Big Think Interview With Krisztina Holly

Question: What is the future of the U.S. university? 

Krisztina\r\n Holly: So there are two main parts to the university. There is the \r\nresearch enterprise and there is the educational enterprise and I \r\ndefinitely see both parts of it changing a lot in the next decade or so.\r\n So, speaking about the educational enterprise it’s not enough for \r\npeople the learn the skills that they’re learning today, as valuable as \r\nthey may be, but it’s going to be very important for them to learn \r\ninnovation skills that enable them to better communicate their ideas and\r\n communicate a value proposition, figure out how to make greater impact \r\nwith their ideas by enrolling other people in their vision and to \r\nunderstand how to finance their idea and how to turn it into a \r\nsustainable business, nonprofit, whatever form it is. So that is going \r\nto be really important. We think it is especially important at the PhD \r\nlevel. We think that is something that has been ignored. In fact, Kurt \r\nCarlson who is the CEO of SRI International, they’re a non-profit \r\nresearch lab in Menlo Park, he was giving a talk recently and he said \r\nthat they get the most amazing PhDs around the world, around the country\r\n to come and work for them and despite that, it takes them seven to ten \r\nyears to become fully productive members of the team. Why is that? It is\r\n because they lack the innovation skills. They lack the skills of \r\nunderstanding how they fit into the innovation ecosystem, how they fit \r\nin, how they communicate their ideas and how they address real world \r\nproblems. So that’s perfect validation for the fact that at USC we just \r\nannounced and we’re launching for the fall an innovation diploma program\r\n for PhD students that is free of charge for PhDs. It is a three-course \r\nsequence unlike any other program that we’re aware of, and we think it \r\nis really, really valuable for our students. We’re not trying to turn \r\nPhDs into business people. We don’t think that is appropriate. We don’t \r\nthink that it always works. We want to keep them as researchers at the \r\ncutting edge of their field and that’s their whole goal is to become the\r\n absolute best in a discipline and there have been some criticisms that \r\nacademics don’t understand the bigger picture or they’re too \r\nspecialized. The reality is if you’re going to be the absolute best you \r\nhave to be very specialized, but that doesn’t preclude you from \r\nunderstanding how to communicate with others that can take your idea and\r\n make it into something really impactful. So it’s sort of bridging that \r\ngap by making both the academics aware and then of course we’d like to \r\nfocus on the business community as well to bring them closer to \r\nacademia.

Question: How might digital scholarship \r\nimpact innovation at universities? 

Krisztina Holly: There\r\n are a lot of changes that are happening now that are really going to be\r\n impacting the way innovation happens in the university. One of them, \r\nfor example, is open access to research results and people are \r\npublishing increasingly in open access journals and in fact I think \r\nthere have been about 5,000 new open access journals that have popped up\r\n online in the last couple of years that are circumventing the typical \r\npeer reviewed printed journal publications and that will have some \r\nsignificant affect in the future. It’s not just a matter of open access \r\nto the papers, but also there has been a greater drive towards open \r\naccess towards the data itself. It is somewhat controversial because \r\nthere is definitely an interest by faculty with all the work that they \r\nput into collecting that data and this has been a challenge for a while,\r\n but it is exacerbated by this new open access. How do you get to \r\nbenefit from your own data that you’ve worked so hard to collect and \r\nthen and publish on? So how long is it appropriate to hold back that \r\ndata before you share it with other people? Obviously the sooner you get\r\n the data out there the more people will benefit and at the same time \r\nyou need to motivate faculty to be collecting that data in the first \r\nplace and so that will be an interesting thing to see. 

Also \r\ndigital scholarship is changing the output of research. It used to be \r\nthat you can do some research, you can write it up in a thesis or a \r\npaper, publish it or put it on a bookshelf and that was your \r\npublication. That is not going to cut it anymore. You have digital \r\nmultimedia output. How do you archive that? For example, we have this \r\nsystem that was developed at USC in collaboration with some other \r\nuniversities called Hypercities. It was developed by a historian in fact\r\n at USC, Phil Ethington and what it is, is you can put geo-rectified \r\nmaps and geo-tagged photographs into the system. I can look at my \r\nneighborhood and then click on a button and it goes from the view from \r\nthe sky, the satellite view down into "Well let’s see what the map \r\nlooked like from 1986. Now let’s see this other map from 1920," and you \r\nrealize "My God, there is no marina there," and it’s almost like going \r\nthrough time and seeing how things were. You can look at different \r\nphotographs and very much in a crowdsourcing fashion it enables other \r\nhistorians now. It’s this platform where other people can add to this \r\narchive of information, so it brings up some interesting questions. One \r\nof the questions is how do you store that kind of output if it is not a \r\npiece of paper that you can put in a library or you can scan in? How do \r\nyou archive this? How do you enable people to access that information? \r\nAnd if you are allowing people to contribute to it then how do you give \r\nproper credit to those individuals that are contributing to this piece \r\nof scholarship if there is now hundreds of people that are contributing \r\nto this? So this is very different. It’s a brave new world. It’s \r\ndifferent from the way it was 20, 30 years ago and it’s going to \r\ncontinue to change.

Question: How can we stop the concealing of research in academia? 

Krisztina Holly: It is an interesting challenge that in order to motivate people to excel and do things, it’s part of human nature that there needs to be some sort of incentive. So in the market economy it’s very much based on financial rewards. In academia it is very much based on reputation and so either way there is competition. I do think in academia it’s much more collaborative, so I think that although people can criticize academics at times for holding back certain research results—and it’s not ideal, it’s not optimal—at the same time I do think that there is a real sense of collaboration and the desire to create great results together. But I do think that we do have to be collaborating more and we are collaborating more. A perfect example is the Human Genome project. That would not have come together unless you had many universities and researchers that came together to work for the greater good on this project and ultimately it was clear who the big contributors were. It’s really a part of the whole ethic is to try to be able to track that, but there are challenges because if you’re starting to bring together lots of other people you know you want to make sure that we maintain that ethic for providing acknowledgment to the people who contribute. 

We have lots of big challenges ahead of us, whether it is trying to reduce the cost of solar energy or trying to deliver clean water to the whole world or renewable energy in general and global warming. All of these things are going to really need to have large collaborations and I don’t know that we’ve completely figured that out yet. It’s just a prediction that it will cause some pressure and some challenges for universities because right now, especially the larger elite universities they have large research enterprises that they can build on and they can build on their reputation by bringing more research or dollars, and to be doing more exciting research. At the same time if universities are collaborating more on programs then the universities will maybe be asking themselves: "How do we preserve our brand?" Because brand is important in that collaboration. So individual universities need to have a value proposition so that it is not just a place where faculty sit and get a paycheck. Faculty can take their research and they can move to another place, so it will put more pressure on universities to ensure that they’re doing their jobs and creating that innovative environment that enables people to collaborate and work together. That is really one of the huge values of universities and a place like USC, we’ve been around for almost 130 years... absolutely integral to the local community and also within our own we’ve built up this faculty over the years. And that enables us to get the absolute best students to come through. So it’s based on a real foundation and as an example we just need to make sure that we maintain that and we keep growing and we keep increasing that or else we’re not going to be relevant.

Recorded on May 6, 2010

A conversation with the vice provost for innovation at the University of Southern California.

The power of authority: how easily we do what we’re told

Milgram's experiment is rightly famous, but does it show what we think it does?

Credit: MEHDI FEDOUACH via Getty Images
Mind & Brain
  • In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram was sure that good, law-abiding Americans would never be able to follow orders like the Germans in the Holocaust.
  • His experiments proved him spectacularly wrong. They showed just how many of us are willing to do evil if only we're told to by an authority figure.
  • Yet, parts of the experiment were set up in such a way that we should perhaps conclude something a bit more nuanced.
Keep reading Show less

We're winning the war on cancer

As the American population grows, fewer people will die of cancer.

Credit: JEFF PACHOUD via Getty Images
Surprising Science
  • A new study projects that cancer deaths will decrease in relative and absolute terms by 2040.
  • The biggest decrease will be among lung cancer deaths, which are predicted to fall by 50 percent.
  • Cancer is like terrorism: we cannot eliminate it entirely, but we can minimize its influence.
Keep reading Show less

Golden blood: The rarest blood in the world

We explore the history of blood types and how they are classified to find out what makes the Rh-null type important to science and dangerous for those who live with it.

Abid Katib/Getty Images
Surprising Science
  • Fewer than 50 people worldwide have 'golden blood' — or Rh-null.
  • Blood is considered Rh-null if it lacks all of the 61 possible antigens in the Rh system.
  • It's also very dangerous to live with this blood type, as so few people have it.
Keep reading Show less

China's "artificial sun" sets new record for fusion power

China has reached a new record for nuclear fusion at 120 million degrees Celsius.

Credit: STR via Getty Images
Technology & Innovation

This article was originally published on our sister site, Freethink.

China wants to build a mini-star on Earth and house it in a reactor. Many teams across the globe have this same bold goal --- which would create unlimited clean energy via nuclear fusion.

But according to Chinese state media, New Atlas reports, the team at the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) has set a new world record: temperatures of 120 million degrees Celsius for 101 seconds.

Yeah, that's hot. So what? Nuclear fusion reactions require an insane amount of heat and pressure --- a temperature environment similar to the sun, which is approximately 150 million degrees C.

If scientists can essentially build a sun on Earth, they can create endless energy by mimicking how the sun does it.

If scientists can essentially build a sun on Earth, they can create endless energy by mimicking how the sun does it. In nuclear fusion, the extreme heat and pressure create a plasma. Then, within that plasma, two or more hydrogen nuclei crash together, merge into a heavier atom, and release a ton of energy in the process.

Nuclear fusion milestones: The team at EAST built a giant metal torus (similar in shape to a giant donut) with a series of magnetic coils. The coils hold hot plasma where the reactions occur. They've reached many milestones along the way.

According to New Atlas, in 2016, the scientists at EAST could heat hydrogen plasma to roughly 50 million degrees C for 102 seconds. Two years later, they reached 100 million degrees for 10 seconds.

The temperatures are impressive, but the short reaction times, and lack of pressure are another obstacle. Fusion is simple for the sun, because stars are massive and gravity provides even pressure all over the surface. The pressure squeezes hydrogen gas in the sun's core so immensely that several nuclei combine to form one atom, releasing energy.

But on Earth, we have to supply all of the pressure to keep the reaction going, and it has to be perfectly even. It's hard to do this for any length of time, and it uses a ton of energy. So the reactions usually fizzle out in minutes or seconds.

Still, the latest record of 120 million degrees and 101 seconds is one more step toward sustaining longer and hotter reactions.

Why does this matter? No one denies that humankind needs a clean, unlimited source of energy.

We all recognize that oil and gas are limited resources. But even wind and solar power --- renewable energies --- are fundamentally limited. They are dependent upon a breezy day or a cloudless sky, which we can't always count on.

Nuclear fusion is clean, safe, and environmentally sustainable --- its fuel is a nearly limitless resource since it is simply hydrogen (which can be easily made from water).

With each new milestone, we are creeping closer and closer to a breakthrough for unlimited, clean energy.