What problems should science be working on?

good stuff! it's interesting that a couple of the scientists quoted debunked some concepts that I thought were still issues. Like: DDT is bad and our resources for energy are limited....

Now I'm still curious as to why they think DDT is not bad....

I love Alison. I've met Alison. (Well, OK, if you want to split hairs, I was all set to meet Alison but I was sick and couldn't go and hubby met her instead. But I have a book with an inscription from her to me.) I LOVE this:



I really think this is huge -- we complain and complain about schools, but a child's first five years are incredibly important in terms of cognitive development.

I like the "National Discovery Center" idea, too.

Tried to look at the article but it required a registration which I didn't want to do. I didn't want to make a foolish comment without reading the article first.

I try to avoid registration also, but that does not stop me from guessing the content of the link and looking foolish. My guess is society should find a way to reward companies whose products far out last the useful life of competing products. I think a 100 times improvement may be possible on some common products. This would greatly reduce our consumption of non-renewable resources and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Neil

I don't think the submitter was saying it wasn't bad. Just that the immediate threat to human health from DDT was over-hyped.

but, on the list needs to be a real alternative fuel source that is 100% renewable and non-polluting (i.e. solar or something similar) and something maybe not so scientific - a philosophy program that can keep pace with our scientific advances. IMO, the advances are coming to fast for the ethical and moral implications to be coherently sorted through right now.

There are some bad aspects to most everything including DDT. Many would argue that the good outweighs the bad. A million early human death's may have occurred in third world countries, because we have not yet found an insecticide that kills disease carrying insects as cheaply and as effectively as DDT. The more costly and less effective pesticides also have bad properties. Neil

Materials science should find something better than modern plastic, as it's made from fossil fuel, produces toxins when burnt and lasts for thousands of years when buried. Something cheaper made from seaweed or cellulose would be much more environmentally-friendly.

Hi Grand Duke: It may be possible to harvest sea weed large scale for $100 per ton dry weight, but removing most of the water might cost more than $100 per ton. Also the envirnmentalists would have fits about the small and microscopic organisms that live in seaweed. Energy from biomass using seaweed has some successful pilot plants if I remember correctly.
One of the first plastics to hit the market was celluloid = nitrocellulose, but it burns almost as fiercely as gun cotton.
Does anyone know how bakelite was made? My old CRC handbook lists about a dozen cellulose compounds. Some are likely to be similar to plastic, but deteriorate above about 300 degrees f.
The tiles on the space shuttle have some marvelous properties and so does Airogel, the raw materials are rock and cheap, if a way to purify and fabricate at low cost can be devised. I hope some generous R&D grants have been awarded.
I've heard that some new varieties of pressboard tolerate water as well as traditional lumber. Can any one confirm? Neil

The article in question is posted here without registration:

Today's Visions of the Science of Tomorrow

Thanks for the link Jer: I liked the plasma engine. I picture a microwave oven on steroids. We keep dumping in trash and garbage which gets heated to about a million degrees c = 1.8 million degrees f and the high speed plasma is aimed by magnetic fields so that it is reaction mass with very high specific impulse. If that is workable, how close are we to a pilot model? Is that how the USSR particle beam weapon works? Neil

Neil,

I'm just good at getting info...don't know anything about this newfangled stuff

Cheers,

-Jer-

I really wish more sources would include details with the generalities.
To track asteroids we have missed so far and to get very precise data on the orbits, my guess is we need the equivalent of the Hubble telescope in solar orbit instead of LEO = low Earth orbit. Neil

I like laser arrays in solar orbit. These can change the orbit of an asteroid likely to hit Earth, by heating a small spot on the asteroid (or comet) The vaporized material streaming out of the depression would be reaction mass/same principle as a jet or rocket engine. Does any one think lasers can produce a small illuminated spot at a range of 10 million miles if there is no air to scatter the beam? The smaller the spot; the more efficiently the asteroid is propelled by the laser beam. Neil

I liked the concept of using computer games to teach. I have a Civilization III game that teaches a simple "History of the World' very crudely, but it does teach while it is interesting to play.

Many computer games require development of hand eye coordination and encourage ability to make split second tactical decisions. But many others are actually complex puzzles requiring development of problem solving skills.

Why couldn't there be computer games that taught how to repair a computer or television set while the game was played? Why couldn't a computer game make learning and applying mathematical or scientific concepts part of the process to achieve the goal? To encourage students to read, a teacher could inform the class that the next week's test would be to successfully complete a computer game that would require a detailed knowledge of MacBeth or The Great Depression or Medieval Europe.