Exactly what kind of economic driver is technology? You can always go back to the basics, it increases production, it increases efficiency, blah blah blah.... But where else do you find technology in the Markets? An interesting answer I found was in this article, was on consumer shelfs. We have not really taken time as a class to look into consumer behavior, we've touched on the subject, and describe our behavior in terms of broader concepts, but never in its own focus.
I have a favorite section at MSCBC.com its under the technology category and is labeled Innovation by the publishers. Every time I flip through its content when something new pops up it is often related to consumer attitudes. This one in particular caught my eye, it involved the genetic selection for the modification of flower aromas. In it they talk of how accidentally scientist discovered genes producing the oils that create smells in plants and goes on to say how they modified a petunia to smell like a rose and how at later dates could get them to smell strongly of wintergreen or even the smells that make up root-beer.
But it amazed me how they did not delve into the specifics of how they did it but instead went straight onto when this technology could be commercialized and would hit shelves. I piqued my interest, that new technologies and discoveries are so easily thought of in terms of money, i wondered what other kinds of interesting innovations and inventions the rest of the class has found that have been immediately commercialized maybe before their full potential was realized?
Custom-scented flowers may be on the way
Scientists ID genes that determine plants smell, can create new aromas
Root beer-scented roses could soon be available at your local florist, according to scientists from Florida who are developing newly fragrant flowers.
The research could lead to custom-designed flower fragrances and even to better-smelling, and better-tasting, fruits and vegetables.
"We are very excited about the idea of putting these flowers in front of consumers and figuring out which fragrance excites people the most," said David Clark, a scientist at the University ofFlorida
in Gainesville developing the new flowers. "Then we can use that information to assist breeders in developing flowers that people want to smell more, or even breed fruits that smell and taste better."
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Clark says the research is proof of concept. Years, and perhaps Food and Drug Administration approval in the case of any genetically engineered plants, are required before these blooms open their petals.
And when they do, you can expect to pay a premium for nature's fragrance; Clark estimates an extra fragrant flower will cost an extra 10 cents.
"We solved the quantity issue with the baby boomers," said Clark. "Now people are going back and asking, what about the quality?"
I think that a lot of similar innovations have come about in the past years regarding food technology. Remember the purple ketchup? Well okay that was not so much technology but still it was a product, that although new and interesting was only a novelty and over time proved to be unimportant to society. In terms of genetics much is being done to modify the genetic composition of everyday ingredients to either increase their yields or to increase their nutritional benefit. Think of tomatoes with fish genes to protect it from frostbite. Since omega-3s are the new big thing in the nutrition industry they have been sticking them in all sorts of products from peanut butter to juice. Scientists really do not know the long term affects of all this food engineering. It has be postulated that it is GMO crops that are contributing to the dying out of thousands of bee colonies across the country.
ReplyDeleteT,E
I think most of technology is created either to save somebodys life or to make somebody a lot of money. One of the quickest ways to become a millionaire these days is to create an ipod app and sell it for 1 dollar. Technology has almost always been thought of first as a means to make money and who can blame them.
ReplyDeleteI do support using research that we get from studying organisms (like genomes) to genetically modify things to better suit our needs. While I would normally prefer that this research be done with more necessary things like food, I understand the economic urge to make items considered luxuries "better", thus driving up the quality and price. That said, I do agree that messing with things can have some unintentional consequences. Like Hannah's bee example--in our effort to make the most effective hybrids, we may have ended up contributing to CCD, which could hurt us in the long run. However, that doesn't mean that every modification we make will have negative effects.
ReplyDeleteIn high school, my biology teacher told us about a company that will manufacture perfumes with the same scent and an item you send them. She said that if she were to use it, she would get one that smells like sunscreen because it reminds her of happy days on the beach. A student asked her why she didn't get the perfume and she said "Because I can just smell sunscreen, I don't need to pay extra for that." Sometimes I wonder if certain technologies do things that are completely unnecessary, as in, we could do what they do anyway, and perhaps even easier. If a technology doesn't do something different, or better, it probably can't make money.
ReplyDelete