10minus9 interview: Philip Moriarty (Part 2)

In the final part of this interview with Philip Moriarty from the University of Nottingham, we talk about pattern formation in nature, research funding, and find out the one physics problem Professor Moriarty would most like to see solved.
Part one ended with a shortlist of scientific heroes…
  • OK, but if you have to pick just one?

Let’s go with Fourier.

  • One major theme of your research has been pattern formation- why is this so interesting to you?

Every scientist searches for patterns in their data, whether those data arise from a highly complicated state-of-the-art particle physics detector (generating terabytes of measurements), a simple first year undergraduate experiment on the diffraction of light, or a digital image of a micro-organism.  We spend a lot of time thinking up different ways to represent the data so that the underlying pattern is easier to see. (We plot graphs rather than display the data as columns of numbers for precisely this reason). What really fascinates me – and very many other scientists – is when very similar patterns appear across widely different length scales.

the Cellular network is a pattern appearing in natural structures over a huge range of sizes, from the cells in a piece of cork (a), the hide of a giraffe (b), the Giant's Causeway (c) and the structure of the universe (d)

Although we’re trained as physics undergraduates to focus on highly ordered crystalline systems (which are defined by a regular, repeating unit cell), cellular networks, which are substantially less ordered, are ubiquitous in Nature. A key example is the polygonal pattern formed on the hide of a giraffe. A very similar type of pattern appears on much smaller length scales – as in, for example, the microstructure of a cork from a wine bottle – and on rather larger length scales. Remarkably, the large scale structure of the universe, i.e. the distribution of galactic material, is also best described as a cellular network (the “cosmic foam.”)

The human brain can often be tricked into seeing patterns and correlations even when none exist so quantitative mathematical analysis of patterns is essential. Remarkably, when these mathematical analyses are applied we sometimes see that patterns formed at the microscopic (or nanoscopic!) level can be virtually indistinguishable from their counterparts observed in the everyday world or on much, much larger scales. Foams are one example and I benefitted immensely from conversations with an astronomer colleague in Nottingham whose image analysis techniques for examining distributions of galaxies were directly applicable to our work on nanoparticle cellular networks.

It’s the “universality” of certain types of patterns that so intrigues us as scientists. Seeing the same type of pattern crop up in a variety of systems which have very different physical/chemical properties is fascinating. I enthusiastically recommend Philip Ball’s “The Self-made Tapestry” (and the more recent extended three volume version: “Nature’s Patterns: A Tapestry in Three Parts”) for an excellent popular science introduction to pattern formation.

  • If you could find the answer to any one nanoscience question, what would it be?

Given that much of nanoscience involves the application and exploitation of quantum mechanics concepts, I’ll be a little cheeky and recouch the question in terms of fundamental quantum physics. The burning question I’d like answered is “What is the nature of the wavefunction?” Debates about the physical significance of the wavefunction have been going on for almost a century now and, as Lee Smolin suggests in “The Trouble with Physics”, we’re going to have to put aside the “shut up and calculate” mentality and get back to trying to address the thorny philosophical issues that caused the architects of QM  (Bohr, Dirac, Einstein, Schroedinger..etc…) so many sleepless nights.

  • Do you think there is too much emphasis on technological or economic outcomes in funding criteria for academic research?

Up until a couple of years ago my answer would have been no (at least in the UK). Of late, however, Research Councils UK (RCUK) – which funds the majority of UK academic research via the seven research councils - has been under significant pressure from government to increase the (socio)economic impact of the research it funds. It now requires that all applicants for grants complete an impact statement which describes the impact of the project (including the potential of the work to “foster global economic performance, and specifically the economic competitiveness of the UK”) before the research is carried out. Similarly, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) recently put forward proposals that 25% of the assessment of academic research, across all disciplines, should be based on a measurement of socioeconomic impact [link to UCU response to the HEFCE proposals, pdf]. 17,000 academics signed a petition protesting against these proposals.

Putting aside the problem that RCUK and HEFCE apparently misunderstand the nature and fundamental purpose of academic research, there is the rather more pragmatic and vexed issue of just how to go about quantifying socioeconomic impact. The HEFCE proposals are markedly confused and ill-thought out on this point. This is hardly surprising given that a considerable number of studies by leading economists and social scientists – including a study commissioned by the Treasury a decade ago – have found that attempting to quantify the direct return on investment in fundamental research is essentially a fool’s game.

The increased emphasis on economic outcomes is part-and-parcel of the drive towards stronger commercialisation and marketisation of university research (however much the research and funding councils might protest otherwise). Peter Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, and Skills, has higher education as a central part of his brief and has stated repeatedly that he wants to see more economic impact from the research the government funds. This will be achieved by ensuring that universities become more responsive to the “needs” of the private sector.

Mandelson – unelected, twice disgraced, and architect of so much of what’s wrong with New Labour – apparently forgets the fundamental economic rationale for state support of academic research. Simply put, if the research is near-market then why shouldn’t the market fund it? Why should the taxpayer, through publicly-funded university research, subsidise the R&D programmes of, for example, Procter and Gamble or BAE Systems or Astra-Zeneca? Moreover, when academic research is driven by the bottom line of a multinational corporation, shockingly corrupt distortion of results and data can occur.

  • Do you think the nano-prefix is a help or a hindrance?

The problem with the nano- prefix is that there isn’t an area of modern condensed matter/solid state physics or chemistry that can’t be badged as nanoscience. I get frustrated by reports that the “nanotechnology” market will be worth $1tn (or whatever the preferred figure currently is) in five/ten/fifteen years’ time because it’s never clear just what the nanotechnology label covers. Rather than nano being some wonderful cutting edge and radically different “paradigm”, many companies (e.g.Intel) could be said to have been doing nanotechnology for many decades. Similarly, a very large amount of surface science has simply been rebadged as nanoscience/nanotechnology (and I’m just as guilty of this as any other (nano)scientist!). What were called surface reconstructions fifteen years ago are now “nanowires” or “nanorods” or “nanodots”. I’ve read grant proposals where thirty year old surface science concepts involving island/cluster growth at surfaces have been “spun” as an innovative new way of forming nanoparticles.

This has led to quite a degree of ennui amongst scientists regarding the use of the nano prefix. In my opinion, it’s got to the point where the term “nano” is so broadly applied to research as to be almost meaningless. The definition of nano put forward by George Smith of the University of Oxford captures some of that ennui: “Nano: from the Greek meaning “to attract research funding” “

  • Tell us something you find amazing about nano.

I find it remarkable that we have advanced to the point where we can not only image and manipulate individual atoms but we can measure the force between two atoms as a function of their separation (where we can control that  separation down to the picometre level). Although many scientists, including ourselves, do this experiment almost on a daily basis, it still astonishes me that it’s possible!

About these ads
Explore posts in the same categories: Interviews

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

7 Comments on “10minus9 interview: Philip Moriarty (Part 2)”

  1. Mike Says:

    omg, why wasn’t there questions about his work on mechanosynthesis

    • James Hayton Says:

      What do you want to know? I’ll ask!

      • Woko Says:

        I’d like to know more about it, too! For instance, from what I read elsewhere I understand that (among other things) he’s trying to manufacture some of the tooltips described in a Freitas-Merkle toolset paper, and use them on the tip of a scanning probe microscope to test them. I’d love to hear more about it, as it’s really fascinating stuff!


  2. Mike/Woko,

    Thanks for the interest in our mechanosynthesis-related work at Nottingham. Although we’re still quite some way from mechanosynthetic reactions on diamond, we’ve spent the last few months getting to grips with atomic manipulation on the Si(100) surface (which forms a dimer-based reconstruction very similar to that formed on C(100)). We’ve made particular process with regard to atomic-level manipulation using short range chemical forces on Si(100).

    The postdoc who has been driving this research, Adam Sweetman, will be presenting the work at the upcoming international non-contact AFM conference in Kanazawa, Japan in August. We also have developed a new approach to optimising the structure of scanning probe tips. As soon as this research has been accepted for publication I’ll post another comment below with links to the papers. (This will hopefully be within the next few months but it depends on how much of a struggle we have getting it into print!). The publications list at the Nottingham Nanoscience group’s website is updated fairly regularly so it’s worth checking there as well.

    Our diamond work has been slower than expected due to difficulties with surface preparation. As compared to Si(100), C(100) is a much more difficult surface to prepare so that it’s atomically flat over relatively large areas. I’ll keep you informed.

    Best wishes,

    Philip


  3. Ahem. That should be “progress” rather than “process” in the comment above.

    Apologies.

    Philip

  4. Wil Says:

    Hi Philip,

    I’m interested in the atomic manipulation on the Si(100) surface that you’re referring to. Is it similar to lithography using a monohydride resist layer [1], except you’re using an AFM? If not, does it bear any relation to other AFM studies where Si atoms from the tip are exchanged with individual atoms of a Sn monolayer [2]?

    Best regards,
    Wil

    [1] Lyding et al. Appl. Phys. Lett. 64, 2010 (1994)
    [2] Sugimoto et al. Science 322, 413 (2008)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: