DARPA's BioManufacturing in Space program seeks to leverage the unique microgravity environment of space to grow large, complex biostructures currently impossible to produce on Earth. This research aims to overcome terrestrial limitations like gravity-induced stresses and nutrient transport challenges. The program will explore new biomanufacturing techniques and evaluate the feasibility of producing these structures in orbit, with potential applications including tissue engineering, organ fabrication, and advanced materials development for defense and commercial sectors.
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) is discreetly funding community-owned fiber optic networks, bringing affordable, high-speed internet access to underserved areas. These networks offer gigabit speeds for just $50-$65 per month, significantly undercutting incumbent ISPs often providing slower speeds at higher prices. This funding is helping bridge the digital divide by empowering communities to build and control their own internet infrastructure, fostering local economic development and improving access to essential services.
Hacker News commenters generally lauded the ARPA-funded community-owned fiber initiatives. Several pointed out the significant difference between publicly owned/community-owned networks and the usual private ISP model, highlighting the potential for better service, lower prices, and local control. Some expressed concerns about the long-term sustainability and scalability of these projects, questioning whether the initial funding would be enough and if these smaller networks could compete with established giants. Others noted the importance of community engagement and technical expertise for success. A recurring theme was the frustration with existing ISPs and their perceived lack of investment in underserved areas, with commenters expressing hope that these community projects could serve as a model for broader change. Several commenters also discussed the regulatory hurdles and lobbying power of incumbent ISPs, emphasizing the need for continued public support and advocacy for these alternative models.
Japan's scientific output has declined in recent decades, despite its continued investment in research. To regain its position as a scientific powerhouse, the article argues Japan needs to overhaul its research funding system. This includes shifting from short-term, small grants towards more substantial, long-term funding that encourages risk-taking and ambitious projects. Additionally, reducing bureaucratic burdens, fostering international collaboration, and improving career stability for young researchers are crucial for attracting and retaining top talent. The article emphasizes the importance of prioritizing quality over quantity and promoting a culture of scientific excellence to revitalize Japan's research landscape.
HN commenters discuss Japan's potential for scientific resurgence, contingent on reforming its funding model. Several highlight the stifling effects of short-term grants and the emphasis on seniority over merit, contrasting it with the more dynamic, risk-taking approach in the US. Some suggest Japan's hierarchical culture and risk aversion contribute to the problem. Others point to successful examples of Japanese innovation, arguing that a return to basic research and less bureaucracy could reignite scientific progress. The lack of academic freedom and the pressure to conform are also cited as obstacles to creativity. Finally, some commenters express skepticism about Japan's ability to change its deeply ingrained system.
Summary of Comments ( 41 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43257473
HN commenters express skepticism about the feasibility and practicality of DARPA's proposal to grow large biological structures in space. Several doubt the cost-effectiveness compared to Earth-based manufacturing, citing the expense of launching and maintaining such a complex system in orbit. Others question the specific advantages of microgravity for this purpose, suggesting alternative solutions like scaffolding or 3D bioprinting on Earth. Some raise concerns about potential biohazards and the ethical implications of creating large, novel biological structures. A few highlight the potential for scientific discovery and acknowledge the innovative nature of the project, albeit with reservations about its ultimate success. Several users also note the military context of DARPA's involvement, speculating about potential applications in areas like bioweapons or self-repairing spacecraft.
The Hacker News post titled "DARPA exploring growing bio structures of 'unprecedented size' in microgravity" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43257473) has a moderate number of comments discussing various aspects of the linked SAM.gov solicitation.
Several commenters focus on the potential applications and implications of growing large biological structures in space. One commenter expresses excitement about the possibilities, imagining the creation of large, complex structures like trees for habitats or even spaceships. Another questions the practicality, wondering about the resources required to transport the necessary nutrients and support systems to space. The idea of resource limitations in space is echoed by other commenters.
Some discussion revolves around the chosen phrasing in the solicitation. The use of terms like "unprecedented size" and "novel bio-manufacturing methods" is seen as vague and buzzword-heavy by a few commenters. They speculate that this might be intentional to attract a wider range of proposals. One commenter suggests the wording might also reflect DARPA's genuine uncertainty about what's feasible in this area, indicating an exploratory phase of research.
Another thread of conversation focuses on the challenges of growing large biological structures, both on Earth and in space. One commenter mentions the difficulties with nutrient distribution and structural support in large organisms, suggesting that current biological limitations might hinder the project's ambitious goals. Another commenter points out the potential for unexpected biological behavior in a microgravity environment, highlighting the inherent risks and uncertainties involved.
A few comments delve into more technical aspects, discussing potential methods for achieving the desired outcomes. One commenter mentions 3D bioprinting as a possible approach, while another suggests exploring the use of scaffolding materials to support the growth of larger structures.
Finally, some commenters express skepticism about the overall feasibility and practicality of the project, questioning whether the potential benefits outweigh the enormous costs and challenges involved. One commenter even suggests that the project might be more about advancing fundamental biological understanding than achieving any immediate practical applications.