The Council of Canadian Academies has written a report for the Canadian federal government recommending greater regulation on the use of nanomaterials in consumer products. Their reasoning being that a chemical compound, when incorporated into a nanoparticle will oftentimes display different properties than when it exists in its other forms.

I do not have a problem with the recommendations of the report as listed in the article. The whole purpose of developing nanoparticles is to create a material with different chemical properties than would be observed if the compound were simply a bulk solid or in solution. Therefore treating each nanoparticle as a separate chemical entity that needs an individual assesment of its environmental and toxicological effects only makes sense.

However, I can’t help but detect a bit of nano-hysteria in the article itself. The author seems to be suggesting that there is a danger posed by nanoparticles because of the fact that they are so small, which is a gross over-simplification.

Sure, nano is small, but it is quite large on the molecular scale. In terms of size, nanoparticles are more comparable to proteins or polymers, which are much larger than many of the individual chemical species found in your blood like sugar, caffeine, nicotine, ethanol, vitamins, minerals, hormones, etc.

It may be that titanium oxide nanoparticles found in sunscreen are more likely to enter your system perhaps than the bulk form found in house paint, especially when the former is applied directly to your skin and the latter, typically, is not. However, it’s rarely the solid form of a chemical that we’re concerned about. The problem with lead pipes isn’t that you’re likely to absorb lead into your system by simply touching them, it’s that water-soluble, oxidized forms of lead enter your body by means of the water the lead pipes are transporting. Water-soluble, oxidized forms that are smaller than any nanoparticle.

What needed to be stressed in this article is that there can be substantial differences in the chemical properties of compounds when alone or incorporated into a nanomaterial. Instead, it is suggested those differences are simply related to nanoparticles being so darn small.

They even mention drug delivery in the article, which is where multiple molecules of the drug are incorporated into a single nanoparticle. The goal is to achieve timed release of the drug from the nanoparticle structure to maintain a more consistent concentration of the drug in the blood stream as opposed to taking a pill of the bulk solid form which, after ingestion, results in a significant spike in the blood concentration of the drug. The chemical properties of the drug do not change, and the difference in how the drug is introduced into the blood stream is in no way related to the difference in size between a single nanoparticle and a drug tablet.

The field of nanoparticles is varied and complex, in some cases the difference in size may be a critical factor in the different properties of the materials while in other cases size may play little to no role at all. This is point where journalism and science commonly clash. Journalists aim for accuracy, yet when writing about science look for a simple, generalized way to present the concept to their readers. Science, however, in its own quest for accuracy, can rarely comply.

It seems our understanding about how evolution can occur is changing.  Work published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences (PNAS, tee-hee) has found evidence of sympatric speciation; the separation of a population into different species without the need of a physical, geographic barrier.  

The researchers, led by Canadian scientists at Queen’s University, have found that within five colonies of tropical birds living in the archipelagos where there are two populations with distinct breeding seasons, there is significant genetic variation between the populations and, in two of the colonies they have stopped exchanging genes entirely.  The data the researchers collected indicates at least four of these populations have arisen simply out of the difference in breeding periods. 

Darwin had initially proposed that sympatric speciation could occur, and now here’s the evidence.  Researcher Andrea Smith said “that it’s challenging the idea that you need a geographic barrier for species to arrive.”

It’s a good example of how a scientific theory, such as evolution, can be refined when new evidence is found.   

No one story has been sufficient inspiration for me to dedicate to it an entire post, however there were a few interesting stories I noticed recently.

In a recent post I mentioned how researchers are looking into clays used as ancient remedies for potential treatments of drug-resistant bacteria.  Well, this recent health alert in Ontario suggesting physicians be on the look-out for a particular sub-strain of Streptococcus pneumoniae 19A provides an example of why this work could be very valuable.  These bacteria commonly cause ear, chest and throat infections which can be readily treated with antibiotics, however this newly identified sub-strain cannot. 

In another post, I discussed research into pheromones, where attraction is (at least, partially) controlled by the sense of smell.  Well, here’s more evidence odours can have a direct affect on behaviour.  Japanese researchers have found a smell receptor in mice that detects the odour of cats and causes the mice to run away, naturally.  It was found that mice who had this receptor turned off would not fear cats, and in fact, they would play with kittens.  To demonstrate the importance of this particular receptor, mice were engineered to have a very poor sense of smell.  While these mice had difficulty detecting the odour of cats, once they did, their response was to flee.  The researchers say this points out there are two distinct functional modules of the olfactory system, one for innate responses to odours and one for learned, associative responses.

Finally, in February of this year researchers investigating if there’s a genetic factor behind type II diabetes stumbled upon a gene called FTO that is related to obesity.  However, at the time that’s all they could say–if you have two copies of a particular variant of the FTO-gene you were on average 3 kg heavier.  The challenge was then to find out how this gene worked and there have been a couple of recent discoveries working towards this end. 

In research involving mice, it has been found that the protein this gene codes for, the FTO-protein, would accumulate in the hypothalamus in the brain.  However, up to 60% less of this protein was found in the hypothalamus’ of mice who were underfed when compared to mice on a regular feeding schedule, suggesting the function of the gene may be related to appetite. 

In separate work, scientists examined the structure of the FTO-protein finding it is very similar to other known DNA demethylase enzymes; enzymes that repair altered DNA by removing a chemical moiety known as a methyl group.  The question of how demethylating DNA plays a role in obesity is still open, but it’s a crucial first step in determining how this gene and its related protein function.

While I am interested in how this gene actually works, I’m just glad there’s another reason why I can claim I’m at least 3 kg heavier than I should be, aside from the amount of time I spend sitting on my butt in front of a computer doing things like writing on my blog.

One of the arguments people use to deny the threat of climate change is to point out that computer models are used to generate predictions of the effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures. 

“Models are flawed,” they argue, “we shouldn’t develop policies now to avoid the consequences of climate change when we only have computers providing predictions with high uncertainty telling us what those consequences might be.”

Unfortunately, a recent study seems, at first glance, to support this argument.  Computer models are inherently limited in how well they can predict the consequences if rising greenhouse gas emissions result in extreme increases in temperature, it says.  Most models predict moderate changes in temperature, and there is greater consensus on how the climate will respond.  But, the greater the predicted increase in temperature the greater the variance in the models’ results. 

However, the authors of the study point out that since our ability to precisely predict how the climate will react if specific levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are reached, policies should be linked to temperature targets, not emissions levels.

It could be a dangerous argument to make; the results could easily be spun to argue the predicted consequences of climate change are too uncertain for us to be alarmed.  I’m not certain the momentum in public support for measures to offset climate change can be maintained if people aren’t convinced the results of doing nothing will be bad–very bad. 

Getting people in the Western world to make the necessary lifestyle changes to mitigate or offset climate change is a tall order.  Here, in London, Ontario, there was a big stink because a roadway recently re-named to commemorate war veterans was strewn with garbage.  We can’t even stop people from throwing garbage out the window of their cars!    The tearful Native American man of the infamous commercial would be inconsolable now.

It’s a clear sign you need a really solid argument if you want people to consider an alternative to driving themselves everywhere, let alone any other actions needed to curb emissions. 

On top of that, there’s also a call from people truly concerned about climate change to abandon the Kyoto protocol.  They don’t have to argue that it’s a failed policy; I think most people can see not much has been achieved in battling emissions.  In fact,  levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are accelerating.  But, they make a very strong case the real problem with Kyoto is it’s the wrong tool for fixing the problem. 

As they point out, the greatest obstacle to moving away from Kyoto is it’ll be a huge political challenge for anyone who endorsed it to now suggest an alternative approach is necessary. Especially since non-signatory nations like the U.S. have already used the “alternative approach” terminology as code for a plan to doing nothing. 

However, I think it’s a worthwhile read for anyone concerned about climate change.  If enough people get the word out about their suggested alternative to Kyoto, who knows,  maybe it could motivate people to push for more localized strategies to reduce emissions?

An unfortunate consequence of my being busy tutoring second year organic chemistry students to prepare them for their upcoming exam is that I haven’t had much free time to do much blogging, lately.

One major happening since my last post is that Al Gore has been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  While it may be encouraging that the Nobel committee wants to reinforce the message Gore and the IPCC are trying to get out, it may also, in a sense, be a little premature to award them at this stage. 

The problem I see developing out of giving Gore the Nobel Prize is an even greater backlash towards Gore and his message than he already is receiving.  In most fields, receiving the Nobel prize increases the credibility and stature of the work of the recipients, but I’m not sure that holds for the peace prize.  More than any of the other Nobel awards, the peace prize is perceived as simply a political gesture.  And it’s hard to argue that bestowing the honour on Gore and the IPCC is anything but.  

More importantly, receiving the Nobel Peace prize doesn’t strengthen the scientific arguments behind the warnings issued by Gore and the IPCC.  I don’t know what it will take to make the doubters finally accept that climate change is occurring and it is exacerbated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, but I’m pretty certain giving Gore the peace prize won’t help to change their minds.

In fact, one reason Gore and the IPCC may not be worthy of the award is that, despite their efforts, there still seems to be widespread skepticism about climate change.  Just last week, a man in Britain claimed a moral victory in his case to keep Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, out of highschool classrooms.  While schools will be allowed to show the film, the corresponding literature will have to make it perfectly clear that the film is presents a political point of view.

This brings me to an inconvenient admission:  I’ve never seen this film.  So, anyone reading this who has seen the film, let me know; is it hyperbolic propaganda for an environmentalist agenda or is it a rational discussion of the threat of climate change and what we can do to reduce its impact?  

During the current election campaign here in Ontario, the Power Worker’s Union has placed advertisements in the paper saying they have a better plan for generating electricity in Ontario than the current government.

You see, the current government (who are likely to be our next government in a couple of days) wants to reduce electricity use and increase supply from other, cleaner sources so that by 2014 it can close our coal-fired generating stations.

Since that would mean a loss of jobs, the union has come out swinging, arguing Ontario should invest in clean coal technology.  Their argument in favour of coal can be found here.  I don’t mind that they want to look out for the best interest of their members, and I don’t doubt for a second there are ways to make the burning of coal a cleaner way to generate electricity, but isn’t that really just polishing a turd? 

Current clean coal technology may drastically reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions, but it doesn’t do much for the amount of carbon dioxide it produces.  And if it weren’t for the growing concern over global warming, there wouldn’t even be an issue about burning coal for electricity.

However, the real problem with the entire discussion is the fact that nobody wants to move beyond burning stuff to generate electricity.  It’s so primitive, there has to be a better way!  Setting something on fire, to generate heat, to generate steam, to turn a turbine is highly inefficient in energy terms.  It doesn’t matter what you burn, it wastes a lot of energy. 

I don’t care that coal is cheap and abundant, that shouldn’t prevent us from developing ways to generate electricity that are both cleaner and more efficient from the outset.  Our focus shouldn’t be on researching ways to make burning coal a more palatable option, it should be on developing technologies that don’t rely on burning whatever we decide is acceptable to burn, whether it’s coal, gas, garbage or wheat (shouldn’t we be eating that instead?).

What I’d really like to see is solar power being properly developed so it can take it’s rightful place among our electricity-generating options.  You have to wonder, if it didn’t compete with the interests of so many powerful organizations like the PWU and coal and gas producers, would it be a part of electricity generation now?   

I get a lot of my news from the stories highlighted on the Yahoo! Canada webpage, and this morning a particular headline caught my eye.  “Awash in toxic chemicals,” it read.  There’s a study recently published in Environmental Research that attributes 25,000 Canadian deaths per year to health issues associated with pollutants.  It sounds frightening, which is really its entire purpose.

The study was co-authored by environmental lawyer David Boyd, author of Unnatural Law and now a graduate student at UBC’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability (see the UBC press release here).  So, it’s written by an environmental crusader with a law degree, leaving it kind of lacking in scientific credibility.

But wait, the other author was Stephen Genuis of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Alberta.  Dr. Genuis’ area of specialty – obstetrics and gynecology (go to the bottom).

This study is a joke; more an exercise in public relations than a determination of the real health costs associated with pollutants.  It’s beyond ridiculous to try and assess how many people are dying from respiratory illnesses, cancer and cardiovascular disease caused by exposure to environmental pollutants all in one fell swoop.  The fact that the actual study suggests the number lies between 10,000 and 25,000 tells you all you need to know (what would the error associated with that measurement be?).

There’s nothing to be learned from this study, and like I said in a previous post, it only generates skepticism or chemophobia.  On a lighter note, instances of chemophobia can make for an entertaining little news blurb. 

The aim of the logic emporium is to warehouse commentary on science related topics that appear in the news. Ideally, that commentary will not come solely from me, but that the existence of this blog will spur me to actually seek out the opinions of other, more highly regarded scientists. This is my first crack at blogging so now it’s just a matter of seeing where it goes…