Slashdot Mirror
On the Future of Science
bj8rn writes "Kevin Kelly, the founding executive editor of Wired magazine, speculates about the future of science based on a talk he have gave a few weeks ago. Kelly sees recursion as the essence of science and chronicles the introduction of different recursive devices in science; projecting forward from this, he makes several interesting predictions about what the near future may hold in store. Some highlights: there will be more change in the next 50 years of science than in the last 400 years; the new century will be the century of Biology; new ways of knowing will emerge, with 'Wikiscience' leading to perpetually refined papers with thousands of authors."
This will be interesting considering that the current administration has for the first time in 30 years, reduced the funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and not allowed its budget to keep up with inflation and shows their lack of commitment to bioscience research. I predict this damage will take at least 10 years to repair.
An honest question: What exactly makes you assume the next century of scientific advancement will happen in America?
It will be a great and sad loss if America decides to abdicate its position as scientific and technological leader of the world-- which seems to be exactly what is happening, between decreasing public funding; the decreased public perception of the importance of science; the increased difficulty foreign academics are facing under the new and restrictive INS policies of the last four years; and the raft of arbitrary and ignorance-fueled restrictions Congress has placed on bioscience research (while still somehow expecting innovative results).
But if America does decide to go the route it is currently on and abandon its position as science leader, the rest of the world can move on without us. It will just take a little bit of time to reshuffle things.
*Sigh* Wiki is a wonderful tool for certain applications. When you want breadth of knowledge and are willing to accept a certain amount of uncertainty on accuracy of knowledge, wiki is a great tool. When you want narrow focus and little uncertaintly on accuracy, wiki sucks. Using wiki for this is like using .NET for low level, speed intensive applications.... a great tool for the wrong job.
I do not want to read a science paper put together by a committee. Can you imagine a natural selection paper written by the masses? Truth is not a democratic sport. I'd rather read two papers contradicting each other than one paper written by those two parties. IN the former case, I can easily compare and contract. In the later, I am forced to sift through revision histories to try to piece together original intent.
Add in the "lol, jews" camp, and we are back in the middle ages.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
We must also consider the effects religion will have on scientific advancement.
He speaks of biology. What we see today is religious individuals and organizations taking a very active stand against such research. This is especially true in the United States. Christian fundamentalist groups have had a truly astounding effect. Between getting religious dogma (in the form of 'intelligent design') taught in science classes, and the outright prevention of stem cell research, they have become the greatest hinderence to scientific progress.
We will likely see such progress happen anyways, however. It just won't be in America. Countries like China, and to a lesser extent India, will soon become the hubs of scientific research. Instead of them sending their best and brightest students to America for an education, we may see it go the other way.
I think he's wrong about Biology beiung next. Not because it's not interesting (it is), but because we still have so much farther we can go with IT. Each new tech area gets overhyped and then crashes expectations, then the reality catches up with the hype. Only now, in the last 1-2 year have we seen an emergence of the real power of the Internet (and it's long-hyped power) being realized by large numbers (%'s) of people. By "real power" I mean structured data encoding for all useful information - persistent global connectivity enabling virtual organizations - and (what I call "The greatest shift") the realization by society that information is more valuble than physical goods.
The next 20 years will one of vast social change, enabled by computing and communications technology. The social change will be driven by a realization that basic physical goods to support life are of such low value compared to information that it's in the best interest of large social groups (governements) to feed and house people effectively for free - and harness their THINKING ability toward global value instead of their more classic PRODUCTION value. This will radically alter our view of work and production. Mental participation at a basic level will sustain large groups of people at minimal levels (housing,food) for the value that simple participation will generate.
In terms of biology and biotech - yes, it's exciting - but by comparison to the aboe radical changes in our society, the technology for biological change is still really really hard. We don't have the ability to probe deeply enough, the systems we measure are noisy and all unique, so while there will be advances, they will not shift our lives so much os the shift happeneing because everyone is talking. Spending 30 minutes looking at Myspace will give you an indication of the amount of energy the NEXT generation will be willing to put into connecting online.
You're right. Back when I was in college some 15 years ago, all the science journals were proclaiming we were in the age of genetic engineering, and would discover cures to all diseases through genetic engineering. Cancer? Get rid of it by using modified viruses to seek and destroy cancerous cells. AIDS? Get rid of it in much the same way. It is all the same as 5 years ago with the stem cell debate, where there were claims of curing the paralyzed.
Science makes bold predictions, and it moves at a snails pace. We're not any different than people who lived 20 years ago, just like people who lived 20 years ago were not that different than people who lived 40 years ago. Consider how many major changes there have been in the past 100 years? Automobiles, television, and airplains. If you then throw out those 100 years, and go back from 1800 to 1500, how much change was there in 300 years? Someone invents gunpowder and that is the major catalyst of change.
People will remain the same, and our tools and toys might get new glamor, or repackaged as the next greatest hit, but science does not move that fast.
One final example is the amount of time it takes for a new medicine to get approved by the FDA. Most take a decade for the approval process. Why? Because science does not predict as much as watch and measure.
What was Edison's famous saying? "I did not fail 1,000,000 times, I found 999,999 ways that did not work".
People and companies will do research so long as it remains profitable to do so.
Ahhhh, spoken like a person who has no real understanding of the history of science. Are you aware that essentially *all* applied scientific knowledge and applications are derived from basic science research? Nuclear power, the Internet, genetics, medicine, and more. Applied research that corporations and private companies are interested in is generally applied research that is only made possible after the basic science work has been done.
Also, on what do you make this prediction that it'd take 10 years to repair the "damage" anyways?
This is based on the number of existing grants that have been failed to be renewed from senior investigators due to reduced funding, the number of jobs that have been eliminated by even recent cuts this year (many labs have had their grants cut by 20% this year alone), and the number of post-docs that have failed to achieve more permanent academic positions in the past few years.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Chris Rock, being funny but honest, points out that the money isn't in the cure - the money is in the medicine. He opines that the pharmaceutical industry isn't going to cure things anymore - they'll just find a way to help you live with it. Keep you coming back.
Now that is a cynical view, of course, and intended to be funny -- but there is also a ring of truth to it. Public institutions are the ones whose primary focus is on public benefit and not shareholder gains. While I value the role of competition and private industry, I also acknowledge the power of coordination and cooperation between and among government and educational institutions in advancing research and discovery.
Unfortunately our faith-based administration seems to have very little use for science and I think that active disregard will come back to haunt America's science programs in the years to come.
On the plus side at least science and medicine-based television shows (Numb3rs, various CSIs, etc.) have become quite popular which makes it cool and sexy to be a scientist. Hopefully that will inspire more young people to pursue science.
-Coach-
Perhaps the world's greatest tragedy is that ignorance is not impotence.
We have had "wiki science" for HUNDREDS of years! It is known as quacks, snake oil salesmen, tabloids, etc.... standard medical journals require some evidence of intelligence, responsibility, and are PEER REVIEWED! And THEY sometimes have WIERD ideas!
Why not?
Rethinking email
the new century will be the century of Biology;
Not to bash biology and medicine, but we need breakthru's in physics and AI to progress to the next stage. We need phyz to break free of oil, and AI to allow things such as solar farms and efficient remote construction in space. Maybe AI would allow us to build solar farms and mining colonies throughout the solar system. In short, we need plentiful energy and slave-like-labor (AI) to really "build out" as the human race. Biology will only give us incremental progress.
Table-ized A.I.
The problem with the academic research system is that it's an unsustainable pyramid scheme. Propping it up with budget increases just pushes the problem out another year. That is what needs to be fixed. In the meantime, though, researchers might consider not kicking a gift horse in the mouth.
As for the original link: I thought the most interesting bit was the point that we're now in a position to catalog negative results. That would be extremely useful, although a) it's hardly as transformative as he claims and b) the emphasis on Phase I trials is bizarrely besides the point.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Science makes bold predictions, and it moves at a snails pace. We're not any different than people who lived 20 years ago, just like people who lived 20 years ago were not that different than people who lived 40 years ago. Consider how many major changes there have been in the past 100 years? Automobiles, television, and airplains. If you then throw out those 100 years, and go back from 1800 to 1500, how much change was there in 300 years? Someone invents gunpowder and that is the major catalyst of change.
Science make bold and utterly false prediction, just to have some other upstart technology steal the show. Sure, we don't have flying cars. We do have a world wide communications grid though that is having rapidly changing society in ways that a few flying cars couldn't even begin to compete with. The reason why science seems slow these days is because we are so damn used to change.
Few people even remember what it was like to look up information before Google. A lot of people forget that less then 10 years ago you couldn't instant get in contact with anyone you wanted via a cell phone. While we were waiting for rocket ships, a significantly more profound technology in the guise of the Internet and communications technology made itself at home. Multinational corporations used to be disjointed heads only vaguely sharing the same financial body, now they are well oiled machines that operate with ease across thousands of miles.
There absolutely have been profound changes in just the past 20 years. Our society is being remolded in reshaped by technology at a blinding speed. The only reason why we can look back with a 'ho-hum' attitude is that one of the changes this technology has made to our society is a near complete acceptance of constant change. Most people complain that nothing change all the while ignoring the fact that they get pissed off when someone leaves their cell phone off or can't find an address or a movie time without using the Internet.
The future is here and we are running head long into it faster and faster. Open your eyes to the science and society that is rapidly changing around you and stop looking for flying cars.
Unless this was seriously sarcastic and I failed to pick up on it, get the fuck off this site. I'm sick of you religious idiots.
For evolution to happen, it would be like taking a watch and hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into a thousand peices, and then putting those peices in a bag and shaking the bag so the watch is magically put back together.
In case you haven't noticed, a watch isn't alive. It has no desire to grow or improve. It doesn't care wether it's functioning properly, or broken down to it's component molecules. Life does. For one thing, we can see clear signs of human adaptation. People in warm, sunny climates have darker skin than those living in colder climates. Humans living at high altitudes have expnaded lung capacity. People living in extremely cold climates have smaller bodies with shorter limbs than those living in warm climates. We see small changes on those levels all the time. Bological changes DO occur in response to the environment; that much is undeniable. The only thing you can legitemately question is whether or not evolution occurs on a larger scale, creating entirely new species over time. But the fact that micro-evolution can be logicaly demonstrated to have occured is enough to make your watch analogy absolutely useless. Watches do not procreate and change to suit their environment.
No, everything a rational observer looks at gives proof that God does exist. He made everything, and when we look at a beautiful flower or the stars in the sky, we see our Creators work.
I've yet to see a flower or a star with the words "God wuz here" writen on it. Even if I were to see it, I'd suggest it's mainly evidence that someone with a magic-marker was really bored. There is no evidence of God. If you wish to beleive in him/her/it, that's your choice, however, claiming that you have evidence of it only illustrates the fact that you have no idea what the word "evidence" means. As such, any rational discussion with you is largely a waste of time.
A lack of government research should actually open up doors for private research. I think this will take a lot longer than 10 years to repair. As the private research turns out product, they will make more money to fund more private research.
Not only will it take more than 10 years to repair, but it will also deprive many people of fantastic medicine. That medicine might be in the form of artificial limbs or repair of brain damage. It might be processes that will make an 80 year old body function like a 20 year old body. We might have all been dead before these things were discovered, but without help from the government there is little hope we'll be alive.
10 years? We might need to cross our fingers and hope that we walk away from this with a mindset where the government should be facilitating or even funding research.
We have had "wiki science" for HUNDREDS of years! It is known as quacks, snake oil salesmen, tabloids, etc....
Right on! The LAST thing we need is a wikipedia approach to science! Sorry, but scientific research needs to be submitted by competent people who know what they are talking about, and the expeirements validated by their peers. Not an open system where any mornon can come along an inject ideas with out any logic or reason, that's what wikipedia and religions are for... hehe
Actually, Wikipedia has the same level of accuracy of any of the major encyclopedias (Britannica, etc.) And Wikipedia entries are peer reviewed, since it's pretty hard to conceal a bad entry on a public forum. Scientific journals typically have a very small review group, who simply may not have time to properly review them or confirm their validity. The result have been some very embarrassing and truly horrendous articles; in fact, as many of two thirds of all papers related to drug research have later turned out to be false. And there are fairly simple mechanisms for preventing wackos from posting trash on your wiki.
The article wasn't a very good one; it did cover a topic not often covered - scientific method itself - but it didn't really say anything that wouldn't be fairly obvious to anyone who half way understands what he was talking about. It is obvious that current systems and practices will get better and more universal (his so called hyperdata where more powerful systems simply can correlate more data). What is not obvious is that the next 50 years will be one glorious boom of improvement. Although the world has managed to avoid a nuclear war in the last 50 years, there is no saying that there will not be one in the next 50 years, say between China and the US over Taiwan. Yugoslavia showed that it doesn't take much to turn neighbours into mass murderers.
A big economic meltdown could do it too. Or a major bird flu epidemic. Or plain simple glabl warming with major storms, flooding, and droughts. The challenges haven't gotten smaller.
He didn't mention the dark ages, where there wasn't much in the way of development for over 500 years from 500AD onwards after the fall of Rome. It could happen again.
The first operating principle of all society is self-defense. The second operating principle is food production for the population - a starving population cannot be productive. Only the surplus after food production is available for economic investment. The Third operating principle of all society is property rights management - recording deeds and such. All of this work requires energy. Currently, our food production is dependent on petroleum based fertilizer. Food transportation is also dependent on petroleum. This energy source is dwindling.
A few points:
a) Food costs have increased faster than CPI core inflation.
b) Housing and property rates have increased far faster than CPI core inflation.
c) Energy costs are increasing dramatically faster than CPI core inflation.
d) Value added manufactured goods are dropping in price drastically due to automation improvements in production.
e) Communication networks allow for labor arbitrage across national borders in information technology centric businesses.
-----
All this adds up to not cheaper basic necessities, but cheaper value added manufactured goods due to less energy intensive automation. Basic necessities, however, should continue to rise as long as energy rates rise. Also transporting food and manufactured goods should increase the cost of goods due to higher energy rates. Information technology and cheap communications should be resistant to high energy rates though due to the marginal cost of energy in proportion to the productivity.
Unless we find a new source of cheap energy to harness, I suspect the next fifty to one hundred years will be quite tough for the vast majority of the population. Not a rosy scenario.
Please don't read this and think it is in anyway representative of science or scientific method. The only value of this article is a demonstration of the current devaluation of science. Not only does someone with no college degree feel able to comment, in a moronic way, about the current status and future of science, but people take notice of his addled opinions.
There is a deadly mixture of the meaningless "Kelly chronicled a sequence of new recursive devices in science...", the statement of the obvious, "Technology is, in its essence, new ways of thinking", the silly "We retain reptilian reflexes deep in our minds (fight or flight)" and the irrelevant "Information is growing by 66% per year while physical production grows by only 7% per year".