|
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.
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
• 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 »
Got
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 »
ShareThis
Here’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 »
The
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.
ShareThis
It’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 »
The 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 »
ShareThis
A
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 »
Lucy 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 »
As
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 »
ShareThis
The
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.
The 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
|