A weekly reflection on life in academia

Most of this last week was spent in San Francisco, at the NISE Net (Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network) network-wide meeting – possibly my favorite meeting of the year (I might have mentioned that before).  This year I had the additional pleasure of opening the meeting in a double-act with Kathy Sykes.  Readers in the UK will be familiar with Kathy – for others, she is a rather smart scientist, communicator, broadcaster, science-festival co-director (she helped create and co-directs the Cheltenham Science Festival) and all-round good egg.  She is also a fellow physicist.  Two Brit physicists opening a US conference on informal science education – not bad eh!

One aspect of this meeting that I love – apart from the glorious location right by Fort Mason in San Francisco – is the eclectic and engaging mix of participants.  It’s one of the few meetings I know where artists, performers, teachers, exhibit designers, communicators, “natural” scientists  (bit of a dodgy term), social scientists and others can get together and share their knowledge around a common theme – in this case, nanoscale science and engineering.

I was here as a NISE Net advisor and as a keynote speaker (“Current perspectives on nanotechnology” – in 45 minutes!).  Because of this, I think people were expecting me to enlighten them (apart the person who asked in the bar “so what’s a Risk Science Director doing talking about nanotechnology?” – then sheepishly admitted the next day “I Googled you…”).  I may have said some useful things – it’s always hard to tell.  But what the organizers and participants probably don’t realize is how much I gained myself from the meeting.

As always it seems at this meeting, listening to and talking with other participants ended up influencing my own thinking about nanoscale science and engineering.  I came away with my brain buzzing with new ideas on how to approach and understand nanoscale science and engineering from a social and educational perspective – largely due to stimulating conversations with people having a very different training and perspective to mine.  What is somewhat bizarre but highly gratifying is that I possibly find more inspiration from meetings like this than from scientific meetings where I’m reasonably familiar with much of the material being discussed.  I suspect it’s something to do with being forced to think differently and more imaginatively about things, and having to approach issues from very different perspectives.

This is probably one added value of NISE Net that isn’t sufficiently recognized.  But it’s a tremendously important one.  NISE Net has developed an innovative process to introduce nanoscale science and engineering to people through science museums and other informal science education venues.  But that process is also educating the “educators”.

So I’m extremely grateful to everyone at the meeting who helped me see the world, and the issues I grapple with, in new ways.

Thank you NISE Net!

Of course, the downside is going to be a whole new string of blogs revolving around nanoscale science and engineering.

Sorry!

PS – there’s still time to vote on the Spider-Goat-Milk story I posted the other day.  This is directly related to the NISE Net meeting – a link that I’ll reveal as soon as enough people have contributed to the poll!

Explaining nanotechnology to people is tough—as anyone working in the field will tell you.  Clever stuff that’s too small to see with the naked eye doesn’t slot easily into most people’s human-scale view of the world.  So it’s not surprising that many non-experts (and even some “experts”) end up with a rather mangled idea of what the technology is, and what it is not!

And this begs the question: if people are to be empowered to make informed decisions on nanotechnology, how do you un-mangle the misconceptions?

One approach is to tap into the latent creativity of researchers and science-enthusiasts, and get them to make educational video-shorts.  The American Chemical Society is doing just this in its “What is Nano?” video contest.  The challenge: submit an original creative video no more than 3 minutes long before March 12 2009 on “what is ‘nano’?” “how is ‘nano’ best visualized?” or “where is ‘nano’ headed?” And get the chance to win $500in cash!

You can browse the entries and vote for your favorite on the ACS NanoTube website—highly recommended for an entertaining diversion when the pressures of work get too much!

My favorite so far: “Small can be big – a French cheesy perspective” from Irene Suarez-Martinez and Chris Ewels.  Not sure how great the educational value is, but it made me laugh:

[Add your vote here]

The top contender at present though is “The Nano Song” from Patrick Bennett and fellow researchers at UC Berkeley… – seen at the top of this blog [you can vote for the video here].

I’m still not sure whether to cringe or grin at this one—but you have to admit, the production values are pretty high.  And the video does have the distinction of hitting the big time on the Wired Science blog.

I should also mention out of familial loyalty, my eleven year old son’s entry:

[Add your vote here - no pressure!]

This is a repackaging of some legomation shorts he made for me a couple of years back. It stretches the boundaries of the competition rather (to say it explains anything about nanotechnology is a bit of a stretch).  But I still think it’s a lot of fun—and it demonstrates a level of skill in stop frame animation that’s way beyond anything I could do!

To be honest, there are plenty of turkeys amongst the gems in the current offerings—including videos that will leave your head spinning, even if you thought you knew a thing about nanotechnology.  But as a start, the competition is a great way of getting people to think more imaginatively about the work they do, and how to make it accessible.

So do look through the competition entries, and PLEASE add your votes—the more attention the videos get, the higher the quality of submissions here and in subsequent contests is likely to be.

And if you feel inspired, there’s still time to get your 3-minute masterpiece out there for all to see.

Best of luck!

If you want to annoy a scientist, show them a movie that gets the little details wrong—like the fact that sound doesn’t travel in a vacuum, or biologists always have a box of Kim Wipes within arms-reach.

If you want to annoy anyone else, put them in the same room with the scientist!

Scientists love to pick apart the poor depiction of science in movies and TV programs—I know, I’ve been there.  It’s irritating, it suggests someone in authority who needs a crash course in scientific reality, and it raises very real fears that audiences will come away with warped ideas of what science is all about…

And as a result, scientists as a species tend to have a religious zeal for converting scriptwriters, producers and directors in Big Media to using literal depictions of science that would make a Creationist proud.

I bring this up because I decided to attend a session on science in the media at this year’s American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Chicago.  The session—“You Ought To Be In Pictures: Science as Entertainment in Movies and Television”—attracted a large crowd.  But while many of attendees were clearly reveling in the camaraderie of scientists versus the rest of the world, I left with something of an uneasy feeling about the whole enterprise.

Let me try and explain.  I don’t mind a bit of harmless science snobbery when it comes to entertainment.  I’m excited that real scientists are consulting with scriptwriters and directors to make sure the depiction of science is at least plausible.  And, to be honest, if Hollywood called to ask me for advice, I would be off like a shot.

But what worries me is a push for realism that threatens to undermine people’s understanding of science through misplaced trust.

I suspect that few people seriously base their understanding of science and scientists on blockbuster movies—it’s generally accepted that these are works of fiction, that bend reality to tell a story.  What happens though when you begin to inject science-literalism into movies and TV shows, and let people know that what they are seeing is close to the truth?  You end up building trust within the audience—they begin believing that what they see is a literal rather than figurative representation of what science is about and how it works—which is great when the science is spot on.  But really bad when it deviates even slightly from reality.

This gets to the nub of my concern.  Once the audience trusts what they see, they will be fully justified in believing everything—because what this new science literalism does not teach is critical thinking.  And as a result, even the smallest inaccuracies—the speed with which science progresses, the complexity of the discovery process, the limits of information recovery from data—become a betrayal of that trust.

In effect, you get a CSI effect that extends to all of science—not just forensic science.

The answer—I suspect—is to think critically about the role of science in entertainment.  Unless someone can point me to clear evidence to the contrary, I don’t think it’s a good idea to use it as an educational tool.  On the other hand, I do believe everyone benefits where the thoughtful input of a science consultant adds to the plausibility and internal consistency of a movie or show.  And the idea of enthusing people about science and thinking more broadly and critically about their surroundings thrills me.

At the end of the day, entertainment is not science, and should not be seen as something to hijack for science education.  Using science to tell a story, convey a perspective or explore an issue is great—it should be encouraged.  And using entertainment to communicate science also has its place.

But science-evangelism?  Knock on someone else’s door—please!

Footnotes

I should add that while the AAAS session prompted these ruminations, a number of the speakers did seem to have their heads screwed on—and were clearly enjoying their work with shows like The Big Bang Theory and Numb3rs.  Jonathan Gitlin covers the session comprehensively here.

Both the National Science Foundation and the National Academies of Science have programs linking scientists with professionals in the entertainment industry.  Details on the National Academies Science and Entertainment Exchange can be found here.

And I should add that, while I really enjoy scientifically inaccurate and implausible movies—if the story and characters are strong—I’m longing for the day when someone makes a really good science movie!  I guess I’m still a science-snob at heart!

Nanotechnology: What is it, what can it do, what are the downsides, and how can we ensure it reaches its full potential?

Managing the Small Stuff. Also available in High Definition on Vimeo

The promise and challenges of nanotechnology is something I lecture on a lot.  And when I do, I’m inevitably asked for a copy of the slides.  But here I have a problem: I have a rather idiosyncratic lecture style that moved on from the 3-bullet point PowerPoint straitjacket some years ago—which is great for the live performance, but lousy when it comes to handing out intelligible PDF’s of the talk.

So with the help of my trusty Mac and YouTube, I’ve been experimenting with other ways to capture the essence of these lectures.  The video above is the first result—a short primer on nanotechnology:

First, let me stress that this is an experiment… I’m not sure whether it succeeds in conveying anything useful about nanotechnology, or whether it ends up being rather crass and unintelligible.  But I would love some feedback.

You’ll notice as you watch the video above (if you are observant) that I eschewed a simple movie of myself giving a lecture.

Why?

Well, would you sit and watch me droning on about nanotechnology for more than a few seconds?  I wouldn’t!

Actually, this would have been easier to pull off than what I ended up doing, but I was more interested in how the presentation medium (Keynote on the Mac) and the internet (YouTube in particular) could be used to convey information in a more innovative and accessible way.  If you are reaching out to a non-specialist audience, to what extent do eye-catching visuals and a soundtrack make the experience more informative and enjoyable?  Again, I’m not sure—but that is all part of what I am trying to find out.

(I should add here that rumors of this whole exercise just being an excuse to play with Keynote’s fancy graphics capabilities are entirely unfounded…)

The resulting video is rather short—it’s an unashamedly high-level view of nanotechnology that avoids specifics, and instead focuses on underlying concepts.  This seems to be a format that lends itself to conveying general information in small chunks.  I’m still tossing up whether to try formatting and posting a full 60 minute lecture in this style, but my gut tells me that this could end up being the YouTube equivalent of Vogon poetry—something no-one should have to endure!

The bottom line here (to get serious for a second) is that compiling animated movies from presentations and posting them on the web does seem to offer new opportunities for us amateur communicators to convey information on science in an accessible and informative way, using readily available tools.  I suspect that if it’s done well, this could be an effective way of packaging information to reach a broad audience.

I’m not sure how successful the movie above is in conveying what nanotechnology is all about to a lay audience.  But I do think it demonstrates the possibility of using today’s digital technology to convey complex information in new ways.  And as science and technology become increasingly important within society, we certainly need innovative ways to bridge the gap between those who generate new knowledge, and those who use it.

__________________________

Technical Stuff

The original presentation was developed in Keynote on a MacBook Pro.  A confession here—I really like the simplicity, utility and visual appeal of Keynote, and develop all of my presentations using the package.  Using PowerPoint just makes me miserable in comparison.

Most of the slides in the presentation were culled from previous lectures I have given, but were formatted specifically for this video.  In particular, animations within and between slides were added to help the story develop as the video progresses.  The slides were formatted at a resolution of 1280 by 720 pixels, allowing them to be saved as a high definition video.

The final presentation was exported as a movie and—you’ve got to love the integration on Macs—imported into GarageBand to allow soundtrack and commentary to be added.  The soundtrack is from my own doodling within GarageBand—for which I must apologize.  The end movie was exported, and uploaded to YouTube.

Finally, first time round I did this, I just included the slides and the soundtrack in the movie.  The result was artistically intriguing—but surreal, cryptic, and ultimately unfathomable – if you don’t believe me, check out the video below.  Which is why I ended up adding the commentary.  But it still makes interesting, if somewhat obscure, viewing.  Whether it makes any sense or not, I hope you enjoy it!

Managing the Small Stuff – without the commentary. Also available in High Definition on Vimeo

I spend quite a bit of my time talking to different groups about nanotechnology, including its potential and its challenges. And as a result, I’m constantly on the prowl for new ways of illustrating why nanotechnology is important. In particular, I’ve been keeping my eyes peeled for a quick and dirty (and fun) demonstration to show that size matters.

Which is why I finally cracked this weekend and started messing around with packs of Mentos Mints and bottles of Coke.

One of the important ideas underpinning nanotechnology is that, as stuff gets smaller, things change. It may be that the smaller stuff can get to new places or be used in new ways. It may just be that the stuff is able to do more of its “stuff” when it’s smaller. Or it may be that the original stuff starts behaving like completely different stuff when it gets really small.

Whatever, when it comes to nanotechnology, size matters.

But how do you convince someone of this when they can’t see or experience what is happening at the nanoscale? After all, we are all endowed with brains that have evolved to handle things we can see and touch—not stuff that is invisible to the naked eye.

One approach is to use analogies between stuff that can be seen and touched, and nanoscale materials that cannot be experienced so readily. Along these lines, I’ve been wondering for some time whether the notorious reaction between Mentos and Coke could be exploited in some way to demonstrate aspects of nanotechnology.

Dropping Mentos into a bottle of coke causes a rapid release of carbon dioxide from the liquid, and a frothy geyser to erupt from the container. (For those of you who have no idea of what I’m talking about, just check out the videos at Eepybird.com). If it’s particle surface that drives the reaction between the Mentos and the Coke, grinding the candy up into smaller bits before adding it to should lead to more vigorous “eruption.”

The result—if it works—lots of fun, and a great illustration of one way in which size matters.

Having nothing better to do this weekend, I drafted my kids and an unwitting friend of my daughters into testing the idea. The concept—crush a couple of Mentos into medium and small bits, add to a 2 liter bottle of Coke, and watch what happens.

Saved for posterity, here’s the video of the great event:

Unfortunately, the finely crushed Mentos didn’t create as stunningly superior a geyser as I had hoped. Lesson number one—there’s often a yawning chasm between hypothesis and reality. However, there was a clear size-effect: The medium sized chunks of candy gave the highest geyser, while the finest chunks led to the longest reaction.

Clearly size mattered—just not in the way that might have been predicted…

Despite the disappointing performance of the fine stuff in this instance, the experience has convinced me there’s considerable mileage in using Mentos to explore some of the ideas underpinning nanotechnology. The experiment clearly demonstrates to those involved that making something into smaller pieces changes how it behaves—that’s a pretty important concept.

But that’s just the beginning. Mentos are a great example of a particle with a core-shell structure—the outside of each Mento is different to the inside. Many engineered nanoparticles have a similar structure, so we’re on good analogy ground here.

It’s likely that the Mentos’ outer shell has something to do with the vigor of the reaction with Coke—as New Scientist reported last year, surface roughness and chemistry probably play a role in making the whole Mentos-Coke thing work. So just crushing the candy up wouldn’t necessarily make the reaction go that much faster, as you’re not adding any more of the outer coating to the mix.

However, what if that outer coating was removed? I haven’t tried this, but it would be a cool experiment to wash (or suck perpahs) the outer coating off the Mentos, and see how it affects their geyser-forming properties. You could even go one step further, and see how crushing the denuded Mentos into increasingly finer particles changed things.

This could have the makings of a fun experiment for exploring the importance of size and surfaces—and all with a pack of mints and a bottle of Coke. How much simpler could things get?

Of course, the down-side is that someone needs to clear the mess up afterwards!

Here’s a small diversion for a slow Sunday afternoon:  Take sixty jellybeans and ninety cocktail sticks, and try to construct a model of a buckyball—a carbon-60 molecule.  It’s tricky, but not impossible.

Constructing a candy buckminster fullerene is one of ten nano “experiments” in a new nanotechnology education kit from nanobits. Designed to enthuse and inform kids in school and at home about nanotechnology, the nanobits kit grew out of Nanovic (Nanotechnology Victoria Ltd.)—an Australian initiative to translate nanotechnology research into commercial applications.

Having seen the kit a couple of times while visiting Australia, I was keen to get my hands on one and take it for a test run (or at least, co-opt my kids into yet another “socio-nano experiment”).  And thanks to the generosity of Nanovic, and Mathew Dipnall at nanobits, a few weeks ago my wish came true.

On the outside, the nanobits kit looks like an upmarket children’s science kit.  The container is modelled on a carbon nanotube—a short cylinder truncated by fullerene-like ends. Open it up, and all the elements of an introduction to nanotechnology spill out—an instruction book complete with interesting facts, explanations and web links; memory-metal wire; a wad of nano-treated fabrics; a piece of glass with a hydrophobic coating; and a few other bits and pieces.  The true nanotech content of the kit’s components might be limited, but the listed experiments also use common household items to demonstrate different aspects of nanotechnology.

True to form, I lost no time setting my two children to work on the kit.  You can see the results of their first foray on YouTube, in the debut of “Nanobusters:”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no4xwlDSBQg]

In homage to the “nano-tie” video they put together back in 2006, the two of them carried out a short version of the “try to stain nano-treated fabrics” experiment; dipping various supplied fabrics in soy sauce, then washing them in clean water.  While I think there is still room for improvement in the experiment as described in the kit, the exercise was fun for the two children, it got them thinking about what nanotech can do, and there’s a possibility they even learned something.

Overall, this is an engaging kit.  Perhaps more geared toward classes of school kids and older children, it nevertheless has enough appeal to interest home experimenters.  It could be improved with the inclusion of more hands-on nano stuff, but I was impressed by the use of everyday objects to demonstrate nanotechnology in the handbook.  For instance, gelatine is used to demonstrate sol-gels; crushed ice-cubes containing bicarbonate of soda are used to show how smaller particles can be more reactive; and egg-yolk and oil help to explore self-assembling membranes.

The handbook also delves into broader issues—biomedical nanotechnology, bio-mimicry and even nano-ethics.

With the most recent poll supported by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies indicating 70% percent of people in the U.S. know little or nothing of nanotechnology (the percentage is similar elsewhere), new approaches to getting the word out are clearly needed—especially if the public and policy makers alike are to make informed decisions on emerging nanotech applications.  While the nanobits kit is focused on children—and probably those with some interest in science to start with—it is a step in the right direction, and a great resource for introducing the next generation to nanotechnology in a fun and accessible way.

Perhaps my biggest concern is the price—at AU$94.30, it will be beyond the reach of many potential users.  But bring the price down to around $30, and you have a kit that would compete favourably with the best of the science kits for kids currently available.

And the jellybean buckyball?  I’m pleased to say that in the first round of the “Great Candy Buckyball Challenge” in our household, I won hands down.  But I suspect the victory will not be long lived.  Now if only I could find a superior jellybean, with a better stiffness-to-weight ratio…

___________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in April 2008