A blind man focuses intently on a sheet of paper upon which his daughter has written a word. The camera situated on his head relays its vision to the device sitting on his tongue, and within moments he proclaims, “dad.”
Erik Weihenmayer lost his vision at the age of 13, but in spite of his loss went on to amount many accomplishments that certainly don’t fail to impress. To name a few: he was the first blind man to scale Mount Everest (for which he was recognized by Time Magazine); he’s earned countless awards including a ESPY award and a Helen Keller Lifetime Achievement award; he’s even carried the Olympic Torch. And now, thanks to BrainPort Vision, he was able to get a glimpse of sight once more.
Wicab’s BrainPort Vision is a device used for sensory substitution that utilizes one of the more unique and non-invasive methods available. Erik was able to read the notecard by feeling the letters on his tongue, somewhat analogous to brail. Electrotactile stimulation is the basis for the technology. In a nutshell, a camera feeds information to an encoding device connected to a square array of electrodes that lies on the tongue. The user feels controlled and harmless pulses of current attempting to simulate what the camera sees in a tactile fashion. The sensation has been described as feeling like pop rocks or a carbonated beverage. “Hundreds of pixels on the plate tingle on my tongue, and together they form patterns and shapes that my brain interprets as the space around me,” said Erik. In addition to “seeing” two-dimensional objects, users are able to navigate in three dimensions to some extent. In fact, Erik was able to walk through a forest, only aided by the device, to find his wife.
This technology is effective for more than just the vision impaired, it’s beneficial for those with inner ear issues as well—and perhaps more so. Maintaining balance is obviously of great concern, and this tends to be a problem for those with damaged inner ears. For this task, the same design is employed, but instead of a camera, the device contains an accelerometer. An accelerometer, used to measure tilt with respect to Earth’s gravity (found commonly in modern technology like the iPhone), is responsible for sending data to the BrainPort’s plate. The plate contains five stimulation points: left, right, front, back, and center. If the user tilts their head right, the right side (user’s right) of the plate is triggered. Those testing the device were told to keep the current as near to the center as possible. Wicab conducted a study of five individuals suffering from various forms of vestibular loss, or the loss of some ability to control balance. All subjects trained for 60 minutes, two times a day, for five consecutive days. They were tested before and after the trial:
All five subjects improved on at least one of the given standard balance assessment tests
Two subjects improved notably on the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) test, revealing a 23% increase in performance (from 77% to 100%) and a 26% increase in performance (from 58% to 84%)
One subject’s inability to drive in most traffic was effectively erased — a job saving transition
This device may have military application as well. Sight is sometimes difficult underwater, and BrainPort may be able to provide help with a soldier’s orientation and positioning. Perhaps if infrared cameras were used, enemies could be located more easily–proving especially helpful if radio contact is lost.
BrainPort has been compared to learning to ride a bike; in just minutes, spatial orientation is within reach. And as with anything, practice makes perfect. Dr. Bach-y-Rita, the chief scientist at Wicab, phrased it:
…we do not see with the eyes; the optical image does not go beyond the retina where it is turned into spatio-temporal patterns of action potentials along the optic nerve fibers. The brain then recreates the images from analysis of the impulse patterns. Thus, for a sensory substitution event to occur, one need only to accurately entrain action potentials in an alternate information channel, which do not differ significantly for the individual senses. With training, the brain learns to appropriately interpret that information and utilize it to function as it would with data from the intact natural sense.
The eye is just one means of transportation to the visual world. Science is searching for methods to replicate the eye, and so far this technology has a lot to offer as an easily implemented, non-surgical option. While the idea of substituting senses is a bit out of the ordinary, it’s an entirely realistic portal for vision restoration to take.
The Emerging East is Anything Intelligent’s ongoing series on China’s fast-paced technology development.
The Obama Administration announced a record $2.4 billion in grants to electric car and battery companies last week. The funding aims to propel an American hybrid and electric car industry that lags behind foreign competitors. With fuel-efficient cars seen as the new frontier for automakers, the world’s largest auto market needs to move swiftly if it hopes to keep jobs and facilities at home.
The Electric Car Industry
The success of electric cars depends heavily on battery technology. It must be small and light enough to fit in a car, powerful enough to drive a motor, and durable enough to hold charge through many cycles. Several automobile designs implement these lithium-ion batteries:
Current hybrid electric vehicles compensate for a weaker battery by coupling gasoline and electric motors. This design allows the battery to recharge with kinetic energy from the gasoline engine. With an electric backup, the gas motor can also shut off when the car is not moving.
New plug-in hybrids also have two motors, with the gasoline engine acting as a range extender. With a charged battery, the electric motor can independently drive the car.
Electric cars require perfected battery technology, running only on electricity with no gasoline backup.
The eventual transition from electric-gasoline hybrids to completely electric cars opens opportunities for companies to break into the auto industry. Brian Wynne, president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association, told the New York Times that the industry’s “choke point is the availability of automobile-grade batteries.” This choke point is where the up-and-coming Chinese company BYD has entered the field.
BYD: “Build Your Dreams”
BYD, whose letters stand for its Chinese name, got its start in 1995 as a rechargeable battery manufacturer for various electronic devices. In 2003, it broke into the automobile industry with little experience in the complexities of automaking. Last fall, however, its car F3 became the bestselling sedan in China — the world’s second-largest auto market. Now buoyed by Warren Buffet’s 10%, $230 million investment in the company, BYD is making bigger splashes with its “dual-mode” F3DM.
BYD's dual-mode hybrid F3DM
F3DM is a plug-in hybrid, just like the upcoming Toyota Prius and Chevy Volt. But while the plug-in Prius is slated for release in 2012 and Volt in 2010, the F3DM is already for sale in China and may expand to western markets by 2011. The car travels 62 miles on a single charge and costs only $22,000 . By comparison, the Volt travels 40 miles and will cost as much as $40,000. The Prius is expected to travel 16 miles on battery and cost $48,000.
BYD also unveiled the e6 at the 2009 Detroit Auto Show, an all-electric car similar to the Tesla Roadster and Nissan Leaf. The California-based Tesla Motors leads the pack: its high-performance, 220-mile range Roadster is already in production. However, the sports car is priced at a lofty $101,000, although a more affordable, $50,000 Model S sedan is planned for 2012 availability. Nissan plans to release the Leaf in 2010 with a price tag above $40,000 and a range of about 100 miles. Meanwhile, BYD plans to begin production of its e6 late this year for Chinese markets. Its competitors will be watching closely: BYD has not released a price estimate but does claim the e6 can travel a staggering 249 miles on one charge.
BYD's all-electric e6
How does a 2003 auto startup balloon into a 130,000 employee, electric car pioneer? BYD founder and CEO Wang Chuangfu has combined his battery expertise with a keen entrepreneurial vision. He has capitalized on China’s improving universities by drawing young, sharp engineers to BYD complexes. He has expanded labor-intensive facilities throughout China to take advantage of the country’s relatively cheap workers. And most importantly, he has developed an iron-phosphate technology which he claims trumps traditional lithium-ion batteries.
Looking Abroad
BYD plans to enter western markets in the next few years with both the F3DM and e6. While its cars may not match the performance, aesthetics, and features of its competitors, its low costs and impressive batteries should threaten its competitors. Given BYD’s startling rise in the auto industry, established Japanese and American carmakers should be prepared for BYD’s global ambitions.
Elu1299 studies environmental science and public policy at Harvard University.
The Emerging East is Anything Intelligent’s new, ongoing series on China’s fast-paced technology development.
Pudong, China
Earth’s most populous country receives no shortage of western attention. Reporters constantly spotlight China’s skyrocketing economic development and large population pool. Business professionals scramble to learn Mandarin in anticipation of new investment opportunities in the region’s emerging markets. Activists keep wary eyes on human rights violations, government crackdowns, and unhealthy pollution.
Much of this attention feeds into China’s image as a ruthless pillager of its human and natural resources. But amidst controversy over sweatshops, lead-contaminated paints and Olympic smog, China has positioned itself as the world’s next economic and technological power. Beneath a dirty economy driven by low-tech, manual labor, China is busily cultivating hi-tech companies and technologies that are ready to compete in the international market. Make no mistake — with its government’s ardent steering, the economy is transitioning fast. Read the rest of this entry »
Last week AI featured the first installment of a debate over whether climate change or global poverty should be a higher priority. Austin Thompson of the A. Thompson Monitor argued that global poverty is a more pressing problem and that developing countries should focus on economic development and poverty reduction, even at the expense of climate change. He acknowledged that sustainable economies are vital to the planet’s future, but disagreed with fast-tracking sustainability measures that would impede economic growth.
This week, Alexander Hurst of The Hurst Critique argues that the broad impact of climate change is too severe and pressing for developing countries to ignore. He frames climate mitigation as a long-term effort that will ultimately benefit the poor more than direct poverty-reduction strategies (without mitigation). In his post, Hurst calls for immediate action against climate change because climate policies take many years to become effective (as illustrated in this AI post). An excerpt from his argument appears below. The entire post can be found here.
Such pursuit of economic development at the cost of status quo (and more realistically, increased) emissions will backfire massively on the very people Austin is trying to protect from the vastly negative consequences of climate change. He seems to take a slightly defeatist attitude, acknowledging that even if all emissions were to cease today, the world would still experience warming and the subsequent consequences. However, as the recently released Stern Review, commissioned by the British government, reports, “The consequences of climate change will become disproportionately more damaging with increased warming.” While we are committed to a certain degree of warming, we still have a choice as to how much more we will cause. The consequences of further warming are, as I have stated, exponential with every degree increase in temperature, and will also be disproportionate in their effect on the world’s poor…
The energy generation facilities being built today will continue to function well into the next thirty years, which makes it even more imperative that we begin acting now to reduce emissions and make sure these new jobs will be at clean energy generating facilities. Furthermore, alternative energy offers the additional benefit to the third world of being independent from western control of oil. Many of the world’s leading solar manufacturers are from developing economies, and draw foreign investment (and will continue to do so) to those countries. Significant world spending on curbing emissions will necessarily involve the developing world, which means massive foreign investment in their nations (which happen to mostly be located in the best places for solar installations on earth).
Alexander Hurst is the author of The Hurst Critique, a blog on politics and other social issues.
The worldwide response against climate change has a variety of opponents. Some object to the scientific basis of global warming; others believe committing vast amounts of time and money towards climate change is not the world’s top priority. Those resources, they say, should address pressing issues like global poverty and greater economic development. Over the next few weeks, Anything Intelligent will feature a blogger debate over prioritizing climate change and poverty in the international community.
This first installment from the blog A. Thompson Monitor lays the groundwork for “A Pro-Poor Approach to Reducing Carbon Emissions.” With consent from the author, the first few paragraphs appear below. The full post can be found here.
This post is one in a series of debates between myself and Alexander Hurst of the Hurst Critique. http://www.hurstcritique.com/ In this first post I explain thatwhile carbon emission cuts in the long-term are necessary, developing countries should be prioritizing poverty eradication and sustainable economic growth with their public investment dollars.
Environmentalists and political commentators in the US recently went into a tizzy when India’s Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, told the United States’ Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that he refused to submit to pressure from the U.S. to lower carbon emissions.The United States is among a host of other rich countries that want to see a coordinated strategy to cut global greenhouse gasses that are contributing to the un-natural warming of our planet. India, like China believes that any significant reduction would impede their attempts at high-speed economic growth—a necessary aspect of poverty eradication.
Of course there is indisputable evidence that global warming is a threat to all countries rich or poor, but scientists agree that the impact of climate change will not be shared equally among actors. Poorer developing countries will bare the larger brunt of a warming process that was almost exclusively generated by pollution in richer nations over the last 200 years. It is unrealistic for industrialized countries to expect poor nations to commit to excessively broad carbon emissions reduction proposals. In this part of the world it is poverty eradication, not an impending environmental catastrophe that is the spending priority for governments.
Austin Thompson is a recent graduate of Howard University in Washington D.C. His blog A. Thompson Monitor focuses on international development.
The National Research Academy, a branch of the National Academies, released a report today analyzing how the United States will shape its energy future. America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation calls for a “sustained national commitment” to both increase energy efficiency and develop new energy options. The report identifies several promising factors that will shape America’s energy outlook: carbon capture and storage, improvements to nuclear technology, alternative liquid fuels, and so forth.
However, the report emphasizes that no single technology will adequately transform the energy sector to meet demands for clean and cheap energy. Rather, the country must develop a “balanced portfolio” driven by “supporting basic research” of new energy technologies. Furthermore, a rapid and sustained national push is needed today if the U.S. hopes to see visible energy transformations decades from now. To speed up development, the report recommends “that sustained policy and regulatory actions, as well as other forms of incentives, be employed to drive adoption.”
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA) currently before the Senate would put in place a cap-and-trade system to annually limit carbon emissions. ACESA is the closest example of “sustained policy and regulatory actions” currently or historically proposed in the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a study that models ACESA’s effect on the economy and energy sector. In the following graph, the EPA compares new energy generation capacity between current conditions and alternate policies under ACESA (H.R. 2454).
Source: U.S. EPA
The reference case already considers ARRA, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Thus, the case includes billions of dollars in federal stimulus funds in the pipeline through 2011. The H.R. 2454 case considers the cap-and-trade and energy efficiency parts of ACESA. Some observations about the effect of ACESA:
Carbon capture and storage (Adv. Coal w/ CCS) is specifically incentivized under H.R. 2454, representing a larger portion of new capacity
New nuclear is almost nonexistent to 2025: it takes decades to build a nuclear plant
Natural Gas generation drastically falls due to carbon cap and CCS incentives
Overall new generation capacity greatly decreases by 2025 under H.R. 2454. The EPA estimates carbon allowance prices will be too low to dramatically push for additional renewables.
New energy demand will decrease, coupled with higher energy prices, better energy efficiency, and retooling of existing coal plants.
The graph below, also from the EPA study, breaks down generation sources for the same two cases. Again, the H.R. 2454 case produces less capacity in 2020 and 2025 from lower energy demand. As with the previous graph, the proportion of other renewables (nuclear and hydro are shown) in the energy mix changes little from the reference case. Natural gas and coal both decrease compared to the reference case, and generation with carbon capture and storage (red bar) replaces a chunk of traditional coal generation by 2025. However, a glance at both cases’ generation sources shows no sweeping changes to America’s energy future in the next 15 years.
Electrical Generation Mix
The take away point from these two graphs: although cap-and-trade legislation will reduce energy demand and incentivize certain renewables, ultimately the policy does little to change the U.S. energy mix. Although cap-and-trade is a start to America’s energy transition, the limited impact of ACESA in the near future reaffirms the message from the National Research Academy. America needs a sustained, long-term commitment towards the research, development, and deployment of new energy technology if it wants a bright energy future. The development of nuclear, battery, solar, geothermal, and other promising technologies requires decades of leadership — a timescale that exceeds all political cycles.
Elu1299 studies environmental science and public policy at Harvard University.
On July 9, the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science released a large survey of scientists and the public. The report, descriptively entitled “Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media,” highlights the gap between scientific knowledge and its spread into the general public: the very rift that we are trying to close at Anything Intelligent.
Pew found that the public holds science in extremely high regard:
84% believe science has a “mostly positive” effect on society
85% — “mostly positive” impact on healthcare
66% – “mostly positive” effect on food and the environment
about 70% believe science and technology “does more good than harm”
70% believe scientists contribute “a lot” to society, behind soldiers and teachers
60% feel government funding “is essential for scientific progress
The survey also asked scientists and the public about different issues; the disparity in results was striking. Scientists overwhelmingly believe in evolution (87%) and human-induced climate change (84%), views shared by a much smaller portion of the surveyed public at 32% and 49%, respectively. The graph below shows differences in opinion on these and other scientific issues.
Data source: The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Why does this large gap exist? When asked about several potential problems facing science, most scientists thought the “lack of public knowledge” (85%) and “sloppy news coverage” (76%) were sources of major problems. The results depict fundamental flaws in the public’s source of scientific knowledge. Large bodies of research accompany major issues like evolution, global warming, and nuclear power — work that much of the general public has little exposure to. As a microbiologist quoted in the survey suggests, perhaps our grade schools do not adequately spark scientific interest, an apathy that carries over into adulthood. (54% of the public did not know electrons were smaller than atoms.) The information that the public receives may also contribute to their lack of scientific exposure: only 20% and 13% regularly read science magazines and websites.
The rift in scientific opinion and understanding has profound effects on policymakers. They must juggle the evidence from science experts and their constituents’ popular opinion, two distinct and often contradictory forces. How can these be reconciled? The Pew survey illustrates the need to capture and elevate the public’s scientific understanding and awareness. The green movement is already thrusting new information and technology into mainstream discussions. Now, we hope the rise of the blogosphere and new media will allow more scientific issues to reach the masses.
Recently, the newly elected Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, brought to attention a rather simple and seemingly easy means to reduce the CO2 emissions that plague the globe: Paint your roof white. While the idea itself isn’t necessarily a new one, it boasts some pretty impressive numbers with large-scale application.
How will painting your roof white reduce CO2 emissions? The idea is for the more reflective white surface to mitigate the sunlight, keeping a home or office much cooler and reducing the usage of air-conditioning. Cities tend to suffer from the “heat island effect,” caused by the dramatic number of black rooftops and roads accumulating heat, making this transition especially valuable if employed.
How effective is it? A study conducted by the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP), a public interest organization that promotes energy efficiency, showed that a once blackened copper and aluminum roof, when painted white, resulted in an average temperature difference of 78 °F during the spring and summer. This significant drop in temperature reduced energy consumption of the establishment by 50% – primarily due to its air-conditioning being out of use. According to Dr. Chu, by whitening roofs and lightening roads to a cement-like color (not too light as to affect drivers’ vision), it would cause “a reflection of the sunlight back into space that would be the equivalent as if you took off all the automobiles of the world for 11 years.” Dr. Chu credited California Energy Commissioner Art Rosenfeld, whom he is familiar with through the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, with swaying his opinion on the matter. In fact, Dr. Chu had apparently underestimated the plan’s potential according to research done at the Academy, which translates to 18 years of a car-free world according to Dr. Rosenfeld.
In 2005, Dr. Rosenfeld helped California adopt new building regulations that would require commercial building projects to use “cooler” roofing materials. To meet these new requirements, builders can refer to the reliable material ratings certified by the Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC). CRRC is a non-profit organization that provides comprehensive and accurate evaluations of roofing materials (surprise). For a roofing material to meet California’s regulations, the material must meet specific standards regarding solar reflectivity, a measure of a material’s ability to reflect sunlight, and thermal emissivity, its ability to release absorbed heat; CRRC’s assessment comprises both statistics. CRRC’s ratings are publicly available. California looks to be the first and only participant in the “cool roof” movement for now.
While the idea won’t be an instant hit, it’s quickly gaining traction with prominent figures such as Dr. Chu. With the potential to save money, it’s easy to see this simple modification taking place – especially among flat, hidden roofs. For most of us, except in California, this idea is nothing more than a promising money-saving tip. With potential for both personal and global gains, roofing standards could become a reality for the rest of us shortly, though.
On June 26, 2009, The U.S. House of Representatives approved the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the first bill passed in American history mandating limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The Act, also called the Waxman-Markey Bill, must now pass the U.S. Senate.
Its narrow passage in the House, 219-212, resulted from the lengthy courting of legislators who represented industrial, manufacturing, and agricultural sectors. The bill that finally emerged was loaded with complicated provisions and compromises, leaving both sides of the climate debate unsatisfied. Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, acknowledging the bill as “a remarkable [political] achievement,” nevertheless blasted those Congressmen who rejected climate change and held up the bill’s progress. However, The Economist harshly criticized many of the bill’s provisions despite supporting its underlying cap-and-trade system:
The House’s climate bill is a masterpiece of obfuscation. Buried somewhere in the 1,200 pages of the American Clean Energy and Security Act … is a sensible cap-and-trade plan to curb emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). But it is so weighed down with giveaways, loopholes and needless complexity that many environmentalists hesitate to support it.
The bill’s immediate effectiveness in limiting emissions has indeed been watered down: 85% of pollution permits will be free allowances to polluters, and millions of government dollars will help industries like manufacturing and agriculture adjust to the new emissions standards. Yet this extra complexity addresses concerns that the cap-and-trade system will further stunt America’s economy with rising costs. Midwestern lawmakers pushed hard and received compromises for the free permits and extra funding to help retool their already-struggling industrial bases for a clean energy transition. Now as the bill heads to the Senate, lawmakers will continue to push their regional economic interests. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), for example, has introduced legislation called IMPACT that would set up a $20 billion loan program to provide additional help to smaller manufacturers and suppliers.
The debate is sure to intensify as midwest senators revive the age-old issue of tariffs and “border adjustments.” Those senators want to avoid harming U.S. companies in the international market and deter domestic firms from bolting to a cheaper, less-regulated country. The House already tacked on a last-minute addition to ACES, imposing border adjustments that “ensure that the U.S. energy-intensive industries are not placed at a competitive disadvantage by nations” without such regulations. However, opponents of trade regulations fear a trade war — especially with less regulated countries like India and China — could cause even greater economic repercussions. The inevitable disagreements in Senate chambers around international trade could become a showstopper for any sort of climate legislation becoming law; already, rifts are forming:
“This bill doesn’t pass unless it takes care of manufacturing,” Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said. “And this bill doesn’t take care of manufacturing without border adjustments.”
President Obama, while overall commending the House bill, told a small gathering of reporters June 28 of granting tariff authority: “At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession, and we’ve seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out.”
A major source of disagreement is the accuracy of ACES economic and energy projections. The U.S. Energy Information Administration and Congress use a model called the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), which projects the supply, demand, and prices of the domestic oil market. NEMS is dependent on many assumptions such as the availability of renewable technologies in the market and projected economic growth. Thus, NEMS projections vary based on how designers believe this bill will increase the development and deployment of renewables. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency used a different set of models, as did the Congressional Budget Office, but the assumptions of any study are just as critical. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, criticized the CBO’s analysis of household cost from the climate bill by questioning its assumptions. Perhaps the only way to settle these disagreeements is the establishment of changeable regulations that allow the government to respond to unforeseen economic consequences.
Ultimately, political interests and uncertainty threaten to undermine the substantial body of research on climate change, highlighting science’s struggle with varied public interests. The indisputable evidence for climate change has been steadily mounting and the vast majority of scientists recognize its threat, yet the United States has not shown any successful response. In a recent Discover article, four scientists neatly encapsulate the current “state of the climate” and also comment on the political response to climate change. In the article, Stephen Schneider of Stanford University summarizes his outlook on science and policy: “I’m technologically optimistic and politically bleak.” As an escalating tariff battle looms on the horizon, we can only hope that the U.S. will finally adopt a framework both rigid enough to curb emissions and flexible enough to adjust economic regulations if current projections prove incorrect.
Elu1299 studies environmental science and public policy in Cambridge, MA.
AI – Anything Intelligent is a new, collaborative blog focused on expanding the role of science in public policy. AI is written and edited by college students with varied interests in the applied, natural, and social sciences.
Despite attending different schools and studying in different academic fields around the U.S., our common philosophy is simple: to bridge the gap between scientific developments and their real-world impact on lifestyles, economies, and society. The scientific community grows with fresh minds tackling the next frontier in research and technology, yet a much smaller focus is placed on turning relevant advancements into useful public policy. At this weak and confusing intersection, major forces like industries, countries, and politics drive conflicting interests, often times resulting in a frustrating deadlock.
However, there are signs of increased movement between science and public policy, especially in today’s environmental and climate change movement. President Obama pulled the Nobel laureate and current Energy Secretary Steven Chu directly from the scientific community. None of Chu’s recent predecessors had background in academia: both Bill Richardson (Clinton Administration) and Spencer Abraham (Bush 43) were lifelong politicians; Samuel Bodman (Bush, second term) held engineering degrees but pursued a successful financial and business career. It remains to be seen whether an accomplished scientist like Chu can push for science and technology in the political arena, although his arrival signals the next step to utilize science in policy-making. In an interview with National Geographic, Chu describes his view on the Department of Energy’s role:
“The Department of Energy is the biggest supporter of the physical sciences in the United States, but it also has a mission to take what is developed in national labs and universities and transfer this knowledge to applied research—research that will lead to really new ideas about sources of energy and ways of using our energy more efficiently. So that’s one of the things the Department of Energy will be focusing on—how do we make that transition?”
We will cover this transition from scientific knowledge to application, and furthermore from applicable uses to policy decisions. Our ultimate goal is to emphasize and expand the discussion connecting science and public policy, from small but interesting developments in science to sweeping policy changes. We don’t seek to advocate a specific set of policies — in fact, contributing writers may disagree on policy issues. Any relevant and grounded topic is fair material: where science connects to policy, Anything Intelligent goes.
anythingintelligent
mmiller12
elu1299
