Archive for June, 2008

Be an astronaut

Here’s the job listing.

To be considered, a bachelor’s degree in engineering, science or math and three years of relevant professional experience are required. Typically, successful applicants have significant qualifications in engineering or science, or extensive experience flying high-performance jet aircraft.

Teaching experience, including work at the kindergarten through 12th grade level, is considered qualifying. Educators with the appropriate educational background are encouraged to apply.

Relevant professional experience? What, a cosmonaut? Taikonaut?

No Comments

Great moments in interplanetary communications

The Mars Phoenix story breaks on Twitter.

No Comments

Jackie Chan is a foolhardy man…

…and I love ‘em for it.

I haven’t watched a good Chan flick in a while, so this is a nice recap of some of his best work.

I’ve seen most of those before, but they still give me chills.

No Comments

Home imagineering idea

I need to learn how to make one of these solar-powered “firefly” jars — without spending $45 a pop.

As you might remember, real lightning bugs don’t last very long and really don’t provide much light. If you could make the light flicker or bounce a bit, to get that firefly-vérité , all the better.

No Comments

Openbook test

There should be a book here. 9780615213996

Maybe

No Comments

laer t’nsi hceeps esreveR

I like Brian Dunning’s Skeptoid podcast. Its scripted, and you can tell, but it is very well researched and you can read the scripts online. Today he’s talking about reverse speech, which is one of those aural apophenia-type things (or, more technically pareidolia). Like hearing ghost voices in white noise — or seeing Jesus in the taco, for that matter — you’re making connections that just aren’t there. You get our what you put into it.

In this case, reverse speech advocates claim it is a way of looking into your subconscious. Dunning comes up with a reference I haven’t seen before (…if it is new to me…) that, while it might not explain the perceived phenomena, could help shade how we look at its practitioners.

The journal Science published an article in 1981 by Remez, Rubin, Pisoni, and Carrell called Speech perception without traditional speech cues. By playing what they called a “three-tone sinusoidal replica”, or a complicated sine wave sound, they found that people were able to perceive speech, when in fact there were no traditional speech sounds present in the signal. So rather than laughing at a reverse speech advocate, instead appreciate the fact that there is good science driving their perception of what they’re hearing. They’re not making anything up, they’re just unaware of the natural explanation for their phenomenon.

It is something of a theme — ooh, ooh, a pattern — that I’ve seen in recent years, where popular paranormal topics are given physiological explanations. That is, when we see shadow people, experience an out-of-body sensation, or believe we have past lives…it could be just faulty wiring in the brain. Not a mental problem, per se, just a epiphenomena of the way we’re put together, like blind spots.

No Comments

Cancer nanotech as a byproduct of the funding crunch?

Aren’t nanotubes grand? Sure, you can build space elevators with them. Create electronic components and faster computer chips. Nanotubes can one day build stronger skyscrapers and betterbody armor.

But did you know they could smell cancer? Deliver drugs to cancer? And, now, burn cancer. Funky.

The reason I bring this up is that I have been thinking about how innovation might be driven by the government grant process, and how that might be a good thing. As I probably wrote a thousand times in press releases, nanotech is on the scale of life, so some of the first applications of nanotechnology — outside of Dockers’ pants and the realm of materials science — will be (is) in life science.

And, while I can’t prove it, I think what is driving some of this thinking is the grant process. Funding is tight, so researchers look to put in practical uses for their work when writing their grant applications. Cancer is a biggie, so…if you write it into the grant, it might get more interest. If it isn’t building better widgets, nanotech researchers are building better cancer killers. I only wonder how many of these ideas fall flat because the engineers aren’t getting the chance to work with biologists. But of course, that’s not always the case.

2 Comments

Science works!

The good news is that science works. The bad new is we’ll be having less of it in the future.

I work in cancer research PR — and I try not to blog about work lest it offends — but I needed to share this post from PZ Myers: Support cancer research now!

After the NIH budget was doubled from 1998-2004, it has remained stagnant, flat. Not even gaining at the rate of inflation. The resources built by the doubling are now being squandered. The scientists we have trained with that money, especially foreign researchers, are looking elsewhere for work, whether it is other fields or other countries.

In fact, if we had not had the doubling, and just remained on the same appropriations trajectory, we’d be much better off today. This is crippling our ability to make real progress in medical science. Fewer new grants are being funded (although submissions — even approved submissions — are skyrocketing) and fewer risks are being taken. There is no lack of good ideas, just a general lack of money.

Upon blind faith they place reliance,
what we need more of is science!

No Comments

Brand New Day

For some reason, “Brand New Day” from The Wiz is stuck in my head.

I was always creeped out by how they shed their leather skins.

I still think The Wiz is one of the most harrowing visions of post-apocalyptic Earth ever committed to celluloid. Also, the steampunk Nipsey Russell tin man is just amazing.

The above was the first GIS image I found, thanks Pax Romano.

No Comments

Sky Guy

Tom Vilot is a one-man science show looking for an outlet:

No Comments