Last month the Brookings Foundation proposed the creation of a National Innovation Foundation.

As the president of a science-based foundation myself, it’s hard to quibble with a new actor in this fertile territory. In fact I think it is a terrific idea, and one that should loom large in the brimming inbox of the next U.S. president.

Why do we need the NIF?

The NSF, NIH, and other federal agencies do a fine job of supporting and promoting basic scientific research. The Commerce Department and the myriad chambers of commerce do their best to encourage business development. But nobody is directly responsible for the in-between part:

• The part that looks after how to convert cool discoveries in the lab to actual products that people can use.

• The part that links federal initiatives with state and local attempts to promote innovation.

• The part that recognizes small start-up operations and large industrial companies are woven of the same cloth in creating the future.

• The part that ignites partnerships among brainy academics, clever entrepreneurs, and smart business people.

• The part that serves as a general clearinghouse, monitor, and chronicler of innovation wherever it occurs on the planet.

And all this for a meager billion dollars. A good deal, for sure!

Humans have in the neighborhood of 25,000 different genes embedded in their chromosomes. Yeast, a simpler organism, has about 6,000 genes.

How many of the genes are essential to growth?

It’s hard to address this question in humans since gene-deletion experiments are frowned upon. We have no such qualms with yeast, though, and the surprising result is that about 80% of known genes can be knocked out without causing evident harm to the organism.

So the obvious follow-up question is, what do all these “nonessential” genes do? Some insight comes from recent experiments with small molecules—i.e., ordinary chemicals.

A research group from Stanford University and the University of Toronto exposed yeast to structurally diverse chemicals from a variety of sources (Science, 18 April 2008, pp. 362–365). The experimental trick was to use yeast strains missing one gene at a time and see the response to chemical stress. With this approach (and over 6 million individual experiments) the authors concluded that 97% of genes are involved in growth in some manner.

Why is this interesting? Two reasons. First, the results show that there really aren’t “nonessential” genes, at least in yeast. Second—and no doubt dismaying to molecular biologists—chemistry was more useful than genetics in asking a pertinent life-science question.

Sweet.

It’s easy to complain about the dismal state of science education, much harder to find useful solutions. The eighth annual Leadership in Science Education conference (LISE 8), hosted at the Chemical Heritage Foundation last week, was a valiant attempt to take on that hard challenge.

The theme was “New Media and Technology in Science Education,” surely a timely one in the contemporary world. There were scads of good ideas vociferously discussed among the 100 or so participants (you can view the program here), but I’ll leave you with just three to lubricate your educational-thinking juices.

• From John Horrigan, Pew Internet and American Life Project: People encounter news about science principally from TV, but they turn to the Internet first when seeking specific factual information. One way to take advantage of this trend is to develop Internet aggregators that link producers (i.e., scientists) directly to curious consumers
• From Christopher Dede, Harvard Graduate School of Education: People most often interface with the Internet’s scientific richness by using a desktop browser to search for sites with experts or archives. Equally effective, but so far underused, are multiuser virtual environments (MUVEs) and ubiquitous computing with handheld wireless devices. Herein may lie the future in science access and impact.
• Teachers setting their egos aside is a good thing. One speaker, Jean-Claude Bradley of Drexel University’s Department of Chemistry, found that students who skipped his organic chemistry lectures performed just as well as those who diligently attended. Rather than fretting, Bradley developed rich content for all students using the online virtual world Second Life. Usually thought of as a game site, Second Life also provided an intriguing avenue to draw students to science in previously undreamed of ways. What could be better?

Most people don’t go into chemistry for the money. Apparently, though, your own personal chemistry may influence how much money you make. At least if you are a male stockbroker in London.

A new study by researchers at the University of Cambridge showed that British stock traders made more profits on days in which they started with higher levels of testosterone (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 22 April 2008, vol. 105, pp. 6167–6172; online abstract available). And having a good day financially results in sustained high testosterone levels. On days in which the market is unpredictably volatile, cortisol levels rise.

Who cares? Testosterone and cortisol are closely implicated in regulating emotions around stress and competition, so one’s basic body chemistry may drive risky (or cautious) behavior that in turn influences financial markets.

Two questions spring to mind. Are there similar effects in women? Should Barry Bonds become a stock broker when he retires from baseball?