Rian J Stockbower

I read an article last night by Michael Nielsen entitled "Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted?" It was probably one of the best articles I've read in at least a month. This morning I woke up earlier than expected, and I decided to check out the author's background, and suddenly it made sense that I was impressed with the content. Fortunately (unfortunately?) he linked to a bunch of other stuff he's written, and I found myself popping open new browser tabs as though I were browsing Wikipedia.

This led to a great deal of copying and pasting. 34, two-column, 10pt, 4×0.5" margin pages later, I have a whole pile of reading material. (I read offline because my attention span whilst on the computer isn't what it needs to be for longer, denser pieces.) I've worked my way through a great deal of it, and I find myself wishing I had stuck with Computer Science a while longer.

In any event, here's the list. Enjoy.

• Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted?
• Extreme Thinking
• Science beyond individual understanding
• Doing Science Online
• The Future of Science
• Quantum Computing for Everyone
• Shirky’s Law and why (most) social software fails
• Science in the Open: Google Wave in Research – the slightly more sober view – Part I – Papers
• Science in the Open: Google Wave in Research – Part II – The Lab Record

The last two aren't written by Nielsen, but they're worth reading, especially if you're interested in open science.

I've never really been a huge fan of undersea exploration, but I did always find it strange that we deploy so much capital (human, financial, intellectual) exploring space while largely ignoring our oceans.

As a longtime subscriber to the TED talks video podcasts (HD podcast), I fell in love with these two presentations, so I thought I would share them here. What's striking is their ability to make accessible, and even excite those who aren't normally fascinated by the ocean. I've included the links to the HD versions of the presentations. Right click -> Save As to download them.

David Gallo on life in the deep oceans (HD download | TED page)
 

Robert Ballard on exploring the oceans (HD download | TED page)
 

In my opinion, TED is one of the coolest organizations out there, and I think it's brilliant that they've decided to open up their catalog to the general public, for free. Hi-Def knowledge spillover for societal win.

Darwin's 200th birthday is this week, and Harvard is having a Darwin Day on Thursday which I will (alas!) be unable to make it to. (Just like I was unable to make it to the last Harry Potter book launch in the Square. I have rotten luck like that.)

The NYTimes has some great coverage of Darwin this week in their science section, both as a man and as a scientist. His story is one that is tragically ironic. A Christian who struggled with the ramifications of his discoveries, yet a man who is today reviled by many of those who share his core faith.

John Whitfield has been blogging the Origins as a run up to Darwin Day. An intriguing idea… I wonder how many biologists haven't read it? I haven't read it, but I'm not a biologist, and it is on my list. First off is Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale which is currently sitting on my bookshelf. (Speaking of which, now that the Kindle 2 is out, I could probably keep most of my collection in digital format with me much like I have virtually all of my music on my iPod…)

My favorite article of the bunch, so far. Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live:

Science has marched on. But evolution can seem uniquely stuck on its founder. We don't call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism. "Darwinism" implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates, like Marxism. And "isms" (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science. "Darwinism" implies that biological scientists "believe in" Darwin's "theory." It's as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.

Using phrases like "Darwinian selection" or "Darwinian evolution" implies there must be another kind of evolution at work, a process that can be described with another adjective. For instance, "Newtonian physics" distinguishes the mechanical physics Newton explored from subatomic quantum physics. So "Darwinian evolution" raises a question: What's the other evolution?

Almost everything we understand about evolution came after Darwin, not from him. He knew nothing of heredity or genetics, both crucial to evolution. Evolution wasn't even Darwin's idea.

Darwin's grandfather Erasmus believed life evolved from a single ancestor. "Shall we conjecture that one and the same kind of living filaments is and has been the cause of all organic life?" he wrote in "Zoonomia" in 1794. He just couldn't figure out how.

Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, discovered that in pea plants inheritance of individual traits followed patterns. Superiors burned his papers posthumously in 1884. Not until Mendel's rediscovered "genetics" met Darwin's natural selection in the "modern synthesis" of the 1920s did science take a giant step toward understanding evolutionary mechanics. Rosalind Franklin, James Watson and Francis Crick bestowed the next leap: DNA, the structure and mechanism of variation and inheritance.

A smattering of things I'm consuming:

• Myron Scholes Global Markets Forum: Evaluating Obama's Proposed Stimulus Package from Chicago's GSB.
• How Harvard Law threw down the gauntlet to the RIAA
• Has change come to biology? Stem cell research under Obama
  Windows 7 — What's the rush?
• The once and future e-book: on reading in the digital age (Excellent)
• Don't work for assholes

There were some comments on the MeDic pages indicating that MeDic was incompatible with newer versions of Microsoft Office. Specifically Office 2007 for Windows and Office 2008 for Mac due to it not being Unicode.

I have uploaded a new version with the text encoding as Unicode, so anyone that has been unable to use the dictionary should now be able to.

MeDic main page

On the heels of my four-part series this week, Amazon has launched their new "Green" section:

I have my doubts about the real usefulness of some of the top items, but the CFL bulbs are the real deal. While I would never pay $14 for one of them, we did get about three dozen of them on sale at Building 19 for something like 17 cents each about two years ago. We noticed a significant drop in our electrical bill right away on the order of ~$10-15 a month. Bonus has been that we've had to replace one(?) bulb during this time, so we still have quite a few of them stashed away. One downside is that they don't seem to last very long in New England weather extremes, so we use a regular incandescent for our one of our outside lights.

[Completely unrelated, but what's up with the crappy graphics Amazon uses for their navigation? Honestly, Amazon, just use text. It loads faster, and looks nicer.]

This is part one of a four part series:

1. Part 1: The Little Things
2. Part 2: Wind and waste heat
3. Part 3: Petroleum, plastic, and data centers
4. Part 4: How it will shake out and conclusion

PDF of the whole thing (2,158 words).

There are other ideas floating around, that might be of interest to private individuals, too. Wind turbines floating on neodymium magnets resulting in ultra-low coefficients of friction that generate electricity spring to mind. Even the smallest gust of wind could offset electricity costs for your home. Applied on a larger scale, these turbines could be installed next to stretches of highway where the wind created by vehicles speeding by generates power for the grid. The ideas get progressively more sci-fi and less based in reality, but all have research and/or working prototypes to support them.

Ultimately, I expect a handful of green power generation strategies to become prominent, based largely on a region's geographical needs. A landlocked country has little use for generators that harness tidal forces, and a country without large amounts of sunlight will have little use for a solar grid and might be better off with a network of small, personal, near-frictionless turbines to produce a great deal of power. This will have the secondary effect of changing power companies' dynamics. Private individuals and businesses may end up selling a significant fraction of the electricity that they generate back to the power company, as already happens on a tiny scale.

Rather than being a sunk, overhead cost, electricity could provide a smaller, secondary source of income in some cases. This is good for the overall health and robustness of the power grid itself. Rather than a centralized source vulnerable to operator error, equipment failure, or even an unlikely terrorist attack providing us with all of our power, a grid of consumers becomes a grid of hybrid supplier-producers. This has an effect on the dynamic of the producer-consumer relationship, too. The consumer has more power because they're doing more than just consuming. They become more of a partner in the relationship.

So while no single master stroke of technology is going to save the world from global climate change, or rescue our economy from its dependence on foreign oil, there are a number of initiatives that, in aggregate, are having a real, profound effect on our economy. That effect will only become more pronounced as time goes on, and these technologies that are mostly in the lab make their way slowly into the real world. It's important to note that while being green is trendy and gets a lot of press and has considerable mindshare, particularly among the youth, it's not this trendiness or mindshare that's going to create lasting change. It has certainly sparked social change, which is good, but as always, it is the bottom line that will be the driver for bigger and better things. It will be economic forces that determine whether we continue our destructive tendencies or move towards a more renewable future. My money is on green, because that's the direction the invisible hand is pushing us in. Green is, quite simply, how we do more with less, and create new markets while we make our way in that direction.

This is part one of a four part series:

1. Part 1: The Little Things
2. Part 2: Wind and waste heat
3. Part 3: Petroleum, plastic, and data centers
4. Part 4: How it will shake out and conclusion

PDF of the whole thing (2,158 words).

Plastic, another petroleum product, is a problem in the making as well both in terms of making more and recycling what we've already used. Recently, a 16 year old Canadian high school student conducted a series of experiments designed to isolate organisms that might degrade plastic bags. After collecting soil samples at a local landfill, he spent 3 months culturing them solely on a diet of polyethylene film strips. He narrowed it down to four types of bacteria, and grew each on agar plates, and discovered a new species of bacteria that eats plastic bags more ravenously than Pseudomonas, the only known plastic eater to that point. Burd found that only 0.01% of the microbes' body mass was released as carbon dioxide, allaying fears that his technique, if implemented on a wide scale could increase the amount of greenhouse gases released during recycling. It's estimated that these plastic bags will take between 50 and 1,000 years to break down on their own in a landfill. And microbes have been shown to do the opposite as well: taking toxic styrene and turning it into a biodegradable plastic called PHA. Both processes have economic implications, and each seems to be another tiny nail in Malthus' coffin.

There are other initiatives being worked on, primarily in academia, that will have huge implications for our business and environmental future. Generators that sit in the ocean or river and harness the power of tidal forces. There are some problems associated with this method of electrical production, such as how to store this energy meaningfully, but these problems have analogs with other types of green energy production, like wind power. With enough interest, investment, and work, they'll be solved.

Other ideas surrounding the harnessing of the oceans include thermal energy converters. It's thought that the amount of solar energy captured by the ocean is equivalent to 250 billion barrels of oil per day. That means that each day, the world's oceans capture the energy equivalent of 33 years worth of the US's total oil consumption. Obviously capturing the entirety of that energy is impossible and undesirable, but any company that comes up with a way of efficiently harnessing just a tiny fraction of it stands to make billions. Quite likely they will find themselves in an oligopolistic or even monopolistic position, too, as the barriers to entry will be huge, and the absolutely large minimum efficient scale of production will prevent new firms from entering.

"Green" thinking is also driving microscale R&D. Electronics companies are looking at solid state storage as a means of cutting down on power consumption in the datacenter. As more and more of our computing and storage moves to the "cloud", more datacenters are required. Datacenters are expensive to cool, and it's quite difficult to achieve an inexpensive, efficient, useful power density as well. That means that a large scale reduction in the amount of electricity consumed by individual server components will mean that useful power densities can be lower, or more servers can be crammed into a smaller space.

The largest consumers of electricity in the server are the pieces that move, specifically the hard drive. This movement has the secondary effect of creating waste heat which must be compensated for with adequate cooling lest the entire datacenter overheat. So even a small decrease in power consumption in that one tiny segment of that one specialized market will have domino effect across many secondary industries. It's similar in scale to the standby power dilemma mentioned above. And when you see companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google moving close to hydroelectric dams to build their datacenters, or moving to Siberia to save on cooling costs, you know these concerns aren't pie in the sky. There are real economic forces at work that are more powerful than the constraining forces associated with having to build fiber infrastructure out to these remote areas.

This is part two of a four part series:

1. Part 1: The Little Things
2. Part 2: Wind and waste heat
3. Part 3: Petroleum, plastic, and data centers
4. Part 4: How it will shake out and conclusion

PDF of the whole thing (2,158 words).

Being green makes good business sense, much of the time. While you obviously wouldn't want a hospital run directly on solar power, it does make sense to build solar arrays in the right places, and wind farms in perpetually windy areas, and then hook these up to the existing power grid. In that context, running the hospital on solar power doesn't seem like such a bad idea anymore. In medicine, we manage chronic pain by coupling a long-acting opioid with a short-acting, rapid-onset opioid. The long-acting agent is used to control baseline pain, and you never use short-acting opioids to manage baseline pain because of the greater duel risks of overdose and dependence. These agents are used to breakthrough needs only. In power generation, the metaphor is analogous: renewable resources provide your baseline power, and your coal- and oil-based electricity kicks in only when necessary. Thankfully, exothermic reactions lend themselves to relatively rapid cycling and are therefore suited to "as-needed" use.

Texas billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is seeing why it's valuable to invest in renewable sources of energy. Not only is it good for national security, but it makes good business sense to invest in renewables. With any non-infinite resource, the market is subject to the forces of supply and demand. When supply drops, the price goes up. If demand increases because India and China need their share of the world's petroleum supplies, prices for the US consumer go up, as well as the ancillary costs associated with anything that needs to be transported. As the amount of available petroleum decreases — as it's steadily and inevitably doing — these forces increasingly affect the way you operate your business. For a company like National Grid, eliminating the twin problems of scarcity and competitive bidding are good for the bottom line.

Civil and structural engineers and architects are hopping on the green bandwagon as well. The first of them jumped on because it was hip and different, and enabled them to leverage a different kind of brand image to achieve financial success. Lately, though, buildings that are built to be more energy efficient make economic sense. In Sweden, Jernhusen AB is harnessing the body heat of thousands of commuters that pass through Stockholm's main railway station. The firm believes that the system being designed can provide about 15% of the energy needed to heat the 13-story building being built next to Central Station. This system isn't even particularly radical. It's going to cost about $47,000, and will only require a few pumps and some pipes, since the ventilation system is already in place. I think it's a safe bet that a 15% annual energy savings for a 13-story building will more than cover even the short-term costs associated with it, particularly in a city only ~1,000 miles from the Arctic Circle like Stockholm.

Since every mechanical system wastes energy in the form of heat, recycling waste heat is also becoming more popular. Estimates of the amount of energy lost in the form of heat — expressed in terms of electricity — from smokestacks in the US alone is at 50,000 megawatts, more than half of what this country generates from its aging nuclear fleet. Initiatives to turn this waste heat directly into electricity are already underway, and can be built on small scales that make it worthwhile for these industrial companies to invest in.

This is part one of a four part series:

1. Part 1: The Little Things
2. Part 2: Wind and waste heat
3. Part 3: Petroleum, plastic, and data centers
4. Part 4: How it will shake out and conclusion

PDF of the whole thing (2,158 words).

Being "green" is a badge worn with honor by companies and individuals alike. Just like consuming organic foods, it's as much a yuppie status symbol as it is a lifestyle choice. At least it used to be. Venture capitalists are on the lookout for interesting green companies these days because there's lots of money to be made by reducing energy consumption, cutting back greenhouse gas emissions, and generally doing more with less. From a very high, forward-thinking level, it seems bizarre that we haven't been doing this right along: if economics is the study of human behavior in a world where there are limited resources but infinite demand, it makes sense that we would want to do more with less.

If it requires 50% less electricity to run an efficient datacenter, and 50% less gasoline to get from point A to point B, then that means we can house twice as many servers and end up with the same electric bill, and travel twice as far without burning any more gasoline. So every halving of the resources required to do something results in a net doubling of whatever you can do with that resource, all things being equal.

This model is easily applied to things like fuel efficiency and other commodity consumables, where small increases in efficiency result in immediate, apparent cost savings to an otherwise ignorant consumer. However there are other, less intuitive places to look where small savings aggregated across millions of people results in real macroeconomic benefit.

For example, there is a push right now to get rid of or improve "standby" modes for most electronic devices. This is what is widely considered the "off" position for most things, but in reality is actually the low-power mode wherein a device is not performing its primary function. The clock on the VCR and the microwave. The "breathing" the LED in your Macintosh computer does while it's asleep. Your laser printer while it's on standby waiting for a print job. Same for your fax machine.

A single device can suck up as much as 30W of electricity every 24 hours. Multiplied across all of the consumer electronics in your home, multiplied by the number of households in the United States, and you quickly realize that this is a boatload of wasted electricity. In fact, in the lifetime of a single electronic device, this savings is estimated to be $10. This is one of the reasons that President GW Bush directed the entire federal government to buy low-standby-power devices back in July of 2001 (PDF). Uncle Sam buys a lot of electronics. That means tens and possibly hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars saved by one superficially insignificant initiative.