Exploring without an Explorer

With regards to the continuation of a space program I don’t think communication about the science of space exploration will be enough. Scientists need to communicate a paradigm shift; the idea that space exploration should be less anthropocentric. The question I will be addressing in this blog is how can scientists communicate a change in scientific paradigm that is not anthropocentric?

By taking people out of the equation and sending up small inexpensive machines to explore space for us, we drastically reduce the cost of exploration and provide much more efficient exploration.  We have come to a point in our evolution where we don't need our own eyes to see what's our there. The challenge of communicating this kind of science is that it doesn't jive with the typical mindset people have about space exploration. As we defined in class a mindset is a fixed state of mind or mental rigidity. In particular the mindset most people have about space exploration is probably close to whatever was portrayed in the space science fiction movie they like most. Whether it's Captain Kirk on the enterprise or Dr. Who in his little blue box there's always the theme that people have to actively be a part of the exploring process. Since this theme is so deeply embedded in out culture it will be difficult to even suggest the idea that space exploration shouldn't be so anthropocentric. Which is understandable because it essentially forces people to give up the hope of being the next Kirk (at least within our lifetime). This brings to light another of our course concepts which is science as a social enterprise which we defined as the idea that science is influenced by social intentions. So how do we convince people to support a science that is so far detached from anything they can relate to on a personal level? Famous theoretical physicist Michio Kaku actually does an excellent job of this.

In short, once we get self-replication nanobots, we can send swarms into space that will then travel to thousands of potential planet to begin terraforming them so they will be fit for habitation one we figure out a more efficient way of sending actual people into space. This technology has already been developed HERE.

However, I would point out that this technology would be one that would also be very useful on our own planet. The point being that instead of focusing on making large scale devices fit for humans, we should direct funding towards projects and research that support the general idea of miniaturization and automation.

To answer my question posed in the beginning, we can analyze some of the techniques Kaku used in his video. By using very human centered examples and explanations, such as ice skating metaphors, he was able to connect to people on a much more human level to inspire awe. Even in his explanation of the mechanism for launching swarms into deep space he used a simple lab experiment using materials people had lying around. Any curious mind could try that experiment in their kitchen and those less ambition would still certainly understand but still be fascinated by the abnormal behavior demonstrated. Although this isn't officially a course concept I definitely believe that identification should be one. I will define identification with regards to communication as the ability of a scientists to relate to something the general public knows to a scientific concept in a metaphorical manner. The societal implication is that scientists that can identify with people's everyday lives like Michio Kaku will be able to effectively communicate and encourage the support of sciences that would normally seem very far removed from any individual in their audience. The new question this raises, is what is the best way to identify with people's everyday lives? And for those scientists that otherwise lack the caliber of imagination to do so, what would be a good recipe they could follow? What methods can our school use to encourage this sort of metaphorical science communication?

References:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqg_6p-smTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaTBd3gdPI

http://singularityhub.com/2011/08/15/computer-chip-sized-spacecraft-will-explore-space-in-swarms/

Determination of Scientific Direction through Public Mindset

When I first read Pinch’s article, “Cold Fusion and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge” (1998), I was curious as to why the scientific community behaved so differently than in the ulcer bug case. In both situations, scientists made questionable claims of findings that went against the established beliefs in their field and made grandiose promises yet received completely different responses. From my research, I noticed that preconceived notions and mindsets are the main factors that make science very much a social enterprise. Although science ultimately provides the correct answer to debated issues, the path that scientists must travel to bring their results to light.

Since Pons and Fleischmann were denounced in 1989 there have been a few scientific groups brave enough over the years to announce roughly the same results. The article below talks about a couple of physics professors in Japan that have reportedly discovered cold fusion using roughly the same method as that of Pons and Fleischmann.

http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html

More recently a group of Italian scientists have been reported to achieve cold fusion using nickel cathodes as opposed to palladium, but ultimately promising the same thing.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/italian-scientists-claim-dubious-cold-fusion-breakthrough

Interestingly, the paper published by the Italian scientist was rejected by other peer reviewed journals. However, details given by the both the above groups on their experiments seem considerably more believable than the original Pons and Fleischmann experiment but have received almost no attention. So I return to my original question of why findings presented in a similar fashion can have drastically different responses. Let’s look at what’s different between these examples.

When Pons and Fleischmann announced their result, both the public and the scientific community were very hopeful that cold fusion was a real, viable source of energy. Also, “the 1986 discovery of high-temperature superconductivity had caused the scientific community to be more open to revelations of unexpected scientific results” (1). So the scientific community had adopted a more open mindset. This allowed for scientists who would usually have been skeptical of the idea of cold fusion to be almost irrationally hopeful of positive findings. Several years later, scientists reporting the same findings are met with extreme skepticism and no enthusiasm to prove them right or wrong. An incredible social stigma is now associated with “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” which, for better or worse, affects the progress of that area.

So we have two polar opposite responses to similar finding that seem to be determined by the mindset of the public and scientific community. Regardless of whether the findings are rationally explainable, the scientific progression of a debated topic is strongly influence by social perception of the topic.

When cold fusion is reported nowadays, it is done so very skeptically. The following article very well demonstrates a duality that journalists employ such that they ensure the reader understands the exciting implications of a find IF the claims of scientists turn out to be true.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-05/north-korea-claims-nuclear-fusion-success-and-they-have-state-media-account-prove-it

If anything it shows that the mass media has grown beyond their naïve days when they thought they could discern whether a scientific finding was legitimate allowing for a public mindset that is open to whatever the scientific community decides after it has been considered rather than before.

This sort of journalism is better for scientific progress as it allows for the public to be informed and excited without being set that one way is the truth. Since cold fusion defies modern physical theories, I would be disinclined to believe claims of such easy success. But any well performed experiment with a valid theory for cold fusion couldn’t simply be dismissed just like the theory for ulcers. 

Basic concerns of Nanotechnology

I would like the note the important communication issues between scientists and the publics are being addressed. I was more curious to know if anyone had was taking these papers concerning communication issues seriously and what progress had been made. It seems those concerned with nanotechnology have, in fact, been acting very similarly to the how authors such as Kuzma suggest we do. A large proponent of nanotechnology and futurist Ray Kurzweil has encouraged talks with the government and the public.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/congressional-hearing-addresses-public-concerns-about-nanotech

Kurzweil and many others have addressed the issues people most fear with nanotechnology which is a Grey Goo scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo) or  more bluntly, world annihilation by nanobots. Yes, there are concerns with nanotechnology such as risks to the environment and whether they are carcinogenic but people don’t fear these as much. A fair portion of the population chooses to smoke cigarettes or neglect their environmental impact knowing full well the potential consequences of their actions but the mention of rogue nanobots suddenly gets people attention. And this is actually a warranted fear (see http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html). As a student going into nanotechnology I think it would be great to have a molecular level control of a system that can intelligently manage itself. Could such a system get out of control? Possibly. But that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t have thought of precautions.

Although these fears are potentially valid, they aren’t the most pressing today.  On this particular subject scientists might be better using the deficit model because the public is interested but misguided. We’re a fair amount of time away from a grey goo crisis. The more relevant issues are the one that address basic effects of the existence of nanotechnology as it is today.

This year I will be working with nanoparticles that act as molecular motors.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/la803491g

The particles are a form of azobenzene and now that I’m slightly more conscientious about the risks of nanotechnology I became curious of the health risks I might encounter while working with it. As it turns out the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an page on azobenzene although it is not complete.

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0351.htm

As it turns out azobenzene is a “Classification B2 - probable human carcinogen”. Read on and the explanation for why is something to the effect that upon encountering acidic conditions such as those in the stomach azobenzene will be converted to a “known human carcinogen benzidine.” What I take away from this is that I should not eat azobenzene. And since there is no data for data for the risk of inhalation I should probably avoid that too. Overall, probably something I should avoid rubbing my face in.