Tag Archives: innovation

Cut Research Funding and There Will Be No iPhone 6

Posted on by
Reply

Scientific and technological innovation is the fuel in the engine of our economy. Everyone knows it, everyone says it, and still it gets taken for granted in Congress. The problem is that politicians (particularly on the right) like to pick on specific research projects as examples of “waste”. I always think of Sarah Palin’s comment about fruit fly research:

If you don’t know how ridiculous this particular comment is, please read the wikipedia page on fruit flies. I understand this political trick, because spending millions of dollars on research involving fruit flies can seem absurd to a lot of people. There are a lot of projects of this kind in science, and unfortunately, in the United States, just like in middle school and high school, the nerds are the easiest to pick on.

rotary-phoneResearch is much more complex than some process where you pay one guy for one thing that you need and you get that thing a year later. Research is the process of generating ideas, building on ideas, exchanging ideas, proving and disproving ideas, etc. For that you need A LOT of different talented and passionate minds working on a huge variety of projects. It’s a crazy mix of collaboration and competition. Out of this soup of ideas emerge technologies that immeasurably improve our lives from the iPhone to  to the treatment of heart disease. Guess what that soup needs… lots and lots and lots of  scientists with crazy ideas and the singular obsession to bring their ideas to life. Both the scientist and the ideas need financial support from companies, from government, from the people.

Take away fruit fly research, and we’ll all have to go back to using rotary phones. It’s all connected. You can’t cut little pieces of research here and there. Pay the nerds, and leave them alone. They will come back in a year with a time travel machine and a robot that can bring you a cold beer from the fridge whenever you like.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself (and 150 Other Things)

Posted on by
Reply

thinning-of-research-fundingMy longtime friend Ryan, sent me a thought-provoking list of things “we should be worried about” as answered by 150 top scientists and scholars from a variety of fields. Most of these have many books written about them, so it’s not anything new but because the list itself is made up of quotes from these insightful minds, the list does have a certain charm and mystery to it with a pinch of wit and humor mixed in.

A lot of the concerns are straight forward and like economic collapse, low probability black swan events, the declining status of scientific reasoning and knowledge in society, etc, so I’ll just mention the ones that caught my eye and comment on them…

“Funding for big experiments will dry up”

Since most of the comments came from scientists, there was a recurring fear that our society is de-valuating science to a point where it’s almost becoming anti-scientific. Not only does that have implications for funding and social support of the scientific community, but it has broader implications about how the average Joe thinks about the world. The less inclined we are to use scientific reasoning, the more susceptible we become to the many forms of propaganda (any kind of information campaign not grounded in rationality). But this particular concern is not about funding for research in general, but about funding for BIG projects. I think that’s a real concern because one of the  side effects (exciting but burdensome) of scientific development is that we uncover more and more mysteries, thus leading to a thinning of “focus”. Of course, things like a world war or a cold war tend to focus us back up. Fundamental science is important, but so are huge engineering projects that make us look up to the sky and dream.

“We will stop dying”

I read, talk, and think a lot about death as the driving force behind human development on an individual and societal level. So, given that, the “concern of immortality” phrased in a pragmatic way caught me off-guard. Over-population is a constant worry for resource hawks (isn’t everyone a resource hawk?), because the trends are scary when taken out a few decades in to the future. Of course, you can do the same thing with the trends in medicine, where exponential growth can make even immortality seem like a possibility. I don’t see this as a realistic concern, but it is just another reminder that science can do some awfully bad things in its search for furthering the good things.

“We will literally lose touch with the physical world”

Just in the last decade the online world and the technology that connects us to it has grown by leaps and bounds. While it may seem impossible for those who are 20+ that our brains become more computer and less human, people who are born today will grow up in a world that may have more computer-based interaction than “real world” interaction. Depending on where our current technology trends drift, the “real world” may have to drastically change its definition. I think this is a concern only for those who are afraid of uncertainty. Technological advances (or any kind of change) are often a source of concern for a large fraction of the population. This kind of concern fades with time and evolving habits.

In general, I’m optimistic about the 21st century, the questions it will answer, and new questions it will ask.

A U.S. President Cannot Have a C Grade in U.S. History

Posted on by
2

rick-perry-transcriptRick Perry got a lot of C’s and D’s in introductory courses that are frankly not at all “college level”. For example, as the following transcript shows, he got a D in trigonometry, a C in U.S. History, and a D in Principles of Economics, just to name a few.

This should be something he is ashamed of, instead he uses as an anecdote to present himself as one with the common man, one who would rather fight for his country than fight for a C+. That might be an effective political strategy, but the side effect of that is the devaluation of education in our public discourse. A D in trigonometry should be a disqualifier for a presidential candidate.

While the political bickering over tax policy continues, we have to remember that what made this country prosperous and what is behind any future growth is innovation. It’s difficult for me to imagine that a person who failed in scientific disciplines in college can properly inspire a new generation of bright productive minds.

And joking about the whole thing is just terribly irresponsible. Just don’t talk about it!

Balanced Energy Diet: Nuclear Dessert

Posted on by
Reply

A balanced diet of macro-nutrients (carbs, protein, fat) is good for you. Why? Don’t make me bring the stupid broccoli analogy out again…

The point is that balance, in general, is a good idea. It’s good for reducing risk through diversification. It’s good for productive evolution through competition.

That’s why I’m a big supporter of (in alphabetical order!): bioenergy, coal, geothermal, hydro, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, and yes oil as energy sources for the future. I don’t root for the underdog or the champion. I root for everyone equally.

The growing concern of a nuclear catastrophe in Japan has brought the debate about the safety of nuclear power to the public. For the most part this debate has suffered from a lack of rational weighing of risk and benefit. People should be scared of radiation poisoning, but they should also be scared of a million other more likely sources of health concerns. Every energy source has it pros and cons. What’s important however is that the list of pros and cons is constantly evolving due to technological innovation. We need to promote this innovation in as many areas as possible.

A balanced diet of energy expands the field of innovation and competition. How do we achieve such a balanced diet? This is a tough question. But I believe subsidizing the underdog is the way to go. I think of it as a long distance Olympic running event where the leader of the pack at every lap gets punched in the face to slow him down. It seems unfair that you get punched in the face for doing well, but it’s for his own good ;-) Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger.

Here’s a good Charlie Rose debate on the future of Nuclear Power:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11551

State of the Union: Winner of the Science Fair

Posted on by
1

Thomas Edison

I wrote the State of the Union Speech that the President delivered yesterday. I know this because he said everything that I wanted him to say:

“We need to teach our kids that it’s not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair.”

Too often, major political speeches focus on the issue of the day that captures the short attention span of the public due to overwhelming media coverage. Katrina, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, healthcare reform, the economic recession are all examples. The economy seems to always be a major topic, with proposals all sounding the same from year to year: cut wasteful spending, cut taxes for people making less than X.

This year’s State of the Union speech, however, spent a good 20 minutes on the importance of innovation and education. This, in my opinion, is the foundation of major economic growth. Aggressively funding and prioritizing research and education is the silent engine that has made America the leader of the free world with the airplane, the computer, the first step on the moon, the internet, etc. It’s not as exciting to talk about perhaps as the justification of war in the Middle East or the intricacies of tax policy for the very rich, but it’s the key catalyst of our incredible growth in the 20th century.

We need to nourish the inventor ideal. And I’m glad that Obama recognizes the essential value of that.