Snapshots of the Future

Nature, the Science magazine, marked the start of the new decade by inviting a “selection of leading researchers and policy makers” to speculate on where their fields might be in ten years time.

The contributions are, inevitably, a little uneven.   Some are deeply technical, like the sections on astronomy, on lasers, or on metabolomics, though no less fascinating for all that.

Some are a trifle mundane, or just depressingly familiar.   One, for example, argues that the key to university research is to encourage more “working across disciplines”;  another that future investment in research “will put more weight on judgements about the individual who is applying, not the details of the proposed project”.   But aren’t they both . . . obvious?

Others manage a nice turn of phrase, or a fact that surprises us, yet sums up rather neatly where we are.

We know, for example, that the population is aging.   But did you also know that “by 2020, the average European will have fewer years of life remaining that years he or she has already lived”?   Or that “the healthy period of life has been lengthening as fast or faster than life expectancy”?

Another reminds us (just as those of you of a certain age will remember J Peasmold Gruntfuttock oft intoning) “the answer lies in the soil”.

Life cannot last without soil.   Yet “humanity has already degraded or eroded the topsoil off more that a third of all arable land”.

Soil, he says, that “thin layer of minerals, living micro-organisms, dead plants and animals blanketing the planet is the mother of all terrestrial life and every nation’s most strategic resource.   Yet we treat it like dirt.”

Nicely put.

Structured Searches

That leaves Peter Norvig, former senior computer scientist at NASA, and now Director of Research for Google, musing on the future of search.

Some of his suggestions are a bit scary.   He says that the majority of search queries will be spoken, and not typed.   Fine.   But is it really true that “an experimental minority will be through direct monitoring of brain signals”?   The thought of letting Google anywhere near my brain gives me the creeps.

But it’s when he starts talking about searches as courses that he becomes really relevant to learning providers.

“For example, today if I ask ‘compare approaches to nuclear fusion’, the major search engines agree that a general encyclopaedia article on fusion power comes first, followed by other similar articles.   A decade from now, the result will summarize the major approaches, contrast their differences, automatically translate any foreign documents into my language, and then rank the results by efficacy or place them in a table or chart as appropriate.

“If I then ask for ‘background mathematics for fusion theory’, I will get an outline for an impromptu course concentrating on the necessary complex analysis, customized to specific applications in fusion and to my level of mathematical understanding.   If I stumble, the course will be readjusted to fit my needs, or perhaps the search engine will connect me to a tutor or another student in a similar plight.   Interaction with search engines will be an ongoing conversation; one that is integrated with the other ongoing tasks of our lives.”

That raises two questions.

One, is he right?   If he is, providers will have significantly to rethink what courses and course materials should consist of.   If search not only reliably finds the facts, but can guide you through them and, even, adjust to your level of understanding, what role remains for separate, free-standing course materials?   I think there is a role, but they could look very different from the kinds of materials we’re used to.

Two, he suggest that, when the going gets tough, the “search engine will connect me to a tutor”.   And who will provide the tutor?   Is there room for a new kind of service, for partnerships between traditional providers and search engines that will benefit both?