One of the biggest issues of our time is energy: where to get it, how to save it, and how it relates to our climate, food and water. Naturally, we cover this topic in our pages in multiple ways, and from many angles, in practically every edition. In our January issue, for instance, we ran an interview with clean technology investor Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems and a member of our board of advisers [“In Search of the Radical Solution,” interview by Mark Fischetti]. Khosla made a bold statement: “If an innovative idea has a 90 percent probability of failing, then I like it. Why? Because it is likely to be the one that has a quantum jump in performance.” In contrast, he said, only pursuing “high-probability areas” yields results that are “all incremental.”

I’m not sure I would put it that way, but we agree that big ideas are part of a portfolio of technologies to address national and global energy needs. Thus, our cover story presents “7 Radical Energy Solutions.” None is probably the “ultimate” answer—in fact, they all share a high risk of failure. But they could be part of a rational combination of technologies and policies, balancing the requirements of energy security, environmental soundness and public health.

On a personal note, we are saddened to report that one of the stories in the cover feature is the last piece we will be able to run by writer JR Minkel, whom we lost too young earlier this year. JR was a writer of great intelligence, passion and curiosity. We will try to draw inspiration and solace from his memory as we consider the challenges of the future ahead. We will need them. 

Calling All Scientists
The National Academies last fall reported that the U.S. ranks 27 out of 29 wealthy countries in proportion of college students with degrees in science or engineering. It called on federal and state governments to improve teaching in math and science by targeting early childhood education and public school curricula and by supporting teacher training in crucial subjects. But many science teachers today, particularly in middle school and younger grades, do not have a science degree.

Enter 1,000 Scientists in 1,000 Days, which aims to help teachers and scientists to connect with one another. Scientific American is launching this program as part of its three-year (that’s the 1,000 days) Change the Equation initiatives with our parent company, Nature Publishing Group. The idea is simple. We seek scientists, mathematicians and engineers who are willing to volunteer to advise on curricula, answer a classroom’s questions or visit a school—for instance, to participate in a lab or to talk about what you do.

Scientists, mathematicians, engineers: We hope you will consider participating in this worthy program by volunteering using the form found at www.ScientificAmerican.com.

Teachers: We plan to be ready with a geographic listing of experts near you by the beginning of the 2011–2012 academic year.

Also on our Web site in May will be free science-related activities for parents and kids, called Bring Science Home.

Next issue, I will tell you about another new program—this one for enthusiasts wishing to work directly with scientists on real research.

5 Comments

1. 1. solspot 07:13 PM 4/19/11

   Mariette DiChristina is the best editor in Chief at SciAm in many years. How exciting to read about Change The Equation in schools, instead of reading rants about science vs. religion in schools. CTE is a great way to promote the wonders and excitment of real science like we used to hear about from real scientists in SciAm.
   
   In recent years, many teachers at science fairs have said that they would NOT refer students to SciAm, especially the website, because of the distractions caused by opinionated skeptics and the unscientific psycho babble of writers who claimed to be 'popularizing' science. The teachers want their students to DO science and to hear from people who DO science. That's the only way to popularize it. These debates and scandals, to which writers seem to be drawn, will just distract students from the fascinating topics at the cutting edge of research. I became a scientist 40+ years ago because of the excitement of doing science, and I never met a student who got excited about science by discussing politics and belief systems.
   
   After 10 years, I think that I may finally subscibe to SciAm again. Go CTE, and Go science!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. chandra1961 03:04 AM 4/20/11

   Please check the RSA Animate - Changing Education Paradigms
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
   
   Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity
   
   http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
   
   I am 12th standard failed person, but for your kind information, i have completed this below work connected with the true nature of the higgs mechanism. Off course, i am considering nature as a sole teacher.
   
   http://www.mmdnewswire.com/higgs-mechanism-chandrakanth-natekar-10560.html
   
   Nature can help us to learn when we experience the detachment or the repulsion. Indeed, the great Renaissance of the 18th century was associated with the attractive character of capital and its birth time gravity. The forthcoming Renaissance of the 21st century will be associated with the repulsive character of capital and its death time gravity. In other words, the law of repulsion is connected with the law of detachment.
   
   In the forthcoming days, the strong compressive wave of financial repulsion will give birth to a sudden change in the psychological velocity, density, pressure and temperature of the entire humanity and will spiritually move towards the long awaited Utopian dream of commune way of living.
   
   This will happen within 24 hours like a rise and fall of a Nile River.
   
   Have a good day!
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. hoamingin in reply to chandra1961 08:10 AM 4/22/11

   Chandra1961,
   
   Is the 1961 an indication that you are still, emotionally and ideologically back in the idealistic 1960s?
   
   I do not think many people would agree with your "Utopian dream of commune way of living". That was what Communism was supposed to be. That was what the communes in Paraguay were about.
   
   The problem is that we are dealing with humans who are all living lifestyles for which they did not evolve. Humans evolved over 6my as hunter gatherers who lived in what were probably small communal groups. But instead of being Utopian, those communal groups were probably simply and brutally essential to survive.
   
   For 6my there was virtually no innovation. Hominids must have used stones, bones or bits of wood as external implements to survive, but it took the large brain of the first humans to innovate by modifying stones to fashion stone tools. The emergence of modern humans 200,000ya resulted in better stone tools.
   
   That changed when humans were forced by a sudden drop into a mini Ice Age 11,000ya to herd the animals they previously hunted and cultivate the crops they previously gathered.
   
   The complex societies that humans have since developed have been human inventions, to which they brought a brain and physical capabilities that evolved for a very different lifestyle.
   
   I call what has been happening in the 6,000 years since the first cities as the Great Experiment to develop complex societies that work for a majority. We are still experimenting.
   
   In recent centuries humans bumbled their way towards societies that promised a better life for most humans. What has happened recently has been humans who have been able to exert control using that control to direct the benefits of society to themselves. That repeats a pattern observed since the 12th century, in which the wealth of a financially dominant society is directed to a minority, effectively screwing the majority and leading to the decline of the society.
   
   Maybe humans will learn sometime, hopefully soon. I agree with your hopes for a better future, but rather than aim for Utopia, I would prefer to aim at a society that provides opportunities for everyone, if they put in the effort.
   
   David Bainbridge
   www.ideasintuitionandthinking.com
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. sfranks105 08:06 PM 4/25/11

   Please add actual link to volunteer sheet, right now it goes to SA home page and I can't find it when I search for it. Thanks

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. jbowie in reply to sfranks105 06:38 PM 4/28/11

   I agree with this, I would love to sign up but can not find the form.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this