Free - Chris Anderson (2009)

Chris Anderson is the Editor and Chief of Wired Magazine. Anderson has written two books that examine the impact of the Internet on traditional business models. Anderson has his B.S. in physics. Prior to coming to Wired, Anderson served as the U.S. Business Editor for the Economist. Prior to that he wrote for two prestigious science journals, Nature and Science.

In Free, Anderson notes that unlike products and services in the physical world that inflate in cost over time, digital content and services actually deflate in cost and eventually approach zero over time.

The abundance of bandwidth and memory has made the cost of storing and distributing content extremely low. This has encouraged amateurs, as well as professionals, to become content creators. This, in turn, has led to an abundance of content, most of which is free.

Anderson observes that although the music and publishing industries have attempted to combat the free distribution of content through technological and legal barriers, Abundance creates a gravitational pull on prices that eventually approaches zero.

Anderson contends that this is not necessarily a bad thing. He provides examples of several successful business models that incorporate the free distribution of digital content and services.

The key to making money while providing content and services for free is to attach paid programs and services to them. For instance, Second Life provides virtual tourism for free. However, if you want to own property or premium content, you must pay a fee. Valuable Open Source software is free, but many businesses, such as IBM, make a sizable profit by offering development and support for a fee. Google, the largest provider of free content and services, makes money by attaching advertising to its searches that is directly targeted to the particular person conducting the search.

Anderson notes that the monetary market is only one aspect of the overall economy. In fact, other economies exist as well that are based on other measures of value. These include the "Attention" and "Reputation" Economies. We have all been told at some time in our lives that there is nothing more valuable than our "Reputation" and the large amount of money that we pay celebrities gives some indication of how much we value "Attention." Reputation and attention are two of the most important currencies on the web.

For each of the business models that Anderson presents, he provides an analysis of a company that uses it. Each analysis breaks down the cost of providing the content and exactly how the company generates revenue to pay for the service without attaching a fee.

As more and more education moves online, what are the implications of the "Free" digital economy? We see states dumping textbooks in favor of online resources and universities posting lectures and curriculum online for free. What opportunities and threats do these trends present? How can Educational Service Providers embrace this new trend without losing the revenue necessary to sustain quality services?

For more information click on the title of this post.

Unscientific America-Chris Mooney (2009)

Chris Mooney is a journalist who has written two books (including this one) on the growing alienation of science and scientists from mainstream American society. Sheril Kershenbaum is the co-author of Unscientific America. She is an associate at Duke University with two Masters of Science degrees in Marine Biology and Marine Policy.

Unscientific America is an extensively researched and well-documented study. Although only 132 pages long, it includes 65 pages of notes and citations.

The overall theme of Unscientific America is that the prestige and influence of science and scientists in the US has diminished dramatically since its hey day in the '60s. News sources have drastically reduced their coverage of scientific topics. Entertainment media tend to portray scientists as nerds or mad men.

The authors cite several reasons for the growing disaffection for science in American society. The primary problem, they believe, is that scientists have failed to develop the skills necessary to communicate with the general public. Part of the problem is the fact that science has become so highly specialized that scientists now have a difficult time even communicating with other scientists whose area of expertise may be in another scientific domain. Many scientists look on communicating with the public as an unnecessary distraction from their work, which exacerbates the problem.

The authors contend that the inability of scientists to accurately communicate the importance of their work has had a detrimental impact of society's view of science. It has made sound scientific findings susceptible to challenges by radical religious groups, climate change doubters and other science skeptics. It has also allowed scientists with the most radical views to emerge as the voice of the science community.

Surprisingly, the authors dispelled the often quoted notion that the US is not producing enough scientists and engineers. They cite the fact that between 2002 and 2007, American universities produced a record number of doctorates in these fields. Unfortunately, most of these Ph.D's leave the field of science due to lack of opportunity to advance. According to the Urban Institute, American colleges and universities graduate three times the number of science and engineering graduates as there are job openings. Those who make it tend to be highly focused on the technical aspects of their field.

Mooney and Kershenbaum state that if the US is to have an advantage in competing with these highly trained graduates, it "will lie in producing scientists with 'soft skills,' such as writing, speaking, and task management." We must create "more interdisciplinary opportunities" and "nurture broader sets of abilities."

The Urban Institute study states, "In our interviews with engineering managers...rarely, if ever, do they say they are unable to find graduates with the requisite technical skills but rather the 'shortage' is of engineers with communication, management, interpersonal and other soft skills."

The authors make the following recommendations for K-12 education: Partner with scientific institutions that can provide engaging and interesting visiting scientists to speak with students. Prepare teachers to work enthusiastically with a stronger curriculum to keep even the youngest students engaged. Make more use of video for science instruction in the high school.

How can K-12 schools better prepare our future scientists and engineers to be better communicators and to function effectively within an interdisciplinary environment? Is this a values issue, a skills issue or both?