Hackspaces on the mind

Scrap_bike I don't know why, but ever since returning from SXSW09 I've been wondering about hackspaces. As you might know, hackspaces are like a nerd collective, where there is equipment to use, friendly folks to show you how to use them, and a rich environment for play and exploration.

While writing this post, a quick search for hackspaces led me to a recent article from Wired
about folks flocking to hackspaces, so I guess I am feeling a vibe
that's going around. The article provides a good overview of hackspaces. Despite what the article says, hackspaces are not new. And hack spaces are not just focused on electronics, either.

Being a bit of a bike tinkerer, the hackspaces I think of are more like the LA Bicycle Kitchen and the Broadway Bicycle School. Back in the 80s, I was inspired by the Broadway Bicycle School, and after reading about the LA Bicycle Kitchen a few years back, toyed with the idea of starting up a similar sort of thing.

There are also ample examples of shared work spaces. My buddies at Republic Publishing hang out a lot at The Hospital in Covent Garden. Todd Bida pointed me to the Cambridge Incubation Center. But these are shared facilities for small businesses and independent workers. And, there are tons of examples of youth centers that provide a hangout-homework-chilllax atmosphere for teens (yes, scoped out a plan for one of these, as well).

Indeed, hackspaces take the shared workspace, add a dash of cooperative thinking, with a healthy dose of tools to create something special for folks to just make something in a supportive environment. Shared spaces, as described above, are usually "co-existence" places, where folks work in parallel, with little cross-fertilization (and that's OK, too). In my mind, I would like a more interactive and social environment (for example, I asked my buddies from Republic how much they interact with others from The Hospital).

With my latest urge to get back into science, I wonder if there might be a market for a, say, DIY biology hackspace. The capital costs for hacking biology are huge, what with incubators, autoclaves, shakers, pipettes, disposables, and the like. In labs I worked in, the burn rate was something like $1500 per person per month (full-time hard-core research, of course). And start-up costs usually were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But that speaks for the benefits of shared equipment that comes with a hackspace. And the rise of synthbio and DIYbio suggests that there might be a need for some sort of bio hack space. 

Of course, a whole ton of barriers crop up in my head: regulation, training, disposal, licenses, and so on. But just a matter of detail, right?

Image: mine

links for 2009-04-10

  • Am I a buggy-whip person to think that newspapers still have more to give? TV didn't kill radio. The Web didn't kill books.

    Are we just seeing an old calcified biz model that is letting a good thing suffocate?

    Sure, cars killed the horse carriage, but they were quite overlapping. The Web and newpapers overlap, but are not the same thing. So why this sudden die-off?

    "With The New York Times Co. threatening to close The Boston Globe if the Globe's unions don't accept $20 million in concessions, the fate of the paper has become a conversation starter – and stopper – among those near the nexus of power and money in this town. Who, the question goes, might be lining up to buy the newspaper and possibly stave off a shutdown?"

    Hm, I'm also very optimistic and have lately been seeing biz opportunities in many things folks are shunning. Buffet says "Be greedy when folks are cautious, cautious when folks are greedy."

links for 2009-04-09

links for 2009-04-07

links for 2009-04-06

Social networking and health – notes from SXSW

I was at SXSW last week and sat in on some seminars and conversations that I found particularly intersting.

One session was a "conversation," held in a small room where most of the folks sat on the floor. It was packed and the discussion was excellent.

Titled "Social Networking in Health: e-Patients, Data & Privacy," it was a discussion around the use of social networking services by doctors, patients, and the curious. The use of social networks in health raises all sorts of questions of privacy and secutrity and also questions some social assumptions and the like.

I took some notes (by no means comprehensive) and will try to put them in some sort of order below.

Privace and electronic records
The discussion started on some of the dark aspects of social sharing online. The worry was whether services that revolve around health should be a walled garden (though folks knew that the assurance was only so good, leaks happen). The worry is what happens when the discussion of the illness gets caught by employers, say, talking about dealing with depression.

There is a strong regulation called HIPAA, which I was told is all-encompassing, yet based on common sense, to protect patients and their electronic data. And there's no escaping the move to everything related to our health being digital. Having all confidential information digital is not new, as data warehousing of claims clearances already has put our health info in digital format. Also, users are driving electronic records for safety in drug interactions, for ease of managing, for portability. And when patients do participate in social networking services, they are not naïve, they usually know what they are posting
and to where and the reputation of the site they are posting on.

The irony, someone mentioned, was that the main theft of records is actually physicaly based. But there is the perception that paper is secure, since usually they are in one place or contained, and it's through electronic records that a lot of celebrity leaks happen.

Health discussions
Fortunately, the discussion veered away from the usual hand-wringing about privacy and started to hone in on the value of social networking for patients and doctors. There were indeed a few people in the audience who were working on such systems, many of them hospitals or doctors.

While so much of medical data is related to Health Records, the feeling is that Social Media is a much smaller area in Health. Using Social Media for discussion is no different than normal life. [Though I think digital forwarding as a huge challenge – who owns what
someone can forward?] Sharing online helps ease patients' anxieties around their illness or a procedure, learning from another patient's perspective. And promoting social conversations around illnesses leads to awareness, prevention, and even money savings for the patient.

A lady who runs a discussion site suggests that there has been a change in culture about what can and is being discussed. Also, younger folks are more comfortable sharing online. There was a feeling, too, that with all the churning during this economic crisis, that employers will be more lenient and understanding (though someone did raise the specter of a WalMart "understanding").

There are employment protections for some psychiatric illnesses and genetic information. Folks mused if this legislation could be extended to cover more diseases, to protect against discrimination against diseases. But there are also local cultural issues, as a lady from Brasil mentioned, things like dealing with faith and fatalism with respect to illness and health.

Finally, while folks thought there was good discussion between patients and between patients and doctors, there seemed to be no discussion between pharmaceutical companies and patients, most likely due to perceived liabilities. This was viewed as a bad situation.

What's out there
Lots of services were mentioned through the course of the discussion, so I'll list the ones I captured.

Google Health
Microsoft HealthVault
– Facebook causes
Patients like me
Hello Health – This sevice provides for doctor-doctor and doctor-patient discussion. With the service the doctor shares videos and bookmarks with patients. Interesting thing is that to register, ou first need to have a face to face meeting with the doctor.  
Truesera – Billed as "connecting patients to enlightened doctors and facilitating doctors to get involvedself." The service became self–correcting (in terms of the facts of the discussions) after passing critical mass. That suggests that one could create a useful resource with factual information (much like Wikipedia, which leads me to wonder if there is a Wikipedia for Health)