Louis J Sheehan
Louis J Sheehan Esquire
Louis J SheehanLouis J. Sheehan 2Louis J. Sheehan 3Louis J. Sheehan 4Louis J. Sheehan 5Louis J. Sheehan 6Louis J. Sheehan 7Louis SheehanLouis J. SheehanLouis J. SheehanLouis J SheehanLouis J Sheehan 5Louis J. Sheehan 6
book 6.boo.00400 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
January, 2009
February, 2009
March, 2009
April, 2009
May, 2009
June, 2009
July, 2009
August, 2009
September, 2009
October, 2009
November, 2009
December, 2009
Sunday, February 01, 2009 - 12:28 PM
One of our guiding principles here at CV has always been that disciplinary barriers are meant to be leapt across. So, to mark the passing of an influential writer of fiction, who better than an influential writer of quantum field theory textbooks? We’re happy to have Michael Peskin contribute a guest post on the passing of John Updike.

—————————————————————-

John Updike (1932-2009)

John Updike, one of the great American writers, died on Tuesday. The Cosmic Variance bloggers might seem to write incessantly, but they had nothing on him. Updike produced 26 novels, 9 poetry collections, and, it seemed, a short story in the New Yorker every other week. There was no aspect of culture that he did not know. Yesterday, I saw him celebrated on the sports page of the San Francisco Chronicle for his classic on Ted Williams’ last at bat, “Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu”. We scientists should also acknowledge our gratitude and send our friends out to read his work.

Every particle physicist knows Updike’s poem “Cosmic Gall,” the number one popularization of neutrinos:

At night, they enter at Nepal
and pierce the lover and his lass
From underneath the bed …

Readers of Cosmic Variance will find much more interesting his 1986 novel Roger’s Version. In Chapter One, the scruffy fundamentalist computer science graduate student Dale Kohler walks into the office of the comfortably middle-aged Harvard professor of divinity Roger Lambert and shatters his worldview by explaining that new discoveries in physics and cosmology require intelligent design. The characters in the story that follows personify all points of view in the science versus religion debate, until — but I shouldn’t ruin the surprise.

John Updike People who are serious about literature claim that these works have merely intellectual interest. If you are in that group, there are also Updike novels that will move you with the depth of his empathy. His masterwork is the set of four Rabbit Angstrom novels, a thousand pages in all, one novel every ten years from 1960 to 1990. The greatest moments of Harry “Rabbit” Angstrom’s life came in high school, when he was a star basketball player in his small town in upstate Pennsylvania. When the first novel opens, that part of his life is already over. He has an uninspiring job, a tiny apartment, and a baby who dies in the first few pages. Harry has no introspection. The glow that surrounded him on the basketball court brings him women, and, one after another, they push him into all varieties of trouble. Harry’s wife Janice is tougher and recognizes that the two are stronger together than apart, but she cannot control his whims. In Rabbit, Run, he wanders in and out of his new marriage and an affair with a girl from the town. In Rabbit, Redux, he takes in a runaway teen and her drug habit. In Rabbit is Rich, he inherits his father-in-law’s Toyota dealership and samples the country-club life. In Rabbit at Rest, he tries to retire to Florida, but the bad choices of the past three books — and one astonishing new one — follow him. Harry also seduces his readers. We stay one step ahead of him in anticipating the next catastrophe, but we also watch through his eyes the panorama of America in Updike’s era.

If this is too heavy to carry, you could pick up the short, early novel The Centaur. A father, a high school science teacher, sacrifices himself for his son. It is a brief story, told with great pathos. But also, magically, just under the surface, the story unfolds as a Greek myth, and, in the end, the father, Updike’s father, ascends to the heavens.

It may not be true for those who blog, but those who put pen to paper will always be with us. Enjoy!

ShareThis

January 29th, 2009 by Sean in Guest Post, Humanity, Words | 9 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

9 Responses to “Guest Post: Michael Peskin on John Updike”

  1. Mark Says:

    Nicely put Michael - Updike was a true modern master,. He was an author that I always felt was able to achieve compellingly readable prose which stayed with you for a long time afterwards. Not an easy feat.

  2. jfromm Says:

    The autobiography of great writers is often as interesting as their works, for example “The Other Side of Me” by Sidney Sheldon. In his fascinating book “Self-Consciousness”, Updike describes his struggles with stuttering and psoriasis and talks about his profound commitment to writing. By the way, to produce a short story in the New Yorker every week is similar to write a cantata every week - in this way Updike can be compared with J.S. Bach.

  3. Marshall Eubanks Says:

    I have never heard of Updike’s poem about neutrinos - but I do remember the song by Klaatu, Little Neutrino. There was a time when I would put that when contemplating the solar neutrino discrepancy.

  4. JoAnne Says:

    Nice post, Michael, thanks! I had forgotten about his piece on Ted Williams’ last at bat. That was indeed a classic.

  5. Sili Says:

    I went to Amazon to look up the QFT book (in the naïve hope that I might one day understand some physics - not likely since I’ve have great trouble reading my differential geometry book despite passing the exam in it … years ago) - and I ended up adding ten books to my wishlist.
    http://louis0j0sheehan0esquire.wordpress.com

    Perhaps it’s fitting if I add one by Updike too, now that I’ve read the post.

  6. Talk Like A Physicist » Blog Archive » John Updike’s poem on Neutrinos - Cosmic Gall Says:

    […] Cosmic Variance Bookmark, Share and […]   Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

  7. changcho Says:

    Very nice, brief overview of some of Updike’s works, thank you.

  8. Updike’s The dance of the solids « Entertaining Research Says:

    […] The dance of the solids By Guru Peskin, at cosmic variance, reminds of Updike’s Neutrino poem while paying his tributes to the…: Every particle physicist knows Updike’s poem “Cosmic Gall,” the number one popularization of […]

  9. gss_000 Says:

    It’s always sad when someone this prolific passes. Maybe not as notable for the space community, but just as cool, one of Updike’s last pieces was on Mars in an issue of National Geographic.


• My, what a beautiful umbilicus you have! Survey says innies are hot, outies are not.

• Another week, another plan to exhume a dead astronomer. This time it’s Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe so historians can find out whether he was poisoned by a hired assassin.

 • All in the family: Three completely different looking fish—known as tapetails, whalefish, and bignoses—turn out to be the young, female, and male of the same species.

Read the rest of this entry »

January 30th, 2009 Tags: ,
by Nina Bai in Blog Roundup, The Ocean & All Its (Endangered) Wonders, What’s Inside Your Brain? | No Comments »

Want the Most Accurate OCD Diagnosis? Visit the Zoo

bears.jpgGot OCD? It may surprise you to know that three percent of all Americans do! Normally, when people display compulsive behaviors such as excessively washing their hands, psychiatrists give them a simple questionnaire to screen for OCD. But for the first time, researchers at Tel Aviv University have connected animal behavior to OCD in humans, after observing animals at the zoo.

It turns out that OCD patients respond the best to behavioral treatment when researchers videotape them behaving compulsively. But before this new program for humans was created, the researchers had to first watch animals at the zoo.

The researchers observed OCD in bears, gazelles, rats, and other animals, both in the wild and in captivity. In the wild, animals appeared to have automated routines. But when the researchers watched animals in the zoo, they noticed the animals had rituals of repetitious movements such as pacing back and forth. By looking for common (compulsive) behavior in different animals, the researchers were able to identify which repetitious behaviors were healthy, and which were not. As such, when psychiatrists apply the videotaping to humans, they can use the animal database to classify human OCD behaviors.

Read the rest of this entry »

January 30th, 2009 Tags: , ,
by Boonsri Dickinson in The Wide (& Strange) World of Animals, What’s Inside Your Brain? | 1 Comment »

Let Them Eat Dirt! It Contains Essential Worms

ShareThis

dirtHere’s some medical advice kids will like and parents may be surprised to hear: “Children should be allowed to go barefoot in the dirt, play in the dirt, and not have to wash their hands when they come in to eat,” says Dr. Joel V. Weinstock of Tufts Medicial Center. (He also suggests having lots of cats and dogs around the house.)

And he’s not alone. Increasingly, medical researchers have come to believe that our current obsession with cleanliness is making us sicker. Eat a few worms, ingest some fecal bacteria, get a taste of dirt, they say.

Evidence supporting the hygiene hypothesis, which says that a lack of exposure to microorganisms at a young age prevents the development of a healthy immune system, is turning up in many forms. In one study, pampered dogs that had been fed only human food and bottled water developed eczema, but after they were given mud taken from a cowshed, the eczema disappeared. In another study, scientists were able to prevent Type I diabetes in mice by giving them an extract taken from tropical worms. In yet another study, Argentinian patients with multiple sclerosis who were infected with whipworm developed milder symptoms.

Read the rest of this entry »

January 30th, 2009 Tags: , ,
by Nina Bai in Diseases, Injuries, & Other Ailments | 2 Comments »

Eight-Wheelers, Bamboo, and Bunny Slippers: The Oddest in Electric Cars

bamboo carThe car of the future may be no car at all, at least in the common sense of the word. Auto trailblazers have been hard at work coming up with designs for just about anything that will move us from one place to another on electricity, and some of the results are nothing short of remarkable. WebEcoist has a fantastic list of the most innovative electric cars that have appeared thus far.

A few of the highlights include a pair of moving pink bunny slippers designed by Tesla, a roadster designed by a Paris fashion house, a compact car made entirely of bamboo (a renewable resource), and a single-passenger electric coach that will protect us from the “post-apocalyptic wasteland” of toxic waste and pollution. There’s also the”Ecooter,” an enclosed scooter intended for short-distance driving in cities. We’re not even gonna touch that one.

Related:
Disco: Is Eco-Shame the New Political Correctness?
Disco: The Secret to Renewable Energy May Be Rotting in Your Trash Can

Image courtesy of JapanProbe.

January 29th, 2009 Tags: , , ,
by Melissa Lafsky in Technology Attacks! | No Comments »

The Curious Case of the Immortal Jellyfish

ShareThis

hydrozoaIt’s official: the only thing certain in this world is taxes. That’s because death, for a tiny sea creature, is not inevitable. Turritopsis nutricul, a jellyfish-like hydrazoan, is the only animal known to be potentially immortal.

Once it reaches sexual maturity, Turritopsis looks like a tiny, transparent, many-tentacled parachute (only about 5mm in diameter) that floats freely in warm ocean waters. But when times get tough, Turritopsis can turn into a blob, anchor itself to a surface, and undergo a sort of reverse methamorphosis back to its youthful form as a stalk-like polyp. That’s like a butterfly turning back into a caterpillar. Scientists, who first described this phenomenon [pdf] in the 1990s, believe Turritopsis can repeat its life cycle indefinitely.
http://louis0j0sheehan0esquire.wordpress.com

Read the rest of this entry »

January 29th, 2009 Tags: ,
by Nina Bai in The Ocean & All Its (Endangered) Wonders | 5 Comments »

“Sweating Robot” Built to Test High-Tech Athletic Gear

2127994706_3e16e0b446.jpgThe best robots compete in RoboGames, just as the best athletes train for the Olympics. But anyone who plays sports in the winter knows that sometimes sweating underneath your clothes is unavoidable.

Now, Swiss researchers are using a specially-designed robot to test out new humidity-resistant gear that will maintain body heat for athletes training in freezing weather, by preventing sweat from soaking their clothes.

Called “Sam,” short for “Sweating Agile Mannequin,” the test robot can run, but more importantly, it can sweat. The robot, which took 5 years to construct, is built with 125 sweat nozzles from head to toe.

Read the rest of this entry »

January 29th, 2009 Tags: , ,
by Boonsri Dickinson in Technology Attacks! | No Comments »

Attention “Cello Scrotum” Sufferers: Your Condition Doesn’t Exist

ShareThis

celloA doctor in Britain has finally revealed a medical hoax that she and her husband started 34 years ago.  In 1974, after reading a letter in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) describing a painful condition known as “guitar nipple,” Elaine Murphy and her husband John sent in a spoof letter describing an analogous condition they called “cello scrotum.”  Much as “guitar nipple” was caused by the edge of the guitar constantly pressing against the breast, “cello scrotum” was supposedly caused by the edge of the instrument pressing against a more intimate area of male cellists.

Of course, anyone who has ever seen a cello being played would realize the impossibility of “cello scrotum.”

Although the Murphys were hoping only for some laughs—perhaps assuming that the satire would be evident—BMJ actually published their letter in complete seriousness.

Read the rest of this entry »

January 28th, 2009 Tags: , ,
by Nina Bai in Diseases, Injuries, & Other Ailments | No Comments »

No Love for Lucy: Hominid Fossil Put on a Good Show, But No One Came

lucy.jpgLucy flew all the way from Ethiopia for nothing.

Seattle officials paid $2.25 million for the fossilized remains of the 3.2 million-year-old hominid known as Lucy to be on display at Seattle’s Pacific Science Center. The problem is that no one wanted to visit the world’s oldest and best preserved human fossil, even though this is the first time she has ever traveled outside of Africa.

So far, Lucy’s been in Seattle for 5 months, and only 60,000 people have visited the exhibit (officials had expected more like 250,000). As a result, the science center has lost half a million dollars, resulting in layoffs of 8 percent of its staff and a wage freeze.

Lucy was supposed to go on a six-year, 10-city tour. The event started out strong: Visitors in Houston loved Lucy so much that officials extended her stay for a few months. By the exhibit’s end, Houston’s museum had clocked in more than 170,000 visitors. But a poor turnout in Seattle is making museums cancel their plans. The Field Museum in Chicago has pulled out, and the Denver museum of Nature and Science was apparently worried that transporting Lucy might damage her fragile remains.

Read the rest of this entry »

January 28th, 2009 Tags: , , ,
by Boonsri Dickinson in Events, Where We Came From & Where We're Going | 4 Comments »

Knock Knock! Bad Jokes Provoke Surprisingly Violent Reactions

jokeAs any comedian will tell you, bad humor can be a dangerous thing. Comedians who flop have been known to be attacked on stage, or at the least, publicly ridiculed. While science has explored the underpinnings of successful humor, researchers have stayed away from bad humor (at least in their academic pursuits)—until now.

Nancy Bell of Washington State University recruited a team of brave volunteers to accost friends, family members, and complete strangers with a truly terrible joke:

“What did the big chimney say to the little chimney?

“Nothing, chimneys can’t talk.”

Read the rest of this entry »

January 28th, 2009 Tags: , ,
by Nina Bai in What’s Inside Your Brain? | 2 Comments »

Secret Mummy Formula Will Make You Look Young Forever

ShareThis

mummyThe secret to everlasting youth may be an injection of formalin, alcohol, glycerin, salicylic acid, and zinc salts. Of course, you’d have to be dead first. Those ingredients, scientists now know, made up the embalming formula that has kept the body of a Sicilian toddler in nearly pristine condition for almost a century.

Known as the “Sleeping Beauty” for her still-life-like appearance, Rosalia Lombardo was only two years old when she died of pneumonia in 1920. Her grieving father hired innovative taxidermist and embalmer Alfredo Salafia to preserve her body, which to this day is on view in a glass-fronted coffin in the Capuchin Catacombs of Palermo, Italy.

Italian biological anthropologist, Dario Piombino-Mascali of the Institute for Mummies and the Iceman, finally uncovered the secret of Salafia’s expert mummification technique by tracking down his living relatives. It turns out that Salafia had written down the recipe he used to preserve Rosalia in his personal memoir.







“Sweating Robot” Built to Test High-Tech Athletic Gear

2127994706_3e16e0b446.jpgThe best robots compete in RoboGames, just as the best athletes train for the Olympics. But anyone who plays sports in the winter knows that sometimes sweating underneath your clothes is unavoidable.

Now, Swiss researchers are using a specially-designed robot to test out new humidity-resistant gear that will maintain body heat for athletes training in freezing weather, by preventing sweat from soaking their clothes.

Called “Sam,” short for “Sweating Agile Mannequin,” the test robot can run, but more importantly, it can sweat. The robot, which took 5 years to construct, is built with 125 sweat nozzles from head to toe.

The researchers heat Sam’s body by pumping warm water through his face, in order to mimic the rising temperature of skin during exercise. When the robot runs on a treadmill, water shoots out through the nozzles, raising his temperature.

Bloggers are calling the sweating robot creepy, but we suggest you see for yourself.





mage courtesy of Andrew Collins/X Prize Foundation

Fourth Street in downtown Santa Monica is an eclectic place—home to, among other concerns, the studio of “Dance Doctor” John Cassese, a chic trade-in clothing shop, and an emporium with the self-explanatory name Magicopolis. Amid such colorful neighbors, the X Prize Foundation presents a facade of anonymity, even, perhaps, of quiet mystery: a mirrored door that reads “Revolution Begins Here” with a stylized and rather cryptic X above, as if to mark the spot but do little else.

The entrance is at once easily overlooked and profoundly misleading. Behind the glass and up a flight of stairs, the X Prize organization is doing plenty. It made history in 2004 when it awarded $10 million to aircraft designer Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites for twice sending its SpaceShipOne more than 100 kilometers (62 miles) up into space, still the world’s only private manned spaceflights. Since then, X Prize founder Peter Diamandis has worked tirelessly to build a franchise for radical innovation that he says will change the world.

In September 2007 he stood with Google cofounder Larry Page in Los Angeles to unveil the Google Lunar X Prize, promising up to $25 million to the team that successfully lands an unmanned rover on the moon, drives it 500 meters, and sends back photos, video, and data. Two weeks later Diamandis was in New York, sharing the stage with former president Bill Clinton and committing to a dozen more competitions over seven years. Purses totaling $300 million would go to those who tackle “grand challenges” in categories such as global poverty, the environment, public health, and education. The first of these will take place in the fall of 2009, when Diamandis says up to 50 teams will compete for the Progressive Automotive X Prize by racing technologically advanced green cars—which must achieve the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon—in trials around the country. Nobody has yet mass-produced such cars.

Diamandis, though, is aiming for a still bigger breakthrough: a breakthrough in the way we achieve breakthroughs. Ever the evangelist, he spent one evening between the Google and Clinton announcements pitching his vision to a hundred or so Holly­wood heavyweights gathered in the home of the socialite, pundit, and Web media entrepreneur Arianna Huffington. “What we try to do is really reach down into the souls of people and say, ‘You have the ability to solve the problems,’” Diamandis said, his voice rising. “It doesn’t take the government, it doesn’t take a large corporation. In fact, most brilliant solutions to problems come from the mind of an individual.

“We believe there’s a new model. It’s putting out a clear set of rules and a large cash challenge and saying, ‘We don’t care where you are, where you’re from, where you’ve gone to school, whatever you’ve done before—you solve this problem, you win.’”

It is a seductive notion—especially in this era of overextended government and corporate cutbacks—and one that is gaining traction in philanthropic circles and the research establishment. The National Academy of Engineering and the National Science Foundation have urged experimenting with so-called inducement prizes to spur research. Within government, NASA has taken small steps into the competition arena and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has sponsored Grand Challenge robotic auto­mobile races. Last year, Republican presidential candidate John McCain made a $300 million prize for improved electric car batteries a plank in his environmental platform.

DARPA's challenges have featured drag races of driverless,
autonomous vehicles

Image courtesy of DARPA

The audience in Huffington’s living room was a self-made yet largely liberal-minded crowd, so it was not surprising that they might embrace a vision that unites, as Huffington put it, “the instinct of competitiveness that we all have—the instinct to win—with the better angels of our nature, the instinct to make this a better world.” It is a vision that also ought to resonate with millions of Americans, already captivated by reality show competitions like American Idol and The Amazing Race. The only question is, can the X Prize compete?

The X Prize offices in Santa Monica are long and narrow, with a double-high ceiling that has exposed joists and beams. Appropriately, the space somewhat resembles a hangar. One morning while I was visiting, Diamandis sat in his corner office with his assistant at the time, Angel Panlasigui, and waded through potential prize ideas in advance of a board meeting. One possibility, hashed out with James Cameron, director of the movie Titanic, would foster the development of three-man submarines that could dive to the ocean floor. The next idea took the concept to a fantastic level: autonomous robots, cheap enough to mass-produce, that could sink to the bottom of the sea, collect data, and return to the surface to share that data with a central computer. “This is an idea that I kicked around with Larry Page,” Diamandis explained. “If you have thousands of these going down randomly, gathering data, you then can stitch the data all together.”

Robotics pioneer Red Whittaker's converted Chevy Tahoe won the
2007 urban challenge, successfully navigating through a
mock city environment.

Image courtesy of DARPA

“Wow,” Panlasigui said.

Five or six years ago, the thought that he would be kicking around ideas about ocean exploration with the likes of Cameron and Page might have had Diamandis saying “wow” too, and not just about the company he now keeps. For three decades Diamandis, 47, was single-mindedly focused on space. He grew up in the Age of Apollo and in fifth grade began “cutting out every news article I could and recording the launches off the television set with my parents’ Super 8 camera.” In junior high school he confessed to his mother a secret desire to be an astronaut. Diamandis chuckles at the memory. “She goes, ‘That’s nice, son, but I think you’re going to be a doctor.’”

Diamandis was undeterred at first—a lot of astronauts have trained as doctors—but a conversation in college with an actual astronaut, Byron Lichtenberg, forced a reconsideration. Even if he defied the odds to become an astronaut, “you have to do what you’re told and be on best behavior all the time to get a chance to fly,” Diamandis recalls being told. “That just wasn’t me.”

+++

Instead, Diamandis’s extraterrestrial experience has been largely vicarious. As an undergraduate at MIT, he established Students for Exploration and Development of Space. In 1987, just four years out of college and still in medical school, he helped organize the International Space University, now located in Strasbourg, France. And he partnered with Lichtenberg to start Zero Gravity Corp. (Zero G), which simulates weightless space travel in a Boeing 727 (G-Force One) flying parabolas.

There’s a new model, Diamandis says. “It’s putting out a clear set of rules and a large cash challenge. We don’t care where you’re from, where you’ve gone to school, whatever you’ve done before—you solve this problem, you win.”

Yet it was the book The Spirit of St. Louis that really inspired the X Prize. To make his nearly 34-hour flight to Paris, Charles Lindbergh battled the elements, exhaustion, and the primitive technology of the day, all recounted in gripping detail by Lindbergh himself, right up to his landing at Le Bourget. Diamandis’s reading of the story was informed by his disgust with NASA, which reached a peak after 1992, the International Space Year. “We were supposed to commit to going back to the moon and Mars,” he recalls. “And then nothing ever happened.”

In the book Diamandis discovered that a competition to collect $25,000 put up by the New York hotelier Raymond Orteig was what motivated Lindbergh’s pathbreaking journey. “He negotiated a contract on one sheet of paper and built the Spirit of St. Louis in 60 days,” Diamandis says. More important, Diamandis saw that nine teams together spent $400,000 to win that $25,000. “I gave up on the government,” he says of NASA. “I didn’t want to fix it; I just wanted to do it on my own. And a competition was a way for me to create leverage beyond my means.”

Diamandis’s frustration with NASA has crystallized into a worldview. Paralysis “is endemic in the government,” he says. “If the government does something risky and fails, there’s a congressional investigation.” Likewise, “if a large corporation does something risky that fails, its stock plummets. I think we’ve become way too risk averse in this country. But the problem is, the real research, the real breakthroughs, require taking significant risk.”

Diamandis launched his first contest in 1996 to a great deal of enthusiasm in the space community but without a sponsor to supply the purse. “We jumped out of the airplane and had to build a parachute on the way down,” he says. “We ran X Prize on about half a million dollars a year for the first few years.” Diamandis estimates that he approached some 200 CEOs before the Ansari family, wealthy space enthusiasts, in 2004 offered their name to the competition and $10 million to fund the prize.

Money is less of a problem today. Among the winners of the Ansari X Prize was the X Prize Foundation itself, which, as handmaiden to Burt Rutan’s accomplishment, has been accorded prestige that in turn has granted it access to the most rarefied levels of the entrepreneurial economy. The Google Lunar X Prize, for instance, was conceived by NASA as a Centennial Challenge to mark 100 years of flight since the Wright brothers; the space agency later decided it was too expensive. “I said forget it, I’ll fund it elsewhere,” says Diamandis, who took the idea to Page in 2007. (Diamandis has a complicated relationship with NASA. For all his criticism, he is not opposed to working with the agency. The X Prize Foundation currently administers the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge, a Centennial Challenge for which NASA has put up $2 million. Last October the rocketeer Armadillo Aerospace won the first part of that competition.)

Page has joined the X Prize Foundation’s board of trustees, as have Elon Musk (a founder of PayPal and Space Exploration Technologies), Dean Kamen (inventor of the Segway scooter), and Ratan Tata, chairman of an Indian conglomerate that bears his name. But if tech gurus and visionaries have indulged Diamandis’s appetite for taming various final frontiers, some—Page in particular—have also encouraged him to broaden his thinking of what the X Prize can do and apply the model to more pressing social problems.

In that vein, the next suggested X Prize that Diamandis and Panlasigui reviewed proposed having households across the country compete for $50 million to see which ones could lower their energy consumption the most—a “giant Darwinian experiment,” as Diamandis put it that morning. “Hopefully hundreds or thousands of teams will compete, resulting in millions of homes’ improving their energy efficiency.” Later, he explains, “I was challenging myself on how to create an energy X Prize that would be not about a new wid­get but about changing the way people think.”

This entrepreneurial sensibility defines the X Prize. If bureaucracy is the problem, then the solution, Diamandis believes, lies with the “unconstrained thinking” of individuals. “The day before something is truly a breakthrough,” he likes to say, “it’s a crazy idea.” Lately he has taken his case directly to the entrepreneurs. The Automotive X Prize calls for production-ready cars, while the Archon X Prize for Genomics requires teams to keep their gene sequencing costs under $10,000 per person—low enough, perhaps, to start a mass industry. (The current cost for sequencing an individual’s genome hovers around $300,000.)

The genome prize was conceived by geneticist J. Craig Venter, a kindred spirit who left the National Institutes of Health (NIH), frustrated by its bureaucracy, and then set up a company to challenge it in a race to decode the genome. This time Venter turned to Diamandis (Page had introduced them) not because of a failure at the NIH but because financiers weren’t supporting companies that did whole-genome sequencing. Individual genetic profiles, decoded cheaply, could help doctors predict patients’ susceptibility to disease and guide proactive care. Low-cost sequencing could radically transform the practice of medicine. But most existing funding was going toward sequencing the handful of genes most likely to lead to profitable drugs and gene therapies. In the absence of a lucrative market, the X Prize’s contest will give companies doing whole-genome sequencing a boost.

“People seek recognition and appreciation, and if there is a prize that’s commonly understood to be important, they’ll go for it,” Musk says. “I mean, why is the America’s Cup so great?” The prize confers legitimacy on the goal; at the very least, it makes raising money in pursuit of the goal easier. This is precisely what has happened in genomics. “There are a lot of new technologies coming up that nobody even thought of or talked about four years ago,” Venter says. “I’m sure the X Prize has helped contribute to it.”

Many who follow developments in research—who study studies, as it were—discount the aspect of inducement prizes that Diamandis prizes most: The payout does not occur until a contestant actually succeeds. From the perspective of the benefactor, be it a government agency or a billionaire’s foundation, a back-end payoff is extremely efficient, but skeptics call that myopic. Pull back, they say, and it is apparent that somebody is paying for all that investment. “As a public policy matter, you’re not doing the nation a favor if you reduce the government’s share, if the total expenditure is coming out of the U.S. economy,” says Lewis Branscomb, an adjunct professor at the University of California at San Diego.

+++

Likewise, many critics see the notion of leverage—taken as an article of faith in the X Prize offices—as overstated. Some of the investment is certainly redundant when competing teams investigate similar approaches. “Economists have long worried about that,” says Molly Macauley, an economist who studies space policy at Resources for the Future, an independent Washington-based think tank. “They view it as possibly negative.” It’s impossible to know how much of the $60 million invested by competitors vying for the Ansari X Prize was duplicative, says Ken Davidian, who monitored contestants when he worked for the foundation. Then again, most of Lindbergh’s competitors invested in variations of the same flight plan: a two- or three-man crew piloting a trimotor plane.

People seek recognition and appreciation, Elon Musk says. “If there is a prize ?that’s commonly understood to be important, they’ll go for it.”

The critics greatest worry, though, is that Diamandis’s mechanism for bringing in new players excludes the old ones—research institutes that depend on government grants and contracts to pay their operating expenses. “One of the wise things about federal research policy since World War II is that it wasn’t directed solely at conducting research but also at building capacity for research,” science and health policy journalist Daniel Greenberg says. “You trained people and gave money for equipment and financed research in many circumstances over the long term.” A contest, he says, “prices a hell of a lot of people out of the game.”

Unless, that is, they were to follow the example of one William Whittaker. “Red” Whittaker, as he is known (for reasons that are no longer immediately obvious), is a pioneer in field robotics. As a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, he has built test rovers for NASA. On his own, he has fielded teams in each of the three DARPA Grand Challenges: His autonomous vehicles performed best in the first race, grabbed the silver in the second, and won the third. It is as if the Google Lunar X Prize were designed with Whittaker in mind. Sure enough, Whittaker announced his intent to compete the day the prize went public.

“The challenges create cultures that are unachievable by traditional research mechanisms,” Whittaker argues. “The goals pursued by the challenges are the grand leaps that are rarely pursued by traditional incremental research.” Most research, he says, is hobbled by a bureaucratic mind-set that reduces the topic to “gobbledygook.” In a competition, though, “the organizational mind-set is monotonically and unequivocally purpose-driven to the challenge, and everything else operates in the context of that.” And teammates, he says, “achieve effectiveness that has never been revealed before.” As a result, “the gobbledygook moves 10 times faster than it otherwise would.”

Few scientists would deny that funding research through grants and contracts is expensive and cumbersome, as well as risk averse. But few would suggest that contests could supplant it. “The contest model, I think, is superficially attractive, but if you said, ‘We’re going to put up a billion-dollar prize for a cure for cancer’—I mean, people who are knowledgeable about cancer research would say that’s ridiculous,” Greenberg says. “You don’t have people who are withholding their presence from cancer research because there isn’t a big prize at the end of the tunnel.”

No doubt, too, the competition model is ill suited to certain fields of research—for instance, whole swaths of basic science, where results are open to interpretation or even dispute. Contests, which depend on clear rules, goals, and results, appear better suited to technology and other applied fields. Nor is it obvious how grand a grand challenge can be, such as in space exploration: “You can start this kind of activity with small robotic projects, but at some point it doesn’t scale up very well,” says Howard McCurdy, a space historian and public policy professor at American University in Washington, D.C. “Nobody knows where the limit is.” A garage tinkerer might be able to design a space glove, but don’t count on him to send someone to the moon.

Diamandis acknowledges that he does not know where the limits on inducement prizes lie. “I think that prizes are going to be most successful when intelligence makes a big difference,” he says. “The more capital-intensive a prize is, the more difficult it will be.” Still, he has not ruled out a cancer prize. He points to a group of hospitals and labs that are attempting to collaborate on a “unique approach to cancer” but are stymied by infighting. “A prize,” Diamandis says, “could help focus them as a team.” It’s a novel idea: a competition to induce cooperation.

One arresting scene in the story of the X Prize comes at the end of SpaceShipOne’s first foray into space, captured in a Discovery Channel documentary. It has been a nerve-racking journey: Pilot Mike Melvill first wrestles with the ship’s controls, winds up more than 20 miles off course, and just barely reaches the touchstone altitude of 328,000 feet. Then, as he prepares to return to Earth, the trim control on one of the ship’s twin tails fails to return to its proper position, threatening to send the craft into an uncontrollable dive. We watch anxiously as Melvill struggles to fix the trim; “I was very concerned that I couldn’t get back,” he says later. Ultimately he does return, of course, but not before he reaches into a sleeve pocket and, in a gesture of victory, pulls out a handful of M&Ms. The camera shows them floating through the cramped cabin: deep reds, pale blues, lime greens, rich browns spinning and hurtling, until they succumb to Earth’s gravitational pull and drop to the floor.

Competitor for the Google Lunar X Prize, Red Whittaker's Red Rover

Image courtesy of Andrew Collins/X Prize Foundation

As Melvill proved, a space race photographs well, and three years after SpaceShipOne, shortly after the Google Lunar X Prize was announced, Diamandis found himself on the phone with executives from a reality show production company, not unlike the one that puts on American Idol. “Good morning, everybody!” a producer began brightly. He appeared to be in a gregarious mood, telling Diamandis that he hoped “to open up a dialogue with you to see if you’d be interested in possibly coming together on some type of program.”

Diamandis wasted no time bursting that bubble. Whatever softness exists in his demeanor disappears altogether when he talks business. There is no small talk, no laughter. He seldom even cracks a smile. Here Diamandis’s tone was polite but even; it betrayed no emotion. “I have started a large number of the companies in this area,” he began. “I’ve seen about...at least a dozen proposed reality TV shows in space come and go, and none of them has closed the business case. They all end up in one way or another coming back either to X Prize or Space Adventures or Zero G.”  Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

A second executive spoke up to focus the discussion on the Google contest. But the production team appeared to be at once too early and too late. “We’ve been in negotiations with Discovery on this now for well over half a year,” Diamandis said, “so a show regarding the Google Lunar X Prize is probably off the table right now until we figure out exactly where we are with that.” In fact, he added, “we’re in the midst right now of a series of media partnership negotiations” for all the prizes the foundation is considering. “Who we’re going to team with to produce them will come after network deals are put in place.” Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

+++

Diamandis was initially slow to appreciate X Prize’s camera-friendly aspect. The SpaceShipOne footage was coproduced by the Discovery Channel and a company started by Rutan’s backer, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen; the X Prize Foundation was not involved. Going forward, Diamandis has left nothing to chance, as the reality producers found out. “X Prize,” he assured them, “maintains and owns all media rights around all the teams,” who are further obligated to film their activities “on a regular basis and generate content” on their own time and dime.

Competitor for the Google Lunar X Prize, MicroSpaces spoked-wheel vehicle

Image courtesy of Andrew Collins/X Prize Foundation

“It’s important not just to award a prize purse but also to award fame and celebrity,” explains Cristin Lindsay, the foundation’s vice president of prize management, “because part of what we’re trying to do is move big markets and big industries.” There are other purposes to such storytelling. One is inspiring the public, particularly young people, and igniting enthusiasm for science, technology, and discovery. It also builds the X Prize brand: The prize generates buzz, a competitive advantage for the foundation that a federal agency or philanthropic endowment or angel investor cannot match. And it helps Diamandis raise money from sponsors, who can insert their names and logos into all the coverage. That striking, candy-strewn moment aboard SpaceShipOne was in a sense bought by M&Ms, which cosponsored the competition (although Melvill claims he didn’t discuss the stunt with anyone in advance).

It’s important not just to award a prize purse, Cristin Lindsay says, but also “to award fame and celebrity, because part of what we’re trying to do is move big markets and big industries.”

The Automotive X Prize was conceived as a sales race, to emphasize the importance of designing marketable cars, Lindsay says, but that’s “boring to the media.” Instead, the goal shifted to performance, as measured in an array of time trials and races in “multiple media markets.” (New York City is to kick off the drama this fall.) These should ultimately produce two winners, one in each of two vehicle classes, which will help expand the exposure beyond the winner’s circle. “I’m looking for a new generation of cars to come out of the X Prize,” Lindsay says.

Packaging the genome prize was even more daunting: Ten days in a lab just does not scream blockbuster. So Diamandis took a cue from the magazines at the supermarket checkout. The winning team will have the chance to decode the genomes of 100 celebrities. What genes make an athlete, a genius, a beauty? Inquiring minds, Diamandis is betting, will want to know.

But will they? The X Prize succeeds on Diamandis’s terms only if it institutes —that is to say, normalizes—revolutionary change. But news is by definition novel, and the bar for capturing attention seems to keep rising. It is hard to imagine any feat, no matter how heroic, that might make the world stand still, as Lindbergh’s did 80 years ago; and it is easy to imagine the public’s appetite for heroic feats diminishing as their number increases. When I spoke to Diamandis in 2007, he didn’t seem to have considered the notion of prize fatigue. A year later, though, he allowed that something like that has crossed his mind. “Our thinking is, there should be no more than 10 to 12 prizes at a time,” he now says. “Otherwise it gets a little too confusing.”

The X Prize is often described as a technology contest, but on close inspection, the winning achievements do not seem all that revolutionary, technologically speaking. The hardware required to win the first space prize, Diamandis confided one day, had been around for at least five years. Similarly, while the giant Indian automaker Tata Motors and Elon Musk’s Tesla Motors are both designing cars that may compete for the Automotive X Prize, these are vehicles that would have been built with or without the contest. In genomics, the true breakthrough belongs to Venter and the scientists at the Human Genome Project. “What we’re targeting is something that would happen anyway,” said Michael Lindsay, who helped develop the genomic X Prize (and is Cristin Lindsay’s husband). “I think we’re just really accelerating it.”

The X Prize Foundation’s true impact may be better measured by the markets it opens. That is how Whittaker views it. “The challenge is at or beyond belief state and then it is achieved, and that transforms the view of what the world considers possible,” he says. “But it also seeds this transformational industry. The start-up and the prize pale by comparison with the scale of the wealth of the follow-on enterprise.”

Whittaker points to the gaming industry, which emerged from technology used to develop a computer that could play chess better than a Russian champion; Deep Blue, before it was nurtured by IBM, was Deep Thought, a program developed by Carnegie Mellon researchers in a bid to win the $100,000 Fredkin Prize. “Gaming as an industry is now challenging broadcast television, moviemaking, and industries that you’d guess were absolutely unshakable,” he says.

“This is all about changing paradigms,” Diamandis tells me late one Friday afternoon. “It’s about bringing the players together, it’s about bringing the visibility, it’s about changing consumer expectations and buying habits, it’s about bringing the capital to the markets.” He points out that the number of U.S. airline passengers grew from 6,000 to 180,000 only one year after Lindbergh’s flight. “Lindbergh and the Orteig Prize are credited with creating today’s $300 billion aviation industry,” he says. Similarly, he suggests, the space tourism industry that will arise as a result of the Ansari X Prize could one day be worth up to $1.5 billion a year.

In the meantime, the next generation of X Prizes is taking shape at the foundation’s new headquarters just down the coast in Playa Vista. The foundation has grants from companies, government agencies, and other foundations to develop eight new prizes, including competitions involving health care, tuberculosis, and alternative aviation fuels. Diamandis says he would like to tackle global poverty, education, and cancer, too. But it has been slow going: Over the past couple of years, the organization does not seem to have made much progress refining many of these ideas. On poverty, “we’ve probably tested 30 different ideas,” Diamandis says.

Devising a prize, it turns out, can be as hard as winning one. “It has to be difficult but achievable, and it has to be something where having that prize is going to make a difference,” Musk says. “If you can’t figure out the right rules for the prize, if you can’t get a sponsor for the prize, if you’re not sure you can motivate people to get it done, then it’s not a good candidate.”

Diamandis is undaunted. With $7 million in hand from yet another partner, British Telecommunications Group, he is taking his message global. “We’re going to experiment in these social areas, and we’ll find out what is possible,” he says. “I think we need to be able to fail in prizes. It’s the only way to know if they’ll work.”


he six-wheeled, plutonium-powered, car–sized vehicle aims to drill deeper and learn more.

by Matthew Hutson

Even as the Phoenix Mars Lander completed its mission and sent its last transmission from the frigid Martian arctic last November, NASA engineers were busy getting their next, even more ambitious Mars mission under way. The Mars Science Laboratory will be the most sophisticated and versatile robot ever to touch down on alien soil.

The $1.9 billion Mars Science Lab, slated to be launched in the fall of 2011 and to land less than a year later, will carry a six-wheeled, plutonium-powered research vehicle the size of a Mini Cooper. The rover will be packed with scientific goodies:


The world’s first “clean coal” power plant fired up in September in the eastern German city of Spremberg. Traditional coal-fired power plants, which produce 36 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, are the fastest-growing source of energy—and air pollution—around the world.

Clean coal technology does not release carbon dioxide into the air, instead using carbon capture and storage (CCS) to collect the gas, concentrate it, and pump it deep underground for permanent storage in natural geologic formations. At least that is the concept; there has never been an operational CCS system at a coal-fired power plant, until now.

The pilot plant in Spremberg, built by the Swedish utility Vattenfall, focuses on the carbon capture part of the equation. First coal is burned, boiling water and producing steam that drives a turbine to generate electricity. Then the resulting waste gas, largely carbon dioxide and water, is cycled back into a boiler in a process that concentrates the carbon dioxide. The concentrated gas is “scrubbed” by sulfur-absorbent materials to remove the compounds that cause acid rain. The CO2 that remains is condensed, compressed to a liquid under high pressure, and cooled to –18 degrees Fahrenheit, where it remains in liquid form. Vattenfall soon plans to begin trucking the liquid carbon dioxide more than 100 miles to a depleted natural gas field, where it will be pumped some 3,000 feet underground for storage.

Vattenfall has high hopes for clean coal, but the company regards this process as a bridge to renewable-energy technologies rather than a permanent solution to climate change. “Sooner or later we have to find something else,” says Vattenfall’s Staffan Görtz. “Using this technology will buy us time.”


Carbon Dioxide May Be the Least of Our Warming Worries

01.25.2009

New studies show an even greater accumulation of other, potentially more potent greenhouse gases.

by Melinda Wenner

When people think of climate change, they think of carbon dioxide. But while CO2 represents 77 percent of all man-made greenhouse gas emissions, its relative contribution may be declining. According to two studies published late last year, atmospheric levels of other, more potent gases that also affect climate are on the rise.

One such gas is nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), which is used to make retail items like microchips and flat-screen TVs. In a study published in Geophysical Research Letters, researchers analyzed air samples and found that atmospheric NF3 seems to be growing by 11 percent each year across the globe. NF3 lingers in the air for 550 years, on average, and is 17,000 times better at trapping heat than CO2 on a molecule-per-molecule basis.
http://louis0j0sheehan0esquire.wordpress.com
Today the effect of NF3 on climate is just 0.04 percent that of carbon dioxide, but its role could grow dramatically if more manufacturers start using it, says study author Ray Weiss, a geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. NF3 emissions are not currently regulated by any government.
http://louis0j0sheehan0esquire.wordpress.com

A more immediate problem for climate change is methane, which is released by landfills and melting perma­frost and through farming practices. Levels of this gas are increasing today after eight years of stasis, according to another study in Geophysical Research Letters. Methane remains in the atmosphere one-tenth as long as CO2—about a decade—but traps 20 times as much heat.

No one yet knows the extent to which methane and NF3 will impact global temperatures, but NASA climate scientist Ralph Kahn says one thing is certain: “We know it’s more than just CO2 that matters.” His colleague James Crawford adds, “There’s going to be a lot more looking at this, trying to understand what is going on.”


Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

<< Navigate to Sunday, February 01, 2009 Add New Comment
No records found        
Add New Comment
Your name   
Subject   
Content   
*Required fields