Originally posted November 15, 2010
What can we do for you?
November 15, 2010
Carl Zimmer wrote a feature for the New York Times Science section recently titled, “Voices: What’s Next in Science.” Well, that’s certainly a big question. Zimmer interviewed ten scientists from various fields (space science, conservation, game design, ocean science, climate change, genomics, engineering, neuroscience, biotechnology, and mathematics). Their responses are very directed and specific (as you might expect their comments to be … they arescientists for heaven’s sake). Actually, I have a feeling that Zimmer pressed them to be concrete. It’s a great read. And, I am always fascinated when the world’s top scientists are talking about where they think the future of research is headed.
Taking off on a somewhat related theme, one of last week’s biggest topics in the science-interweb-bloviating world (which you guys are sure to know that I am a huge fan of) is the degree to which scientists must be responsible and answer to the public that funds them. This discussion was “started” in an article by Daniel Sarewitz. His basic premise is that the government’s investment in science should put more weight on the ability of basic research to achieve specific social outcomes. Many scientists took affront to his comments on the basis that predicting the market value of specific research is an almost impossible task. Technologies will come, but it takes a diverse investment to produce a robust benefit to society. I must admit that my own opinions on this topic are constantly evolving. Thankfully, other sites, like this one jumped on board and added more voices to the discussion.
But, it made me wonder, what would the scientists profiled by Zimmer make of this. What if he had asked them, “What profitable technologies or tangible benefits to society is your science going to produce in the next year?” Would they have an answer? Should they have an answer?
We here at ScienceGeist are all about engaging the public with science. How can we make research more interesting? What role does society play in enhancing scientific research?
Sean Carroll, a fellow Caltecher, posted a question to his twitter account on Saturday. “What is the one concept in science that you really think should be explained better to a wide audience?” Many people responded with answers ranging from evolution to uncertainty. This is a great question. But I have a different question for YOU today.
“What science do you want to know about?”
For instance, I want to know what our first legitimate alternative energy source is going to be. What technology is going to be cost-competitive (using no subsidies) with fossil fuels. I certainly don’t think that it’s going to be Nocera’s cobalt catalyst. If it were, Dan would be on a beach right now instead of running a research lab. (If any of our readers are in the Nocera lab, please let me know if Dan is spending an inordinate amount of time following the Furthur Tour or saying he’s got a conference in Minneapolis and somehow comes back to Cambridge looking a little too tan.)
I want to know what adidas is making their new uniforms out of. They are made of 60% recycled material and are supposed to keep you as cool as the other side of the pillow (feeling 6kV shocks in response to the Stuart Scottreference). And, judging by the fact that I’ve seen adidas’ press release regurgitated by about 20 “articles” they must be something special. (Thankfully my brother works for adidas … maybe they’ll let me in on their trade secrets … maybe I shouldn’t hold my breath).
I want to know when hologram-based computer interfaces are going to be the norm.
I want to know, if I travel to the future and see my future-self, will the future-me just go into shock. Or, would the encounter create a time paradox, the results of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space time continuum, and destroy the entire universe.
But, mostly, I want to know what you want to know!
So, let us know!
The more, the meta-ier
-mrh