It started with pants that repelled stains. Next we saw clothing that featured built-in insect repellent. Then along came clothes that can prevent colds and flu, never need to be washed, and protect against smog and air pollution.
Your clothes, it seems, are becoming pretty high-tech. Experts have long predicted that, as technology becomes more advanced, your clothing would be enhanced with high technology allowing us to, essentially, wear a high tech arsenal including computer equipment, communications devices, GPS, cameras, built-in cooling systems, and devices that generate electricity from your movement.
Some new fabrics may even be able to pinpoint medical problems before they reach dangerous levels. A smart sports bra under development at the University of Bolten in England may be able to detect breast cancer tumors before they grow large enough to be dangerous and spread. Other garments being designed may be able to monitor your body's vital statistics including temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, and the chemical composition of your sweat.
I'm forced to wonder, though, if many of these garments might end up being classified as medical devices, and thus subject to the clinical testing that medical devices have to endure. Otherwise, might we be faced with a bevy of clothing options that all claim to have health benefits, but which are completely untested? Do we really want our clothing choices to be even more confusing by adding in the claims that plague the dietary and nutritional supplement markets?
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Monday, August 4, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
MIT Offers Hope
Nuclear fusion power. Rapid spread of robots. Technology for longer, healthier lives. Better energy storage systems. Harnessing plant-based photosynthesis for solar energy. Cars that drive themselves. Computers embedded in your clothing.
No, this isn't a list of topics from science-fiction novels. It's a subset of a list that researchers at MIT think will help usher in a new era of prosperity.
The MIT News Office asked a collection of MIT faculty and researchers for their thoughts on the potentially life-altering technologies that are on the near horizon. C|Net has more, including photos.
Given that this information comes from MIT, I'm a little surprised there weren't more suggestions about nanotechnology or artificial intelligence.
No, this isn't a list of topics from science-fiction novels. It's a subset of a list that researchers at MIT think will help usher in a new era of prosperity.
The MIT News Office asked a collection of MIT faculty and researchers for their thoughts on the potentially life-altering technologies that are on the near horizon. C|Net has more, including photos.
Given that this information comes from MIT, I'm a little surprised there weren't more suggestions about nanotechnology or artificial intelligence.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Failed Predictions
"Difficult to see... always in motion is the future." - Yoda, Empire Strikes Back
The future is hard to predict accurately. Some of the smartest people who've ever lived have tried their hands at it and failed miserably. To illustrate that, a poster on The List Universe recently posted a list of the Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions.
It's pretty interesting to see some of the predictions that have been proven wrong over the years.
The future is hard to predict accurately. Some of the smartest people who've ever lived have tried their hands at it and failed miserably. To illustrate that, a poster on The List Universe recently posted a list of the Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions.
It's pretty interesting to see some of the predictions that have been proven wrong over the years.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Moment of Truth
C|Net's Michael Kanellos has an interesting article about how and why America is losing our scientific and technological edge over the rest of the world, and what we can do about it. It's definitely worth a read.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
A Low-cost, Home-built Rapic Prototyping Machine?
Rapid prototyping machines--or 3-D printers--use a small nozzle that scans back and forth across a surface, depositing tiny droplets of quick-hardening plastic. After each scan, the nozzle moves up a notch and scans again until it has built up the complete object, layer by layer. With multiple nozzles or a means of swapping supply cartridges, the machine can create objects made of many different materials. An electronic circuit, for example, can be made by combining an organic semiconductor, metallic inks and ceramic insulators.
Price tags for these machines average around $100,000, but you can now build your own for about $2,300 worth of off-the-shelf parts, thanks to the work of a Cornell University engineering professor. The prototype--called Fab@Home--is slower than commercial models and it doesn't have the same fine detail resolution, but for the price it definitely has its uses. Additionally, since the system is home-built from plans available online, you can modify the device to do whatever you want, unlike the commercial products.
You can download the plans to start building your own Fab@Home from this website. The site also includes construction hints, ideas for applications, notes on the history of 3-D printing and discussion groups. People are invited and encouraged to make improvements, and a sort of cult is slowly forming.
Price tags for these machines average around $100,000, but you can now build your own for about $2,300 worth of off-the-shelf parts, thanks to the work of a Cornell University engineering professor. The prototype--called Fab@Home--is slower than commercial models and it doesn't have the same fine detail resolution, but for the price it definitely has its uses. Additionally, since the system is home-built from plans available online, you can modify the device to do whatever you want, unlike the commercial products.
You can download the plans to start building your own Fab@Home from this website. The site also includes construction hints, ideas for applications, notes on the history of 3-D printing and discussion groups. People are invited and encouraged to make improvements, and a sort of cult is slowly forming.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Microsoft Releases Robotics Studio
This week, Microsoft® released a new product called Microsoft Robotics Studio, designed to be a universal platform for robotics for everything from toys to industrial and military applications.
The folks at Microsoft are understandably excited about this new product, as they see many parallels between the robotics industry today and the computer industry of the mid-to-late seventies.
The software includes a visual programming tool that enables non-programmers to easily write software for robots using a drag-and-drop interface, along with a 3-D simulator (using the PhysXTM engine from AGEIATM) to allow you to evaluate how your robot will behave without having to build it first.
I think this is an excellent step toward building better robots, as it makes it possible for hobbyists (licenses of MRS are free for non-commercial use) to participate in advancing the robotics industry, much as they did with personal computers in the late seventies and early eighties.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Interactive Interface Technology
This isn't actually new, but it's very cool. Jeff Han of NYU's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences demonstrated a new computer interface technology at the TED conference in February of 2006, and it's very, very cool stuff. Take a look at the YouTube video here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
