Dear Tihamer,

Thank you so much for your kind comments and useful criticism.

I agree that science is not the only steering mechanism, but I believe it had the biggest impact on our present progress. For example, the economy of many countries is primarily based on technology, including Japan. In this essay I didn't only discuss how to produce new scientific knowledge more effectively, but also how to apply this knowledge to solve humanity's problems and improve its conditions.

The problem you mention of authors rating each other is a problem in the current peer review system. However, in the current system, new controversial ideas may go unpublished, but if the peer review happens after publishing those ideas will be available for those who appreciate it.

As for publishing negative results, you are right that positive results are more interesting, and that's why most journals don't publish negative results. But that's the point; negative results are useful, at least for those who pursue the same topic, and they must be published. I disagree that boycotting some journals is a problem. Currently there are tens of thousands of journals, boycotting a few hundred is not that difficult.

I agree that environmental and sustainability problems might not be the biggest problems, but they are very important, and science is the key to solve them. We seem to disagree about the meaning of "sustainability"; it is not the same as "going green", sustainable development means "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."[scientific American] Thus, it includes agriculture, economy,...

You are right that it is a bit idealistic to think that governments will follow scientists, but who do you think are in power? They are the people not the government.

Finally, I would like to thank you again for your encouraging words, and valuable comments.

Best regards,

Mohammed

Very nice essay and a future where science and technology have solutions for humanity is a very desirable one. But science and technology also may have possible futures that bring new problems for humanity as well, and you do not talk about those possible futures very much.

You mention science literacy as important for the public, but for most of humanity, science is simply a vague notion that somehow brings technology like cell phones and dvd players and computers. Unless it somehow affects a person's survival, whether or not one believes that the earth moves or that ancient aliens built the pyramids or that meditation in a cave brings enlightenment does not really matter.

Without denying that science and technology are important, is equally important to acknowledge that humanity needs more than just science for its future. There are more fundamental drivers for humanity than science and belief in a purpose in my mind is actually much more important for humanity's future than science per se. Hhumanity needs purpose to find its way to destiny and you are well on your way...

    Hi Steve,

    Thank you for your comments.

    You are right that science and technology may bring new problems for humanity, but I would rather be optimistic and think that in the future humanity will be more responsible about how to use science.

    I agree that to many people science is a mysterious thing, but that should change if more importance is to be given to science. Scientific and technological innovations will be the key to the survival of humanity in face of its global problems.

    I didn't say that science is the only factor for humanity's progress, but I believe it is the most important one. Purpose is important of course; it is the fist step in accomplishing anything, but science tell us what to do and how. For example, protecting the environment is a purpose, but science and technology provide the actual methods of doing so.

    best regards,

    Mohammed

    Mohammed,

    Thanks for your earlier comments on my essay, "Back to the Future". I finally found time to start reading some of the other contributions to the contest. I enjoyed your essay and agree with most of your suggestions. I couldn't help feeling, though, that it was a little difficult to keep them all in mind at the same time. I wonder if you perceive a common thread or theme running through all of the concrete proposals you make? Many of them pertain in some way to education or collaboration or cooperation, but I wondered how you would boil the list down to its "essence"...

    Best,

    Travis

      Fantastic essay! I may turn a quote of yours "...nature is a whole that recognizes no disciplinary boundaries" into a poster and put it on my wall.

      Totally agree with your point: "..in 2013 the US spent only $2 billion on clean energy R&D, compared with $72 billion on defense R&D"- this is obscene. We Americans really don't know what real "defense" spending in the 21st century should mean, which is dealing with the man made and human threats to global society.

      Love that you brought up the MIT Media lab. I originally had them in my own essay, but had to cut that section do to length requirements.

      One group I wish you might have mentioned were ethicists.I think it's important to get them into the design process when it comes to new technology.

      Not to stereotype, but I've read a bit about the golden age of science in the Islamic world, thinkers such as Al- Farabi, Ibn al-Haytham and Ibn S墨n膩 who set

      the stage for the scientific revolution in the West. Bringing this science back to that area would be the greatest benefit to both the Islamic world and larger humanity.

      Best of luck in the contest!

      Rick

        Travis,

        Thank you for the comment. I agree that the essay discussed many topics, but they all are about how to increase the rate of scientific and technological advances in order to solve humanity's problems and reach a better future. Those topics can be classified as follows:

        1) Basic themes of science and technology that are gaining more importance (interdisciplinarity - new specializations - big projects - relation between science and technology)

        2) Improving some academic aspects of science(peer review - negative results - reproducible research - managing research literature - multiple research approaches)

        3) Applying science and technology to solve humanity's problems (encouraging innovation in global problems - increasing the role of scientists in global decisions)

        4) Increasing the number of scientists and engineers and providing better atmosphere for science and technology (empowering all humanity to participate - improving education - raising the public understanding of science)

        Best regards,

        Mohammed

        Hi Rick,

        Thank you for your kind and encouraging comments. I am really glad you liked my essay.

        You are right about the importance of ethics. I believe ethicists will gain even more importance in the future with the new advances in science and technology, especially biotechnology.

        I am glad you know about science in the Islamic world. I do wish we could regain our place in the world through science.

        Thanks again, and good luck to you too.

        Mohammed

        Mohammed,

        A truly masterful essay identifying and well describing a comprehensive range of related issues and some solutions. I agree with all including; The need for innovation and major advancement of science, inter- or cross 'discipline' work, better teaching methods, information overload, new peer review and publication methods and inclusivity of access. Top marks for those. However;

        There are two major dichotomies therein which you don't address. 1) Due to volume of submissions truly innovative and groundbreaking work is automatically 'bounced off' and rejected by the present system even before review however good or important as being too 'different' to doctrine. Only those from 'big names' or universities may penetrate. Drexler's message (K Eric!?) is ignored so inclusivity has seriously reduced, more seriously slowing advancement.

        2) is scientific. You laud SR and QM but they themselves remain incompatible. Time itself is different. I propose logical unification is simple but will not now penetrate published science as interpretations require modifying. i.e. beliefs must be dropped. No editor now dares. Such a model may end up with say 3 top ten scores in a row in this contest yet not even get to review in a major journal (i.e. see 2nd last yr.). I agree the way we teach and think is the problem, but would your suggestions really overcome that?

        I hope you read my essay, deriving QM from a classical mechanism with 'cross discipline' implications for SR allowing convergence. I tried to make it entertaining. The ability to think beyond boxes and planets is needed but only scant 'knowledge' of QM (do ask if anything's not clear). The broad implications should bring no less than a new Copernican revolution in understanding.

        My 2011 essay '2020 Vision' estimated how long to 1st penetration, but was optimistic. Dozens of papers have bounced instantly so far. I applaud your view but feel it may now be too late, so revolutionary not evolutionary change may soon be needed. Views?

        Best wishes

        Peter

          Peter,

          Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging comments. I am glad you liked my essay.

          I agree that in the current publication system, new controversial ideas may go unpublished, but if peer review happens after publishing those ideas will be available for those who appreciate them.

          Thank you for mentioning your essays, I will read them as soon as possible.

          Best regards,

          Mohammed

          Dear Mohammed,

          Thanks for your essay. I agree in every point. And even better you provide makeable solutions! You earn a high score. Maybe I don't fully agree, that science and specifically technology can provide the solutions of the most urgent problems. Many problems are man made and are of structural nature. But also there science might help to enable us to steer the future.

          Thanks again,

          Luca

            Dear Luca,

            Thank you for your kind comment. I am glad you agree with me.

            Best regards,

            Mohammed

            Mohammed,

            I completely agree with you when you say that, since we cannot predict future scientific discoveries (as opposed to "mere" technological improvements), the best we can do is to try to make the process of science the most effective possible.

            I believe as you do that "university departments should give periodic talks on the problems they are working on to stimulate discussions with researchers from other disciplines, thus opening the possibility of interdisciplinary collaborations". I also agree that we should try to find a better way to peer-review papers, to publish negative results, and to stimulate the reproduction of research findings.

            When I was a graduate student, I deplored the fact that not enough effort was being spent toward the summary and review of already existing research, so I naturally agree with what you propose in section 3.8 (Managing Research Literature). In academia, the job of full-time researcher exists, but not the job of full-time "synthesizer and reviewer", and it is unfortunate.

            Of course, I particularly like your arguments about education, in sections 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14, since they resonate with my ideas about a worldwide futurocentric education initiative! You are quite right when you say that "efforts through the internet should not focus on scienti c news, but on established scienti c facts in short articles containing images and videos". I think this is starting to happen, with YouTube channels like Veritasium and MinutePhysics, and a successful futurocentric education initiative will certainly have to use this approach.

            I have looked at all the essays, and read more than half of them from start to finish. I believe that it is important that your essay makes it to the finals, and I have rated it accordingly. Good luck!

            Marc

              Hi Marc,

              Thank you so much for your kind and encouraging comments. I am really glad that you liked my essay and that you agree with me.

              I think your idea of a full-time "synthesizer and reviewer" is important, but I do not think that many graduate students would review only, instead of doing original research. Thank you for mentioning the YouTube channels Veritasium and MinutePhysics; I find them very interesting.

              Thanks again for the comment and the rating,

              Mohammed

              Marc, I accidentally replied in a separate comment below. Sorry about that.

              Mohammed,

              I enjoyed your essay. It was a pleasure to read. Science can help, and it should be nurtured.

              I think your optimism is catching.

              Don Limuti

                Hi Don,

                Thank you so much for your kind comment. I read your essay and I agree with you that improving education and enabling everyone to get a good education is extremely important for humanity's progress and for a better future.

                Best regards,

                Mohammed

                Mohammed,

                Thanks for this fact-filled, well written review of the state of science! You are a visionary, and your article is highly publishable regardless of any contest outcome. I hope your essay gets the visibility it deserves.

                My own contribution echoes your emphasis on education and inter-disciplinary cooperation.

                Best,

                Tom

                  Hi Tom,

                  Thank you for your encouraging comments. I skimmed your essay and there are indeed some similarities between our essays. I will read it and tell you my opinion.

                  Best regards,

                  Mohammed

                  Dear Mohammed,

                  I gladly join the list. Your essay is very well written, and dense with references to concrete facts and percentages, which makes it solid and persuasive. Good and easily digested food for the reader!

                  A note of psychological character about your idea to publish negative results. While I see your point, I can imagine a number of circumstances in which I would personally tend not to believe the negative result (as well as the positive ones), until I try it out myself. I find that often the strategies for attacking a problem are so many that, by taking an alternative perspective, the positive result may pop out. Of course, this may not be equally valid for any area of science.

                  And I totally agree on the importance of having scientists take active part to political activities and decisions - not merely consultative. This is particularly crucial in my country (Italy), where recent interviews and reports have exposed the dramatic ignorance of a high percentage of our politicians. The problem, however, is to find enough scientists willing devote a serious portion of their time to these non-scientific activities. Making science is much more fun.

                  Best regards,

                  Tommaso

                    • [deleted]

                    • Post #46

                    Dear Tommaso,

                    Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging comments.

                    I totally agree with you that we should always question published results, and think of alternative methods and strategies. However, it's hard, or even impossible, for anyone to check everything they read; that's why reproducing research results and publishing them is very important.

                    I also agree that not many scientists would be willing to spend their time on non-scientific activities; that why we should discuss the importance of this issue and encourage more scientists to participate. Scientists should know it's their responsibility to use their knowledge to help the society.

                    Best regards,

                    Mohammed