Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Gerd Moe-Behrens said:

    Great post. Thanks for sharing this interesting info. The answer to the question is definitely yes. Gameification might be an important concept for increasing engagement, both of for learning and serious work. There are two very exiting examples for science games: EteRNA and FoldIt (ref this exiting talk Solve for X: Adrien Treuille on collaborative science http://bit.ly/ziK0YJ and this Nature paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7307/full/nature09304.html) Foldit had really impressive results: “The public beta version was released in May 2008 and has 240,000 registered players….” and really solved real worlds problems “In 2011, players of Foldit helped to decipher the crystal structure of the Mason-Pfizer monkey virus (M-PMV) retroviral protease, an AIDS-causing monkey virus. While the puzzle was available to play for a period of three weeks, players produced an accurate 3D model of the enzyme in just ten days. The problem of how to configure the structure of the enzyme had stumped scientists for 15 years.67
    On January, 2012, Scientific American reported that the Foldit gamers achieved the first crowdsourced redesign of a protein with more than 18-fold higher activity than the original.5 The protein is an enzyme which catalyses the Diels-Alder reactions widely used in synthetic chemistry. A team including David Baker in the Center for Game Science at University of Washington in Seattle computationally designed this enzyme from scratch but found the potency needing improvement. The Foldit players reengineered the enzyme by adding 13 amino acids and increased its activity by more than 18 fold” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foldit

Comments are closed.