Safer nano sunscreens
Nanoparticles from English ivy were found block UV light more efficiently, were less toxic and were easily biodegradable compared a nanoparticle used in many of today’s sunscreens.
Journal of Nanobiotechnology, 2010, 8:12:
Lijin Xia, et al. Naturally occurring nanoparticles from English ivy: an alternative to metal-based nanoparticles for UV protection
Further commentary
in Science News blog
TechNyou comment
Very interesting stuff, but from my understanding, the research team used cultures of English Ivy for this research. For any commercial prospects I assume the organic nanoparticles would need to be able to be chemically synthesized to be viable commerically, which would suggest it would have a fair way to go before it is used in any commercial sunscreen. Or do I assume wrong?
Stem-cell furore erupts
Long-rumbling hostilities between stem-cell researchers exploded into a blazing public row last week, after Nature published a critical reanalysis of data from a high-profile 2008 article.
Nature News: 29 June 2010
Print your own lasers, lights and TV screens
Imagine printing your own room lighting, lasers, or solar cells from inks you buy at the local newsagent.
Jacek Jasieniak and his colleagues at CSIRO, the University of Melbourne and the University of Padua in Italy, have moved a step closer to such a future, by developing liquid inks based on quantum dots that can be used to print devices.
These quantum dot inks will transform our use of light in the home and office. In the first demonstration of these inks Jacek and his colleagues have made tiny printable lasers.
The first laser, invented 50 years ago in May 1960, was described as a solution looking for a problem. Today dozens of lasers are built into our computers, cars and homes. Soon, thanks to Jacek’s work, we may have millions of tiny lasers working in our homes lighting our rooms and even acting as pixels in printable TV screens. The lasers could also be used as components in optical computers, electronics, sensors, as cheap laser pointers in a range of colours or even fashion accessories.
Jacek’s work is being presented for the first time in public through Fresh Science, a communication boot camp for early-career scientists held at the Melbourne Museum. Jacek was one of 16 winners from across Australia.
“Creating cheaper lasers relies heavily on progress in materials science. At present, lasers are manufactured using expensive materials and production techniques. To make them more cost effective, we have focused on developing materials that are cheap, function well as lasers, and can be printed. Quantum dots meet all these requirements,” says Jacek.
Quantum dots are made of semiconductor material grown as nanometre-sized crystals, around a millionth of a millimetre in diameter. The laser colour they produce can be selectively tuned by varying their size. To build a laser using quantum dots, you need to place them within a structure known as an optical cavity. This structure acts to amplify the light that is produced by the quantum dots to produce the laser.
“Conventional lasers use large optical cavities which make them impossible to use for printable lasers. To develop true nanometre-sized lasers we have employed a special type of optical cavity that consists of a repeating nano-structured pattern on the surface of the material onto which the quantum dots are printed. A major benefit of this nano-structured optical cavity is that it can be produced during the printing process by controlled indentation or scratching of the material’s surface,” Jacek says.
“The tiny lasers generated using such an approach are highly efficient and can be adapted for numerous applications.”
In addition to lasers, this research has significant implications for many other future technologies which use liquid inks to develop printable components. One highly promising example is the production of thin-film solar cells, a research area that Jacek is also currently involved in at CSIRO.
Dr. Jacek Jasieniak is one of 16 early-career scientists presenting their research to the public for the first time thanks to Fresh Science, a national program sponsored by the Australian Government. His challenges have included presenting his discoveries in verse at a Melbourne pub.
More information
University of Melbourne – http://www.nanoparticle.com/
CSIRO – Low cost solar cells
Sugar from modified photosynthetic bacteria
US researchers have engineered photosynthetic bacteria to produce simple sugars and lactic acid that could lead to environment-friendly methods for producing commodity chemicals and food additives.
Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard and Harvard Medical School: media release 28 June 2010
Reference
Robb Fraley: Monsanto is a champion of healthy eating
New Scientist interview with Monsanto’s chief technology officer on how the agri-biotech giant is reinventing itself.
New Scientist Interview 28 June 2010
TechNyou comment
This is hardly a hard-hitting interivew that asks the tough questions. They seem to have let Monsanto have a free reign to put out a nice PR fluff piece. And the 3 comments at the bottom of the article suggest Monsanto have a long, arduous road to negotiate to regain any street cred with the public
Stem cells saving endagered species or wasting money?
Scientist plan to turn cells from endangered animals into sperm and eggs to save them from extinction. Could this money be better spent saving many more species from becoming endangered in the first place?
Scientist plan to take frozen cells from an endangered, dead animal, reprogram them to become sperm and eggs, make an embryo and then bring it back from the brink of extinction.
See New Scientist article
Bring out ya dead
The research team behind this idea is a collaboration between the San Diego zoo (They have a frozen zoo) and The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. They described at a recent meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research how they created induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) from the frozen skin cells of an endangered monkey, (Mandrillus leucophaeus). The next step is to turn them into sperm and eggs cells – not done yet and certainly not a given. The aim is to increase the genetic diversity of endangered animals in captive breeding programs.
Save one, lose many?
The cause is noble and it is fascincating science that might also generate valuable knowledge that can be applied in many other areas, especially in human health. But this research is expensive and certainly not a gurantee for success, as far as I can tell. And in the last few years there have been rumblings among a few ecologists about whether such money might be better spent on trying to save species from becoming vulnerable or endangered in the first place. That is, when there is only one small pot of conservation money to go around, instead of spending a million dollars trying to stop one species going extinct, you could spend it on preventing twenty from becoming endangered or at risk from extinction in the first place.
For an insight into the theories behind this check out Professor Mark Burgman from the University of Melbourne. And here is a link to an article I wrote many years about his views on this.
And another in New Scientist, though you will need a subscription for full access
Only the cute survive
It is a hard call to make to the public if you are a government coughing up the funding for this sort of thing. You can hardly imagine a pollie saying sorry guys, we are no longer going to fund any conservation programs to save Harry the Hairy-nosed Wombat, or the Easter Bilby, because they are a lost cause, doomed to be zoo exhibits. This technology may indeed help save some species, but how many others will disappear as a result? A hard call either way, but it is possible that somewhere along the track we may have to resign ourselves to the fact that some of these poster species we species we are trying to save are going to become extinct or at best unviable in the wild because of insufficient genetic diversity, no matter what we do. The question then is was that a wise investment. I am guessing some will still say yes. At least it might be better spent than trying to use such research (and research money) to resurrect actual extinct species, something I personally find pointless.
Frozen Zoos
By the way, Australia has its own frozen zoo out at Monash University, Melbourne. The difference here is that they collect and cryogenically freeze samples of reproductive tissue (semen, eggs, embryos, etc) and use these in conservation/captive breeding programs, and to investigate disease.
Jason
TechNyou
Nano drug delivery hits tumour, saves kidney
US researchers have devised a delivery system that may allow clinicians to use higher doses of a powerful chemotherapy drug that has been limited because it is toxic not only to tumors but to patients’ kidneys.
Harvard University: Media release 25 June 2010
African gene study announced
An health project will study the genes, diet and other variables of thousands of people in Africa’s to further understand how genes interact with the environment in relation to diseases.
Australian Life Scientist: 24 June 2010
Human genome at ten: Science after the sequence
The completion of the draft human genome sequence was announced ten years ago. Nature ‘s survey of life scientists reveals that biology will never be the same again.
Nature News: 23 June 2010
GM food regulations help monopolisation by multi-nationals
It is a conundrum. Costly regulatory hurdles to get a GM food to market mean only big multinationals such as Monsanto can afford to take research to a commercial stage.
Are the costly regulatory requirements to get a GM food to market simply making it easier for big multinationals such as Monsanto to increase their monopolisation of the world’s main food commodities?
A recent opinion piece by David Leyonhjelm in Business Spectator suggests this, but I question whether this is a bit simplistic.
The reasoning
The following two paragraphs give you the gist of his thoughts on this matter:
“Compared to discovering new herbicides or insecticides, introducing genetic modifications into plants is not especially expensive. It is well within the financial means of universities and public research organisations, for example, as well as medium agribusiness companies.
Only big companies with deep pockets can afford the cost of generating the data, proving to the regulators that there is nothing to fear, and implementing obligatory post-sale monitoring and reporting. The company the anti-GM crowd loves to hate, Monsanto, is one of the main beneficiaries of this.”
I am sure Ingo Potrykus, the developer of Golden Rice, would surely agree.
Quantum economics
Economics is akin to quantum physics as far as I am concerned. There is a macro world where known forces produce predictable outcomes; then there are the micro/quantum events that defy all attempts to understand, hence our inability to predict the vagaries of the stockmarket or recessions. So, is Leyonhjelm’s point too simplistic?
For a start, among those opposed to GM food, and even among some that have no issue, there is considerable distrust of the multi-nationals involved in development of GM crops and likewise a distaste of the notion that these companies can own our food supply, companies whose motivation (real or perceived) is purely profit without care or respect for those of us representing the great unwashed.
So it’s easy isn’t it, simply lower the regulatory requirements to allow greater competition and reduce the multi-national stranglehold. But in Australia, at least, there is also considerable distrust among GM opponents of the food regulators. “Rotten to the core,” is what one opponent said at a recent meeting. They want stronger regulations with some calling for GM foods to be treated the same as pharmaceutical products.
It is a catch 22
Your thoughts
So, this is a call for anyone with more expertise than me on this issue to add some meat to the above statements and my following questions: Any enlightenment will be greatly appreciated.
The first question is can simply reducing the regulatory hurdles for GM crops provide the opportunity for smaller companies, universities, CSIRO, etc to take their research to the commercial stage? That is, will it provide incentive for increased research on crops and traits such as local or indigenous crops with localised problems, and present an affordable path to commercialisation, crops that generally have minimal appeal to multi-national companies?
Will it have any effect on the monopolisation of the main commodity crops that are dominated by the multi-nationals at the moment?
If by chance Leyonhjelm’s argument stacks up, does anyone have any thoughts on how to reduce the costs of meeting regulatory requirement, on the theory making them weaker will cause further outcry from the opponents and making them tougher is politically too difficult and possibly economically unviable?
All thoughts, big picture or quantum world, appreciated.