Must be a zeitgeist thing.  Our own Ground Station Calliope kickstarter fundraiser succeeded, to help fund our Science 2.0 Project Calliope.  Now the NY Times is reporting that other scientists have also been using kickstarter to fund science.  They cite missions in the $4-15K range, and give it the catchy term 'substitutional funding'.

Unfortunately, the garbage quote from the piece is one scientist noting "I think people will invest in projects that are carried out by young people who have no other possibilities to put forward their ideas.”  Myself, I am sick and tired of every embracing of social media being described as 'carried out by young people'.

It reminds me of a NASA premier IT event that called out "seeking a couple of bright young sparks ".  Do you want young, or do you want outgoing and innovative, because in any geek Venn diagram, the two are clearly not the same, but overlap.

the true relationship between age and innovatio

Significantly, the rebuttal for the silly 'young people haz internet only' canard is the same article making the misclaim.  The team from one of the projects they cite received their PhDs (according to the article) in 2001 and 2003.  Even as a fast-tracker graduating college around age 22 and taking 5 years for the PhD, that pegs them at 37 or older.  Not that 37 is old, but it isn't this mythical 'young people only' club pundits, journalists, and (sadly) some employers seem to favor.

Fact is, using social media effectively is not a generational thing, it's a perceptual shift.  Age doesn't matter.  Kickstarter doesn't use an age filter and Science 2.0 isn't just a 'young person thing'.  Innovation isn't due to age.  The only thing that appears to be old and tired is the reaction against it.

Until next week,

Launching Project Calliope, sponsored by Science 2.0, in 2011
News every Tuesday at The Satellite Diaries, every Friday at the Daytime Astronomer