Doubleday (1819–1893) was a man of many accomplishments, to be sure: a capable Union officer, he fought in several major Civil War battles, including Second Manassas and Gettysburg; a capable capitalist, he founded the first cable-car company in San Francisco. But even Doubleday claimed credit only for helping codify and regularize the rules of a game that had been developing over the course of several centuries, born of a colonial New England game called “town ball” that in turn descended from the English field game called “rounders,” an ancestor of not only baseball but also cricket, a game played enthusiastically in every former English colony save the United States.

Albert Spalding, a pitcher, manager, and entrepreneur who founded the sporting-equipment company that still bears his name, acknowledged that English descent in his book America’s National Game (1911), though grudgingly, for it was he who gave Doubleday so much credit to begin with. Having allowed its similarities to cricket, however, Spalding was quick to point out that baseball distinguished our national qualities from those of our former rulers: the English “play Cricket because it accords with the traditions of their country to do so; because it is easy and does not overtax their energy or their thought,” whereas, Spalding continued, “Base Ball owes its prestige as our National Game to the fact that as no other form of sport it is the exponent of American Courage, Confidence, and Combativeness; American Dash, Discipline, Determination; American Energy, Eagerness, Enthusiasm; American Pluck, Persistence, Performance; American Spirit, Sagacity, Success; American Vim, Vigor, Virility.”

Take that, Nigel! Whatever its ultimate origins, and whatever the claims that can be made for it as an expression of homegrown values as against those of other lands, baseball has been a vitally important American pastime since at least the time of the Civil War, when Union and Confederate soldiers played it among themselves, and sometimes even crossed the lines to play against each other. After Appomattox, those soldiers then spread the game to every corner of the land almost overnight, a development that led Mark Twain to remark that baseball was “the outward and visible expression of the drive and push and rush and struggle of the raging, tearing, booming nineteenth century.” External contacts—sometimes war, sometimes peaceful economic exchange—spread the game beyond America’s shores as well, and today baseball is flourishing in such places as Japan, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and even England.

The game flows like a mighty river through the nation’s, and the world’s, history, and millions on millions have bathed in its waters: Geronimo, the famed Apache war leader, who played baseball avidly throughout his years of captivity in Florida and Oklahoma; Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary, who as a young man wanted nothing more than to pitch for a major-league American team; William Howard Taft, the portly president who, it seems, inadvertently invented the seventh-inning stretch and who found sublime pleasure in throwing out the game ball on opening day; Moe Berg, the linguist who combined an indifferent record as a major-league catcher with a somewhat more illustrious career as a spy on three continents; Johnny Ventura, the Dominican politician and bandleader, who abandoned a promising career in baseball to bring merengue to a waiting world; Sadaharu Oh, arguably the greatest player in Japanese baseball history, who brought Zen understanding to the game when he observed, “As the ball makes its high, long arc beyond the playing field, the diamond and the stands suddenly belong to one man. In that brief, brief time, you are free of all demands and complications”; Tallulah Bankhead, the imposing Alabama-born actor, who famously remarked, “There are only two geniuses in the world: Willie Mays and Willie Shakespeare.”

A players’ strike and ever-increasing ticket prices diminished public interest in major-league baseball in the 1990s, and Americans’ minds were on more pressing matters at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Even so, and even despite the rapid ascent of basketball (another quintessentially American game, invented by a Canadian) as a money-drawing spectator sport, baseball in its many forms—professional, semiprofessional, collegiate, intramural, junior, peewee, and sandlot—remains the most popular of American athletic pastimes. It is comforting to think, with Crash Davis of Bull Durham fame, that this is at least in part because baseball speaks to our better angels: to a vision of life that honors both individual achievement and team play, and always with an insistence on fairness; to our long-held belief that although there are surely winners and losers in life, a reversal of fortunes can make one of the other in an instant; to the American promise of equal opportunity for all, a leveling ethic by which players of all ethnicities and classes can play as one. Those are all ideals, of course. It remains to be seen whether baseball and America will rise to the difficult task of making them real.

But enough of the solemnities. We’re coming up on a very happy time in the baseball year, a flurry of league pennant races culminating in the World Series. (Go, Rockies!) To commemorate that time, I’ll be posting a list of favorite baseball films in a couple of weeks, meant for those right-thinking individuals who can’t get enough of America’s game. The following snippet comes from one of the best of them, Field of Dreams, about which more later.

A number of initially promising miniaturized technologies that emerged in the 1980s and ’90s have since flopped.  But microneedle devices have been doggedly pursued by companies such as 3M as well as by researchers like Mark Prausnitz, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  This past spring and summer, Prausnitz, in collaboration with Emory University researchers Richard Compans and Eric Felner, published several papers reporting significant advances in microneedle technology.  The devices are now at the point where their mass production and widespread use is verging on reality.

Prausnitz has been working on microneedle technology since the mid-1990s, when the idea for these miniature entities first emerged.  His initial studies explored the use of microneedles for transdermal drug delivery, which seemed like the most practical application.  By the early 2000s, however, it was clear that microneedles could be used for the administration of a broad range of drugs.  And today, Prausnitz and his Emory collaborators are investigating the use of these tiny devices for the delivery of influenza vaccine, as well as for the delivery of insulin in children with diabetes. A central part of both studies is self-administration.  As Prausnitz pointed out, “most people can take a pill every day, but few can give themselves a daily injection, especially without training.”

Microneedle devices are tiny arrays of needles, typically about the size of a dime, that can be fashioned from silicon, glass, or biodegradable polymers using techniques such as microlithography and etching, which are widely employed in the manufacture of electronics products.  Prausnitz explained that, depending on the intended application, microneedle devices can be manufactured to have anywhere from tens to hundreds of needles, and the needles themselves can be rendered hollow or solid.

Devices with hollow needles can be attached to a syringe, enabling a solution of drug to be injected through the microneedles.  In contrast, solid needles are coated with drug, so that once the device is pressed into the skin, the drug simply dissolves off, being deposited in the dermis.  However, since the holes that are made in the skin by solid needles are so small, allowing only a tiny amount of drug to enter the body, the number of needles is the primary factor determining the how much drug actually can be administered by a single device.  Collectively, hundreds of coated needles on one device can deliver up to one milligram of drug, which far exceeds the amount necessary for most vaccines to be effective.

But perhaps the two most important factors, the elements that determine successful drug delivery while ensuring a pain-free experience, are the sharpness and the length of the needles.  “In order for a needle to penetrate skin, we need to make it as sharp as possible,” Prausnitz said.  “This requires that the tip be ten times thinner than a human hair.”  But the needles also are very short—just several hundred micrometers in length—which means that little, if any, pain is felt when the device is pressed into the skin.

One goal of Prausnitz’s work is to make microneedle devices affordable. “Something that is important to me is not just to solve parts of a problem, but to try to solve the whole problem,” he explained.  Thus, making microneedles inexpensive so that developing countries can purchase them is an important part of the equation.  The use of vaccines and other drugs requiring injection is often limited in these countries for multiple reasons, but two compounding factors at play are the high cost of pharmaceuticals and the expense of hiring trained personnel to administer the agents.

Prausnitz explained that a major component underlying the steady progress of microneedle research has been the collaboration of scientists in a diverse range of fields. “In order to carry the research forward and impact medicine, we need to cross many interfaces,” he said.  “In our work, we have combined microelectronics fabrication with pharmaceutical formulation to solve problems in medicine.”  This type of interdisciplinary approach, which has become increasingly important in biomedical research, promises to bring microneedles into widespread use sooner rather than later.