Topics covered in class: Ebooks, nuclear power, weather forecasting, 3D technology and genetic engineering.
On Ebooks: I am personally in favour of ebooks because they can really change the conventional methods of learning and facilitate our way of life. I think one of the main advantages of ebooks is the searchability of information. Regular books have nothing like this to offer. When looking for information in a book, I'm sure we often find ourselves spending quite a bit of time browsing the pages because we have forgotten the exact page the information is on. Ebooks will help save us the time and trouble of doing this. Indeed, regular books have a content page and indexes to help us find the information we need, but they offer a very crude (and still tedious) solution to finding things within the same book. However, when advanced searches of phrases or words in proximity, or when searches in a library of books is involved, a paper book would not be able to be much of a help. The long, painful process of having to browse through each book one by one is still inevitable. Especially for students like myself, who need to do a lot of research, there is really no comparison between researching ebooks or doing it the traditional way of trying to find something useful in paper books. Ebooks would certainly go a long way in helping students gain access to the information they need much more accurately, and more efficiently.
Another more common advantage of having ebooks is the idea of a mobile library. With ebooks it is possible for us to have access to a complete library of books all the time, no matter where we go. Already, it is possible for us carry hundreds of ebooks in little flash memory cards or thumb drive. Regardless of where we go or stay, we can always have a library of knowledge with us. We can go up into the mountains and have a little hand held computer to give us access to the accumulated knowledge of our subject area of interest. Our thoughts can flow better and our research will be accurate, based on a vast reference library.
Ebooks would also be an economical way to frequently publish updated and corrected versions of books. For most hard copy books today, it is difficult for publishers to make corrections in errors in the books because the cost is too high. Corrections can be made easily and published and sent out immediately to a large audience. The ebook can be kept up to date and updates can be produced and distributed with a reasonable amount of work and cost.
Furthermore, I think a lot of improvements have been made to ensure that ebooks become user-friendly and suitable for our everyday needs. An example would be the issue of the short battery life of ebooks. However, current developments have demonstrated the ability to overcome this limitation: eReaders. eReaders are slim screens about the size of a thin hardback and they use a special technology technology is called ePaper, which is what makes a changeable, computer-style screen possible without the use of backlighting. No electricity is used to preserve the image on an eReader, so long battery lives are easily attainable. As the image is created simply by reflecting light, ePaper can achieve a contrast ratio similar to newspaper print.
However, I feel that regular books should not be completely eradicated simply because a better and more convenient alternative has been developed. Traditional books still hold a lot of value in the hearts of people and I'm sure that they will continue to have an intangible connection with people in the same way they have done so for centuries. Thus, I feel that it is best for individuals to possess both ebooks and traditional books. When we need to do extensive research or travel long distances, we can tap into the convenience and mobility of books that ebooks offer. However, when we are at home or would just like to do some leisure reading, it is perhaps better to read traditional books. It is also healthier for our eyes to read traditional books than stare at the screen of an ebook. People today still appreciate the physical nature, the touch and feel of traditional books and it is unlikely that this feeling wans as we move into the future. Ebooks should be seen as complements to traditional books and not replacements.
Overall rating: 7/10
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Group presentations I
This week's lesson covered the topics of cosmetic surgery, cybercrime and water.
Some thoughts:
Earlier on this year, the UN declared that access to clean, safe drinking water is now an official basic human right. I managed to find some pretty cool technologies that have been invented to make clean, drinkable water out of undrinkable water:
Lifesaver Bottles: They were initially designed to help of natural disasters. Today, they come in many shapes and sizes and are being used around the world to help people gain access to safe, drinkable water without the need of complex machinery and filtration systems. This technology would give a possible solution to providing drinkable water for those in developing countries or water-scarce areas.
Lifestraw: It takes dirty water and through the use of a filter in the straw, turns it into safe drinking water. It is also very very cheap, at $3-$4 a piece.
These two inventions seem to have one thing in common, they are disruptive technologies. They have made water more accessible to those who do not have the financial ability or infrastructure to gain access to safe,drinkable water. The invention of disruptive technologies is thus probably the most effective short-term solution for those who have no access to drinkable water due to natural disasters, war or poverty.
If water is so precious and essential for survival, I wonder why it was not established as a basic human right until now? This then begs the question: Why was the right to water contentious in the first place? I think there a few reasons for this. The first is that water is a scarce resource, so for countries that have an abundant supply of water resources, making water a human right would bring up fears that they would have to share their water supplies with others. The next reason would be the privatisation of water. Water would no longer be commoditised and would cease to be profitable anymore. Many companies that provide water supplies will no longer make as much money as before. Some may even close down and many employees will be out of a job. Furthermore, nobody likes to be told how much water they can use, even knowing that those in the developed world use much more water than those in developing countries.
Overall rating 6/10
Some thoughts:
Earlier on this year, the UN declared that access to clean, safe drinking water is now an official basic human right. I managed to find some pretty cool technologies that have been invented to make clean, drinkable water out of undrinkable water:
Lifesaver Bottles: They were initially designed to help of natural disasters. Today, they come in many shapes and sizes and are being used around the world to help people gain access to safe, drinkable water without the need of complex machinery and filtration systems. This technology would give a possible solution to providing drinkable water for those in developing countries or water-scarce areas.
Lifestraw: It takes dirty water and through the use of a filter in the straw, turns it into safe drinking water. It is also very very cheap, at $3-$4 a piece.
These two inventions seem to have one thing in common, they are disruptive technologies. They have made water more accessible to those who do not have the financial ability or infrastructure to gain access to safe,drinkable water. The invention of disruptive technologies is thus probably the most effective short-term solution for those who have no access to drinkable water due to natural disasters, war or poverty.
If water is so precious and essential for survival, I wonder why it was not established as a basic human right until now? This then begs the question: Why was the right to water contentious in the first place? I think there a few reasons for this. The first is that water is a scarce resource, so for countries that have an abundant supply of water resources, making water a human right would bring up fears that they would have to share their water supplies with others. The next reason would be the privatisation of water. Water would no longer be commoditised and would cease to be profitable anymore. Many companies that provide water supplies will no longer make as much money as before. Some may even close down and many employees will be out of a job. Furthermore, nobody likes to be told how much water they can use, even knowing that those in the developed world use much more water than those in developing countries.
Overall rating 6/10
Monday, October 25, 2010
Technology Assessment and Forecasting
Today's lesson talked about the different methods by which we can forecast and assess technology. We learnt about technology road-mapping and PTAs. We also identified the various drivers of technology assessment. These include limited resources and the exponential growth of new technologies with potential world changing significance.
Just to add on to the point about cultural stickiness: I think many companies today are seeing the importance of taking cultural considerations into account. Anthropologists and ethnographers are finding it easier to find jobs with high-tech companies. I think these companies see the value of using the highly developed skills of anthropologists as observers to study how people live, work and use technology. These anthropologists can understand their users and find new products and markets the engineers never dreamed of. Intel for example, was looking into designing a computer chip that can withstand a blast from a deck hose. Even major technology universities are beginning to recognise the importance of considering cultural implications when forecasting the impact of a certain technology. The University of California, Irvine, and Georgia Tech are some examples of Universities that have included ethnographic training as part of their computer science degree programs.
Science fiction: Often, it is said that science fiction can predict the future and that we use science fiction as inspiration for the future. However, I think the sci-fi stories and scenarios tell us much more about our pasts and our present than it does about the future. The models used by Sci-fi writers have been extrapolated from the present situation using information gathered from past events, and they can be innately flawed because our human brain has its limitations. Even the computer models and mathematical formulas built using rules devised by human brains are equally subject to these shortcomings. Furthermore, even if the authors' technical predictions are correct, the society is often wrong. Future societies inevitably display the unquestioned assumptions of the present, such as women's current role or the hot political issues of the day. Once again, this ties into the idea that technology is easy but people are hard. There are many unintended effects of technology. These failures occur because the social impact of disruptive technologies is nearly impossible to predict. Home computers led to video games and the Internet led to the World Wide Web, spam, and viruses. It's easy to imagine a social change from any major technological change, but the number of possibilities is so great and the impact of unpredictable aspects of the human psyche so significant that correctly predicting which social changes will occur is much harder. Thus, while many of us believe in a future by watching sci-fi movies, it is actually difficult to achieve the exact same type of technology (and its effects) in real life. Furthermore, it is a reflection of the kind of lives we led in the past and less so of a prediction for the future.
Open source networks in forecasting: I really think that We are at a time where technological innovation is moving at an exponential rate. We simply cannot afford to have years to study the implications of every new emerging technology. An open source approach to technology assessment, particularly online public consultation, will provide the necessary speed and agility. They will be increasingly matter and be critical to proactive strategies and policies and competitiveness. It would also lower the costs of technology assessment. Many of those who participate in open source networks do so with the willingness to contribute their time based on the intangible rewards associated with solving tricky problems and the status achieved in doing so. These people do not request to be paid as in conventional technology assessment methods where companies pay consultants to analyse their company's technology.
Key Takeways:
Just to add on to the point about cultural stickiness: I think many companies today are seeing the importance of taking cultural considerations into account. Anthropologists and ethnographers are finding it easier to find jobs with high-tech companies. I think these companies see the value of using the highly developed skills of anthropologists as observers to study how people live, work and use technology. These anthropologists can understand their users and find new products and markets the engineers never dreamed of. Intel for example, was looking into designing a computer chip that can withstand a blast from a deck hose. Even major technology universities are beginning to recognise the importance of considering cultural implications when forecasting the impact of a certain technology. The University of California, Irvine, and Georgia Tech are some examples of Universities that have included ethnographic training as part of their computer science degree programs.
Science fiction: Often, it is said that science fiction can predict the future and that we use science fiction as inspiration for the future. However, I think the sci-fi stories and scenarios tell us much more about our pasts and our present than it does about the future. The models used by Sci-fi writers have been extrapolated from the present situation using information gathered from past events, and they can be innately flawed because our human brain has its limitations. Even the computer models and mathematical formulas built using rules devised by human brains are equally subject to these shortcomings. Furthermore, even if the authors' technical predictions are correct, the society is often wrong. Future societies inevitably display the unquestioned assumptions of the present, such as women's current role or the hot political issues of the day. Once again, this ties into the idea that technology is easy but people are hard. There are many unintended effects of technology. These failures occur because the social impact of disruptive technologies is nearly impossible to predict. Home computers led to video games and the Internet led to the World Wide Web, spam, and viruses. It's easy to imagine a social change from any major technological change, but the number of possibilities is so great and the impact of unpredictable aspects of the human psyche so significant that correctly predicting which social changes will occur is much harder. Thus, while many of us believe in a future by watching sci-fi movies, it is actually difficult to achieve the exact same type of technology (and its effects) in real life. Furthermore, it is a reflection of the kind of lives we led in the past and less so of a prediction for the future.
Open source networks in forecasting: I really think that We are at a time where technological innovation is moving at an exponential rate. We simply cannot afford to have years to study the implications of every new emerging technology. An open source approach to technology assessment, particularly online public consultation, will provide the necessary speed and agility. They will be increasingly matter and be critical to proactive strategies and policies and competitiveness. It would also lower the costs of technology assessment. Many of those who participate in open source networks do so with the willingness to contribute their time based on the intangible rewards associated with solving tricky problems and the status achieved in doing so. These people do not request to be paid as in conventional technology assessment methods where companies pay consultants to analyse their company's technology.
Key Takeways:
- We need to work backwards from the future instead of projecting from the present. We need to ask ourselves what we'd like to see in future and then assess what needs to be changed now in order to achieve that vision.
- Roadmapping plays an important role in predicting the success of technology. What is more important is that we have the intellectual honesty to accept the need to change when we realise that something is not going to work. Only when we embrace our mistakes and start taking proactive steps to make those changes can we capture the full potential of our technologies.
Monday, October 18, 2010
New & Emerging Technologies
Today's lesson covered the various kinds of new and emerging technologies that are sure to revolutionise the way we do things, perhaps even in the following years to come. We realise that there are so many creative and potentially groundbreaking ideas out there that are not receiving the attention that they deserve. We also learned about the 4 "Smarts": People, Ideas, Money and Alliances and Partnerships. People with the creativity and will to translate dreams into reality, ideas that can work, money to make the ideas happen and other people who have the necessary skills and expertise the innovator doesn't. Increasingly, we find that there are many social and ethical issues that will arise from the development and subsequent use of emerging technologies.
I think the idea of augmented reality is really fascinating and it's definitely the innovation I'm most looking forward to. Apart from the idea of facilitating our movement around as presented in the video, augmented reality has a lot of potential implications on education and learning. When students go for excursions or field trips, they will be instantly able to view all the information pertaining to their surroundings. By supplementing existing worlds rather than create new ones, students will be able to understand the real world in context, comprehend what they learn better and even remembered it better as they can put a name or some information to an object. As augmented reality is likely to manifest in low-cost infrastructures like mobile phones, students will be able to move learning outside the classroom and into the spaces they are familiar with. They will then be able to form connections with their surroundings without the facilitation of a teacher, or having to spend much time on research. Augmented reality will also benefit students who miss classes, especially location-based classes, as the information they learn is easily accessible to them when they go out into their surroundings.
Having said that, while augmented reality's application into learning will be phenomenal, it is important to drive home the fact that teachers still play a crucial part to the learning process. The use of augmented reality applications should be seen as a supplement to daily teachings and not a replacement for the teacher. To realise the full potential of augmented reality, we must address the issue that most augmented reality projects rely on customised hardware. There is thus a need to ensure that the information presented inside augmented reality is constantly up to date and reliable.
Regarding the question on the positive or negative impact of Artificial Intelligence, I feel that it is really subjective. On one hand, these robots can perform tasks that are dangerous, complex or stressful in place of humans, perform them more efficiently and more accurately. On the other hand, they will blur the lines between human and robot and give rise to a variety of ethical questions and redefine human (or even robot) rights. Whether it will be for the better or worse really depends on what we choose to use artificial intelligence for and how we use the knowledge. One of the readings for this lesson aptly points out the greatest difficulty in predicting the impacts of these new technologies. That is, once the technical and commercial feasibility of emerging technologies is demonstrated, subsequent developments are just as much in the hands of the users as in those of the innovator. So new technologies like Artificial Intelligence and Nanotechnology can affect society in ways not intended by those who created them. What the world really needs is wisdom. And once again, technology is easy and people are hard. Judging from all the ethical and social debate about the uses of new and emerging technologies despite their groundbreaking nature, I too truly believe that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
Key Takeaway: Many emerging technologies are within our reach and they hold many promises for a better and more convenient life. However, we still lack the capacity to deal with the potential ethical and social issues that may arise
Overall Rating: 7/10
I think the idea of augmented reality is really fascinating and it's definitely the innovation I'm most looking forward to. Apart from the idea of facilitating our movement around as presented in the video, augmented reality has a lot of potential implications on education and learning. When students go for excursions or field trips, they will be instantly able to view all the information pertaining to their surroundings. By supplementing existing worlds rather than create new ones, students will be able to understand the real world in context, comprehend what they learn better and even remembered it better as they can put a name or some information to an object. As augmented reality is likely to manifest in low-cost infrastructures like mobile phones, students will be able to move learning outside the classroom and into the spaces they are familiar with. They will then be able to form connections with their surroundings without the facilitation of a teacher, or having to spend much time on research. Augmented reality will also benefit students who miss classes, especially location-based classes, as the information they learn is easily accessible to them when they go out into their surroundings.
Having said that, while augmented reality's application into learning will be phenomenal, it is important to drive home the fact that teachers still play a crucial part to the learning process. The use of augmented reality applications should be seen as a supplement to daily teachings and not a replacement for the teacher. To realise the full potential of augmented reality, we must address the issue that most augmented reality projects rely on customised hardware. There is thus a need to ensure that the information presented inside augmented reality is constantly up to date and reliable.
Regarding the question on the positive or negative impact of Artificial Intelligence, I feel that it is really subjective. On one hand, these robots can perform tasks that are dangerous, complex or stressful in place of humans, perform them more efficiently and more accurately. On the other hand, they will blur the lines between human and robot and give rise to a variety of ethical questions and redefine human (or even robot) rights. Whether it will be for the better or worse really depends on what we choose to use artificial intelligence for and how we use the knowledge. One of the readings for this lesson aptly points out the greatest difficulty in predicting the impacts of these new technologies. That is, once the technical and commercial feasibility of emerging technologies is demonstrated, subsequent developments are just as much in the hands of the users as in those of the innovator. So new technologies like Artificial Intelligence and Nanotechnology can affect society in ways not intended by those who created them. What the world really needs is wisdom. And once again, technology is easy and people are hard. Judging from all the ethical and social debate about the uses of new and emerging technologies despite their groundbreaking nature, I too truly believe that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
Key Takeaway: Many emerging technologies are within our reach and they hold many promises for a better and more convenient life. However, we still lack the capacity to deal with the potential ethical and social issues that may arise
Overall Rating: 7/10
Monday, October 11, 2010
Energy and World Change
Today we covered a topic that is so predominant, and so relevant in many aspects of our lives: Energy. Energy makes the world go round. Without it, we'd be left in complete darkness, frozen to death and unable to operate our vehicles. The next Industrial Revolution is clear to us all: We will see a transition from our current use of unsustainable energy resources to sustainable energy resources like renewables. Green technologies will work on increasing the energy efficiency, so that we can power more appliances per kilowatt of energy, and reducing the pollution of current technologies.
I personally don't like the idea of nuclear energy being a main source of energy in the future, especially in a tiny island in Singapore. No matter how many safety features a nuclear plant has installed, and no matter how many times a nuclear plant has been proven to be safe by scientists, I still feel that there is no guarantee of our safety when it comes to the use of radioactive material like uranium. As they always claim, science has many unexpected results. I, for one, wouldn't want to see what unexpected results lie ahead with nuclear energy. Yes, I agree that the two main nuclear disasters in the past were not due to the technology within the nuclear plants but rather, the people who constructed and operated the plants. The disaster at Chernobyl resulted because the soviet union tried to cut corners in construction to save money and the nuclear incident at Three Mile Island resulted from an error by the operator guy. Yes, the plant itself may be safe for use but human error is unavoidable, and there are many unforeseen circumstances out there that are not within our control. I definitely wouldn't want to take that chance of making a mistake while operating a nuclear plant because even the smallest percentage of error/accident can be culminate in the extermination of an entire town or even an entire state. Another concern is the leakage of radioactive waste. Nuclear plants emit some radioactivity into the air and water during operation but these releases are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, there have been examples in the past few years of unauthorised release of radioactive waste into groundwater. Although very few have resulted in detectable increases in radioactivity in public drinking water, more problems could arise if this is uncorrected.
No doubt, nuclear energy would prove to be a very viable resource alternative once it can e proven to reach the same efficiency level as our current energy sources. However, I feel that it would defeat the purpose of using sustainable energy if we wipe ourselves in the process of using it.
Having said that, I am not completely against the idea of using nuclear energy. I just feel that they should not be a main energy resource especially for Singapore. If a nuclear plant was built in Singapore and an accident would happen, our entire island could be wiped out in seconds! Countries that should be exploring nuclear energy are those that have extensive land mass or mountainous regions and hence enough land to build buffer zones for the nuclear plants or have then built in caverns. Countries like the United States, especially, have these resources. For these countries, I feel that nuclear energy is viable because damage would be minimised even in the event of a massive nuclear explosion. Small countries like Singapore may not be so lucky. For Singapore, I think it would be more viable to invest in osmotic power and solar energy rather than nuclear plants, or buy nuclear energy from other countries.
Here's a video I found on a possible alternative source to uranium for nuclear power:
Key Takeaways:
I personally don't like the idea of nuclear energy being a main source of energy in the future, especially in a tiny island in Singapore. No matter how many safety features a nuclear plant has installed, and no matter how many times a nuclear plant has been proven to be safe by scientists, I still feel that there is no guarantee of our safety when it comes to the use of radioactive material like uranium. As they always claim, science has many unexpected results. I, for one, wouldn't want to see what unexpected results lie ahead with nuclear energy. Yes, I agree that the two main nuclear disasters in the past were not due to the technology within the nuclear plants but rather, the people who constructed and operated the plants. The disaster at Chernobyl resulted because the soviet union tried to cut corners in construction to save money and the nuclear incident at Three Mile Island resulted from an error by the operator guy. Yes, the plant itself may be safe for use but human error is unavoidable, and there are many unforeseen circumstances out there that are not within our control. I definitely wouldn't want to take that chance of making a mistake while operating a nuclear plant because even the smallest percentage of error/accident can be culminate in the extermination of an entire town or even an entire state. Another concern is the leakage of radioactive waste. Nuclear plants emit some radioactivity into the air and water during operation but these releases are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, there have been examples in the past few years of unauthorised release of radioactive waste into groundwater. Although very few have resulted in detectable increases in radioactivity in public drinking water, more problems could arise if this is uncorrected.
No doubt, nuclear energy would prove to be a very viable resource alternative once it can e proven to reach the same efficiency level as our current energy sources. However, I feel that it would defeat the purpose of using sustainable energy if we wipe ourselves in the process of using it.
Having said that, I am not completely against the idea of using nuclear energy. I just feel that they should not be a main energy resource especially for Singapore. If a nuclear plant was built in Singapore and an accident would happen, our entire island could be wiped out in seconds! Countries that should be exploring nuclear energy are those that have extensive land mass or mountainous regions and hence enough land to build buffer zones for the nuclear plants or have then built in caverns. Countries like the United States, especially, have these resources. For these countries, I feel that nuclear energy is viable because damage would be minimised even in the event of a massive nuclear explosion. Small countries like Singapore may not be so lucky. For Singapore, I think it would be more viable to invest in osmotic power and solar energy rather than nuclear plants, or buy nuclear energy from other countries.
Here's a video I found on a possible alternative source to uranium for nuclear power:
Key Takeaways:
- Short-step objectives vs Long Stretch objectives: There is value in both. Short-step objectives give people more confidence and inspires them to keep improving in small bites because they are easily achievable and realistic. Long stretch objectives, on the other hand, may seem like over-ambitious goals but they encourage a whole new perspective and way of doing things. It forces people to rethink and reinvent current methods in an entirely different way because we would be unable to achieve that target using these current methods.
- In order to safeguard the rights of developing countries, developed countries should enter a mutual agreement with them when they decide to build energy plants in developing countries. This includes energy security for the developing countries (a guaranteed portion of the energy produced,), job security, revenue and training and expertise transfer to the locals.
- It is important for developing countries to address short term issues like food and water supplies. However, they despite the lack of funds, developing countries should also invest in long-term issues like sustainable energy production because they would never progress if they choose not to do so. The challenge then is to get the right balance between the two.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Biobusiness: Agriculture and the Environment
Today we recognised and addressed the concern that in light of the world's skyrocketing population, there is a growing constraint on food supply. We established that GM food may very well be the solution to this problem. It increases the productivity of food production processes and increases the yield of our crops without compromising on the the resources available for our future generations. Furthermore, the promises of GM food include crops that can be genetically engineered to provide human nutrition, crops that are resistant to environmental stresses and pests, and crops that are capable of producing vaccines or antibodies (Biopharming). Prof also introduced the "Structure, Function and Application" model where the success of any technology requires the transition of hard facts and knowledge into appropriate innovations that change the world. Increasingly, we find that more research is now being done in the area of waste management; how we can recycle our wastes, convert it back to raw materials and even use it as an energy source, such that we develop a sustainable production cycle (Eg. Flash Pyrolysis).
Some thoughts:
The problem of feeding millions of malnourished and undernourished people in developing countries is rife. Undoubtedly, GM food will play a crucial role in helping to nourish these people because with genetic engineering we are now able to develop crops that express certain nutrients originally not expressed in parent breeding lines, or nutrients that need to be increased in the amount needed to improve nutrition. Certainly, GM crops that have been tested to be viable should not be withheld from these poor people. However, I personally feel that there are limitations as too how far GM food can help re-nourish these people to a healthy state. Many of the GM foods currently available are specialised to contain a high amount of just one particular nutrition (Like Vitamin A for Golden Rice). Unfortunately, people suffering from one nutrient deficiency will also most likely be suffering from other nutrient deficiencies. Thus, at present, even if the GM foods reach developing countries, how successful will its tackling of one nutrient deficiency be when we are concerned with the lack of so many nutrients. The next step, and challenge, in genetically engineered food research is probably to try and pack a full meal's worth of nutrients into a stable crop like rice or corn. At the same time, we need to genetically engineer these crops to have a longer shelf life such that they can be kept for a longer period without going bad. Having said that, such research and development may take a considerably long time as most of the work today is still mainly focused on developing GM foods containing a high amount of a particular nutrient. Perhaps it would be more effective if we encouraged people to have a balanced diet including green leafy vegetables, fruits and proteins. That being said, more effort has to be put into making these other dietary essentials more accessible to them.
Next, GM food cannot and will not be the only answer to malnutrition. There are many reasons why people suffer from malnutrition; the situation is not as straightforward as many people make it out to be. It isn't a simple problem of people just not having enough food to eat because they are poor. Many of the poor remain so because there is also a lack of infrastructure, poor government involvement and initiative, civil wars, military dictatorships, lack of accessibility to markets etc etc. Efforts cannot be limited to GM foods. We need to have huge legal reforms to ensure an appropriate political structure for the distribution of resources, in particular food. Governments need to distribute arable/ productive land effectively and ensure that the poor get all the help they can get to possess basic necessities. Governments also need to encourage its people to diversify their diets and help them gain access to technologies and modern practices that will enable them to grow crops/animals rich in nutrients. The international community also needs to play their part by supporting the development of GM foods, bringing in and teaching locals useful technologies and encouraging its use in developing countries. There is only so much that GM foods can do to solve malnutrition. What the poor really need are, on top of GM foods, the knowledge and accessibility to technology that can enable them to independently grow their crops at a high yield.
With regard to waste management, I feel that while many today strongly believe in the need to use alternative fuels (renewable sources) that have a less harmful impact on the environment, we also should not forget the need to improve on the currently flawed systems of waste disposal. Turning to alternative fuels is easy because there isn't much of a change process; we just replace one fuel for another. However, the fact remains that such alternative fuels have yet to be developed or discovered (at least for natural resources) in large quantities to meet current energy requirements. Hence, at least for the short term, there is a more important need to improve on our current systems of waste disposal ie. while we are using the same energy sources like oil and coal and emitting the same type of harmful gases, we have to develop a method or technologies that minimise the emission of greenhouse gases or convert these harmful gases into less harmful ones. For example, there has been recent developments in the area of the disposal of gaseous exhaust from industrial processes. Scientists are currently in the process of developing a system that separates carbon dioxide from flue gas, mimicking the human respiratory system.
Key Takeaways:
Some thoughts:
The problem of feeding millions of malnourished and undernourished people in developing countries is rife. Undoubtedly, GM food will play a crucial role in helping to nourish these people because with genetic engineering we are now able to develop crops that express certain nutrients originally not expressed in parent breeding lines, or nutrients that need to be increased in the amount needed to improve nutrition. Certainly, GM crops that have been tested to be viable should not be withheld from these poor people. However, I personally feel that there are limitations as too how far GM food can help re-nourish these people to a healthy state. Many of the GM foods currently available are specialised to contain a high amount of just one particular nutrition (Like Vitamin A for Golden Rice). Unfortunately, people suffering from one nutrient deficiency will also most likely be suffering from other nutrient deficiencies. Thus, at present, even if the GM foods reach developing countries, how successful will its tackling of one nutrient deficiency be when we are concerned with the lack of so many nutrients. The next step, and challenge, in genetically engineered food research is probably to try and pack a full meal's worth of nutrients into a stable crop like rice or corn. At the same time, we need to genetically engineer these crops to have a longer shelf life such that they can be kept for a longer period without going bad. Having said that, such research and development may take a considerably long time as most of the work today is still mainly focused on developing GM foods containing a high amount of a particular nutrient. Perhaps it would be more effective if we encouraged people to have a balanced diet including green leafy vegetables, fruits and proteins. That being said, more effort has to be put into making these other dietary essentials more accessible to them.
Next, GM food cannot and will not be the only answer to malnutrition. There are many reasons why people suffer from malnutrition; the situation is not as straightforward as many people make it out to be. It isn't a simple problem of people just not having enough food to eat because they are poor. Many of the poor remain so because there is also a lack of infrastructure, poor government involvement and initiative, civil wars, military dictatorships, lack of accessibility to markets etc etc. Efforts cannot be limited to GM foods. We need to have huge legal reforms to ensure an appropriate political structure for the distribution of resources, in particular food. Governments need to distribute arable/ productive land effectively and ensure that the poor get all the help they can get to possess basic necessities. Governments also need to encourage its people to diversify their diets and help them gain access to technologies and modern practices that will enable them to grow crops/animals rich in nutrients. The international community also needs to play their part by supporting the development of GM foods, bringing in and teaching locals useful technologies and encouraging its use in developing countries. There is only so much that GM foods can do to solve malnutrition. What the poor really need are, on top of GM foods, the knowledge and accessibility to technology that can enable them to independently grow their crops at a high yield.
With regard to waste management, I feel that while many today strongly believe in the need to use alternative fuels (renewable sources) that have a less harmful impact on the environment, we also should not forget the need to improve on the currently flawed systems of waste disposal. Turning to alternative fuels is easy because there isn't much of a change process; we just replace one fuel for another. However, the fact remains that such alternative fuels have yet to be developed or discovered (at least for natural resources) in large quantities to meet current energy requirements. Hence, at least for the short term, there is a more important need to improve on our current systems of waste disposal ie. while we are using the same energy sources like oil and coal and emitting the same type of harmful gases, we have to develop a method or technologies that minimise the emission of greenhouse gases or convert these harmful gases into less harmful ones. For example, there has been recent developments in the area of the disposal of gaseous exhaust from industrial processes. Scientists are currently in the process of developing a system that separates carbon dioxide from flue gas, mimicking the human respiratory system.
Key Takeaways:
- To achieve sustainability, we really need to look into methods that enable us to convert waste products back into raw materials and ensure strict waste management programmes to reduce harm on the environment.
- We need biotechnology to achieve food security in the long run. With biotechnology, feeding the entire population on earth is no longer a myth. The challenges that biotechnology needs to address is, less of developing the GM crop per se and more of getting people to accept GM foods and enabling those we really need it to have access to the right technology.
- I was particularly intrigued by the idea of using algae as a bio-fuel and how modern methods have enabled the growth of algae in 'closed tanks' which do not require sunlight. I am convinced of the promise of algae as a bio-fuel and I really think that this could be a very viable alternative energy source.
Monday, September 20, 2010
BioBusiness: Health Care and Biomedical Science
Today's lesson focused on the shift in the methods of healthcare provision towards remote consultation and customised medicine, how the integration of medical and communication technologies helps to facilitate this process, and finally the reinforcement of the individual's role in taking responsibility for their own health. We also distinguished Biotechnology from BioBusiness; BioBusiness is commercial activity based on an understanding of life science and its processes, and the idea of taking advantage of biological systems to engage in commercial activity. Biotechnology is the application of our knowledge in biology into products and using that knowledge to create the appropriate technology. Finally, we also uncovered the disturbing fact that healthcare costs in USA already account for more than 50% of the world's total healthcare expenditure.
Some thoughts:
1) The article on disruptive innovations is particularly memorable because it had a lot of sense to it. It made me realise that the answer to all our woes about expensive healthcare costs is very much within our reach. Yet, this seems so far away with all the resistance. The examples of the camera, telephone and photocopier were very relevant and highlighted just how effective disruptive technologies can be in making what was once expensive and exclusive, into something that every man can do and have access to. I think it is also important to note that many disruptive technologies today are not pioneering technologies. For example, even though Google became a major search engine, it was not the first of its kind. In fact, there were 10 such search engines before Google came about and revolutionised the industry. Personally, I feel that acceptance is definitely going to be the greatest barrier to overcome before disruptive technologies can go mainstream. Change can be difficult, so a person has to be experiencing real pain in order to want change. A small change is easier for people to accept, rather than changes that will drastically affect the their lives. It will be hard to get people to bravely step away from the security of the status quo and to take the risk of embarking on something that will potentially transform the way they live their lives. And I don't blame people for hesitating; it is rather daunting to take up something that has no guaranteed success. Therefore, I think the most effective way to ensure that disruptive technologies go mainstream is qualm this uncertainty and certify disruptive technologies. This will reassure people of its potential benefits. The government can play a very important role in this. Perhaps the government could set up governmental bodies that deal specifically with the accreditation of disruptive technologies. They could run tests and do market researches to validate feasibility, run trials in selected agencies or in a selected group of people and then certify these technologies. It is also important that these bodies give the public a rough projection of the benefits associated with the application and implementation of such technology. Having said that, the government itself has to believe in the use of disruptive technology and be willing to take that leap of faith. Without the government's support, I feel that such technology will indeed mostly remain unacknowledged, which would be a very sad ending.
2) While I was doing some research on modern health care methods, I came across a very interesting pill bottle that reminds patients when it is time to take their medicine. It's called the GlowCap and it was developed by a company called Vitality. The GlowCap is an intelligent pill bottle that flashes a light when it is time for the patient to take his/her medicine. When the bottle is opened it sends telemetry back to a portal which can be used to track patient medication adherence. It also has an accompanying device that lights up, beeps and even make auto-generate phone calls to you house if you still forget to take your medication.
Vitality GlowCaps from Vitality on Vimeo.
This video ties in with what was mentioned in the video that prof posted, about how many of the patients today suffer from relatively low risk diseases/conditions that can be cured by a strict routine of medication, a healthy diet and exercise. The challenge is then to get these patients to stick to their exercise and drug therapy regimes. More innovative technologies like the GlowCap are sure to rise in the future and they will play a big part in helping us cope with low-risk diseases by ensuring that medication is taken when it is necessary.
Overall rating: 7/10
Some thoughts:
1) The article on disruptive innovations is particularly memorable because it had a lot of sense to it. It made me realise that the answer to all our woes about expensive healthcare costs is very much within our reach. Yet, this seems so far away with all the resistance. The examples of the camera, telephone and photocopier were very relevant and highlighted just how effective disruptive technologies can be in making what was once expensive and exclusive, into something that every man can do and have access to. I think it is also important to note that many disruptive technologies today are not pioneering technologies. For example, even though Google became a major search engine, it was not the first of its kind. In fact, there were 10 such search engines before Google came about and revolutionised the industry. Personally, I feel that acceptance is definitely going to be the greatest barrier to overcome before disruptive technologies can go mainstream. Change can be difficult, so a person has to be experiencing real pain in order to want change. A small change is easier for people to accept, rather than changes that will drastically affect the their lives. It will be hard to get people to bravely step away from the security of the status quo and to take the risk of embarking on something that will potentially transform the way they live their lives. And I don't blame people for hesitating; it is rather daunting to take up something that has no guaranteed success. Therefore, I think the most effective way to ensure that disruptive technologies go mainstream is qualm this uncertainty and certify disruptive technologies. This will reassure people of its potential benefits. The government can play a very important role in this. Perhaps the government could set up governmental bodies that deal specifically with the accreditation of disruptive technologies. They could run tests and do market researches to validate feasibility, run trials in selected agencies or in a selected group of people and then certify these technologies. It is also important that these bodies give the public a rough projection of the benefits associated with the application and implementation of such technology. Having said that, the government itself has to believe in the use of disruptive technology and be willing to take that leap of faith. Without the government's support, I feel that such technology will indeed mostly remain unacknowledged, which would be a very sad ending.
2) While I was doing some research on modern health care methods, I came across a very interesting pill bottle that reminds patients when it is time to take their medicine. It's called the GlowCap and it was developed by a company called Vitality. The GlowCap is an intelligent pill bottle that flashes a light when it is time for the patient to take his/her medicine. When the bottle is opened it sends telemetry back to a portal which can be used to track patient medication adherence. It also has an accompanying device that lights up, beeps and even make auto-generate phone calls to you house if you still forget to take your medication.
Vitality GlowCaps from Vitality on Vimeo.
This video ties in with what was mentioned in the video that prof posted, about how many of the patients today suffer from relatively low risk diseases/conditions that can be cured by a strict routine of medication, a healthy diet and exercise. The challenge is then to get these patients to stick to their exercise and drug therapy regimes. More innovative technologies like the GlowCap are sure to rise in the future and they will play a big part in helping us cope with low-risk diseases by ensuring that medication is taken when it is necessary.
Overall rating: 7/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)