If you were to write an article on the ten most important advances in science and technology, what would you include and what would you exclude? I take this David DiSalvo article that I flagged last year and return after an interval of some months. The indications that seemed slightly irrelevant then retain that effect now. Why would desalination or plasma arc waste disposal count as disruptive technology?
Putting the discordant set of examples: radical innovations sitting side by side with existing capabilities, what interests me is DiSalvo's exclusions. Battery advances are cited twice alongside neuroscience, regenerative medicine, electronic paper and scanning technology. 3D printing, a whole swathe of biotechnology and advances in materials science are all left out.
This is not a criticism; since it is almost impossible to accommodate any number of choices. Already some of the developments appear restricted to laboratories for the foreseeable future. But stem cells and electronic paper are now strong contenders for making a radical impact this side of 2015.
