Innovation" is the key word in scientific achievement

"How curiosity begat Curiosity" Scientific breakthroughs come from investing in science education and basic research. By: Ahmed Zewail, August 19th, 2012, Los Angeles Times
On Aug. 5, I was among those who witnessed the rover Curiosity landing on Mars in real time at NASA's Caltech-managed Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The excitement was overwhelming: The one-ton Mars Science Laboratory broke through the Red Planet's atmosphere, slowed its speed from 13,000 mph to almost zero and touched down. One glimpse of those first images from more than 100 million miles away demonstrated America's leadership in innovation. Curiosity — the rover and the concept — is what science is all about: the quest to reveal the unknown. America's past investment in basic science and engineering, and its skill at nurturing the quest, is what led to the Mars triumph, and it is what undergirds U.S. leadership in today's world. But now, decreases in science funding and increases in its bureaucracy threaten that leadership position. After World War II, scientific research in the U.S. was well supported. In the 1960s, when I came to America, the sky was the limit, and this conducive atmosphere enabled many of us to pursue esoteric research that resulted in breakthroughs and Nobel prizes. American universities were magnets to young scientists and engineers from around the globe. The truth is that no one knew then what the effect of that research would be; no one could have predicted and promised all that resulted. After all, it is unpredictability that is the fabric of discovery. In much of academia today, however, curiosity-driven research is no longer looked on favorably. Research proposals must specifically address the work's "broad relevance to society" and provide "transformative solutions" even before research begins. Professors are writing more proposals chasing less research money, which reduces the time available for creative thinking. And with universities facing rising costs generally, professors are more and more involved in commercial enterprises, which may not always push basic research forward. Even faculty tenure may be driven less by how good one is at science than how good one is at fundraising. These constraints and practices raise the question: Would a young Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman or Linus Pauling be attracted to science today? Would they be able to pursue their inquiries into fundamental questions? A generation ago, at the same time that government was supporting curiosity-based research, so was U.S. industry. One of the jewels was Bell Labs, where fundamental research was so advanced that it used to be said that it was "the best university in America." Bell Labs employed some of the world's leading scientists and engineers, and collectively they made pioneering contributions, from the discovery of the tiny transistor to the "big bang" origin of our universe. The broad-based fundamental research at Bell Labs is no longer pursued, and other industrial labs have, for the most part, disappeared or redirected their resources into much more product-oriented research. I teach at Caltech and oversee a research laboratory there. In general, I find that the majority of young people are excited by the prospects of research, but they soon discover that in the current market, many doctorate-level scientists are holding temporary positions or are unemployed. The average age at which principal investigators receive their first major government grant has risen, and experience from multiple postdoctoral positions is often necessary for advancement in academia. This slow track discourages young scientists from pursuing research careers. So what is the formula for better "managing" discoveries? The answer is in the natural evolution of research and development, from curiosity-driven science to technology transfer and then to societal benefits. We must nurture creative scientists in an environment that encourages interactions and collaborations across different fields, and support research free from weighty bureaucracies. The nation must provide young people with a proper and attractive education in science, technology, engineering and math. And the best minds from around the world should be encouraged, not discouraged, by public policy to join in this American endeavor. In sum, a renewed vision for investment in fundamental research is needed, especially in Washington, where further cuts across the board in science funding are being contemplated. In the 1950s, Nobel laureate Robert Solow showed that new technologies create a large portion of economic growth, affecting nearly 75% of the growth output in the U.S. The theory of quantum mechanics alone has had a major impact. Without it, revolutionary technologies would not have been realized. Think of the laser, optical communications, MRI and discoveries in drug design, gene technology and miniaturization. At the same time, American influence in the world is bolstered largely through its "soft" power, and science and technology is an essential force of this influence, according to the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project poll. Since the Industrial Revolution, the West has dominated world politics and economics with the power of science. Since the mid-20th century, the United States has been at the center of that dominance, and more recently, China is pouring resources into R&D to reach first world status. The U.S. can still maintain research institutions, such as Caltech, that are the envy of the world, yet it would be hubristic and naive to think that this position is sustainable without investing in science education and basic research. We do not know now what will be relevant tomorrow. American innovation and leadership put the rover Curiosity on Mars. Now is the time to recommit to the wise vision that made it happen — otherwise the sun of innovation will come from the east. [Ahmed Zewail, winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize in chemistry, is a professor of chemistry and physics at Caltech. He also serves on President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.] Source: Philosophy of Science Portal
Read More........

A New Reality Materializing: Humans Can Be the New Supercomputer

Illustration: Colourbox
Today, people of all backgrounds can contribute to solving serious scientific problems by playing computer games. A Danish research group has extended the limits of quantum physics calculations and simultaneously blurred the boundaries between man and mac. The Danish research team, CODER, has found out, that the human brain can beat the calculating powers of a computer, when it comes to solving quantum-problems. The saying of philosopher René Descartes of what makes humans unique is beginning to sound hollow. 'I think -- therefore soon I am obsolete' seems more appropriate. When a computer routinely beats us at chess and we can barely navigate without the help of a GPS, have we outlived our place in the world? Not quite. Welcome to the front line of research in cognitive skills, quantum computers and gaming. Today there is an on-going battle between man and machine. While genuine machine consciousness is still years into the future, we are beginning to see computers make choices that previously demanded a human's input. Recently, the world held its breath as Google's algorithm AlphaGo beat a professional player in the game Go--an achievement demonstrating the explosive speed of development in machine capabilities. A screenshot of one of the many games that are available. In this case the task is to shoot spiders in the "Quantum-Shooter" but there are many other
Credit: CODER/AU
kinds of games. But we are not beaten yet -- human skills are still superior in some areas. This is one of the conclusions of a recent study by Danish physicist Jacob Sherson, published in the prestigious science journal Nature. "It may sound dramatic, but we are currently in a race with technology -- and steadily being overtaken in many areas. Features that used to be uniquely human are fully captured by contemporary algorithms. Our results are here to demonstrate that there is still a difference between the abilities of a man and a machine," explains Jacob Sherson. What are quantum computers and how goes playing games help physicist in cutting edge research?Get a few answers in this video about ScienceAtHome. At the interface between quantum physics and computer games, Sherson and his
research group at Aarhus University have identified one of the abilities that still makes us unique compared to a computer's enormous processing power: our skill in approaching problems heuristically and solving them intuitively. The discovery was made at the AU Ideas Centre CODER, where an interdisciplinary team of researchers work to transfer some human traits to the way computer algorithms work. ? Quantum physics holds the promise of immense technological advances in areas ranging from computing to high-precision measurements. However, the problems that need to be solved to get there are so complex that even the most powerful supercomputers struggle with them. This is where the core idea behind CODER--combining the processing power of computers with human ingenuity -- becomes clear. ? Our common intuition: Like Columbus in QuantumLand, the CODER research group mapped out how the human brain is able to make decisions based on intuition and accumulated experience. This is done using the online game "Quantum Moves". Over 10,000 people have played the game that allows everyone contribute to basic research in quantum physics. "The map we created gives us insight into the strategies formed by the human brain. We behave intuitively when we need to solve an unknown problem, whereas for a computer this is incomprehensible. A computer churns through enormous amounts of information, but we can choose not to do this by basing our decision on experience or intuition. It is these intuitive insights that we discovered by analysing the Quantum Moves player solutions," explains Jacob Sherson. ? This is how the "Mind Atlas" looks. Based on 500.000 completed games the group has been able to visualize our ability to solve problems. Each peak on the 'map' represents a good idea, and the area with the most peaks - marked by red rings - are where the human intuition has hit a solution. A computer can then learn to focus on these areas, and in that way 'learn'
Credit: CODER/AU
about the cognitive functions of a human.  The laws of quantum physics dictate an upper speed limit for data manipulation, which in turn sets the ultimate limit to the processing power of quantum computers -- the Quantum Speed ??Limit. Until now a computer algorithm has been used to identify this limit. It turns out that with human input researchers can find much better solutions than the algorithm. "The players solve a very complex problem by creating simple strategies. Where a computer goes through all available options, players automatically search for a solution that intuitively feels right. Through our analysis we found that there are common features in the players' solutions, providing a glimpse into the shared intuition of humanity. If we can teach computers to recognise these good solutions, calculations will be much faster. In a sense we are downloading our common intuition to the computer" says Jacob Sherson. And it works. The group has shown that we can break the Quantum Speed Limit by combining the cerebral cortex and computer chips. This is the new powerful tool in the development of quantum computers and other quantum technologies. We are the new supercomputer: Science is often perceived as something distant and exclusive, conducted behind closed doors. To enter you have to go through years of education, and preferably have a doctorate or two. Now a completely different reality is materializing? In recent years, a new phenomenon has appeared--citizen science breaks down the walls of the laboratory and invites in everyone who wants to contribute. The team at Aarhus University uses games to engage people in voluntary science research. Every week people around the world spend 3 billion hours playing games. Games are entering almost all areas of our daily life and have the potential to become an invaluable resource for science. "Who needs a supercomputer if we can access even a small fraction of this computing power? By turning science into games, anyone can do research in quantum physics. We have shown that games break down the barriers between quantum physicists and people of all backgrounds, providing phenomenal insights into state-of-the-art research. Our project combines the best of both worlds and helps challenge established paradigms in computational research," explains Jacob Sherson. The difference between the machine and us, figuratively speaking, is that we intuitively reach for the needle in a haystack without knowing exactly where it is. We 'guess' based on experience and thereby skip a whole series of bad options. For Quantum Moves, intuitive human actions have been shown to be compatible with the best computer solutions. In the future it will be exciting to explore many other problems with the aid of human intuition. "We are at the borderline of what we as humans can understand when faced with the problems of quantum physics. With the problem underlying Quantum Moves we give the computer every chance to beat us. Yet, over and over again we see that players are more efficient than machines at solving the problem. While Hollywood blockbusters on artificial intelligence are starting to seem increasingly realistic, our results demonstrate that the comparison between man and machine still sometimes favours us. We are very far from computers with human-type cognition," says Jacob Sherson and continues: "Our work is first and foremost a big step towards the understanding of quantum physical challenges. We do not know if this can be transferred to other challenging problems, but it is definitely something that we will work hard to resolve in the coming years."
  • Contacts and sources: Jacob Sherson, Aarhus University, 
  • Citation: " Exploring the quantum speed limit with computer games" Authors: Jens Jakob W. H. Sørensen, Mads Kock Pedersen, Michael Munch, Pinja Haikka, Jesper Halkjær Jensen, Tilo Planke, Morten Ginnerup Andreasen, Miroslav Gajdacz, Klaus Mølmer, Andreas Lieberoth & Jacob F. Sherson Nature 532, 210–213 (14 April 2016) doi:10.1038/nature17620 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature17620ASource: http://www.ineffableisland.com/
Read More........