Last night I went to the launch event for the Year of Chemistry, not least because it included a Merino Gold Fashion Show.

For the past five or so years, researchers from Victoria University’s School of Chemical and Physical Sciences and MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology have been researching gold and silver nanoparticles as colourants for high fashion textiles. Supervised by Prof. Jim Johnston, recent PhD graduates Fern Kelly and Kerstin Lucas [née Burridge] pioneered ways to embed nanoparticles of gold and silver in New Zealand merino wool.

“When the precious metals are reduced to the nanoscale (a nanoparticle is one billionth of a metre in diameter) they scatter light in different colours with silver appearing as yellow, peach, pink and purple and gold producing a range of brilliant hues. That means textiles in many colours can be created without using traditional—and mostly synthetic—dyes, adding to the sustainability of the innovation. Repeated testing by Drs Kelly and Lucas has shown that the gold and silver are bound to the wool with an ultra strong bond making the textiles totally colourfast and ensuring they do not fade in light or with repeated washing. In addition, the textile products incorporating silver nanoparticles have strong anti-microbial properties meaning they resist bacteria and pests, like moth larvae, that live in carpets. They also reduce the build-up of static electricity.”

Pretty exciting fibre science, to be sure. But I’m also completely fascinated by how it taps into broader cultural values. When NZ merino wool is already a high-prestige brand, the addition of precious metals only further stresses that quality. Drawing on the 100% Pure NZ brand, the fashions last night were introduced with terms like “pure merino,” “pure gold” and “pure luxury.” And sure enough:

“The initial target market for the golden wools is high end fashion accessories, fabrics and floor coverings. While it is around 100 times more expensive than wool coloured with organic dyes, there is interest for niche applications such as scarves, exclusive apparel and luxury carpet for residences, hotels or super yachts … ‘It’s had enormous market acceptance from the start. “Wow” is what people from across the wool industry say what they see what we are doing to add significant value to the New Zealand wool clip’.”

There’s a lot about the marketing strategy that deserves unpacking, and I think I’ll add a section to the paper I’m writing on NZ merino branding. In terms of sustainability, I understand that moving away from traditional (esp. synthetic) dyes is a big deal environmentally, but I don’t know enough about the process to know if the product isn’t automatically implicated in the environmental and health issues associated with gold mining. I mean, the gold has to come from somewhere, doesn’t it? I’ll definitely have to follow up on that.

I’d also like to talk with them about working with designers, and how they understand the connections between science and creative practice. For the fashion show they worked with final year students from Massey University Fashion Design, and Greer Osborne won the fashion show competition with her “ready to wear look inspired by the New Zealand environment and in particular the merino wool product.” Dr Lucas was quoted as saying “It’s been fantastic getting creative minds on to exploring the possibilities,” but I’d be surprised if she thought that scientists weren’t also creative. I’ve always been fascinated when artists and designers say that scientists (or other academics) aren’t creative, as if creativity belongs to some professions (or people) and not others. I know plenty of scientists who object to that characterisation and, when the description is reversed, just as many creative practitioners who do not appreciate being told their work lacks intellectual or experimental merit. Surely the boundaries are much blurrier than all this suggests! For example, the MacDiarmid Institute asked researchers from around New Zealand to “enter the most interesting images from their work in a competition”–which effectively put creativity in the hands (or eyes) of scientists–and then the best images were put on display in The Art of Nanotech exhibition. Sure, “interesting” might not be the same as “beautiful,” but it is just as much a part of creativity or creative practice.

In any case, I’ve got loads more to think about now and I hope to arrange some time with the chemists before classes start up at the end of the month.

Further reading:
“Going for Gold, and Silver.” Twist, October 2008 (pdf)

I’ve been busy preparing my keynote presentation for Kiwicon, which basically means going through dozens of pages of notes I have on public discourses surrounding RFID and trying to wrangle them into a 30 minute talk. You’d think this would be relatively straight-forward but it’s a pretty complex issue approached by multiple publics in different ways. For this talk I’ll probably just focus on three inter-connected ways that RFID gets framed.

First, RFID is awesome because it’s convenient, efficient and secure:

Second, RFID is evil because it supports/normalises surveillance of activities and bodies:

Third, RFID is fun because it can be hacked or otherwise made to do interesting and/or playful things.

The first two should be recognisable from mass media accounts, and each could be sub-divided into multiple discourses that can be firmly oppositional, but are probably better understood as occupying various positions on a continuum between either extreme. I’ve chosen the third theme because I’m speaking at a hacker conference and because my own research focusses on how practitioners (geeks, artists, designers, activists, etc.) tend to imagine and engage with new technologies in ways that depend on the other two discursive positions, but often run parallel or perpendicular to them.

I’ll post my slides here after my talk, and in the meantime you can check out this video about a few clever pigs who use their fellow pigs’ discarded RFID collars to hack the feeding machines and get some extra chow:

The Running Hot! conference I attended earlier this month has posted videos of the two keynote addresses I found most interesting.

First, Nigel Thrift on Imagining Research Value:

Bryan Crump followed up with him on research in the NZ context, and Nigel suggested that the conference could be used as a model for others:

“Let early and mid-stage career researchers really take over an event but give them high level backing. That way lie new connections and the beginnings of real inter-disciplinary efforts…”

And second, Stuart Cunningham on Transforming Research Value:

Previously
Running Hot 2010: Enhancing Value
Running Hot 2010: Transforming Value
Running Hot 2010: Creating Value
Running Hot 2010: Imagining Value
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 1)
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 2)

I’m very pleased to announce that I’ll be keynoting Kiwicon 4 in a few weeks. (How could I say no to an event with a logo that frakking awesome?!)

What? “Kiwicon is New Zealand’s Hacker con, organised by and for the hacker community, their whitehat chums, and any curious bystanders who are interested in the very very thin veneer of robustness spackled over our technological world.”

When? 27-28 November, 2010

Where? Rutherford House, Victoria University of Wellington, Pipitea Campus

This is what I’ll be talking about and I hope that people will want to talk to me afterwards:

RFID (In)Securities
Few contemporary technologies raise as many security-related issues in the public consciousness as radio-frequency identification (RFID). Currently used in areas as diverse as commodity-chain management, building access, banking, livestock traceability, public transit and passports, RFID is promoted by government and industry as a reliable, efficient, convenient and secure communication technology. In contrast, mass media regularly report the relative ease with which signals can be boosted, viruses transmitted, databases hacked, privacies violated and freedoms denied. These kinds of utopian versus dystopian debates commonly accompany the introduction of new technologies, but rarely give people the conceptual and material tools needed to critically and creatively engage the social and cultural concerns at hand. By taking a closer look at some of the expectations, hopes and fears associated with RFID, this presentation aims to open new spaces of collaborative and collective action in the development and implementation of RFID and related technologies.

The final session of the conference was called “Enhancing Value,” and began with a group discussion to “identify lessons learnt during the conference, and identify the challenges and opportunities confronting a new generation of researchers.”

Helen Anderson began with the incredibly refreshing perspective that new researchers may not be brave or bold enough to ask the hard questions, and suggested we need to increase the “stroppiness quotient.” (Oh, how I wish more managers believed that!) She said it’s poor leadership to expect emergent researchers to spend all our time applying for funding, and that there should be the institutional courage to support winners and perhaps not others. But ultimately, she said we need support for the first five years–even if it means making/taking it ourselves.

Richard Bedford spoke of leadership and knowledge. He said leaders need to show respect for other knowledge, and be able to empower and mobilise other people. He emphasised the need for mutual respect and mutual trust, and how important it is that the new Ministry of Science and Innovation not lose sight of the social sciences and humanities.

Bryan Gould took the optimistic view that research value is now firmly embedded in popular culture and government priorities, but noted that while science is heroic in the sense that it tells us what we want to know, social science is a nuisance in the sense that it tells us what we don’t want to know. And although we are open to research knowledge in so many ways, we still struggle to view its value in other than economic terms. He noted the Canadian Index of Wellbeing, rather than GDP, as a measure of success and told us to take the money but remember that we are standard-bearers.

Juliet Gerrard asked how to nurture young researchers. With great humour she suggested that energy, enthusiasm and creativity decrease with age but support increases–so how to change this ridiculous situation? Give everyone money to start but only continue to give them money if they provide results and not just promises. In other words, pick the winners and go.

After coffee we got back together for final reflections and discussion of issues facing the future:

Shaun Hendy spoke about tracking publication and patent networks to predict the future of NZ research. His research suggests that inventors tend to come together in bigger cities–something that poses a challenge to NZ. But the largest collaborative network they’ve found stretches from San Francisco to San Diego, California, and involves a large number of companies, and if NZ could produce a large-scale collaborative network across the country then it could definitely compete. Still, per capita R&D spending needs to increase, new research strengths need to be developed, and spatial transaction costs need to be removed. Vic Arcus talked about the data deluge, the reinvention of the polymath, and the power of exponential growth compared to incremental growth. Tracey McIntosh began by suggesting that we might be more wary of attempts to colonise the future. She said that before we redistribute the pie amongst new and established researchers, perhaps we should be more mindful of those who have yet to participate at all. She called for greater awareness of who and what we serve and a recognition of how our research always involves power differentials. She also asked that our research always support social and environmental justice. She suggested that we do not continue with current models of knowledge production; we need more inter-disciplinary, cross-cultural, inter-generational, transformative, evidence-based and shared research.

Catherine Mohr and Stuart Cunningham then joined the group for a final discussion moderated by Bryan Crump, who began by asking what will actually incentivise researchers to collaborate. What I took away from everyone’s comments was that complex, cross-sector issues are what best bring us together. This reminded me of the work of Bruno Latour and Noortje Marres, and how it has informed my own research, whether in sociology or anthropology, technology or design.

Previously
Running Hot 2010: Transforming Value
Running Hot 2010: Creating Value
Running Hot 2010: Imagining Value
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 1)
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 2)

Stuart Cunningham gave the keynote this morning, “Never the twain shall meet?” and while he covered quite a bit, here’s what I took from it.

“The clashing point of two subjects, two disciplines, two cultures – of two galaxies, so far as that goes – ought to produce creative chaos.”

- CP Snow, The Two Cultures, 1959

Stuart started with CP Snow’s notion of two cultures as a way of introducing the challenges and opportunities of bringing together different disciplines. He reminded us that innovation networks are relatively new policy frameworks and are still highly contestable, not least because they challenge traditional neoliberalism. Still, cultures and parallel universes are converging: we’re seeing “fifth generation” innovation (pdf), services based economies and process innovation, and the breaking of the Frascati Manual. He continued to explain that the social sciences have come into their own in this environment, but the arts and humanities have yet to develop a convincing framework for innovation. One issue is different modes of knowledge; they too often oppose scientistic knowledge as too narrow or claim that all creative work is intrinsically innovative. But they are also too often seen as hand-maidens to science, “understanding and managing the consequences” of new science. (See Stuart’s contribution to this panel conversation (pdf) on technology, creativity and policy.) He then went on to provide some evidence for how things are changing, including AHRC, NESTA, GIF, Better by Design, and NZ Humanities Council becoming a division of the Royal Society, and several examples of complex problems that are best served by cross-disciplinary research teams. (See Anne Salmond’s speech on a “new enlightenment” at the Royal Society of New Zealand Fellows dinner in May 2010.)

Of particular interest to me, and something I had really hoped would be given more time at the conference, were Stuart’s examples of hindrances to collaboration, including: cultural/epistemological/methodological differences; rank and file protect disciplinary knowledge; insufficient resourcing and expertise; structural rigidity; little encouragement; significant barriers; lack of recognition and status; lack of mutual respect; lack of patience and imagination; lack of reward structure. He said we need to: promote a new mindset; change research behaviour; educate for greater collaboration; train ‘boundary spanners’; provide leadership training/opportunities for new researchers; coordinate and advocate cross-sectoral collaboration; create more linkage schemes; and build the question of impact (PBRF, ERA & REF) in from the start.

Moving on to innovator profiles, Peter Shepherd argued that NZ has an unhealthy dependence of primary industries (agriculture & tourism) but the environmental impact is enormous. He said we need non-traditional knowledge based industries with low carbon footprints, no trade barriers, high profit margins, protectable IP, high wage job creation. Industries and companies that fit this model include biofuels (Lanzatech), medical devices (Fisher & Paykel), human therapeutics (Pathway) and nanotechologies. He also said that NZ has a lot of work to do to make it happen because the support isn’t here, but the good news is that we can do it–we need to make it happen and not wait for it to happen. Ray Avery talked about applied research as taking some knowledge that is fundamental and applying it to another discipline, and stressed observation as the precursor of innovation. He argued that innovation starts in the field, not the lab, and we need to participate, observe, learn the environment and culture. For example, imagine setting specs by what people can afford instead of what we want or what we think they need.

The rest of the morning session was spent at rapid-fire roundtable discussions. I attended Lesley Middleton‘s table on research collaboration and Tracey McIntosh‘s table on social justice research. Although I found both very interesting, I really would have liked to see more workshop-type opportunities. There was a lot of talking and sharing of experience and nodding in agreement or recognition, but little attention given to practical, actionable information–especially in terms of problem-solving or overcoming barriers.

Previously
Running Hot 2010: Creating Value
Running Hot 2010: Imagining Value
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 1)
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 2)

The second session, “Creating Value,” focussed on the presentation of exemplary NZ research.

Richard Blaikie spoke on nano-scale imaging; Rhonda Shaw spoke on organ donation, gifting, reciprocity and sociology of the body; Jonathan Mane-Wheoki spoke on the “problem” of indigenous art; Ngahuia Te Awakotuku spoke on how “blue skies” research has increased public awareness and understanding of Maori culture; and Justin O’Sullivan spoke on the spatial organisation of DNA (how do we get DNA in a cell?!). All the presentations were interesting, but I have to say that Ngahuia Te Awakotuku and Rhonda Shaw impressed and inspired me. Also, Justin O’Sullivan is an awesome science communicator; he uses props!

The keynote for this thread of the conference was delivered by Catherine Mohr, on the topic of surgical technologies. She began by asking what the value of research is and provided a very straight-forward answer: saving lives. Using the example of stone-age trephination, she talked about the people who first performed surgery (applied research) and the people who improved the tools (basic research). The primary challenge of all surgery, she said, is how to heal a body without hurting it at the same time. For example, imagine what a difference it makes to do heart surgery without cracking the sternum. She showed us the potential of lasers, robotic technologies and dyes for highlighting the spread of cancer, or targeting tissues for removal. With these new technologies also come new questions, like how to develop surgical procedures and technologies that are sufficiently precise to solve all sorts of common ailments. In discussion, she explained that “better” surgery sometimes involves better training and sometimes it involves better diagnostic techniques or better instruments; the research goal is to always seek out the “better.” She also made clear that she’s talking about a research platform that will require many big and small contributions from around the world, but said that we will still need to make the case that the value of this research and development is worth its substantial cost. However, this is often a case of being able to think more systemically or holistically and pointing out that values and costs are often more dispersed through time and space than we might immediately recognise. She went on to explain that the first da Vinci surgical systems were not cost effective; it was more a case of “faith-based adoption.” However, she reminded us that new technologies need early adopters, and (old) practices need to be as rigourously evaluated as much as (new) technologies. She also pointed out that these emergent technological systems still require our existing human/clinical infrastructures, and showed some Gapminder World maps to raise the issue of global aging trends as something that will truly test today’s medical infrastructures and tomorrow’s surgical technologies in both developed and developing nations.

I found all of this research quite interesting, but I would have liked to hear more about how research can be valued or, more specifically, how these particular projects create particular kinds of value for particular people. After all, not everyone’s research directly saves lives and that doesn’t mean it doesn’t create value. I’d also hate to think that we only value funded research; the situation is much more complex than that, even when funded research is awesome.

Previously
Running Hot 2010: Imagining Value
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 1)
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 2)