Tuesday, September 23rd, 2014

Time	Event
12:00a	3 Questions: Calestous Juma on African development How can Africa find new ways to spark economic growth? That is the focus of a wide-ranging public symposium hosted by the Center for International Studies as part of its Starr Forum event series. The event will be held on Wednesday, Sept. 24, from 3:00 to 4:30 p.m. in the Whitehead Institute’s McGovern Auditorium, and is organized in collaboration with the MIT Africa Interest Group. MIT News discussed the issue with Calestous Juma, the event’s moderator. Juma is the Martin Luther King Jr. Visiting Professor of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT, and professor of the practice of international development at the Harvard Kennedy School. Q. You have worked with the African Union as a high-level advisor to develop its new 10-year Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa, which is a focal point of tomorrow’s Starr Forum symposium. What are some of the distinctive features of this roadmap, regarding the contemporary challenges of growth across the continent? A. The key distinctive feature of the strategy is the recognition that Africa cannot sustain economic growth and promote prosperity without significant investments in technological innovation. It a departure from traditional growth strategies that focus on raw material exports. This is a bold attempt to reposition Africa as a player in the global knowledge economy. It emphasizes the strategic role of technological innovation in addressing critical challenges such as meeting human needs (such as food and health), improving international competitiveness through trade in manufactured goods, and protecting the environment. To address these challenges, the African Union focuses on three key areas. The first is to build infrastructure — mainly energy, transportation, water and sanitation, irrigation, and telecommunication. Poor infrastructure is a key obstacle to Africa’s economic development and affects activities ranging from agriculture to health and scientific research.  Second, Africa will need to upgrade its technical competence and create the skills needed to respond to emerging economic and environmental challenges. This will be done through improving science, technology, engineering, and math education.  Finally, the strategy outlines measures for promoting technology-based entrepreneurship as the most efficient mechanism for translating technological ideas into goods and services for economic transformation. It underscores the critical role that high-level leaders, especially presidents and prime ministers, can play in fostering interactions among key actors such as government, academia, and business in promoting innovation.  Q. A variety of countries in Africa have new initiatives to build larger university infrastructures. What are some of the crucial factors in making these efforts successful — and can scientists and technologists use this process to build new bridges to political leaders in Africa?  A. The first major step in building the technical competence needed to propel African economies is to recognize legacy policies where universities predominantly teach but do undertake much research. National institutes, on the other hand, carry out research but have limited teaching functions. One possible way to solve this problem is to create a new species of universities that combine research, teaching, and entrepreneurial activities under one roof.  A greater degree of institutional innovation will be needed to align higher technical training with development objectives. This will involve reforms in curriculum, pedagogy, and location of universities to enable them to link more directly with the productive sector. Creating new technology-based universities will complement existing universities that have played an important role in building state institutions. What is needed today is to foster innovation and entrepreneurship.  The reforms needed to reposition higher education institutions will require broad dialogue between government, academia, and the private sector. Governments will need to create mechanisms such as national science and technology academies, as well as offices of science advisors to heads of state. Issues for which governments need urgent advice include the long-term implications of the advent of online education. Q. We face a variety of challenges when it comes to sustainability, whether relating to food security or climate change, land use, and other issues. In what ways does Africa have novel opportunities to merge innovation and sustainability?  A. One of the main advantages of being a latecomer is the ability to harness new technologies that have a smaller ecological footprint than older vintages. For example, Africa’s ecological footprint would be much larger if it met its current communication needs using landlines instead of mobile connectivity. This logic of technological leapfrogging has yet to be pursued as policy strategy to promote sustainable development. There are a number of emerging candidate technologies that help Africa reduce its ecological impact. Transgenic industrial crops such as cotton that have been engineered to resist pests have been demonstrated to reduce the use of harmful pesticides. This technology has been commercially adopted by only three African countries: South Africa, Burkina Faso, and Sudan. Other technologies that could have similar ecological benefits include the use of polymers for the slow release of fertilizers and pesticides.  Many of these transformational technologies also disrupt traditional social arrangements, and are therefore often associated with public controversies. Promoting ecologically sound development strategies will therefore need to take into account an improved assessment and management of technological risks. Africa has the opportunity to start from scratch by leapfrogging the legacy technologies that the industrialized nations are now burdened with. Mobile phones represent a powerful metaphor of how to think about the ecological function of technological leapfrogging in Africa. (Comment on this)
12:00a	Q&A: Science journalism and public engagement Whether the public is reading about the Ebola outbreak in Africa or watching YouTube videos on the benefits of the latest diet, it’s clear that reporting on science and technology profoundly shapes modern life. In an effort to propel such reporting to the highest levels, the Knight Science Journalism (KSJ) fellowship program — located within MIT’s School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences — enables top journalists to spend a year at MIT studying science and technology, as well as the political, economic, and cultural contexts in which science and engineering develop. Knight Fellows enrich their understanding so that they can better communicate knowledge to the public; today, more than 320 KSJ alumni work at major news outlets around the globe. In July, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Deborah Blum was named KSJ’s new director, effective July 1, 2015. At the same time, Wade Roush, the former editor-at-large of the innovation news site Xconomy and a 1994 PhD graduate of MIT’s Program in Science, Technology, and Society, was named acting director of the program. Below, Blum and Roush discuss their views on science and technology journalism, its impact on society, and how KSJ might contribute to the future of the profession. Q: What is the major promise of contemporary science writing? Why is science journalism so important at this moment in time? Roush: Every single one of the big existential challenges we face in this century calls for better science, to identify the problems, and better technology, to identify the solutions. But the science won’t get done, and the solutions won’t get implemented, unless the general public is part of the process. And to be involved in a meaningful way, citizens need accurate information. That’s where science and technology writers come in.  Do we want consumers and voters to be prepared to make smart decisions that will contribute to rational policy changes? If so, we have to figure out how best to engage them and offer a wide range of compelling and accurate stories about science and technology. Blum: If we, as a society, don’t broaden our basic research literacy — our scientific understanding of the way life works — then it’s very difficult for us to make common-sense decisions that allow us to take care of each other and our environmentally endangered planet. And beyond the save-the-world aspects — and, yes, they matter — I think a basic understanding of science accomplishes an essential something else. It reminds you that we live on the most fantastic, complicated, unexpected place. It just makes life more interesting.  Q: Can you point to a story, or series of stories, as a good example of the degree to which well-done science writing can have a significant impact on public awareness or policy decisions regarding key issues? Blum: I think we’re starting to see an increasing public acceptance of the idea of global climate change. It’s slow, but it’s there. And that shift has been driven not by a series, or a single story, but by decades of determined coverage by science and technology writers. It’s what New York Times writer Andy Revkin calls “a slow drip” story — not one dramatic event, but the gradual assemblage of evidence. As we continually remind people of the climate connections in everything from Western droughts to rising seas, we allow them to better understand the realities of the way human activities drive major environmental shifts.  Of course, focused investigations have produced more immediate changes — closed dysfunctional laboratories, changed legislation, revised programs — and I’d be happier if our response to such major issues as climate change also moved faster. But science itself is a process; it’s not event-driven. So, we just need to keep pushing to increase scientific literacy and to tell stories more effectively.  Roush: Rather than refer to a specific story, I’ll point to a whole genre of stories: post-disaster coverage. After a natural or technological disaster like Katrina or Fukushima, the media swing into action, and they generally do a pretty good job of identifying the roots of the disaster and educating audiences about previously unacknowledged risks — like, at Fukushima, the risk that an earthquake and tsunami would overwhelm the plant’s safety systems. This can lead, in turn, to much greater public awareness of such dangers, which often gives advocacy groups leverage to press for political action and safety reforms. Journalists have a responsibility to explain both the benefits and the costs of scientific and technological progress. How they move from breaking news coverage of disasters to smart “second-day” stories to more revealing investigations a week or a month later is one of the greatest tests of their skill. Q: What are some of the ways the Knight Science Journalism program can further engage the public in important technology and science policy discussions? Blum: As a science writer, I’m interested in the audience that has stepped away from, or even rejected, a science understanding. For many people — and that group in particular — science writing can become part of an informal post-secondary education. So, I’d like to see KSJ become more of a resource for both science and technology writers, and for the public — and a much higher-profile one. Roush: What we can do next is begin to lead the conversation about equipping the public to have its say on problems like global warming, energy, health care, and food security. It’s time to admit that the media haven’t done an adequate job to date of cutting through the fog of misinformation and politicized rhetoric about matters like climate change, vaccination, the teaching of evolution in schools, or the place of the scientific method itself. In a piece for The Atlantic recently, science writer Charles Mann put it perceptively: “Bewildered and battered by the back-and-forth, the citizenry sits, for the most part, on its hands.” That’s not an acceptable outcome.  Our plan for the Knight program is to create some new space — through research, publications, events, and new-media experiments — for critical inquiry into this question of science and technology engagement or outreach. How does it work? Who does it well? In the era of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, what constitutes credibility? Blum: We’re talking about ideas like this as well as more interactive ideas, such as innovative public events, building stronger relationships with other organizations interested in science literacy, and finding a way to support innovative science communication projects around the country and internationally. We’re still thinking our way through some of these ideas, and we’re excited about the possibilities. (Comment on this)
1:19p	Letter to the community on East Campus/Kendall Square design firm selection The following email was sent today to the MIT community by Provost Martin Schmidt and Executive Vice President and Treasurer Israel Ruiz. To the members of the MIT community: We write to provide an update on MIT’s East Campus/Kendall Square planning process. In our July 2014 communication, we reflected on several key initiatives and studies that have guided this effort over the past few years, and shared a proposed site assembly as well an outline of next steps. The East Campus/Kendall Square Gateway area represents a tremendous opportunity to create a vibrant cluster of activity. The blending of an array of uses — including innovation space, housing, childcare, retail, commercial, and space for the MIT Museum — has the unique potential to convey MIT’s and Kendall Square’s unparalleled innovative energy. Now, we have reached a point where architectural teams have been identified and design work, which will build on previous efforts, will commence. We would like to inform you of the firms that have been selected, describe the process that led to those important decisions, and convey how we will move ahead. Design Firm Selection Process We conducted a rigorous selection process for architectural teams that will design the buildings in the East Campus/Kendall Square area. We began by soliciting statements of qualifications from dozens of firms with relevant design expertise. From that list, we invited three or four firms to submit proposals for each of the sites. We then appointed two internal ad hoc Architect Selection Committees to review proposals and conduct interviews over the summer. Committee members included the former Dean of the School of Architecture and Planning, the Head of the Department of Architecture, and the Head of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, a faculty member in the Department of Architecture, the Associate Provost for Space, and the Deputy Executive Vice President. Representatives from the Department of Facilities, the Office of Campus Planning, and MITIMCo also served on the Committees. The criteria used by the Committees to evaluate the architectural firms included design excellence and creativity, specific experience designing similar comparable buildings, and a clear understanding of both academic and commercial requirements. The recommendations of the Architect Selection Committee were then forwarded to the MIT Building Committee for review, discussion, and approval. Site-Specific Design Firms We plan to launch the formal design process by focusing on Sites L, N, O, P, Q, and S (described below). The programming and design for Site M, which will serve as future lab space, and Site R, which will be the site of a future academic building, will be defined later. Site L — Elkus|Manfredi Architects will design the building at Site L, which will be a high-rise residential building with ground floor retail space. The building will include a mix of units, including innovation units and affordable units, to meet the diverse housing needs of the Cambridge community. Elkus|Manfredi Architects is a Boston-based firm founded in 1988 by Howard Elkus and David Manfredi. The firm has a broad base of experience in multiple building types, including residential, office, laboratory, and retail buildings, for both commercial and institutional clients. Elkus|Manfredi has worked closely with the Institute over the last several years during the early planning and re-zoning phases of the initiative. Site N — Perkins+Will will design the building at Site N, which will be a high-rise commercial office/lab facility designed to provide space for science and technology companies seeking to locate or expand in the innovation cluster around MIT. Perkins+Will is a 1,600-person firm founded in 1935 in Chicago with offices in 24 cities around the world, including Boston. The firm’s design expertise spans most building types, including institutional, residential, and office buildings. The firm’s laboratory design group comprises seasoned designers with extensive experience working with both institutional and commercial clients in the Cambridge market. Site O — NADAAA (design architect) and Perkins+Will (architect of record) will serve as the design team for the building at Site O, which will include graduate student housing, a child-care facility, academic space, and retail space on the ground floor. NADAAA is a 25-person firm with offices in Boston and New York. Founded in 2011, NADAAA has received numerous design awards, including being ranked the #1 design firm in the US by Architect Magazine for the past two consecutive years. Professor Nader Tehrani, former Head of the Department of Architecture, is one of the three founding principals of the firm. Site P — Weiss/Manfredi will design the facility at Site P, which is a commercial office building that will include space for the MIT Museum on two of the lower floors, as well as ground floor retail space. Weiss/Manfredi is a 36-person New York design firm founded by Marion Weiss and Michael Manfredi 25 years ago. The firm specializes in architecture, landscape architecture, programming, interior design, art, and urban design for institutional, corporate, and academic clients. The firm has won numerous design awards for both its buildings and landscapes. Site Q — The area designated as Q represents open space and underground parking. We have issued requests for proposals to landscape architects for the design of the open space, and will follow the same committee selection process we used to select architects. Perkins+Will will design the underground parking garage. Site S — nARCHITECTS will design the small building at Site S, which will include office space and ground floor retail. nARCHITECTS is a 14-person design firm based in New York City founded by Eric Bunge and Mimi Hoang (MIT Class of 1993) in 1999. The firm has won numerous design awards, including several from the American Institute of Architects. West Campus Planning Now that we have completed the zoning and planning processes for the East Campus/Kendall Square area and are moving forward with the formal design phase, we are preparing to turn our attention to the west side of the campus. In the next few weeks we will be launching a formal planning process for the west and northwest campus areas that will include exploring opportunities for additional housing. Moving Ahead Building on the successful experience of the East Campus Steering Committee, which was of tremendous benefit to the East Campus Urban Design Study, we will soon launch a continuation of this working group with both faculty and student participation. As we transition from the selection process into the design phase, the Building Committee will work closely with this group and with the new Faculty Planning Committee to ensure that our shared vision for the area is being realized. There will be many opportunities for information sharing and the solicitation of input along the way. We plan to hold community meetings to share our progress, and hope to launch the City’s public hearing process through the submittal of design proposals to the Cambridge Planning Board in the coming months. We are populating a website with relevant materials and information as they become available, and we encourage you to share your thoughts as the process moves forward by sending email to kendallsquare@mit.edu. A hallmark of this impressive multi-year effort has been the active and productive involvement of many different people across the MIT and Cambridge communities. This engagement has resulted in an improved and more holistic approach towards activating the East Campus/Kendall Square gateway area. We hope that you will stay involved. Sincerely, Marty Schmidt, Provost, Co-Chair, Building Committee Israel Ruiz, Executive Vice-President and Treasurer, Co-Chair, Building Committee (Comment on this)

<< Previous Day

2014/09/23 [Calendar]

Next Day >>