The New Longitude Prize, what gets your vote?
Discussion
So, the new Longitude 10M Prize is now open to public votes, which of the topics gets your vote?
The Longitude Prize
For me:
Low carbon Air transport: NO (just stop pointlessly flying round the world to sit on a beach)
Water for everyone: NO (We have the technical solution to this already, just not the political will)
Future Antibiotics: NO (the pharmaceutical companies already have enough cash to develop these if they wanted to)
Paralysis Cure: MAYBE - lots of interesting technology, both medical and social could help with this one
Dementia: MAYBE - this is going to become an increasing problem as medical science allows us to live longer
Food: YES - The one subject that is likely to affect both the most people and the poorest people, as competition for food and energy colide in the next 20 years!
What are the rest of you voting for??
The Longitude Prize
For me:
Low carbon Air transport: NO (just stop pointlessly flying round the world to sit on a beach)
Water for everyone: NO (We have the technical solution to this already, just not the political will)
Future Antibiotics: NO (the pharmaceutical companies already have enough cash to develop these if they wanted to)
Paralysis Cure: MAYBE - lots of interesting technology, both medical and social could help with this one
Dementia: MAYBE - this is going to become an increasing problem as medical science allows us to live longer
Food: YES - The one subject that is likely to affect both the most people and the poorest people, as competition for food and energy colide in the next 20 years!
What are the rest of you voting for??
In keeping with the spirit of the original prize, no eco-peace drivel, but awarded to the first man to get to Mars.
The problem with making people live longer and have more food is that you get - more people. But I think from your list dementia is sound, as it would give sufferers a better quality of life in their latter years and take a burden from family and state.
The problem with making people live longer and have more food is that you get - more people. But I think from your list dementia is sound, as it would give sufferers a better quality of life in their latter years and take a burden from family and state.
I went...
Antibiotics first
Water second
Food third
If we fail to "fix" the antibiotic resistance things are going to get uncomfortable, globally and without respect to gender, wealth, class, technology within a relatively short time frame.
I put water above food because fresh, clean, abundant water would be an enabler for potential resolution of the food challenge (e.g. irrigation etc).
I was disappointed there was no mention of nuclear fusion but I guess they didn't want to encourage a spot of shed based engineering in pursuit of the money.
Antibiotics first
Water second
Food third
If we fail to "fix" the antibiotic resistance things are going to get uncomfortable, globally and without respect to gender, wealth, class, technology within a relatively short time frame.
I put water above food because fresh, clean, abundant water would be an enabler for potential resolution of the food challenge (e.g. irrigation etc).
I was disappointed there was no mention of nuclear fusion but I guess they didn't want to encourage a spot of shed based engineering in pursuit of the money.
Edited by GnuBee on Friday 23 May 11:51
Max_Torque said:
Future Antibiotics: NO (the pharmaceutical companies already have enough cash to develop these if they wanted to)
I think the antibiotics one is the thing to go for. They have kept and are keeping alive millions of people, maybe even billions, who would otherwise die, and we have a finite number of them that bacteria are gradually adapting to. It's true that pharmaceutical companies have cash to develop them, but these companies are businesses and have no obligation to do so, and their development is probably not profitable enough to warrant the multi-year R&D investment (to recoup investment they'd have to be priced out of general use, initially at least, and I guarantee that no pharmaceutical company would want the bad PR that would come from pricing a lifesaving drug out of the reach of the majority).
Engineer1 said:
The issue with antibiotics is people abuse them either not completing the course of drugs or the farming industry using them prophylactically on their animals.
That is true...the need for new ones is in large part due to misuse of the existing ones. But that doesn't change the situation - we need new ones. Perhaps the requirement should be for a new antibiotic that is only available as part of a combination of antibiotics contained in a single pill. Although I'm not a doctor (or, more importantly, a pharmacist) so I don't even know if that's a realistic thing to ask for. I suppose side-effects would make that difficult.
Hang on, I'm not supposed to be solving the problem, I'm supposed to be saying "yeah, do that one" and then walking away.
Right: antibiotics. Now someone else sort it out.
Simpo Two said:
Bennovon said:
Perhaps the requirement should be for a new antibiotic that is only available as part of a combination of antibiotics contained in a single pill.
That would most likely be automatic over-subscribing, exactly what you're trying to avoid.One way to combat antibiotic resistance is to hit bacteria with a spectrum of different antibiotics at once, because if they've developed resistance to one then they are extremely unlikely to have developed resistance to the others as well...the problem is that single antibiotics are often prescribed, and/or patient compliance is poor, meaning that bacteria populations aren't killed quickly and completely, meaning that there is a chance that the population could develop resistance to the single antibiotic used.
I was just thinking of how you could get a multispectrum approach that would be easy to comply with, as that would minimise the chances of bacteria becoming resistant to any new antibiotics that were developed.
That's a pretty lame bunch of choices, really. Over- and aging- population issues and some greeny b
ks. Paralysis of those there, but it is hardly "one thing".
Why not a prize for bringing a bacteriophage cure to market? Or landing a man on Mars? A manned base at a Lagrange Point? Nuclear fusion?
ks. Paralysis of those there, but it is hardly "one thing".Why not a prize for bringing a bacteriophage cure to market? Or landing a man on Mars? A manned base at a Lagrange Point? Nuclear fusion?
Bennovon said:
I don't know what you mean by "oversubscribing", sorry...what I'm getting at is an unavoidable multispectrum approach.
Sorry, I meant over-prescribing!I see the logic in what you say but it also means you're throwing A/Bs around needlessly. I think it comes down to specific bacteria.
hairykrishna said:
The flight one appears to require someone to basically require someone inventing zero carbon jet fuel
No no no, you just buy some carbon credits or give some money to an EU quango, then put a logo on your website saying 'Carbon neutral flight, look at my shiny ass'.Do I win?
Bennovon said:
Engineer1 said:
The issue with antibiotics is people abuse them either not completing the course of drugs or the farming industry using them prophylactically on their animals.
That is true...the need for new ones is in large part due to misuse of the existing ones. But that doesn't change the situation - we need new ones. Perhaps the requirement should be for a new antibiotic that is only available as part of a combination of antibiotics contained in a single pill. Although I'm not a doctor (or, more importantly, a pharmacist) so I don't even know if that's a realistic thing to ask for. I suppose side-effects would make that difficult.
Hang on, I'm not supposed to be solving the problem, I'm supposed to be saying "yeah, do that one" and then walking away.
Right: antibiotics. Now someone else sort it out.
The only issue is that this sounds very similar to the existing Tricorder X Prize for developing a device that can "diagnose patients better than or equal to a panel of board certified physicians".
Morningside said:
Lets get this right. You win a prize of 10 million for Antibiotics research where the actual true value would be hundreds of millions.
I would have liked to seen a prize for Graphine or something else. All these seem a little dull to be honest.
I don't know the exact T&Cs but if you did come up with a solution to any of those problems there didn't appear to be any concept of you then walking away from commercial rights. So you could have your 10 million and the licensing, sale revenue etc of your solution.I would have liked to seen a prize for Graphine or something else. All these seem a little dull to be honest.
Graphene is an enabler for solutions not a solution in it's own right - who knows maybe graphene would be a core part of the material science behind reducing air travel emissions?
It did seem that the challenges split down the middle somewhat; you could see antibiotics, food and water as "large" problems; things like to affect all of us (globally). Whilst not in anyway wishing to diminish the impact of those directly affected and close, paralysis and dementia don't have quite that scope. Air travel was clearly a way of reducing the vast scope of climate change.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff