsides might be, and how we might overcome potential problems to use it effectively.  With this in mind, I thought it worth posting the Q&A here as a brief nanotechnology primer…

1. What is nanotechnology?

The chemist and Nobel prize winner Richard Smalley described nanotechnology as “the art and science of making stuff that does stuff at the nanometer scale.”

Nanotechnology involves working with materials at an incredibly fine scale—around the size of the atoms and molecules that they are made of.  But the aim is to achieve something new and useful by working at this scale.

Working at the nanometer scale—where one nanometer is a mere one billionth of a meter long—it becomes possible to tap into some unique properties of matter.  Many of these properties only become apparent when small clumps of atoms and molecules are carefully constructed and used as the building blocks of larger structures.  For instance, some materials can be used in new ways when they are engineered at the nanoscale, simply because they are more versatile than non-nanoscale materials.  Other materials behave in strange new ways that enable innovative uses.  Gold, for example, becomes a highly reactive, red-colored metal when formed into nanometer-size particles.  And working at the nanoscale allows highly sophisticated new materials to be engineered that would be impossible to produce using conventional technologies—everything from super-strong materials to the next generation of computer chips to targeted drugs.

2. What are the benefits of nanotech?

The benefits of nanotechnology are incredibly broad, but generally involve making existing technologies work better, or enabling the development of  new technologies.

Many people see nanotechnology as a tool kit that allows scientists and engineers to do new things, whether they are chemists, physicists, biologists, or working in a hundred and one other fields.  In many cases, the things we use everyday don’t work as well as they could because we haven’t been able to control their structure precisely at the finest level.  But nanotechnology is changing this.  For instance, a growing number of consumer products are being improved through the use of simple nanotechnology-based applications:  Sunscreens that go on clear, but protect against harmful UV radiation; clothing that repels stains; socks that prevent the buildup of odor-causing bacteria; tennis racquets that are stronger and lighter; MP3 players that are smaller while holding more songs; even foods that are supposedly better because they have been engineered at the nanometer scale.

But these consumer products are only the tip of the nanotechnology iceberg.  Because the technology enables other technologies to work better, it has the potential to help address some of the biggest challenges facing us.  These include combating climate change, generating renewable energy, controlling pollution, ensuring access to clean water, and developing highly effective medical treatments.

As nanotechnology is used to make better products and address serious challenges, it is expected to generate jobs and money.  Some estimates put the possible market value of products that depend in some way on nanotechnology as being worth over $3 trillion dollars within the next five years.  While the significance estimates like these are sometimes hard to evaluate, there is little doubt that the “nanotechnology tool kit” will play a major role in underpinning future technological and economic development.

3. How does nanotech improve existing technologies?

Sophisticated as they might seem, many existing technologies are akin to trying to make fine jewelry while wearing boxing gloves.  Nanotechnology is the equivalent of removing the gloves—it gives us the ability to fine tune how materials and products are put together at the finest level.  For example, consider the integrated circuits at the heart of modern computers.  The power of these circuits is limited by how many components can be squeezed onto a single chip.  But it is also limited by how fast the heat generated by the electrons coursing through the components can be removed.  Nanotechnology is enabling components—individual transistors and connectors—to be shrunk to the nanoscale, allowing many more of them to be packed onto single chips.  But it is also improving the materials used to transmit heat away from these components, ensuring they don’t over-heat and stop working.

Sunscreens are another example of where nanotechnology improves an existing technology.  Ten to fifteen years go there were two options to making a sunscreen.  You could either use chemicals that are absorbed into the skin, and protect against harmful UV radiation from the sun.  Or you could use particles of materials like titanium dioxide—the same material used to make paint and some foods a brilliant white—to coat the skin and reflect the harmful radiation.  The particles were generally more effective at protecting the user and had the advantage that they lay on top of the skin rather than being absorbed into it—but they left a pasty white residue on the skin that was cosmetically unattractive.  Nanotechnology has since removed this disadvantage.  But using nanometer-scale particles of materials like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, manufacturers have developed sunscreens that are transparent to visible light while still reflecting UV radiation—and that don’t rely on chemicals that are absorbed into the skin.  The result is highly effective products that are also cosmetically acceptable.

Almost any technology that can be thought of which relies on physical materials can be improved using nanotechnology—simply because nanotechnology provides increased control over the atoms and molecules that make up any material and determine its properties.  However, the economic, social and personal advantages of the improvements will not always outweigh the time, effort and resources needed to make them happen.

4. What kinds of industries are involved? How and where are nanomaterials made?

There are many types of industries involved in nanotechnology, ranging from small startup companies to major multinational corporations.  The types of materials being made are also very diverse.  The NanoMetro map published by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies gives a feel for the range and location of nanotech businesses in the US, although it probably doesn’t capture everything that is happening.  The map identifies industries using nanotechnology in the broad areas of electronics, energy and environmental applications, imaging and microscopy, tools and instruments, medicine and health, and materials.  One important point here is that nanotechnology is as much about the tools needed to see and manipulate matter at the nanometer scale—electron microscopes and scanning force microscopes for instance—as it is about creating and using new materials.

Many nanotechnology applications rely on nanomaterials—materials that have been engineered with nanometer-scale structures.  A lot of the nanomaterials currently in use are simply nanometer-scale forms of materials that have been used for many years—such as the titanium dioxide nanoparticles used in sunscreens and elsewhere.  As a result, it is common to find companies with experience developing chemicals and materials using more traditional methods beginning to develop nanomaterials.  At the same time, there are a number of smaller companies that are developing increasingly sophisticated and unique nanomaterials.  In many cases, these are being spun out of University-based nanotechnology research.

Approached to making nanomaterials are as diverse as the materials themselves.  Some of the simplest nanomaterials are made by reacting chemicals together, either in a liquid—to produce suspensions of nanoparticles—or in a gas, essentially burning materials in a controlled manner to produce nanometer-scale particles.  These are then collected, purified, and further processed before being added to products.  At the other end of the spectrum, researchers are modifying viruses, and re-programming them to build nanomaterials.  Recent research has led to new batteries that are based on virus-constructed electrodes.  In between, there are many different ways of engineering matter to form nanostructured materials that can be used to add value to products.

5. What kinds of nanomaterials are appearing in consumer goods?

Most nanotechnology-enabled consumer products currently available rely on relatively simple nanomaterials.  A survey by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies indicates that silver nanoparticles are one of the most the dominant nanomaterials currently in use, appearing as an antimicrobial agent in everything from clothing to cooking utensils.  Carbon nanotubes—a unique form of carbon with unusual mechanical and electrical properties—is also appearing in a number of products, predominantly in sporting goods as a way to make them stronger and lighter.  Nanoparticles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are widely used in sunscreens and cosmetics, while silica nanoparticles are also being used in a number of products.  In addition there are a number of products using “soft” nanomaterials, which rapidly fall apart when they have done their job.  For instance, some cosmetics use nanometer scale liposomes—very small capsules containing specific materials—to deliver nutrients and other ingredients to the outer layers of the skin.  These disintegrate when they reach their destination, delivering the encapsulated material to where it is needed.

With the exception of carbon nanotubes, these and other nanomaterials being used in consumer products tend to be nanostructured versions of materials that have been used for some time.  However, over the next few years it is likely that increasingly sophisticated and complex nanomaterials will find uses in consumer products.

6. What are the negatives of nanotech?

Like any technology, nanotechnology has its plusses and minuses.  These will generally be specific to different uses of nanotechnology.  For instance, the potential downsides of a nanotechnology-enabled memory chip in an MP3 player will be very different from using nanoparticles in food.

Because of the new and unusual behavior of many engineered nanomaterials, questions have been raised about their safety.  If something can be used in new ways, get to new places, or has new and unusual physical and chemical properties, it is reasonable to ask whether these might also lead to new ways of causing harm—either to humans or the environment.  Evidence to date is sketchy, but it does suggest that some nanomaterials might cause harm in unexpected ways if exposure occurs.  For some nanomaterials, their potential to cause harm will be negligible.  In other situations, more care will need to be taken to ensure safe use—a lot depends on whether exposure is likely, and how toxic the material is.  Common sense and current knowledge go a long way to reducing possible risks.  But more work is still needed to determine the best ways of using these new materials as safely as possible.

Other concerns about nanotechnology are more social and ethical in nature.  Will nanotechnology lead to personal rights being infringed—perhaps through ubiquitous surveillance?  Who will benefit from these emerging technologies, and who will pay the price?  At what point should the use of nanotechnology in enhancing human abilities be questioned?  These and similar questions are not unique to nanotechnology.  But they are an important component of the debate surrounding its development and use.

7. Are there any health side-effects associate with nanotechnology? (e.g. carbon nanotubes causing lung cancer, unexpected in-vivo reactions)

Nanotechnology in and of itself does not lead to health impacts, simply because it is a toolbox of different techniques rather than one specific technology.  However, some uses of nanotechnology could affect people’s health if used inappropriately.

For a material to cause harm to humans, it must first get into the body.  Once there, it’s toxicity will determine how severe any response is.  A high exposure to a low toxicity material (and many nanomaterials will have a low toxicity) may result in a negligible impact.  On the other hand, a low exposure to a highly toxic material could cause a lot of damage.

Two materials that have been researched quite a bit are titanium dioxide nanoparticles, and carbon nanotubes.  In both cases, the materials have been studied in cell cultures and in animals but not humans, and so estimating the toxicity of the materials to people is a little difficult.

Research has shown that inhaled titanium dioxide nanoparticles are more toxic than larger particles of the same substance.  In this case, size makes a difference it seems.  However, as titanium dioxide has a very low toxicity to begin with, the nanoparticles—even though they appear to be more toxic—still seem to be reasonably safe.

Carbon nanotubes appear to be harmful if inhaled, but the harm seems to depend on the type of nanotubes—and there are many types of carbon nanotubes.  Recent research has indicated that long, straight, stiff carbon nanotubes that look like asbestos fibers under the microscope, could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled.  However, many types of carbon nanotubes don’t have the right shape for this to be a serious concern.  Other research has shown that tangled clumps of carbon nanotubes could also harm the lungs if inhaled, although it unclear how much material is needed for harm to occur.

In both these cases, the critical factor is exposure.  If exposures are low—either while making the materials or using products containing them—risks of health effects will also be low.  The good news is that it seems exposure to carbon nanotubes probably will be low—this is a material that doesn’t readily become airborne as fine fibers.  However, more research is needed to work out how low an exposure is low enough.

8. What kinds of threats to the environment might nanotech pose? (e.g.metal oxide nanoparticle toxicity to fish and frogs)

It’s not clear how harmful different nanomaterials will be if they get out into the environment, although it is clear that some nanomaterials will be more harmful than others.  Important questions that still needs answers include how much material is likely to be release, and from where; whether this material is in the form of nanoparticles, or whether it clumps up into larger particles; how far it is transported, and whether it changes as it moves through the environment; where it accumulates, how long it lasts in the environment, which plants and animals will become exposed, and what the impacts might be.

The good news is that nanoparticles from sources like fires and volcanic eruptions have been ubiquitous in the environment as long as living organisms have been around, and so they have evolved over time to deal with them.  That said, no-one is quite sure how the environment will respond to novel engineered nanomaterials—especially precisely engineered nanoparticles.

One particular potential threat that has already been raised concerns the use of nano-silver in products.  Silver is very effective at killing microbes, which is why it is being used in an increasing number of products.  But it is also highly toxic to a number of organisms as well as microbes.  What is not clear at present is what the impact of silver nanoparticles washed out of products and into the environment might be.  The amounts used may be low enough for the impact to be negligible—or they may not.  It’s a question that can’t be answered well without more information on how much nano-silver is being used, where it is being used, and the likely impacts on the environment if it is released.

9. Who regulates nanotechnology products?

There is no one agency or organization that regulates nanotechnology products.  Rather, they are regulated according to the type of product.  For instance, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for drugs, food additives and cosmetics that contain engineered nanomaterials.  The US Consumer Protection Safety Commission covers consumer product safety.  The US Department of Agriculture covers food safety—except where FDA has jurisdiction.  And the US Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for chemicals and pesticides.  Each part of this patchwork of regulations and regulatory agencies has different levels of regulatory authority when it comes to nanotechnology products.

10. How much is still not known about the safety of nanotech products, and what needs to be done to fill in the gaps?

From a scientific perspective, there is still a tremendous amount that we don’t know about how to develop and use nanotechnology products safely.  Specific research question that need answers have been raised by a number of organizations, including the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the US government National Nanotechnology Initiative.  There is broad agreement that if nanotechnology is to succeed—and succeed safely—there needs to be a major strategic research program that identifies and fills the outstanding research gaps.  This will require a clear set of goals and objectives, additional research funding, and greater coordination between the organizations that fund research, and those that use the information to ensure material and product safety.

That said, we are not starting out with a blank slate when it comes to using nanotechnology products safely.  Knowledge from other materials can be used to reduce potential risks in many cases, and existing regulations can be applied to nanomaterials—although their implementation may be less than perfect.  However, strategic research will be essential to underpin the long-term safety of increasingly sophisticated nanotechnology-based materials and products.

11. What kinds of recycling challenges are there for nanotech materials? What about nanolitter?

Recycling nanotechnology products presents a number of challenges.  First, there is the problem of stuff that isn’t recycled, either because no-one thinks about it, or because including nanomaterials in a product makes recycling difficult.  This leads to the possibility of nanomaterials being released into the environment as products are disposed of in landfills and slowly degrade, or are incinerated.

Where nanotechnology products are recycled there are two challenges:  Is it worth attempting to extract and reuse the nanotechnology components of the products, and how might this be done; and does the inclusion of a nanomaterial in a product make conventional recycling harder?  To illustrate this second point, imagine nanoparticles of some substance were added to plastic bottles to make them perform better, but that these nanoparticles interfered with the quality of material recycled from conventional plastic bottles.  Would it be better to separate out the nano and non-nano bottles, and how would that be achieved in practice.  The first challenge is perhaps a little easier to address, as it is unlikely that nanomaterials could be recycled from nanotechnology products in a useable state.  Rather, it is more likely that the substances forming the nanomaterials—the silver in nano-silver socks for example—would be reclaimed and used to form new nanomaterials.

12. What are some of the future uses for nanotechnology? How likely is a nano-fabricator?

The next few decades will most likely see some tremendous advances that are based in part on controlling matter at the nanometer scale.  These could well include new forms of generating and storing energy; lighter stronger materials; targeted cancer treatments; treatments for degenerative diseases; efficient ways to purify water; faster more powerful computers; computers that run on light, not electricity; biological organisms that are programmed to make new materials and devices; metamaterials that channel light in highly unusual ways.  We will definitely see a shift from the rather simple nanomaterials being used today to increasingly complex multifunctional nanomaterials.  And associated with this will be an increasingly sophisticated suite of instruments for observing and manipulating the world at the nanoscale.

Based on current research, there will further advances in developing new molecules and nanoscale systems that mimic or reflect what happens in biology (biology, after all, operates very effectively at the nanoscale).  These will move us closer to building new materials and devices molecule by molecule.  But the end result will be much closer to conventional chemistry or biology than the “nano-fabricator”—a speculative machine that can construct complex products out of their constituent atoms, much like the replicators of Star Trek.

13. How can we prevent future problems with nanotechnology? (e.g. grey goo)

Nanotechnology will come with its own set of problems—just as every technology preceding it has.  The trick here will be to have the foresight to spot the problems before they get too large and to navigate a course around them.  This is a tough task.  It will require strategic research to address plausible issues, and ways of translating the results of this research into proactive action.

Even with such an approach, there will be mis-steps.  But hopefully, with the right strategies in place, corrective action will be able to taken fast enough to prevent either major human health or environmental impacts, or the hopes of nanotechnology to address critical challenges being dashed.

In the long term, there may be challenges that are outside our current ability to comprehend the potential dangers, and how to avoid them.  Not self-replicating nanobots perhaps—the so-called “grey goo” that is more science fantasy than science fact—but other technological breakthroughs that take us places unimaginable a few years ago.  The only way to deal with such challenges is to develop institutions that are sufficiently fleet footed and forward-looking to respond to the challenges as they come over the horizon.

The one thing we cannot afford to do is to stick our heads in the sand and ignore potential of nanotechnology to do great good and possibly great harm.

These questions and answers first appeared in their original form at THIRTEEN.ORG on April 28 2009

So you’re looking for a new technology concept—something that will stimulate research funding, make a buck or two, and maybe save the world—at least for another year or so.  What do you need?

Here’s a quick checklist:

1. Something that’s revolutionary. Evolutionary change doesn’t hack it these days I’m afraid—your new technology needs to make a distinct break from the past—or at least, look as if it does.
2. Hype—and lots of it. A vision for how your technology will transform the world over the next ten to fifty years.  If you can argue that civilization will collapse without the new tech, so much the better.
3. A focus on interdisciplinary research. Stove-piped technologies are so last century.  To be hip and relevant in the 21st century, you need to be interdisciplinary.  Fusions of two disciplines are good—more are better though.  And if you can throw in a social science or two, better still.
4. Inter-agency collaboration. You know you are on to a winner when one government agency alone can’t cope with your idea.
5. An education crisis.  As a rule of thumb, your new technology should be so out of the box that a whole new approach to education is needed to develop and sustain it.
6. Heartfelt concern for the possible downsides of the technology. Safe technologies aren’t sexy.  Period.  Actually, that’s not true, but there is an implicit assumption that any bold new technology concept will have a dark side—acknowledging this and working out how to handle it early on is de rigueur for the budding technology entrepreneur.
7. An intent to engage “the public.” Breathe easy—current evidence suggests that you don’t actually need to talk to “the public,” just act as if you want to.  Of course, this approach may end up backfiring if you don’t move on to your next big idea fast enough.

OK so it’s a rather tongue in cheek list, but it does bear more than a passing resemblance to where nanotechnology—that doyenne of emerging technologies—was ten years ago.  And it now seems to match up pretty well with the new emerging tech kid on the block: synthetic biology…

A couple of weeks ago, the UK Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) released a new report on the “scope, applications and implications” of synthetic biology.  Reading through it, I couldn’t help experience a sense of déjà vu—the storyline is remarkably similar to how nanotechnology was being pitched at the end of the 1990’s (see for instance Vision for Nanotechnology R&D in the Next Decade from the Inter-agency Working Group on Nanotechnology—the precursor to the US National Nanotechnology Initiative. [PDF, 9.9 MB])  In fact reading it, I had the spine-tingling sense that I was looking at nanotechnology’s political successor here.  It wasn’t so much the absence of any substantive references to nanotechnology—in spite of the rather significant lessons learned from the development of this technology over the past ten years—as the way in which the new technology was being pitched.

Holding the RAE report up to the New Technology Concept checklist, this is what you have:

Something that’s revolutionary. Check. “Synthetic biology could revolutionise a number of fields of engineering.”

Hype. Check. “Many commentators now believe that synthetic biology has the potential for major wealth generation by means of the development of major new industries, much as, for example the semi-conductor did in the last century, coupled to positive effects for health and the environment.”

A focus on interdisciplinary research. Check. “The coming together of engineering and biology that typifies synthetic biology means that it is, by nature, a multidisciplinary field of endeavour. Fundamental research requires collaboration between engineers, biologists, chemists and physicists, as well as social scientists and philosophers.”

Inter-agency collaboration. Check. “The elements set out above cut across several Government departments. A strategy would enable appropriate policies to be put in place that acknowledged their interdependency.”

An education crisis. Check. “The main challenge to providing training in synthetic biology is that its interdisciplinary nature does not fit naturally into the traditional university structure or the standard funding mechanisms.”

Heartfelt concern for the possible downsides of the technology. Check. “The development of synthetic biology brings with it a number of ethical and societal implications that must be identified and addressed.

An intent to engage “the public.” Check. “As well as an academic exploration of these issues by social scientists, ethicists and philosophers, early public dialogue is of the utmost importance to help promote listening and understanding of people’s hopes, expectations and concerns”

The RAE report actually has a lot to commend it.  It provides a good account of what synthetic biology is all about.  It makes the case reasonably well for greater UK investment in the technology.  It even manages to outline many of the more prominent social and ethical concerns.

Yet I can’t help feeling that the report is naively outdated.  Over the past ten years, we’ve learnt a lot about what works and what doesn’t when boosting a new technology.  Nanotechnology was (still is) a technology concept grounded in science, but with a fair chunk of policy associated with it—a grand scheme to raise research dollars, create jobs and improve quality of life for people around the world.  On balance it’s been a success so far, but with a steep learning curve that isn’t threatening to level out anytime soon.

Synthetic biology is also being pitched as a science-based grand scheme to raise research dollars, create jobs and improve quality of life for people around the world. This is fine—synthetic biology as a concept is pretty solid.  But if the RAE report is to be believed, it is being promoted using an old and outdated model.  Ten years ago, it might have looked fresh—now it just looks uninformed.  For some reason, the lessons we are still learning with nanotechnology don’t seem to be translating across to synbio too well.  Maybe it’s because of a genuine lack of awareness.  Perhaps it’s intentional—with synthetic biology being seen as a competitive successor to nanotechnology.  I don’t know.  Either way, it doesn’t bode too well for the future of the synthetic biology enterprise.

The science and technology embedded in synthetic biology are important.  But the hurdles the new technology faces to underpinning safe, successful and accepted innovations are substantial.  Re-inventing old problems won’t help here.  But leaning from similar experiences with other emerging technologies just might.

Rather than trying to roll nanotechnology out of its spot, perhaps its time for synthetic biology to do a bit of cozying up instead.  There are, after all, more than enough problems needing technology-based solutions to go around.  And I strongly suspect that, in this case, two metaphorical heads will be better than one in tackling them.

In the long run, does art trump science?

Lateral communication—sending information from point to point around the world—is so fast and efficient these days that we tend to take it for granted.  But how good are we at passing information forward in time—what you might call longitudinal communication?  If we wanted to send a message to our kids’ kids’ kids, how well would we do?

If it seems a strange question, blame it on the excess of “culture” I was exposed to at last week’s meetings marking the 50th anniversary of C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures Lecture.

Both meetings I attended—one in Cambridge MA and the other at the New York Academy of Science—were marvelously enjoyable and stimulating.  But there was one idea in particular that intrigued me, prompted by a talk by Harvard University’s Peter Galison:  If you wanted to convey something to people living 100, 1000 or even 10,000 years into the future, how would you do it?

Of course it depends on the type of information we’re talking about here—I’ll get to that in a minute.  But let’s focus on the storage media first.  100 years out, information stored on digital media might—just might—survive.  1000 years out, and you begin to fall back on older technologies—writing on durable surfaces for instance.  But 10,000 years out?  Even if you could encode information in a format that would survive that long, how would you ensure the people reading it could understand it?

Think about this for a moment.  You send an email today.  Will it still be round in a year’s time?  Assume it’s archived somewhere—will that archive still be intact 10 years from now?  100 years down the line, there’s a pretty high chance that the media on which the email was stored will have failed—digital storage has a limited lifetime.  What are the chances that someone has faithfully transferred the message to new media on a regular basis?  In 1000 years, the chances of the data and the software to read it still being available are pretty slim.  And in 10,000 years, it’s hard to imagine anything as ephemeral as digital data surviving intact.

Putting aside the irony that the information age could end up leaving a gaping hole in the historic records as digital documents replace more durable written ones, this rather trivial example does illustrate the difficulties in passing meaningful information forward through successive generations.

So back to the original question—if you have something important you want to pass on hundreds or thousands of years into the future, how do you do it?  Sticking with the media for the moment, one partial solution is to use more durable media.  Flash memory lasts a year or so.  DVD’s will last for several years before degrading.  Archival paper lasts tens or even hundreds of years.  Parchment can last even longer.  And stone—if protected—can retain information for millennia.

You can see a pattern emerging here—the more recent the media, the more quickly it fails.  At the rate we’re going, we’ll be loosing information as fast as we generate it in 50 years’ time—leading to Kurzweil-like singularity event that ends up with civilization collapsing rather than emerging into a brave new world.  I’m being facetious, but you can see the problem.

This is only half the issue though.  The flip side is how information is read and interpreted.  We have information etched in stone from millennia ago, but getting a handle on what was intended is not easy.  And understanding the meaning behind the information is harder still.

If information is to be transmitted a long way into the future, it must be accompanied with some means to interpret it.

So what’s the answer here?

The first part of it, I think, is to work out what sort of information we are talking about—what exactly is it we might want people to know 10,000 years down the line?  Let me be bold and suggest that it is stuff like how to stay healthy; how to craft societies that work; how to ensure people have access to food, water, heat and shelter; how to understand what it means to be human.  I don’t think that preserving the blueprints for the latest iPod will be that high on the agenda.

Once the type of information is known, the means to capture that information and pass it on in a durable manner need to be found.

This is exactly the challenge faced by a group of people back in the 1990’s and brings me back to Peter Galison’s talk.  In 1974, the US Atomic Energy Commission chose an ancient salt bed 26 miles east of Carlsbad for exploratory work in the search for an underground radioactive waste repository site—somewhere to dispose of defense-related transuranic radioactive waste.  In 1999 the first shipments of waste arrived at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP for short—the vanguard of a program that is scheduled to continue for some years to come.

As the site was being developed, it was clear that the task of preventing unnecessary exposure to the material being buried would require some imaginative cross-generational communication.  The target point was 10,000 years into the future—a little under half the half-life of plutonium-239.  The challenge: design markers that would warn people of the dangers buried within the site, and deter them from releasing the harmful material, that could transcend changes in environment, culture and technology for the next 10 millennia.

The recommendations of the groups tasked with designing appropriate markers make interesting reading (excerpts can be accessed here).  The design criteria they arrived at included the following:

• The design of the whole site itself is to be a major source of meaning, acting as a framework for other levels of communication, reinforcing and being reinforced by those other levels in a system of communication. The message that we believe can be communicated non-linguistically (through the design of the whole site), using physical form as a “natural language,” … Put into words, it would communicate something like the following:
  • This place is a message… and part of a system of messages… pay attention to it!
  • Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.
  • This place is not a place of honor…no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here… nothing valued is here.
  • What is here is dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger.
  • The danger is in a particular location… it increases toward a center… the center of danger is here… of a particular size and shape, and below us.
  • The danger is still present, in your time, as it was in ours.
  • The danger is to the body, and it can kill.
  • The form of the danger is an emanation of energy.
  • The danger is unleashed only if you substantially disturb this place physically. This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
• All physical site interventions and markings must be understood as communicating a message. It is not enough to know that this is a place of importance and danger…you must know that the place itself is a message, that it contains messages, and is part of a system of messages, and is a system with redundance.
• Redundancy of message communication is important to message survivability. Redundancy should be achieved through: (a) a high frequency of message locations, permitting some to be lost; (b) making direct and physical links among message levels, that is “co-presentation” of messages; and (c) multiple and mutually reinforcing modes of communication…
• While the system of marking should strongly embody the principles of redundancy, at the same time the methods of achieving redundancy should be carefully designed to maintain message clarity. Redundancy should not be achieved at the expense of clarity.
• The method of site-marking must be very powerful to distinguish this place from all other types of places, so that the future must pay attention to this site. The place’s physical structure should strongly suggest enhanced attention to itself and to its sub-elements. To achieve this, the volume of human effort used to make and mark this place must be understood as massive, emphasizing its importance to us. The site’s constructions must be seen as an effort at the scale of a grand and committed culture, far beyond what a group or sect or organization could do.

The resulting proposed markers are intriguing, as can be seen in these two conceptual examples:

Forbidding Blocks, view 2 (concept by Michael Brill and art by Safdar Abidi)

Menacing Earthworks, view 1 (concept and art by Michael Brill)

And with this we arrive at the key point here—to communicate a message across millennia, the group resorted to durable forms that captured and conceptualized what they wanted to convey.

In other words, when it came to the “long shout,” art was considered more important than science or technology in the long run.

Now I don’t want to get too carried away with this.  But I do think there is an important message here that will be blindingly obvious to historians and archeologists—in the long run, the arts, religion, cultural traditions, mythologies and the like provide the more durable route to preserving socially and culturally significant information.

Of course this doesn’t denigrate science and technology in any way.  Science and technology are essential in underpinning future prosperity and quality of life, and there are many powerful synergisms between science and non-science.  But it does stress the importance of looking beyond science and technology if we want to preserve information that is important to society over long timescales.

At this point, anyone with half a brain will be lambasting me for my naivety—this has all been recognized for thousands of years.  But here’s the crux of the issue:  Apart from Peter’s talk, there was little discussion on the importance of non science-based disciplines in last week’s Two Cultures meetings.  On the contrary, there was a sense from many quarters that science is all that matters, and “the arts” are a sometimes useful but otherwise superficial decoration—something to be enjoyed; something to help promote science, but otherwise not that important.

This seems dangerously short-sighted.  OK so science and technology are needed to help maintain and improve a world where there is less disease, where people have access to food, water and shelter, where we have the freedom and tools to better understand what it is to be human.  But in the long run this knowledge will most likely fade, unless we find a way of transmitting the essence of it to future generations.

And the only way we know how to do that at present is through the “arts”—something that probably shouldn’t be forgotten in a science and technology-obsessed world.

End Notes

I dislike posting such a superficial article about such an important and deeply explored subject, but that is the nature of blogging unfortunately.  Suffice to say these are simply my poorly informed musings on a subject that grabbed my attention at an academic workshop.  There are complex questions about how science and technology enable “art” (used in a very broad sense of the word) that aren’t addressed.  Neither is the distinction between cultural transmission of technology as distinct from science explored.  And then there is the whole question of whether today’s society is poised to transcend a dependence on art, tradition, religion etc, or whether we are as deluded as previous great civilizations no doubt were.

These will all have to wait for another day though!

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/05/13/the-long-shout/feed/ 15 http://2020science.org/2009/05/06/cultural-smokescreens/ http://2020science.org/2009/05/06/cultural-smokescreens/#comments Wed, 06 May 2009 20:59:20 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=1401

50 years on, have we missed the point of C.P. Snow’s “Two-cultures?”

50 years ago, long before Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme,” the British scientist, public figure and novelist Charles Percy Snow planted an idea into the collective consciousness that has since grown to have a profound influence on science and the arts in Western society. Sadly, it wasn’t the idea he necessarily wanted to plant. So while the relevance of Snow’s “two cultures”—representing the divide between the scientific and literary elite of the day—has been debated and deconstructed ad infinitum over the intervening decades, Snow’s real passion—tackling material poverty through science and technology—has largely been ignored…

In 1963, Snow wrote a follow-on piece to the 1959 lecture.  In “Two cultures: A second look” C.P. Snow addressed the concerns of his many critics.  But he also took the opportunity to clarify and expand on what he was trying to convey four years earlier.  Freed from the constraints of crafting a short and somewhat simple public lecture, he wrote compellingly on science’s place in society, and the absolute necessity of using it for the social good—something he only saw the cultural divides around him obstructing.

In the opening sections of the 1963 essay Snow addresses his critics directly, which he does with humility and wit.  But by section five he begins to get to the heart of his true passion for science and technology:

“We cannot know as much as we should about the social conditions all over the world.  But we can know, we do know, two most important things.  First we can meet the harsh facts of the flesh, on the level where all of us are, or should be, one.  We know that the vast majority, perhaps two-thirds, of our fellow men are living in the immediate presence of illness and premature death; their expectation of life is half of ours, most are under-nourished, many are near to starving, many starve.  Each of these lives is afflicted by suffering, different from that which is intrinsic in the individual condition.  But this suffering is unnecessary and can be lifted.  This is the second important thing which we know—or, if we don’t know it, there is no excuse or absolution for us.”

Snow acknowledged that there is more to the human condition than mere material needs.  But he argued that this does not release us from the obligation to address those needs—his “hard facts of the flesh”—nor the fact that science and technology provide the means to do this.  He pushes this point home:

“We cannot avoid the realization that applied science has made it possible to remove unnecessary suffering from a billion individual human lives—to remove suffering of a kind, which, in our own privileged society, we have largely forgotten, suffering so elementary that it is not genteel to mention it.”

This gets to the very heart of the essay, and the intended thrust of the 1959 lecture.  So much so that he admits “Before I wrote the [1959] lecture I thought of calling it “The Rich and the Poor”, and I rather wish that I hadn’t changed my mind.”

From here, Snow begins to tackle the myth of the “ennobling” nature of suffering—the idea that suffering strengthens a person, and to interfere in the “natural order” of “master and man” is to do those who suffer a disservice.  Snow is ruthless in his attack on those supporting this position—many of them, in his eyes, amongst the comfortably off cultural elite “who have climbed one step up and are hanging on by their fingernails.”

Just as ruthlessly, he exposes the romantic myth of life being better before science and technology shook things up. Quoting J.H. Plumb he writes:

“No one in his sense would choose to have been born in a previous age unless he could be certain that he would have been born into a prosperous family, that he would have enjoyed extremely good health, and that he could have accepted stoically the death of the majority of his children.”

Rather, he writes

“It seems to me better that people should live rather than die: that they shouldn’t be hungry: that they shouldn’t have to watch their children die.”

From Snow’s perspective, attempts to justify the status quo and look back at “better times” were misguided and divisive, often reflecting the attitudes of the wealthy who could afford to romanticize suffering.  Rather, the solution he saw to satisfying society’s material needs was—and had to be in his eyes—science.  Without the scientific revolution, the only alternative was a divided society where a suffering majority supported an affluent minority—a concept Snow clearly found abhorrent.

And as a consequence, anything which impeded the successful development and implementation of science in society needed to be addressed head-on.

In 1959, Snow saw the chasm between the scientific and intellectual elite as one such impediment.  It was a problem unique (from his perspective) to the British establishment, and arose from an education system that inhibited understanding between these worlds and, as a consequence, weakened the ability of science to be used for the social good. This was the thinking behind the public lecture he delivered on May 7 1959 in Cambridge England.

Fifty years on, a lot has changed.  Approaches to education are different.  There is extensive and productive cross-talk between the science and the arts.  And national and global cultures have evolved.  Yet the central problem Snow faced remains: we live in a world divided into the rich and the poor; where the majority of people don’t have access to necessary material needs—food, water, shelter, medical treatment; where science and technology are increasingly able to bridge this divide, if only they were used effectively.  The unfortunate irony is that, by using the two cultures as a light to illuminate the problems facing society, Snow ended up creating a smokescreen that has, if anything, helped to obscure them.

The reality is that Snow’s 1959 lecture and 1963 essay are even more relevant now than they were 50 years ago—not because of the culture issues they address, but because in a society that is increasingly dependent on science and technology, we still haven’t got a good grasp on how to use them to make life better for the poor as well as the rich.

Sadly, the two cultures meme is a powerful one—witness the editorials, publications and events surrounding this 50th anniversary of the 1959 lecture.  But perhaps now’s time to put it aside and start talking about what’s really important, not just what we think is important.  Because if you look forward through the next 50 years, we have some pretty large global challenges rolling our way that aren’t going to be solved by talking about cultural differences alone.

This is by way of a quick follow-on to yesterday’s post on the number of people on Twitter  following science-focused users.  As was pointed out, just logging the number of followers someone has on twitter is a poor indicator of either success or influence.  So, spurred into action, here is a rather more sophisticated analysis of the “influence” of the tweeps in David Bradley’s list of “Scientific Twitter Friends:”

This is not the clearest graphic – even if you click on it to open a larger version – so you might like to play around with the the original.  A limited interactive version showing social capital second order followers is also included below. As in the previous post, they are based on data visualization routines on the Many Eyes website…

There are some things they don’t cover in media training, like giving interviews while suffering from stomach flu, talking to reporters thousands of miles away while on a dodgy cell phone connection, or speaking intelligently while your three-year-old niece runs rings around your legs.  It’s probably because they come under the “so bloody stupid no one would ever think to advise you not to do these things” category.  Yet sometimes we find ourselves in these uncharted waters.  Which is why Tom Mackenzie’s otherwise strong piece in today’s Guardian on nanotechnology in China ended up with less than perfect input from yours truly!

Rather than rant about the injustices perpetrated by scientific illiterates and the opportunistic press though, I’m breaking with tradition today and admitting that the fault probably lies with me…

Mackenzie’s piece addresses the rise of China as a major international player in the emerging field of nanotechnology.  It’s an important piece, and one that needs to be taken seriously. Given China’s recent track record on product safety, it rightly balances coverage of technical and commercial advances with concerns over possible health issues.  But here’s where things get a little skewed.  Tom writes:

Underlying these developments are serious safety concerns. Nanoparticles are so small they are easily inhaled and absorbed through the skin. Dr Andrew Maynard, the chief science advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, says that some nanoparticles could be deadly. “Nothing has yet been confirmed, but there are strong suggestions that inhaling these particles could cause lung cancer or lung disease,” he says. “If carbon nanotubes behave anything like asbestos, we won’t know what the health impacts are for about 20 years, because that’s how long it can take from exposure to the onset of the disease.”

Flagging up these concerns is essential—nanotechnology is leading to novel materials that could well cause harm in novel ways, unless we work out ahead of time how to use them safely.  But the paragraph is a tad on the misleading side.  Nanoparticles are NOT easily absorbed through the skin (the skin is actually pretty good at keeping them out of the body).  And to say that some nanoparticles could be deadly confuses an already complex issue.  Yes, there are serious concerns over materials like long thin multi-walled carbon nanotubes. But plenty of nanoparticles are likely to be no more harmful than their non-nanoscale counterparts.

The issue here though is that I was Tom’s source on nanotechnology safety, and I screwed it up—I wasn’t sufficiently clear or focused to provide him with the information he needed to place the story in a sound, science-based context.

I’m not beating myself up over this (too much).  It happens, and in many cases less-than-perfect science coverage in the media gets absorbed into the bigger story and evens out over time—the biggest impacts being dented pride and the derision of one’s colleagues.

But that’s no excuse for sloppy communication. Poor science in the media muddies issues, and at worst can lead to misinformed and potentially damaging decisions being made. Yet an absence of science coverage leaves us in an even worse position.  Which means that scientists need to know how the media works, and their role in ensuring stories are founded on science reality rather than speculation.

So, mea culpa in this instance. At the end of the day, the better we as scientists communicate to—and through—journalists, the better equipped people will be to make informed judgments.

As they say, “practice makes perfect.” Next question, please?

A new report looks at the challenges of regulating first generation products of synthetic biology.

At the J. Craig Venter Institute, scientists are on the verge of creating a living organism from “dead” chemicals, by rebooting a microbe with a new—and completely artificially constructed—genome.

At the University of California Berkeley, researchers are modifying microbes to act as highly efficient chemical plants, by rewriting their DNA.

In Cambridge Massachusetts, amateur biologists are scoring cheap laboratory equipment off eBay and Craigs List, and constructing their own designer bugs.

While all over the world, hundreds of enthusiastic undergraduates are competing to systematically design and build new DNA-based biological systems and get them operating in living cells.

Synthetic biology—the systematic engineering of biological organisms from the DNA up—is a reality now, and is destined to grow into an incredibly powerful transformative technology over the next few years.

But can we handle it?

In amidst the many questions our accelerating ability to manipulate DNA raises is one of oversight:  Are government agencies equipped to ensure the safety of new synthetic biology-related products and processes?

A new report by Mike Rodemeyer—formerly Executive Director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology—addresses exactly this question.  Commissioned by the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC, New life, old bottles takes a critical look at regulating the first-generation products of synthetic biology.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Rodemeyer concludes that once you peer under the hood (so to speak), there’s not a lot from a regulatory perspective that differentiates first generation synthetic biology from more traditional recombinant DNA (rDNA)-based technology.  Which means that where things work for rDNA, they look pretty good for synbio.

Of course, this also means that where oversight of traditional biotech is flaky, things aren’t likely to be any easier for synthetic biology.

However, the report also suggests that synthetic biology may have the potential to stretch an already stressed system to breaking point at some point in the future.  As it is, traditional biotechnology was shoehorned into a regulatory system within the US that was developed long before the practical consequences of DNA manipulation were understood.  As a result (for example), genetically engineered organisms are currently regulated as new chemical substances by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Just in case you didn’t catch that: in simple terms, the DNA within a genetically modified organism is legally considered to be a new chemical, and thus is regulated as such.  An elegant solution to fitting new technology into old rules, but one that may find run out of steam rather rapidly as synthetic biology hits its stride.

And the current regulatory framework doesn’t even begin to touch on developments that lie outside its traditional sphere of control—including a growing “biohacking” community.

Rodemeyer’s piece is more about setting out the issues and posing questions than providing solutions.  And it does this extremely well.  If you want aan excellent description of what synthetic biology is all about, the regulatory framework within which it is developing, or the challenges it presents to that framework, this is the report to read. It’s clear, it’s accessible, and it’s highly readable.

But if you insist on an overarching take-home message, it would be this (and these are my words, not his):

We are on the brink of a revolution in biotechnology that will make old biotech look like the fumblings of a toddler.  And while we may have got away with squeezing new tech into old regulatory bottles in the past, this approach isn’t going to work for much longer!  Rather, if synthetic biology is to grow into a mature, safe and accepted technology, some regulatory rethinking will be needed.

The old bottles, it seems, will last us a little longer.  But at some point they are going to burst at the seams.  And what then, if we don’t have bigger, better, more flexible containers handy?

This week’s edition of Nature includes a thought provoking piece by Geoff Brumfiel on the decline of mainstream science journalism and the rise of science blogging.  The big question: Can one replace the other?  It’s a sobering read: Blumfiel paints a picture of old media in crisis—science coverage in the mainstream media is being cut back; talented journalists are leaving or being laid off; and those left behind are having to produce with less time and fewer resources.  But what I found equally worrying was the hint of an attitude from the growing science blogging community—that the professional science “hacks” can’t hack it; that they misundersand the science and misrepresent the stories; and more often than not they simply regurgitate what they are fed in the interests of time and efficiency.

As a scientist who works closely with journalists and also runs a science blog, the erosion of traditional science journalism worries me.  With the shift from science reporting in the mainstream media to science blogging, loads of people are writing stuff, loads or people are reading it, but I’m not convinced that a whole lot of effective communication is taking place.

Scientists who write well are a precious commodity, but they don’t necessarily have the skill and perspective to either place what they write about in a broader social context, or to communicate to a broad audience.  The result (in many cases—not all) is cozy on-line cliques where science-aficionados pat each other on the back while readers who are desperate for accessible, relevant, contextualized information are starved.

Science blogs have an essential role to play in communication and information exchange.  I wouldn’t write myself if I didn’t believe that.  But I have no illusions about my output matching the relevance and accessibility of that from a professional journalist.  Instead, my stuff hopefully provides a personal perspective on emerging technology and society that complements the mainstream media.

It’s fashionable for scientists and bloggers alike to trash mainstream science reporting.  But we do it at our peril.  Most scientists (I count myself here) are lousy communicators outside their immediate field, and one of the dangers of the web is that it seduces people into thinking otherwise.  Rather, we need to make sure that professional communicators are given the opportunities and resources they need to get information to people that can really benefit from it, not just to the cliques and easy targets.

Given the recent surge in 2020science readers (thanks to Lon S. Cohen at Mashable), I thought it about time I did a short retrospective—a taster for the type of stuff you can expect to read here.  So here are five pieces from the past year that cover everything from nanotechnology to synthetic biology, and ethics to the trials of being on the scientific meeting circuit—all from the perspective of emerging technologies.

Enjoy!

Asbestos-like nanomaterials – should we be concerned? It seems that when the possible downsides of nanotechnology are broached, it doesn’t take long for the “A” word to surface.  But what is the truth—if any—behind comparisons between nanomaterials and asbestos?  From January 2009.

.

Nanotechnology—In bed with Madonna? How do you squeeze Madonna, John Kerry, nanotechnology and Elle magazine into the same blog?  With difficulty is the correct answer I think, but somehow they all managed to appear together in this piece from April 2008.

.

.

Synthetic biology, ethics and the hacker culture. What the heck is synthetic biology, is “biopunk” a real word, and are the 21st century equivalents of computer hackers going to reconfigure life as we know it?  I can’t promise any easy answers, but hopefully this post from June 2008 helps set the scene.

.

Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics? We’ve all heard of bioethics, but if the earth can be treated like one massive complex organism, do we need the planetary equivalent of bioethics—“geoethics” perhaps?  From January 2009.

.

.

Enough meetings already! Ever get jealous of the scientific jet-set, swanning between “prestigious” speaking engagements in exotic places?  Don’t bother—the reality is far from glamorous, as this post from May last year tries to capture.  Fortunately, there are occasional compensations, albeit in unlikely forms!

.

Science gone right, science gone wrong, science gone social, science gone political—it’s all here in five off-beat book recommendations to kick off 2009.  Ranging from Darwin’s Origin of Species to Sir Terry Pratchett’s Nation, the one thing I think I can guarantee is that you will struggle to find an odder bunch of literary bed-fellows!  Hope you enjoy them, and have a happy new year!

A new year, a new leaf—time for five more eclectic (some might say eccentric) book recommendations to see you through the hangover and into a brighter future.

As in the previous five good books blog, I’ve eschewed the conventional to provide as unusual a potpourri of literary delights as you will find anywhere.  And as before, I’ve tried to inject a little method into the madness—spot it if you can!

I should first apologize because this was supposed to be a quick blog, rushed off before the New Years festivities began in earnest.  But it turned into a veritable “slow blog!”

So for those of you impatient to read the recommendations and move on, here they are:

• On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
• The Two Cultures, by C. P. Snow
• Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham
• Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee
• Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett

But please do read on, and discover the why behind the what… Here then, is my retrospective-prospective reading list for a technologically-enlightened 2009—enjoy!

In the number one slot: On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. How could it be anything else?  Perhaps one of the most influential books to have been written over the past couple of hundred years, the repercussions of Darwin’s seminal work are still being felt today.  2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species (as if you didn’t know)—and what better excuse to go back to the source and read what the great man really wrote in what he refers to as “this abstract”—and some abstract at nearly 500 pages!

Unlike much of the debate and controversy it initiated, Origin is a carefully developed and reasoned thesis based on Darwin’s observations—evidence-based science at its best.  And rather impressively, the more we learn about life on this planet, the more Darwin’s Theory of Evolution makes sense.

This is essential reading for understanding how disruptive and empowering scientific knowledge can be within society.  As society comes to rely increasingly on science and technology, there are lessons here that are well worth learning. The Origin of Species sold out on the day it was published in 1859.  It’s hard to imagine a science text selling so fast nowadays.  Which makes you think—in all the talk about how essential technology and innovation are in today’s knowledge economy, have we lost sight of the underlying science?  I wonder…

Next up, another anniversary and another highly influential book.  On May 7 1959, Charles Percy Snow—better know as C. P. Snow—delivered the annual Rede Lecture at the University of Cambridge.  His title:  The Two Cultures. The lecture—and its subsequent appearance in print—caught the spirit of the moment as two cultures; one dominated by literary intellectuals, the other by scientists; grew increasingly detached from each other and threatened to rob society of it’s ability to progress.

Snow’s thoughts have moulded thinking about science and society over the intervening 50 years.  But just as few who uphold or decry Darwinian evolution have read the original text, I suspect that not many who talk “knowledgeably” about the two cultures are that familiar with what the man actually said.

Having recently revisited the lecture, I would strongly recommend anyone interested in the interface between science and society to read it.  The lecture is clearly of its time—society has changed since 1959.  Yet scrape away at the surface, and many of the themes in the lecture are as relevant now as they were fifty years ago—negligible communication between the world of science and “traditional culture,” disrespect for science literacy (as distinct from technology familiarity), and the importance of ensuring the scientific revolution breaks down socially indefensible barriers—especially between the rich and the poor.

Today the cultures are different, and the boundaries between them blurred.  But the bottom line is that we are more dependent than ever on science in society, yet more ignorant than ever on how science works, and how to use it wisely.

If Darwin demonstrated how disruptive science can be, Snow illuminated how essential it is to harness and use its disruptive power for good within society—or suffer the consequences.

As an aside, even more significant (in my opinion) than the original Rede lecture is Snow’s 1963 assessment of the lecture’s impact.  In The Two Cultures: A Second Look, C.P. Snow finds the freedom to explain more clearly what he was really getting at in the lecture.  Here he explains the use of the “two cultures” as a vehicle to explore far more profound aspects of the science-society relationship—many just as important yet overlooked today as they were then.  Quoting from the beginning of the essay:

“In our society (that is, advanced western society) we have lost even the pretense of a common culture.  Persons educated with the greatest intensity we know can no longer communicate with each other on the plane of their intellectual concern.  This is serious for our creative, intellectual and, above all, our normal life.  It is leading us to interpret the past wrongly, to misjudge the present, and to deny our hopes of the future.  It is making it difficult or impossible for us to take good action.”

Read these essays—they are important!

Third in the list comes something a little lighter:  Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham. Published in 1960—right on the coat-tails of C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures—it is a fictitious tale of a scientific discovery leading to longer lives for a select few, and the social and moral challenges this raises.

Admittedly, the book is dated—it was written nearly fifty years ago after all.  But it’s still a great read.  And more importantly, it raises questions about the development and use of disruptive scientific knowledge that are highly relevant to today.

The story revolves around the discovery of a lichen-based compound that can extend a person’s lifespan by a factor of three.  But the compound cannot be synthesized, and the source is limited.  The moral questions raised are complex—longer life expectancy could lead to a more reflective society, more time to find solutions to pressing problems, greater quality of life.  But it could also lead to social injustice—widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and initiate social unrest.

The context may be very 1960’s, but the general issues resonate strongly with challenges facing society today as science and technology become increasingly complex.  And just as society was ill-equipped to handle disruptive science back in the 1960’s, it must be asked whether we are any better off now.

The fourth book in this list of five is something of an outsider—Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee. 2009 marks the fiftieth anniversary of this account of village life in rural England in the early twentieth century—anniversaries emerging as something of a theme here.  Most of the book has nothing to do with science and technology.  But it is worth reading for two reasons:

First, it is a beautifully crafted account of pre-industrial revolution English village life—I guarantee it will fill you for nostalgia, even if you have never seen an English village!

But more to the point, Lee begins to chart the enormous changes wrought on this thousand year old way of life by the industrial revolution—what Snow referred to as the beginnings of the scientific revolution we are still in.  If you get the chance, read the final chapter of the book.  While Lee is ambivalent on whether the changes he witnessed over the course of his youth were for good or ill, you cannot help but reflect on where the scientific revolution is leading us as you absorb his prose.

To whet your appetite, this is from the beginning of the final chapter:

“The last days of my childhood were also the last days of the village.  I belonged to that generation which saw, by chance, the end of a thousand years’ life.  The change came late on our Costwold valley, didn’t really show itself till the late 1920’s; I was twelve by then, but during that handful of years I witnessed the whole thing happen.

“Myself, my family, my generation, were born in a world of silence; a world of hard work and necessary patience, of backs bent to the ground, hands massaging the crops, of waiting on weather and growth; of villages like ships in the empty landscapes and the long walking distances between them; of white narrow roads, rutted by hooves and cart-wheels, innocent of oil or petrol, down which people passed rarely, and almost never for pleasure, and the horse was the fastest thing moving.  Man and horse were all the power we had—abetted by levers and pulleys.  But the horse was king, and almost everything grew around him: fodder, smithies, stables, paddocks, distances, and the rhythms of our days.  His eight miles an hour was the limit of our movements, as it had been since the days of the Romans.  That eight miles an hour was life and death, the size of our world, our prison.”

Then came cars and machines and science and technology…

Lee’s eloquent prose demonstrates just how disruptive science and technology innovation is.  The innovation can lead to both good and bad—both Lee and Snow clearly acknowledge this.  The trick it would seem—the moral imperative even—is to act to ensure the good outweighs the bad.

Last but most definitely not least comes another novel, and a real gem of a book: Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett.

(yes, Terry has just received a well-deserved “K”.)

A word of warning up front: This is a grown-up book masquerading as a child’s story. So you might at first dismiss it.  But you do so at your peril, for Pratchett weaves an enlightening and challenging tale about science, society and religion that succeeds where many academic tomes have failed.

The story revolves around a young boy living on a Pacific island who looses his whole community to a tsunami, but ends up building a new one from the flotsam and jetsam of society that wash up on the shores.  This seemingly simple setting allows Pratchett to explore the barriers between races, cultures, philosophies, religion and science, and what can be achieved when these are broken down.

The tale is set in a parallel world, which rather delightfully enables Pratchett to bend the history of science somewhat, and the activities of some of its leading lights.  There is a beautiful homage to the likes of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, and even Patrick Moore in the closing pages!

But the power of this book—and it is powerful—comes from Pratchett’s knack of shining a searing spotlight on the human condition in the most gentle and humorous of ways.

Nation covers may themes, one of which is the foolishness of blind belief.  Of course, this includes religious beliefs in the book.  But it also extends to scientific “beliefs.”  And there is a clear message here for societies facing a science and technology-dominated future: Learn from the past, respect evidence, and communicate across barriers.

To wrap up, while this is an odd set of recommended reading by anyone’s reckoning, hopefully the thread holding the list together is clear—addressing the challenges and opportunities of science and technology within society.  Writing on the brink of 2009, science and technology innovation seem more important than ever.  Yet we seem further than ever in understanding how to ensure everyone benefits from advances that are made.

Hopefully revisiting (or visiting for the first time) these books will provide a new perspective on making wise choices over the coming year.

Happy reading, and happy 2009!

_________________________

Footnotes, added 1/1/09

On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, is currently available in many imprints – check out Amazon.com for further details.

The Two Cultures, by C. P. Snow, is currently published by Cambridge University Press (in the Canto series).  This edition includes both the 1959 lecture, the 1963 essay, and an excellent introduction by Stefan Collini.

Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham was recently re-released by Penguin Books UK.  US readers will need to explore that archaic institution the Library… or pay for international shipping!

Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee, is currently published in the US by David R. Godine. In the UK, the publisher is Random House.

Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett, is published by Random House in the UK, and HarpurCollins in the US.

For more on the “slow blog,” check out Todd Sieling’s Slow Blog Manifesto!

Mix carbon nanotubes and asbestos together (metaphorically) and you get an explosive mix—at least if news coverage of the latest publication coming out of Professor Ken Donaldson’s team is anything to go by.  The research—published on-line today in Nature Nanotechnology—is the first to explicitly test the hypothesis that long carbon nanotubes behave like long asbestos fibres in the body.

In brief, the study (which I was a co-author on) used an established method to test whether a fibrous material has the potential to lead to the disease mesothelioma—a cancer of the outer lining of the lungs that can take decades to develop following exposure.  In the method, samples of material are injected into the abdominal space of mice, where inflammation and the formation of granulomas in the lining tissue (the mesothelium) are studied over a seven-day period.  Previous research has established that the combined presence of fibres, inflammation and granulomas is a very strong indicator that mesothelioma will occur in the long-term.  While the method uses lining of the abdominal space, it is highly predictive of what happens in the same tissue surrounding the lungs, if it is exposed to durable fibres.

Five materials were tested in this study: short amosite asbestos fibres, long amosite asbestos fibres, short and/or tangled multi walled carbon nanotubes (two samples), long straight multi walled carbon nanotubes (two samples), and carbon black (compact graphite-based particles.  The results: fibres longer than 15 micrometers to 20 micrometers (whether asbestos or carbon nanotubes) led to a positive response; short/compact particles did not.

This is the first study to demonstrate that carbon nanotubes that physically resemble harmful asbestos fibres, can also behave like harmful asbestos fibres.

What the study does not address is whether exposure to long straight carbon nanotubes will occur or, if it does, whether these fine fibres will reach the mesothelium surrounding the lungs, and go on to cause mesothelioma.

But the results are sufficiently compelling to suggest urgent action is needed if we are to prevent a long lasting legacy of harm from some forms of carbon nanotubes, and ensure the emergence of safe and trusted carbon nanotube applications.

First and foremost, targeted research is needed to validate this study, assess the magnitude and nature of likely carbon nanotube exposures—from material production to product disposal—and evaluate whether inhaled nanotubes can work their way to the outer lining of the lungs.  The current U.S. federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health and safety research (PDF, 2.2 MB) does not specifically address the health impacts of carbon nanotubes (despite a recommendation from the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering in 2004 to carry out exactly this type of research).  Perhaps it’s time to rethink what is important here.

But action is also needed now to ensure carbon nanotube exposures to workers and users are kept as low as possible.  This means developing appropriate exposure measurement methods, applying effective control and containment protocols, and agreeing on benchmark exposure levels to use in the absence of more formal exposure limits.  The recent BSI Guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials (PD 6699-2:2007, see also“Safe nanotechnology in the workplace: A practical guide”) recommends a benchmark exposure level of 0.01 fibres/ml for carbon nanotubes in the absence of any other information—this would seem to be good advice for long carbon nanotubes, until more is known about their exposure potential and hazardous nature. Long multi-walled carbon nanotubes can currently be purchased from outlets like CheapTubes Incorporated for as little as 40 cents a gram (as long as you by them in kilogramme quantities), yet the health and safety advice still assumes these are as harmless as graphite—this has to change.

And thirdly, action is needed to ensure transparency—making sure regulators, industries and consumers know which types of carbon nanotubes are being used, where they are being used, and what precautions should be taken to ensure safe use.

Carbon nanotubes have great potential as a unique material that can be used in many unique and beneficial ways—from reducing our environmental impact to curing diseases.  But mis-steps now could easily undermine trust in this nascent industry, and prevent the material’s potential from being realized.

The comparison with asbestos is firmly grounded in the physical resemblance between certain forms of the two materials, and this alone should stimulate clear action to ensure safe use.  But the health impacts of asbestos exposure still resonate through society—deaths from asbestos-related disease are not expected to peak for another ten years—and the mere suggestion of similarities between nanotubes and asbestos fibres could cause investors and users to shy away from this new technology unless there are clear assurances that health and safety concerns are being fully addressed.

Widespread pickup in the media of the current study suggests that people care about carbon nanotubes, and whether they are safe.  The good news is that we still have time to ensure they are used safely—but only if we act now and act fast.

Additional Resources

Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study.  Poland et al. (2008). doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.111

Carbon nanotubes display asbestos-like behaviour – a SAFENANO commentary by Ken Donaldson

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

Nanotechnology consumer products inventory

International Council On Nanotechnology backgrounder on multi walled carbon nanotunes and mesothelioma

NIOSH Science Blog

__________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in May 2008