It’s wonderful to see new funding for life sciences in the UK being announced, but the amount is tiny compared with the potential of the industry. I think its obvious to most people that life sciences and material or nanotechnologies will be vital to the 21st Century economy, and more effort on diagnostics, therapeutics and sustainable manufacturing (biorefineries, green chemistry etc) is needed.

Science Minister David Willets was quoted as saying  ”We are backing the risk takers, and are willing to take a risk ourselves.”

This will probably get his backside kicked up & down Whitehall as the official UK Government response is invariably “We are committed to reducing the deficit and will not and cannot take risks with public money.” It is the unfortunate nature of adversarial politics that the failures are highlighted in preference to successes.

Increasing Crop Yields With GM?

An editorial in this week’s issue of Nature “A charter for geoengineering” highlights the difficulties faced in the application of emerging technologies.

As we argue in ‘Using Emerging Technologies to Address Global Risks” the technology itself is the least of our worries, and the fact that a relatively simple geoengineering experiment involving spraying water from a balloon at an altitude of 1000m was scuppered “by intellectual-property rights, public engagement and the overall governance regime for such work” further reinforces that view.

It is safe to say the we are living through a period of rapid technological change. The power of information technology has been harnessed to speed up the flow of information between researchers, and to largely automate routine data collection allowing vast amounts of scientific data to be collected, modelled and tested without going near a lab bench. At the same time the huge investment in research in Asia over the past decade means that there is more and better science being done than at any time in human history.

So the science isn’t the problem, it’s what we do next. I’ve mentioned the problems of funding innovation plenty of times in the past, but that is only part of the issue. At a conference last week I was fascinated by Huw Jones‘ talk on the 2020 wheat project and why we need GM technologies, and the reaction from other speakers and the audience in trying to justify not improving agriculture. The arguments against included the oft quoted but widely discredited examples of GM corn harming monarch butterflies and suicides among Indian farmers. One participant even suggested a causal link between GM crops and childhood eczema in the UK. Balanced against this is the need to develop higher yielding crops, and to deal with new emerging crop diseases while avoiding an arms race with pests who also evolve.

Unfortunately rationality is often left behind when discussing high emotive subjects such as climate change and food, and this can have a disastrous effect on government policies where a scare story in a tabloid newspaper is given equal weighting with several years of peer reviewed research.

A major worry is that while we have the tools to address a wide range of  global issues, water, food, heath etc, the implacable opposition to technologies, especially new and powerful ones that are remote from the daily experience of most people, will mean that some of the best chances we have to support nine billion people with a decent quality of life may be lost. It seems far easier to say no to deployment of emerging technologies rather than doing the hard work of ensuring that issues of governance and communication are addressed.

GM and geoengineering may prove to be vital tools in avoiding or mitigating future food shortages, but how can we ensure that they will be available, if needed?

Who hasn’t wanted a tractor beam at one time or another? The notion that beaming a ray of light at something would allow you to bring it closer is very appealing. And, if you’re willing to settle for a particle, you could have  a tractor beam in the near future according to scientists in Singapore. From the May 23, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Tractor beams are a well-known concept in science fiction. These rays of light are often shown pulling objects towards an observer, seemingly violating the laws of physics, and of course, such beams have yet to be realised in the real world. Haifeng Wang at the A*STAR Data Storage Institute and co-workers have now demonstrated how a tractor beam can in fact be realized on a small scale (see paper in Physical Review Letters: “Single Gradientless Light Beam Drags Particles as Tractor Beams” [behind a paywall]). “Our work demonstrates a tractor beam based only on a single laser to pull or push an object of interest toward the light source,” says Wang.

Coming up in the description of just how Wang’s tractor beam works is my second reference to Albert Einstein today (in the earlier May 23, 2012 posting: Teaching physics visually), form the news item on Nanowerk,

Based on pioneering work by Albert Einstein and Max Planck more than a hundred years ago, it is known that light carries momentum that pushes objects away. In addition, the intensity that varies across a laser beam can be used to push objects sideways, and for example can be used to move cells in biotechnology applications. Pulling an object towards an observer, however, has so far proven to be elusive. In 2011, researchers theoretically demonstrated a mechanism where light movement can be controlled using two opposing light beams — though technically, this differs from the idea behind a tractor beam.

Wang and co-workers have now studied the properties of lasers with a particular type of distribution of light intensity across the beam, or so-called Bessel beams. Usually, if a laser beam hits a small particle in its path, the light is scattered backwards, which in turn pushes the particle forward. What Wang and co-workers have now shown theoretically for Bessel beams is that for particles that are sufficiently small, the light scatters off the particle in a forward direction, meaning that the particle itself is pulled backwards towards the observer. In other words, the behaviour of the particle is the direct opposite of the usual scenario. The size of the tractor beam force depends on parameters such as the electrical and magnetic properties of the particles.

There aren’t too many real life applications for a tractor beam of limited power but the lead scientist, Wang, does suggest it could be helpful in diagnosing malaria at the cellular level.

Art/science news  is usually about a scientist using their own art or collaborating with an artist to produce pieces that engage the public. This particular May 23, 2012 news item by Andrea Estrada on the physorg.com website offers a contrast when it highlights a teaching technique integrating visual arts with physics for physics students,

Based on research she conducted for her doctoral dissertation several years ago, Jatila van der Veen, a lecturer in the College of Creative Studies at UC [University of  California] Santa Barbara and a research associate in UC Santa Barbara’s physics department, created a new approach to introductory physics, which she calls “Noether before Newton.” Noether refers to the early 20th-century German mathematician Emmy Noether, who was known for her groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics.

Using arts-based teaching strategies, van der Veen has fashioned her course into a portal through which students not otherwise inclined might take the leap into the sciences — particularly physics and mathematics. Her research appears in the current issue of the American Educational Research Journal, in a paper titled “Draw Your Physics Homework? Art as a Path to Understanding in Physics Teaching.”

The May 22, 2012 press release on the UC Santa Barbara website provides this detail about van der Veen’s course,

While traditional introductory physics courses focus on 17th-century Newtonian mechanics, van der Veen takes a contemporary approach. “I start with symmetry and contemporary physics,” she said. “Symmetry is the underlying mathematical principle of all physics, so this allows for several different branches of inclusion, of accessibility.”

Much of van der Veen’s course is based on the principles of “aesthetic education,” an approach to teaching formulated by the educational philosopher Maxine Greene. Greene founded the Lincoln Center Institute, a joint effort of Teachers College, Columbia University, and Lincoln Center. Van der Veen is quick to point out, however, that concepts of physics are at the core of her course. “It’s not simply looking at art that’s involved in physics, or looking at beautiful pictures of galaxies, or making fractal art,” she said. “It’s using the learning modes that are available in the arts and applying them to math and physics.”

Taking a visual approach to the study of physics is not all that far-fetched. “If you read some of Albert Einstein’s writings, you’ll see they’re very visual,” van der Veen said. “And in some of his writings, he talks about how visualization played an important part in the development of his theories.”

Van der Veen has taught her introductory physics course for five years, and over that time has collected data from one particular homework assignment she gives her students: She asks them to read an article by Einstein on the nature of science, and then draw their understanding of it. “I found over the years that no one ever produced the same drawing from the same article,” she said. “I also found that some students think very concretely in words, some think concretely in symbols, some think allegorically, and some think metaphorically.”

Adopting arts-based teaching strategies does not make van der Veen’s course any less rigorous than traditional introductory courses in terms of the abstract concepts students are required to master. It creates a different, more inclusive way of achieving the same end.

I went to look at van der Veen’s webpage on the UC Santa Barbara website to find a link to this latest article (open access) of hers and some of her other projects. I have taken a brief look at the Draw your physics homework? article (tir is 53 pp.) and found these images on p. 29 (PDF) illustrating her approach,

Figure 5. Abstract-representational drawings. 5a (left): female math major, first year; 5b (right): male math major, third year. Used with permission. (downloaded from the American Educational Research Journal, vol. 49, April 2012)

Van der Veen offers some context on the page preceding the image, p. 28,

Two other examples of abstract-representational drawings are shown in Figure 5. I do not have written descriptions, but in each case I determined that each student understood the article by means of verbal explanation. Figure 5a was drawn by a first-year math major, female, in 2010. She explained the meaning of her drawing as representing Einstein’s layers from sensory input (shaded ball at the bottom), to secondary layer of concepts, represented by the two open circles, and finally up to the third level, which explains everything below with a unified theory. The dashes surrounding the perimeter, she told me, represent the limit of our present knowledge. Figure 5b was drawn by a third-year male math major. He explained that the brick-like objects in the foreground are sensory perceptions, and the shaded portion in the center of the drawing, which appears behind the bricks, is the theoretical explanation which unifies all the experiences.

I find the reference to Einstein and visualization compelling in light of the increased interest (as I perceive it) in visualization currently occurring in the sciences.

The limitations of conventional and current solar cells include high production cost, low operating efficiency and durability, and many cells rely on toxic and scarce materials. Researchers have now developed a new solar cell that, in principle, will minimize all of these solar energy technology limitations. In particular, the device is the first to solve the problem of the Grätzel cell, a promising low-cost and environmentally friendly solar cell with a significant disadvantage: it leaks. The dye-sensitized cell’s electrolyte is made of an organic liquid, which can leak and corrode the solar cell itself.

Tomorrow, May 24, 2012, Jean Paul Allain, associate professor of nuclear engineering at Purdue University (Illinois) will be speaking to members of the US Congress about repairing brain injuries using nanotechnology-enabled bioactive coatings for stents. From the May 21, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

“Stents coated with a bioactive coating might be inserted at the site of an aneurism to help heal the inside lining of the blood vessel,” said Jean Paul Allain, an associate professor of nuclear engineering. “Aneurisms are saclike bulges in blood vessels caused by weakening of artery walls. We’re talking about using a regenerative approach, attracting cells to reconstruct the arterial wall.”

He will speak before Congress on Thursday (May 24) during the first Brain Mapping Day to discuss the promise of nanotechnology in treating brain injury and disease.

The May 21, 2012 news release (by Emil Venere) for Purdue University offers insight into some of the difficulties of dealing with aneurysms using today’s technologies,

Currently, aneurisms are treated either by performing brain surgery, opening the skull and clipping the sac, or by inserting a catheter through an artery into the brain and implanting a metallic coil into the balloon-like sac.

Both procedures risk major complications, including massive bleeding or the formation of potentially fatal blood clots.

“The survival rate is about 50/50 or worse, and those who do survive could be impaired,” said Allain, who holds a courtesy appointment with materials engineering and is affiliated with the Birck Nanotechnology Center in Purdue’s Discovery Park.

Allain goes on to explain how his team’s research addresses these issues (from the May 21, 2012 Purdue University news release),

Cells needed to repair blood vessels are influenced by both the surface texture – features such as bumps and irregular shapes as tiny as 10 nanometers wide – as well as the surface chemistry of the stent materials.

“We are learning how to regulate cell proliferation and growth by tailoring both the function of surface chemistry and topology,” Allain said. “There is correlation between surface chemistry and how cells send signals back and forth for proliferation. So the surface needs to be tailored to promote regenerative healing.”

The facility being used to irradiate the stents – the Radiation Surface Science and Engineering Laboratory in Purdue’s School of Nuclear Engineering – also is used for work aimed at developing linings for experimental nuclear fusion reactors for power generation.

Irradiating materials with the ion beams causes surface features to “self-organize” and also influences the surface chemistry, Allain said.

The stents are made of nonmagnetic materials, such as stainless steel and an alloy of nickel and titanium. Only a certain part of the stents is rendered magnetic to precisely direct the proliferation of cells to repair a blood vessel where it begins bulging to form the aneurism.

Researchers will study the stents using blood from pigs during the first phase in collaboration with the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.

The stent coating’s surface is “functionalized” so that it interacts properly with the blood-vessel tissue. Some of the cells are magnetic naturally, and “magnetic nanoparticles” would be injected into the bloodstream to speed tissue regeneration. Researchers also are aiming to engineer the stents so that they show up in medical imaging to reveal how the coatings hold up in the bloodstream.

The research is led by Allain and co-principal investigator Lisa Reece of the Birck Nanotechnology Center. This effort has spawned new collaborations with researchers around the world including those at Universidad de Antioquía, University of Queensland. The research also involves doctoral students Ravi Kempaiah and Emily Walker.

The work is funded with a three-year, $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Army. Cells needed to repair blood vessels are influenced by both the surface texture – features such as bumps and irregular shapes as tiny as 10 nanometers wide – as well as the surface chemistry of the stent materials.

As I find the international flavour to the pursuit of science quite engaging, I want to highlight this bit in the May 21, 2012 news item on Nanowerk which mentions a few other collaborators on this project,

Purdue researchers are working with Col. Rocco Armonda, Dr. Teodoro Tigno and other neurosurgeons at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md. Collaborations also are planned with research scientists from the University of Queensland in Australia, Universidad de Antioquía and Universidad de Los Andes, both in Colombia.

The US Congress is not the only place to hear about this work, Allain will also be speaking in Toronto at the 9th Annual World Congress of Society for Brain Mapping & Therapeutics (SBMT) being held June 2 – 4, 2012.

Researchers have developed a method to build graphene-based transistors compatible with semiconductor industry processes. This technology shows a 2-3x performance enhancement over the current approach to graphene transistors.

Often the sum is greater than its parts. Using an atomic force microscope as a “crane”, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich researchers have succeeded in bringing two biomolecules together to form an active complex – with nanometer precision and built-in quality control.

To modify a metal surface at the scale of atoms and molecules — for instance to refine the wiring in computer chips or the reflective silver in optical components — manufacturers shower it with ions. While the process may seem high-tech and precise, the technique has been limited by the lack of understanding of the underlying physics. In a new study, Brown University engineers modeled noble gas ion bombardments with unprecedented richness, providing long-sought insights into how it works.

Ion bombardment of metal surfaces is an important, but poorly understood, nanomanufacturing technique. New research using sophisticated supercomputer simulations has shown what goes on in trillionths of a second. The advance could lead to better ways to predict the phenomenon and more uses of the technique to make new nanoscale products.