Skip navigation

Paula Samuelson knows what is going on more than I do, if you are interested in the blow by blow, watch her presentation from a few weeks ago

April 17 – 18, 2009
New York University
Gallatin School of Individualized Study
715 Broadway (Entrance at 1 Washington Place)
The Jerry H. Labowitz Theatre for the Performing Arts

Darwin and the Boundaries of Science commemorates the bicentennial of the birth of Charles Darwin. The two-day conference will examine how Darwin’s ideas have changed the boundaries of knowledge: between science and religion, between speculation and theory, between the past and the present, and between humans and the world around us. Interdisciplinary in scope, the event draws upon the expertise of scholars from a wide range of fields, including biology, astronomy and astrophysics, mechanical engineering, philosophy, sociology and history. Speakers will discuss not just the content of Darwin’s discoveries, but also the way these discoveries forever altered what counted as knowledge and what could be ultimately understood. We will draw on both scientific and historical expertise to form a robust perspective on how science does—or does not—relate to the wider culture of which it is a part. Scientists will have an opportunity to explain how and why they draw the boundaries of their disciplines, and humanities scholars will demonstrate the complex processes that formed and continue to reshape these boundaries.

Check this out.
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/22095/?a=f

Inside a converted warehouse . . .

Above the mist and mystery of the Gowanus Canal . . .

The world is safe again for slide rules and gamma ray detectors . . .

The “Secret Science Club” blasts off from the Bell House with more star-gazing lectures, rocket-fueled libations, and celestial sounds!!

Wednesday, March 18 @ 8 pm at the Bell House, $3 cover charge

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson lectures on the Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet

The icy little world known as Pluto is billions of miles from Earth. Yet, when the International Astronomical Union demoted Pluto to the status of dwarf planet in 2006, the reaction was out of this world. Defiant T-shirt slogans, and pity-filled songs all raged against Pluto’s sad fate. Hell hath no fury like a planet (and its fans) scorned. No one knows better than astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was on the receiving end of much of this celestial wrath—including tear-stained hate mail from third-graders.

According to Tyson, Pluto may be a dwarf—but it’s still awesome. Now enthroned with its “trans-Neptunian” brethren in the Kuiper Belt, Pluto is the focus of intense scientific interest. NASA’s New Horizons Pluto-Kuiper Belt spacecraft has already passed Saturn on a 9-year journey to reach and take a peek at Pluto and its moon Charon. The question, says Tyson, is not what we call Pluto, but “What’s out there?”

The director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, Neil deGrasse Tyson is host of PBS’s “Nova: ScienceNOW. ” He is the author of nine books, including his most recent “The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet” and the best-selling “Death By Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries.” In 2007, Time Magazine named Dr. Tyson one of the world’s 100 most influential people. What did People magazine name him? You got it, baby! He’s the “Sexiest Astrophysicist Alive.”

Don’t miss one nanosecond of this cosmic talk.

Before & After

–Groove to heavenly tunes and video inspired by the cosmic ballet.

–Defy gravity with the Secret Science Club’s quantum cocktails of the night, the “Big Banger” and “Interplanetary Punch” (they’ll knock you into orbit . . .)

–Grab a signed copy of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s new book: “The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet.”

–Stick around for the extraterrestrial Q&A.

The Secret Science Club meets Wednesday, March 18 at 8 p.m. @ the Bell House, 149 7th St. (between 2nd and 3rd avenues) in Gowanus, Brooklyn, p: 718.643.6510 W: http://thebellhouseny.com Subway: F to 4th Ave; R to 9th St.

$3 cover charge at the door. Please bring ID: 21+. LIMITED SEATS AVAILABLE. Doors open at 7:30. Come early to get a seat.

For information: contact secretscienceclub@gmail.com or Dorian Devins at gal9000@verizon.net

Or visit us on the Web at http://secretscienceclub.blogspot.com

WHAT: Briefing before the U.S. Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus

Nanotechnology and the Public: New Data for Decision Makers

Michael M. Crow, president of Arizona State University, and 13 recognized scholars studying societal implications of nanotechnology will brief the U.S. Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, with a projected attendance of 40 congressional staff and other federal policymakers.  The Caucus co-chairs are Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), and Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX).  The briefing has been organized by the NSF-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU), in collaboration with the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and will be moderated by David H. Guston, professor of political science, co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, and director of the NSF-funded CNS-ASU.

WHEN: Monday, March 9, 2009

AGENDA: Welcome

Michael M. Crow, president of Arizona State University

Public Understanding of and Attitudes toward

Nanotechnology: Overview

Julia Moore, deputy director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies – a joint initiative of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts

Dietram A. Scheufele, professor of life sciences communication at the University of Wisconsin and senior investigator with CNS-ASU.

Publics and Nano Risk

Barbara Herr Harthorn, professor of feminist studies, anthropology and sociology at University of California at Santa Barbara and director of the NSF-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at UCSB

Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law at Yale Law School and a member of the Cultural Cognition Project

Public Engagement: National Citizens’ Technology Forum

David H. Guston, professor of political science, co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, and director of the NSF-funded CNS-ASU

Michael D. Cobb, associate professor of political science at North Carolina State University and a senior investigator with CNS-ASU

Public Engagement: Museums’ and Science Centers’ Forums

Larry Bell, senior vice president for strategic initiatives at the Museum of

Science in Boston and director of the NSF-funded Nano-scale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net)

Christine Reich, manager of research and evaluation at the Museum of Science, Boston, and leader of the evaluation team and the diversity, equity and access team of NISE Net

· Each panel will include presentations and discussion.  The panels will be followed by refreshments and a 45-minute open conversation with the panelists and other related researchers, including:

Donald Braman, George Washington University School of Law

Joseph Conti, Arizona Bar Foundation

Elizabeth Corley, Arizona State University

Jason Delborne, Colorado School of Mines

Mark Philbrick, University of California, Berkeley

About the Participants & Presentations

Larry Bell’s briefing presentation will present an overview of NISE Net’s activities to engage the public in learning about nano-scale science, engineering and technology, including its catalog of informal educational materials, capacity raising activities, and NanoDays.

Bell is senior vice president for strategic initiatives at the Museum of Science in Boston and director of the NSF-funded Nano-scale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net).  NISE Net is a network of science museums and researchers working to raise public awareness, understanding, and engagement with nano-scale science, engineering, and technology.

Donald Braman is associate professor of law at the George Washington University School of Law.  He also is a member of the NSF-funded Cultural Cognition Project (CCP), an interdisciplinary team of scholars studying risk perception.

Michael D. Cobb’s briefing presentation will report on data from both the National Citizens’ Technology Forum and the subsequent national public opinion poll about public values toward nanotechnology and human enhancement.  These data suggest, among other findings, that the public remains hopeful about potential therapeutic advances but that upon deliberation they disfavor many particular potential enhancements.

Cobb is associate professor of political science at North Carolina State University and a senior investigator with the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU), where he was a leader on the team that conducted the National Citizens’ Technology Forum in March 2008 and the subsequent national survey on nanotechnology and human enhancement.  He is studying how public perceptions of emerging nanotechnologies are affected by learning, framing and deliberation.

Joseph Conti is a post-doctoral fellow with the American Bar Foundation.  In 2008, he received his doctoral degree in sociology from the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he was a graduate fellow in the risk perception and social movements research group at the NSF-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS-UCSB).

Elizabeth A. Corley is associate professor in the School of Public Affairs and a co-principal investigator at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU), where she also is a leader of the public opinion and values research team.

Michael M. Crow became the 16th president of Arizona State University on July 1, 2002.  He is guiding the transformation of ASU into one of the nation’s leading public metropolitan research universities, an institution that combines the highest levels of academic excellence, inclusiveness to a broad demographic, and maximum societal impact.  Under his direction, the university pursues teaching, research, and creative excellence focused on the major challenges and questions of our time, as well as those central to the building of a sustainable environment and economy for Arizona.  He has committed the university to global engagement and to setting a new standard for public service.  Prior to joining ASU, Crow was executive vice provost of Columbia University, where he oversaw Columbia’s research enterprise and technology transfer operations.  A fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, he is the author of books and articles relating to the analysis of research organizations and science and technology policy.

Jason Delborne, assistant professor of liberal arts and international studies at the Colorado School of Mines, conducts research on highly politicized scientific controversies.  In 2008, Delborne coordinated the National Citizens’ Technology Forum in Madison, Wisconsin – bringing together everyday citizens to discuss the impacts of nanotechnology on technologies of human enhancement.

David H. Guston’s briefing presentation will provide an overview of the National Citizens’ Technology Forum on nanotechnology and human enhancement and describe strong evidence of its high-quality deliberation, including opinion holding, substantive learning, consensus formation, and feelings of efficacy, based on pre- and post-event surveys.

Guston is professor of political science, co-director of ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes (CSPO), and director of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU).  He has served on the Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group to the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and co-chaired the 2008 Gordon Research Conference on “Governing Emerging Technologies.”

Barbara Herr Harthorn’s briefing presentation will report findings from deliberation and survey research on factors shaping emergent nanotech risk perception with positive orientation to benefits, but noting implications of on-going low awareness and malleability, application-specific response, and trust.

Harthorn is professor of feminist studies, anthropology & sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, where she also directs the NSF-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS-UCSB; NSF #531184) and leads its interdisciplinary, international risk perception research team.  She also leads a risk perception team in the new NSF/EPA UC Center for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (UCLA/UCSB).  CNS-UCSB researchers have conducted cross-national deliberation research in the U.S. and UK and experimental survey research on emergent views in the U.S. of nanotechnologies for health and energy.

Dan M. Kahan’s briefing presentation will review key findings in experimental studies that show that individuals react to balanced information about nanotechnology risks in a manner that reflects their cultural predispositions toward environmental risks generally and he will discuss the need for research aimed at avoiding cultural polarization as the public learns more about nanotechnology.

Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard professor of law at Yale Law School, is a member of the NSF-funded Cultural Cognition Project, an interdisciplinary team of scholars studying risk perception.  CCP researchers, in studies supported by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, have conducted a series of experiments examining how ordinary members of the public process information relating to nanotechnology risks and benefits.

Julia Moore’s briefing presentation will address the conflicting perceptions of nanotechnology benefits and risks to help the technology avoid the fate of stem cell research, food irradiation, evolution and genetically-modified food.

Moore is deputy director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies – a joint initiative of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts.  Moore was senior advisor in the Office of International Science & Engineering (2003-2005) and director of legislative & public affairs (1995-2000) at the National Science Foundation.  For three years (2000-2003), Moore was a public policy scholar at the Wilson Center working in Washington, D.C., and London on the genetically-modified food controversy.

Mark Philbrick is a doctoral candidate in the department of environmental science, policy and management at the University of California, Berkeley.  His research focuses on the governance of the environmental implications and applications of emerging technologies.  In particular, his dissertation explores new policies and strategies for facilitating the development and deployment of nanoscale technologies that yield public goods.  Additionally, he has over two decades of experience in the high-tech and environmental industries, including ten years as head of a consulting firm.

Christine Reich’s briefing presentation will present an overview of the work of the five-museum NISE Net Forum team, which has experimented with programs to involve the public in dialogue about the benefits and risks of nanotechnology.  She also will review evaluation findings that indicate how such activities impact the public’s views and behaviors.

Reich heads research and evaluation at the Museum of Science, Boston, and leads both the evaluation team and the diversity, equity and access team of the NSF-funded Nano-scale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net).  She has guided the evaluation work of NISE Net Forum programs, which engage the public in discussion, dialogue and deliberation about the societal implications, both benefits and risks, of nanotechnology.

Dietram A. Scheufele’s briefing presentation will provide an overview of the public opinion dynamics surrounding nanotechnology, including perceptions of nano-related risks among experts and the general public, as well as views on regulatory policy proposals.

Scheufele is professor of life sciences communication at the University of Wisconsin.  He is a former member of the Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group to the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and currently serves on the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists, a joint committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Bar Association.  He also is a leader of the public opinion and values research team of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU).

Regina D. Sanborn, MLS ’07

Program Manager

Center for Nanotechnology in Society

Arizona State University

P.O. Box 875603

1120 South Cady Mall

Tempe, Arizona  85287-5603

rsanborn@asu.edu

480-965-7074

480-727-8791

http://cns.asu.edu/

Physical location:

Interdisciplinary B Building

Suite 366

Next week – let’s meet at the Games talk, which runs from 6-7:30. We will meet back at ITP and set up between 7:45 and 8PM. From 8PM to 9PM, we will do the science salon activities and then adjourn.

Please be back at ITP promptly so we can begin after the Games talk!

Here are the details:

Please join us for The NYU Game Center Lecture Series

Date: Thursday, March 5th
Time: 6:00 PM – 7:30PM
Place: 721 Broadway, Room 006, lower level

RSVP: bonita.engel@nyu.edu

Please join us for The NYU Game Center Lecture Series

Noted game scholar and designer Dr. Ian Bogost, is visiting NYU to
discuss his experience as a leading contributor to the field of game studies. He
will share his views on the complex aesthetic and cultural issues surrounding
video games.

The format for the evening will focus on dialogue and conversation.
The audience is encouraged to join the discussion. Please bring your questions and
ideas around the general topic of games and the specific topic of how to best
incorporate games as a field of study within the university.

Dr. Ian Bogost is an Associate Professor at the Georgia Institute of
Technology and Founding Partner at Persuasive Games LLC. His research and
writing considers videogames as an expressive medium, and his creative practice focuses
on games about social and political issues. Bogost is author of Unit Operations: An
Approach to Videogame Criticism (MIT Press 2006), recently listed
among “50 books for everyone in the game industry,” of Persuasive Games: The
Expressive Power of Videogames (MIT Press 2007), and co-author (with Nick
Montfort) of Racing the Beam: The Atari Video Computer System (MIT Press 2008).
Bogost’s videogames about social and political issues cover topics as varied
as airport security, disaffected workers, the petroleum industry, suburban
errands, and tort reform. His games have been played by millions of people and
exhibited internationally.

Check out this show next Tuesday by Columbia Neuroscientst, David Soldier, at the Highline Ballroom.

About the show

About Dave

and here too

After a long break from performing, the Spinozas are playing Highline Ballroom in Chelsea on Tuesday night on a bill with classic 70’s and 80’s rock stars: Dee Snider from the utlimate Long Island metal band Twisted Sister, a house band with Lenny Kaye (Patty Smith), members of the Kennedys, Dream Syndicate, and Rufus Wainwright (OK, 90’s too), and lots of other great players

We’ll perform around 9 pm and we’ll have Annati singing, Rebecca Cherry on violin, David Castellano on palmas, and me on flamenco guitar, playing medieval Arabic lyrics of romance and death.

It’s a science and art festival that will also feature the Amygdaloids, who are NYU scientists who play garage rock, and Daniel Levitin who writes music/neuroscience bestsellers.

See
http://sensationandemotionnetwork.com/html/Rock-It_Science.html

Other concerts:

On March 20, Brad Garton and I perform our EEG music project at WHYY in Philadelphia at a live lecture / concert that will be filmed for PBS

The new kid’s  music CD Yol K’u Mayan Mountain Music is out and the music can be downloaded for free. It also has a DVD of the kid’s own movie based on Romeo & Juliet, using their own music

My music theater pieces with Kurt Vonnegut will be reissued next month on a commemorative CD, known as Ice-9 Ballads

On April 6, the Flea will present our work in progress black and white film The Violinist (that means not the entire piece), featuring live playing by Rebecca Cherry, and the film by director Winsome Brown and cinematographer Jenn Reeves

Though we talked through this in class, here are a couple of key comments and connections for people to contact and links to investigate…

Brian J. – reactions at the nanoscale

We talked about you looking for an NYU Poly faculty member or graduate student to work with. I am bringing several print outs of contacts to class for you this week…

Craig K.

All three of the examples you give in your position statement are evocative: renewable energy, ecology and ecosystems, and evolutionary biology.  I see where you are going with using Augmented Reality to reveal more detail in a given (in this case) map dataset of windpower density. Let’s talk more in class, and I can folllow up with some potential scientist contacts!

James L.

We talked about the potential in using both global and local datasets to reinterpret the emphasis of this health data for particular populations

A link to a description of the Buckminster Fuller “Design Science” process is here

I talked to you about both a contact at CDC communications department in Atlanta (workin on this one) and also I recommend interviewing a faculty member who is a part of NYU’s new Global Public Health program

John K.

I recommended, and I think gave you a link to Rob Fergus’s page from Courant, who works on computational IR strategies for large collections. If he is not available, there are likely others who will fit as a potential “expert” interview. I also recommended that you make an appointment at the Data Service Studio to demo SPSS text analyst to look at your data. Let me know if you want ideas for where to get other demonsgraphic and trend data to pair with the future me stuff.

Johnathan N.

We talked about potential linkages between political psychology and neuroeconomics. I referenced the book Nudge – and we talked about a discussing emerging amongst designers about moral implications of certain design decisions aimed at influencing behavior UNCONSCIOUSLY, rather than through a rational presentation of data/factual evidence. For an NYU contact on theory, maybe try contacting Eric Dickson, who recently taught a course on political psychology in the fall. We talked about potential data sources in Congresstrack or Gov.track, potentially CSPAN — and here’s the Metavid project I mentioned that is making a searchable archive of CSPAN footage. This is really cool!


Recent advances in computing have only recently made 3D MRI’s a reality. The three dimensional image is not just a surface recording, it has depth. One can view various systems (Nervous, Circulatory, lymphatic) all at once. The First, Third, and Fourth principles of Tufte’s visualization analysis are easily achievable given the nature of the data capture.

  • First Principle: Show comparisons. contrasts. differences
    By having all of the systems recorded, comparing contrast (between systems) is easier. Having all the related systems available for analysis should make it easier to divine whatever information is desired.
  • Third Principle: Multivariate Analysis
  • Fourth Principle: Integration of Evidence
    The 3-D recording that the MRI is capable of allows the data to be both multi-variant and such variants are integrated into the image by nature of the devices capture methods. Not knowing the purpose of the observation however, I cannot know what evidence should be apparent.

The Second Principle: Causality, Mechanism, Structure, Explanation is difficult to assess. I am assuming that the MRI is used to detect physical ailments. Blood clots, tumors, breakages, etc. A Doctor would not order an MRI to diagnose a blood disorder for example, they would order a blood test. So I can only assume that if an MRI is used, then it is for something physically detectable. Since the image occurs in the fourth dimension, time. Causality, mechanism, and systematic structure, can all play into explanation. You can watch the events unfold before you, in theory.

Principles Five and Sixth, Documentation and Content Quality are the two of the main goals of Medical Imaging. As the technology moves forward, the user is able to capture more data (more time at smaller intervals of time) and at higher resolution. This is a constant dialogue engineers are having with medical professionals. It is not a static quality.

Aesthetically the image is drab. While I am curious what function color could serve in such a visualization, it is becoming apparent that the MRI is plotting density data at a vector, no more. This allows the viewer to “dive” through the image and see the different values that make up the systems. What I can divine as the viewer and what the computer can “see” is very different. I can see that cluster of tangent densities as an organ or a blood vessel. The application does not see the relationship those values have to each other. So the idea of each overlapping system being separated  on it’s own layer would require some sort of density pattern recognition on the part of the MRI application. I have seen this sort of layering only on models the have been created to demonstrate the and illuminate the overapping systems of the human body. I have not seen a medical image treated in this way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10tree.html

Crunching the Data for the Tree of Life
By CARL ZIMMER
Published: February 9, 2009

Michael Sanderson is worried. Dr. Sanderson, a biologist at the University of Arizona, is part of an effort to figure out how all the estimated 500,000 species of plants are related to one another. For years now the researchers have sequenced DNA from thousands of species from jungles, tundras and museum drawers. They have used supercomputers to crunch the genetic data and have gleaned clues to how today’s diversity of baobobs, dandelions, mosses and other plants evolved over the past 450 million years. The pace of their progress gives Dr. Sanderson hope that they will draw the entire evolutionary tree of plants within the next few years. “It’s within striking distance,” Dr. Sanderson said.

There’s just one problem. “We have no way to visualize such a tree at the moment,” he said. If they tried, they would end up with a blurry, inscrutable thicket. “It would be ironic,” Dr. Sanderson said. “We’d be saying, ‘We’ve built it, but we can’t show it to you.’ ”

This was a real problem for exhibitions in the AMNH hall of human life

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/humanorigins/past/tree.php

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.