Blog @ NanoVic - Nanotechnology Blog

It’s a problem that’s been identified across the globe- inspiring girls into careers in science and technology. Nanotechnology in particular covers a range of sciences where women have traditionally been under-represented such as the physical and computer sciences. It’s one of the questions that always puzzled me as a science undergraduate- where DO all the women in science go, there appears to be plenty around in undergraduate and at early-career stages, but at the higher levels all the senior researcher, lab head and professorship positions definitely seemed to be filled by more men than women.

So what’s going on? Is the problem in encouraging girls in school to take more of an interest in science, engineering and technology subjects? As someone working in this area, I think that encouraging all students to take a more active interest in science subjects is beneficial (of course, I would think that), but it was interesting at one workshop I went to which was based on computer science for year 9 girls, in which the initial response from a table of girls was that the workshop had been too much ‘for boys’.

I don’t think that the latest doll released over at Mattel- Space Barbie, is the answer. Do girls still even play with Barbie? I thought it was all Bratz these days (and even then only for the under-10s?) Even if they do, I don’t think Barbie is all of a sudden going to make science ‘cool’, though I can’t fault them for at least giving it a try. According to the website Space Barbie is ‘ready to learn about Space Shuttle Systems, life aboard the Space Station, how to sleep and eat in space, and more!’

For some real women in science, there’s a nice website which, though looking very clunky and old-school, does have some nice biographies of women in science in the last 4000 years. And there’s a short video documentary about a 3-year WomenInNano project funded by the EU to encourage women in nanotechnology to act as ambassadors and mentors for the field.

What do you think? Are women under-represented in nanotechnology? Is that a problem that needs addressing? Where do you start to address the problem, at school, university or career level?

Image: from Space Camp Barbie 

The recent publication of a research paper describing asbestosis-like pathological changes in mice exposed to carbon nanotubes has captured world attention. Nothing like a bit of bad news to get everyone focussed on nanotechnology, huh?!

The new study was performed by an alliance of researchers from the USA and the UK, and involved injecting multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs) into the abdominal cavities of mice. In this animal model, long, rigid MWNTs were found to trigger chronic inflammatory changes in abdominal mesothelial cells, a response comparable to that seen in control mice injected with asbestos fibres. A similar inflammatory response is thought to lead to fatal mesothelioma in some humans exposed to asbestos. Taken in a very broad sense, the findings suggests that human exposure to long, rigid MWNTs could have consequences that we do not yet fully understand. Clearly further studies do need to be conducted in this area. Interestingly, short MWNTs and single-walled carbon nanotubes had no apparent deleterious effects under the same study conditions. So let’s not shut the door on carbon nanotubes just yet…..

……..but now that everyone is watching, what’s going to happen next? Well for a start nanotechnology researchers and industries relying on the future of nanotechnology do need to take studies such as this into account. Social and environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth have a strong and informed involvement in the nanotechnology debate; they are already calling for greater public involvement in nanotechnology research and believe that the health implications of exposure to nano-sized materials need to be better characterised. Public forums like that recently conducted by the Australian Office of Nanotechnology may assist in this regard. I am interested as to whether any general news agencies picked up this story: use the comments option on this blog to let me know if you heard or saw wind of this research on your local radio or news stations. Let’s get a discussion going!

Kristin and I (both from Bridge8) attended the Australian Office of Nanotechnology (AON) public forum in Adelaide on the 8th of May. Host Belinda Barr (representing Primary Industries and Resources, SA and Australian Science Communicators) was not only scientifically literate, but a barrel of laughs to boot. She unashamedly illustrated the itty-bitty scale of what we were talking about by describing the size descrepancy between the tips (blond, diameter = 15-50,000 nanometres) and the roots of her hair (dark, diameter = 50-180,000 nanometres).  Belinda also introduced us to the interactive voting gadgets provided by the AON to gauge audience responses to nanotechnology issues throughout the evening. We managed to ascertain that 80% of attendees thought that the benefits of nanotechnology outweighed the risks, and that 95% of us believed it was worth spending more money on nanotechnology research. 81% of respondants would buy a product that they knew had nanotechnology in it.  Unfortunately, the technology then failed us and we had to resort to good old-fashioned hand raising to answer questions. This raised an interesting point in itself, which was that as soon as the anonymity was removed, most respondants were too shy to publically admit their opinions on issues around nanotechnology. Surely this is a problem! Not just with nanotechnology, but with science on the whole - members of the public don’t feel informed and confident enough to discuss new and emerging technologies. This issue later emerged as a uniting theme across all 3 speakers at the forum.

Joe Shapter (School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University)
- “Science drives change! The public as a whole needs to be informed and involved in science”.

Georgia Miller (Friends of the Earth, Australia)
- “There is almost no recognition that the public has the right to be involved in decision-making” with respect to nanotechnology and other new technologies.
- “We are here today because we don’t want nanotechnology to repeat the mistakes associated with past technologies”.

Once Asa Janting (National Measurement Institute) reassured us that “Yes, we can measure things we can’t see!”, the evening progressed, and some interesting discussions occurred between the audience and panel members. Topics covered included:
- what is nanotechnology?;
- what can nanotechnology offer us now and in the future?;
- the public should be actively involved in the development and use of nanotechnology.

We look forward to more AON events bringing nanotechnology to the public. Next time, I would be very interested to see a breakdown of the types of people attracted to attend - were they students, scientists, university graduates, teachers? This at least would give us an idea of what societal groups are already aware that nanotechnology exists, and who we need to target to improve public access into the future.

The people of South Australia, faced with living in the driest state on the driest continent on earth, know the value of clean fresh water. Researchers at the Ian Wark Research Institute at the University of South Australia have used a nano approach to produce clean, safe drinking water. Billions of people around the world do not have access to safe drinking water, and the result is that a child dies every 15 seconds due to water-bourne disease. Methods for purifying water often require complex and expensive equipment that is difficult to maintain in areas around the world which need this technology the most.

In this study, reported in the International Journal of Nanotechnology, silica beads were coated with an active material based on a hydrocarbon with a silicon-containing anchor. This formed a nano-layer around each bead, so called Surface enegineered silica (SES). The process works by simply mixing Surface engineered silica beads with contaminated water. After stirring for an hour and filtering out the beads the water was tested. Biological molecules, pathogens such as viruses like the Polio virus, bacteria like Escherichia coli, and Cryptosporidium parvum, which is a waterborne parasite were all removed. This process was effective across the normal pH ranges of drinking water, and the researchers attribute the removal of organic material by electrostatic attraction and immobilisation on the surface of the particles.

This is a great example of how nanotechnology is not just a ‘gimmick science’ aiming to produce endless gadgets for us, but how it is a science that can genuinely have an impact on improving the lives of many people. And also a great example of Australian nanotechnology at work!

A new television show was apparently launched in the US in April titled the “Power of Small”.   Whilst I am unable to comment on the TV show being located in Australia, the website makes for interesting listening.  A panel discusses the use of nanotechnology in the areas of Privacy, Health and Environment and small videos look at possible scenarios in each of these areas.  For instance under Privacy: would you be prepared to have a loved one tagged in order to monitor their every move? or under Health: would you like to be able to live to 150? 

There are plenty of other scenarios and they all raise interesting moral and ethical questions for everyone to think about.  Would I really want to live to 150, somehow I don’t think so!

I’ve joked with friends at how I’d love the RFID chip from my Oyster card (tube ticket for those outside the UK) embedded in my wrist, so I could just wave over the touch pads at the entrance and exits to tube stations and stroll on through instead of rummaging through my bag for it at the gate each time. But someone back in Australia has already out-geeked me here by inserting a microchip in his arm which acts as keyless entry to his house.

Picture:Joe Armao from SMH article

New scientist also reported this week a new way for humans and computers to talk to each other called MUCI – Muscle computer interface. With MUCI a sensor (in this case an arm-band) is able to recognise gestures via changes in the forearm muscles and convert them into instructions.

I know, we already have keys that work perfectly well to open houses, and a keyboard already exists to interface what your muscles (in your hands) are saying to a computer, but it’s just the sheer nerdy gadgetry (well, actually lack of gadgetry) that makes these things so fascinating!

One issue that arises as we get older is being able to maintain independence to enable us to stay in our own home.  With my parents now into their twilight years it was with interest I read this article on a “Smart Spaces Center” to be set up by PSU to look into ways to assist elderly people to live safely, comfortably and independently in their own homes for as long as possible. 

Several kinds of “smart spaces” have been defined: personal, living, information and societal.  “Smart information spaces” is where nanotechnology comes in.  “Nanotechnology, information technology and biomedical advances can revolutionize the way people age – if these advances are implemented seamlessly and humanely,” it was noted. “Sensors in our garments, and perhaps even in our bodies, could constantly monitor heart rate and body temperature”.  These technologies could be incorporated into home environments to provide information on medical problems and care, financial questions, and safety and security concerns, as well as opportunities for social networking .  The sensors in garments aspect is interesting as NanoVic was involved in a project in 2007 called “ReSkin / Wearable Technologies”.  The programme, involving artists, explored interactive clothing and design pieces, one of which was an indicator in a garment that responded to the wearer’s respiration.

Hopefully this study can address some of these issues so that by the time I get to that age I can stay at home longer - just so I may continue to annoy my family!  But in all seriousness, I have seen the effects of someone who was placed into full-time care and it was sad to see them lose their passion for living due to the loss of independence.

Nanotechnology: The Power of Small, the first major television series to look at the implications of advances in nanotechnology, will begin airing on local US public broadcasting stations in April.

The series’ three programs explore critical questions about nanotechnology’s potential impact on privacy, the environment and human health: Will nanotechnology make you safer, or will it be used to track your every move? Will nanotechnology keep you young, and what happens if you live to be 150? Will nanotechnology help clean up the earth, or will it be the next asbestos?

The programme is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and involves the host asking policymakers, scientists, journalists and community leaders to wrestle with difficult but essential issues about nanotechnology’s potential to impact people’s privacy and security, health and environment. Featured experts include Harvard University researcher George M. Whitesides, PEN chief scientist Andrew Maynard, and author Joel Garreau, among others.

To view the series click here

COSMOS magazine run an ‘un-scientific poll’ in every issue, and I have been keeping my eye on the recent question they asked about what people thought the biggest impact of nanotechnology would be. Most people (45%) thought that ‘It will spawn amazing new materials’, and I would have agreed that this will be the biggest immediate impact.  Nanomaterials are already here.  The next biggest impact was ‘It will revolutionise drugs and medicine’at 37%.   Clearly the most of the readers of COSMOS are optimistic about the future, as only 10% thought it will end up turning us all into grey-goo! (for those of you who have realised that those percentages don’t add up to 100, the remaining 8% thought it would significantly increase our life-span, whether that’s through looking good with dubious sounding “nano” skincare products, or actually living longer and healthier, I’m not sure!) 

In 2002, the The Da Vinci Institute set its sights on creating a Museum of Future Inventions designed around the pursuit of inventions that will create a spot in the history books for those people who develop them.  It was anticipated the museum would consist of multiple pavilions, each with its own scientific concentration, sponsored by businesses from around the world.

As one might expect, nanotechnology is one pavilion to be featured along side Robotics, Energy and Smart Technologies, to name a few of the others.  The exhibits in the nanotechnology pavilion would explain ”how we will be able to control the structure of matter based on molecule-by-molecule control of products and byproducts; the products and processes of molecular manufacturing, including molecular machinery.  Electron and scanning tunneling microscopes will be used to make the nano world come to life”.

No indication of when it might become a reality but if it does end up “as the full day experience” then a visit at the end of the tour to the ”Taste of the Future Café - to dine on tomorrow’s food” will be an absolute must!