Archive for category Science Fandom
Keep Libel Laws out of Science
Posted by Grg in Rant/Rave, Science Fandom on Thursday, June 4, 2009
Here’s the article (originally posted on the Guardian’s site). And here’s an occurrence of the horrid word:
The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.
Is he wrong? I don’t think so. (In case you stumble across this, feel free to point me to the literature that shows chiro can treat children for the problems described above, Damien. Sorry, bro. I’ve always loved ya, man, but it seems implausible given the method of action.)
We don’t have the same libel laws in the US, of course, but chiropractic doesn’t really need the “protection” — few in the mainstream press ever call into question the effectiveness of chiropractic. Like many alternative medical practices, they tend to be accepted uncritically in the press. I think it might have something to do with the illusion of “balance” in reporting and the reluctance of the American press to tackle complicated issues surrounding science and medicine.
Why I don’t go into the water Britain …Reason #1,767
Posted by Grg in General stuff, Grg's Reference, Science Fandom, Science/Geek, Uninformed Critic on Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Telegraph reports finding a 600ft jellyfish crop circle found in an Oxfordshire field.
Kill it!!! Oh, wait…
At the end of the article, the writer oddly refers to an entirely different crop circle from last year, and reuses the quotes from a retired astrophysicist on how THAT crop circle encodes pi.
I had to re-read it to figure out the this reference really had nothing to do with the jellyfish. Bizarre.
John Holdren’s first interview
Posted by Grg in Grg's Reference, Science Fandom, Sincere Apologies on Thursday, April 9, 2009
This is the first I’ve heard about asking the Chinese to shuttle our astronauts to space. I wonder where this came from…or if Holdren was just speaking off the top of his head. But why the Chinese when we have a number of home grown outfits, like SpaceX, looking to do the job? Why the Chinese over the Russians, who are particularly good at getting people safely to orbit?
The other question I have is about nukes. I don’t believe we necessarily need new nuclear weapons, but is that the job of the science advisor to decide and not, say, the military? Of course, as Holdren points out, our national labs have a broad research portfolio, not just nukes.
But that’s just one bit of the interview, its fairly in-depth and well worth the read.
And, in other Holdren news, AP is reporting that he has an interest in geoengineering .
I’m a little nervous about fiddling with the global climate, especially before we know exactly how everything plays out. What if we make matters worse? Why not wait until the damage is done? I don’t believe in irreversibility, that just doesn’t make sense…not on a geological scale, at least, but maybe that’s only irreversible on a human scale.
Here’s my plan, millions of acres of space solar panels. We’ll block out a fraction of the sunlight reaching Earth and generate safe, clean power. Sure, you say, we’d never be able to build the x gazillion solar panels we’d need to block the sun. Maybe they don’t have to all be solar panels, maybe its just a few gazillion acres of some sort of dimming fabric…in addition to the solar panels. Think of all the stimulus money that could be spent on the solar/space industry!
Anti-debris microsatellites kill debris, to be cleaned up anti-anti-debris nanosatellites (pending)
Posted by Grg in Grg's Reference, Science Fandom, Science/Geek on Monday, March 16, 2009
The latter event — where a Russian satellite took out an Iridium satellite — is what supposedly caused the debris that made for a dramatic Friday morning for twitterers and ISS crew alike. Especially the crew, of course.
So, this article in Russia Today, says that the Japanese are developing microsatellites to grab debris, presumably, some of the medium-sized pieces, and fall back to earth. The tether idea sounds neat (but the headline sounds vaguely inappropriate).
Japan’s space agency (JAXA) is planning to use microsatellites to clear orbits from space junk. The robotic cleaner grabs debris with a robotic arm and then lunges down to force the dangerous pieces back into atmosphere.
The 140-kilogram device uses electrodynamics tethers to drag down the debris. The tethers are conductive wires with lengths of up to several kilometres, which can be used to generate propulsion.
The Japanese cleaner approaches debris, attaches itself to it with a robotic arm, and then moves to a lower orbit, unwinding the tether from a reel. An electric current is generated in the tether, which interacts with Earth’s magnetic field to create drag, which slows down the debris making it re-enter the atmosphere and subsequently burn up. The satellite, of course, is destroyed in the process as well.
*OK, how cool is it that Iridium had backups parked in orbit already?
Fruitflies like the wind, time flies like a banana…
Posted by Grg in Dumb thoughts, Grg's Reference, PR Guy, Rant/Rave, Science Fandom, Science/Geek on Thursday, March 12, 2009
Another neat Eurekalert! feed story, one that offers tips for catching flies:
Caltech scientists discover mechanism for wind detection in fruit flies
Tiny, lightweight fruit flies need to know when it’s windy out so they can steady themselves and avoid being knocked off their feet or blown off course. But how do they figure out that it’s time to hunker down? According to a team led by California Institute of Technology (Caltech) scientists reporting in this week’s issue of the journal Nature, the flies have evolved a specialized population of neurons in their antennae that let them know not only when the wind is blowing, but also the direction from which it is coming.
The behavior of fruit flies in the face of a stiff breeze is remarkable in and of itself, notes David J. Anderson, the Roger W. Sperry Professor of Biology at Caltech, and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Investigator. “We discovered that you can stop a fly dead in its tracks by blowing a gentle stream of air over it,” he explains, adding that the flies’ immobility is so complete, you could pick one up with a pair of chopsticks as long as a steady stream of wind was passing over the insect. Once the wind stops blowing, however, the flies immediately start walking around again.
Here’s a link to the video.
We can haz Make Day too?
Posted by Grg in Rant/Rave, Science Fandom, Science/Geek, Unsolicited Advice on Thursday, March 12, 2009
Well-Read-tailed Hawks?
Posted by Grg in Science Fandom, Science/Geek on Thursday, March 12, 2009
I think they might be reading the Philadelphia Metro, judging by the current view. More bad news for the Inquirer, I fear. They could be losing the bird of prey demographic, who are probably looking for a just a quick peck at the news. 
Two Red-tailed Hawks have built a nest on a window ledge at The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. The nest sits just outside a window where a camera has been positioned to create this video stream. The camera looks through the glass window pane which is 24 inches wide (~61 cm). No artificial lighting has been added, so the nest is only visible during daylight hours.
I believe they’re monogamous, so there might be some hawk chicks in the near future. Or they could just be roommates and we’ll have to see about emerging sexual tensions later on in the season. Worth keeping an eye on, I’m sure.
The Red-tailed Hawk (aka chickenhawk, I think) is becoming a common sight around here. A few years back you’d only see these guys on occasion, but out here in the inner burbs, they’ve become a regular sight. (We caught them fishing in my neighbor’s goldfish pond last summer.) Now you can’t drive down an interstate without seeing one on a lightpost.
Cornell’s Ornithology Lab has a good site for bird browsing, in general. Here’s their Red-tailed Hawk entry.
More unsolicited science museum advice…
Posted by Grg in Rant/Rave, Science Fandom, Science/Geek, Unsolicited Advice on Wednesday, February 25, 2009
A science museum, indeed every type of museum, is all about stories (human interaction) and stuff (interesting objects and materials.) Working with cool items or seeing interesting objects or devices while having an opportunity to interact with other people is what makes museums special, and incidentally different and more marketable, than on-line experiences or other types of for-profit entertainment centers.
At the end of the day, providing interesting opportunities for visitors and museum staff to interact with “stuff” (and each other) is a sure way for visitors to leave your museum NOT feeling stupid.
And that’s just a smart way to run a museum.
It reminds me of two rules I learned in grad school: 1) if your reader doesn’t understand something, you were probably unclear; and 2) you can please more than one type of reader at a time.
The first is obvious, to me at any rate. Anything that can be said, can be said simply enough to appeal to a person of reasonable intelligence. It really depends on being able to get a concept across without piling on confusing terminology, whether that concept is evolution or celestial physics. I don’t believe you can get someone to completely grok quantum physics in five seconds, but they might get the gist that regular old physics doesn’t work so well in explaining how things atom-sized and smaller behave, which is where quantum mechanics comes in. People tend to understand things when you break them down into digestible chunks (or quanta — ha!) of information.
The second, I think, applies to science museums, in particular. I’m not an exhibit designer — and I know nothing about museum pedagogy — but I would think a good exhibit is like a an old Warner Bros. cartoon: the kids don’t get the dirtier jokes, but the adults do. (Good example here in “An Itch In Time,” at the seven minute mark below. It went over my head as kid.) Likewise, I can see where it would be necessary to design an exhibit — to create an “experience” — that appeals kids, adults and science geeks alike. I think you would do that by engaging people in the process. Like Paul, I was impressed with how interactive the recent Star Wars exhibit was. Even my three year-old got into creating LEGO landspeeders.
Why I don’t go in the water…Reason #1,764
Posted by Grg in Science Fandom, Science/Geek on Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Is the era of worrying about science funding over?
Posted by Grg in General stuff, Science Fandom, Science/Geek on Monday, February 16, 2009
The NIH is slated to get $10 Billion. That’s American dollars and, roughly, three times what they were originally slated to get in the stimulus bill. Thanks to Arlen Specter, that’s not a problem anymore. (Go Arlen, I told all my hyper-Dem friends that he was worth keeping around, for the sake of Pennsyltucky, at least!)
The NIH famously doubled its budget a few years back, but then the budget stabilized and, in fact, failed to keep up with inflation. I have heard said that it would have been better if the doubling hadn’t happened, since so many institutions invested heavily in new programs and infrastructure that a level NIH budget just couldn’t sustain.
So now the question is, I guess, what the hell will they do with all this money? How much of this will go to fulfilling research grants? How sustainable will this be…or should the scientific community just take this and run with it best they can knowing that this will be a one-time respite from their regularly scheduled budget woes?