The science of food has led to some pretty important discoveries as modern technology is applied to more and more food processing techniques. While some folks are suspicious of foods that have indefinite shelf lives, being able to avoid billions of tons of food waste can't be all bad. Here are just a few quick links on some interesting food findings.
Biology always seems like the messy and gooey branch of science. Biology contains a bunch of strange phenomena that seemingly exist just because they're possible. Here are just a few quirky biological discoveries.
We've talked a lot about how patents actually hinder the rate of innovation in many research areas. That's because nearly all innovation does not work on "the one big breakthrough" theory, but on incremental improvements over time, that all add up to big changes. But when you put a tollbooth and a decades-long monopoly on each incremental change, you massively slow down the rate of innovation. And, it's even worse in scientific research areas. That's because a lot of successful scientific innovation comes about from researchers sharing data and information with each other to get the ideas and inspirations to make the next leap. But with the rise in patenting basic science, scientists have been holding back information, slowing down their own breakthroughs.
Thankfully, more and more people are recognizing this issue. Scientists working on things involving embryonic stem cell research are complaining that patents are massively hindering their ability to advance their research, and it may be holding back cures for paralysis, diabetes and blindness, among other things.
Lanza recalls bumping up against his company's main competitor, Geron Corporation, when it came to researching stem cells in reversing diabetes, a process he said he had been working on with animals for many years.
"When I came to ACT to try to do it with stem cells I couldn't because the rights to use embryonic stem cells for diabetes had been exclusively licensed to Geron," he said.
"Here I was, a scientist trying to cure diabetes and I couldn't use my entire lifetime of expertise to try and develop that technology," he said.
The article notes that if the US keeps this up, other countries are likely to leapfrog us in terms of the research that they do, creating huge commercial opportunities and life-saving treatments, while the US wastes away fighting each other in court. Yet another reason why President Obama's suggestion that we're more innovative because we get more patents is completely off the mark.
Copycense points us to the news that the NFL apparently freaked out and pressured Toyota to edit a TV ad it was running during football games -- a move many people noted was "unusual." Apparently, the ad discusses how Toyota is using some of their research and technology in car safety for other fields -- such as helping to prevent concussions for football players. You can see the ad here, with the "offending" part at around 17 seconds:
I'm trying to figure out what the NFL was upset about. Here's a story of how efforts are being made to make the game even safer. That seems like a good thing -- the kind of thing that the NFL should be celebrating. Does it think that, if it hides the image of helmets colliding, people will magically think people don't get hurt playing football? And, of course, in pressuring Toyota to remove this commercial, all its done is draw a lot more attention to it. Toyota's response was apparently not to remove the ad entirely, but to just edit out that helmet-to-helmet crash. Well, phew, now football feels safe again, right?
Facts aren't always as reliable as they seem -- that's been a consistent theme here. And we're always interested in folks double-checking facts -- especially if it leads to a better understanding of how things work. When the process of verifying experiments or stories is blocked, everyone loses out. The conversation to clarify knowledge should be allowed to evolve, and generally science is pretty good about verifying experiments. But when it fails, it's usually a spectacular failure. Let's hope that arsenic NMR or proper mass spectrometry measurements will prevail in determining whether life can survive without phosphorous around.
The rumors had it all wrong. Nobody discovered a new lifeform on a different planet or moon -- but a new bacterium was found in California. (Why are all the alternative lifestyles living in California?) Just when everyone thinks we know how nature works, nature throws us a few curve balls. Keeps things interesting. UPDATE: Arsenic-based life has been debunked by the scientific process.
A long time ago, we used to publish more "bite-sized" technology bits, but somewhere along the way, we started writing up posts with hundreds of words in them. For those of you who miss the good ol' days (and prefer quick links), here are some randomly interesting biological discoveries (without too much commentary from us):
"By enacting a controversial 'emergency' rule in 2008 allowing foreign students who earn degrees in science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) in the U.S. to work for American employers for 29 months of Optional Practical Training (OPT) without the need for an H-1B visa, Department of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff boasted he was 'giving U.S. companies a competitive advantage in the world economy.' Microsoft applauded the move, saying the program would allow U.S. companies to recruit and retain the 'best' science and tech students educated at the top U.S. universities. And last April, the DHS quashed a legal challenge to the program, telling the U.S. Supreme Court that 'the public interest would be disserved' without the program.
Noticeably absent from the DHS brief, however, were any details on the two-year old program's participants. But now, a Computerworld report suggests why the agency may have been less-than-eager to share any details with the Court. Not only is the DHS program dominated by for-profit Stratford University, whose 727 approved OPT STEM extension requests is more than twice the combined total of the entire Ivy League - Brown (26), Columbia (105), Cornell (90), Dartmouth (18), Harvard (27), Princeton (16), Penn (50), and Yale (9) - it turns out the program is also being embraced by IT outsourcing and offshoring companies like Kelly Services, whose entities snagged about 50 approvals, more than twice the combined total of Google (15), Amazon.com (2), Yahoo (2), and Facebook (3). More details on the 20,000 OPT STEM extension requests filed since mid-2008 can be found in Computerworld's interactive database."
I'll admit that I was a supporter of this program when it was first announced. I believe that we should absolutely be opening our borders to those skilled in science and technology, and keep them working in the US so that they're working to improve US competitiveness, rather than competing with US firms elsewhere. Unfortunately, it certainly looks like (as with the H-1B program) that it is not being used in the way it should be used. This is unfortunate, as anti-immigration folks will simply use this as evidence to block important, useful and job-creating immigration, insisting that all such efforts are abuses. That's not true, but when a program like this is not really being used for the best and brightest, then it's been improperly designed.
Stephan Kinsella sends over a fascinating talk by Dr. Terence Kealey, a UK biochemist and professor, discussing why -- contrary to what most people think, "science" is not a public good, and that government-funded science actually tends to do more damage than good for global economies:
Many of the points raised actually apply to issues related to patents as well. For example, he starts out by quoting Francis Bacon, who defended the idea of governments funding science by claiming (as we often hear about patents), that if an individual invests in research, it will cost a great deal to do so, but any competitor can then copy the results for free. And thus, Bacon concluded, science was a form of a public good which the government should fund. Sound familiar?
The problem, it turns out, is that as with patents there is no actual data to back this up. Kealey points out that there is no historical or econometric data anywhere that supports this claim. For example, he points to the OECD's sources of economic growth report (pdf), where it found very high correlation between economic growth and countries that had high levels of private R&D. When it came to publicly supported R&D, the report found no impact on economic growth... but, more worrying, it found evidence that public funding of science tended to crowd out private funding of R&D, which (again) correlated highly with economic growth. Now, of course, correlation is not causation, and there may be many other factors at play here. However, it is interesting that there doesn't appear to be any direct evidence that public expenditure in science leads to economic growth.
Dr. Kealey points out that many people believe in the importance of public funding of science based on the same thinking as Bacon above: the idea that science is a public good. That is, that once it's out there, anyone can use it -- and thus, it either needs to be enclosed and limited in some manner, or funded by the government. In the last couple decades, however, more and more economists have begun to realize that this thinking on public goods is not only overly simplified, but it's often wrong. It appears to be the case here again. Kealey points out that science is not, in fact, a public good.
Why? Because of a combination of social mores and the need to do your own research to understand what others are doing:
The standard story... was that science was a public good, in the sense that anybody can go to the journals -- or the internet today -- and pick up the Journal of Molecular Biology and read the papers for free... We can get it for nothing. Or we can go to the Patent Office, which very kindly publishes all this stuff... and read all the patents... and get ideas, blah blah blah.... We all know that "science is publicly available," and therefore is easy to copy and all the rest of that.
But hold on a second.
How many people in this room can read the Journal of Molecular Biology. How many people in this room can read contemporary journals in physics? Or math? Physiology? Very, very few. Now the interesting thing -- and we can show this very clearly -- is that the only people who can read the papers, the only people who can talk to the scientists who generate the data, are fellow specialists in the same field. And what are they doing? They are publishing their own papers.
And if they try not to publish their own papers... If they say, 'we're not going to get engaged in the exchange of information; we're going to keep out of it and just try to read other people's papers, but not do any research of our own, not make any advances of our own, not have any conversations with anyone,' within two or three years they are obsolescent and redundant, and they can no longer read the papers, because they're not doing the science themselves, which gives them the tacit knowledge -- all the subtle stuff that's never actually published -- that enables them actually to access the information of their competitors.
This is a huge point that fits with similar points that we've made in the past when it comes to intellectual property and the idea that others can just come along and "copy" the idea. So many people believe it's easy for anyone to just copy, but it's that tacit knowledge that is so hard to get. It's why so many attempts at just copying what other successful operations do turn into cargo cult copies, where you may get the outward aspects copied, but you miss all that important implicit and tacit information if you're not out there in the market yourself.
He then goes on to discuss the Royal Society of London, which encouraged scientists to publish their own research, and points out that while initially, people might think that it was better to not be a member, not publish your information and just scoop up what others had done, in practice that wasn't the case. Why? Because the members of the society beyond publishing themselves, also had much greater access to all the other members as well, allowing them to continually further their own knowledge. In other words, the argument that researchers or competitors will prefer to keep their inventions secret via trade secrets goes out the window when companies realize that by sharing more freely their own inventions, they also get greater access to the inventions of others.
What's interesting here is that this story of the Royal Society and the benefits of membership actually fit -- almost exactly -- the research on why Silicon Valley became such a huge success when compared to other, similar arenas. What that research showed was that due to a lack of noncompete agreements in Silicon Valley (where they are outlawed), the rate of job shifting was much higher. And, partly because of that, information flowed much more quickly between competitors. While one might normally think this is a bad thing, what actually happened was it allowed all the companies in that space to grow much faster, because the knowledge sharing led to faster and faster advancements for all. Rather than being limited to just what one group could figure out, they could all effectively build on each other's knowledge as well -- and the end result was much greater growth for all.
But, still, as with the situation that Dr. Kealey describes, there had to be a level of expertise from everyone involved. It wasn't as if some other party, with no knowledge of the space at all could just copy it. So too, it appears to be, with scientists:
You can't access the science of others unless you're part of the game. It is only the molecular biologist who is publishing his own papers, getting invited to the conferences, having the discrete conversations with other fellow molecular biologists, who can capture the work of others. And so you don't get the information for free. You pay a very high price to access the information of your fellows. Science is not a public good.... It costs as much to access information as it does to make it. It's just that the cost of accessing is the subtle parallel cost of the work you have to do before you're ready to read it. And, as a part of that, you're contributing to the common pool of knowledge.
From there, he discusses the famous story of how the Wright Brothers and their patents effectively killed the aviation industry in the US until the government stepped in to force them to open up. And from there, he makes the point that I was discussing above about the research on Silicon Valley:
What is really interesting about the exchange of knowledge, is the work of von Hippel and others at MIT Sloan Management School: industrial scientists collude -- or I don't know what word you want to use -- exchange information all of the time. Even competitors. It's a straight quid pro quo. Just like academic scientists. von Hippel showed, for example, the 12 leading steel makers in America... 11 of them routinely met discretely, and exchanged information as quid pro quos. It's a very nice model, economically. There is actually shared knowledge amongst scientists. One of the leading economists of science -- I'm not going to name all the names because it's boring -- but he's showed that there are no industrial secrets in America or in Britain or in the West. Scientists at the level of research, in companies, exchange so much information, that no secrets exist more than about a year, a year and a half....
...
Scientists discovered a very long time ago that their own self-interest is assured if they share knowledge with competitors. Because the ones that don't share knowledge, whether they're academic scientists looking for their Nobels or business scientists looking for money, that if they don't share, they will absolutely get left behind.
It's great to see that there's even more research on this particular subject than I had been aware of before, but which confirms many of the points that I've been making for years.
Via Chris Anderson comes this rather odd news about plans for Berkeley High School to cut science labs as part of the school's measures to "address Berkeley's dismal racial achievement gap." Apparently white students at the school do "far better than the state average while black and Latino students [do] worse." Fair enough. That's something worth looking into, but taking away science labs? According to one of the people who helped put forth the proposal, "science labs were largely classes for white students." So, just do away with them? Why not explore why that is? Or see if there's something more proactive to be done about it? Of course, it's not even true that it's just white kids taking science labs:
Science teachers were understandably horrified by the proposal. "The majority of the science department believes that this major policy decision affecting the entire student body, the faculty, and the community has been made without any notification, without a hearing," said Mardi Sicular-Mertens, the senior member of Berkeley High School's science department, at last week's school board meeting.
Sincular-Mertens, who has taught science at BHS for 24 years, said the possible cuts will impact her black students as well. She says there are twelve African-American males in her AP classes and that her four environmental science classes are 17.5 percent African American and 13.9 percent Latino. "As teachers, we are greatly saddened at the thought of losing the opportunity to help all of our students master the skills they need to find satisfaction and success in their education," she told the board.
It seems like there must be more to this story than what's being reported. The concept of cutting science labs because more white students take them just seems too preposterous to make sense.
