Category: General

Two forthcoming books

I’ve recently been looking over the page proofs of two interesting popular science books which are due to be published soon, both on subjects close to my heart. “The Middle World – the Restless Heart of Reality” by Mark Haw, is a discursive, largely historical book about Brownian motion. Of all the branches of physics, statistical mechanics is the one that is least well known in the wider world, but its story has both intellectual fascination and real human interest. The phenomenon of Brownian motion is central to understanding the way biology works, and indeed, as I’ve argued at length here and in my own book, learning how to deal with it and how to exploit it is going to be a prerequisite for success in making nanoscale machines and devices. Mark’s book does a nice job of bringing together the historical story, the relevance of Brownian motion to current science in areas like biophysics and soft matter physics, and its future importance in nanotechnology.

Martyn Amos (who blogs here), has a book called “Genesis Machines: The New Science of Biocomputing” coming out soon. Here the theme is the emerging interaction between computing and biology. This interaction takes a number of forms; the bulk of the book concerns Martyn’s own speciality, the various ways in which the biomolecule DNA can be used to do computations, but this leads on to synthetic biology and the re-engineering of the computing systems of individual cells. To me this is perhaps the most fascinating and potentially important area of science there is at the moment, and this book is an excellent introduction.

Neither book is out yet, but both can be preordered: The Middle World – the Restless Heart of Reality from Amazon, and Genesis Machines – the New Science of Biocomputation from Amazon UK.

ETC makes the case against nanomedicine

The most vocal and unequivocal opponent of nanotechnology – the ETC group – has turned its attention to nanomedicine, with a new report Nanotech Rx taking a sceptical look at the recent shift of emphasis we’ve seen towards medical applications of nanotechnology. The report, though, makes more sense as a critique of modern medicine in general rather than making many specific points about nanotechnology. Particularly in the context of health in the third world, the main thrust of the case is that enthusiasts of technocentric medicine have systematically underplayed the importance of non-technological factors (hygiene, better food, etc) on improving general health. As they say, “the global health crisis doesn’t stem from a lack of science innovation or medical technologies; the root problem is poverty and inequality. New medical technologies are irrelevant for poor people if they aren’t accessible or affordable.” However, in an important advance from ETC’s previous blanket opposition to nanotechnology, they do concede that “nanotech R&D related to water is potentially significant for the developing world. Access to clean water could make a greater contribution to global health than any single medical intervention.”

The debate about human enhancement also gets substantial discussion, with a point of view strongly influenced by disability rights activist Gregor Wolbring. (Newcomers to this debate could do a lot worse than to start with the recent Demos pamphlet, Better Humans? which collects essays by those from a variety of points of view, including Wolbring himself.) ETC correctly identifies the crypto-transhumanist position taken in some recent government publications, and gets succinctly to the nub of the matter as follows: “Certain personality traits (e.g., shyness), physical traits (e.g., “average” strength or height), cognitive traits (e.g., “normal” intelligence) will be deemed undesirable and correctable (and gradually unacceptable, not to be tolerated). The line between enhancement and therapy – already blurry – will be completely obliterated. “ I agree that there’s a lot to be concerned about here, but the issue as it now stands doesn’t have a lot to do with nanotechnology – current points of controversy include the use of SSRIs to “treat” shyness, and modafinil to allow soldiers to go without sleep. However, in the future nanotechnology certainly will be increasingly important in permitting human enhancement, in areas such as the development of interfaces with the brain and in regenerative medicine, and so it’s not unreasonable to flag the area as one to watch.

Naturally, the evils of big pharma get a lot of play. There are the well publicised difficulties big pharma seems to have in maintaining their accustomed level of innovation, the large marketing budgets and the concentration on “me-too” drugs for the ailments of the rich west, and the increasing trend to outsource clinical trials to third world countries. Again, these are all very valid concerns, but they don’t seem to have a great deal of direct relevance to nanotechnology.

In the context of the third world, one of the most telling criticisms of the global pharmaceutical industry has been the lack of R&D spend on diseases that affect the poor. Things have recently changed greatly for the better, thanks to Bill and Melinda and their ilk. ETC recognise the importance of public private partnerships of the kind supported by organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, despite some evident distaste that this money has come from the disproportionately rich. “Ten years ago, there was not a single PPP devoted to the development of “orphan drugs” – medicines to treat diseases with little or no financial profit potential – and today there are more than 63 drug development projects aimed at diseases prevalent in the global South.” As an example of a Bill and Melinda supported project, ETC quote a project to develop a new synthetic route to the anti-malarial agent artemisinin. This is problematic for ETC, as the project uses synthetic biology, to which ETC is instinctively opposed; yet since artemisinin-based combination treatments seem to be the only effective way of overcoming the problem of drug resistant malaria, it seems difficult to argue that these treatments shouldn’t be universally available.

The sections of the report that are directly concerned with those areas of nanomedicine that are currently receiving the most emphasis seem rather weak. The section on the use of nanotechnology for drug delivery section discusses only one example, a long way from the clinic, and doesn’t really make any comments at all on the current big drive to develop new anti-cancer therapies based on nanotechnology. I’m also surprised that ETC don’t talk more about the current hopes for the widespread application of nanotechnology in diagnostics and sensor devices, not least because this raises some important issues about the degree to which diagnosis can be simply equated to the presence or absence of some biochemical marker.

At the end of all this, ETC are still maintaining their demand for a “moratorium on nanotechnology”, though this seems at odds with statements like this: “Nanotech R&D devoted to safe water and sustainable energy could be a more effective investment to address fundamental health issues.” I actually find more to agree with in this report than in previous ETC reports. And yet I’m left with the feeling that, even more than in previous reports, ETC has not managed to get to the essence of what makes nanotechnology special.

In Australia

I’ve been to Australia for a brief trip, attending a closed public policy conference run by the Australian think-tank the Centre for Independent Studies. The terms of engagement of the conference prevent me from reporting on it in detail; it’s meant to be unreported and off-the-record. The attendance list was certainly a cut above the usual scientific conferences I go to; it included present and former cabinet ministers from the Australian and New Zealand governments, central bankers and senior judges, industry CEOs and prominent journalists.

A session of the conference was devoted to nanotechnology; I spoke, together with a couple of prominent Australian nanoscientists and the science correspondent of one of Australia’s major dailies. I was nervous about how I would be received, and I think many of the audience, more used to hearing about terrorism in Indonesia or commodity price fluctuations, were similarly nervous about whether they would find anything to interest them in such a specialised and futuristic sounding topic. In the event, I think, everyone was very pleasantly surprised at the success of the session and the lively debate it sparked.

I don’t want to divert this blog too much into discussing politics, but I can’t help observing that the tone of the meeting was a little bit more right wing than I am used to. The CIS clearly occupies rather a different part of think-tank space to my centrist friends in Demos, for example, and I regretted having left my Ayn Rand t-shirts at home. Nonetheless, I think it’s hugely important that science and technology do start to play a larger role in policy discussions.

A brief update

My frequency of posting has gone down in the last couple of weeks due to a combination of excessive busy-ness and a not wholly successful attempt to catch up with stuff before going on holiday. Here’s a brief overview of some of the things I would have written about if I’d had more time.

The Nanotechnology Engagement Group (which I chair) met last week to sketch out some of the directions of its second policy report, informed in part by an excellent workshop – Terms of Engagement – held in London a few weeks ago. The workshop brought together policy-makers, practitioners of public engagement, members of the public who had been involved in public engagement events about nanotechnology, and scientists, to explore the different expectations and aspirations these different actors have, and the tensions that arise when these expectations aren’t compatible.

The UK government’s funding body for the physical sciences, EPSRC, held a town meeting to discuss its new draft nanotechnology strategy last week. About 50 of the UKs leading nanoscientists attended; To summarise the mood of the meeting, people were pleased that EPSRC was drawing up a strategy, but they thought that the tentative plan was not nearly ambitious enough. EPSRC and its Strategic Working Group on Nanotechnology (of which I am a member) will be revising the draft strategy in line with these comments and the result should be presented to EPSRC Council for approval in October.

The last two issues of Nature have much to interest the nanotechnologist. Nanotubes unwrapped introduces the idea of using exfoliated graphite as a reinforcing material in composites; this should produce many of the advantages that people hope for in nanotube composites (but which have not yet so far fully materialised) at much lower cost. Spintronics at the atomic level describes a very elegant experiment in which a single manganese atom is introduced as a substitutional dopant on a gallium arsenide surface using a scanning tunnelling microscope, to probe its magnetic interactions with the surroundings. This week’s issue also includes a very interesting set of review articles about microfluidics, including pieces by George Whitesides and Harold Craighead, to which there is free access.

Rob Freitas has put together a website for his Nanofactory collaboration. Having complained on this blog before that my own critique of MNT proposals has been ignored by MNT proponents, it’s only fair for me to recognise that this site has a section about technical challenges which explicitly acknowledges such critiques with these positive words:
“This list, which is almost certainly incomplete, parallels and incorporates the written concerns expressed in thoughtful commentaries by Philip Moriarty in 2005 and Richard Jones in 2006. We welcome these critiques and would encourage additional constructive commentary – and suggestions for additional technical challenges that we may have overlooked – along similar lines by others.”

Finally, in a not totally unrelated development, the UKs funding council, EPSRC, will be running an Ideas Factory on the subject of Matter compilation via molecular manufacturing: reconstructing the wheel. The way this program works is that participants spend a week generating new ideas and collaborations, and at the end of it £1.45 million funding is guaranteed for the best proposals. I’ve been asked to act as the director of this activity, which should take place early in the New Year.

A cross-section of science at the Royal Society

I’ve been attending the New Fellows seminar at the Royal Society, the UK’s national academy of science. This is the occasion for the 44 new fellows that are elected each year (one of whom, this year, was me) to give a brief talk about their research. The resulting seminar is a fascinating snapshot of the whole breadth of current science and technology, of a kind that one rarely sees in today’s world of science specialization. Here are some impressions of the first day.

Biology is strongly represented, with a cluster of talks on various aspects of cell signaling, ranging from the details by which signaling molecules are switched on and off, to the ways stem cells are regulated. A revealing talk showed how electron microscopy could unravel the mechanism by which the remarkable machines that ensure proteins fold correctly – chaperonins – work. From environmental and earth science we had talks on the effects on our environment both of the forces of nature – in the shape of the relationship between long term climate change and variations in the sun’s activity – and of the effects of man, through the impact of our industrial society on atmospheric chemistry. In physics, there was a spread from the most pure aspects of the subject (how to measure the spin of a black hole) to the applied and commercially important (the molecular beam epitaxy technique that underlies much of current semiconductor nanotechnology). One thing that comes out very strongly from the talks are the unexpected unifying threads that run through what appear on the face of it to be very different pieces of science. Ideas from statistical mechanics, like entropy, are obviously important for understanding self-assembly in soft matter, but they also cropped up in talks about signal processing in the brain and in modelling the growth of cities.

The important relationship between science and society was highlighted in two contrasting talks about the application of science to solve problems in the developing world. In one, the talk was at an abstract level, highlighting the problems of governance and economics in Africa that made it difficult to apply existing science to solve pressing problems. These abstract ideas were made very concrete in a fascinating talk about the development of new combination therapies to overcome the problems caused by drug-resistance in malaria. The foundation of these therapies is a new anti-malarial, artemesinin, recently discovered by Chinese scientists on the basis of a remedy from traditional chinese herbal medicine. Now that effective remedies are available, the problems to overcome are the social, economic and political barriers that prevent them from being universally available.

A round-up of nano-blogs

To mark the growing popularity of science-based blogs, here’s a quick roundup of some blogs devoted to nanotechnology. Nanotechnology means many things to different people, and this diversity of points of view is reflected in the wide variety of perspectives on offer in the blogs.

From the point of view of business and the financial markets, TNTlog comes from Tim Harper, of the European consulting firm Cientifica. His posting frequency has dropped off recently, which is a pity, since this is a blog that manages to be both entertaining and well-informed, with a healthy scepticism about some of the wilder claims made on behalf of the “nanotechnology industry”. The web-portal nanotechnology.com hosts a contrasting pair of blogs. blog | nano, by Darrell Brookstein, is at the shriller end of the nanobusiness spectrum, while Steve Edwards’s blog combines commentary on nano financial markets with the odd extract from his (rather good) book – The Nanotech Pioneers.

Among blogs written by academics, there are those that come from scientists working inside the field, and some from social scientists whose interests run more towards the social issues surrounding nanotechnology. In the first category we have Nanoscale Views, by academic nanophysicist Doug Natelson. This combines capsule reviews of new condensed matter preprints and conference reports with more general observations about life as a junior faculty, and is at quite a high technical level. Martyn Amos is a computer scientist; his blog covers issues such as synthetic biology and chemical computing. The authors of Molecular Torch seem to be keen to keep their identities quiet, but from what they cover I’m guessing they work in the field of nanochemistry, with a particular interest in quantum dots. If you want to know what Soft Machines is about, just look around.

From the social science side of things, David Berube’s Nanohype casts a sceptical eye on the scene, leavening fairly detailed commentary on various reports and conferences with his enjoyably acerbic humour. Nano|Public, Dietram Scheufele, similarly covers public engagement issues from an academic point of view. Nanotechbuzz by George Elvin, is more general in its coverage, which reflects the interests of its author, an architecture professor with interest the relationship between nanotechnology and design.

A couple of blogs reflect the views of those interested in Drexler’s vision of molecular nanotechnology. The current market leader in the faith-based end of this space is Responsible Nanotechnology, from the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, aka Mike Treder and Chris Phoenix. This pair have the most impressive output in terms of sheer volume. Their analysis is predicated on the unsupported assertion that desktop nanofactories could be with us in 10-15 years; any dissent from this view is met, not with rational argument, but with accusations of bad faith or scientific fraud. Nanodot, from the Foresight Nanotech Institute’s Christine Peterson, represents the more acceptable face of Drexlerism, combining reporting on current nanoscience developments and commentary about social and economic issues, with discussion of longer-ranged prospects, albeit in a framework of thorough-going technological determinism.

Finally, we have a couple of blogs written by professional writers. Howard Lovy’s Nanobot was a useful source of nano- commentary, particularly strong on charting the influence of nanotechnology on popular culture, before Howard’s move to the darkside of public relations led to a quiet period. Nanobot has recently gently restarted. A very welcome newcomer is homunculus from my favourite science writer, Philip Ball. The scope of homunculus goes well beyond nanotechnology, covering aspects of chemistry and physics ranging from the application of statistical mechanics to financial markets to the historical links between chemistry and fine arts. His most recent post contains much of the useful background information that didn’t make it into his recent news piece for Nature about the potential neurotoxicity of nanoscale titania.

My apologies to anyone I’ve missed out.

Printing devices

I spent a couple of days earlier this week at a conference in Manchester called “Printing of Functional Materials”. The premise of this meeting was the growing realisation that printing technologies, both the traditional, like silk-screen and gravure, and modern, like ink-jet, offer scalable, cheap and flexible ways of precisely depositing small quantities of materials on surfaces. Traditional inks are just vehicles for pigments to create static images, but there’s no reason why you can’t use printing to deposit materials that are conductors or semiconductors of electricity, which are electro-luminescent, or which have some biological functionality. Indeed, as one of the organisers of the conference has shown, one can even use ink-jet printing to deposit living human cells, with potential applications in tissue engineering.

The degree of commercial interest in these technologies was indicated by the fact that, unusually for an academic conference, more than a third of the attendees were from the commercial sector. Many of these were from the cluster of small and medium companies developing ink-jet technologies from around Cambridge, but European and American concerns were well represented too. My impression that the sector that is closest to maturity in this area is in electrically functional devices, where there’s a great deal of momentum to drive down the cost of RFID and to develop cheap, flexible displays. But there are still many materials issues to solve. It’s not easy to get a complex fluid to flow in the right way to form the tiny, well-defined droplets that make it ink-jet well, and formulating the ink in a way that makes it dry to give the best properties is awkward too. Silver inks illustrate the problems – commercial inks to write conducting lines sometimes use silver nanoparticles. Making the silver particles very small is helpful in making them coalesce well to make a continuous silver layer; the melting point of materials is lowered when they are in nanoparticulate form, making them sinter at lower temperatures. But then you have to work hard to stop the particles aggregating in the ink (it’s particularly undesirable, or course, if they aggregate in the ink-jet nozzle and block it up). To stabilise them, you need to coat them with surfactants or polymer molecules. But then this organic coating needs to be driven off by a heating step to get good conduction, and this compromises your ability to print on paper and plastics, which can’t take much heating. It seems to me that this technology has a huge amount of promise, but there’s a lot of materials science and colloid science to be done before it can fulfill its potential.

Nanoscale ball bearings or grit in the works?

It’s all too tempting to imagine that our macroscopic intuitions can be transferred to the nanoscale world, but these analogies can be dangerous and misleading. For an example, take the case of the buckyball bearings. It seems obvious that the almost perfectly spherical C60 molecule, Buckminster fullerene, would be an ideal ball bearing on the nanoscale. This intuition underlies, for example, the design of the “nanocar”, from James Tour’s group in Rice, that recently made headlines. But a recent experimental study of nanoscale friction by Jackie Krim, from North Caroline State University, shows that this intuition may be flawed.

The study, reported in last week’s Physical Review Letters (abstract here, subscription required for full article), directly measured the friction experienced by a thin layer sliding on a surface coated with a layer of buckminster fullerene molecules. Krim was able to directly compare the friction observed when the balls were allowed to rotate, with the situation when the balls were fixed. Surprisingly, the friction was higher for the rotating layers – here the ball-bearing analogy is seductive, but wrong.

In Seville

I’ve been in Seville for a day or so, swapping the Derbyshire drizzle for the Andalucian sun. I was one of the speakers in a meeting about Technology and Society, held in the beautiful surroundings of the Hospital de los Venerables. The meeting was organised by the Spanish writer and broadcaster Eduardo Punset, who also interviewed me for the science program he presents on Spanish TV.

As well as my talk and the TV interview, I also took part in a panel discussion with Alun Anderson, the former editor-in-chief of New Scientist. This took the form of a conversation between him and me, with an audience listening in. I hope they enjoyed it; I certainly did. As one would imagine, Anderson is formidably well- informed about huge swathes of modern science, and very well-connected with the most prominent scientists and writers. Among the topics we discussed were the future of energy generation and transmission, prospects for space elevators and electronic newspapers, Craig Venter’s minimal genome project, and whether we believed the premise of Ray Kurzweil’s most recent book, ‘The Singularity is Near’. Alun announced he would soon be appearing on a platform with a Ray Kurzweil’s live hologram, or thereabouts. However he did stress that this was simply because the corporeal Kurzweil couldn’t get to the venue in person, not because he has prematurely uploaded.

Lost comments

I apologise that a number of legitimate comments in recent days have been stopped by my spam filters – I’ve just rescued 6 of these from the moderation queue, where I had previously overlooked them amidst 519 spam comments. If you do make a comment which doesn’t appear (and this is most likely to happen to relatively long messages with lots of external links) you might want to alert me to this with a shorter comment. Anyway, my apologies to Brian Wang, Reza Fathollahzadeh, Moderate Transhumanist, NanoEnthusiast, sa. jafari and Michael Anissimov.