3 ms·

Remember science is still just science; it's not necessarily for commercializing.

Kaibeezy 5y ago
The researcher himself is directly quoted saying things like “revolutionising water disinfection technologies around the world”. If that’s not backed up by it being feasible or valuable commercially, then the criticism is spot on.
- azinman2 5y ago
  I think the point is the science can be useful in that endeavor by demonstrating a new approach one can take. That’s not to say it’s all that would be required. It’s unreasonable and incorrect to expect a full commercial solution to come directly out of a set of lab experiments.
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    I do not understand why this could be regarded as a relevant response to the post you are replying to. You say "it’s unreasonable and incorrect to expect a full commercial solution to come directly out of a set of lab experiments", but the post you are replying to did little else but point out that this is essentially what the article is claiming. If you do not think the article was making such a claim, then that is a point you could have disputed, but so far have not.
    - azinman2 5y ago
      That’s not what the article says. It says the new method “shows the POTENTIAL for revolutionising water disinfection technologies around the world” (emphasis mine). It’s talking about a method of creating disinfectants at the source rather than using chemicals. How to scale this up, deal with degrading catalysts, handle electrical demand, etc are all beyond the scope of an academic lab inventing a new method. They just demonstrated the potential.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        If you read the entire thread from the top, you will see that you are making a point that has already been acknowledged by everyone contributing to it. Bringing it up again merely loops the discussion back to a point where it has been before. The fact that they are making bold claims about potential applications is sufficient to justify Kaibeezy's reply to riddly.
- rdiddly 5y ago
  Yeah the researcher is already pretty far into the commercial realm with that kind of statement. I'm just saying, the point of science is to find out stuff or increase certainty about stuff. So even an experiment that finds another way to disinfect water that doesn't work, has scientific value because now we know that doesn't work.

The researcher himself is directly quoted saying things like “revolutionising water disinfection technologies around the world”. If that’s not backed up by it being feasible or valuable commercially, then the criticism is spot on.

azinman2 5y ago
I think the point is the science can be useful in that endeavor by demonstrating a new approach one can take. That’s not to say it’s all that would be required. It’s unreasonable and incorrect to expect a full commercial solution to come directly out of a set of lab experiments.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  I do not understand why this could be regarded as a relevant response to the post you are replying to. You say "it’s unreasonable and incorrect to expect a full commercial solution to come directly out of a set of lab experiments", but the post you are replying to did little else but point out that this is essentially what the article is claiming. If you do not think the article was making such a claim, then that is a point you could have disputed, but so far have not.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    That’s not what the article says. It says the new method “shows the POTENTIAL for revolutionising water disinfection technologies around the world” (emphasis mine). It’s talking about a method of creating disinfectants at the source rather than using chemicals. How to scale this up, deal with degrading catalysts, handle electrical demand, etc are all beyond the scope of an academic lab inventing a new method. They just demonstrated the potential.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      If you read the entire thread from the top, you will see that you are making a point that has already been acknowledged by everyone contributing to it. Bringing it up again merely loops the discussion back to a point where it has been before. The fact that they are making bold claims about potential applications is sufficient to justify Kaibeezy's reply to riddly.
rdiddly 5y ago
Yeah the researcher is already pretty far into the commercial realm with that kind of statement. I'm just saying, the point of science is to find out stuff or increase certainty about stuff. So even an experiment that finds another way to disinfect water that doesn't work, has scientific value because now we know that doesn't work.