Microfinance for Science

FundScience is an organization intended to provide a microfinance source for researchers.  Microfinance, as the name implies, deals with amounts that are much smaller than usually considered for the comparable project.  For instance, microlending would be on the order of a few hundred dollars or less, rather than a few thousand or more.  In the case of funding science, the amounts talked about are on the order of a few thousand dollars, up to $50,000, and the grant is for one year.

FundScience has worked the last couple of years on establishing partners and support for its work, and has recently launched its first trial.  While the organization will vet any proposals submitted to it for funding, it will actually appeal to the public to select what projects get funded.  People can donate to each of the projects under consideration, and depending on the level of donations and the quality of the project, FundScience will add to those donations.  So a researcher can hit the road to publicize the project, with an eye towards gathering more donations.

As the Nature item I linked to indicates, there are other groups looking at microfinance for science projects, EurekaFund and SciFlies.  As with FundScience, the projects are targeted to specific sectors and young researchers (or grad students, as the case may be).  To compare this trend to prizes, these entities operate at the small scale of InnoCentive.  Arguably when you get to something comparable to an X Prize, you’re in the same space as traditional funding agencies, or foundations.

Given the different kinds of incentive involved in funding research compared to stimulating innovation, it remains to be seen whether what FundScience and similar organizations could be scaled up.  If it could, we have a possible means to alleviate the problem of ridiculously low application success rates at federal funding agencies.  By this I mean the increasingly common occurrence of highly qualified research proposals being denied because there was only enough money to fund a few.

Winnie Cooper Teaches Your Daughter Algebra

On Tuesday, Danica McKellar, one of those all-too-rare child actors (she played Winnie Cooper on The Wonder Years) who make a successful transition to adult life, will release her third math book targeted for girls.  Called Hot X: Algebra Exposed, McKellar’s latest continues the math progression outlined by her previous math books Math Doesn’t Suck (middle school level math) and Kiss My Math (pre-algebra).

McKellar graduated with a degree in mathematics from UCLA, and has a named theorem to her credit (shared with two others), so she knows what she’s writing about.  Arguably the message of her books is best suited for those girls who have found math frustrating or been discouraged by math, at least from the excerpts I’ve read.  I don’t see any promotional appearances for the book in the next week or so, but should they come about, they’ll be in my usual Monday morning post.

X Prize Foundation Takes on Oil

I guess it was just a matter of time…The X Prize Foundation has announced the Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X Challenge (H/T BBC News).  (Schmidt is the president of a foundation focused on clean energy and better natural resources use.  She’s also the wife of the CEO of Google.)  It’s a year-long competition for teams to see who can get the highest surface oil recovery rate and recovery efficiency.  Teams must register and submit their plans to an independent judging panel in phase one (August 2010-April 2011).  The panel will select finalists for head-to-head demonstration competitions at a test facility in New Jersey.  First place receives $1 million, second place $300,000 and third place $100,000.

It’s nice to see a challenge project like this to try and stimulate increased activity in oil spill cleanup.  It complements an effort from the major oil companies that is committing $1 billion to capturing ocean floor oil leaks and transporting them to the surface.  But that second dollar figure ought to give you pause.  That’s 1,000 times the money being committed to the X Challenge.  As I posted earlier, there’s a significant difference in the amount of money invested in oil and gas exploration compared to cleanup.  The X Challenge is more than a drop in the bucket, but the bucket is still less than half full (even with that billion dollars from the oil companies).

I understand that the X Challenge – compared to the X Prize – is meant to be a smaller amount targeted toward a more defined technological goal.  And while oil cleanup technology is not a whole new market like reusable spacecraft or mass market cars that give the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon, it needs the kind of incentive a $10 million prize or greater can give.  I’m also concerned that the current setup of the prize doesn’t push the envelope enough.  It’s awarding the highest performers without setting performance targets.  I hope that changes, or that the judging process establishes performance targets.

Regardless, I’m happy to see someone outside of the energy companies giving the problem some long-needed attention.

Grow Your Own Clothes

The Scientist brings word of a designer who is breaking fashion trends by growing the material she uses in her clothes.  Suzanne Lee, a senior research fellow at the fashion school of Central Saint Martins College, works on BioCouture, growing cellulose to use as fabric for a number of items.  It’s not at a mass-production stage, there are only 10 garments or so to date.  In addition to the novel means of producing her fabric, Lee makes a point of minimizing the environmental impact of the garments, utilizing natural dyes and other coloring agents.  The Scientist produced this video showing some of her items and the work that goes into them.

There’s a history of paper garments, so using cellulose to make clothing doesn’t seem that much of a stretch (unless it rains, when I imagine things may well stretch).  Using bacteria to grow the fabric, however, is the novel aspect of her work.  I don’t know if Lee has any interest in other forms of clothing, or in producing garments in batches rather than what appears to be a one-at-a-time process.  I do know I want to see more of this.

The Local Challenges of Geoengineering

In the middle of this muddled analysis of geoengineering in The Economist. While the piece ultimate starts to make a clear point when discussing the merits of using the climate prediction tool climateprediction.net, the way the piece teases at the impact of local variations that might result from geoengineering projects ultimately leaves a reader frustrated.  It seems like it’s trying to make the argument that reframing the geoengineering tradeoff discussion would eliminate the debates over winners and losers.  It describes a scenario where all regions should get closer to 1990s climate by the 2020s if certain geoengineering projects are implemented.  However, it then seems to undercut its argument by saying,

“The core message here is not what level of geoengineering any given region might prefer, but rather the lesson that, though many regions might benefit from geoengineering, they will not all do so to the same extent in any single geoengineering scenario.”

I can’t see how this really advances the discussion past the debates over winners and losers in geoengineering.  Then it gets a bit crazier.

“Uncertainty about who might do best from what sort of project allows discussions of geoengineering to take place without the parties to the debate knowing in any detail where any nation’s specific interests might lie.”

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee to Examine Emergencies and Science

Yesterday the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee announced it would launch an inquiry into scientific advice and evidence in emergencies.  This will be the first inquiry of the new committee.  These inquiries resemble some kinds of National Academies (U.S.) study reports in focus, if not in process.  The Committee will inquire about the following questions related to emergency situations:

1. What are the potential hazards and risks and how were they identified? How prepared is/was the Government for the emergency?
2. How does/did the Government use scientific advice and evidence to identify, prepare for and react to an emergency?
3. What are the obstacles to obtaining reliable, timely scientific advice and evidence to inform policy decisions in emergencies? Has the Government sufficient powers and resources to overcome the obstacles? For case studies (i) and (ii) was there sufficient and timely scientific evidence to inform policy decisions?
4. How effective is the strategic coordination between Government departments, public bodies, private bodies, sources of scientific advice and the research base in preparing for and reacting to emergencies?
5. How important is international coordination and how could it be strengthened?

The inquiry will focus on four case studies – two that have happened and two that might happen.  The historical cases are the recent Icelandic volcanic eruptions (to which it is thought the response was an overreaction) and the 2009 swine flu pandemic.  The cases of potential emergency are solar storms and cyber attacks.

Unlike a standard National Academies report, the Committee welcomes public comments on the subject.  They can be submitted by mail and online between now and September 14.  If other inquiries are suggestive of how long the inquiry might last, we should expect a final report from the committee very early in 2011, with a government response possibly coming a few months after that.

House Hearing Today on Access to Federally Funded Research

The Information Policy, Census and National Archives Subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing today on public access to federally funded research.  The hearing starts at 2 p.m. Eastern time and will be webcast.  Simply visit the hearing page shortly before the scheduled start to access the webcast.

There does not appear to be specific legislation connected to this hearing, but it would be odd for the bills currently wading through Congress to not come up.  The committee has been referred two bills on open access – H.R. 5037 and H.R. 5253.  Somebody is going to ask the witnesses about the bills, and at least one of the witnesses will likely reference the bills (or similar Senate legislation).

The witness list for today’s hearing is long, and if there are votes during the scheduled hearing time, expect this hearing to last until the dinner hour.  The witnesses include a representative of the National Library of Medicine, several academic or scientific publishers, and a couple of public interest groups.  There is a heavy representation of biomedical fields, but that does seem to be a home to much of the churn and innovation in open access, at least where journals are concerned.

Again, the hearing is scheduled for 2 p.m. Eastern time today.  Archived video and testimony should be available shortly after the conclusion of the hearing.

Homeopathy in the U.K. and U.S. – Why the Differences?

I’m asking a question more than offering theory in this post.  In my informal education on science and technology policy in other countries (still focused on the U.K. and Canada at this point), I’ve noticed that homeopathy has a particular position in the U.K.  It manages great degrees of government support; it’s still covered to some extent under the national health care system and Members of Parliament have sung its praises on occasion.  It also receives a fair amount of public scorn, at least in part because of the support the U.K. government gives it, which seems wildly out of proportion to any benefits associated with homeopathic remedies.

And what exactly are homeopathic remedies?  This video from a U.K. comedy duo gives a good approximation.  That it rates satirical treatment demonstrates how much the issue has permeated U.K. culture (H/T 3 Quarks Daily).

Expanding the Space for Satellites…and For Space Junk

Researchers in Scotland have refined a series of calculations proving that solar sails could expand the available space for satellites to operate at geostationary orbit.  It should be possible to harness the force of sunlight via large sails to provide enough energy to keep satellites at a constant position above the earth in places besides the equator.

If this can be done in the field, it expands the space in which various kinds of satellites can operate.  The applications are widespread, but it should allow for establishing greater terrestrial coverage of services like global positioning, communications services, and sensor networks.  However, there’s also the matter of the trash.

With more satellites in more places, the problem of space junk gets harder.  The solar sails likely could not easily be used to move the junk without some way of attaching the sails to trash or constructing them in some way so they can operate as trash collectors.  Since most solar sails are relatively fragile things, I’m not optimistic about that possibility.

Of course, I’m concerned about a possible unintended consequence of a hypothetical scenario.  I could be wrong, or other factors may make lashing sails to satellites impractical enough to rarely happen.

V. Bush and the Linear Model – Who Believed What?

The fine folks at Ether Wave Propaganda have posted on the linear model associated with Vannevar Bush (that basic research feeds into applied research and then into technological development) and the theory advanced by David Edgerton (see article #41) that it doesn’t exist.  The discussion engages with whether or not the model (which is distinct from the linear model Roger Pielke talks about) as discussed was actually supported or articulated by Bush in his writings or actions.

While this certainly matters, whether or not Bush specifically outlined the linear model as described above may not be as important in the policy area.  That’s because the rhetoric of the linear model (if not the model itself), has become part of the language of science and technology research funding in the U.S.  I’m not sure that anyone who uses that rhetoric honestly believes that science and technology development is as simple as the linear model implies.  But the rhetoric persists.  For me (and possibly for the historians at Ether Wave) this raises a question of the consequences of using rhetoric that does not map to historical understanding.

In using a shorthand that suggests knowledge development is simpler than it is, or suggesting that an idea was championed by someone who didn’t subscribe to it, is there harm caused to the policies or practices meant to benefit from these ideas?  The persistence of the rhetoric associated with the linear model suggests that the consequences are not terminal.  But the cognitive dissonance that floats around this topic keeps me thinking that either there’s a problem with the disconnect between rhetoric and practice, or some kind of inefficiency.