In this Green Power Challenge, only 54 schools were purchasing enough green power to qualify. (Photo courtesy of NREL)
Colleges and universities have been competing to see who can buy the most green energy. Rebecca Williams has this year’s results:
Transcript
Colleges and universities have been competing to see who can buy the most green energy. Rebecca Williams has this year’s results:
The Environmental Protection Agency puts on what it calls a “green power challenge” among colleges each year – who’s using more renewable power such as solar, wind, and geothermal.
This year, the Ivy League beat out the Big Ten to come in first.
The University of Pennsylvania was the top winner.
Blaine Collison directs EPA’s Green Power Partnership. He says colleges and universities can have a lot of influence with utility companies.
“If every school in America were to stand up tomorrow and say ‘we want to be 50% green powered by the end of next year’, the supply side of the market would say, ‘great, let’s talk about how to do that.’”
But in this competition, there’s a lot of room at the top. Only 54 schools were purchasing enough green power to qualify for the challenge.
Several universities are testing out the new Kindle DX, hoping to save money and paper on printing (Photo source: K.lee at Wikimedia Commons)
This fall, six colleges and
universities are throwing out
a lot of their textbooks. Rebecca
Williams reports they’re testing
out the idea of students using
electronic readers for some
classes instead of textbooks:
Transcript
This fall, six colleges and universities are throwing out a lot of their textbooks. Rebecca Williams reports they’re testing out the idea of students using electronic readers for some classes instead of textbooks:
The schools are Case Western, Arizona State, Reed College, Pace University, The University of Virginia’s business school and Princeton.
They’re all testing out the new Kindle DX – it’s got a large screen that the text of textbooks will be loaded into.
Cass Cliatt is with Princeton. She says the University prints out 50 million sheets of paper a year – even though a lot of course material is online these days.
“So the irony is that the availability of digitized text has lead to an actual increase in printing because people don’t like to read a lot of text on computer screens.”
But she says these are different. The new Kindles let you highlight stuff and take notes the way you might in an actual textbook. So in theory, students won’t need to print.
Cliatt says they’ll be testing that theory to see if universities can save paper and money on printing.
The stimulus money is a one-time thing, which concerns some researchers
(Photo courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)
The government’s stimulus package is pouring billions of dollars into research for health, energy, and basic science. Rebecca Williams reports the new money will be helpful, but it’s not clear whether it’ll last:
Transcript
The government’s stimulus package is pouring billions of dollars into research for health, energy, and basic science. Rebecca Williams reports the new money will be helpful, but it’s not clear whether it’ll last:
There’s 10 billion dollars for health care research, 3 billion for other science funding, and that’s just the beginning.
Sam Rankin says it’s a positive change. He chairs the Coalition for National Science Funding.
“This administration and the current Speaker of the House have been very adamant about how important science is and that they want to fund science because they realize it’s an economic driver.”
There’s a catch. The stimulus money is a one-time thing.
But this week, President Barack Obama indicated his budget will mean steady money for health care and energy technology.
“We will invest 15 billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power, advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.”
That makes scientists hopeful, but we won’t know the details of the budget until sometime in April.
(Photo courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)
It’s the best of times and the worst of times to start a science career in the
United States. Researchers today have access to tools and techniques that
have accelerated the pace of discovery to new highs. But as record numbers
of PhD’s graduate, many young scientists are finding a job market that is not
ready to absorb them. Adam Allington traces the supply and demand for
young scientists in a faltering economy:
Transcript
It’s the best of times and the worst of times to start a science career in the
United States. Researchers today have access to tools and techniques that
have accelerated the pace of discovery to new highs. But as record numbers
of PhD’s graduate, many young scientists are finding a job market that is not
ready to absorb them. Adam Allington traces the supply and demand for
young scientists in a faltering economy:
Briana Gross is in her second year of a post-doctoral fellowship at
Washington University, she’s studying genetic adaptations of wild rice.
She’s been applying for college faculty jobs for the past two years. This
year she says she’s gone all-out.
“I’ve applied for I think 36-38 jobs, 3-4 of those positions have been cancelled
completely due to hiring freezes. I’ve had two interviews.”
These days there’s a glut of qualified talent. Between too many doctoral
grads and cutbacks, it’s tough to find a position.
One recent job interview did little to bolster Gross’s confidence for the
future.
“While I was waiting to meet with the dean, one of the financial administrators came buy
and kind of joked about how I couldn’t possibly be interviewing for a position because
there was no money available to hire anyone at the university. So, if that’s happening
this year, next year is going to be really rough.”
So, how’d we end up with too many scientists for the jobs out there? Well,
the answer goes back to an event scientists simply call “the doubling.”
In 1998, President Clinton doubled budget for the National Institutes of
Health, which had the effect of drawing in all kinds of new talent and
investment for science and research.
The problem came later when that funding went flat – precisely at the same
time all those new PhD’s were entering the job market.
“You know, its like you push a bunch of people into the pipeline and then there’s been
chocking off of the U.S. pipeline.”
Kristen Kroll is a professor of developmental biology at Washington
University; she employs two post-docs in her lab.
“What we’ve done is we’ve convinced a whole generation of U.S. post-docs and graduate
students not to go into academic science.”
Young PhD’s see the uphill battle for jobs and scarce grant money and
wonder if its worth the struggle.
And it’s not just post-docs who are feeling the pressure these days—junior
faculty are spending more of their time in the lecture hall and less time in the
lab.
David Duvernell teaches biology at Southern Illinois University at
Edwardsville.
“We try to maintain an active research program at SIUE, at the same time we’re teaching
our 2 or 3 courses a semester.”
Duvernell says SIUE enrollment in freshman-level biology courses has
nearly doubled, but state support has not.
“And where the students are losing out is that then we have less time to spend in research
labs, where we train students individually and give them an experience that will
ultimately make them employable and competitive for graduate and professional
programs.”
University administrators point that historically only about 30% of all post-
docs land a faculty job, with the rest going into the private sector. Except
these the private sector is shedding jobs even faster than the universities.
Jared Strasburg is a 4th-year post-doc from Indiana University. He says if he
hasn’t found a faculty job by August, he’ll have to consider something else.
“Academia is long hours, it’s a lot of work, But, I never felt like if I put in those hours
and worked really hard that I wouldn’t be capable of getting a position and getting
funding necessary to do the work that I was interested in. Needless to say now that
proposition looks a lot more tenuous.”
In recent years some universities have taken steps to curb the number of
graduating PhD’s.
But as the number of unemployed post-graduates rises, some say the whole
system for training scientists needs to be updated to jive with the modern
economy.
As fewer and fewer scientists actually work in universities, some say more
focus needs to be placed on careers outside of academia.
An EPA scientist testing online sensors for water distribution systems (Photo courtesy of the US Office of Management and Budget)
The recession is hitting more than banks and homes these days. State budget cuts and no increases from the federal government are straining research labs and scientists. Adam Allington reports the effects might not be as obvious or immediate as the house foreclosures and the credit crisis, the effect on science jobs and innovation might be just as bad:
Transcript
The recession is hitting more than banks and homes these days. State budget cuts and no increases from the federal government are straining research labs and scientists. Adam Allington reports the effects might not be as obvious or immediate as the house foreclosures and the credit crisis, the effect on science jobs and innovation might be just as bad:
At first glance there’s not much in Dale Dorsett’s lab beyond the usual – you know, grad students in white lab coats, centrifuges, test tubes.
Even though his lab is relatively small, his costs are not.
He takes me toward a locked room in the back of the lab containing a single microscope.
“It’s a laser scanning confocal microscope, which is essential for part of our work. That cost – $350,000 – now you know why we keep it locked.”
Dale is a molecular biologist at St. Louis University. He studies a genetic disorder that affects about one in ten-thousand humans.
Well, that is, when he can.
These days Dorsett says he spends more of his time filling out grant applications than he does on his research.
And he’s not the only one in this pickle. Winning grants for research is getting tough.
“The problem becomes when it gets so competitive that even really deserving projects, or very productive scientists who are doing really good work can’t get funded and that’s the situation we’re in right now.”
Funding from organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation has been slipping for years. It’s a big problem.
It used to be about 30% of grant applications were successful. Now, that success rate has slipped into the teens.
And even those researchers who do get funded say grant preference is often given to projects that produce immediate results – which just isn’t the way most science works.
“I’m conservative because otherwise the lab would go under.”
Kristen Kroll runs a lab studying stem cells at Washington University.
“I would love to be more aggressive about what we go after, which connections we try to make to other models. I think I’ve curbed what we could be doing to a point where what we are doing is sustainable in the current funding climate.”
Kroll says there is such a back log of quality grant applications on file at the NIH and NSF, grant reviewers aren’t even separating wheat from chaff any more they’re separating wheat from wheat. So a lot of good research just doesn’t happen.
And in a world economy the U.S. isn’t the only player in the market for innovation. Other countries could gain an advantage in science.
James McCarter is the Chief Scientist for Divergence, a St. Louis-based biotech company.
“The emergence of India and China, in addition to Japan and Korea and Europe. There are sizeable countries out there now that are serious in these spaces and are making serious investments and have the talent.”
Now,you might be thinking, won’t that big stimulus package send wave of cash into the coffers of government research agencies – problem solved right?
Not so much. While a billion dollar shot in arm might be welcome news for some labs, many advisors worry that the long-term effect might actually exacerbate the funding crisis.
John Russell is the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies at Washington University. He says, a big pile of cash all at once does nothing for ongoing research that can take years to complete.
“One of the concerns about a big bubble is that if it’s just a bubble is that it takes five years to train somebody so it needs to be more spread out I think to be effective.”
Russell warns universities considering a building and spending spree to plan carefully, so current projects don’t reach beyond future budget realities.
European consumers have been quicker to adopt new technologies, like hybrids and efficient diesel cars. Energy Discovery -Innovation Institutes might change that. (Photo by Michael Pereckas, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Making the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy will be a long-term, expensive effort. But, there is the opportunity for jobs, energy independence and reducing the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. This week a report from the Brookings Institution proposes a way to help get us there: Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes. These institutes would take a big picture view of the change and help researchers and businesses avoid pitfalls and false starts along the way. Lester Graham spoke with a supporter of the idea, Gary Was. He’s the Director the Phoenix Energy Institute at the University of Michigan:
Transcript
Making the shift from fossil fuels to cleaner energy will be a long-term, expensive effort. But, there is the opportunity for jobs, energy independence and reducing the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. This week a report from the Brookings Institution proposes a way to help get us there: Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes. These institutes would take a big picture view of the change and help researchers and businesses avoid pitfalls and false starts along the way. Lester Graham spoke with a supporter of the idea, Gary Was. He’s the Director the Phoenix Energy Institute at the University of Michigan:
Gary Was: Energy is a very complex topic. It’s a social issue as much as it is a
technological issue. In addition to the technological challenges of coming up with
new energy sources and proving energy efficiency, we also have a lot of social issues
involved as well. The business sector is heavily involved. Economics is a big issue.
Social behavior and social preferences are big factors in our energy use patterns and
our habits.
Lester Graham: Give me an example of that.
Was: Well, one example is plug-in hybrid electrics. There’s a lot of questions to
how these plug-in hybrids are going to function, and whether they’ll be successful. A
lot of that depends upon people’s preferences. The idea of plugging in, when you
can plug in, how long you have to plug in, how complicated or how difficult it is –
can make a big difference. We’ve seen examples of that with diesel. In Europe, half
the cars are diesel powered. We have the same technology here. There are no diesel
powered cars here. It’s a social issue, not a technological issue.
Graham: Steven Chu, the new Energy Secretary, has spent a good deal of his career
in research. What do you expect his reaction will be to your suggestion of tying
together this energy research?
Was: I think it will be quite positive. Dr. Chu has a background both in the
academic setting as well as in the National Laboratories, and I think he appreciates
well the capabilities of each institution. The meat of this whole proposal, and of this
whole concept, is that the National Laboratories alone, or universities alone, or
industry alone – the three principal research institutions in the US – really aren’t
prepared to handle a challenge of this breadth, and depth, and complexity. And that
we need a new paradigm. We need a new way to be able to take basic science,
accelerate it into development, and push it through technology, transfer it to the
private sector. None of these institutions alone can do that really highly successfully.
Graham: What is this going to do require? Is this government money to get this
launched? Is this going to be another scientific layer of bureaucracy when we get
finished? How do you handle this to make sure it’s effective?
Was: One of the problems we have with energy in the country is that, overall,
regardless of these institutes, this institute concept, its terribly underfunded – in terms
of its comparison to the impact on the economy. The energy business is a 1.5 trillion
dollar business in the US. It’s comparable to healthcare. In healthcare, there is
approximately ten times the amount of federal funds going into research than there is
in energy. So in comparison to the impacts on our lives, it’s underfunded by almost
a factor of ten.
Graham: If we’re to invest in these kinds of institutes, and invest in more research
into energy and how we use it, what kind of return might we see on our tax dollars
that we shovel over to you guys?
Was: Well, that’s a very good question. These discovery institutes, these will be
regionally situated, and each one might be on the order of 200 million dollars a year
funding, and so the entire price tag would be maybe 5 billion dollars. So what do
you get for 5 billion dollars? We expect that the transformation will be much more
rapid, it will be with fewer false starts, and left turns, or dead ends, and it will be
much more efficient than we’re able to do right now. Right now, the system is such
that technology advancements tend to sort of diffuse through society in an uncharted
and undirected way. The objective here is to sharpen that diffusion so that we can
pull these technologies out, translate them into useful products much more quickly.
Graham: Gary Was is the director of the Phoenix Energy Institute at the University
of Michigan. Thanks for coming in.
Some big utility companies are
looking at projects using more renewable
energy. Some are investing in solar on
the rooftops of their customers’ homes. Julie
Grant reports on one of the biggest pilot
projects in the nation:
Transcript
Some big utility companies are
looking at projects using more renewable
energy. Some are investing in solar on
the rooftops of their customers’ homes. Julie
Grant reports on one of the biggest pilot
projects in the nation:
Duke Energy plans to rent 425 rooftops from homeowners
and businesses in North Carolina to install and maintain
solar panels.
Dave Scanzoni is a spokesman for Duke Energy. He says
building a new nuclear or coal plant could take a decade.
But this solar project could contribute electricity to the grid in
just a couple of years.
“Instead of a big, main baseload power plant that we
traditionally think of, we have several hundred small, little
power plants. It’s distributed power plants, a different way to
distribute energy closer to the customer.”
If the project is approved by regulators, the money to pay for
it will come from ratepayers – an 8-cent hike on the average
utility bill.
Other utilities have rooftop solar projects in the works as
power companies begin to experiment to find ways to reduce
carbon emissions.
A team at Tufts University is working on sensors that could change color to
tell you if a bag of lettuce has dangerous bacteria in it.
(Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
Researchers are working on a tool
that could tell you if your food is safe
to eat before you break open the bag.
Rebecca Williams has more:
Transcript
Researchers are working on a tool
that could tell you if your food is safe
to eat before you break open the bag.
Rebecca Williams has more:
A team at Tufts University is working on sensors that could change color to
tell you if a bag of lettuce has dangerous bacteria in it.
The special ingredient is silk. They boiled silkworm cocoons. And made a
thin silk film out of the proteins. The silk film has color changing properties
– like a butterfly’s wing.
Fio Omenetto is the lead researcher. He says it could be possible to activate
the film so it detects the presence of E. coli. Then the film could be put in a
bag of spinach.
“So immediately by looking at color change you will be able to tell whether
the spinach is good to eat or not.”
Omenetto says this is still pretty futuristic at this point. He says it’ll
probably be at least five years before you might see this at the grocery store.
A new report on sustainability is grading
the top 100 colleges and universities in the
country. Tracy Samilton reports the grades
reflect the institution’s environmental and
endowment practices:
Transcript
A new report on sustainability is grading
the top 100 colleges and universities in the
country. Tracy Samilton reports the grades
reflect the institution’s environmental and
endowment practices:
The top 100 colleges and universities in the country just got their
report cards grading them on sustainability. There are a few A’s, a
lot of B’s and C’s, and more D’s than you might really hope to see.
Mark Orlowski is head of Sustainable Endowments Institute. He says
colleges were graded in seven areas, including recycling and whether
the institution considers more than profit when managing its endowment
portfolio.
He says Dartmouth, for example, buys locally produced food, and
Stanford stands out for its endowment practices:
“We recognize Stanford for being the first school in the
country to adopt climate change shareholder voting guidelines.”
Orlowski says he hopes the annual report will encourage colleges to
make sustainability more of a priority.
Many schools are finding that food that comes from cans... (Photo by Davide Guglielmo)
Aren't as good for the tastebuds or health of the students as locally-grown foods. (Photo by Daniel Wildman)
More and more schools, universities and other institutions with cafeterias are by-passing processed foods from multi-national corporations. Instead, they’re buying food from local farmers. Advocates say locally-grown fruits and vegetables are fresher. They say the food tastes better, and they’re finding kids sometimes ask for apples and tomatoes instead of candy and chips. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
More and more schools, universities, and other institutions with cafeterias are bypassing the processed foods from multi-national corporations. Instead, they’re buying food from local farmers. Advocates say locally-grown fruits and vegetables are fresher. They say the food tastes better. And they’re finding kids sometimes ask for apples and tomatoes instead of candy and chips. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:
(Sound of cafeteria)
In this cafeteria, there are displays on the wall asking, “What is local food?” and answering, “Foods grown and raised where you are.” Well, that makes sense, but there’s more.
“Then when you get into the lines…”
Sociology professor Howard Sacks is director of Kenyon College.
“We have these menus that talk about all the things that are being served here and it tells exactly where they come from. So the pasta alfredo with tomato and basil features noodles produced by Mrs. Miller’s noodles in Fredericksburg, Ohio, and the cream is by the Broughton Dairy in Marietta, Ohio. As you can see this is about thirty lines long and it shows about thirty different local producers.”
As recently as the late 1990’s, only a handful of colleges and universities had programs to buy locally-produced foods for their cafeterias. Today, more than two hundred are looking for local farmers for their produce, dairy, and meat products. Most of those schools, such as Kenyon, Yale University, and the University of Wisconsin among the nation’s most expensive and elite.
But even some struggling public school districts are making it a priority to buy local foods. Ray Denniston is Food Services director of the Johnson City School District in the Catskills region of New York. He says a few years ago they served produce that had been shipped from California or Mexico, or they just opened cans.
“So your fruits and vegetables, kids weren’t taking them; it wasn’t a quality item. I’m not going to say we didn’t worry about it, but it got less attention then the other items on the trays. And now that’s changed. So, instead of getting a canned green bean, which I might as well put sawdust out there as far as nutrients, instead of that, now we would have fresh broccoli.”
Denniston used to sit in his office and look at price quotes from food distributors. Now he visits farms and negotiates the best prices for local products he can find in season. He says the change started with a few tomatoes.
“When I first met with Frank, the farmer, he stopped down and dropped off just some tomatoes. And the staff had some, we had some in the cooler and we brought some out and we cut them and there was a taste thing, and they said, ‘Don’t ever get any others but his.’ I mean, they were just so much sweeter, juicier, wonderful tomatoes and then it just kept going.”
Then came the rich green colored broccoli. It was a big change from what they offered their kids before.
Other schools say students love the taste of milk from local farms that don’t give their cows antibiotics. Johnson says cafeteria workers are excited by the fresher vegetables and meats. They like talking with the students about the food, and they like cooking again. Many schools don’t even have kitchens anymore; they only have heating trays for pre-packaged foods.
Deb Bruns is with the California Department of Education. She says those heated meals often don’t taste very good and she says they send the wrong message to kids.
“…that lunch is a time to grab something processed and hurry through it and get out to recess, and it doesn’t matter what we tell them in the classroom about nutrition if we’re not modeling that in their dining experience then we’re just missing such an opportunity to really teach them where their food comes from.”
Many schools start these programs because of nutrition and obesity concerns. By serving fresh, local food, the nutrition lessons continue when the kids line up in the cafeteria. Some schools say prices from local farms are actually lower then national distributors, but they often end up spending more money on fruits and vegetables. That’s because – believe it or not – kids are eating more broccoli, apples, and tomatoes.
In this Green Power Challenge, only 54 schools were purchasing enough green power to qualify. (Photo courtesy of NREL)
