Originally from Singapore, 16-year old Janelle Tam of Waterloo, Ontario has won first place nationally in the 2012 Sanofi BioGENEius Challenge Canada (SBCC) competition with her application for nanocrystalline cellulose. From the May 8, 2012 news item on physorg.com,

Janelle Tam, a Grade 12 student at Waterloo Collegiate Institute, was awarded the $5,000 first prize by an impressed panel of eminent Canadian scientists assembled at the Ottawa headquarters of the National Research Council of Canada.

…

The theme of the competition, “How will you change the world?” inspired hundreds of students to participate in 2012 SBCC events Canada-wide.

…

Canada’s next big technological and health breakthrough might come from cellulose, the woody material found in trees that enables them to stand. Cellulose is made up of tiny nano-particles called nano-crystalline cellulose (NCC) that are measured in thousandths of the width of a human hair.

Only recently discovered, Waterloo’s Janelle Tam is the first to show that NCC is a powerful antioxidant, and may be superior to Vitamin C or E because it is more stable and its effectiveness won’t diminish as quickly.

“NCC is non-toxic, stable, soluble in water and renewable, since it comes from trees,” says Janelle, a Grade 12 student at Waterloo Collegiate Institute.

…

“NCC is really a hot field of research in Canada,” says Janelle, who notes that antioxidants have anti-aging and health promotion properties, including wound healing since they neutralize “free radicals” that damage or kill cells.

Janelle chemically ‘paired’ NCC with a well-known nano-particle called a buckminster fullerene. These ‘buckyballs’ (carbon molecules that look like a soccer ball) are already used in cosmetic and anti-aging products she says. The new NCC-buckyball combination acted like a ‘nano-vacuum,’ sucking up free radicals and neutralizing them.

“The results were really exciting,” she says and especially since cellulose is already used as filler and stabilizer in many vitamin products. One day those products may be super-charged free radical neutralizers thanks to NCC, she hopes.

Jeff Hicks’ May 8, 2012 story for TheRecord.com about Tam and her NCC work offers some insight into the young scientist and the scientific process,

Janelle, 16, is admittedly stubborn.

Gets it from her dad Michael, a University of Waterloo chemical engineering professor.

…

… you’ve got to have gumption to spend three to four hours a day in a University of Waterloo lab from September to March to invent a disease-fighting, anti-aging compound.

…

A frustrating nano-globe almost kicked her into submission last December.

Three months into her work she realized she had messed up. Her experimental technique was flawed. Her results were as worthless as Leafs playoff tickets.

Janelle wanted to give up. She told her mom Dorothy, a literacy social worker, she was never returning to the lab. Her older sister and former Team Canada science partner Vivienne, could not be leaned on for advice. Vivienne, 19, had left for Princeton.

…

But Janelle’s dad settled her down.

“He’s one of the most perseverant people I know,” she said. “He tells me that research is about failing and failing and failing. And failures are all steps on the way to success.”

Tam will be in Boston, Massachusetts for June 18, 2012 to compete in Sanofi’s International BioGENEius Challenge, which takes place at the same time as Sanofi’s  BIO Annual International Convention. For anyone who’s curious about Sanofi, it’s a French multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Paris, France. I found the Wikipedia essay a little more informative than the Sanofi company website .

(For a mild change of pace) So, Sanofi is a large French company which sponsors this contest . Are Canadian companies sponsoring contests of this type? I ask the question because Canadian companies don’t invest in research and development at the same rate as companies in other countries and, it appears, do less to stimulate  interest and participation in science pursuits amongst youth. Developing an innovative society means having a much more comprehensive approach than publicity campaigns and retooling government funding programmes.

Getting back to Tam’s work, congratulations! This is very exciting stuff especially in light of some of the concerns expressed in Bertrand Marotte’s recent article on NCC for the Globe and Mail newspaper, mentioned in my May 8, 2012 posting.

There’s more than one NCC, which I’ve used exclusively as an abbreviation for nanocystalline cellulose. There’s also nanocrystalline Cobalt according to the May 9, 2012 news item on Nanowerk highlighting another NCC and Toronto’s Integran Technologies, Inc.,

Toronto-based Integran Technologies, Inc. (Integran) today announced that it has reached an agreement with Enduro Industries LLC (Enduro) to extend Enduro’s license exclusivity term for Integran’s nanocrystalline Cobalt electroplating process, Nanovate™ CoP, in the US fluid power market by five years.

Enduro Industries LLC of Hannibal, Missouri, a subsidiary of PTC Alliance, and a major manufacturer of hard chrome steel bars and tubes for the fluid power industry, has successfully marketed a corrosion and wear resistant Nano-CobaltTM alternative alongside its conventional engineered hard chrome (EHC) ChromerodTM and Chromrod ExtremeTM product lines.

I notice they don’t use the NCC abbreviation; I imagine they would prefer to avoid any confusion.  Integran’s company president and CEO (Chief Executive Officer), Gino Palumbo goes on to hint at further developments due to this renewed licensing agreement but offers no details, from the news item,

“Furthermore, this agreement will now extend to other Cobalt-based Nanovate coatings systems and a new field repair process recently developed by Integran.”

I have mentioned Integran before, most recently in an April 16, 2012 posting about a Canadian federal government investment in the company and in a March 26, 2012 posting about a deal with Pratt & Whitney Canada.

According to the May 4, 2012 Abakan, Inc. press release on BusinessWire,

Due to the prevalent favorable conditions to set up operations in Alberta, Canada, Abakan Inc.’s (otcqb:ABKI) Board of Directors has decided to locate a collaborative research and development center for wear resistant materials in Alberta, Canada. …

Upon initiation of Alberta operations under subsidiary MTC Corporation (Mesocoat Technologies Canada Corporation), Abakan will collaborate with the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT), and the Alberta Innovates Technology Futures’ (AITF) advanced materials team and infrastructure. MTC Corporation will leverage Alberta’s world-class research institutes to reduce technical execution risk and accelerate the development, validation, and market entry of MesoCoat’s revolutionary, low cost and high performance nanocomposite materials and high productivity cladding process into the oil sands, mining and mineral processing industries in Alberta and elsewhere.

…

The Alberta location offers significant growth opportunities for MesoCoat; with announced capital investments in the oil sands industry due to triple production in the next four years markets for wear resistant materials are also expected to grow proportionately from $350M/year to over $1B/year. MesoCoat’s CermaClad technology offers the highest productivity and lowest life cycle cost of any application technology in the market today. MesoCoat’s CermaClad technology offers the ability to produce high-quality weld overlays 15-40X faster, and with dramatically improved microstructures and performance compared to legacy weld overlay processes. MTC Corporation’s Alberta development activities will accelerate the commercial readiness of MesoCoat’s low cost nanocomposite overlay materials, which in laboratory testing have shown 3X lower wear rate than current available overlay products at comparable cost structures.

I haven’t found any announcements from government (provincial [Alberta] or federal [Canada]) agencies, which is a bit surprising. They are usually very happy to take some credit for attracting business.

You can find more about Abakan here and about MesoCoat here.

According to the May 4, 2012 Abakan, Inc. press release on BusinessWire,

Due to the prevalent favorable conditions to set up operations in Alberta, Canada, Abakan Inc.’s (otcqb:ABKI) Board of Directors has decided to locate a collaborative research and development center for wear resistant materials in Alberta, Canada. …

Upon initiation of Alberta operations under subsidiary MTC Corporation (Mesocoat Technologies Canada Corporation), Abakan will collaborate with the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT), and the Alberta Innovates Technology Futures’ (AITF) advanced materials team and infrastructure. MTC Corporation will leverage Alberta’s world-class research institutes to reduce technical execution risk and accelerate the development, validation, and market entry of MesoCoat’s revolutionary, low cost and high performance nanocomposite materials and high productivity cladding process into the oil sands, mining and mineral processing industries in Alberta and elsewhere.

…

The Alberta location offers significant growth opportunities for MesoCoat; with announced capital investments in the oil sands industry due to triple production in the next four years markets for wear resistant materials are also expected to grow proportionately from $350M/year to over $1B/year. MesoCoat’s CermaClad technology offers the highest productivity and lowest life cycle cost of any application technology in the market today. MesoCoat’s CermaClad technology offers the ability to produce high-quality weld overlays 15-40X faster, and with dramatically improved microstructures and performance compared to legacy weld overlay processes. MTC Corporation’s Alberta development activities will accelerate the commercial readiness of MesoCoat’s low cost nanocomposite overlay materials, which in laboratory testing have shown 3X lower wear rate than current available overlay products at comparable cost structures.

I haven’t found any announcements from government (provincial [Alberta] or federal [Canada]) agencies, which is a bit surprising. They are usually very happy to take some credit for attracting business.

You can find more about Abakan here and about MesoCoat here.

The world’s biggest trade fair for the printing industry, DRUPA; International Trade Fair for prepress, premedia, printing, book binding, print finishing and paper converting,  is being held May 3 – 16th, 2012 in Düsseldorf, Germany. This year’s presentations include one about paper loudspeakers (from the May 2, 2012 news item on Nanowerk),

At drupa print media fair, … , the Institute for Print and Media Technology of Chemnitz University of Technology (pmTUC) presents new research results, which truly make you prick up your ears: Loudspeakers that have been printed with flexography on standard paper. The R&D group of Prof. Dr. Arved Hübler, head of pmTUC, is co-exhibitor of press manufacturer Windmöller & Hölscher KG (Lengerich) …

I’m always curious as to just how practical these things might be and, oddly, they don’t offer an audio file or video file demonstrating the loudspeaker’s effectiveness although there is this video about pmTUC’s participation in DRUPA 2012,

Here’s what they have to say about the paper loudspeakers (from the news item),

The printed paper loudspeaker is connected to an audio amplifier like a conventional loudspeaker. “Frequency response and hence sound quality are very good and the paper is surprisingly loud. Just the bass of the paper-based loudspeaker is a bit weak”, explains Dr. Georg Schmidt, senior researcher at pmTUC. The thin loudspeakers, which are printed in the laboratories of pmTUC, contain several layers of a conductive organic polymer and a piezoactive layer. According to project assistant Maxi Bellmann the loudspeakers are astonishingly robust and can be produced in a very cheap way as mass printing methods are used. The bottom side of the paper loudspeaker provides unused space on which coloured messages can be printed.

Prof. Hübler expects a broad range of new applications: The paper loudspeakers could, for instance, be integrated into common print products. As such, they offer an enormous potential for the advertising segment. “In addition, sound wallpapers and purely technical applications, e.g., distance sensors, are possible, because the papers are also active in the ultrasound range”, says Hübler and adds: “As printing allows for different formats and forms, there is the possibility to influence the generated sound waves.”

As I understand it, Hübler is predicting that the graphic arts/printing industry is going to change from adding ink to paper to something entirely different, printed electronics. There’s more about that in the May 2, 2012 news item.

This reminded me that in 2008, Xerox announced a major investment in Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT). Details were pretty fuzzy (from the Xerox June [?] 2008  press release),

In Canada’s first major public-private nanotechnology research partnership, the Xerox Research Centre of Canada (XRCC), NRC National Institute for Nanotechnology (NINT) and Government of Alberta will provide approximately $4.5 million for research and development of materials-based nanotechnology over the next three years.

The three partners will invest funds, human resources, and available infrastructures to create a research program and teams focused on developing commercially successful nanotechnology-based discoveries. Personnel from NINT and XRCC will collaborate on research projects at NINT in Edmonton, Alberta, and at XRCC in Mississauga, Ontario.

The funds will contribute to the hiring of eight to 10 scientists who will investigate materials-based nanotechnologies, including document- and display-related technologies. The research program, co-managed by XRCC and NINT, will allow access to Xerox’s experience in successfully commercializing technology to facilitate the market application of resulting inventions.

“This level of public and private sector partnership helps fuel the type of innovation that will keep Alberta, and Canada as a whole, strong and competitive in an increasingly global, knowledge-based economy,” said Doug Horner, minister for Advanced Education and Technology, Government of Alberta. “The investments from the Government of Alberta, Xerox and NINT will build a world-class nanotechnology research program that embraces the spirit of innovation, but also that of commercialization.”

XRCC was established in 1974 to develop the materials used by Xerox Corp. globally, and began nanotechnology-enabled research efforts several years ago. It has already developed successfully commercial materials, including ‘EA Toner’, a unique technology for making more cost-effective and environmentally efficient toner for printers. XRCC will now be able to expand its nanotechnology efforts.

While  a toner is mentioned, it’s not clear what inventions and materials they are trying to create either in the Xerox press release or Canada’s National Research Council (NINT is an NRC institute) June 8, 2018 news release. In any event, I cannot find any other announcements about this Xexox/NINT research project, which has now ended.

One of the scientists on a research team at Trent University (Ontario, Canada) is claiming that safety questions about nanomaterials are not being asked and so the team is embarking on a study of silver nanoparticles and their impact on a lake ecosystem. From the May 2, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Dr. Chris Metcalfe, professor and director of the Institute for Watershed Science at Trent University, is the principal investigator on the Lake Ecosystem Nanosilver (LENS) project with Trent researchers, Drs. Maggie Xenopoulos, Holger Hintelmann and Paul Frost, and colleagues from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada.

“This is a high profile project that will have the eyes of the scientific community on Trent,” said Professor Metcalfe. “We’re fortunate that we have four world-class researchers on our team.” Over the past decade, tiny substances called nanomaterials have become part of our daily lives.

It’s possible that the clothes you’re wearing, or the sunscreen you just applied, contain nanomaterials. Because of this growing use, there is now concern that nanomaterials may pose threats to the environment.

“We have seen an exponential growth in the use of nanomaterials,” said Professor Xenopoulos, an associate professor in the Biology department at Trent University. “However, questions of safety are not being asked.” [emphasis mine]

Likely the claim is a little overenthusiasm or a lack of clarity on the speaker’s part since there has been more than one study about nanosilver particles and safety, including one at Purdue University mentioned in a March 4, 2010 posting on the Beyond Pesticides blog. The Purdue study (The effects of silver nanoparticles on fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) embryos) is behind a paywall.

Here’s a bit more about silver nanoparticles and the LENS study,

While the benefits of nanomaterials are recognized, we know little about their risks to health and the environment. Due to their extremely small size, nanomaterials interact with cells and organic molecules, raising questions about their impact on organisms.

Due to their antibacterial properties, nanosilver particles are among the most widely-used nanomaterials in consumer goods. Clothing, home appliances, paint, bandages and food storage containers are a few of the products which may contain nanosilver. As we use and dispose of these products, there is a risk that nanosilvers will travel through our municipal water systems into our lakes and rivers.

The research team is working to understand the effect of nanosilver particles on the aquatic environment. Initial laboratory research conducted at Trent indicates that nanosilver can strongly affect aquatic organisms at the bottom of the food chain, such as bacteria, algae and zooplankton.

To further examine these effects in a real ecosystem, the team is conducting a study at the Experimental Lakes Area, near Kenora, in northwestern Ontario.

The LENS project will monitor changes in a lake’s ecosystem that occur after the addition of nanosilver. It will follow nanosilver as it travels through the lake ecosystem, track effects through the entire food web, and determine how resulting changes alter ecosystem function.

There’s more about the LENS project on the Trent University LENS (Lake Ecosystem Nanosilver) Project page (excerpt),

Our previous laboratory research has shown that nanosilver in the aquatic environment first affect organisms at the bottom of the food chain, including bacteria, algae and zooplankton. These responses may have devastating effects upon aquatic ecosystems by reducing overall productivity and altering the cycling of nutrients, such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. There may be compensatory mechanisms within aquatic ecosystems that can mitigate these responses, but it is impossible to predict these responses using laboratory studies. Through support from the Strategic Grants Program of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Environment Canada, a team of researchers from Trent University, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada will conduct a study at the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) in northwestern Ontario by adding nanoform silver to a small lake over two summer field seasons ion 2013-14. During nano-silver additions, we will monitor the lake for changes to nutrient cycling and the biological effects within the entire food chain. However, in 2012, before starting the lake additions, we will refine our approach by determining what happens in mesocosms (i.e. plastic tubes) that are deployed in lakes. ELA has been used for over 40 years as a living laboratory to study the effects of pollutants in the environment, including past studies of the impacts of pollution from phosphorus, acid deposition, mercury and endocrine disruptors. These studies have resulted in policies to reduce the impacts of pollution. While we do not take lightly the impact that this study will have upon a lake in ELA, this approach is the only way to determine ecosystem level impacts and to influence regulatory policy regarding the ecological risks of NMs.

This is a three-year project, which starts this year (2012).

It seems there a number of reports concerning the US National Nanotechnology Initiative and their efforts and responses to the PCAST 2010 recommendations (I commented on another of their reports in my Dec. 13, 2011 posting). This fourth report/assessment was submitted by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and focuses on efforts from various government agencies to follow recommendations from that 2010 PCAST assessment and set of recommendations.

According to the April 27, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

PCAST found that the Federal agencies in the NNI have made substantial progress in addressing many of the 2010 recommendations that were aimed at maintaining U.S. leadership in nanotechnology. One of the primary goals of the NNI is to stay ahead of heavily-investing competitors such as China, South Korea, the European Union, and Russia. Overall, PCAST concluded that the NNI remains a successful cooperative venture that is supporting high-quality research, facilitating the translation of discoveries into new commercial products, and ensuring the Nation’s continued global leadership in this important field.

The PCAST assessment particularly commends the expanded efforts of the NNCO [National Nanotechnology Coordination Office] in the area of commercialization and coordination with industry, and the NNCO’s release of a focused research strategy for addressing environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology. In addition, the assessment recognizes NNI’s strong and growing portfolio of research on the societal implications of nanotechnology, nanotechnology education, and public outreach.

Dexter Johnson at his Nanoclast blog on the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) website comments in his May 1, 2012 posting,

Okay, pat on the back, job well done…uh, wait, there are still some new recommendations that PCAST would like to see addressed.  You can find them in the PDF of the full report on page vii. They fall into the areas of strategic planning, program management, metrics for assessing nanotechnology’s commercial and societal impacts, and…wait for it…increased support for EHS research.

Additional support for EHS research might be a required element for every PCAST report in the future. More interesting to me, however, is this continued emphasis on improved “metrics for assessing nanotechnology’s commercial and societal impacts.”

Dexter goes on to observe that many countries and corporations are interested in better metrics regarding  nanotechnology and its impacts and hints that he has a few ideas for better metrics.

I’ve looked at the report and found, to my surprise, mention of Canada. In analyzing the US NNI efforts, they also compare US government funding and corporate to that in other countries. On page 14 (print version; p. 30 PDF) of the PCAST 4th Assessment of the NNI, there’s a table which shows the top 10 countries for spending on nanotechnology,

As you can see, Canadian funding has been relatively flat throughout 2008 – 2010. It appears to have decreased slightly in 2009 and remained the same in 2010.

Aside: I’d dearly love to know how they sourced their data. A couple of years ago, a Canadian Member of Parliament (Peter Julian) asked for similar figures and received some 80 pages of Excel spreadsheets from various department listing any number of research projects that had been funded. (I’d asked Julian’s parliamentary assistant for a copy of the government’s response to his question, which is how I came to see that mess of paper.)

For anyone familiar with the Canadian scene (industrial research in Canada is rare), this next chart won’t be any surprise, from page 14 (print version; p. 30 PDF) of the PCAST 4th Assessment of the NNI,

However, this may be a surprise, from page 15 (print version; p. 31 PDF) of the PCAST 4th Assessment of the NNI,

Good grief! Canada is in the top five countries for venture capital spending on nanotechnology. Of course, we had our banner year in 2008, with quite a dip in 2009 but it looks like we rebounded mildly in 2010.

It’s always interesting for me to analyze the US nanotechnology efforts in relationship to the Canadian efforts (as well as, getting a sense of the international scene). Actually, I can’t analyze our efforts since the Canadian government doesn’t tend to share information (or provides reams of meaningless data) with its citizens so I’m driven to finding it in US government documents and materials provided by international governmental organizations such as the OECD (Organization for Econ0mic Cooperation and Development).

Getting back to the report, which after all is about the US situation, I’m particularly interested in the recommendations for metrics (thank you, Dexter) and EHS. From page 22 (print version; p. 38 PDF) of the PCAST 4th Assessment of the NNI (I have edited out some footnotes),

Agencies should develop a mission-appropriate definition of nanotechnology that enables the tracking of specific nanotechnology investments supported at the program level. The definition and funding details should be published in agency implementation plans to promote clarity.

This recommendation enables each agency to develop a mission-appropriate definition of nanotechnol­ogy to characterize its nanotechnology portfolio. Requiring each agency to publish its definition and the resulting budget allocations will improve clarity across the Federal nanotechnology portfolio and ensure that nanotechnology investments are accurately characterized.

The NNCO should track the development of metrics for quantifying the Federal nanotechnology portfolio and implement them to assess NNI outputs.

Current Federal efforts to measure public and private investment, scientific productivity, and workforce have been inconsistent and decentralized. The publication of agency-specific data will enable the NNCO to consistently track nanotechnology investments across the Federal government and enable it to report NNI impacts with greater confidence and transparency.

There is an extensive and growing body of high-quality academic research that is already working toward the establishment of nanotechnology metrics by drawing upon bibliometrics data from the public domain (e.g., publication and patent data). … Bibliometrics data are used as indicators of productivity beyond academia, often in the absence of other metrics from the private sector. As nanotechnology continues to mature and move closer toward commercialization, efforts to more accurately capture economic returns are picking up pace. Examples include the March 2012 International Symposium on Assessing Economic Impacts of Nanotechnologies sponsored jointly by the NNI and the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development held in Washington, DC, [mentioned in my March 29, 2012 posting] as well as the upcoming 2012 National Research Council review of the NNI.

A final area in need of metrics development is in the quantification of the nanotechnology workforce.  [emphasis mine] Accurately categorizing agency-level nanotechnology investments will facilitate the identification of nanotechnology trainees, including the academic, scientific, and professional nanotechnology workforce for which there is currently a paucity of data…. One area where such tracking would have significant impact is in the identification of nanotechnology-related jobs for which there are no standard occu­pational codes. Good data on the workforce will enable the implementation of additional measures to identify and mitigate future threats to occupational health and safety.

PCAST recommends that NNCO serve as a central repository to collect these metrics and leverage advances in metrics-development to collect, track, and analyze data regarding publications, patents, educational activities, and the workforce to produce and publish its own statistics on behalf of the NSET. This under­taking is an integral component of cross-agency coordination of the Federal nanotechnology portfolio.

That first recommendation seems problematic. The notion of agencies developing mission-specific definitions of nanotechnology, as recommended, sets the stage for multiple and competing definitions in a situation where you want to standardize as much as possible.

Unfortunately, the alternative is not an improvement. An attempt to standardize across all agencies would most probably lead to years of meetings and discussions before anything was ever measured.

I’m not quite as confident about bibliometrics as the authors of this report are but, as they hint, oftentimes it’s the only quantifiable data available. While there is much talk about establishing other metrics, there is no hint as to how this will be done or who will do it or whether money will be allocated for this purpose.

The recommendations for further EHS research, from pp. 22-3 (print version; pp. 38-9 PDF) of the PCAST 4th Assessment of the NNI, include (I have edited out a reference to an appendix),

The NSET should establish high-level, cross-agency authoritative and accountable governance of Federal nanotechnology-related EHS research so that the knowledge created as a result of Federal investments can better inform policy makers.

PCAST acknowledges that the NSET has acted on our recommendation to identify a central coordina­tor for nanotechnology-related EHS research within NNCO. The EHS coordinator has done a laudable job developing and communicating the 2011 NNI EHS research strategy. However, there is still a lack of integration between nanotechnology-related EHS research funded through the NNI and the kind of information policy makers need to effectively manage potential risks from nanomaterials. The estab­lishment of the Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee (ETIPC) through OSTP has begun to bridge that gap, but without close integration between ETIPC and the NEHI working group, the gap may not be sufficiently narrowed. OSTP and the NSET Subcommittee should expand the charter of the NEHI working group to enable the group to address cross-agency nanotechnology-related policy issues more broadly.

The NSET should increase investment in cross-cutting areas of EHS that promote knowledge transfer such as informatics, partnerships, and instrumentation development.

The 2011 NNI EHS research strategy acknowledges the critical role that informatics, partnerships, and instrumentation development play in a comprehensive approach to addressing nanotechnology risks to human health and the environment. Nascent efforts in informatics should be supported so that advances can be accelerated in this critical cross-cutting area. Rather than continue to support the proliferation of databases that results from many new nano-EHS projects, the effort should be directed at enabling diverse communities to extract meaningful information from each other’s work. New networks that connect researchers together, along with new tools for extracting information from Federally funded research, should be established and supported through the NNI. The findings of the December 2011 workshop to establish a Nanoinformatics 2020 Roadmap19 in conjunction with the 2011 NNI EHS research strategy can serve as a guide for new work in this area.

Significant progress has been made in the area of partnerships with numerous examples of mul­tistakeholder and interagency collaboration underway. One of these is the Nanorelease Project,20 which brings together five NNI agencies, non-governmental organizations, a labor union, and several companies, among others, to develop methods for measuring the release of nanomaterials from com­mercial products. A specific area where better coordination could occur is in the area of occupational safety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) should work with companies in a non-enforcement capacity to develop better tools for hazard communication similar to the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety’s (NIOSH) partnership program. This is especially important as the United States seeks to bring its hazard communication standard in alignment with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. Greater engagement by OSHA would also begin to address some of the difficulties companies face in implementing good health and safety programs in their nanomaterial workplaces …

New modes of international cooperation, such as the joint funding of two environmental-impacts consortia by the EPA and the United Kingdom, have also emerged since the 2010 PCAST report. The NNI should increase funding for these cross-cutting activities to leverage the U.S. investment in nanotechnology-related EHS research.

The wealth of abbreviations makes this section a little hard to read. As I understand it, the recommendations are aimed at improving use of their current and future resources by better coordinating the research efforts, sharing data (with a special eye to providing information policymakers can use effectively), and collaborating internationally on EHS research.

It seems there a number of reports concerning the US National Nanotechnology Initiative and their efforts and responses to the PCAST 2010 recommendations (I commented on another of their reports in my Dec. 13, 2011 posting). This fourth report/assessment was submitted by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and focuses on efforts from various government agencies to follow recommendations from that 2010 PCAST assessment and set of recommendations.

According to the April 27, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

PCAST found that the Federal agencies in the NNI have made substantial progress in addressing many of the 2010 recommendations that were aimed at maintaining U.S. leadership in nanotechnology. One of the primary goals of the NNI is to stay ahead of heavily-investing competitors such as China, South Korea, the European Union, and Russia. Overall, PCAST concluded that the NNI remains a successful cooperative venture that is supporting high-quality research, facilitating the translation of discoveries into new commercial products, and ensuring the Nation’s continued global leadership in this important field.

The PCAST assessment particularly commends the expanded efforts of the NNCO [National Nanotechnology Coordination Office] in the area of commercialization and coordination with industry, and the NNCO’s release of a focused research strategy for addressing environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology. In addition, the assessment recognizes NNI’s strong and growing portfolio of research on the societal implications of nanotechnology, nanotechnology education, and public outreach.

Dexter Johnson at his Nanoclast blog on the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) website comments in his May 1, 2012 posting,

Okay, pat on the back, job well done…uh, wait, there are still some new recommendations that PCAST would like to see addressed.  You can find them in the PDF of the full report on page vii. They fall into the areas of strategic planning, program management, metrics for assessing nanotechnology’s commercial and societal impacts, and…wait for it…increased support for EHS research.

Additional support for EHS research might be a required element for every PCAST report in the future. More interesting to me, however, is this continued emphasis on improved “metrics for assessing nanotechnology’s commercial and societal impacts.”

Dexter goes on to observe that many countries and corporations are interested in better metrics regarding  nanotechnology and its impacts and hints that he has a few ideas for better metrics.

I’ve looked at the report and found, to my surprise, mention of Canada. In analyzing the US NNI efforts, they also compare US government funding and corporate to that in other countries. On page 14 (print version; p. 30 PDF) of the PCAST 4th Assessment of the NNI, there’s a table which shows the top 10 countries for spending on nanotechnology,

As you can see, Canadian funding has been relatively flat throughout 2008 – 2010. It appears to have decreased slightly in 2009 and remained the same in 2010.

Aside: I’d dearly love to know how they sourced their data. A couple of years ago, a Canadian Member of Parliament (Peter Julian) asked for similar figures and received some 80 pages of Excel spreadsheets from various department listing any number of research projects that had been funded. (I’d asked Julian’s parliamentary assistant for a copy of the government’s response to his question, which is how I came to see that mess of paper.)

For anyone familiar with the Canadian scene (industrial research in Canada is rare), this next chart won’t be any surprise, from page 14 (print version; p. 30 PDF) of the PCAST 4th Assessment of the NNI,

However, this may be a surprise, from page 15 (print version; p. 31 PDF) of the PCAST 4th Assessment of the NNI,

Good grief! Canada is in the top five countries for venture capital spending on nanotechnology. Of course, we had our banner year in 2008, with quite a dip in 2009 but it looks like we rebounded mildly in 2010.

It’s always interesting for me to analyze the US nanotechnology efforts in relationship to the Canadian efforts (as well as, getting a sense of the international scene). Actually, I can’t analyze our efforts since the Canadian government doesn’t tend to share information (or provides reams of meaningless data) with its citizens so I’m driven to finding it in US government documents and materials provided by international governmental organizations such as the OECD (Organization for Econ0mic Cooperation and Development).

Getting back to the report, which after all is about the US situation, I’m particularly interested in the recommendations for metrics (thank you, Dexter) and EHS. From page 22 (print version; p. 38 PDF) of the PCAST 4th Assessment of the NNI (I have edited out some footnotes),

Agencies should develop a mission-appropriate definition of nanotechnology that enables the tracking of specific nanotechnology investments supported at the program level. The definition and funding details should be published in agency implementation plans to promote clarity.

This recommendation enables each agency to develop a mission-appropriate definition of nanotechnol­ogy to characterize its nanotechnology portfolio. Requiring each agency to publish its definition and the resulting budget allocations will improve clarity across the Federal nanotechnology portfolio and ensure that nanotechnology investments are accurately characterized.

The NNCO should track the development of metrics for quantifying the Federal nanotechnology portfolio and implement them to assess NNI outputs.

Current Federal efforts to measure public and private investment, scientific productivity, and workforce have been inconsistent and decentralized. The publication of agency-specific data will enable the NNCO to consistently track nanotechnology investments across the Federal government and enable it to report NNI impacts with greater confidence and transparency.

There is an extensive and growing body of high-quality academic research that is already working toward the establishment of nanotechnology metrics by drawing upon bibliometrics data from the public domain (e.g., publication and patent data). … Bibliometrics data are used as indicators of productivity beyond academia, often in the absence of other metrics from the private sector. As nanotechnology continues to mature and move closer toward commercialization, efforts to more accurately capture economic returns are picking up pace. Examples include the March 2012 International Symposium on Assessing Economic Impacts of Nanotechnologies sponsored jointly by the NNI and the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development held in Washington, DC, [mentioned in my March 29, 2012 posting] as well as the upcoming 2012 National Research Council review of the NNI.

A final area in need of metrics development is in the quantification of the nanotechnology workforce.  [emphasis mine] Accurately categorizing agency-level nanotechnology investments will facilitate the identification of nanotechnology trainees, including the academic, scientific, and professional nanotechnology workforce for which there is currently a paucity of data…. One area where such tracking would have significant impact is in the identification of nanotechnology-related jobs for which there are no standard occu­pational codes. Good data on the workforce will enable the implementation of additional measures to identify and mitigate future threats to occupational health and safety.

PCAST recommends that NNCO serve as a central repository to collect these metrics and leverage advances in metrics-development to collect, track, and analyze data regarding publications, patents, educational activities, and the workforce to produce and publish its own statistics on behalf of the NSET. This under­taking is an integral component of cross-agency coordination of the Federal nanotechnology portfolio.

That first recommendation seems problematic. The notion of agencies developing mission-specific definitions of nanotechnology, as recommended, sets the stage for multiple and competing definitions in a situation where you want to standardize as much as possible.

Unfortunately, the alternative is not an improvement. An attempt to standardize across all agencies would most probably lead to years of meetings and discussions before anything was ever measured.

I’m not quite as confident about bibliometrics as the authors of this report are but, as they hint, oftentimes it’s the only quantifiable data available. While there is much talk about establishing other metrics, there is no hint as to how this will be done or who will do it or whether money will be allocated for this purpose.

The recommendations for further EHS research, from pp. 22-3 (print version; pp. 38-9 PDF) of the PCAST 4th Assessment of the NNI, include (I have edited out a reference to an appendix),

The NSET should establish high-level, cross-agency authoritative and accountable governance of Federal nanotechnology-related EHS research so that the knowledge created as a result of Federal investments can better inform policy makers.

PCAST acknowledges that the NSET has acted on our recommendation to identify a central coordina­tor for nanotechnology-related EHS research within NNCO. The EHS coordinator has done a laudable job developing and communicating the 2011 NNI EHS research strategy. However, there is still a lack of integration between nanotechnology-related EHS research funded through the NNI and the kind of information policy makers need to effectively manage potential risks from nanomaterials. The estab­lishment of the Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee (ETIPC) through OSTP has begun to bridge that gap, but without close integration between ETIPC and the NEHI working group, the gap may not be sufficiently narrowed. OSTP and the NSET Subcommittee should expand the charter of the NEHI working group to enable the group to address cross-agency nanotechnology-related policy issues more broadly.

The NSET should increase investment in cross-cutting areas of EHS that promote knowledge transfer such as informatics, partnerships, and instrumentation development.

The 2011 NNI EHS research strategy acknowledges the critical role that informatics, partnerships, and instrumentation development play in a comprehensive approach to addressing nanotechnology risks to human health and the environment. Nascent efforts in informatics should be supported so that advances can be accelerated in this critical cross-cutting area. Rather than continue to support the proliferation of databases that results from many new nano-EHS projects, the effort should be directed at enabling diverse communities to extract meaningful information from each other’s work. New networks that connect researchers together, along with new tools for extracting information from Federally funded research, should be established and supported through the NNI. The findings of the December 2011 workshop to establish a Nanoinformatics 2020 Roadmap19 in conjunction with the 2011 NNI EHS research strategy can serve as a guide for new work in this area.

Significant progress has been made in the area of partnerships with numerous examples of mul­tistakeholder and interagency collaboration underway. One of these is the Nanorelease Project,20 which brings together five NNI agencies, non-governmental organizations, a labor union, and several companies, among others, to develop methods for measuring the release of nanomaterials from com­mercial products. A specific area where better coordination could occur is in the area of occupational safety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) should work with companies in a non-enforcement capacity to develop better tools for hazard communication similar to the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety’s (NIOSH) partnership program. This is especially important as the United States seeks to bring its hazard communication standard in alignment with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. Greater engagement by OSHA would also begin to address some of the difficulties companies face in implementing good health and safety programs in their nanomaterial workplaces …

New modes of international cooperation, such as the joint funding of two environmental-impacts consortia by the EPA and the United Kingdom, have also emerged since the 2010 PCAST report. The NNI should increase funding for these cross-cutting activities to leverage the U.S. investment in nanotechnology-related EHS research.

The wealth of abbreviations makes this section a little hard to read. As I understand it, the recommendations are aimed at improving use of their current and future resources by better coordinating the research efforts, sharing data (with a special eye to providing information policymakers can use effectively), and collaborating internationally on EHS research.

Capt. Peter McBride Ottawa (Canada) Fire Services declared that nanotechnology has been proven unsafe at a Fire Dept. Instructors Conference (FDIC)  in Indianapolis (US), which was held April 16-21, 2012. From the April 24, 2012 article by Ed Ballam for Firehouse.com,

Firefighters and responders have known for decades that smoke is harmful to their health, but the latest studies have shown that the microscopic materials that become airborne during fires are far more deadly than ever realized. That’s because of the proliferation of nanotechnology – particles that are one billionth of a meter in size – that are found in today’s consumer products.

Capt. Peter McBride Ottawa (Canada) Fire Services spoke of the dangers of nanotechnologies, which contain known cancer causing materials, at the Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC) in Indianapolis. He is a safety officer in Ottawa, responsible for the health and safety of the firefighters in his department.

I’m not sure how McBride determined that these particles were cancer-causing or exactly which particles he’s discussing.  From the article,

He became acutely interested in nanotechnologies when a huge downtown sporting goods store burned and belched acrid black smoke for blocks. Carbon fiber sporting goods, including thousands of skis, burned and emitted microscopic particles that coated everything, particularly his white department-issued SUV. He noticed stubborn black deposits on the SUV that just wouldn’t come off.

…

Realizing smoke was an inherent hazard of firefighting, he set out to see exactly what that black goop was on his SUV and how to best protect his crews from its hazards.

…

And what he found is that when material with nanotechnology burns, it emits dangerous particulates.

In a sporting goods store fire, I’d expect carbon nanotubes and silver nanoparticles in the particulate matter as these are commonly used in sporting goods. If there were other nanoparticles created as a consequence of the fire, I’d like to know which ones.

On a more general note, we have been ingesting more nanoparticles than we know. For example, burning diesel gas which we have been inhaling for decades also emits dangerous particulates at the nanoscale as we recently found out (my Oct. 7, 2012 posting on diesel gas honey bees [scroll down 1/2 way]).

Getting back to firefighters and nanotechnology, my concern is that McBride is making a claim without supporting data as he does here in the article,

“I am not against nanotechnologies,” McBride said. “I am against us not doing anything to protect ourselves from the known dangers.” [emphasis mine]

Who knows about these dangers? I haven’t seen a single claim from a researcher about the ‘known dangers’ of nano: particles/materials/technologies. In fact, it’s the uncertainty that’s disturbing.

I’m not the only with issues about this piece, commenters have quickly noted the problems, from the article webpage (I fixed some minor typos),

Bmayo

I’m sorry but Captain Mc Bride is very mistaken In the world of engineering and science there is a huge difference between. .Nano and micro, micro is thousands of time larger than nano-particles. also the idea of keeping and using a the SCBA until the fire is totally out is nothing new. The fire service has been teaching this for over 30 years.

Antimatter

yeah, it’s just the specific mention of carcinogenicity, mentioned twice, that i want evidence for. that’s not a word you toss around casually in this industry.

Adam Sawyer

There are some legitimate health risks with certain types of combustible nanoparticles/nanofibers, but just because a product has “nanotechnology” in it does not necessarily mean it’s dangerous.  The challenge will be for fire safety researchers and toxicologists to collaborate and figure out what’s getting into the air and at what concentration.  Study it the same way plastics were studied decades ago and we’ll figure out which materials cause problems and which don’t.

Chris

Yep,,,,,The joys of Firefighting …

Rseitzsr13

Very Very good article

Antimatter

I’m a safety trainer, and any small particulates can be hazardous, but I’d like information on the “known cancer causing materials.” I’ve never seen anything alleging that before, and if you have references, please list them.

No one could possibly fault McBride for his concerns about safety and it’s certainly true new nanotechnology-enabled products could pose special hazards. If McBride has data that supports his contention, I, like Antimatter, would like to see the references. I’d also appreciate a little more specificity with the terminology.

The 4th edition of the Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) will take place in Calgary, Alberta as I hinted (I also suggested that Edmonton was in contention)  in my Feb. 20, 2012 posting. If you have an interest in presenting at the conference, this is the time to submit your session proposals.  From the April 23, 2012 CSPC notice,

Call for Canadian Science Policy Conference 2012 Sessions

Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) 2012 is inviting members of the science policy community to submit proposals for the conference program Nov 5-6, 2012 in Calgary, Alberta. All submissions must be received online by end of day June 8, 2012.

This year’s conference sessions will be under the following 4 themes:

Innovating on energy supply and demand for more sustainable resource management: a critical test for the integration of science, technology and policy
Re-imagining Canadian Healthcare: How innovation in science and policy can contribute to a more sustainable system
Food, Fuel and Farmers: Agriculture at the convergence of multi-disciplinary science policy issues
Science-Technology-Society-Nexus

CSPC has become the focal point for Canadian science policy issues, in large part because of the active participation it encourages from the science policy community. Bringing together professionals from business, academia, government and non-profit, CSPC provides an annual forum to discuss the most relevant issues to science, technology and innovation in Canada during its conference sessions. Help shape this year’s dialogue by submitting your session proposal now!

There are more details at the CSPC 2012 website including this excerpt from the conference’s Themes page,

Re-imagining Canadian Healthcare: How innovation in science and policy can contribute to a more sustainable system?

Canadian healthcare spending has been rising steadily over the past few decades with health expenditure to GDP ratios rising from 7% in 1979 to a peak at almost 12% in 2009. Canada, like many nations, has a population that is getting older, living longer, and demanding quality care as well as improvements to the universal healthcare system. Innovation can contribute to improved performance of the system, but the impacts of innovation on cost, efficiency, and health outcomes are not always straightforward.

This CSPC theme will explore the policies and approaches for innovation to positively impact the health system. It will examine innovation and policy issues that related to improving effective and efficient care, accessibility, universality, sustainability, and cost versus benefits.

Food, Fuel and Farmers: Agriculture at the convergence of multi-disciplinary science policy issues

Agriculture requires upwards of 40% of the world’s land area and over 70% of the global fresh water reserves, in turn, generating nearly $2 trillion in global revenues while feeding more than 7 billion people. The implications of agricultural practices and policies thus have a direct link to global economic, environmental and societal outcomes and impacts many other sectors. The global challenge for agriculture, therefore, is to increase production while simultaneously reducing the environmental footprint. Canadian farmers, scientists, policy makers and businesses are responding with innovations in water and land use, genetics, bioproducts and bioprocesses. Productivity isn’t just about yields any more; it’s about energy content and optimization as well as issues such as minimizing losses in the transportation and distribution systems.

This CSPC theme will explore how science is at the heart of these questions. Increasingly, we see that the next generation of farmers and ranchers need to be scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs. However, what does this mean for the universities, policies, regulation and markets that these farmers and ranchers need to thrive going forward? And what does today’s science and innovation applied to agriculture mean for agriculture, energy, environmental and trade policies in the future?

Science-Technology-Society-Nexus

Science and technology are significant pillars in our society and are increasingly transforming the world we live in as well as how we live within that world. Society expects solutions to our most pressing issues, and developments in S&T can bring answers and perspective to these issues. However, advances in S&T can also create new questions. Additionally, popular debate can polarize the public, and controversial S&T issues grow in number. It is, therefore, vital for the science policy community to identify such issues, contribute to discourse, and propose solutions or a way forward.

This theme, within the overarching context of S&T and Society, will examine a variety of issues such as engagement; education and public outreach; publication and data; peer-review; the bread and nature of the innovation system; social innovation; communication; and other major or topical issues in Canadian science policy.

Details about the proposal format, etc. are on the conference’s Submissions page,

PROPOSAL FORMAT

Please submit a brief proposal that outlines the title and subject of your session, as well as proposed speakers (including bios), format and goals of the proposed conference session. Please note the word limit on the website.
Proposals must be submitted to the CSPC program committee online at www.cspc2012.ca/presentationsubmissions.php for evaluation prior end of day June 8, 2012. CONFERENCE THEMES:

This year’s conference themes are under the 4 categories of energy, health, agriculture and major issues in science and society. The theme descriptions are under the following titles:

Innovating on energy supply and demand for more sustainable resource management: a critical test for the integration of science, technology and policy
Re-imagining Canadian Healthcare: How innovation in science and policy can contribute to a more sustainable system
Food, Fuel and Farmers: Agriculture at the convergence of multi-disciplinary science policy issues
Science-Technology-Society-Nexus

They are intended to spark some insightful exploration and debate on the issues, but more importantly they seek to highlight some of the innovative ways in which science, technology and policy can contribute to an integrated and systemic approach to solving these issues in Canada and the world.

…

EVALUATION CRITERIA:
The CSPC 2012 Program Committee will review each of the proposals and evaluate them based on the following criteria:

Quality of the proposed session: CSPC tries to cover topics that are highly relevant or timely for the science policy community in Canada to discuss. Sessions that can draw together strong speakers or facilitators on subjects that are either garnering much attention publically or politically, or that are enduring societal problems, will rank more competitively than those that don’t. Sessions with confirmed speakers will rank more competitively than those without.

Alignment with the conference objectives: The conference objectives seek to support innovation in Canada and build both community and ideas for strengthening the science policy environment. The session proposal will be evaluated on its ability to support these primary objectives.

Alignment with the conference themes: CSPC strives for a balance that dives deep enough into the issues to identify specific elements of what works and what doesn’t from planning through to implementation, yet is still able to make the discussion accessible to a broader audience. Sessions should include experts that can provide detailed examples under the CSPC 2012 themes to support their arguments, and translate those details into more transferable lessons learned and best practices.

Representation of a diverse range of speakers: CSPC doesn’t have a specific formula for evaluating session speakers, but it does embrace diversity as one of its core values. The more diverse the range of perspectives that your speakers can offer in terms of roles (government, business, academia, non-profit etc.) or discipline, gender, ethnicity, geography, experience or other aspects, the stronger your proposal will be relative to the others.

SESSION FORMAT & AUDIENCE:

Sessions are 90 minutes. Typically they have followed a panel presentation format, but some adopt more of a workshop or facilitated discussion style. CSPC has received enthusiastic feedback regarding sessions that allow for more interaction between the speakers and the delegates, and also those that bring a lively debate. Case studies and stories are easier for people to engage with than lists, facts and rhetoric. Consider challenging your speakers to be more creative when sharing their ideas.

The majority of the delegates will be fairly educated on different fields of science policy, but may not understand your field. You may want to include materials to prime the audience in order to allow your session to explore things to a greater depth. Many of the delegates are also practitioners in the science policy community, hungry for things to take back to their work beyond education and awareness. Often we’re asking people to “step outside their comfort zones” in order to foster more creativity in the way we think about and approach science, technology, policy and innovation. The more you can challenge your audience to participate in some way, such as writing down their biases or the first things that come to their mind, sharing with the person next to them what they think the key issues are, or hosting full break-out discussions the better.

Based on past attendance the majority is from academic, government, or non-profit institutions. CSPC is trying to target participants from the private sector for whom science policy is highly relevant, yet underrepresented. If you can propose a session which will engage this audience or if you have suggestions on how to better engage this sector please let us know!

Conference registration is free for speakers and facilitators.

As for suggestions about how to engage with folks from the private sector, that’s an interesting problem. I find it encouraging that they want to extend the discussion to a larger audience but I’m  not sure which part of the private sector they want to engage.  Investors? Venture capitalists? Bankers? Lawyers? Startup business owners? Big business? Accountants? Youthful entrepreneurs? New media? Gamers? etc.This gives me a lot to think about.

One small historical note, the first CSPC conference led to the creation of the Canadian Science Policy Centre which exists online here.

Good luck with your submissions!