With the wrapping up of, from what I've read, a somewhat useless G20 summit, I thought I would take a quick stab at the highly complicated and politicized subject of global climate change. I was reminiscing about an article that I first heard on my local National Public Radio station. The story was about a 16-year-old girl who had become the poster child for skeptics of global warming. If you're interested, you can find the story here, or if you really want a laugh, check out this totally ridiculous version. The young girl had written several papers that tackled issues of climate change, with the main theme of her work being that current models of climate trends are inaccurate and that activists have taken information and data that is full of holes and run with it, in what has come to be known as 'global warming alarmism.' Her website includes a slew of information, including a critique of Al Gore's famous documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
Now, as much as I appreciate scientific debate, I find the climate change skeptics to be boorish (use of this term is my own personal jeer at the recent comments of Peggy Noonan). And to explain why, I'll start by explaining my thoughts on climate change activists. I'm not an expert on climate change, so I'm not going to address the scientific talking points, but I do fully understand what climate change activists are asking of the public and our society. They are, in essence, asking us to become more responsible members of our planet; to consider the harm we do to our environment as well as to our own health; to think of the impact we will have on our children, and our children's children; to remember that we are not the only species on the Earth struggling to survive. At the root of all of this, they are really asking only one thing: for all of us to consider the consequences of our actions.
If these are the things that climate change activists want, then it's safe to conclude that the anti-alarmists and skeptics would like us to do the exact opposite; to be irresponsible and self-serving; to think nothing of the environment and human health; to let future generations fend for themselves; to utilize the Earth's organisms as a resource that can be depleted, much like our precious fossil fuels, without worry. Basically, I can only conclude that they would like us to act before thinking, addressing major problems only after they are beyond the point of correction, all in order to destroy the Earth, us along with it, leaving behind a smoldering, lifeless chunk of rock to circle the Sun.
Dramatic? Of course. True? You decide. But for as much flack as Al Gore, for example, receives for his viewpoints, it doesn't really matter if the scientific data that he brandishes like a weapon is true or not. Because at the end of the day, he's really only using it for one purpose, and that's to make us better people. The alarmists may be off-putting, but that's because it's always off-putting to hear someone tell you that you are acting like an inconsiderate and thoughtless cretin. So instead of arguing over whether the data is accurate and who's right, why don't we leave that up to the experts, and the rest of us roll up our sleeves and get down to becoming more responsible and humane people. You know...be, like, better.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
That's Great, But What Do We DO With It?
While enjoying my coffee and perusing through Nature this fine morning, my mind sort of went off on a tangent on what has become a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Let's start from the beginning...
A couple of years ago, I was listening to an episode of Talk With the Nation: Science Friday in which Ira Flatow, with whom I am more than a little endeared, was speaking with one of the folks from CERN about the construction and future studies of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It was a great interview and it left me feeling very excited about the LHC coming online, even though it wasn't scheduled to happen for many months. As always, Ira took phone calls from listeners. One caller asked something along the lines of, 'that sounds great, but what's the potential application for this?' The physicist from CERN was polite (much moreso than I would've been) in explaining that the LHC was a device built for discovery; for basic science, not applied science. The information gathered from the LHC's experiments had no direct application, but unforeseen applications and benefits could arise as a result. Oh yeah, and don't forget about uncovering the mysteries of the universe. That important too, I guess.
In general, the question 'what are the applications for this?' roughly translates into 'how will this benefit me?' I wanted the CERN physicist to say, "What do you mean applications? Did you not hear what I just said? I said Higgs boson, you fool. We're illuminating the inner workings of the universe and adding to the knowledge of the human race, not developing a new microwave oven." I know that's a little harsh, but sometimes the truth hurts.
I don't even do basic science. I do applied science, so I know that question shouldn't bother me, but it does. Why does everything have to have a direct application? Why does it always have to benefit everyone (and benefit them right away)? When did science become less about learning and discovery and all about making Average Joe's life a little easier? I know that applied science and engineering have their places in the world of science because I am, after all, an engineer, but I still feel a sense of wonder and excitement when I read about new scientific discoveries, or watch an episode of Nova, or see pictures of the LHC's massive detectors.
I just hope I'm not the only one.
A couple of years ago, I was listening to an episode of Talk With the Nation: Science Friday in which Ira Flatow, with whom I am more than a little endeared, was speaking with one of the folks from CERN about the construction and future studies of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). It was a great interview and it left me feeling very excited about the LHC coming online, even though it wasn't scheduled to happen for many months. As always, Ira took phone calls from listeners. One caller asked something along the lines of, 'that sounds great, but what's the potential application for this?' The physicist from CERN was polite (much moreso than I would've been) in explaining that the LHC was a device built for discovery; for basic science, not applied science. The information gathered from the LHC's experiments had no direct application, but unforeseen applications and benefits could arise as a result. Oh yeah, and don't forget about uncovering the mysteries of the universe. That important too, I guess.
In general, the question 'what are the applications for this?' roughly translates into 'how will this benefit me?' I wanted the CERN physicist to say, "What do you mean applications? Did you not hear what I just said? I said Higgs boson, you fool. We're illuminating the inner workings of the universe and adding to the knowledge of the human race, not developing a new microwave oven." I know that's a little harsh, but sometimes the truth hurts.
I don't even do basic science. I do applied science, so I know that question shouldn't bother me, but it does. Why does everything have to have a direct application? Why does it always have to benefit everyone (and benefit them right away)? When did science become less about learning and discovery and all about making Average Joe's life a little easier? I know that applied science and engineering have their places in the world of science because I am, after all, an engineer, but I still feel a sense of wonder and excitement when I read about new scientific discoveries, or watch an episode of Nova, or see pictures of the LHC's massive detectors.
I just hope I'm not the only one.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Let the Sun Shine In
I read an interesting article today in Science Magazine on a potential new solar cell design that could greatly enhance energy efficiency capture from sunlight. The method utilizes carbon nanotubes (CNTs) grown between two tiny electrodes, rather than large and expensive silicon wafers, to create the photovoltaic cell. When light strikes the silicon semiconductor in a traditional solar cell, one exciton is produced, which then moves towards an electrode creating a current. Any additional energy from the photon's absorption is given off in the form of heat. In the new CNT-based cells, studies indicate that the nanotubes are able to produce more than one exciton from a single photon absorption event, increasing the overall efficiency of the cell.
Sounds great, right? So what's the catch? The catch is that this phenomenon has only been observed so far at 60 degrees Kelvin, or around -213 degrees Celcius. But that's not all. Work so far has focused on characterizing the effect in a single cell. In order for this process to be applicable to, say, heating your home, the structure would have to be multiplied many billion times in an array. And on top of that, the production of the device would have to be scaled up to make it competitive with current solar panel production.
This is all very interesting and I found the article fascinating, but it reminded me of another solar cell innovation that was awarded as one of TIME Magazine's Best Inventions of 2008. The technology, which has matured to create the west coast-based company Nanosolar, is founded on the ability to 'screen print' the solar cell. Instead of using silicon wafers, Nanosolar uses semiconductor nanoparticles dispersed in a sort of ink, which is then printed onto a substrate very similar to aluminum foil. The result is an extremely thin, very lightweight, inexpensive solar panel. And when I say very lightweight, I mean VERY lightweight: check out the TIME article to see Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen with a massive solar panel perched neatly on his shoulder. Currently, Nanosolar is targeting integration of the panels into energy grids in the form of solar 'power plants,' but the rest of us non-utility folk can sign up to receive updates on when their solar panels will become available to homeowners. I, for one, may be putting my name on that list.
Sounds great, right? So what's the catch? The catch is that this phenomenon has only been observed so far at 60 degrees Kelvin, or around -213 degrees Celcius. But that's not all. Work so far has focused on characterizing the effect in a single cell. In order for this process to be applicable to, say, heating your home, the structure would have to be multiplied many billion times in an array. And on top of that, the production of the device would have to be scaled up to make it competitive with current solar panel production.
This is all very interesting and I found the article fascinating, but it reminded me of another solar cell innovation that was awarded as one of TIME Magazine's Best Inventions of 2008. The technology, which has matured to create the west coast-based company Nanosolar, is founded on the ability to 'screen print' the solar cell. Instead of using silicon wafers, Nanosolar uses semiconductor nanoparticles dispersed in a sort of ink, which is then printed onto a substrate very similar to aluminum foil. The result is an extremely thin, very lightweight, inexpensive solar panel. And when I say very lightweight, I mean VERY lightweight: check out the TIME article to see Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen with a massive solar panel perched neatly on his shoulder. Currently, Nanosolar is targeting integration of the panels into energy grids in the form of solar 'power plants,' but the rest of us non-utility folk can sign up to receive updates on when their solar panels will become available to homeowners. I, for one, may be putting my name on that list.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Rat King
A company from our own backyard, St. Louis-based Sigma-Aldrich, is about to utilize a brigade of genetically modified rats to wage war against a dominant and more numerous army of genetically modified mice. Seriously...
For years, mice have reigned over the world of mammal models of genetic modification. That is, it's comparatively easy to create knock-out mice with precisely controlled genetic traits using embryonic stem cells. However, rats are better human models of many diseases than are mice. So Sigma-Aldrich, with the help of the Medical College of Wisconsin, developed a method of targeting specific genes for removal using a zinc finger nuclease. Rather than using embryonic stem cells, which can be finicky to say the least, the DNA nuclease is introduced to the fertilized rat egg, where it clips particular sequences from the genome. And Voila! You've got yourself a knock-out rat. Sigma plans to have off-the-shelf rats with modifications that are popular among current researchers, as well as custom, made-to-order rats.
If business takes off, Sigma-Aldrich, who already has a strangle-hold on the laboratory chemical reagent market, could become a major player in the laboratory animal trade. This could be a great asset to the economy of St. Louis and the State of Missouri. The area is already transforming, step-by-step, into a legitimate biotechnology hub, but the Sigma Advanced Genetic Engineering Lab with their legions of genetically modified rats could be more like a running charge, complete with screams of nonsensical drivel, to position St. Louis at the forefront of the biotech industry.
For years, mice have reigned over the world of mammal models of genetic modification. That is, it's comparatively easy to create knock-out mice with precisely controlled genetic traits using embryonic stem cells. However, rats are better human models of many diseases than are mice. So Sigma-Aldrich, with the help of the Medical College of Wisconsin, developed a method of targeting specific genes for removal using a zinc finger nuclease. Rather than using embryonic stem cells, which can be finicky to say the least, the DNA nuclease is introduced to the fertilized rat egg, where it clips particular sequences from the genome. And Voila! You've got yourself a knock-out rat. Sigma plans to have off-the-shelf rats with modifications that are popular among current researchers, as well as custom, made-to-order rats.
If business takes off, Sigma-Aldrich, who already has a strangle-hold on the laboratory chemical reagent market, could become a major player in the laboratory animal trade. This could be a great asset to the economy of St. Louis and the State of Missouri. The area is already transforming, step-by-step, into a legitimate biotechnology hub, but the Sigma Advanced Genetic Engineering Lab with their legions of genetically modified rats could be more like a running charge, complete with screams of nonsensical drivel, to position St. Louis at the forefront of the biotech industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
