Do It Yourself

I've always said that you don't have to be a professional working in a sterile lab in order to contribute to the advancement of science and technology, and it looks like others are starting to catch on. The Associated Press ran an article a few days ago about amateurs using relatively inexpensive equipment, working out of their homes or garages, to genetically engineer new life forms.

The best quote in the article is from computer programmer Meredith L. Patterson, who is working to alter the bacteria that create yogurt to glow in the presence of melamine, who said, "People can really work on projects for the good of humanity while learning about something they want to learn about in the process." And that's exactly the point: making a contribution, yes, but also learning something.

It sounds interesting, but the biological sciences are not really an area that I've had any training (other than what I've taught myself and what I learned in biology class in 9th grade). I have been thinking, though, about picking up some equipment for a little physics experimentation out in my garage.

The point is that you can do something. Maybe you can work on genetic engineering, or maybe you can experiment with radioactive decay in your garage. Maybe you can write computer software for scientific simulations, or maybe you could just run the BOINC software (and, by the way, the organization responsible for BOINC is looking for help with programming, translating, testing, and documenting their software, if you have any of those skills). But do something.

STEM Education Follow-Up

When I reported yesterday that the U.S. is falling behind a set of goals for education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields set by a coalition of business groups, I apparently touched on a hot topic. There has been some aggressive discussion in the comments, enough to lead me to do some research of my own into the statistics.

All of the numbers that I'm going to use come from a study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that tallied bachelor's degrees granted in 2005-2006.

From the numbers, I have broken down the results into the fields that I consider to be directly related to the STEM goals, and from my calculations there were less than a quarter of a million graduates in those fields in 2005-2006, or roughly one-sixth of all graduates from bachelor's degree granting programs.

By far the largest category was business degrees, granted to more than 318,000 students in that time period. That's more than for all STEM fields combined, and could possibly be attributed to people's desire for money or to get ahead in the world. Obviously business is a clearer path than science for financial gain.

But then how do you explain the fact that the second largest category is Social Sciences and History, with 161,485 graduates? And the third highest is Education, with 107,238. You'll never convince me that people are going into those fields for the money. Or the roughly 100,000 people that majored in English Language and Literature/Letters or Liberal Arts, General Studies, and Humanities.

So if it's not for the money, then why are American students going into fields other than science, technology, engineering, and math? I think there are several problems, but the biggest one is one that is endemic to our society. Most Americans want the easy path, and STEM fields are hard. There's no glamour, no glory, no high profile recognition or—as pointed out repeatedly—no massive paychecks. We haven't done enough to entice people to pursue these fields. It's cultural.

Want proof? The numbers are broken down by ethnic groups, and they're pretty telling. Here are the percentages for various ethnic groups in terms of what percentage of graduates in that ethnic group are graduating with degrees in STEM fields:

• Whites - 15.00%
• Blacks - 13.02%
• Hispanices - 13.28%
• Asians - 27.96%
• Native Americans - 14.05%

There is obviously a cultural bias in Asian cultures toward STEM fields that we lack in American culture. You want something else that's telling? There are also numbers for non-resident aliens—students from outside the U.S. who are here just to get their education and then, generally, go home. 25.72% of them are in STEM fields, and more than a third are attending our business schools.

And right now, we're letting them get these degrees that our own citizens apparently have little interest in pursuing, and then we let them go back to their own countries to invent things, start businesses, and grow their local economies. Now, I'm all for growing economies around the world... a rising tide lifts all boats, after all. But the reason the business groups were pushing for increased enrollment and graduation in STEM fields was to keep America competitive in the future. If all of the new ideas and new tech are coming from other countries, then the U.S. may lose one of the few economic strengths we currently have.

One final point I feel that I need to make. In some fields—especially computer technology—college degrees don't mean as much as people, including this coalition of business groups, might think. I know a lot of people who work in Information Technology; I've been in the field for thirteen years myself. And many of those people don't have their degrees in a computer-related field. Heck, I don't have my degree at all (I know, sixteen years of college and 160 credit hours, I should have my MBA or Ph.D. by now), and neither do several of the other people I know. Some have degrees in English literature or psychology. One has a degree in math and two in electrical engineering. One programmer even has his degree in music.

At the same time, I know a woman with a degree in computer and electrical engineering from a prestigious school who currently, I believe, works the phone banks for a policital organization. My point is that just counting degrees granted does not accurately predict how many people are going to be working in what fields. And you might be surprised with the amount of creativity, ingenuity, and industriousness that Americans will continue to display in the future.

But more people studying STEM fields would certainly help.

Grand Challenges Revisited

A while back, I posted about the National Academy of Engineering's quest to decide what the Grand Engineering Challenges for the 21st century are. As a refresher, users were asked to submit their ideas, and a panel of experts would consider the suggestions and pick the ones they believe were the truly great challenges that need to be resolved.

Well, the experts have spoken, and the list has been narrowed to fourteen challenges:

• Make solar energy economical
• Provide energy from fusion
• Develop carbon sequestration methods
• Manage the nitrogen cycle
• Provide access to clean water
• Restore and improve urban infrastructure
• Advance health informatics
• Engineer better medicines
• Reverse-engineer the brain
• Prevent nuclear terror
• Secure cyberspace
• Enhance virtual reality
• Advance personalized learning
• Engineer the tools of scientific discovery

The Grand Challenges site has lots of great information about each of these challenges, and I urge you to take a look for yourself.

Grand Challenges

The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) has officially launched what they call a "worldwide brainstorming session" called Grand Challenges for Engineering. The purpose is to identify the major engineering challenges to be addressed during the 21st Century.

The project grew out of a brainstorming session to determine the greatest, highest-impact engineering feats of the 20th Century. Anyone can submit ideas (this means you) to the list, and many people already have. The list will be reviewed by a panel of experts including J. Craig Venter, Larry Page, Dean Kamen, Ray Kurzweil, and William Perry, among others. If you don't know who these people are, you should... go to the website and read their bios.

I haven't submitted my ideas to the list yet, but I will. First, I'm going to list some thoughts here:

• Mind-Machine Interface - Our knowledge and understanding of the human brain and the human mind have advanced more in the past 15 years than they had in all the time leading up to that time. We now have systems that can detect a person's thought patterns and behave according to a prescribed set of rules, systems that have allowed paralyzed people to operate machinery. Improvements in this technology will result in true cybernetics, replacement limbs, paralysis cures, and eventually devices that help the blind to see and the deaf to hear.
• Low-Cost Orbital Access - And by "low-cost" I mean around the current price of an airline ticket. Rockets are never going to reach that pricing level, and it's time to stop pretending that they will. There are, however, some means that will work. A space elevator, while massively expensive to design and build, would lower cost-to-orbit dramatically. And gravity control, while firmly in the realm of science fiction for now, would be an enabler of so many things I can't even list them in this post. The hurdles in both cases are mainly engineering challenges (though in the case of gravity control, there is some basic science yet to be done), and they are hurdles that can be overcome.
• Anti-Senescence - There are a limited number of causes of cell death, and we are close to understanding many of them. The challenges remaining are in both the realms of science and engineering, but they are no insurmountable. Understanding and being able to control cell death could lead to cures for cancer, Alzheimer's disease and many other diseases as well as rejuvenation therapies. Some people believe it may even be possible to eliminate aging as a cause of death.
• Clean, Reliable Power Generation - Most of our current means of generating electricity are destructive--coal, natural gas, and oil all create pollution in various amounts, and nuclear energy leaves us with large amounts of waste that will take eons to decay. Only renewable, non-polluting sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal will ease our energy demands without irreparable damaging the planet we live on. Solar power satellites beaming power as microwaves to ground receiver stations, supplemented by huge geothermal projects, could supply all of the energy we need to grow in the 21st Century.
• Asteroid Mining - Earth has a finite number of resources, and they're difficult to get to. A typical asteroid, meanwhile, has trillions of (2007) dollars worth of precious metals, and we could mine them without polluting our water sources here on Earth. The first organization that does so will truly open up the space market by making massive profits and will create a "gold rush" in space.
• Artificial Intelligence - True artificial intelligence is not that far away (although it's also not as close as some people would like to believe). There will be varying levels of it, ranging from slow-thinking, distributed neural network-based systems to very limited, task-specific (but portable) devices to handle your day-to-day chores, such as driving. Autonomous vehicles would virtually remove the human-error element from automobile and airplane travel, surgery, and commerce. Artificial intelligence will be used (even in the near term) to aid in product design, by means of evolving designs using genetic algorithms, allowing the rapid design of improved products.

These are just some of the (many) ideas I have for engineering challenges to be addressed in the 21st Century. In a way, it makes me sad that I'm not an engineer.

Researchers Working on System for Harvesting Corn Stover

A research team at Iowa State University is designing systems for simultaneous harvesting of grain and stover (the stalks, cobs and leaves) during corn harvesting, with the goal of providing the raw materials for cellulosic ethanol processing.

The researchers are developing stover attachments that can be used on standard combines. The result would be an additional cost to farmers of about $10,000 to $15,000 instead of the six figures it would take for a separate combine to harvest stover. The attachments would also allow farmers to harvest grain and stover with one pass through a field.

Although tests of the prototype machine have been successful, the researchers acknowledge that there is still much work to be done in terms of stover harvest capacity, transportation, storage, and soil composition.

Read more information here.