Matthew Engel

The battery powered Tesla Roadster and Daimler Smart cars side by side

In May this year, the German heavyweight automaker Daimler purchased a 10% stake in the Silicon Valley-based Tesla Motors. Tesla, known for their electric Roadster, has been looking to expand their business by building manufacturing facilities in the U.S. for mass producing a new line of electric cars. The Model S would be an electric 4 door passenger sedan- as opposed to the 2 seater Roadster currently on the market. Daimler and Tesla have been working together for over 6 months on lithium ion battery powered technologies for Daimler’s new fleet of 1,000 Electric Vehicle (EV) Smart Cars to be depolyed this year.

The $50 million deal will bring a massive influx of sorely needed cash for the startup American automaker, along with the backing of an established auto giant. The deal gives Daimler a seat on the board as well as greater access to Tesla’s financial and business plans, perhaps tempting them to increase their stake in the future. Physically, the deal gives Daimler experience in battery pack and charger engineering.

Tesla Roadster at Yahoo Headquarters, CA

Reportedly, there are rumors that Daimler is testing the waters for a future buyout, however these are purely speculative and probably false as the German maker seems to respect Tesla’s ability to bring products swiftly to market and nimbly respond to changes- attributes which a large manufacturer may stimy. A complete buy out could cause Tesla to lose these capabilities. In fact, a buy out is highly improbable given the fact that Tesla has supposedly designed both of their vehicles from the ground up completely independent of external influence. I doubt they would continue to proceed this way, if their goal was to simply be bought out. Besides, Stuttgart already covers many brands such as Smart, is probably not looking for another “mouth to feed” and is still recovering from their unprofitable dealings with Chrysler. On a very positive note, the $50 million deal gives Tesla a very positive valuation at roughly $500 million.

Tesla Model S with base price of $57,400

For Tesla, this entire ordeal has acted like a shot in the arm. From a tiny no name brand, to the leading designer of EV cars, Tesla is undergoing a major transform. In fact, they have been able to faithfully follow their business plan over the last several years since I started tracking them. Their goals were to demonstrate that the EV does not need to look ridiculous, like a Toyota Prius or Honda Insight, bring down the price of their roadster (~$125,000) and launch a new highend EV in the form of a 4 door sedan geared towards the average consumer. The Model S was designed to compete directly with consumers interested in purchasing a new vehicles, such as the BMW, but wanted an electric car. Tesla was way ahead of the curve developing EVs and working to remove the stigma assocoated with them for roughly the past five years. The new Model S comes with a choice of three different battery packs with either a 160, 230 or 300-mile range. The 160-mile base price model will sell for $57,400 after the $7,500 federal tax credit. Their batteries are designed to be easily swapped and a larger one could be leased or replaced for extended trips. In addition, the batteries are designed to be recycled when they are totally depleted after approximately 7-10 years, limiting waste and increasing value.

In fact, Tesla is seeking a much larger source of funding from the federal government to build a factory in Southern California for producing the Model S (Images from the LA Times). Honestly, I would have much rather seen Tesla get federal financing than General Motor, as this would have ensured a steady stream of EVs into the U.S. market. In fact, I would thought that GM would be much more interested in aquiring Tesla or at least invest in a stake, with all the hype surrounding the Chevy Volt. Perhaps they could not afford it, however a deal involving a stock swap could have potentially worked.

Daimler Smart EV

In the U.S. last year Daimler sold 24,622 Smart ForTwo microcars. They are continuing to build prototypes and deploy them globally, about 100 of them have been running in London since last year. Ultimately for GM to be competetive, it will have to make a broad niche in this market and seriously start selling EVs now. The hybrid car is a defunct technology - why bother to use gas at all when you can charge your car at home using a solar panel on the roof of your house for free? GM is still continuing to promote their line up of hybrid vehicles including the Chevrolet Malibu, Tahoe and Silverado, GMC Yukon and Sierra, Cadillac Escalade, Saturn Aura and Vue. Notice a large portion of these vehicles are SUV’s with relatively bad gas mileage, even with the hybrid technology. In the future I will try and develop a table which will compare the price, mileage and sales figures of all these vehicles including the Smart ForTwo and Toyota Prius. Why is GM still selling SUVs with hybrid technology? As far as I can see, they are very, very far behind the curve and a stake in Tesla would have given them a competetive advantage. Unfortuantely, for the American manufacturer, they were beat to the punch by Daimler.

GM’s Bob Lutz Shows off the Chevy Volt on Late Night with David Letterman

GM is hoping to have the Chevy Volt on sale by 2011 with a sticker price of $40,000 after rebates. Apparently there has been a back and forth between Tesla and GM on the show, which I think is good to stimulate discussion and thought about the differences between the two products. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla quirped about the Volt’s 40 mile range, but failed to acknowledge the gasoline powered back up motor which will be used to charge the battery. A more thorough comparison of these two vehicles is sorely needed, however neither of them are on sale yet to it is difficult to speculate.

This month, I had a new ‘first’. It was my first experience administering an interview. I was on a panel with three others, and we interviewed roughly five candidates for one position. The experience has given me a whole new outlook on the interview process, and I believe it will improve my own skills, now that I have gained perspective sitting on the other side of the table. Several of the candidates were very qualified, and each seemed to have skills or traits which would make them a good fit for the position. However, once the interviewers began discussing the candidates amongst ourselves in private, we began to make consensus finding some strengths and flaws in each one and determining how each would hypothetically fit into the position. Since the job is flexible, the candidate would have potential to do alot with it so we were looking for someone relatively outgoing. This maybe unfair of me to say, and I will admit this is a biased weakness - but one of the candidates just ‘rubbed me the wrong way’. The only reason I mention this is because I am sure it must happen in many interviews all the time, and that the candidates are judged the instant they open their mouths - maybe even before. Likewise, I am sure the reverse is true in that some people just ‘click’. For example, one of our most promising candidates began the discussion with an extremely powerful statement which highlighted their experience and showcased their intelligence. I was quite taken aback, and duefully impressed. I would have liked to hire this person right away.

I also found that it was not just the questions and answers which mattered to me, but more how the person responded to them and were able to handle their composure in a stressful situation. The body language and sound of their voice told me a lot more about their attitude and demeanor than their words alone.

However, people who are going into interviews always wonder about what sorts of questions are asked so I will tell a few good ones I thought were interesting:

• What makes you uniquely qualified for this position?
• Can you tell us about a time ______ (fill in the blank). For example, tell us about a time when you came across a difficult situation and how you overcame it?
• What about this job would give you the most trouble?

During the interviews, I spent some time writing notes mostly to myself about the good questions I heard being asked, and my response to the candidates physical and mental composure. Here are several of the points I noted down, but keep in mind this is just my personal opinion and I am obviously by no means an experienced interviewer. You may not agree with these observations, however I felt strongly about these points during my experience.

• Do not voluntarily talk about any of your flaws! If you are forced to, admit only a small one and instead capitalize on this opportunity and turn it into a strength. I noticed one candidate doing that and I was most impressed.
• Be silent when listening to the interviewer. I found the little “mmhmmm’s” and “ahhaa’s” to be distracting and were perhaps a sign that they were not focused while the question was being asked.
• Enforce the point that you have an open mind. I find this extremely valuable and shows that you can learn and grow as the work progresses.

On April 16, 2009 I was privileged to give a short talk at the Fundamentals of the Bioscience Industry Program at Stony Brook University. This program is part of a collaborative curriculum provided by the Center for Biotechnology and Business School. It is intended to give science based graduate students a crash course in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.

The program remains an outstanding opportunity for academic researchers and students who otherwise may never have had personal interactions or exposure to seasoned professionals and industry veterans. Actively participating in the course gives job seekers many advantages, and as an alumni I can attest from my own experience and from the experiences of others that it can open many doors. However, like any good opportunity, your results will depend on what you make of it. This year I was invited back to give a short talk on a topic of my choice. As a successful job seeker, I have found that one of my personal strengths is the ability to make connections and find work in a field that interests me. Lorrence Green, President and owner of Westbury Diagnostics Inc, was present that day and set to teach the course. Larry and I have worked together, successfully launching his corporate website which has increased his company’s visibility, in addition to retaining and attracting customers. 

Therefore, I decided to give a talk on the importance of professional networks and other traits which will give the job seeker an advantage. I began by asking “Who wants to work in industry?” and “Who wants to stay in research?”. These are very important questions to consider when embarking on a scientific, legal or business related career in biotech. Most of the class knew they wanted to go to ‘industry’, though the majority of students don’t know how to make this transition occur. Therefore I focused on three main points: (1) Networking (2) Internships and (3) Skills with an emphasis in their relation to the job search.

From my experience I have found that meeting new people is the key to finding those covented jobs which may be available, but often unadvertised. For example, at conferences it is to one’s advantage to speak out and ask questions. This is a great way to get noticed, spark conversations and find out some new information about a speaker’s presentation. It also allows you to more comfortably introduce yourself to a speaker after their talk, if you have already addressed them in a public forum.

I find it helpful to attend any conference I can which is related to my field that has professionals available to rub shoulders with and ask for advice. Here, one should take the opportunity to meet new people and even collect their card, if the situation warrants. Often, I notice the ‘pathological’ networker, moving quickly from one ‘victim’ to the next in an effort to collect as many business cards as possible. I occasionally see this technique in action and find it unsuccessful (by observation only!). I would rather make 3 excellent contacts who I stay connected with, rather than many ‘weak’ contacts with individuals who would not remember my name or face the next day.

With today’s job market being so competitive, companies are often looking for people who mostly have experience. But without experience, how does one gain experience in the new field they are interested in? First of all, there is always demand for great people. Next, there are frequently internships to aid in this transition process. Apply for every job you can. As my father once told me, “if you never apply, you’ll never get the job”. It is important to consider different opportunities, have an open mind and think “I can do this” - meaning that you are motivated and interested in learning new skills which will make you more valuable in the market. These skills do not include just hard science skills, or research abilities.

There are a multitude of jobs available in quality assurance, scientific writing, FDA regulatory affairs, and intellectual property. Alot of this work can be found in government agencies themselves, such as the USPTO. Remember to always keep your resume up to date. Mine can be found here. I keep multiple versions available - some for private distribution and others for public distribution. When looking at a job advertisement, keep in mind it is not necessary to meet all their requirements listed in the ad. These are often just desired characteristics, such as “6 years experience”. They may very well end up hiring someone with 4 years experience, if they fit best into the company’s culture. 

Once, you are on the job, a whole new set of rules applies. A great tip I heard from Saied Tousi, VP at the Pall Corporation, was to always arrive before the boss. Another is to dress well. It pays dividends to consistently look professional. At conferences I recommend to dress as well as you can. There is a large difference between the what professionals can wear to work in academia and industry. Show people your resume and get feedback. This has been invaluable to me, and has allowed me to adjust my CV frequently with the help of a more experienced eye. Finally, it is important to always be on the look out. I suggested taking advantage of the corporate culture module portion of the class and to network with the course instructors themselves. Coincidently, the main presenter for the day was Bill Liggan - an energetic human resources professional at Icon Laboratories. Bill is an experienced recruiter with great knowledge about cultivating relationships and marketing yourself. It was a great opportunity to meet and share ideas, since our topics were so related. 

But most importantly, you are in control of your own destiny. When you finish graduate school, a job is not just thrown at you. Doctoral students have a very specific set of skills in their field. Our strength lies in the ability to leverage our analytical powers and determined nature to complete difficult tasks. So to all the job hunters out there, good luck and best wishes!I hope these little tidbits were helpful and maybe even inspiring. When you land that big job, don’t foget to say hi!

Originally Written March 29, 2009

2010 Honda Insight

What an interesting 48 hours for the American auto industry. With the CEO of General Motors canned, a new onslaught of fast, fun, and fuel efficient cars should be arriving on the market. Since Rick Wagoner took hold of the GM as CEO in 2000, shares have declined ~20 fold.  Apparently, their business plan involving the Chevy Volt, was not speedy enough for the Obama adminstration. Strategically, I think this was a necessary move to begin pushing our country into greener technologies. However, I have never before heard of the federal government firing a private sector employee for their job performance.

But then again, I’ve never seen the government invest $6 billion in a private company either, so I suppose its within their equity rights as a shareholder to do as they please. Obviously, Rick Wagoner was not about to say ‘no’ to the President. 

2010 Honda Insight Hybrid Unveiled at Paris Autoshow

If I could, I would ask Rick “Why does Honda have a nice looking car which gets 40 mpg in the city, and you don’t (see new Honda Insight - some reviewers were able to get 70 mpg )? If it’s so hard to do, why are the Japanese already able to design and manufacture such cars and sell them with a base price of $19,500? How come no American car makers have any hybrid or electric cars on the market? I thought GM was supposed to be a leader in innovation and technology!”.

We have a right to be upset at American auto manufactures and they deserve to be punsihed for their lack of vision. (Click here to see more pictures of the Insight from the show).

However, it would be foolish to simply disband them all, lose our manufacturing capability and destroy an important sector of our economy. The trick is to simply help them refocus their research, development, manufacturing and investments to begin making cars which do more with less. We are all doing more work, more activities these days with less, why shouldn’t our cars? The other option would be to begin eliminating the personal transportation vehicle all together and begin massive restructuring of our public transportation systems, which may be the better option long term. 

Former GM CEO, Rick Wagoner

I’ve suspected there has been something up Obama’s sleeve after Monday’s firing. Many analysts were completely surprised by the timing. Why now, they asked? I would suppose the answer is so that we, as a nation, could move forward as quickly as possble with a new fleet of electric or hybrid fuel efficient vehicles. To further reduce our dependence on oil, one would need to remove the gas-guzzling SUV’s off the road, and this is exactly what will happen.

With the summer months approaching, gasoline demand and therefore prices will once again skyrocket, though probably not as high as last summer.  

Financially, Wagoner was a disaster for the company. This is due to his lack of insight and leadership involving the future of America and the automobile industry as we know it. Specifically, it was his inability to forsee the growth occuring worldwide leading to more oil demands and increases in price. A simple doubling of the cost of gasoline in the U.S.  would render his entire fleet of vehicles nearly worthless. An armada of massive steel tanks with no one was willing to drive them. How out-dated, how ancient, how inefficient, how dirty! Wagoner’s complete embrace of highly inefficient petroleum-based vehicles was his ultimate downfall- and as these vehicles become less desirable wasting precious energy resources GM, will suffer until they change their ways. 

Currently, a bill being drafted in the U.S. House of Representatives, sponsored by Congresswoman Betty Sutton of Ohio would provide a $4,000 voucher good towards newer, relatively more fuel efficient vehicles if an older car is taken off the road. Unforuntately, fuel efficiency standards are still extremely modest when compared to mileage of other cars globally, coming in at a sheepish 27 mpg. 

The Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Act (also known as Cash for Clunkers) will encourage consumers to purchase new American made cars with a minimum fuel efficiency level. While this is a good start, it really does not go far enough. I find it hard to beleive the government is willing to bribe us to buy new cars. Even further, that they introduced such meager stipulations which are easily acheived by most new car models. This proposal would hardly encourage steep rise in fuel efficiency standards which will only come with a burst of technology propelled by economic need. Many people are claiming this bill is a simple guise being used to encourage consumerism, by promoting the purchase of new automobiles. 

I do not think we will see the conclusion of this saga in our lifetime’s. America is too invested in the ‘road’ and the ‘highway’ to give them up, though they are ultimately pretty lousy ideas. I wonder how many square miles of our beautiful country is covered up by asphalt? Ideally, an amazing public transportation system would come about powered by sustainable energries such as wind and solar. But until that day, I hope we can drive safe, fun cars which do not wreak havoc on our atmosphere and have minimal impact on our environment. With China vying to become the leader in electric automobile technology, it is critical for America to begin commercializing these vehicles. It is my personal belief that battery powered cars fueled by renewable energies will be a great temporary solution to this grand challenge.

This year I have had the distinct proviledge of attending the Rapidata 2009 Course at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Organized by Robert Sweet, Alexei Soares, and many others, Rapidata 2009 has been a tremendous learning experience focusing on the practical aspects of protein crystallography (PX). Over the last 24 hours I have met students and faculty from Harvard, MIT, Rockefeller, Providence, Purdue, Oxford, Sweden, the Netherlands, Brazil and Switzerland. It is truly a gathering of some of the best crystallographers in the world who are the globe’s leaders in cryo-cooling, structure solution, phasing, software development and beamline operations. The week long program features lectures and hands on tutorials where students can bring actual samples from their home laboratories, collect data from them and solve the structure at the NSLS. I will be working on a previous data set containing multiwavelength anomolous diffraction (MAD) data and try to solve its structure. I hope to report back from the course with more details later this week.

A streaming video can be found here on the bottom of this webpage.

The full presentation was uploaded onto the BNL website, and I have a copy of it here. Below, I will share some of the slides which I thought were most critical and relevant; as each could warrant a full discussion unto itself. One of Chu’s goals was to establish the idea that our world is changing. Many peoples are not prone to understanding these types of changes, or how they will affect society. However, it is important not to ignore them but study them and try and calculate how they will impact humanity. One may ask ‘Will these changes be beneficial or detrimental? Can we alter their course, can man control them? Are these changes to our world caused by man, or a byproduct of our society?’ Chu establishes three ‘myths’ which are commonly thought to be true, and present evidence to combat each myth. They are:

1. The wealth of a country is proportional to the energy it uses and its carbon footprint.
2. Energy efficiency and CO2 reductions are not affordable.
3. We have all the technology we need to solve the energy problem. It is only a matter of political will.

The graph above shows the development index of many nations in the world including the U.S., Japan, France, Netherlands, Germany, Israel etc. in proportion to their energy consumption. From here, we can see that many developed nations all across the world are able to maintain a high standard of living while having much lower energy consumption per person. Therefore, in America we have the potential to maintain or even raise our standard of living while lowering our energy consumption - this data shows that it can be done.

Here we see the energy consumption in the United States per person in kWh compared to the energy consumption in California per person. It is obvious, there is a drastic difference between the two. The average person in California uses much less energy than the average person in the U.S. Even while the per capita GDP in California doubled, its energy consumption remained flat. This was due to greater energy efficiency practices, that we could learn from. These practices would reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help reduce pollutin emissions.

I will post this now, but continue updating it over the weekend. Enjoy, and best wishes.

Announces $150 Billion Investment Over 10 Years in Clean and Renewable Energy Research

March 23, 2009

Today I am proud to witness history. I am proud of my country, and excited about the new direction it will be taking us. As Secretary of Energy Steven Chu made his very first visit to a national laboratory since taking office, I was lucky enough to be sitting in the audience during the presentation at BNL (Brookhaven National Laboratory). His visit was accompanied by a major announcement regarding massive new investments in funding for clean and renewable energy research and experimentation as per the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This will have a large impact on our economy in both the near and short term. Secretary Chu’s talk was both bright and funny, serious and sobering, uplifting and inspiring. He showed many examples of global climate change- examples where increases of just a few degrees could completely alter the natrual landscape, ruining ecosystems for many of its inhabitants. He talked about the history of the Department of Energy and of Brookhaven, and our role in the nation’s energy plan. As I sat in Berkner Hall, taking notes during the talk I was quickly becoming extremely excited and inspired. Right now I feel as if something big is coming, and that real change in this field will happen during my lifetime. Here, I share my personal notes with you from the meeting.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

“Science for the 21st century”

As Representative Tim Bishop began the introductions, Secretary Chu sheepishly fixed his tie off stage. Still visible to the audience, this small gesture was enough for me to realize that yes, indeed this politician of monstrous importance was truly human, and a modest one at that. A renowned thinker, a Noble Prize winner, and importantly a scientist- Chu actually grew up on Long Island. Living in Garden City, NY from age 3-18 Secretary Chu actually admits never made it to Stony Brook University during that time- but as he acknowledged “I am here now”.

Secretary Chu speaking at Brookhaven National Laboratory

“This is an exciting time to be in science”

The Secretary described the stimulus bill as a method of moving the nation forward and putting people to work. This step moving forward “underscores the President’s wisdom”, demonstrating his understanding of the dire need for research, investment, and implementation of fundamental technologies in the energy sector. This will be accomplished by a pledge to double the budget for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science over the next ten years. Specifically, the Office of Science will receive at least $1.2 billion thru the act. Secretary Chu’s main points were:

• $15 billion per Year for Clean and Renewable Energy Research
• Permanent Tax Credit for Cleantech Research and Experimentation
• $277 million of Competetive Grants to be awarded by the Energy Fronteir Research Center

Important details of the Act and how they affect the DOE can be found here. Jeff Sherwood of at DOE headquarters has published a concise and accurate description of the specific investments and funded projects in a press release here.

This will include $90 million to support PhD and grad students in the sciences, creating thousands of new jobs. Chu’s presentation really started to snowball now as he began describing the prestigious history of the DOE, commenting on human environmental impact and importantly- energy consumption. He begain describing the prestigious history of the Department of Energy which has funded 88 Noble Prize Winners, research at over 300 universities and 17 national laboratories.

Secretary Chu Tours the STAR Detector

It is the largest funding source of physical science in the world. He begins reminiscing about the high energy physics research days of yore, which are incredibly fascinating. He describe the work of famous physicists, many of who worked simulaneously at AT&T Bell Labs while Chu was there, on world changing projects such as the transister: the fundamental unit of every modern electrical device. The problem was that the current state of the art, vacuum tubes, would burn out after one year. With the advent of quantum mechanics, a solid state replacement known as the transister was invented. One of his more humorous remarks targeted the NSLS II, now under construction. As the former Director of Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Secretary Chu expressed concern when he was admiring the specs of NSLS-II, that perhaps we would provide a friendly rivalry for our west coast neighbor. Now, as Secretary of Energy, Chu must leave these competing interests aside and come to the east coast and promote our accomplishments, and he did so happily and gracefully.

Tomorrow I shall continue my report of the Secretary’s visit to BNL with more details. Thanks for reading and enjoy!

President Obama repeals ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cells - March 9, 2009

On March 9, 2009 President Barack Obama removed the ban prohibiting the use of federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. Specifically, on Monday a memorandum was signed allowing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to begin designing a strategy for carrying out this research. The earlier ban, enacted by former President Bush prevented all federal government funding for the use and development of embryonic stem cells. During this time individual states were vying to raise capital for this work on their own via private/state joint institutes. California was the leader in this, creating a $3 billion bond to support the state universities. Unfortunately, these funds were generally witheld following the ensuing political turmoil. Developments at the local level actually point towards the probability that individual states would eventually have begun financing this research, whether or not the federal government supported it.

Bush’s federal ban on embryonic stem cell funding resulted in the use of private monies for these experiments, and drastically cut down the number of academic labs studying the system. At least 6-7 years of more rapid progress was probably lost during this time. However, it did stimulate a large body of research on the use of adult derived stem cells and new technologies for generating ES cells without destroying the embryo. Without this ban, researchers at Advanced Cell Technology may never have speant so much time attempting to isolate ES cells from living embryos using biopsies, which is does not harm the embryo and is commonly performed during preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In a nutshell, PGD allows one to geneticly test embryos for disease markers before they are implanted. This is especially useful during in vitro fertilization, in which many embryos are fertilized, screened, and then transplanted into the uterus. Those embryos which carry the disease marker are not implanted.

Many new findings were made during this time period from 2001-2009, including the discovery of stem cells in the brain and other tissues. Also, the ‘reprogramming’ of adult and menenchymal stem cells into nerves or other specialized cells will have definite long term implications for disease therapy. Will it be possible to use adult derived stem cells for regenerative medicine and treating patients? Probaby not. Was it necessary to increase the research support of ES cells if we ever hope to treat Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease or diabetes with this technology? Definitely. With the removal of this ban, universities may once again begin receiving grants and carrying out work on these totipotent cells. Importantly, it opens the door for more clinical trials and human testing in the United States. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, have all been reporting on this issue. Yet very few articles have actually addressed the true ethical or scientific implications of the memorandum.

Truthfully, this decision opens up a massive can of worms regarding the ethical use of embryos and ES cells during our time. Part of the root cause of this is the fault of previous administrations which neglected to address the technological advancements and fully dissect their moral implications. Instead, what amounted to an academic moratorium on ES cell research was put into effect, while other issues such as national security, defense, and wartime tactics took precedence. Some of the critical moral and scientific questions that need to be addressed are: (1) Can ES cells be generated without destroying embryos, and of so, is this as benefical in the clinic and is it efficient? (2) Is the destruction of an embryo universally considered to be an ethical objection? For instance, one may create a cloned embryo of an existing human patient using donated eggs and a cell from that patient. The embryo can be grown in vitro and potentially used to treat his/her disease. If the embryo is killed during this process, is this objectionable? The embryo came into life purely for the purpose of saving that of another. That is more useful, and productive than what is currently allowed under existing abortion law. Abortion is considered legal (but perhaps unethical) in many cases. In some cases it is ethical, for example to save the mother’s life. Therefore, is the destruction of an embryo for saving one’s life always ethical?

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley published 1932

In reality, I do not believe we are so far away from the ‘Brave New World’ scenario. Current technologies allow one to clone thyself and simply implant said embryo into the womb. Gestation of these embryos can give rise to cloned human beings, which is currently an unethical endeavor. This is due to the unknown side effects of cloning on human beings. It is expected that cloned humans, as with other mammals such as cows, pigs, and sheep would develop age related diseases more rapidly and die prematurely. In the future, it may be possible to overcome these obstacles by using DNA from the umbilical cord, but what would be the point? In my eyes, it is imperative to set ground rules and regulations preventing these types of experiments from ever happening during our era, which may or may not have much to do with embryonic stem cell therapy. However, it must be considered as the difference between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning is simply the implantation of an embryo.

Announces Construction of 50 MW Solar Power Plant and NSLS II

Today was an extremely interesting day to be an employee at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Governor David Paterson made a special visit and announced some extremely good news on site to the laboratory employees. The core elements of his talk focused on the funding, development and construction of the National Synchrotron Light Source II and the construction of a new 50 Megawatt (MW) solar panel plant at the laboratory. These are both exciting new developments and display a strong commitment by the federal government to researching and deploying new technologies. There was also mention of a possible additional 400 MW solar power plant to be funded by private investors. Governor Paterson was accompanied by Senator Brian Fowley (NYS Senate), Assemblyman Mark Alessi , Brookhaven National Laboratory Director Sam Aronson and a representative from LIPA. According to past state audits, NY has been directed to implement alternative energy technologies to provide electricity for the region, and this solar power plant will accomplish that. Specifically, a solar power plant will be used to providing power to the new NSLS II, though I beleive there is potential for expansion in the future. This is a major breakthrough and will provide thousands of jobs for the Long Island regional economy in construction, real estate, retail sales, science, education and alternative energy research and development. Much of the engineering and construction will be accomplished my local firms who are hiring individuals form New York and Long Island to do the work.

Last week on Wednesday, February 4th 2009 the Stony Brook University Center for Inclusive Education, Graduate Student Organization (GSO), and the Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate hosted highly a successful event at the Stony Brook University, Charles B. Wang Center. The occasion was a film screening of the documentary “Naturally Obsessed” made by Richard and Carole Rifkind. I had seen this film a few months prior at Brookhaven National Laboratory at the NSLS where I work, and spoke to the Rifkinds afterwards. I told them it would be great to come to Stony Brook University and do a screening for the grad students who would really love it.

It was a fairly large project, and required a lot of communication and advanced planning. Three months prior to the event I had requested $650 funding from the GSO to provide food for the event and an honorarium for the Rifkind’s. Here is a copy of my proposal to the GSO.Working with the CIE was a true pleasure and they provided almost unlimited support. Their director helped me advertise all over with a campus wide email, a posting on the University’s front page, the career center’s website, and emails to all the GSO senators. I sent personal invites to many professors and several of them came. Michael Hadjiargyrou from the Department of Biomedical Engineering was able to participate in our discussion following the showing along with Dean of the Graduate School, Lawrence Martin. In the end, it was a huge success and a lot of fun. We had over 130 attendees come in for the movie and discussion afterwards.

I asked one question that everyone loved: “If you were pretending President Obama was sitting here with us, what are five things you would tell him that you think are important regarding the future of science and education”. We got some great responses which I hope to post later.