Across the hall a different group focused on understanding mechanisms of hearing, using whatever means. Following a grass-is-greener logic, in grad school that approach seemed incredibly attractive to me but has its own challenges.

These ideas also apply to startups (or innovation in any company). The ideal is to have a product that meets a demonstrated unmet need, so the solution (technology) and problem (market need) meet in the middle. But if you’re just beginning the innovation process, do you prefer starting with the solution or the problem?

©2011 . All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Hard vs. soft solutions: the retinal prosthesis
2. Risk-taking in pharma vs. venture capital
3. Natural technology evolution vs. failed innovation

Everyone agrees that microfluidics has taken longer to commercialize than expected. Mandel’s article defines a problem (an innovation shortfall) but doesn’t propose any solutions, other than waiting for the technologies to mature. Rotman takes a different tack, explaining the slow pace of microfluidics commercialization using W. Brian Arthur’s theories of technology evolution. I wonder if Arthur’s ideas could be used to identify areas where the innovation process could be optimized, similar to the approach that Eric Ries has taken in creating the Lean Startup movement in software. Can we speed up the process of technology evolution?

©2011 . All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. What determines the pace of commercialization?
2. Dec 1st CIMIT Forum: Life Science Innovation

Why academia goes DIY
While most of the media coverage on DIY science has focused on amateurs, there’s actually a lot of DIY-style science happening in academic labs. Why would “real” researchers go the DIY route? When you’re trying to develop a novel technology, in some sense everything you do is DIY, since you can’t buy the finished product off the shelf. Of course, academic labs usually have access to expensive equipment, machine shops or cleanrooms that make it easier to build custom devices from scratch. Even so, it’s common for academic labs to use “quick-and-dirty” methods to save money and time. Such enabling methods can sometimes constitute an innovation on their own — look no further than Michelle Khine’s Shrinky Dink microfluidic patterning.

Cheap, readily-available DIY-style methods can also facilitate the creation of low-cost technologies for the developing world. For example, both George Whitesides and Paul Yager have pointed out the potential power of the smartphone as a part of low-cost diagnostic measurement and communication systems.

What will be the products of the new DIY science?
What motivates people to pursue DIY science and technology in their homes?  Is the computer science field a valid model for what might happen as other types of technology become more accessible? The word “biohacker” has already crossed over — will a biohacker culture emerge, and how might it affect mainstream science and technology development? I can’t wait to see what happens with the DIYbio movement — meanwhile I’ll be thinking about DIY microfluidics.

For more on DIY science and technology:

• Eric Paulos’s work on the rise of the expert amateur
• The DIYbio organization
• Thoughtful post by Andrew Maynard of 2020science discussing the ethics of synthetic biology and biohackers
• Hugh Rienhoff sequenced his daughter’s DNA: story from Wired
• www.evilmadscientist.com has developed such gems as the Bristlebot, a DIY robot you can make in 5 minutes with $3 worth of parts

©2011 . All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Tracking science news across the web
2. Natural technology evolution vs. failed innovation

Some research has inherent public appeal. Such was the case with a paper that came out in Analytical Chemistry in September. The paper was evocatively titled “Material Degradomics: on the Smell of Old Books” and described using the volatile degradation products from old books as a way to diagnose how the books are decomposing, to aid in preservation. What happens when a paper like this enters the world of Web 2.0? A quick internet search revealed the following:

• September 17, 2009: Original Analytical Chemistry paper “Material Degradomics: On the Smell of Old Books” published on the web. Realizing how cool it is, Analytical Chemistry runs a commentary on the paper.
• November 10, 2009: At 1am, scientificblogging.com covers the story. The blogosphere bursts with new posts on the paper.  Why now?
• November 12, 2009: History Today Magazine blogs it , @history_geek tweets the History Today post, science communication guru Tim Jones (@physicus) retweets. I retweet.
• December 3, 2009: The LA Times picks it up as a health blog post
• December 5, 2009: Cory Doctorow blogs it on BoingBoing
• December 7, 2009: Freakonomics blogs it in the New York Times, linking to the LA Times piece

I’m sure someone must have blogged or Tweeted this story between September 17th and November 10th, but a brief search hasn’t turned up anything yet. It’s notable that prominent blogs BoingBoing and Freakonomics still deemed the item newsworthy over two months after it originally appeared–perhaps a testament to the increasingly niche and fractionated readerships who may not have heard the story yet.  I’d love to see a more thorough analysis on how this information was transmitted and spread through the web–when does the peak occur, and why? What is the pattern of transmission?

As of December 11th, the original Analytical Chemistry paper and commentary were among the top 5 most-read Analytical Chemistry papers within the past month. I’m curious to see how long they stay there.

Article

Material Degradomics: On the Smell of Old Books

• Abstract
• Full Text HTML
• Hi-Res PDF[395 KB]
• PDF w/ Links[192 KB]

Matija Strli*^†, Jacob Thomas^‡, Tanja Trafela^§, Linda Csfalvayov^†, Irena Kralj Cigi^§, Jana Kolar and May Cassar^†

©2011 . All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Science In the News – a Harvard seminar series
2. A new era for DIY science

Enter the Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE), a peer-reviewed, Pubmed-indexed video journal publishing biological research. While there are many online microfluidics videos, they tend to display results, not methods. JoVE is different because its main purpose is to demonstrate how protocols are performed. Since JoVE began publishing in 2006, a number of high-profile labs have appeared in the journal, including stem cell researchers from Kevin Eggan’s lab and George Daley’s lab (see the beautiful trituration technique!), as well as microfluidics work from several groups. Most of the videos are viewable to subscribers only, although a 1-day free trial is available. Explore over 25 videos related to microfluidics/bioengineering, including:

• Platelet Adhesion and Aggregation Under Flow using Microfluidic Flow Cells (2009) Note that this video has free access because it is sponsored by Fluxion Biosciences who is promoting its BioFlux system
• A Multi-compartment CNS Neuron-glia Co-culture Microfluidic Platform (2009)
• Interview with Catherine Klapperich (2008) on disposable diagnostics
• How to pattern embryonic stem cells using the BioFlipChip (2007) by Nikhil Mittal and Stephanie Flavin of the Voldman lab

In some of the earlier videos (e.g. from 2007) it’s hard to see all of the steps clearly (a serious drawback), but recent videos seem to have improved significantly, with more close-ups and better editing. I’d be interested to hear people’s thoughts on JoVE and other forms of scientific video communication. Check it out!

©2011 . All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. MIT OpenCourseWare on BioMEMS
2. NIH Draft Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research: one more week to comment
3. A new era for DIY science

For 45 years, the Technology and Culture Forum at MIT has been looking at how technology shapes and is shaped by society, covering topics ranging from food to filmmaking to war. For this Thursday, they’ve organized a forum on scientific social responsibility with renowned stem-cell researcher George Daley, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and Ph.D. in oceanography Katharine Jefferts Schori, and David Urion, Associate Professor of Neurology and Director of the Division of Service Learning, Harvard Medical School:

• What: The Social Responsibility of the Scientist
• When: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 7-9pm
• Where: MIT campus, Building 10, Room 250 (click for map)

For more on technology, culture, and scientific social responsibility:

• Check out the audio archives of the Technology and Culture Forum
• MIT course 21A.340J / STS.075J Technology and Culture: available on OpenCourseware
• Watch a video on technology and culture on MITWorld

©2011 . All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Dec 1st CIMIT Forum: Life Science Innovation
2. Screening of Coma with author Robin Cook
3. Science In the News – a Harvard seminar series

• What: CIMIT Forum on Investing in Life Science Innovation
• When: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 4:00-6:00 PM
• Where: Massachusetts General Hospital, Richard B. Simches Research Center, Room 3110, 185 Cambridge St, Boston, Massachusetts

If you can’t make the talk, make sure to check out the CIMIT video archives in a few weeks.

Edited December 7, 2009: Videos now up on the CIMIT Forum Blog! (thanks to Mike Young of CIMIT)

©2011 . All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Science In the News – a Harvard seminar series
2. Dec 3rd: The Social Responsibility of the Scientist
3. Natural technology evolution vs. failed innovation

The figure below plots the number of papers found on PubMed published in cancer nanotechnology in the last 15 years, showing a steady increase in the amount of research. (The 2009 numbers are counted to date and underestimate the total number of papers that will be published this year.)

I think it’s fantastic that nanotech is being applied to cancer, but all this activity made me wonder why medical nanotechnology development has concentrated on cancer when there are other diseases that could also benefit from more selective therapies. How much of the research boom has been due to higher NIH funding for cancer compared with other disease areas? How much is attributable to specific funding programs aimed at cancer nanotechnology that emerged since the founding of the Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer in 2004? Or maybe the boom isn’t related solely to funding—maybe the state of scientific knowledge about cancer was simply ready for the technology, more so than in other areas. Maybe research was fueled in part by the momentum of the idea or a feeling of safety in following the herd. From the graph above, the interest in cancer nanomedicine seems to have steadily increased, with no notable spikes in any particular year.

Whatever the reason for the upsurge in activity, it remains to be seen how cancer nanotechnology will perform over the next few years.  Abraxane seems to be doing well so far–successes in cancer nanotechnology could lead to nanomedicine in other disease areas.

For more on nanoparticles in cancer:

• Videos from the 2008 Koch Institute Nanotechnology and Cancer Symposium
• National Cancer Institute’s Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer
• PBS NOVA profile of Naomi Halas’s work on cancer nanotechnology

©2011 . All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Taking risks in research: the NIH grant process
2. Future old wives’ tales of health and sickness

Our mission is to examine the science behind the media reports we hear everyday, to delve a little deeper into the science and bring that information to you so you might better distinguish scientific fact from pure speculation.

Logistics for attending a seminar:

Our evening seminar series is free to the public. No registration is necessary, just show up! In our seminars we aim to discuss today’s hottest scientific topics. Each seminar consists of three presentations; an introductory science lecture, a presentation about the recent research or innovations in this area, and a discussion of the ethical or social ramifications of this research. Our seminars are interactive, so feel free to come and ask questions at any point during our seminars!

If you’re like me, you’re probably tired of hearing about swine flu by now, but this seminar is an opportunity to take your questions live, talking with scientists as well as discussing with members of the community.  Check out SITN’s website for a listing of more talks throughout the fall/winter, on a range of topics including synthetic life, green cars, autoimmune disease, and agricultural genetics.

If you aren’t in the Boston area or can’t make one of the talks, the SITN website provides slides (pdf) and audio (mp3) recordings of past seminars.

©2011 . All Rights Reserved.

Related posts:

1. Dec 1st CIMIT Forum: Life Science Innovation
2. Tracking science news across the web
3. Dec 3rd: The Social Responsibility of the Scientist