On September 21st, Broad Impacts was lucky enough to welcome Kathie Olsen, a former deputy director of the National Science Foundation, as she led a discussion with the group about the challenges faced by women in science. We heard some disappointing statistics regarding the number of women in top positions in science, talked about salary disparities, and members of the group shared stories of their personal experiences advancing in their careers. Throughout the discussion, we identified a number of things that we can do now to help women be successful in their scientific careers. Here are the points we came up with:
-Fight against unconscious bias. People of all genders can hold unconscious bias against women that may prevent them from suggesting women for awards, selecting them for open positions, awarding them tenure, etc. However, being aware of those personal biases allows those individuals to consciously reduce their own biased activities. Not only can we take note of our own biases and attempt to reduce them, we can also make our colleagues aware of their unconscious biases.
-Bring up issues of concern. If there is a policy or practice that selectively reduces the ability of women to succeed in science, bring it to the attention of others! Policies can be changed, but often only if there is a person or group of people willing to advocate for the change.
-Fight for equal salary. Women should be willing to negotiate for a salary that is fair based on the market and compared to others in that same position. Do your homework on what the appropriate salary is, and be prepared to ask for it.
-Be good at your job. Success takes hard work, and women who are good at their jobs (without worrying too much about the social aspects of their positions - whether they are liked by others, etc) are likely to be successful.
-Learn to say no. A few members of the group mentioned how important it is to prioritize in life so that a successful career is possible. Sometimes this means saying no to the little things (like making someone else do the dishes!).
-Be persistent and don't take it personally. Sometimes discrimination, or just plain bad luck, will keep women from reaching a goal. Always resubmit!
-Be optimistic - things are improving, and we are all helping to make things better.
Futher reading:
>For those of you at the University of Minnesota, a recently distributed report found that male faculty are paid on average 2.2% higher than female faculty at the same level. Click here to read the report.
>Christine of the blog Just Another Electron Pusher has a short but sweet post about why women leave careers in science.
>An August report from the United States Commerce Department's Economics and Statistics Administration finds that women are underrepresented in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields, and make less money than their male counterparts. Click here for the summary from Science magazine, and here for the full report.
Thank you to everyone who came to our discussion on women in science! Let's keep talking about these issues.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Family-Friendly Science
September 27, 2011
Just last month, researchers at Rice and Southern Methodist Universities released a study showing that female scientists were twice as likely as their male counterparts to regret not having more children. Further, these regrets were seen as prompting some female grad students and postdocs to consider leaving academic science.
On Monday, the National Science Foundation announced a series of new policies designed to make the agency's grant-making policies reflect support for those trying to balance parenthood with research careers. White House officials said that the goal of the effort was to promote change not only at the NSF, but throughout research universities, with the aim over 10 years of raising the percentage of tenure-track faculty in STEM fields who are women (about 28 percent) to their representation among new STEM Ph.D.s (about 40 percent).
John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said at a news briefing that the policy changes will help both fathers and mothers, but that "it is much more common for women to give up STEM careers" than it is for men, and that the shifts are designed to prevent those departures.
Specifically, the NSF will:
* Allow postponement for one year of grants because of childbirth or adoption.
* Allow grant suspension for parental leave.
* Provide supplementary funds to cover the cost of hiring research technicians to maintain laboratories when grant recipients are on family leave.
* Permit those serving on peer review panels to meet with their colleagues virtually, rather than in person, to reduce child-care needs created by travel.
* Fund more research on the effectiveness of policies that are designed to keep women in the science pipeline.
At the same time, the White House announced a series of related efforts by non-governmental groups. The Association for Women in Science is starting a new campaign to bring representatives of government, industry and academe together to discuss ways that work places can promote training, re-entry and retraining of women for science jobs. The Association of American Universities and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities pledged to find ways to "promote more flexible work and learning environments for those in STEM and other disciplines."
Subra Suresh, director of the National Science Foundation, stressed that most of these efforts required policy changes, not new money. He said he hoped that these "seemingly simple" ideas would inspire universities to review their own policies and look for ways to assure "more flexible" career paths for academic scientists.
At the NSF, he said, many of the policies are based on the actions taken "in pockets of the foundation" that will now be official policy for the entire agency. The same expansion of good efforts is needed in universities, he said.
Elaine Ecklund, associate professor of sociology at Rice University, co-author of last month's study on science and parenthood, and author of several other studies of women and science, called Monday's announcement "huge news."
Ecklund said that a university may have enlightened policies such as, for example, allowing new parents to stop the tenure clock following the arrival of a new child. But an NSF grant recipient might be reluctant to take advantage of that policy if it would endanger a grant that might be key to a tenure bid. "University policies are one thing, but there are all these other pieces of the job of a scientist that are not covered by university policies," she said.
The NSF has enough prestige, she said, that she hopes all other funders will follow its lead, and that universities without good policies would adopt them as well.
Ecklund said she was particularly impressed with the decision of the NSF to allow additional funds to be used to hire technicians to keep labs running during family leaves. In many fields of science, "you may want to stop the clock, but you may be in a phase of the research where you can't stop, so this would keep things going."
— Scott Jaschik
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
AAAS Fellowship Applications
CALL FOR APPLICATIONS
The 2012-2013 AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships online application system is now open. The deadline for applications is December 5, 2011, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Interested applicants are encouraged to start their application early and contact their references as soon as possible.
Please share this information with friends and colleagues who may also be interested in this opportunity.
Opportunities
Placement opportunities are available in congressional offices and 15 executive branch agencies. The five fellowship areas being offered from September 2012 through August 2013 are:
* Congressional
* Diplomacy, Security& Development
* Energy, Environment & Agriculture
* Health, Education & Human Services
* Roger Revelle Fellowship in Global Stewardship
Learn more about the five fellowship areas on the Fellowships website.
Eligibility
To be considered for a fellowship, all successful applicants must hold a doctoral level degree (PhD, MD, DVM, etc.), in any of the following:
* Social/Behavioral sciences
* Medical/Health disciplines
* Biological, Physical or Earth sciences
* Computational sciences and Mathematics
* Engineering disciplines (applicants with a masters degree in engineering and three or more years of post-degree professional experience also qualify).
All degree requirements must be completed by the application deadline. Visit our website to learn more about Fellowship eligibility requirements.
Benefits
Stipends range from approximately $74,000 to $99,000 (depending on years of experience and previous salary). Other benefits include health insurance, travel/training allowance and relocation allowance. For more information about benefits, visit the Fellowships website.
Details
To learn more about the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships, visit our website at http://fellowships.aaas.org. Please contact the Fellowships staff at fellowships@aaas.org or 202-326-6700 with questions.
Gordon Research Conference on Science & Technology Policy
Science and Technology Policy in Global Context
August 5-10, 2012
Waterville Valley Resort
Waterville Valley, NH
Chairs: Susan Cozzens & Jack Stilgoe
Vice Chair: Jennifer Kuzma
The global context for science and technology policies is changing quickly. Knowledge is flowing around the world ever more freely. International collaboration is growing in every field. Economies that have traditionally grown through innovation face new competition from rising economic powers. Intellectual property regimes are in flux and under attack. Scientists and engineers trained in Europe and North America are returning to their regions of origins more often. Science and technology are embroiled in global regulatory issues like the ground rules for nanotechnology and synthetic biology, renewable and nuclear energy, and access to essential medicines.
The 2012 Gordon Research Conference on Science and Technology Policy will delve deeply into this range of issues, asking how the questions and answers of science and technology policy need to change in response to international developments. The program will tap the best recent research on the global dimensions of research, innovation, human resource, and regulatory policies, as well as perspectives from S&T policy practitioners from around the world.
The 2012 GRC on Science and Technology Policy will also offer for the first time a Gordon Research Seminar organized along the theme of the symposium, which will be held immediately preceding the GRC on Science and Technology Policy. Junior investigators, such as students, postdocs, and trainees, are encouraged to attend.
Applications for this conference are due by July 8, 2012
For more information:
Neuroscience & Public Policy
Susan Wolf and Steve Kelley from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs will be hosting a discussion about the interaction of neuroscience and public policy with the idea that there might be fertile ground for a full scale conference to explore the subject, possibly during the 2012-2013 academic year. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 18 from 11:00am-12:00pm. The meeting location is TBD.
A Discussion on Science Denialism (THIS Thursday 9/22/11)
VIP Access for Students: A Discussion with Michael Specter and Michael Osterholm on Science Denialism
3:30-4:15 p.m., Sept. 22, Mayo 3-125
Don't miss this unique opportunity to talk about the public health implications surrounding the growing mistrust among people around the world of science and its byproducts. Faculty and staff are asked to encourage students to attend.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Broad Impacts Fall Schedule!
Broad Impacts is ready for the new semester and raring to go!
We start our jam-packed Fall program with a very special guest. On Wednesday September 21st, Dr. Kathie Olsen, a former deputy director of the National Science Foundation, will give the Graduate Program in Neuroscience colloquium on "Understanding Science Policy" (12pm, 2-137 Jackson Hall). Then, at 3:30pm, she will lead a Broad Impacts discussion about the challenges faced by women in science, which will be held in MCB 2-120. Please join us to talk about this very important issue that affects all scientists! Happy hour will follow at Kitty Kat Club.
Here is the full Broad Impacts schedule. You will notice that all but the first session are on Thursday afternoons. Also, we have scheduled two "Policy and Pints" happy hours, which will be fun opportunities for the group to casually get together over drinks and talk current policy events.
>Wed Sept 21st, 3:30-5, MCB 2-120. Topic: Women in Science, led by Dr. Kathie Olsen
>Thurs Oct 6th, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic: Policy Implications of Do-It-Yourself Bioscience, led by Rachel Penrod
>Thurs Oct 20th, 5-7pm, Kitty Kat Club. Policy and Pints Happy Hour, led by Eric Miller
>Thurs Nov 3rd, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic: Scientific Misconduct, led by Dr. Melissa Anderson, Professor of Higher Education
>Thurs Nov 17th, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic TBD, led by Marian Rodriguez
>Thurs Dec 1st, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic: Ethics and Policies of Animal Research, led by Dr. Ben Clark, faculty liaison for IACUC
>Thurs Dec 15th, 5-7pm, Republic. Policy and Pints Happy Hour, led by Tess Kornfield
It's going to be a wonderful semester! We hope to see you there!
We start our jam-packed Fall program with a very special guest. On Wednesday September 21st, Dr. Kathie Olsen, a former deputy director of the National Science Foundation, will give the Graduate Program in Neuroscience colloquium on "Understanding Science Policy" (12pm, 2-137 Jackson Hall). Then, at 3:30pm, she will lead a Broad Impacts discussion about the challenges faced by women in science, which will be held in MCB 2-120. Please join us to talk about this very important issue that affects all scientists! Happy hour will follow at Kitty Kat Club.
Here is the full Broad Impacts schedule. You will notice that all but the first session are on Thursday afternoons. Also, we have scheduled two "Policy and Pints" happy hours, which will be fun opportunities for the group to casually get together over drinks and talk current policy events.
>Wed Sept 21st, 3:30-5, MCB 2-120. Topic: Women in Science, led by Dr. Kathie Olsen
>Thurs Oct 6th, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic: Policy Implications of Do-It-Yourself Bioscience, led by Rachel Penrod
>Thurs Oct 20th, 5-7pm, Kitty Kat Club. Policy and Pints Happy Hour, led by Eric Miller
>Thurs Nov 3rd, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic: Scientific Misconduct, led by Dr. Melissa Anderson, Professor of Higher Education
>Thurs Nov 17th, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic TBD, led by Marian Rodriguez
>Thurs Dec 1st, 3:30-5, Jackson Hall 6-135. Topic: Ethics and Policies of Animal Research, led by Dr. Ben Clark, faculty liaison for IACUC
>Thurs Dec 15th, 5-7pm, Republic. Policy and Pints Happy Hour, led by Tess Kornfield
It's going to be a wonderful semester! We hope to see you there!
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Diagnosing Mental Health Disorders
This is a guest post from Paul, a graduate student in neuroscience. Enjoy!
A new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is in the works and will be ready for publication in 2013. The DSM is used by mental health professional primarily in the United States to diagnose patients with mental health disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, and depression. Dr. John Sorboro, a psychiatrist, wrote an article for Skeptic Magazine1 questioning the need for a new DSM (the DSM V) while criticizing the current one (the DSM IV-TR). His problems with the DSM are many, and he uses some analogies to incite a reaction, even if negative (e.g., comparing the DSM to the ‘Malleus Maleficarum’ aka ‘The Hammer of Witches’), but he does also make some valid points. In my opinion, the most important problem he points out is that there is an issue with a manual that uses strictly symptomology (most of it revealed subjectively) to diagnose a disorder, which is how the DSM works. Here’s his basic argument. Psychiatric disorders are constructs, models based on observations that fit a specific theoretical framework. In psychiatry, the Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) construct is defined by its symptoms2 (shown below):
A new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is in the works and will be ready for publication in 2013. The DSM is used by mental health professional primarily in the United States to diagnose patients with mental health disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, and depression. Dr. John Sorboro, a psychiatrist, wrote an article for Skeptic Magazine1 questioning the need for a new DSM (the DSM V) while criticizing the current one (the DSM IV-TR). His problems with the DSM are many, and he uses some analogies to incite a reaction, even if negative (e.g., comparing the DSM to the ‘Malleus Maleficarum’ aka ‘The Hammer of Witches’), but he does also make some valid points. In my opinion, the most important problem he points out is that there is an issue with a manual that uses strictly symptomology (most of it revealed subjectively) to diagnose a disorder, which is how the DSM works. Here’s his basic argument. Psychiatric disorders are constructs, models based on observations that fit a specific theoretical framework. In psychiatry, the Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) construct is defined by its symptoms2 (shown below):
Must have at least 5 of these symptoms for at least two weeks:
- Depressed mood for the majority of the day on most day
- Loss of interest in most activities (otherwise known as adhedonia)
- Insomnia or hypersomnia
- Decreased concentration
- Increased fatigue or decreased energy for the majority of the day on most days
- Feelings of worthlessness
- Psychomotor agitation or retardation
- Suicidal ideation
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Get Involved in Science Policy
I came across this succinct and very well-written plea to non-scientists to get involved in science policy. Science policy is important, both for scientists and non-scientists. In the recent Broad Impacts sessions we've been talking about a scientist's responsibility to accurately communicate his or her work to the public, but non-scientists are largely capable of understanding science and the policy implications of scientific research without being spoonfed blurbs and headlines. Creating a well-informed populace requires effort from both scientists and non-scientists.
Read the short article here.
Read the short article here.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Recap of Last Thursday's Session
Last Thursday (August 4th) we had a great discussion on the obstacles to accurately communicating science to the public and lawmakers. A lot of good points came up. To name a couple:
1. It would be a good idea to train researchers in media communication. The University has an office dedicated to this, but many of the career development classes in our graduate programs do not feature a session. Perhaps in a future Broad Impacts session we can invite the Media Office.
2. The realities of science need to be taught to high school students. Many non-scientists do not understand how long and arduous scientific discovery can be. Furthermore, they can begin to distrust researchers when new explanations for diseases are developed every year. The constantly evolving and self-correcting nature of science should be better emphasized.
If you have other points from our discussion, please post them in a comment for those who could not make the discussion last Thursday. The presentation is available for viewing here, for those of you who couldn't make it. Also, here is the presentation from the first Broad Impacts session.
We hope to see you at the next session!
1. It would be a good idea to train researchers in media communication. The University has an office dedicated to this, but many of the career development classes in our graduate programs do not feature a session. Perhaps in a future Broad Impacts session we can invite the Media Office.
2. The realities of science need to be taught to high school students. Many non-scientists do not understand how long and arduous scientific discovery can be. Furthermore, they can begin to distrust researchers when new explanations for diseases are developed every year. The constantly evolving and self-correcting nature of science should be better emphasized.
If you have other points from our discussion, please post them in a comment for those who could not make the discussion last Thursday. The presentation is available for viewing here, for those of you who couldn't make it. Also, here is the presentation from the first Broad Impacts session.
We hope to see you at the next session!
Monday, August 8, 2011
Pop Culture: Science Run Amok!
Our discussion last week centered on the communication of science to the public and to lawmakers. It is clear that there are many obstacles to creating an scientifically informed populace. However, what we didn't consider in our discussion is how movies and television represent science. In a recent post over at ScienceProgress.org (a great site for science policy news), author Jonathan D. Moreno writes about Hollywood's portrayal of scientific discovery leading to terrifying doomsday scenarios, particularly focusing on the new film "Rise of the Planet of the Apes".
Maybe another barrier to the public acceptance and understanding of scientific progress is that the public resists if the research is too futuristic/creepy/engendering-of-word-destruction. For example: cloning? What if someone makes a clone army! Transgenic animals? What if a rogue scientist creates glowing people with four arms and aggressive tendencies! Gene therapy? What if the virus mutates and leads to a zombie apocalypse!
Perhaps it is the job of the scientist to ease the public's worry about these scenarios. For example, each episode of The Walking Dead could lead with a disclaimer: "9 out of 10 scientists agree that there is only a 0.5% chance of a zombie apocalypse occurring within the next 50 years."
Discussion question: do scientists really have it all under control?
HealthNewsReviews
At last Thursday's discussion Mary Butler mentioned a blog that fact-checks popular media news stories on new developments in Health Science. http://www.healthnewsreview.or
Sunday, July 24, 2011
A Successful First Session!
Thank you to everyone who came out for the first session of Broad Impacts last Thursday! It was wonderful to see so many people there eager to discuss science policy. We had some very interesting conversations that will be continued and expanded upon in future sessions. Our brief discussion addressing the basic versus translational research question really got attendees excited, so the August 18th session on that topic should be particularly fun!
For those of you who wanted to be there but couldn't, or for anyone who wants to check out the powerpoint in more detail, here is the presentation I gave.
Broad Impacts is off to a fantastic start! Our next scheduled events are:
>Thursday, August 4th, 3:30-5pm, MCB 2-120. Topic: Communication of science to the public and lawmakers
>Thursday, August 18th, 3:30-5pm, MCB 2-122. Topic: Basic versus translational research
>Wednesday, September 21st, 12pm, location TBA. Colloquium by Kathie Olsen, former deputy director of the NSF
Finally, thank you to everyone who offered feedback and suggestions for future discussion topics. We will definitely try to take those suggestions as we plan the Broad Impacts meetings for the Fall semester. See you at the next session for another great conversation!
For those of you who wanted to be there but couldn't, or for anyone who wants to check out the powerpoint in more detail, here is the presentation I gave.
Broad Impacts is off to a fantastic start! Our next scheduled events are:
>Thursday, August 4th, 3:30-5pm, MCB 2-120. Topic: Communication of science to the public and lawmakers
>Thursday, August 18th, 3:30-5pm, MCB 2-122. Topic: Basic versus translational research
>Wednesday, September 21st, 12pm, location TBA. Colloquium by Kathie Olsen, former deputy director of the NSF
Finally, thank you to everyone who offered feedback and suggestions for future discussion topics. We will definitely try to take those suggestions as we plan the Broad Impacts meetings for the Fall semester. See you at the next session for another great conversation!
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
The Casey Anthony trial and the disconect between the public perception of the trial and the legal outcome.
I was geared up to write a blog about the Casey Anthony trial, but in my researching of the story I ran in to an eloquently written blog on the disconnect between the public's feelings of Casey Anthony's guilt and the actual legal outcome. If you have been living under a rock, Casey Anthony was accused of murdering her young daughter. The appearance of the case made her look quite guilty - she didn't report her child missing for a month, she changed her story numerous times, her friends claimed that she gave the child Xanax to "calm her down", and there are pictures of her participating in a bar's dance contest during the time her daughter is believed to be missing.
From the public's point of view Casey Anthony seems incredibly guilty. From a legal standpoint, though, there was almost no material evidence. When found, her daughter's body was too decomposed to determine a cause of death. There was no murder weapon. The DNA evidence was not convincing. The jury made a rational decision based on the evidence. In this blog on Huffingtonpost.com, Princeton neuroscience professor Michael Graziano explains how the public and jury can come to such diametrically opposed decisions on Casey Anthony's guilt based on what we know about how the brain makes decisions. Read the article here!
~Eric~
From the public's point of view Casey Anthony seems incredibly guilty. From a legal standpoint, though, there was almost no material evidence. When found, her daughter's body was too decomposed to determine a cause of death. There was no murder weapon. The DNA evidence was not convincing. The jury made a rational decision based on the evidence. In this blog on Huffingtonpost.com, Princeton neuroscience professor Michael Graziano explains how the public and jury can come to such diametrically opposed decisions on Casey Anthony's guilt based on what we know about how the brain makes decisions. Read the article here!
~Eric~
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
You can call me HAL.
A couple of weeks ago I was watching an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher (a hilarious political commentary show on HBO, Fridays at 9PM CT) in which one of Bill's guests was the futurist Ray Kurzweil. Although I hadn't heard of him at the time, I was quickly intrigued by his personality, demeanor, and theories (the guy really looks like Woody Allen's nerdier brother!)
Kurzweil and his theories are the focus of a recent documentary called The Transcendent Man, as well as an article in TIME written by Lev Grossman, called "2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal."
Kurzweil is definitely a man of great intellect and proved to be a prodigy at an early age. In 1965, at the age of 17, he designed a "computer" that composed a piece of classical music. Since then, he has gone on to invent several inventions, possess countless patents, and create a number of scientific institutes and intellectual conferences. Even Bill Gates called him "the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence."
The futuristic ideas that Kurzweil puts forward are based upon the exponential growth of computing power and follows along the line of Moore's Law, i.e. that the number of transistors that you can put on a microchip doubles about every two years. Yet Kurzweil calls it "the law of accelerating returns" and adopts it for his futuristic prediction of human society. But the idea is certainly not novel. In the 1960's, the mathematician I.J. Good called it the "intelligence explosion." He said, "Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an "intelligence explosion," and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make." That's awesome, let's just sit back and relax! Right?
Well...if only it were that easy. If society indeed turns out the way Kurzweil predicts (and he does have a very good track record!) we will be forced to face an unimaginable number of ethical dilemmas. Kurzweil has a term for it: The Singularity. It refers to the time point at which computers will become more intelligent than humans, a time point that Kurzweil predicts will be reached by 2045.
Furthermore, for us neuroscientists out there, he estimates that we will reverse-engineer the human brain by the mid 2020's. If I understand this correctly, we will know exactly how every function of the brain works in 15 years? Being a bit familiar with the field, I am greatly skeptical of this timeline. Yes, computing power grows exponentially, but will it always do so, and will common science be able to keep up with this progress? We are but merely humans after all...
The fact that Kurzweil's first computer could create music, create art, is nearly blasphemous. If art is a form of self-expression, shouldn't it require a self? We assume that artificial intelligence can't possess the capacity for self-awareness, but is it impossible? Artificial intelligence has long been a subject of science fiction, but with the advances of science and technology, could it become reality?
What exactly The Singularity will entail is hotly debated. There are many who think that in a Darwinian world, creating a more dominant life form is a BAD idea. For instance, we could end up in a scenario much like that depicted in The Terminator. Yet, one of Kurzweil's goals is to assure that any artificial intelligence would be friendly to humans. Good luck with that... Perhaps our best bet is to join forces with them and create a synergistic cyborg partnership. Perhaps there are aspects of organic biology that are just impossible in the silicon world. And we certainly are reminded on a second-by-second basis of how important computers are to everyday human life.
One of the most direct applications of exponential computing growth will be in the biological realm of life extension. Kurzweil has established strong collaborations with other scientists in the fields of genetics and nanotechnology to create innovations for human health and survival. For instance, could you imagine cell-sized nanorobots with the processing power of a billion iPhones that patrol your body and report upon your status of health and disease? Would you want to live forever? In fact, one of Kurzweil's main priorities is to provide the ability for life extension, and selfishly to be alive when it occurs! I, for one, would probably only want to live two lifetimes, and certainly only in my 20's!
So, check out the article and documentary, and just imagine yourself in 35 years...
C3PO, checking out.
Kurzweil and his theories are the focus of a recent documentary called The Transcendent Man, as well as an article in TIME written by Lev Grossman, called "2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal."
Kurzweil is definitely a man of great intellect and proved to be a prodigy at an early age. In 1965, at the age of 17, he designed a "computer" that composed a piece of classical music. Since then, he has gone on to invent several inventions, possess countless patents, and create a number of scientific institutes and intellectual conferences. Even Bill Gates called him "the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence."
The futuristic ideas that Kurzweil puts forward are based upon the exponential growth of computing power and follows along the line of Moore's Law, i.e. that the number of transistors that you can put on a microchip doubles about every two years. Yet Kurzweil calls it "the law of accelerating returns" and adopts it for his futuristic prediction of human society. But the idea is certainly not novel. In the 1960's, the mathematician I.J. Good called it the "intelligence explosion." He said, "Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an "intelligence explosion," and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make." That's awesome, let's just sit back and relax! Right?
Well...if only it were that easy. If society indeed turns out the way Kurzweil predicts (and he does have a very good track record!) we will be forced to face an unimaginable number of ethical dilemmas. Kurzweil has a term for it: The Singularity. It refers to the time point at which computers will become more intelligent than humans, a time point that Kurzweil predicts will be reached by 2045.
Furthermore, for us neuroscientists out there, he estimates that we will reverse-engineer the human brain by the mid 2020's. If I understand this correctly, we will know exactly how every function of the brain works in 15 years? Being a bit familiar with the field, I am greatly skeptical of this timeline. Yes, computing power grows exponentially, but will it always do so, and will common science be able to keep up with this progress? We are but merely humans after all...
The fact that Kurzweil's first computer could create music, create art, is nearly blasphemous. If art is a form of self-expression, shouldn't it require a self? We assume that artificial intelligence can't possess the capacity for self-awareness, but is it impossible? Artificial intelligence has long been a subject of science fiction, but with the advances of science and technology, could it become reality?
What exactly The Singularity will entail is hotly debated. There are many who think that in a Darwinian world, creating a more dominant life form is a BAD idea. For instance, we could end up in a scenario much like that depicted in The Terminator. Yet, one of Kurzweil's goals is to assure that any artificial intelligence would be friendly to humans. Good luck with that... Perhaps our best bet is to join forces with them and create a synergistic cyborg partnership. Perhaps there are aspects of organic biology that are just impossible in the silicon world. And we certainly are reminded on a second-by-second basis of how important computers are to everyday human life.
One of the most direct applications of exponential computing growth will be in the biological realm of life extension. Kurzweil has established strong collaborations with other scientists in the fields of genetics and nanotechnology to create innovations for human health and survival. For instance, could you imagine cell-sized nanorobots with the processing power of a billion iPhones that patrol your body and report upon your status of health and disease? Would you want to live forever? In fact, one of Kurzweil's main priorities is to provide the ability for life extension, and selfishly to be alive when it occurs! I, for one, would probably only want to live two lifetimes, and certainly only in my 20's!
So, check out the article and documentary, and just imagine yourself in 35 years...
C3PO, checking out.
Broad Impacts meetings start this month!
University of Minnesota people: you are invited to a series of fun and informal events that will explore the interconnections of science, policy, and society. Broad Impacts is an exciting new group that aims to open a conversation about the important issues surrounding scientific research in this country: how science is funded and practiced, how scientific results inform policy, and how science is perceived and utilized in the public sphere. If you are a scientist, scientist-in-training, policy aficionado, or just a fan of thinking outside the scientific bubble, then this group is for you!
Scheduled sessions:
>Thursday, July 21st from 3:30-5pm, MCB 2-120. Topic: What is science policy and why should we care?
>Thursday, August 4th, 3:30-5pm, MCB 2-120. Topic: Communication of science to the public and lawmakers
>Thursday, August 18th, 3:30-5pm, MCB 2-122. Topic: Basic versus translational research
These discussion sessions will continue into the fall semester with frequency determined by interest. All are welcome to attend and participate - having a diverse set of opinions will allow for a more engaging discussion. Since this group is primarily aimed at scientific researchers, no background in science policy is required (although experts in policy are encouraged to participate).
To keep up to date on future events, follow this blog and check us out on Facebook!
Scheduled sessions:
>Thursday, July 21st from 3:30-5pm, MCB 2-120. Topic: What is science policy and why should we care?
>Thursday, August 4th, 3:30-5pm, MCB 2-120. Topic: Communication of science to the public and lawmakers
>Thursday, August 18th, 3:30-5pm, MCB 2-122. Topic: Basic versus translational research
These discussion sessions will continue into the fall semester with frequency determined by interest. All are welcome to attend and participate - having a diverse set of opinions will allow for a more engaging discussion. Since this group is primarily aimed at scientific researchers, no background in science policy is required (although experts in policy are encouraged to participate).
To keep up to date on future events, follow this blog and check us out on Facebook!
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Do we need more republican scientists?
In this interesting article published last December in Slate, science policy theorist Daniel Sarewitz claims that there are too few republicans in science. The numbers are damning: only 6% of scientists are republicans, while 55% are democrats, 32% are independent, and the rest don’t know their affiliation. Sarewitz attributes the rampant science denialism in this country to the fact that democrats have claimed science as their cause, leaving republicans without a foot in the scientific door, and therefore free to deny the scientific truth of things like climate change and evolution.
Sarewitz makes some interesting points, and the cited statistics speak for themselves, but the troubling part is when he claims that the lack of republicans scientists is a problem. Saying something is a problem implies that you know how things should be. Sarewitz's solution here seems to be to get more republican scientists. This solution is plagued with its own problems. How many republican scientists do we really need? Should the democrat:republican ratio be 1:1? Should it match that of the general population? Who can possibly choose this value?
Consider the case of women in science. Compared to men, the number of women succeeding in scientific careers has historically been quite low. In this case, the problem is not that the man:woman ratio is unequal. The problem is that there are barriers to scientific success that disproportionally affect women (hidden sexism, family commitments, lack of mentors, etc). Solving these problems will not necessarily make the number of women in science equal to the number of men, because that cannot be the final goal. Solving these problems would make the field more accessible to any individual interested in succeeding in it. What if, without these barriers, there ended up being more female scientists than male scientists. Would that be a problem? Perhaps that’s a topic for another blog post.
When you break down the lack-of-republicans-in-science issue into small elements, it becomes more likely that the low number of republican scientists is a cultural epiphenomenon. A great number of things factor in to this “problem,” including poor science literacy, extreme partisan politics forcing all-or-none political attitudes, inadequate communication of scientific findings to the general public, and lack of funding for science by republican administrations.
What Sarewitz gets right is that scientists should acknowledge this issue, discuss it, and think about the factors at play. Maybe in the end they will end up with great ideas on how to fix some real problems.
Sarewitz makes some interesting points, and the cited statistics speak for themselves, but the troubling part is when he claims that the lack of republicans scientists is a problem. Saying something is a problem implies that you know how things should be. Sarewitz's solution here seems to be to get more republican scientists. This solution is plagued with its own problems. How many republican scientists do we really need? Should the democrat:republican ratio be 1:1? Should it match that of the general population? Who can possibly choose this value?
Consider the case of women in science. Compared to men, the number of women succeeding in scientific careers has historically been quite low. In this case, the problem is not that the man:woman ratio is unequal. The problem is that there are barriers to scientific success that disproportionally affect women (hidden sexism, family commitments, lack of mentors, etc). Solving these problems will not necessarily make the number of women in science equal to the number of men, because that cannot be the final goal. Solving these problems would make the field more accessible to any individual interested in succeeding in it. What if, without these barriers, there ended up being more female scientists than male scientists. Would that be a problem? Perhaps that’s a topic for another blog post.
When you break down the lack-of-republicans-in-science issue into small elements, it becomes more likely that the low number of republican scientists is a cultural epiphenomenon. A great number of things factor in to this “problem,” including poor science literacy, extreme partisan politics forcing all-or-none political attitudes, inadequate communication of scientific findings to the general public, and lack of funding for science by republican administrations.
What Sarewitz gets right is that scientists should acknowledge this issue, discuss it, and think about the factors at play. Maybe in the end they will end up with great ideas on how to fix some real problems.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Welcome to Broad Impacts!
Broad Impacts is an informal group of graduate students, post-docs, and faculty members at the University of Minnesota who want to explore how science interacts with policy, politics, and society at large. Our goal with this blog is to engage with the world, both in our area and outside our university. We want to share our thoughts and to hear yours.
If you are affiliated with the University of Minnesota, we would welcome you at our discussion groups. Three sessions will be held over the summer (dates will be posted here soon), and will continue in the fall semester.
We look forward to filling this space, and your heads, with ideas about science policy!
If you are affiliated with the University of Minnesota, we would welcome you at our discussion groups. Three sessions will be held over the summer (dates will be posted here soon), and will continue in the fall semester.
We look forward to filling this space, and your heads, with ideas about science policy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)