For those of you that haven't heard of TED, it's an amazing resource showcasing innovative thinking in all sorts of different fields - from music to education to science...it's fantastic.
Bill Gates talked of education and malaria: two of my favorite subjects, I might add.
Check it out here. (and please browse around - there is something there for everyone!)
Monday, February 9, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
25 things
1. Both of my pinkies are "flexed at the proximal interphalangeal joins to approximately 45 degrees" - they are always bent at an angle and pressing them down just pushes them back up again.
2. I don't drink coffee, mostly because my father drinks about 5 pots a day, and becoming that addicted to a substance is a scary thought.
3. My one regret about choosing science is the constraints it puts on my wardrobe. I am now limited to closed-toed shoes and pants, which is hard for a girl who owned 82 skirts at the end of high school. I miss the days when I'd put on jeans in the morning but smuggle a vintage dress in my backpack and then wear it all day, exasperating my poor mother. Now I'm just poor. Thank goodness for thrift stores.
4. My brother and I convinced Jacob that we had an older sibling who drowned in the sump pump in the basement. His name was Henry. He had curly brown hair. We'd also tell him "oh that was originally one of Henry's books" and he'd screw up his eyes and say "Nu-uh!" and we'd both nod seriously and say, "We're telling the truth." Jacob is getting to the non-gullible age now, and it's kind of sad.
5. I was never a very good actress or singer, and never had a lead in high school plays (although playing an Ozian in a green condom costume was pretty ridiculous, as was playing the sluttiest of the young ladies at a NY boarding school). I don't miss acting at all (but I do enjoy playing in pit orchestras now).
6. I dressed up as a mermaid in my junior year of high school wearing an awesome $5 sparkly aqua thrift store dress and shells in my hair (with silver heels!). Later that year, I lost my voice for three weeks, and ended up in the hospital. This lead some of the students in my band to send me a gigantic butcher paper card with the little mermaid stenciled on it. It made my day - I still have that poster.
7. I really like washing the dishes. It's therapeutic, and it warms up my hands. Actually, most cleaning relaxes me and makes me feel accomplished (barring scrubbing my roommate's boyfriend's hawked loogies in my shower--that's just gross)
8. I regret not studying abroad during undergrad. I hope I am able to post-doc or work abroad after I finish my doctorate. I don't know if I want to be an ex-pat or not, but it's a possibility. I think I'd prefer living in the states and doing a lot of traveling all the time. My parents raised us with the luxuries of travel and a home, and I am really glad that they thought it important to make sure we went to lots of different places in our childhood. Actually, my brother and I counted my dad's loose change (saved in nine Kemps ice cream buckets from 1972 to 1994) and sorted out the cool coins (like wheat pennies and such). After counting and rolling all of the remaining coins, we used the money to go on a family camping trip to South Dakota.
9. I had my first molecular and cellular pathophysiology course today, and it makes me wish that I had done an MD/PhD (or, even better, an MD taught in grad school, not in med school!)
10. I haven't eaten a hot dog since kindergarten.
11. If I wasn't in science, I would probably own a vintage clothing/furniture/jewelry/housewares store. Design blogs are my crack right now, and I love the idea that environment can drastically change your outlook on life (a very biological concept indeed!). It'd be great to go to the homes of people who are consolidating life when they are moving on to a condo or health care center, and work with them to preserve their memories and the memories that the objects contain both to the original owner (possibly through some sort of professional photo album that they can take with them) and passing on those memories to the next owner. And I love thrift stores and getting my hands dirty finding beautiful things that tell a story.
12. Although I am pretty much a ginormous failure in computer programming, I'm pretty sure I passed my kinetics class by writing good homework problems (the professors are writing a textbook and had us write review problems) as well as knowing a lot about circadian rhythms in plants (thanks Loni and plant class!).
13. Ear buds never fit in my ears.
14. One of the things that hurts me most is seeing others willfully try not to learn and understand the world around them. They bask in ignorance, and that apathy is just crushing to me. I'm not saying you have to learn/do/see/be everything. But explore topics that interest you...read the newspaper...be informed on all sides of an issue. Care about something.
15. Remember Boxcar children books? I read all of them in kindergarten, and I coveted the cardboard boxcar that they were stored in at the library, but alas--Mrs. Mills said that it was best where all students could appreciate it. Also, I thought their last name (Alden) was actually "Aladdin." Oops.
16. I love having more dishes than I know what to do with so I can throw parties for all of my friends! I have found everything at thrift stores, and the hunt is the perfect thing to get me out of bed on a Saturday morning.
17. My new roommate is my 11th in my educational career.
18. My princess bedroom room is on the third floor of the Landmark Center in downtown St. Paul in the turret at the corner of Washington and 5th.
19. Watching TED Talks while eating breakfast makes me want to take on the world---all the time.
20. Ever since I first saw the episode of "Wishbone" (the Pride and Prejudice one) I have wanted to be one of the extras in historical fiction movies or television shows so I can wear awesome costumes and dance and look coquettish.
21. I'm trying really hard to stay in touch with people from high school and college, and I've found it to be really difficult. Schedules don't match up, people are busy, and don't get me started on the fact that I still have zero cell reception in my apartment. That said, I love sending packages, making random phone calls during the day, and keeping up with people by reading their blogs or emails.
22. I think it's hilarious that I started out as a music performance major in college and ended up in engineering at MIT. I still don't know how that happened, and I lived through it.
23. Having to do my taxes the first time is really stressing me out (admittedly, part of it is because I'm on a grant, and no one really tells you what to do). It strikes me as odd that the government spends so much time and money to make taxes "easy" yet spends oodles more to audit people and make sure they did things right. How about just doing it for us? Or enacting higher sales tax? Whatever you do, make it less complicated.
24. I love cooking and experimenting, but I wish I had more time to do so! I'm also trying to be better about planning my week's meals in advance, but it's really hard! Also, I'm going to make bento lunches for my kids. I'm pretty sure they don't have a choice in this matter.
25. It is one of my goals to go on the Daily Show and talk about science.
2. I don't drink coffee, mostly because my father drinks about 5 pots a day, and becoming that addicted to a substance is a scary thought.
3. My one regret about choosing science is the constraints it puts on my wardrobe. I am now limited to closed-toed shoes and pants, which is hard for a girl who owned 82 skirts at the end of high school. I miss the days when I'd put on jeans in the morning but smuggle a vintage dress in my backpack and then wear it all day, exasperating my poor mother. Now I'm just poor. Thank goodness for thrift stores.
4. My brother and I convinced Jacob that we had an older sibling who drowned in the sump pump in the basement. His name was Henry. He had curly brown hair. We'd also tell him "oh that was originally one of Henry's books" and he'd screw up his eyes and say "Nu-uh!" and we'd both nod seriously and say, "We're telling the truth." Jacob is getting to the non-gullible age now, and it's kind of sad.
5. I was never a very good actress or singer, and never had a lead in high school plays (although playing an Ozian in a green condom costume was pretty ridiculous, as was playing the sluttiest of the young ladies at a NY boarding school). I don't miss acting at all (but I do enjoy playing in pit orchestras now).
6. I dressed up as a mermaid in my junior year of high school wearing an awesome $5 sparkly aqua thrift store dress and shells in my hair (with silver heels!). Later that year, I lost my voice for three weeks, and ended up in the hospital. This lead some of the students in my band to send me a gigantic butcher paper card with the little mermaid stenciled on it. It made my day - I still have that poster.
7. I really like washing the dishes. It's therapeutic, and it warms up my hands. Actually, most cleaning relaxes me and makes me feel accomplished (barring scrubbing my roommate's boyfriend's hawked loogies in my shower--that's just gross)
8. I regret not studying abroad during undergrad. I hope I am able to post-doc or work abroad after I finish my doctorate. I don't know if I want to be an ex-pat or not, but it's a possibility. I think I'd prefer living in the states and doing a lot of traveling all the time. My parents raised us with the luxuries of travel and a home, and I am really glad that they thought it important to make sure we went to lots of different places in our childhood. Actually, my brother and I counted my dad's loose change (saved in nine Kemps ice cream buckets from 1972 to 1994) and sorted out the cool coins (like wheat pennies and such). After counting and rolling all of the remaining coins, we used the money to go on a family camping trip to South Dakota.
9. I had my first molecular and cellular pathophysiology course today, and it makes me wish that I had done an MD/PhD (or, even better, an MD taught in grad school, not in med school!)
10. I haven't eaten a hot dog since kindergarten.
11. If I wasn't in science, I would probably own a vintage clothing/furniture/jewelry/housewares store. Design blogs are my crack right now, and I love the idea that environment can drastically change your outlook on life (a very biological concept indeed!). It'd be great to go to the homes of people who are consolidating life when they are moving on to a condo or health care center, and work with them to preserve their memories and the memories that the objects contain both to the original owner (possibly through some sort of professional photo album that they can take with them) and passing on those memories to the next owner. And I love thrift stores and getting my hands dirty finding beautiful things that tell a story.
12. Although I am pretty much a ginormous failure in computer programming, I'm pretty sure I passed my kinetics class by writing good homework problems (the professors are writing a textbook and had us write review problems) as well as knowing a lot about circadian rhythms in plants (thanks Loni and plant class!).
13. Ear buds never fit in my ears.
14. One of the things that hurts me most is seeing others willfully try not to learn and understand the world around them. They bask in ignorance, and that apathy is just crushing to me. I'm not saying you have to learn/do/see/be everything. But explore topics that interest you...read the newspaper...be informed on all sides of an issue. Care about something.
15. Remember Boxcar children books? I read all of them in kindergarten, and I coveted the cardboard boxcar that they were stored in at the library, but alas--Mrs. Mills said that it was best where all students could appreciate it. Also, I thought their last name (Alden) was actually "Aladdin." Oops.
16. I love having more dishes than I know what to do with so I can throw parties for all of my friends! I have found everything at thrift stores, and the hunt is the perfect thing to get me out of bed on a Saturday morning.
17. My new roommate is my 11th in my educational career.
18. My princess bedroom room is on the third floor of the Landmark Center in downtown St. Paul in the turret at the corner of Washington and 5th.
19. Watching TED Talks while eating breakfast makes me want to take on the world---all the time.
20. Ever since I first saw the episode of "Wishbone" (the Pride and Prejudice one) I have wanted to be one of the extras in historical fiction movies or television shows so I can wear awesome costumes and dance and look coquettish.
21. I'm trying really hard to stay in touch with people from high school and college, and I've found it to be really difficult. Schedules don't match up, people are busy, and don't get me started on the fact that I still have zero cell reception in my apartment. That said, I love sending packages, making random phone calls during the day, and keeping up with people by reading their blogs or emails.
22. I think it's hilarious that I started out as a music performance major in college and ended up in engineering at MIT. I still don't know how that happened, and I lived through it.
23. Having to do my taxes the first time is really stressing me out (admittedly, part of it is because I'm on a grant, and no one really tells you what to do). It strikes me as odd that the government spends so much time and money to make taxes "easy" yet spends oodles more to audit people and make sure they did things right. How about just doing it for us? Or enacting higher sales tax? Whatever you do, make it less complicated.
24. I love cooking and experimenting, but I wish I had more time to do so! I'm also trying to be better about planning my week's meals in advance, but it's really hard! Also, I'm going to make bento lunches for my kids. I'm pretty sure they don't have a choice in this matter.
25. It is one of my goals to go on the Daily Show and talk about science.
Science and Policy Bootcamp - Day 5
Last day!
Instead of lecturing, we were able to hear more about some personal experiences with policy through a panel of three scientists who have worked in the public sphere:
-a younger lady who works for the Union of Concerned Scientists in the arena of missile defense, especially in conjugation with the space program; earned a PhD in physics and decided that academia wasn't for her and cold-called until she finally came to UCS, a think tank that works to produce public policy-related recommendations based on science
-a young man who works for the state of Massachusetts in the energy department (apparently MA has put into law to be producing CO2 at 80% below 1990, an astonishingly ball-sy policy move. I am proud to live here). He worked on the hill with an AAS fellowship for a year, and he was definitely in a suit and tie
-a graduate of MIT in electrical engineering in 1950; he went to Oxford to get a DPhil in physics, but quit after one hour (really) and decided to earn another bachelors degree, this time in economics. He worked at MIT for a bit, then went into the army for the Korean war, worked in technical/engineering related things for awhile, and eventually made his way to DC and worked as a science advisor for both Eisenhower (during the Sputnik era) and Carter. Since then he has worked as a professor at MIT (although he doesn't teach anymore).
After a week of endless economics and bureaucracy, it was nice to see human faces behind the roles that people play. The woman who works for UCS was wearing a really cute dress and fun earrings, the older gentleman was pretty much exactly like Pa, and the MA-DoE guy was really crisp and reminded me of a friend in business school.
Some points they brought up:
Authority - in the scientific field, authority is gained via publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals-it is more akin to mutual scientific agreement of a given scientist's ideas, experimental method, and quality of research. That reputation is kept via the continuation of publishing great papers, and can become irreparably tainted by publishing false data, coming to unrealistic conclusions, or manipulating data. Outside the scientific community, we are the "white coat people" who do experiments and should be able to come up with all-or-nothing conclusions of Truth and Existence: they are "honest brokers of integrity." Right. I don't know if anyone can seriously say that the profession of scientist automatically makes you honest (reference human cloning, among many, many others).
Uncertainty - within any scientist's work is an amount of statistics and probability that shows the possibility of a conclusion being correct or incorrect. In the policy world, using quantitative statistics versus qualitative descriptions like "highly likely" is turning into quite the debate. Some argue that it is untruthful to use anything but the scientifically determined outcomes, with all of the "messiness" they incur. Others say that because the average person does not have the statistics background to understand these figures, why bother? If the rigor is there (something that most people do believe) then using adjectives instead of percentages should be acceptable. For me? I wish that everyone understood the statistics. But as that is pretty idealistic...and because of that I'm not feeling adamant about either side. Another student in our class brought up that studies have shown how humans aren't so good at processing either...so what does it matter? Either way---provides a good reason to require stats in high school.
Just being a scientist doesn't mean you're excellent and knowledgeable about everything. Is it okay to use your reputation as a scientist in say, genomics, to say that you believe climate change exists? Scientists do have influence. But you need to learn how to use it.
Partisanship in science - why are there so many left-leaning scientists? Is this a self-selecting field? On the other hand, engineering is seen as a primarily right-leaning discipline. Why? When inviting scientists to the hill, does their political affiliation matter? Should we try to make sure there is a balance of political persuasions, or would that destroy the meritocratic method of selection (in much the same way affirmative action is accused)?
Richard Lindzen, a professor here at MIT, is one of the most famous dissenters in the field of climate change, is a atmospheric scientist and physicist that has been ostracized from most of the MIT community. talked to him this past week, and the young woman laughed, saying "taking one for the team."
I asked a question about what they read everyday to keep up on science and technology, as well as the rest of the world. The overwhelming response was reading the big three (NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal), and blogs. There is now a new way to disseminate knowledge through blogs: from very technical well-researched blogs to those that reference these first blogs, and then the secondary and more lay-person oriented sites---instead of having one person to do it all (know everything technical and how to explain it to anyone from other scientists to biology teachers to people whose occupations are as far away from rocket science as possible). Now, there is a succession of people which make the very technical something accessible to all readers. That is pretty darn cool.
Also - a rather timely article from Science Progress entitled "Change Scientists Can Believe In." This basically echoes everything this class has taught me about research and innovation. It needs to happen, and it's worth it, both monetarily and otherwise.
And with that...I am exhausted. And torn. I still have no idea what I want to do with my life.
Instead of lecturing, we were able to hear more about some personal experiences with policy through a panel of three scientists who have worked in the public sphere:
-a younger lady who works for the Union of Concerned Scientists in the arena of missile defense, especially in conjugation with the space program; earned a PhD in physics and decided that academia wasn't for her and cold-called until she finally came to UCS, a think tank that works to produce public policy-related recommendations based on science
-a young man who works for the state of Massachusetts in the energy department (apparently MA has put into law to be producing CO2 at 80% below 1990, an astonishingly ball-sy policy move. I am proud to live here). He worked on the hill with an AAS fellowship for a year, and he was definitely in a suit and tie
-a graduate of MIT in electrical engineering in 1950; he went to Oxford to get a DPhil in physics, but quit after one hour (really) and decided to earn another bachelors degree, this time in economics. He worked at MIT for a bit, then went into the army for the Korean war, worked in technical/engineering related things for awhile, and eventually made his way to DC and worked as a science advisor for both Eisenhower (during the Sputnik era) and Carter. Since then he has worked as a professor at MIT (although he doesn't teach anymore).
After a week of endless economics and bureaucracy, it was nice to see human faces behind the roles that people play. The woman who works for UCS was wearing a really cute dress and fun earrings, the older gentleman was pretty much exactly like Pa, and the MA-DoE guy was really crisp and reminded me of a friend in business school.
Some points they brought up:
Authority - in the scientific field, authority is gained via publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals-it is more akin to mutual scientific agreement of a given scientist's ideas, experimental method, and quality of research. That reputation is kept via the continuation of publishing great papers, and can become irreparably tainted by publishing false data, coming to unrealistic conclusions, or manipulating data. Outside the scientific community, we are the "white coat people" who do experiments and should be able to come up with all-or-nothing conclusions of Truth and Existence: they are "honest brokers of integrity." Right. I don't know if anyone can seriously say that the profession of scientist automatically makes you honest (reference human cloning, among many, many others).
Uncertainty - within any scientist's work is an amount of statistics and probability that shows the possibility of a conclusion being correct or incorrect. In the policy world, using quantitative statistics versus qualitative descriptions like "highly likely" is turning into quite the debate. Some argue that it is untruthful to use anything but the scientifically determined outcomes, with all of the "messiness" they incur. Others say that because the average person does not have the statistics background to understand these figures, why bother? If the rigor is there (something that most people do believe) then using adjectives instead of percentages should be acceptable. For me? I wish that everyone understood the statistics. But as that is pretty idealistic...and because of that I'm not feeling adamant about either side. Another student in our class brought up that studies have shown how humans aren't so good at processing either...so what does it matter? Either way---provides a good reason to require stats in high school.
Just being a scientist doesn't mean you're excellent and knowledgeable about everything. Is it okay to use your reputation as a scientist in say, genomics, to say that you believe climate change exists? Scientists do have influence. But you need to learn how to use it.
Partisanship in science - why are there so many left-leaning scientists? Is this a self-selecting field? On the other hand, engineering is seen as a primarily right-leaning discipline. Why? When inviting scientists to the hill, does their political affiliation matter? Should we try to make sure there is a balance of political persuasions, or would that destroy the meritocratic method of selection (in much the same way affirmative action is accused)?
Richard Lindzen, a professor here at MIT, is one of the most famous dissenters in the field of climate change, is a atmospheric scientist and physicist that has been ostracized from most of the MIT community. talked to him this past week, and the young woman laughed, saying "taking one for the team."
I asked a question about what they read everyday to keep up on science and technology, as well as the rest of the world. The overwhelming response was reading the big three (NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal), and blogs. There is now a new way to disseminate knowledge through blogs: from very technical well-researched blogs to those that reference these first blogs, and then the secondary and more lay-person oriented sites---instead of having one person to do it all (know everything technical and how to explain it to anyone from other scientists to biology teachers to people whose occupations are as far away from rocket science as possible). Now, there is a succession of people which make the very technical something accessible to all readers. That is pretty darn cool.
Also - a rather timely article from Science Progress entitled "Change Scientists Can Believe In." This basically echoes everything this class has taught me about research and innovation. It needs to happen, and it's worth it, both monetarily and otherwise.
And with that...I am exhausted. And torn. I still have no idea what I want to do with my life.
Science and Policy Bootcamp - Day 4
Day four was a global look at energy policy, something that the professor wrote a book on that is coming out in March. If you're interested, check it out.
We started the day by looking at energy technology and policy as the next great innovation wave: for economic, health, geopolitical, quality of life, and environmental reasons, we need to get out of our addiction to oil. Pick your reason. This is your motivation...your carrot in the so-called challenge model.
Frankly, there is blame to go around, and our professor names energy as one of the biggest failures of the past forty years. Detroit has lobbied to keep fuel economy low, and now their big cars with terrible miles per gallon are going to kill their ability to compete. Half of the budget for the defense department is spent protecting oil lines. American drivers want to keep gas prices low.
We need to incentivize newer technologies, but there are issues of choice, as well as scale that are going to make this a really difficult problem to overcome.
The nice thing is that energy is embedded in established markets like transportation and utilities (over 2 trillion dollars a year). But the bad thing about energy is that this established market is going to be really hard to try and retool. Once upon a time, our energy system worked. Our education system worked. Our health care system worked. Our transportation system worked. Our taxation system worked. They have each caved in upon their niches, becoming almost non-functional relics of the past. How do we look at these systems and radically improve how they work? That's the real issue. The US is great at the new frontier, but once we have invented something, it's over and done. We don't go back.
That's what these next decades will require: we need to innovate in older parts of the economy and increase productivity and efficiency. Retrofitting all of these sectors is going to be a huge project, and having a focus on research and development in all of these established industries is crucial.
Yet, there is no silver bullet. None. So get over it. Now. We have other things to do.
So how do we do all of this? (the below focus directly on the energy sector)
-technology neutrality: put both biofuels and hydrogen on the same page. Yes, they are at very different stages and need very different types of support. But both have potential. And we need to look at this in the long term, supporting both radical and incremental innovations.
-actually invest in R&D...pharma spends 20% of their profits on innovation. Energy spends 1%. Change this. The rate of overall return for federal R&D is four to one. With energy, it's estimated that this could turn into a forty to one economic recovery.
-tax gas. Use the revenue for research and development.
-support services-type operations like energy audits (an H&R Block for energy advice)
-begin a new incarnation of DARPA for energy. Bring together the nation's best scientists and appropriate their talent.
-work on market launch--make sure to understand how to interact with a new technology.
Another point is that behavior change can increase fuel efficiency by 25%. That's incredible. People, check the air in your tires. Don't over-accelerate. Don't speed. Congratulations, you have now made a difference. World War II was a great motivator for Victory Gardens, collected old aluminum foil, and mobilizing a highly skilled, smart, and ready workforce. We can do this again. And frankly, we need to. Find your carrot, and go forth! Science and the government are trying to catch up, but in the meantime, do what you can and more.
If you're interested in more information on energy, check out MIT's "Future of ..." series. It's fascinating.
We also had some grad students from the Science and Policy Initiative (SPI) visit and talk about several fellowships for interning and working in DC. The AAAS Fellowship (American Association for the Advancement of Science) is for after your PhD, and it encourages members to take an active role in life in DC. Most of the fellowships mean you are a fellow in name only--you are just doing the job of a normal staff member (although you do have the ubiquitous networking perk of being a fellow). There's also the President's Management Fellowship, which trains people to be high-level management at the government level, as well as the National Academies of Science fellowship. All in all, there are lots of possibilities and opportunities for me to work in DC if I'd like to...thank goodness I do have some time to process and decide what I'd like to do.
We started the day by looking at energy technology and policy as the next great innovation wave: for economic, health, geopolitical, quality of life, and environmental reasons, we need to get out of our addiction to oil. Pick your reason. This is your motivation...your carrot in the so-called challenge model.
Frankly, there is blame to go around, and our professor names energy as one of the biggest failures of the past forty years. Detroit has lobbied to keep fuel economy low, and now their big cars with terrible miles per gallon are going to kill their ability to compete. Half of the budget for the defense department is spent protecting oil lines. American drivers want to keep gas prices low.
We need to incentivize newer technologies, but there are issues of choice, as well as scale that are going to make this a really difficult problem to overcome.
The nice thing is that energy is embedded in established markets like transportation and utilities (over 2 trillion dollars a year). But the bad thing about energy is that this established market is going to be really hard to try and retool. Once upon a time, our energy system worked. Our education system worked. Our health care system worked. Our transportation system worked. Our taxation system worked. They have each caved in upon their niches, becoming almost non-functional relics of the past. How do we look at these systems and radically improve how they work? That's the real issue. The US is great at the new frontier, but once we have invented something, it's over and done. We don't go back.
That's what these next decades will require: we need to innovate in older parts of the economy and increase productivity and efficiency. Retrofitting all of these sectors is going to be a huge project, and having a focus on research and development in all of these established industries is crucial.
Yet, there is no silver bullet. None. So get over it. Now. We have other things to do.
So how do we do all of this? (the below focus directly on the energy sector)
-technology neutrality: put both biofuels and hydrogen on the same page. Yes, they are at very different stages and need very different types of support. But both have potential. And we need to look at this in the long term, supporting both radical and incremental innovations.
-actually invest in R&D...pharma spends 20% of their profits on innovation. Energy spends 1%. Change this. The rate of overall return for federal R&D is four to one. With energy, it's estimated that this could turn into a forty to one economic recovery.
-tax gas. Use the revenue for research and development.
-support services-type operations like energy audits (an H&R Block for energy advice)
-begin a new incarnation of DARPA for energy. Bring together the nation's best scientists and appropriate their talent.
-work on market launch--make sure to understand how to interact with a new technology.
Another point is that behavior change can increase fuel efficiency by 25%. That's incredible. People, check the air in your tires. Don't over-accelerate. Don't speed. Congratulations, you have now made a difference. World War II was a great motivator for Victory Gardens, collected old aluminum foil, and mobilizing a highly skilled, smart, and ready workforce. We can do this again. And frankly, we need to. Find your carrot, and go forth! Science and the government are trying to catch up, but in the meantime, do what you can and more.
If you're interested in more information on energy, check out MIT's "Future of ..." series. It's fascinating.
We also had some grad students from the Science and Policy Initiative (SPI) visit and talk about several fellowships for interning and working in DC. The AAAS Fellowship (American Association for the Advancement of Science) is for after your PhD, and it encourages members to take an active role in life in DC. Most of the fellowships mean you are a fellow in name only--you are just doing the job of a normal staff member (although you do have the ubiquitous networking perk of being a fellow). There's also the President's Management Fellowship, which trains people to be high-level management at the government level, as well as the National Academies of Science fellowship. All in all, there are lots of possibilities and opportunities for me to work in DC if I'd like to...thank goodness I do have some time to process and decide what I'd like to do.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Science and Policy Bootcamp - Day 3
At long last...I know you all were waiting with bated breath. Right. Sorry about the delay, though...this class put me behind-ish in lab work, and then I had to present at lab meeting last night, and my roommate moved out, necessitating a ton of cleaning. Anyways...back to policy:
Day three was all about manufacturing. And I'm not going to lie....snore. We went through some of the manufacturing revolutions, as well as how things are currently progressing in emerging economies.
I do understand the importance of manufacturing, but five hours of it was really rough, especially since much of the vocabulary was general and yet applied (as in, it uses words that I know from common usage, but they mean something different in economics and industry).
American manufacturing started with Alexander Hamilton, who saw the promise in factories and built good fiscal policy, as well as a pro-commercial economy (as well as national taxation and banking). The US had the best manufacturing until World War II, and trade agreements helped our allies. However, after the war ended, the global economic model began to grow, and no one was really “in charge.” Manufacturing became the currency of world trade (although services are increasing drastically in their importance). From 1973 to 1993, there was declining productivity and growth, and we were basically rescued by computer technology and the internet.
Some important distinctions in manufacturing philosophy: America’s method is to never stop the production line, and throw out what doesn’t meet quality-based standards. Japan’s method is much different: if any worker sees a problem, they can stop the line. Also, things are made to order, which reduces cost and risk. Additionally, the Japanese industry guarantees lifetime employment, and labor becomes a fixed cost. However, Japan has a problem: they are resource-poor, and therefore must have an export orientation (so they can pay for imports. Yes it feels backwards to me, too).
Korea is also an interesting case study, showing that developing countries are able to develop industrially. After the Korean War, the formerly classist society broke down due to universal military service, a meritocratic institution. Confucianism and Christianity combined to form a combination of improving self and community, ethics which fit in very well with the industrial structure. Higher education was encouraged and mandated by the government, and integrated/monopolistic companies (like Samsung) were created to allow for easy transfer of ideas and building the best product without intellectual property strings attached. An unfortunate side effect of this whole process was rampant corruption. (you can’t get everything right, I guess).
How do we create economic growth if we don’t want to lower wages? The answer is research and development. Once you reach that frontier, all you can do is innovate and create. For places like Korea, that is the next step: getting to this edge and being an innovator instead of just a producer. A fair point--is it necessarily bad to be a second adapter? No—they can often improve on the mistakes of the past, producing higher yields at a lower cost.
Do any countries or companies just focus on innovation and divorce themselves completely from the manufacturing process? As it turns out, the answer is yes: a common example is Apple and the Ipod…the technology wasn’t new, and the parts weren’t new, but the whole product and system or a database with music made it a crossover product that was extremely successful. This really frustrated companies like Sony, who “know” electronics, but they didn’t come up with this innovative idea. The piecemeal parts also came from all over the world (a distributed manufacturing model. Several companies, including H&M and Ikea, have uncoupled design and manufacturing, leaving the creation of the individual pieces to the factories themselves, thus creating challenges for industry to solve in terms of lowering cost.
An interesting problem that could grow out of all of this is oil. Suddenly, we’re going to find that—yikes—it is expensive to transport things all over the globe. And we’re going to have to rethink how factories work, possibly building zero-waste factories that are able to be diverse in their outputs (ie, that produce the entire product or several components not just one discrete part or component).
India’s approach is novel since it is innovating in the service sector, building a comparative advantage in one of the most critical parts of daily life: software. Software, you say? Really? Okay. Now stop and think about how much in your life is legislated by software. Email, banking, the system at the grocery store, the algorithms that make sure planes don’t crash in the sky, the national defense system, cell phone companies…as the US loses software designers to India, we are losing one of the most pervasive ways to innovate. And according to the people who know, only 200 people in the world functionally understand how an operating system works. That’s only slightly more than the number of princesses in the world (160, since you’re asking).
So—should we require programming in high school? I personally think it’d be great to offer programming as something that will take care of your foreign language requirement.
To conclude day three:
One of the professor’s odd comments was, “I’m sure you’ve all visited Japan.” Some of us glanced at each other, curious at why he would think a very diverse group of twenty graduate students somehow had the money to go to Japan.
A recommendation (for President Obama and others I’m sure): “Get China “right” or it’ll be one hell of a century.”
Really--during this entire lecture, I felt like a History-Channel-style version would be more exciting and interesting. Next time, maybe?
Day three was all about manufacturing. And I'm not going to lie....snore. We went through some of the manufacturing revolutions, as well as how things are currently progressing in emerging economies.
I do understand the importance of manufacturing, but five hours of it was really rough, especially since much of the vocabulary was general and yet applied (as in, it uses words that I know from common usage, but they mean something different in economics and industry).
American manufacturing started with Alexander Hamilton, who saw the promise in factories and built good fiscal policy, as well as a pro-commercial economy (as well as national taxation and banking). The US had the best manufacturing until World War II, and trade agreements helped our allies. However, after the war ended, the global economic model began to grow, and no one was really “in charge.” Manufacturing became the currency of world trade (although services are increasing drastically in their importance). From 1973 to 1993, there was declining productivity and growth, and we were basically rescued by computer technology and the internet.
Some important distinctions in manufacturing philosophy: America’s method is to never stop the production line, and throw out what doesn’t meet quality-based standards. Japan’s method is much different: if any worker sees a problem, they can stop the line. Also, things are made to order, which reduces cost and risk. Additionally, the Japanese industry guarantees lifetime employment, and labor becomes a fixed cost. However, Japan has a problem: they are resource-poor, and therefore must have an export orientation (so they can pay for imports. Yes it feels backwards to me, too).
Korea is also an interesting case study, showing that developing countries are able to develop industrially. After the Korean War, the formerly classist society broke down due to universal military service, a meritocratic institution. Confucianism and Christianity combined to form a combination of improving self and community, ethics which fit in very well with the industrial structure. Higher education was encouraged and mandated by the government, and integrated/monopolistic companies (like Samsung) were created to allow for easy transfer of ideas and building the best product without intellectual property strings attached. An unfortunate side effect of this whole process was rampant corruption. (you can’t get everything right, I guess).
How do we create economic growth if we don’t want to lower wages? The answer is research and development. Once you reach that frontier, all you can do is innovate and create. For places like Korea, that is the next step: getting to this edge and being an innovator instead of just a producer. A fair point--is it necessarily bad to be a second adapter? No—they can often improve on the mistakes of the past, producing higher yields at a lower cost.
Do any countries or companies just focus on innovation and divorce themselves completely from the manufacturing process? As it turns out, the answer is yes: a common example is Apple and the Ipod…the technology wasn’t new, and the parts weren’t new, but the whole product and system or a database with music made it a crossover product that was extremely successful. This really frustrated companies like Sony, who “know” electronics, but they didn’t come up with this innovative idea. The piecemeal parts also came from all over the world (a distributed manufacturing model. Several companies, including H&M and Ikea, have uncoupled design and manufacturing, leaving the creation of the individual pieces to the factories themselves, thus creating challenges for industry to solve in terms of lowering cost.
An interesting problem that could grow out of all of this is oil. Suddenly, we’re going to find that—yikes—it is expensive to transport things all over the globe. And we’re going to have to rethink how factories work, possibly building zero-waste factories that are able to be diverse in their outputs (ie, that produce the entire product or several components not just one discrete part or component).
India’s approach is novel since it is innovating in the service sector, building a comparative advantage in one of the most critical parts of daily life: software. Software, you say? Really? Okay. Now stop and think about how much in your life is legislated by software. Email, banking, the system at the grocery store, the algorithms that make sure planes don’t crash in the sky, the national defense system, cell phone companies…as the US loses software designers to India, we are losing one of the most pervasive ways to innovate. And according to the people who know, only 200 people in the world functionally understand how an operating system works. That’s only slightly more than the number of princesses in the world (160, since you’re asking).
So—should we require programming in high school? I personally think it’d be great to offer programming as something that will take care of your foreign language requirement.
To conclude day three:
One of the professor’s odd comments was, “I’m sure you’ve all visited Japan.” Some of us glanced at each other, curious at why he would think a very diverse group of twenty graduate students somehow had the money to go to Japan.
A recommendation (for President Obama and others I’m sure): “Get China “right” or it’ll be one hell of a century.”
Really--during this entire lecture, I felt like a History-Channel-style version would be more exciting and interesting. Next time, maybe?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Science and Policy Bootcamp - Day 2
Today my overwhelming feeling is, "Wow. How does government get anything done?" I've known that for years...but I guess I'd always thought that if I was there, things would change. How typically idealistic of me.
Today's focus was on creative innovation teams, and we started with the Department of Defense. I'll be the first to say that DOD makes me a bit nervous. I have family in the military, and while I do support soldiers that protect our country, it just has never felt right to accept the link between the DOD and science.
But, without the DOD, we wouldn't have interchangable manmade parts, assembly lines, electronics, semi-conductors, aviation, radar...the list goes on. But - we can realize that the DOD doesn't see their role as completely military. Many technologies that came from military funding serve very non-militaristic purposes now, and eschewing the importance of that kind of R&D is just naive.
Even so, the fact that economists like Vernon Ruttan (a University of Minnesota professor) even ask the question, "is war necessary for economic growth?" speaks to the role that military has in innovation. Do we need that kind of driving force, that challenge pervading our everyday work culture to actually accomplish things? The distinguishing factor between the military and the National Science Foundation is that promise of deliverables: "The country will be kept safe." versus the idea of "Yes - we'll learn some stuff." This is also known in the innovation world as utilizing a challenge model. And it works. During World War II, a group of engineers was brought to Los Alamos to assist with the Manhattan Project...but they weren't told why they were there, what they were doing, and only recieved vague information from their physics peers regarding what they were creating. Finally, Oppenheimer decides to override Washington's concerns about security, and tells that this project is attempting to build the atomic bomb, in a race to save human life. Productivity increases overnight, and things get done. But is there a way to do this without a doomsday prediction at your door?
Another point with the military is that it is effectively a "dictatorship." If top command sees the utility of a certain technology, there is instant adoption and implementation...there is effectively a built-in market for this new product. Now--turn this around and put it in the public sphere in the attempted legislation on fluorescent light bulbs and alternative energy. Instead of being praised for early adoption and efficiency, congress is accused of "turning socialist." Wait -- what? It's okay for national security, but not okay for other issues like energy independence...which is, oh shoot. National security.
In total, tthe hree main tenets to spur innovation are the capitol (money and physical equipment), people, and the organizational structure. Thus, the government can technically improve innovation simply by tweaking the manner in which it organizes these groups. The key to this group sort of organization materializes in DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) after the Sputnik embarrassment to American progress in 1958. Instead of dealing with three separate space agencies, Eisenhower decided to take away the space program from the military entities and hand them over to DARPA, until space responsibilities were handed over to NASA in 1960. However, this left DARPA free to focus on computing, and most of the early computer science departments (including MIT until a few years ago) were almost exclusively funded by DARPA.
To clarify - DARPA is not a specific physical place - it's colloquially known as "100 geniuses connected by a travel agent." One of the upsides to DARPA was the relatively flat heirarchy. This is something we talked about a lot today - how having only two levels makes for a much more even playing field, as well as easier means of communication, and a small enough work force to be truly effective. Interestingly enough, DARPA makes a point of contracting with both serious veterans of DOD work as well as newbies, for there is some serious benefit in involving an untrained eye and mind in on a project. (As an aside, it's odd thinking that someday I'm going to cross that border from newbie to veteran).
There was a huge problem during the Cuban Missile Crisis of "command and control" (communication between all branches of the military on a real time scale). One of DARPA's new assignments was to effectively create these connections. Ever heard of the internet? The thing that makes DARPA really great is that they saw the product, and went back to the necessary fundamentals to figure it out: they were interested in breakthrough technology and were okay with high risk operations.
We also talked about several other innovation groups: one of the first was Menlo Park in New Jersey, a research facility bounded by Thomas Edison to create the light bulb. They succeeded---but the more amazing part about the story is that they also made the leap to explaining electron theory, and building the entire infrastructure to power their new invention--utility companies, power plants...the scope of what inventing the light bulb actually involved was incredible. And they made pies together at two in the morning and sang songs. My kind of place.
Do egos ruin innovation? If you can't play well with others, should you get rid of them? There are arguments on both sides, but if your innovation system is based on groups, you're not going to have the same amount of group cooperativity of That is important, but the other option is to manage these particularly difficult scientists. Shockley, a researcher at Bell Labs, became known as the industry jerk for breaking up a collaboration at Bell Labs with semi-conductors, which effectively made Fairfield Semi-conductors and not AT&T the predominant semi-conductor manufactorer.
The story of Genentech was also surprising. Apparently the founders of the company met in a bar to talk about the genetic engineering revolution, and this meeting is in bronze in the lobby of Genentech in San Francisco. When you deal with biotech start up companies, there are a couple of different variables that keep you on your toes. First, the 1980 Bayh Doyle Act makes it much more difficult to give founding members stock options in a start up company (one reason that many scientists head abroad, where these options are still intact). Second, the FDA is a pain. And it takes forever...but what they DO is certify that a drug actually WORKS. That's a huge deal. Pharmaceuticals are the only field in which a product is certified to work correctly. Third, unlike the 25 years it took for internet to go from bench to homes, biologics can go from bench to medicine in eight years, a much smaller time period (which makes biotech startups a more viable platform for angel and venture capital).
A point was made to show the differences between MIT and Harvard: the former of which has a very meritocratic system (no honorary degrees), as well as the presence of immigrants in both the faculty and classrooms. The diversity of thought has always made MIT a very distinctive institution, and it is still unique among research universities for its collaborations between science, engineering, and industry.
The speaker today was David Goldston, the former Staff Director of the House Science Committee. He now writes a column for Nature magazine and teaches a course at Harvard. He spoke of his job on the House floor, as well as the strategy and manipulation involved in his day-to-day life. He is a real people person, and it is essential to his job to network and talk to people, persuading him that science matters.
One of his first points was to differentiate science for policy, and policy for science. Both are science policy, but their goals are completely different.
---Science for policy is the use of scientific discovery and innovation to drive policy-based decisions. For example, science for policy is using data on climate change to inform congress on specific actions that could be taken to alleviate the problem.
---Policy for science is how the government regulates science and controls science-based spending. For example, science for policy is setting the budget for different labs or types of science, as well as mandating the use of stem cells in research.
The thing to keep in mind in terms of science policy is "what does the country need?" And then within those restriction, what are the rules, regulations, and politics which allow for fulfilling this need?
For instance, an example he gave was the standards for lowering ozone concentrations in the air in 1997. According to the science, there is no threshold at which ozone is "safe." The rubric provided is a relationship between the level of ozone and the number of hospital admissions. So, when the bill got to the floor, the debate was on, "How many people can be admitted to the hospital?" No one wants to debate this, and there is no really scientific solution. That's where the policy comes in. And things get complicated.
He also commented on the climate issue, something he considers atypical in DC, for congress is debating a purely scientific question (is climate change real?), there is a majority scientific answer in place (not an opinion...an answer by science), and the consensus in science didn't move the debate at all. The issue is now becoming that since the conservatives spent so much time in denial, they have shoot themselves in the foot in terms of defining the actual policy positions that will come out of this discussion. Even if Congress decides "Yes, climate change is real" they still need to determine how this will affect US policy in terms of energy consumption, biodiversity, environmental sustainability, etc...and that is going to be really challenging.
Another interesting thought to keep in mind is that members of congress are not chosen via merit. They are elected public officials, and may or may not feel that understanding science or knowing US economics is essential to their job. Fortunately, senators do have staff members to help bring them up to speed, but is this good enough?
Frankly, when hearing all of his stories, Congress reminds me of grade school. The interpersonal relationships seem very juvenile, with things changing based on what someone said in the elevator.
Apparently, when you actually visit with congresspeople, you have two jobs: convince them that this will help them become re-elected, and it will also bring money to their district. That made me kind of sad...is that all they think about? And legislation just takes a long time. It is tedious, yet also an critical part of a democracy.
I also asked him how he keeps up with the news: his recommendation for reading materials is the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, as well as online sources (BBC) and NPR. Bills and memos are also available online, which is a resource that hasn't been around for too long, but it makes the process a lot more transparent.
All the better to get more familiar with the legislative process...
Today's focus was on creative innovation teams, and we started with the Department of Defense. I'll be the first to say that DOD makes me a bit nervous. I have family in the military, and while I do support soldiers that protect our country, it just has never felt right to accept the link between the DOD and science.
But, without the DOD, we wouldn't have interchangable manmade parts, assembly lines, electronics, semi-conductors, aviation, radar...the list goes on. But - we can realize that the DOD doesn't see their role as completely military. Many technologies that came from military funding serve very non-militaristic purposes now, and eschewing the importance of that kind of R&D is just naive.
Even so, the fact that economists like Vernon Ruttan (a University of Minnesota professor) even ask the question, "is war necessary for economic growth?" speaks to the role that military has in innovation. Do we need that kind of driving force, that challenge pervading our everyday work culture to actually accomplish things? The distinguishing factor between the military and the National Science Foundation is that promise of deliverables: "The country will be kept safe." versus the idea of "Yes - we'll learn some stuff." This is also known in the innovation world as utilizing a challenge model. And it works. During World War II, a group of engineers was brought to Los Alamos to assist with the Manhattan Project...but they weren't told why they were there, what they were doing, and only recieved vague information from their physics peers regarding what they were creating. Finally, Oppenheimer decides to override Washington's concerns about security, and tells that this project is attempting to build the atomic bomb, in a race to save human life. Productivity increases overnight, and things get done. But is there a way to do this without a doomsday prediction at your door?
Another point with the military is that it is effectively a "dictatorship." If top command sees the utility of a certain technology, there is instant adoption and implementation...there is effectively a built-in market for this new product. Now--turn this around and put it in the public sphere in the attempted legislation on fluorescent light bulbs and alternative energy. Instead of being praised for early adoption and efficiency, congress is accused of "turning socialist." Wait -- what? It's okay for national security, but not okay for other issues like energy independence...which is, oh shoot. National security.
In total, tthe hree main tenets to spur innovation are the capitol (money and physical equipment), people, and the organizational structure. Thus, the government can technically improve innovation simply by tweaking the manner in which it organizes these groups. The key to this group sort of organization materializes in DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) after the Sputnik embarrassment to American progress in 1958. Instead of dealing with three separate space agencies, Eisenhower decided to take away the space program from the military entities and hand them over to DARPA, until space responsibilities were handed over to NASA in 1960. However, this left DARPA free to focus on computing, and most of the early computer science departments (including MIT until a few years ago) were almost exclusively funded by DARPA.
To clarify - DARPA is not a specific physical place - it's colloquially known as "100 geniuses connected by a travel agent." One of the upsides to DARPA was the relatively flat heirarchy. This is something we talked about a lot today - how having only two levels makes for a much more even playing field, as well as easier means of communication, and a small enough work force to be truly effective. Interestingly enough, DARPA makes a point of contracting with both serious veterans of DOD work as well as newbies, for there is some serious benefit in involving an untrained eye and mind in on a project. (As an aside, it's odd thinking that someday I'm going to cross that border from newbie to veteran).
There was a huge problem during the Cuban Missile Crisis of "command and control" (communication between all branches of the military on a real time scale). One of DARPA's new assignments was to effectively create these connections. Ever heard of the internet? The thing that makes DARPA really great is that they saw the product, and went back to the necessary fundamentals to figure it out: they were interested in breakthrough technology and were okay with high risk operations.
We also talked about several other innovation groups: one of the first was Menlo Park in New Jersey, a research facility bounded by Thomas Edison to create the light bulb. They succeeded---but the more amazing part about the story is that they also made the leap to explaining electron theory, and building the entire infrastructure to power their new invention--utility companies, power plants...the scope of what inventing the light bulb actually involved was incredible. And they made pies together at two in the morning and sang songs. My kind of place.
Do egos ruin innovation? If you can't play well with others, should you get rid of them? There are arguments on both sides, but if your innovation system is based on groups, you're not going to have the same amount of group cooperativity of That is important, but the other option is to manage these particularly difficult scientists. Shockley, a researcher at Bell Labs, became known as the industry jerk for breaking up a collaboration at Bell Labs with semi-conductors, which effectively made Fairfield Semi-conductors and not AT&T the predominant semi-conductor manufactorer.
The story of Genentech was also surprising. Apparently the founders of the company met in a bar to talk about the genetic engineering revolution, and this meeting is in bronze in the lobby of Genentech in San Francisco. When you deal with biotech start up companies, there are a couple of different variables that keep you on your toes. First, the 1980 Bayh Doyle Act makes it much more difficult to give founding members stock options in a start up company (one reason that many scientists head abroad, where these options are still intact). Second, the FDA is a pain. And it takes forever...but what they DO is certify that a drug actually WORKS. That's a huge deal. Pharmaceuticals are the only field in which a product is certified to work correctly. Third, unlike the 25 years it took for internet to go from bench to homes, biologics can go from bench to medicine in eight years, a much smaller time period (which makes biotech startups a more viable platform for angel and venture capital).
A point was made to show the differences between MIT and Harvard: the former of which has a very meritocratic system (no honorary degrees), as well as the presence of immigrants in both the faculty and classrooms. The diversity of thought has always made MIT a very distinctive institution, and it is still unique among research universities for its collaborations between science, engineering, and industry.
The speaker today was David Goldston, the former Staff Director of the House Science Committee. He now writes a column for Nature magazine and teaches a course at Harvard. He spoke of his job on the House floor, as well as the strategy and manipulation involved in his day-to-day life. He is a real people person, and it is essential to his job to network and talk to people, persuading him that science matters.
One of his first points was to differentiate science for policy, and policy for science. Both are science policy, but their goals are completely different.
---Science for policy is the use of scientific discovery and innovation to drive policy-based decisions. For example, science for policy is using data on climate change to inform congress on specific actions that could be taken to alleviate the problem.
---Policy for science is how the government regulates science and controls science-based spending. For example, science for policy is setting the budget for different labs or types of science, as well as mandating the use of stem cells in research.
The thing to keep in mind in terms of science policy is "what does the country need?" And then within those restriction, what are the rules, regulations, and politics which allow for fulfilling this need?
For instance, an example he gave was the standards for lowering ozone concentrations in the air in 1997. According to the science, there is no threshold at which ozone is "safe." The rubric provided is a relationship between the level of ozone and the number of hospital admissions. So, when the bill got to the floor, the debate was on, "How many people can be admitted to the hospital?" No one wants to debate this, and there is no really scientific solution. That's where the policy comes in. And things get complicated.
He also commented on the climate issue, something he considers atypical in DC, for congress is debating a purely scientific question (is climate change real?), there is a majority scientific answer in place (not an opinion...an answer by science), and the consensus in science didn't move the debate at all. The issue is now becoming that since the conservatives spent so much time in denial, they have shoot themselves in the foot in terms of defining the actual policy positions that will come out of this discussion. Even if Congress decides "Yes, climate change is real" they still need to determine how this will affect US policy in terms of energy consumption, biodiversity, environmental sustainability, etc...and that is going to be really challenging.
Another interesting thought to keep in mind is that members of congress are not chosen via merit. They are elected public officials, and may or may not feel that understanding science or knowing US economics is essential to their job. Fortunately, senators do have staff members to help bring them up to speed, but is this good enough?
Frankly, when hearing all of his stories, Congress reminds me of grade school. The interpersonal relationships seem very juvenile, with things changing based on what someone said in the elevator.
Apparently, when you actually visit with congresspeople, you have two jobs: convince them that this will help them become re-elected, and it will also bring money to their district. That made me kind of sad...is that all they think about? And legislation just takes a long time. It is tedious, yet also an critical part of a democracy.
I also asked him how he keeps up with the news: his recommendation for reading materials is the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, as well as online sources (BBC) and NPR. Bills and memos are also available online, which is a resource that hasn't been around for too long, but it makes the process a lot more transparent.
All the better to get more familiar with the legislative process...
Monday, January 26, 2009
Science and Policy Bootcamp - Day 1
This week, I'm participating in an intense public policy and science course designed to be a first introduction to the history of science in America and abroad, and how economics supports and interacts with research and development. MIT is a school that really pushes for its students and scientists to interact with policy-makers, for they are a key part of the current method for acquiring funding and the means to pursue research. In general, MIT"s other agenda with its students is to teach the value of convincing anyone---absolutely anyone---the importance of what you do and that it MATTERS. This is a skill that isn't innate to all, and whether you are writing grants, talking with the public, or working as an educator, MIT will teach you to do this well. And that's probably one of the reasons it is so successful in science and technology, as well as other fields.
There is also an opportunity to visit Washington to lobby congress in the second week of April, which would be an amazing opportunity. (and the cherry blossoms!) I would be working mostly with the Massachusetts delegation of senators and representatives (John Kerry and Ted Kennedy), but I would also petition to meet with the Minnesota delegation (Amy Klobuchar and TBD).
[ Although - I might try and battle my way into Michele Bachman's office and sit her down for some serious tutoring on evolution: "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact or not...There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." Right, Michelle. Name those many. And those hundreds. Then we'll talk. And maybe by the end, you'll understand what the concept of "theory" means in a scientific sense. (cited from a debate in St. Cloud in 2006.) ]
Regardless of what I do in Washington, this first day was full of all sorts of new and interesting things, some more related to science than others. The class was taught by the Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Washington, D.C. Office, Bill Bonvillian. He's an older gentleman, but he has had tremendous amounts of policy experience. He knows what he's talking about.
Our first order of business was really talking about what innovation means. Innovation can come in two forms: capitol (money, tools) or systemic (networking, allowing unified cooperation across fields). One of the big questions in this class is "How essential is the government's role in facilitating innovation?" Right now, the US system of science if industry (private sector), universities (funded by public research dollars and industry) and publicly funded research labs (think Bell Labs). The money and ideas that flow between these three areas isn't constant or even managed very effectively or efficiently. So--how do we do this? Should we try?
The argument in this class (and most overwhelmingly elsewhere) is that yes, the government should be involved. The point of contention is how. And how much.
Robert Solow (an MIT prof who won the Nobel Prize in economics) - said the key to growth in both developed AND developing countries is research and innovation. But - he also said that this sort of growth is exogenous to the process, and isn't inside the economics of the system.
Paul Romer (a professor of economics teaching at Stanford) - is another important figure, and asserts that R&D is more complex: you need a real investment of people -- talented people. I completely agree. However, there is a lot of argument on how to best get these talented people. I would immediately say, "K-12 education is a mess. That's the best place to put money." However---Romer thinks that the best way is to reduce the dropout rate of engineering students at the college level.
There's also the very real problem of intellectual property...how do you protect the inventor yet promote diffusion of knowledge and fuel scientific progress?
Another issue--who decides what is the "best" science to pursue? This is very much a value judgment. Way back in the day, people studied radiation instead of curing disease, and it led to the discovery of x-rays, and x-ray crystallography, a crucial technology to determine the structure of molecules, which lead to the discovery of DNA. Meaning, what is being researched will most certainly have far-reaching consequences, no matter what it looks like at first glance.
In another vein, why is so much money used to research drugs to cure adult onset diabetes and obesity when both are completely curable and preventable by a lifestyle change?
EDIT: It was pointed out to me that this is rather harsh. The big problem I have with all the money that goes to diabetes and obesity research is that it goes straight into Big Pharma. Why? Because Pharma can't make money off patients with rare genetic disorders. Instead, they can make money off the increasing number of obese and diabetic patients in this world. Granted, I think that these problems can be solved without drugs a great deal of the time but this REQUIRES a more supportive society and lots more nutritionists, exercise coaches, and incentives. It requires a large change in how American culture solves health problems. And then the money could go to those other diseases that often aren't supported because they mainly hit children that die young, or people in third world countries that can't pay for drugs. A win-win situation, to be sure.
Health care is already sucking up 20% of the total GDP...isn't prevention a good idea? Why does America have such an issue with legislating that sort of change? Or even offering greater incentives? There is a large connection between technology and sociology. The industrial revolution profoundly changed how life worked, more or less. So where are we now?
Science is also very dynamic, and there is a relationship between science and technology that goes both ways: things like electron microscopy enabled nanotechnology and further study of molecules, but the understanding of the basic science of atoms influenced the creation of better tools. It's a very mutual relationship. So - do we try to split up science and engineering? Do we pinhole the work professors do and accomplish?
Also - will competition work in a monopoly? We have so many different sectors of science, but is that the best way? We restrict access between these groups, but does this fuel competition in order to get things done, or does it do just the opposite?
There was also an interesting side discussion of the incentive of academia versus the money of industry. Why do I do what I do? For the money, obviously. There was talk of putting more obvious benefits into academia, but will that work?
Additionally, there is is the issue of relevance in terms of how the outside looks in and sees what scientists are attempting to do. The analogy was made is that science is like a monastery. We stay isolated from everyone else, write things down that only we can understand, and then throw our manuscripts over a wall. Then, a businessman comes along in a Cadillac, and he first must want to stop. Then he has to translate the foreign document, and understand what it is saying. Finally, he must know what to do with it...how it will actually change things. It's an odd analogy, yet...I see his point. We don't have accurate means of communicating science to investors in many cases...or even to communicate between specific disciplines or across the public/private divide.
I also learned a bit more about the RadLab here at MIT - it's a fascinating story of how to get science done quickly and well. From the moment of getting the initial technology of microwave radar from the British, it took only 24 months to install fully functional radar systems in the entire American air fleet. That is astonishing.
All in all---wow. It was a complete overload of information, but hopefully it will help me become a bit more confident in the issues of science and policy. And yes- there are more questions than answers. Welcome to science.
In closing, to echo M. in a prior note, there was a student texting on his Blackberry throughout the entire lecture (keep in mind-today's class was five hours long). That is disrespectful. You know better. End of story. Watch your back, because next time you leave the room, I'm going to hide it.
There is also an opportunity to visit Washington to lobby congress in the second week of April, which would be an amazing opportunity. (and the cherry blossoms!) I would be working mostly with the Massachusetts delegation of senators and representatives (John Kerry and Ted Kennedy), but I would also petition to meet with the Minnesota delegation (Amy Klobuchar and TBD).
[ Although - I might try and battle my way into Michele Bachman's office and sit her down for some serious tutoring on evolution: "there is a controversy among scientists about whether evolution is a fact or not...There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." Right, Michelle. Name those many. And those hundreds. Then we'll talk. And maybe by the end, you'll understand what the concept of "theory" means in a scientific sense. (cited from a debate in St. Cloud in 2006.) ]
Regardless of what I do in Washington, this first day was full of all sorts of new and interesting things, some more related to science than others. The class was taught by the Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Washington, D.C. Office, Bill Bonvillian. He's an older gentleman, but he has had tremendous amounts of policy experience. He knows what he's talking about.
Our first order of business was really talking about what innovation means. Innovation can come in two forms: capitol (money, tools) or systemic (networking, allowing unified cooperation across fields). One of the big questions in this class is "How essential is the government's role in facilitating innovation?" Right now, the US system of science if industry (private sector), universities (funded by public research dollars and industry) and publicly funded research labs (think Bell Labs). The money and ideas that flow between these three areas isn't constant or even managed very effectively or efficiently. So--how do we do this? Should we try?
The argument in this class (and most overwhelmingly elsewhere) is that yes, the government should be involved. The point of contention is how. And how much.
Robert Solow (an MIT prof who won the Nobel Prize in economics) - said the key to growth in both developed AND developing countries is research and innovation. But - he also said that this sort of growth is exogenous to the process, and isn't inside the economics of the system.
Paul Romer (a professor of economics teaching at Stanford) - is another important figure, and asserts that R&D is more complex: you need a real investment of people -- talented people. I completely agree. However, there is a lot of argument on how to best get these talented people. I would immediately say, "K-12 education is a mess. That's the best place to put money." However---Romer thinks that the best way is to reduce the dropout rate of engineering students at the college level.
There's also the very real problem of intellectual property...how do you protect the inventor yet promote diffusion of knowledge and fuel scientific progress?
Another issue--who decides what is the "best" science to pursue? This is very much a value judgment. Way back in the day, people studied radiation instead of curing disease, and it led to the discovery of x-rays, and x-ray crystallography, a crucial technology to determine the structure of molecules, which lead to the discovery of DNA. Meaning, what is being researched will most certainly have far-reaching consequences, no matter what it looks like at first glance.
In another vein, why is so much money used to research drugs to cure adult onset diabetes and obesity when both are completely curable and preventable by a lifestyle change?
EDIT: It was pointed out to me that this is rather harsh. The big problem I have with all the money that goes to diabetes and obesity research is that it goes straight into Big Pharma. Why? Because Pharma can't make money off patients with rare genetic disorders. Instead, they can make money off the increasing number of obese and diabetic patients in this world. Granted, I think that these problems can be solved without drugs a great deal of the time but this REQUIRES a more supportive society and lots more nutritionists, exercise coaches, and incentives. It requires a large change in how American culture solves health problems. And then the money could go to those other diseases that often aren't supported because they mainly hit children that die young, or people in third world countries that can't pay for drugs. A win-win situation, to be sure.
Health care is already sucking up 20% of the total GDP...isn't prevention a good idea? Why does America have such an issue with legislating that sort of change? Or even offering greater incentives? There is a large connection between technology and sociology. The industrial revolution profoundly changed how life worked, more or less. So where are we now?
Science is also very dynamic, and there is a relationship between science and technology that goes both ways: things like electron microscopy enabled nanotechnology and further study of molecules, but the understanding of the basic science of atoms influenced the creation of better tools. It's a very mutual relationship. So - do we try to split up science and engineering? Do we pinhole the work professors do and accomplish?
Also - will competition work in a monopoly? We have so many different sectors of science, but is that the best way? We restrict access between these groups, but does this fuel competition in order to get things done, or does it do just the opposite?
There was also an interesting side discussion of the incentive of academia versus the money of industry. Why do I do what I do? For the money, obviously. There was talk of putting more obvious benefits into academia, but will that work?
Additionally, there is is the issue of relevance in terms of how the outside looks in and sees what scientists are attempting to do. The analogy was made is that science is like a monastery. We stay isolated from everyone else, write things down that only we can understand, and then throw our manuscripts over a wall. Then, a businessman comes along in a Cadillac, and he first must want to stop. Then he has to translate the foreign document, and understand what it is saying. Finally, he must know what to do with it...how it will actually change things. It's an odd analogy, yet...I see his point. We don't have accurate means of communicating science to investors in many cases...or even to communicate between specific disciplines or across the public/private divide.
I also learned a bit more about the RadLab here at MIT - it's a fascinating story of how to get science done quickly and well. From the moment of getting the initial technology of microwave radar from the British, it took only 24 months to install fully functional radar systems in the entire American air fleet. That is astonishing.
All in all---wow. It was a complete overload of information, but hopefully it will help me become a bit more confident in the issues of science and policy. And yes- there are more questions than answers. Welcome to science.
In closing, to echo M. in a prior note, there was a student texting on his Blackberry throughout the entire lecture (keep in mind-today's class was five hours long). That is disrespectful. You know better. End of story. Watch your back, because next time you leave the room, I'm going to hide it.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Mmmm...suckling pig!
One of the great things about being home is realizing that yes, while I don't have a TV at school, sometimes it is just nice to sit on the couch in the living room, turn on Food Network, and gasp at the beautiful food.
The particular episode of Iron Chef that was on that night was on suckling pig.
Really.
I'm not going to post a picture in the interest of not scaring away readers, yet as a scientist, I find the suckling pig a rather interesting specimen. First, I have dissected into the double digits of fetal pigs in my life as a student and teaching assistant, and I find it interesting to no end, every time I do it (even though, yes, they smell, and yes, I HATE touching the string that is always soaked in pig juice). And even now...I miss it. I miss being around people who are just as excited about cecum as I am. Instead, I have people who get their kicks from coding. Which is fine...I just miss biology majors.
And even the bio majors here don't have the same comprehensive anatomy/physiology-based curriculum I had in undergrad...I mean, I didn't take cell biology. Or molecular biology. Or molecular genetics. And that's the biology I am expected to know here. Instead, I find myself spouting random factoids in class about the histology slides in that paper we read, or talking about how respiration really works. And I really like that. I miss the part of my life that was teaching and talking to other students about cool awesome biology stuff.
Hence, once of my next projects (of the bazillion I have) is to try and create a K-12 learning module on malaria. Well, the first step is actually seeing what is out there...and if there isn't much, seeing what I can come up with or possible partners. Malaria is just such a complex issue that deserves a lot of thought, and it would be a great way to increase scientific literacy in the context of health, world issues, economics, culture, the environment...I could talk about it all day. In fact, it would be a REALLY cool job to do this for a living. Take a subject, customize for different grade levels, visit schools and perform these modules in an effort to teach something new and different.
Adults may decry the thought of getting everyone involved in these complicated issues and "not paying enough attention to test scores," but I maintain that by not providing opportunities which take advantage of and encourage creativity, we're doing our nation a grave disservice...the next generation of entrepreneurs, artists, and researchers won't have the breadth and ability to make changes happen.
Call me idealistic if you will, but I want to expect a great deal from the people around me, and I feel like my life should be spent enabling others to help them live up to that expectation. And the amazing thing is that this could come from working in public health, sustainability, research, a government job, teaching... No wonder I have no idea what I want to do for the rest of my life.
And this post started with suckling pig. Yes, yes it did. Oh boy.
The particular episode of Iron Chef that was on that night was on suckling pig.
Really.
I'm not going to post a picture in the interest of not scaring away readers, yet as a scientist, I find the suckling pig a rather interesting specimen. First, I have dissected into the double digits of fetal pigs in my life as a student and teaching assistant, and I find it interesting to no end, every time I do it (even though, yes, they smell, and yes, I HATE touching the string that is always soaked in pig juice). And even now...I miss it. I miss being around people who are just as excited about cecum as I am. Instead, I have people who get their kicks from coding. Which is fine...I just miss biology majors.
And even the bio majors here don't have the same comprehensive anatomy/physiology-based curriculum I had in undergrad...I mean, I didn't take cell biology. Or molecular biology. Or molecular genetics. And that's the biology I am expected to know here. Instead, I find myself spouting random factoids in class about the histology slides in that paper we read, or talking about how respiration really works. And I really like that. I miss the part of my life that was teaching and talking to other students about cool awesome biology stuff.
Hence, once of my next projects (of the bazillion I have) is to try and create a K-12 learning module on malaria. Well, the first step is actually seeing what is out there...and if there isn't much, seeing what I can come up with or possible partners. Malaria is just such a complex issue that deserves a lot of thought, and it would be a great way to increase scientific literacy in the context of health, world issues, economics, culture, the environment...I could talk about it all day. In fact, it would be a REALLY cool job to do this for a living. Take a subject, customize for different grade levels, visit schools and perform these modules in an effort to teach something new and different.
Adults may decry the thought of getting everyone involved in these complicated issues and "not paying enough attention to test scores," but I maintain that by not providing opportunities which take advantage of and encourage creativity, we're doing our nation a grave disservice...the next generation of entrepreneurs, artists, and researchers won't have the breadth and ability to make changes happen.
Call me idealistic if you will, but I want to expect a great deal from the people around me, and I feel like my life should be spent enabling others to help them live up to that expectation. And the amazing thing is that this could come from working in public health, sustainability, research, a government job, teaching... No wonder I have no idea what I want to do for the rest of my life.
And this post started with suckling pig. Yes, yes it did. Oh boy.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Happy kitchen!
I was able to score a free kitchen stand thing off of the reuse listserve here at MIT about a week ago...and after de-rusting and WD-40ing, it is now installed in my kitchen and looks great! It is so nice to have some extra space!
Below is my kitchen/living area, starting from the front door and leading into the living room:
Below is my kitchen/living area, starting from the front door and leading into the living room:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)