Experiment Design: Facilitating Awareness to Rapid Development

In general, there is a significant gap between consumer technology development and technology intended for scientific use. However, the two seem to be on an exponentially accelerated path to collision and have been for some time. For example, the core development of smart phones developed almost completely outside the concept of designing instruments for science. It's true that research specific to cellular transmission, graphics acceleration, hardware improvement, ect, can often be attributed to academic research...however, the product itself, the smart phone, is entirely designed for general consumer / commodity use. It was only after mass use did scientists start to realize the potential of the mobile sensors, data collection, visualization, and other uses specific to the need of experiments. At the same time, the pure science development being released for mass consumption (LDAP protocol is a good example) in a final form has reduced over the years. This disconnect, which came about organically from the pace of technological invention, has left a large void in which science could be capitalizing and even leading the development of, commodity devices both the general population and science could benefit.

• So then, how to better integrate new, perhaps revolutionary technology in particular, to the scientific workflow? 
• On top of that, how can scientific study influence commodity devices such that the devices are primed to work as citizen science or teaching and learning devices once development is mature?
• Finally, how can commodity devices, both cheaper and readily available in support and quantity, both accelerate discovery and improve cost effectiveness in hard to reach regions such as the Arctic, Antarctic, Ocean, Space and others?
• What potential advancement in science methodology and workflow could result from newfound researcher awareness?

These questions led to a collaborative approach between myself and the National Science Foundation Division of Polar Programs. The technology of focus for the experiment is a result of a potential data collection and validation method created from new disruptive devices and services.  For visualization and collection, I proposed a revolutionary device still in early stages of development be a centerpiece of the project: Google Glass. Additionally, Amazon Web Services would provide the computational power and scale necessary to address in-situ processing for data collection and retrieval. Finally, additional resources yet to be named would provide for additional sensor immersion and high-accuracy data collection in tandem with the Glass and AWS technologies.

With Polar Programs, we discussed many strategies, but ultimately settled on a somewhat hybrid approach to soliciting projects. The traditional aspect of our plan focused awareness efforts on well-know gatherings related to earth science domains we wished to target. the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference was unanimously determined a good fit for a "wide net" approach for soliciting interest in pilot projects. Once there was specific interest that could be tied to specific scientific discovery, the AGU opportunities will evolve into targeted projects delivering proof-of-concept examples. Finally, the proof-of-concept projects are to provide a basis for extrapolation of additional areas of scientific discovery to be pursued.

UPDATE - The video call issue "somewhat" resolved...

I was just as frustrated with Google as everyone else when the 'Hangout' feature for Glass was removed back in May/June 2014. However, the concept of immersive applications for businesses of all kinds still persists, and not just in pure science. For example, the Remedy application for Glass, being piloted by Harvard and other Med Schools:

http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/25/remedy/

Remedy is essentially a virtual patient visit, aided by Glass, mobile devices, and interfaces to patient records. Indeed the medical industry stands to benefit immensely from this kind of revolution in handling patient treatment.

However, a true replacement for Hangout this is not, and a replacement for Hangout in general doesn't seem to be on the radar right now. HOWEVER, there is the Livestream app for Glass.

Livestream allows a Glass wearer to broadcast audio and video over glass to a web audience. The audience in turn can write text back to the Glass wearer, which shows up in the Glass app. In theory, this is pretty awesome. I have yet to experience the service without some hiccups in performance, however. For example, significant latency of the feed (ok, blame networks) but also complete dropping of the connection intermittently. I will continue to play with Livestream, but I'm hoping to find a better classroom app for Glass out there.

Open Data in the Context of Arctic Glass

Other than the customary excuse for "not having enough time" to update this blog, I do have some fairly well-formed excuses that led me to thinking about the concept of open data, science, and all topics related to that conversation. All of this due to this simple conundrum: "I want to be efficient about my progress reporting and findings for Arctic Glass, BUT I also want to share some of this information publicly on this blog." This of course developed into the realization that I would have to essentially keep current on two separate records. One for my internal reporting and one for external. While for some areas of science this makes a lot of sense (i.e. munition research), it does not make sense at all in my case. If anything, I want to attract a wide audience, inclusive of commercial and the general public, to my ideas forming as a result of the Arctic Glass project. However, the idea of two separate narratives for this process for which I would rather be doing the experimenting and not the administration was driving me a bit crazy. Ultimately I decided to err on the side of open. (Note to Google though, it would be AWESOME if I could limit some text in my blog posts to specific users only. Kind of like highlighting for security purposes.)

In any case, what does "being open about data" mean in the context of Arctic Glass:


- My field notes, and thoughts surrounding them, will be kept in this blog, open to anyone.
WHY? Because I'm not the one manufacturing the product. Just as with pure science in general, I'm not limited specifically by commercial competition. I have knowledge to share, and my only expectation is to be kept, at least, informed by any research or commercial development that comes from my work.


- My expenditures, and other financial information regarding Arctic Glass will be kept private, for now. 
WHY? Mostly because this can be a sensitive subject for some, and there is really no scientific advantage to that information right at this moment in time. Not to say this always has to be the case.


- Collaborative information regarding commercial or public entities will be open but only at the consent of the parters involved.
WHY? Kind of obvious, but betraying others trust blindly doesn't make people want to collaborate.

WHY be open in general?
Because science, (and myself) can move faster (and be more efficient and ultimately useful).

Because collaborators are a blessing not a problem. On top of that, they can help you keep your eye on the goal AND help you get there.

Because there is a lot to do, and there is more than enough work to go around (thanks to Dan Duffy @ NASA for this thought)


I realize that many researchers do in fact, post their project process online. This is awesome! I plan to help encourage this trend with some kind of non-static web presence beyond this blog, very soon...