Hope to see you there!  —Christine Peterson, President, Foresight Institute

Those attracted to the idea of Open Science may also want to check out the web site for Open Access Week, just ending. From the web site:

Open Access Week, a global event now entering its fourth year, is an opportunity for the academic and research community to continue to learn about the potential benefits of Open Access, to share what they’ve learned with colleagues, and to help inspire wider participation in helping to make Open Access a new norm in scholarship and research.

“Open Access” to information – the free, immediate, online access to the results of scholarly research, and the right to use and re-use those results as you need – has the power to transform the way research and scientific inquiry are conducted. It has direct and widespread implications for academia, medicine, science, industry, and for society as a whole.

Open Access (OA) has the potential to maximize research investments, increase the exposure and use of published research, facilitate the ability to conduct research across available literature, and enhance the overall advancement of scholarship. Research funding agencies, academic institutions, researchers and scientists, teachers, students, and members of the general public are supporting a move towards Open Access in increasing numbers every year. Open Access Week is a key opportunity for all members of the community to take action to keep this momentum moving forward.

On a purely personal note, French statesman Georges Clemenceau is reputed to have said something like “War is too important to be left to the generals.” Having watched progress in nanotechnology and artificial general intelligence since 1986, I am inclined to agree with the open science movement that progress in science in general, and nanotechnology and AGI in particular, is too important to be left solely to the professionals and the governments and large corporations that fund them.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/cia-software-developer-goes-open-source-instead/

http://www.competinghypotheses.org

“It’s not *quite* released yet, but in theory it will show up there.

“Here’s how the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses process works:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art11.html

Analysis of competing hypotheses, sometimes abbreviated ACH, is a tool to aid judgment on important issues requiring careful weighing of alternative explanations or conclusions. It helps an analyst overcome, or at least minimize, some of the cognitive limitations that make prescient intelligence analysis so difficult to achieve.

ACH is an eight-step procedure grounded in basic insights from cognitive psychology, decision analysis, and the scientific method. It is a surprisingly effective, proven process that helps analysts avoid common analytic pitfalls. Because of its thoroughness, it is particularly appropriate for controversial issues when analysts want to leave an audit trail to show what they considered and how they arrived at their judgment.

“This reminded me of the ‘science court’ process that Eric [Drexler] described decades ago in Engines of Creation.  It sounds like it may have found an institutional home in the CIA and may be able to break out into broader society.”

Thanks for this, John.  We’ll watch it with interest!  —Chris Peterson

Topics include OpenPCR, DIY biology, open source hardware, brain preservation, synthetic biology, gene patents, open data, open access journals, reputation engines, crowd-funding and microfinance for science, citizen science, biohacking, open source biodefense, cure entrepreneurs, open source drug discovery, patent pools, tech transfer, and much more.

Here’s some advance media coverage:

http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2010/07/07/the-open-science-shift/

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/07/diy-biotechnologists-go-looking-for-a-bigger-garage/59701/

If you can’t attend in person, watch the webcast live at:

http://fora.tv/live/open_science/open_science_summit_2010

Put it on your calendar now!  Or we’ll hope to see you in person, especially for the session where I’m speaking: “Safety and Security Concerns, Open Source Biodefense” at 5:15 PM on Friday.  –Chris Peterson

Open Science Summit 2010: Updating the Social Contract for Science 2.0

July 29-31 International House Berkeley
http://opensciencesummit.com

Ready for a rapid, radical reboot of the global innovation system for a truly free and open 21st century knowledge economy? Join us at the first Open Science Summit, an attempt to gather all stakeholders who want to liberate our scientific and technological commons to enable an new era of decentralized, distributed innovation to solve humanity’s greatest challenges.

In the last ten years, a collection of burgeoning movements has begun the herculean task of overhauling the outmoded institutions and worldviews that make up our global scientific governance system. Proponents of the Access to Knowledge movement (A2K) have united around the principle that data and knowledge are “anti-rivalrous,” the value of information increases as it spreads.

Open Access Journals have demonstrated a new path for publishing that utilizes the power of the internet to instantly distribute ideas instead of imposing artificial scarcity to prop up old business models. “Health 2.0” entrepreneurs are seeking to apply the lessons of e-commerce to empower patients.

However, these different efforts are each working on a piece of a problem without a view of the whole. It is not sufficient or realistic to tweak one component of the innovation system (eg, patent policy) and assume the others stay static. Instead, dynamic, interactive, nonlinear change is unfolding.

The Open Science Summit is the first and only event to consider what happens throughout the entire innovation chain as reform in one area influences the prospects in others. In the best case scenario, a virtuous circle of mutually reinforcing shifts toward transparency and collaboration could unleash hitherto untapped reserves of human ingenuity.

Hope to see you there!  —Chris Peterson

“A method is described for building a mechanosynthesis tool intended to be used for the molecularly precise fabrication of physical structures — as for example, diamond structures. An exemplar tool consists of a bulk-synthesized dimer-capped triadamantane tooltip molecule which is initially attached to a deposition surface in tip-down orientation, whereupon CVD or equivalent bulk diamond deposition processes are used to grow a large crystalline handle structure around the tooltip molecule. The large handle with its attached tooltip can then be mechanically separated from the deposition surface, yielding an integral finished tool that can subsequently be used to perform diamond mechanosynthesis in vacuo. The present disclosure is the first description of a complete tool for positional diamond mechanosynthesis, along with its method of manufacture. The same toolbuilding process may be extended to other classes of tooltip molecules, other handle materials, and to mechanosynthetic processes and structures other than those involving diamond.”

The literature citation of the patent reads as follows:  Robert A. Freitas Jr., “A Simple Tool for Positional Diamond Mechanosynthesis, and its Method of Manufacture,” U.S. Patent No. 7,687,146, issued 30 March 2010.

The URL is:  http://www.molecularassembler.com/Papers/US7687146.pdf

Congratulations, Rob!  —Chris Peterson

Life-saving scientific research is being stifled by a “broken” patent system, according to a new report.

“Blocking patents” are delaying advances in cancer medicine and food crops, says the Canada-based Innovation Partnership, a non-profit consultancy.

The full benefits of synthetic biology and nanotechnology will not be realised without urgent reforms to encourage sharing of information, they say.

Their findings will be reported next week to UK policymakers and NGOs.

The report is compiled by the Innovation Partnership’s International Expert Group on Biotechnology, Innovation and Intellectual Property.

It cites examples of medical advances which have been delayed from reaching people in need — in both the developed and developing world.

These include HIV/Aids drugs and cancer screening tests.

The authors offer guidelines for a transition from “Old IP” to “New IP”, in which companies, researchers and governments recognise that sharing information is mutually beneficial.

“If we are to turn the atoms of publicly funded discovery into molecules of innovation… we have to make sure research avenues stay open,” said the report’s lead author, Professor Richard Gold.

“That doesn’t mean there will be no patents. It simply means that patents don’t become a barrier to early stage research.

“We do not want to end up in the same situation with nanotechnology that we are in with genetics.”

…Fears that these patents may be too broad have been raised by the ETC Group, which campaigns for the reform of biotech patenting.

“The patenting system is not functioning. It is more of a barrier than an incentive,” said Pat Mooney, the organisation’s executive director.

“In pharmacy, we no longer see much discovery — we see firms playing safe and holding onto their turf.

“Meanwhile, in nanotechnology, we have seen some dangerously broad patents, which cut off whole areas of research.

“Patent offices must get up to speed with new areas of science, so they know exactly how much they are giving away.”

Given the positions that Pat Mooney and the ETC Group have taken with respect to nanotechnology in the past, such as their Call for moratorium on commercial nanomaterials, I was not expecting to find myself in agreement with them, but the comments quoted above seem to me to be on target. And I suspect that the more complex and interdisciplinary nanotechnology becomes as it advances, the worse the problem will get.
—Jim

Stephen Steiner wants to make nanotechnology more accessible to speed up the innovation process.

The inclination to think big goes back to Steiner’s teenage years when he vowed to never drive a car as motivation to solve the world’s energy problem. Now 26, he is a graduate student at MIT working to bring the world next-generation nanomaterials, like nanotubes that can make airplane wires lighter than copper, carbon aerogels that use electrolysis to pull hydrogen from water, and as announced yesterday, nanoparticles that can make super high density batteries.

Steiner’s first task at the MIT lab was to get the nanotube furnaces working manually, but he knew that to really get his lab breakthrough-ready, the furnaces needed to be automated. So he wrote a software program that automates a nanotube furnace using natural English syntax and fuzzy logic to help get us there faster.

…Steiner calls the new program “Ansari” after private space explorer and X Prize sponsor Anousheh Ansari. Her work to open up space flight for all inspired Steiner to try to do the same for nanotech. He is working on a website that he calls “open source nanotech,” where people will be able to download his automation software and learn about DIY nanotech.

—Jim

What about the cost? Can a health care system afford them?

Good question. It seems as though if a person lives long enough, he or she gets cancer. Clearly, not every individual can afford the very latest in patented drugs, whether those drugs use nanoscale drug delivery or not. Nor is it clear that “a health care system” can afford them for everyone either.

Often, yesterday’s new drugs have been only marginally better than earlier ones for which patents have expired. The marginally-better new patented drugs are obtained by the wealthy and better-off patients, who pay high prices and benefit marginally. In other industries, this is called “cream-skimming” — selling expensive new products only to those who can afford them and are willing to put up with the bugs in any new product. Over time, technology improves, patents expire, prices drop, and then the average person (in wealthier countries) can afford the not-so-new product in which the bugs have now been ironed out.

Some of the nanomaterial-based drug delivery advances sound like significant improvements over what has come before, often by enabling better targeting of those nasty, toxic chemotherapy agents so they do less damage to healthy cells. If these new drugs are really a lot better — if they really work, as opposed to so many cancer treatments — we may want to find a way to speed up the process by which these innovations (often based on publicly-funded research) can reach those who are less well-off.

Patents are a big issue here. There’s increasing debate over whether the current system is the best we can come up with. It’s time to examine our experiences, in the U.S., with the Bayh-Dole Act and see if some tweaks might be needed. Meanwhile, the Peer-to-Patent Project is worth our support. It would be good to get this worked out now, when the advances are still relatively minor. Advanced molecular nanosystems should make really big medical innovations possible [Update: and, ultimately, affordable as well, as pointed out by Foresight advisor Glenn Reynolds]. —Christine

To warm up for our Sat/Sun afternoon unconference, in the mornings we’ll have four inspiring plenary talks:

David Friedman: Polymath whose creativity knows no boundaries, from economics to coming technologies to visionary fiction (Sat)
Matt Francis: Rising star in nanotech, bringing us the latest & greatest in nanobio on the pathway to atomically precise construction (Sat)
Peter Thiel: From financial markets to longevity to AI & the singularity, his vision is dramatic and compelling (Sun)
Chris Heward: If your goal is anti-aging, he’s your man. We’ll hear the latest advances on living longer (Sun)

Then in the afternoon we’ll explore these topics, and more added by participants:

Nanotechnology
Diamond mechanosynthesis
Productive Nanosystems Roadmap
Future of Architecture
Molecular Modeling
Near-term nanotech & entrepreneurial action
Nanomedical Sensors
Nanotech for the Poor
Nano careers: when and how to make your move
Artificial intelligence & cutting-edge software
Self-Improving AI
Artificial General Intelligence in Virtual Worlds
Artificial Intuition
Life extension
Inefficient Altruism
Stem Cells and Aging
Education
Nanotech literacy
Prediction markets & reputation systems
Randomness of Progress
Social software — Disruptive web technologies
Future of Collaboration
Collective Choice
Open source-style security for the physical world
Nanotech and privacy/openness
Accelerating Change
Human enhancement
Space development & settlement
Neurotech
The Pathway to Whole Brain Emulation
Uploading
Synthetic biology
Patent reform: “Peer to Patent” community patent review
Virtual Worlds
Climate Crisis: Building a New Energy Future
IPV6
Good Design, Bad Design
Cleantech
Ubiquity and Ambience
Reliable Voting Software
Convergence Technologies
Knowledge Wealth

Facebook members can use the Facebook event listing to:
• Invite your friends to the event — even if you can’t attend this year yourself
• Indicate your plans to participate

But the only way to actually get in the door is to pre-register! We can’t take walk-ins this year.

Hope to see you there! —Christine