I’ve heard people say “we need to make science cool” – a lot of that talk was at ScienceOnline 2010 – and that would be nice, but I don’t think that’s really the answer. “Science” isn’t really going to beat out American Idol or the NFL or whatever.

Cool is important, but I think we need to make science relevant. There’s a difference. For example, I think every scientist should listen to Robert Krulwich’s 2008 Commencement Address to graduates of Cal Tech:

“When a cousin, or an uncle, or a buddy comes up and asks you, “so what are you working on?” even if it’s hard to explain, even if you know they don’t really want to hear it – not really – I urge you to give it a try. Because talking about science, telling stories to regular folks is not a trivial thing. Scientists need to tell stories to non-scientists because science stories – and you know this – have to compete with other stories about how the universe works and how the universe came to be. And some of those other stories – Bible stories, movie stories, myths – can be very beautiful and very compelling. But to protect science, and scientists – this is not a gentle competition – you’ve got to get in there and tell yours, your version of how things are and why things came to be.”

Yes, we should celebrate science and scientists in our pop culture. But it’s not enough. Science has to be accessible and relevant. Those who do it must be able to talk about it – not “media trained” but able to explain, in simple terms, what it is, why it’s important to them, and why could be important to everyone else.

via It’s Not a Lecture: Science Has a Serious PR Problem.

Jessica Lin and three other female Harvard University students—Jessica Matthews, Julia Silverman, and Hemali Thakkar—created sOccket to produce a soccer ball that generates cheap, clean, off-grid electricity when rolled. The sOccket ball captures the energy from impact that is normally lost to the environment when the soccer ball is kicked, dribbled, or thrown and stores this energy for later use.

Their project started as a team project for an engineering sciences class at Harvard. They were inspired by dance floors that capture the energy of dancers jumping and moving around.

The ball uses inductive coil technology–similar to flashlights that power up when shaken. Each 15 minutes of play with the ball generates enough power to light up an LED lamp for 3 hours, so a soccer game could easily provide light for a day.

In most African countries, 95 percent of the population is living off-grid with no access to electricity. With sOccket, people in developing nations will no longer need to walk 3 hours simply to charge their cell phones. The power will—quite literally—be in their hands. The sOccket ball can be used to light an LED lamp, or charge a cellphone or battery.

via Jessica Lin is a Changemaker | Changemakers.

With input from people around the world … an international group of leading technological thinkers were asked to identify the Grand Challenges for Engineering in the 21st Century. Now their conclusions are revealed on this website.

From urban centers to remote corners of Earth, the depths of the oceans to space, humanity has always sought to transcend barriers, overcome challenges, and create opportunities that improve life in our part of the universe.

In the last century alone, many great engineering achievements became so commonplace that we now take them mostly for granted. Technology allows an abundant supply of food and safe drinking water for much of the world. We rely on electricity for many of our daily activities. We can travel the globe with relative ease, and bring goods and services wherever they are needed. Growing computer and communications technologies are opening up vast stores of knowledge and entertainment.

As remarkable as these engineering achievements are, certainly just as many more great challenges and opportunities remain to be realized. While some seem clear, many others are indistinct and many more surely lie beyond most of our imaginations. Today, we begin engineering a path to the future.

via Grand Challenges for Engineering.

The top two vote getters were my top two as well – make solar energy affordable and reverse-engineer the human brain.  While I’m a do-gooder at heart, the reality of the world is that the best way to help the poor in the world is to increase their economic opportunity, and I think that a wholesale shift in energy sources and the ability to create artificial thinking machines are the greatest potential sources of growth in the future.

Which ones do you think are most important?

…I’d like to lay down two rules everyone should try and follow:

#1: TCGs are for fun, not pain. Throw elbows at will and play to win, but remember this is a community. This is not the place to make yourself feel better at someone else’s expense.

#2: If someone falls down, you pick them back up. Is there a new guy at your local hobby store who came with a starter deck, quietly sitting by himself, and he doesn’t know anyone? Introduce yourself, and make him feel welcome. Did you just beat an inexperienced player with a bad deck? Shake his hand, and be friendly. Offer up some deck tips, or even strike up a conversation unrelated to Marvel Superstars. Let’s make sure every player has a great experience, even if they don’t win a game all day.

There are other games where you can be out for yourself, crush everyone in your path without regard, and get rewarded for it. And for some people, this is what they’re looking for: a stressful, hypercompetitive environment.

But Marvel Superstars will be different. It’s about putting down the mouse or console controller, and getting out of the house to make new friends at your local hobby store. It’s about having fun playing a game with people face-to-face, in a positive environment, and encouraging as many people as you can to join in the experience. It’s about building the kind of community that picks people up when they fall, instead of stomping on their bodies until they learn the hard way or leave.

That’s what this is about, and that’s what we’re going to build together.

via Marvel Trading Card Game News Archive.

Science is best viewed the way we view democracy: Democracy is the best way for societies to organize themselves and make decisions in ways that respect and protect individual rights and freedoms. Science is the best way for society to understand the world around us and ourselves. Science and democracy serve each other and neither can long survive without the other.

If society comes to distrust science—and many do—then where will we turn for answers? What other system does our public discourse have for finding out about the world? Our democratic institutions depend on science being healthy and trusted. Democracy is no substitute. It’s a great system for making decisions, but a rotten system for finding the truth. Science is the best societal tool at our disposal for knowing thing about our world…

…I do think more of us need to speak out in defense of science and what it represents for our society. Unless we do so, we will find our society adrift without any means of getting the good, trustworthy information that democracy needs to make good decisions.

via Phil Windley’s Technometria | On Science, Society, and Democracy.

Intelligence is a process, not a fixed, gene-determined, thing. This process begins very early on, before we can even really see it, and we therefore often confuse these early, invisible stages with some sort of innate giftedness. Then we test kids and report the results as innate differences — this one is gifted, this one is not. This one has extra promise; that one does not. We send the “gifted” ones to good schools with small class sizes, better-trained teachers, better infrastructure, better relationships with parents, and higher expectations. We send the apparently-unpromising kids to under-funded, teach-to-test schools with minimal expectations.

And then we tell ourselves that we live in a meritocracy. Jennifer Senior’s piece helps expose that fallacy.

via The Myth of the Meritocracy – David Shenk.

Magic is no doubt the granddaddy of trading card games, and many of the other trading card games are designed and developed by Magic Pro Tour alums.  Trading card game mechanics are hopelessly wide open (probably Turing Complete but I need to do some homework there), so each game is built on a few key assumptions.  This article from the Marvel Superstars site describes what’s great about its gameplay in contrast to some things people don’t like about Magic.  It’s worth reading the whole article (and all of the Marvel news) if you’re interested in trading card game design.

We know that people love a whole slew of different things about trading card games. You might enjoy creating original decks the most, while your buddy digs TCGs for the community. One of the things that I find the most appealing is the simple fun of playing the cards. I mean, actually playing the cards. Not saying “Draw, go,” not having my cards fizzle, and not watching my opponent drag out a combo that requires him to search his deck four times while I wonder if I’ll get to play my first turn. I like to make plays, and see what tactic my opponent will come back with.For all the people out there that came to play, take a look at how Marvel Superstars brings more action to your tabletop than your typical TCG experience.

via Marvel Trading Card Game News Archive.

• you know the sponsors without even thinking Thank You @DNAMail, @Ustream, @WebSpy, @PowerVPS, @Bing.
• Jason has mentioned your name in show more than once.
• you remember the Deadpool.
• you’ve listened to more than one episode in a day.
• you knew Jason was joking about the iPad.
• you have written a review.
• you have multiple comments on this blog.
• you can finish “Like a wheelchair at _________”.
• you know the full version of “Insights from Tyler”.
• you’ve clipped and posted a TWiST video.
• you have called in to “Ask Jason” or “Jason’s Shark Tank”.
• you have been RT by @Jason.
• you have seen all the episodes.

13 total – I’d say we qualify!

via You Know You’re a TWiST Superfan if… | This Week in Startups TWiST.

1. Zynga might copy other games, but it doesn’t matter
2. Zynga’s games might be simple, but it doesn’t matter
3. Zynga might dominate your category, but it doesn’t matter

Zynga might copy other games, but it doesn’t matter

Many (all?) of Zynga’s games are clones or spinoffs of other games that have been successful.  Zynga has the money and talent to develop games quickly (a couple weeks to a couple months) and the money and audience to promote their games into rapid popularity.  So what has happened several times is that another game company will make a game that starts to spread and become popular, then Zynga releases a similar game that blows past the first game in all the important metrics.  Where other games gradually build their way to millions of users, Zynga’s games have hit millions of users in the first few days and tens of millions in the first few weeks.  This has led to many accusations and finger pointing about Zynga ripping off any idea that shows potential.

Does Zynga actually copy other ideas?  I’m not so sure.  Well, I think they probably do but that’s an unsubstantiated opinion, so let’s play devil’s advocate.  First, let’s review the Zynga Minimum Viable Product testing method:

Mark Pincus:  We do something at Zynga that I call “ghetto testing.” I like to take someone who has a gigantic idea, usually a game designer, and they have some gigantic idea that this would just be great…  Maybe they really want a hospital simulation game…

We want to ghetto test it.  Again, we have so many bullets (engineering hours) we can fire, and we’ve got to just treasure and honor our engineers.  If we do our job right, they don’t get burned out.  They have a great life and we have successful products, so that’s what we want.

So I say to the marketing person or the product manager, “Describe it in five words.  It’s built.  If six months from now we built every dream you have, how are you going to market it?  Give me the five words.”

We’ll put that up.  We’ll put up a link for five minutes saying, “Hey!  Do you ever fantasize about running your own hospital?” … We’ll put that up for five minutes, and the link will maybe take you to a survey, where you give us your email and we say when this comes out we’ll contact you. If you’re really doing ghetto, it says ‘404 not found’.  That’s bad.

So first you try to get the heat around it, you see how much do people like it, then…

Once we get to the point of actually building a game, or building a new feature, which we love Bing [Gordon's] idea of golden mechanics.  You should take away and steal it from us, the idea of not a game, but a feature that you can deconstruct and see that this interactive feature – a way to do a gift will drive virality or retention or revenues. So we put it in a feature we can build in a week – it’s a ghetto build we AB test it, we flow test it, we put it out to one percent.

We built a data warehouse with a testing platform so we’re running several hundred tests at any given time for every one of our games.  And no single user has more than one test.

What does this have to do with copying?  Each time they evaluate the idea’s performance, they prune the underperforming ideas.  This means that to get a feel for the number of ideas they test out, you have to take the number of games they publish and back out their pruning rate for each evaluation step.  So let’s say they evaluate at the Google Ad phase, the landing page phase, the two-week prototype phase, and the two month development phase before they put a game into wide release.  Let’s also say they take the top 10% of ideas at each phase.  This means that for every game they release using this funnel, they’ve tested 10,000 ideas, and since they have 20 or so games released right now, they might have tested hundreds of thousands of ideas.  I completely made these numbers up, but if you think they sound unrealistic, remember that over 200,000,000 people play one of their games every month.  That’s Japan + Germany.

So looking at games from a demand perspective rather than a supply perspective, maybe there are only a few dozen game ideas that are fresh, creative, and intriguing enough to have millions of players, and Zynga is likely to find them independently of what the rest of the market does by virtue of their sheer numbers.  Before you tell me how there’s an unlimited range of creative possibilities for games, blah, blah, blah, think about the types of games that are for sale right now.  Running around with a gun, running around with a sword, fighting, abstract puzzles, flying around with guns, social simulations, pretending to play music, what else?  Did I miss any?  This isn’t a knock on game designers, just an argument that whether of not Zynga copies other game companies, they would probably find the hit game themes on their own.

Zynga’s games might be simple, but it doesn’t matter

The next knock against Zynga is that their games are simplistic and the people that play them are dumb (NOTE: I don’t buy this but I’ve heard it a million times).  Texas Hold ‘Em is an exception to this entire point, so don’t bring it up.  But all of the ‘Villes share one common trait:  the only way to lose is to not play as much as possible.  You can get ahead by playing more and paying more.  And what do you get for your time and money?  A pretty fake farm, or a bustling fake restaurant, or a <adjective> fake <fill in the blank>.  You know what’s funny about that?  This criticism comes from people that play “hardcore” video games!  Which reward you with … a cutscene?  An ending animation?  A sense of accomplishment for finishing some arbitrary set of challenges given to you by someone you paid $50 to?  Wow kettle, you are SO black!

Let’s face it, games are about creating emotional experiences.  Hardcore gamers do it for fiero for overcoming some challenge but there are lots of different emotions people get from games (pdf).  While Zynga’s games don’t challenge your cognitive capacity, or reaction times, or teamwork, or much else besides your ability to commit to something and put in the time, those are not the way that the business of games are measured.  Games as a business are measured by how many people keep playing and keep paying.  Video game designers have known for generations that people like accomplishing something and if they feel like there’s more to accomplish, they’ll keep coming back.  This is why the role-playing aspect shows up in so many of social games – it’s easy to add new levels, new items, etc that keep people coming back.  So games like World of Warcraft that provide an almost endless range of items, accomplishments, and experiences make so much more money than shrink-wrapped role playing games that end when you beat the final boss.  Emotional experiences sell.

What does this have to do with Zynga?  Right now, there are hundreds of millions of players that will pay (with attention or money) for simple, satisfying simulations of things they could be doing in real life.  Lots of people like the idea of gardening but fewer want to deal with bugs, dirty fingernails, time commitments in the hours instead of minutes, weeding, etc.  Becoming a farmer is a ridiculously huge commitment to make, but playing one on Facebook gives you a fraction of the satisfaction but without any of the drawbacks.  Ditto for running a restaurant, tending an aquarium, etc.

But what happens when these players wise up and start demanding better gameplay?  Will they leave Zynga games in droves and crash a potential IPO?  That question misses the point – people aren’t demanding gameplay, they’re demanding emotional experiences.  I’d bet my teeth that Pincus and company, in their hundreds of ideas they test, include experiments about experiences that aren’t the current prevailing mood.  For instance, I bet that some users are trying out negative impacts on their farms (pests, cold snaps, etc), some are seeing variable prices for their crops based on a market, etc.  Some things with more challenge, some with more realism, etc.  If any of these starts to take off because of a shift in cultural mood, gaming experience, or whatever, Zynga will be the first to know it and the first to react to it.

To those who think Zynga only makes dumb simulation games, I say they make the games that the largest number of people engage with.  I heard Mark Pincus speak at Startup School and I have no doubt that they’re attacking the simple simulation games because there’s money to be made there, and as gaming tastes and moods shift over time, Zynga will be on top of those trends faster than anyone else.  They’ve got the cash, the talent, the audience, the experience and the drive to ride whatever the biggest wave in consumer gaming.

Zynga might dominate your category, but it doesn’t matter

So Zynga is probably copying successful ideas, and they monitor the best way to monetize current gaming moods.  So if you’re a game developer, there’s a fear that Zynga will steal whatever thunder you have.  If you’re a big publisher like Playfish, yeah, this might be a problem.  Just like being the second biggest publisher of word processing software only worked for a while, being the second biggest social game publisher could end up being a big drag.  So I don’t have any great news for those people.

But for smaller game publishers, you have the opportunity to make a much more personal connection to your players.  If you’re aiming for ultra broad general appeal, you’re vulnerable to getting Zynga’d.  But if you have some niche that not everyone buys into, you can own it and your users will love you.  For instance, instead of a pet simulator, you make the best snake pet simulator.  Most people won’t want to raise a snake, but the snake lovers won’t be able to get enough.  Or hopefully, rather than the 129th swords and wizards themed game, I’m counting on people loving a game that captures the power and creativity of science and technology.  Science might not be the biggest mainstream theme, but I suspect there’s enough interest to build a comfortable business on.  This is all typical Long Tail and Seth Godin stuff that should sound familiar to lots of people.  Do something unique and do an outstanding job at it.  This will protect you from the big bad behemoth who profits from the general interest but is also bound by it.  No matter how big or rich Zynga gets, there will always be new game ideas, old ideas executed in new ways, and too much diversity of interest for one company to monopolize.

In an effort to inspire K-12 students to pursue science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education, as well as careers in the field, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has formed a strategic alliance with FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology), a nonprofit dedicated to building interest in STEM-related education via innovative means.

The cornerstone of the alliance is a pilot program to teach robotics to K-12 students after school. The MIT Alumni Association has said it will leverage its members, many of whom are leaders in the international STEM community, and their extensive contacts in hopes of recruiting many of them as FIRST coaches, mentors, volunteers, and sponsors.

via MIT and FIRST Ally To Encourage STEM Education Careers — Campus Technology.

Dang it, I wish I was 5 years old again!