Gone are the days when undergraduate students learned theory without the opportunity to practice and apply the lessons learned. Today, more and more students are attracted to, and inspired by, solving real world problems and learning by inventing; many who stick with this are then also learning by deploying (innovating).
While I’m sure there are similar courses offered at other universities, two courses at MIT that empower students to address real-life problems come to mind immediately: Amy Smith’s “Development Lab” (D-Lab) and Jhonatan Rotberg’s “NextLab”. It is interesting to note that Amy and Jhonatan are both lecturers, not professors.
D-Lab and NextLab are comprised of a multi-semester series of experiences that empower students to collaboratively work with local partners to identify and address challenges of poverty and quality of life in developing countries. In the classroom, field and lab students develop an appreciation for cultures, capacity building, sustainability, the design process, technology, and the realities of deployment. New ventures – non-profit, for-profit, social enterprise – may result from the students’ work.
These classes are constantly oversubscribed and attract students from across MIT’s schools and area universities, including Harvard. The amazing interchange between people with different experiences and knowledge is rife with inventive potential and perspectives. Competitions specifically geared towards designing products for those who don’t fall within the wealthiest 10% of consumers (“Design for the other 90%”) and those with development tracks are on the rise at universities.
Learning by inventing and learning by innovating are the future of education. For the U.S. to remain economically competitive, it is imperative that more students enter technology fields. Universities, colleges and high schools should embrace the “learning by inventing” approach and respond to students’ interest to help those living on less than US$2/day. Isn’t it our responsibility to give students the tools to tackle the real challenges of today’s – and tomorrow’s – world?
Last month I visited TechShop in Portland, OR. For those not familiar with TechShop, imagine a machine shop with a start-up incubator culture operating under a fitness club membership structure.
If you’re a recently laid-off engineer with a great idea, a garage inventor who doesn’t own a specific piece of equipment, a woodworking hobbyist who wants to compare notes on patterns with other woodworkers, or even a teenager who wants to tinker; TechShop may just be the perfect fit.
My tour of the TechShop was impressive. In addition to the diversity of tools and equipment available to members, I was shown the future homes of a retail shop where members could purchase materials and sell their creations, classrooms which had already been booked by local schools and other groups, and an event space for product demos to potential investors.
While TechShops aren’t touted as the innovation solution during these tough economic times, they certainly are a point of light – a terrific outlet for creative and entrepreneurial folks to work and network with one another – and something is bound to pop.
With three locations – the original in Menlo Park (CA), Portland (OR), and Durham (NC) – I have only one question: when can we expect them to expand to New England?
I continue to be inspired by teens – the desire of youth to make the world a better place is gratifying, and what’s even more refreshing is their capacity for real action and air of optimism.
Clearly, we need more adults engaged as mentors for our youth, especially in educational settings. The need for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) role models is especially acute. It’s crucial that these role models are relevant and accessible – through the media and direct interaction – and so not to be too discouraging at the front-end of the STEM bottleneck, the role models and examples we use shouldn’t be the over-achievers to which we typically turn. They should be you and me.
Just last week, the Lemelson-MIT Program announced the results of The Invention Index, an informal survey to gauge the country’s perceptions of invention and innovation. This year we asked U.S. teens about why they would pursue a career in the STEM fields – areas central to invention – and were humbled by how much teens are motivated by altruism over materialism. Of the teens who expressed interest in these fields (85 percent!), more than half (56 percent) identified “protecting the environment” or “improving our society” as their inspiration; only 18 percent stated that STEM was of-interest so they could become rich or famous.
This is great news. However, well over half of the teens said that they lack STEM mentors and role models and some said they didn’t know anyone in the STEM field.
This need must be addressed. I urge you to volunteer as a STEM mentor in your community. How to start? Ask your company’s community relations group or your alma mater about opportunities. Or, simply pick-up the phone and call a local school or afterschool program.
With opportunity, inspiring role models, and the encouragement of teachers and mentors, young people will continue to think and do amazing things.
Not surprisingly, amazing things happen when groups of inventive people congregate. Edison was able to accomplish so many great things, through trial and error and with the help of other inventors in his lab.
While modern-day labs like Edison’s – where brilliantly creative engineers and scientists perform basic research in search of the next killer app – still bring many innovations to the world, they have sadly been somewhat diminished as of late. Consider Xerox PARC, Bell Labs, and IBM Research – all amazing centers with outstanding records of invention (e.g.: Ethernet, TDMA/CDMA digital telephone technology, hard disks). There are exceptions of course – many small-size enterprises exist solely as creative “do tanks,” and large companies like Google are known for their creative-thinking workforce. Wikipedia lists a number of research and development organizations including those mentioned above and others of past, present, and hopefully future fame.
What was and is unique about these labs is the people – the diversity of human knowledge and the rich interactions that result in an environment of openness fueled by the desire to find novel ideas and approaches. Where do most of us experience this form of stimulation and exchange? Conferences. Think about TED, PopTech!, or Maker Faire. Imagine what could be accomplished if conferences were places of work! The gatherings of Intellectual Ventures (oh, to be a fly on the wall at those!) are the most advanced example I can think of today. I highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell’s New Yorker piece “In the Air” about Intellectual Ventures.
I recently attended a Boston conference worth noting for the diversity of people and thought – IDEAS Boston. IDEAS featured presentations ranging from space-suit development to reverse auctions to scientist/artist collaborations to the educational uses of Second Life. Can gatherings such as this help the current generation of inventors make “commitments” or identify opportunities to advance innovation? If there are constructs to bring ideas to the next level and people open to thinking in different ways, absolutely.
Given the historic U.S. Presidential election that is now only hours away, I thought it appropriate to take a cursory look at how Senators John McCain and Barack Obama view invention, entrepreneurship, and specifically innovations that are vital to helping our society address the most pressing challenge of our time: climate change. What do I mean by climate change? Let’s go with the most straightforward definition: changes in the planet’s average temperatures as a result of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 is one of the “greenhouse” gases.
Both candidates, with the exception of CO2 trading which sometimes involves other countries, approach climate change from a unilateral and mostly economic perspective. True, a U.S. environmental technology revolution would lead to more companies and jobs operating from home, in turn slowing climate change overall. However, impact on climate change would depend on other countries’ adaptation of U.S. technologies.
As a bit of background, in the past we responded to calls to unite the country in support of America in the space race (Sputnik) and the development of the atom bomb (the Manhattan Project). A similar call now would be helpful in combating climate change on some levels and would undoubtedly lead to the development of technologies and companies, but what we really need is a multilateral approach that engages nearly everyone on the same side working for the same outcome: preventing climate change. Imagine a world in which all nations collaboratively ramp-up their research & development in these industries – a global sustainable innovation initiative. This is not the time to go it alone. This is not the time – even post Wall Street bailout – to put the economy before innovations that could save the planet.
Let’s take a quick look at what Obama’s perspective is in regards to innovation, technology, entrepreneurship, and the environment...
Obama believes that innovation will come from large-scale investment ($150B over 10 years from the proceeds of a Carbon auction) in the private sector. That’s certainly reasonable. But what is the nature of this investment? Research into alternative fuels, more fuel-efficient vehicles and carbon sequestration, retooling of manufacturing facilities, retraining the existing manufacturing workforce and returning war veterans for green jobs, and introducing youth to potential careers in home weatherization and energy efficiency are all included.
This plan has the potential to bring together people from diverse backgrounds to work on the common challenge of climate change. Machinists, PhD’s, and youth just out of high school could all be part of the solution. I can even see our education system – which I’ll discuss in subsequent posts – charged with producing youth with a global perspective and the tools to creatively tackle real-world problems. Diverse experiences lead to diverse ways of thinking and unique approaches to challenges. If only it involved people globally, like climate change.
At the Lemelson-MIT Program we recognize that transgressive thinking (see page nine of our NSF-sponsored Report of the Committee for Study of Invention) – creatively applying what you know about field x to a problem in field n - can be the root which allows one to jump to an invention and leads to innovation. Consider the transgressive thinking behind the Dyson® vacuum (the phenomenon of centrifugal force applied to a household appliance) or James McLurkin’s robotic swarm (bee behavior programmed into robots which could someday explore Mars.) These innovations show that level of education is not what limits creativity or inventiveness, rather it is one’s ability to think ”out of the box”.
While Obama’s overall portfolio to combat climate change is impressive, in the next twenty-five years the scale needed to meet our energy demands and reduce the amount of CO2 currently being released goes far beyond our borders. Even at the most efficient output levels – above the best results scientists have achieved in the lab – and most favorable Carbon sequestration results, we will not be able to cost-effectively generate enough clean energy from renewable sources (solar, wind, water, geothermal, nuclear, and bio-fuels) to slow our CO2 emissions without a ridiculous ramp-up that would make Donald Trump quake in his boots.
If we wanted 3% of our energy to come from bio-fuels, for example, we would need to dedicate an area roughly equivalent to some of our larger states to be a pool of algae, and build a new Olympic size swimming pool of algae every second until 2033. If we wanted nuclear power to provide 20% of our energy we would have to build one nuclear power plant every week for the next twenty-five years.
Now let’s move-on to an overview of John McCain’s take on innovation, technology, entrepreneurship, and the environment...Like Obama, McCain is focused on the U.S. and plans to use domestic market mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, spur innovation and strengthen the U.S. economy – permit auction proceeds will fund research, development, and deployment of a diverse portfolio of U.S.-focused technology initiatives ranging from carbon capture and sequestration, to nuclear power, to battery development. Again, well-intentioned. McCain’s and Obama’s plans are fairly similar, though McCain seems to have forgotten one of the most important resources for combating climate change: people. I must have missed McCain’s mention of retraining the workforce and a green corps.
Obama introduces the idea of a Global Energy Forum to bring together the world’s worst CO2 emitters to address global energy and environmental issues – which could be the role of the U.N. – McCain consistently talks about securing our country’s energy future. In my mind this conjures-up the image of U.S. soldiers patrolling oil fields far from home.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention vehicle fuel-efficiency. While Obama has issued an 150 mpg goal for “made in the USA” plug-in hybrids by 2015 and the folks at X-Prize recently launched a 100 mpg challenge, I wonder if either is setting the bar high enough. Granted we’re also talking infrastructural changes, but didn’t a French automotive company, Citroen, manufacture a car in the 1940’s that got ~78 mpg?
We need to reduce our energy demands (which will reduce CO2 emissions and slow climate change) and speed-up collaborative, global innovation or risk massive species loss and more serious water shortages than we’re already facing. Which of our candidates can most readily adapt his approach to be more successful in my mind? I know who I’m voting for tomorrow, do you?
(special thanks to SG for his energy scaling insights and humor)
