illuminating science

Think you’re good at maths? Or know someone who is? Then you or they won’t want to read about Gert Mittring, who can calculate the 13th root of hundred digit numbers in less than 12 seconds. (The “13th” root means what number multiplied together with itself 13 times gives the original number. E.g., the 3rd root (also called cube root) of 27 is 3, since 3×3x3=27.) He can also memorise 22 random digits in four seconds!

Of course, to what extent this ability translates into “practical” mathematics isn’t clear - he’s clearly intelligent (from the degrees he’s completed), but there are many different types of brilliance.

Do you get frustrated using your computer? Wish that you didn’t have to click through so many menus, or try and find the right option to align your text? Wish that your car could respond more efficiently and quickly to you? Communicating with computers and machines is often a trial, but think about how much worse it must be for those with physical disabilities, such as quadraplegia or motor neuron disease, who may be unable to work a keyboard or mouse. Or people who have no movement at all, or people who are blind! Although I have no experience with that myself, it must be very difficult.

So, it’s not surprising that there’s a lot of interest at the moment in better interfacing humans and machines, both from an altruistic and commercial perspective. I thought I might talk about some of the technologies that are available, or might soon be.

One option is a direct brain-computer interface. This is literally a Matrix-style system, with a pronged plug inserted into the brain, connecting with (at this stage) about 100 neurons in the motor cortex, the part of the brain which controls motion. While this might sound disturbing, for those unable to make any movement, this may be the ideal, even only, solution. Other technologies try and pick up brain patterns from the surface of the skull, though these can’t pick up as specific resonses.

Trials for the implanted chip technology have been very successful for monkeys, who have learned to control a computer game. They were trained by getting them to move a controller by hand while their brains were monitored. Then, once the computer could recognise the brain signals, it ignored the controller - and soon the monkey stopped moving it, instead just thinking about it! Human trials are expected soon - I’ll be watching!

A person with this type of interface would, by definition, be a “cyborg”. Kevin Warwick claims to be the world’s first cyborg, and plans to have chips implanted in both his and his wife’s arms, which would be connected by a radio transmitter. The chips wrap around nerves, and can pick up or insert signals travelling to or from the brain. This potentially would allow communication between them at a distance - a technological form of “telepathy”. Of course, it’s no more telepathy than a mobile phone, really, but it would work just by “thinking about it” - he sends a signal to his finger, and his wife receives it. Whether he could control her hand is another question!

On a different track, are scientists who are finding different ways of receiving senses (you need to register to read - it’s free though). People who have lost a sense, such as sight or touch wear an artificial sensor. This might be a video camera, or a touch sensitive glove. Then, electrical pulses which encode the sense are sent to a strip on their tounge, which initially feel like eating sherbert. Quickly, however, the brain learns to interpret the signals correctly - blind people can catch balls, see flickering slights and read simple letters! They no longer notice the tingling. It seems to be an automatic process, that the brain somehow “rewires” to handle the new input. An excellent point was made in the article: we don’t see with our eyes, we see with our brain. The eyes merely provide the input - and if we get that through our tounge instead, why should that be a problem?

This technological has far wider applications, too. How about connecting a speedometer to your tongue so that you know what speed you’re travelling without taking your eyes off the road? Want to go diving and know how far you are from the bottom? Plug in a sonar system to your tongue and train yourself to interpret it correctly. Perhaps SWAT teams could get a direct linkup to thermal sensors and “instinctively” know where the bad guys are. Or, as has been done, what about simply building it into a video game? Ultimately, we might be able to “plug in” a number of extra “senses”, for work or play.

So, my question for you then - would you want to use this technology? Would you be willing to have electrodes implanted into your brain in order to be able to type just by thinking about it? I don’t think anyone knows what the risks or dangers, if any, are yet. What if you were Stephen Hawking, famous physicist who has motor neuron disease? Would you “risk” your brain to be able to speak easily again? What about simply having a chip in your skin that automatically unlocks your door when you come home? Would you consider yourself a cyborg?

Some of this might sound a little scary, but like nanotechnology and genetic engineering, this is technology which has the potential for great benefits to both individuals and society. And the most important thing is for everyone to be able to make an informed decision - so watch this space, and keep thinking!

Carbon is a pretty amazing element. It is the building block for life as we know it, and it can form both the hardest known mineral, diamonds, and one of the softest substances, graphite. With the advent of nanotechnology, it can also be shaped into microscopic soccer balls (buckyballs) or nanotubes. The latter is particularly exciting - these are exactly what they sound like, tiny tubes made of carbon which can conduct electricity and work a little bit like ordinary thread. Of course this is hard to do, and obviously the fibres are very small - but scientists from CSIRO in Australia and University of Texas at Dallas have developed a way to spin these tiny fibres together to create nanotube yarn several kilometers long.

These “nanofibres” could be used to make intelligent bandages that would report when someone was hurt, or adjust to help an injury. They might also be used to make artificial muscles for robot soldiers or, hopefully, robotics in other areas of life and technology. In fact, these fibres are roughly as strong as Kevlar, used for bullet proof vests! Applications are still five years away, says the Australian team leader Ken Atikinson, but nanotechnology is rapidly going to change the world we live in.

In sort-of-good news for cloning research, the United Nations has deadlocked on trying to pass bills which would have banned human cloning. I don’t think that reproductive cloning (used when a couple can’t have children, and so one parent is cloned to create a child) is a good idea, but I do think we need to research the potential benefits of thereaputic cloning (where cloning is used to obtain stem cells compatible with the donor.) So it’s good that an all-out ban wasn’t passed, but unfortunate that a global agreement couldn’t be reached on what acceptable practices are.

The United Nations are instead considering a “non-binding” agreement, which would reccommend that member states that “prohibit any attempts at the creation of human life through cloning processes and any research intended to achieve that aim.” This definitely rules out reproductive cloning, but it’s less certain what it means for research.

Looking for that perfect gift for a friend who has a passion for science? Then you should definitely read New Scienctists No More Socks page - a fabulous list of science related gifts.

I have to say, the Aliens style sentry gun is totally cool…

In Australia, one of our favourite science communicators is Dr. Karl. He’s done some great stuff, including an Ig Nobel prize for studying belly button lint. A beautiful study that was…research at its best. You can also hear him on the radio, or online! Have a look at all his stuff - very inspiring! - and have a read of his piece on why you should
Do Physics First. It’s a very interesting piece on the value of doing a degree in physics, and what it has to offer even if you choose not to become a physics researcher. An important read for anyone choosing what to do at University next year!

If that line doesn’t immediately conjure up the image of Julius Sumner Miller and all things physics, then you are missing out on a critical part of your scientific upbringing! “Why is it so?” was a television show in Australia which ran from 1963 to 1986, featuring a very enthusiastic physicist who educated and entertained generations of Australians.

Now, ABC has put some of the best episodes online and you can see them in all their glory! Let’s hope that this inspires even more people to ask that vital question: “Why is it so?”!

You mave have heard the statement that you can’t fold a piece of paper more than 8 times. Supposedly, it makes no difference how big or how thin the paper is - for some reason, it’s a Law of Nature! This always struck me as highly unlikely - after all, when the paper gets too small, I could imagine having started with a sheet a hundred times bigger, and effectively “zooming” in on this piece, giving me more room to keep folding. So I thought I’d do some more exploring.

It turns out that this problem was solved by Britney Gallivan, a high school student from California. Not only did she find the actual equations that give the maximum number of folds for a given piece of paper, but she demonstrated that you really can fold more than eight times, by folding a kilometre long piece of toilet paper 12 times!

This just goes to show that you shouldn’t take everything you’re told on faith, and that anyone can discover something new!

So today I’m heading off with fellow PhD’er and science communicator Jenny Riesz to visit outback Queensland. We’re going to be doing physics shows and workshops for schools that often miss out on some of the benefits of living close to a university. It’s going to be fabulous week - we’re talking at Charleville School of Distance Education, which is a “School of the Air” for students too far away to go to school each day (remember that in outback Australia, it might be a 100km from your farm to the nearest school!) The students work from written material at home, then have classes and discussions over a two-way radio. I’ve never given a talk like this before (!) so it will be quite challenging and exciting! We’re going to be talking about quantum mechanics - what it is, why it’s weird, and some of the many places where it’s important.

We’re also running workshops on how to build capacitors from film canisters, and giving a talk at the Charleville Cosmos Centre on “A Journey into a Black Hole”! All in all, it should be a great trip - but it does mean that my posting will be a little sporadic for the next week. I probably will have less time for breaking news, but I have a few things I’m going to post - so keep checking in.

This is a bit of a “hot potato” article, and departs a little from my usual posts, but it’s something that I think is important for scientists (present or future!) to consider. Whatever your religious beliefs are, there can’t be any argument that Christianity (in particular) plays, for better or worse, a key role in the politics of science. You only need to look at the debate on embryonic stem cells, the study of sexuality in humans and of course, the time honoured creationism vs evolution debate (For the record, I firmly believe creationism has no place in school science curriculums.)

Sean at Preposterous Universe writes about Chris Mooney’s article in the Washington Monthly, where science is being abused to promote religious view points. In particular, some are trying to show that abortion causes breast cancer - something which has repeatedly been proven to have no scientific basis - in order to support moral arguments. Others claim that condoms don’t protect against STDs (they do) to justify advocating abstinence rather than contraception.

Now, obviously there’s nothing wrong with justifying arguments using science, unless you set out to prove something while ignoring any evidence to the contrary. This is bad science (though it happens) regardless of your motivation, and often results in cranks. In fact, perhaps the most important attribute for a scientist is the ability to accept new ideas, and to reject old ones - no matter how beautiful they were. In this sense, religion has the potential to clash with science. It’s very important to say here that there’s nothing wrong with being religious and scientific - I know some excellent scientists who combine science and faith (be it Buddhist, Christian, spiritual or other) and generate very interesting discussions. But I think it requires effort to sensibly combine the two in a way that keeps both “sides” happy. It’s also important that religious views don’t obstruct the progress of science. Not to say that we should have science without ethics, but those ethics need to be determined by the whole community, and the risks and benefits debated.

What I find most disturbing is that the author, Chris Mooney, has been branded a “bigot” in a pseudo-scientific response by these organisations. Again, they are attempting to pass their research and rebuttal off as “scientific”, citing dozens of references and including just enough real science to muddy the waters. While I haven’t followed the references, the tone of the article (one of outrage, righteous idignation and sensationalism) is definitely not scientific and a trademark of a crank. Buzzwords include “smear campaign”, “public relations sham” and “personal attacks”. And yet an uninformed reader (or politician!) could be easily convinced without seeing the whole story, and make bad decisions. In comparison, Chris Mooney’s article is logical, coherent and seems to present a balanced view - with the final, scientific conclusion that there is no evidence for the abortion-breast cancer link. Ultimately, you have to make up your own mind - just make sure that you read widely, criticise justly but not vindictively, and keep an open mind. Again, all good qualities for a scientist.

More news from Nature, this time about repairing spinal cords. It seems that blocking a molecule that causes scar tissue helps damanged spinal cords to grow back, at least in mice.

Of course, don’t get your hopes up of a treatment for humans yet - although it looks like they also have some success with monkeys, it will be a big step from mice to humans. But it is fascinating, and in the end we may need a variety of treatments if we are to help people suffering from spinal injuries.

It’s long been suspected that there is a black hole at the centre of our galaxy, and recently scientists confirmed that through observations with the Hubble telescope (I might talk about this in another post - it’s very clever!)

Now, a second black hole, also in the galactic core. This one weights 1,300 times as much as our sun. Sounds like a lot, right? However, the black hole at the centre of our galaxy weighs more than two million times as much!

Is this going to revolutionise our view of the universe? No, not really. But it helps to cement the case for black holes, and may provide us with more information about how galaxies form, a topic of great debate. And honestly, who doesn’t want to hear about black holes?

Well, hopefully you know that the X-Prize was successfuly won recently, with $10 million in prize money going to SpaceShipOne - the first private spacecraft to go into space. Well, the details are in for the next round: ‘America’s Space Prize’ will offer $50 million to the first group that can get a ship taking FIVE people into orbit, go twice around the Earth and land safely. Again, there’s an emphasis on reusability and quick turn around, although there’s now 60 days before the repeat flight using the same craft (instead of 2 weeks). There’s a slightly more commercial bent to this prize too - the company offering the prize, Bigelow Aerospace, has designed an “inflatable space habitat”, and the winner of the prize must be able to dock with this in orbit - guaranteeing both sides of the deal some commerical prospects afterwards. Of course, they don’t actually have the habitat in orbit yet. Which means there’s a race on for everyone - the prize must be won by 2010.

Now I have to say, this is pretty full on - five years to get a reusable craft, which must orbit the Earth. And while the first flight can take ballast in place of crew (like the X-Prize), the second flight must take a full crew of five people - so you’ve got to be pretty certain your flight is safe! We’ll look forward to 2010 - for now, start thinking about your Virgin Galactic tickets.

Although we talked about this earlier, Russia has formally ratified the Kyoto protocol, which puts definite limits on the amount of green house gases that can be produced by 2012. Russia’s agreement was necessary to bring the treaty into force after the U.S. refused to enter into the deal, saying it would be too costly for them. (55% of the “developed” world’s producers needed to agree, but the countries that don’t sign aren’t bound by it regardless.) Just a pity that we have to share their air, isn’t it?

While the treaty doesn’t solve the problem of global warming, it does mean that we’re finally taking things seriously, and it paves the way for new, and hopefully stronger, measures when the treaty expires in 2012.

Well, the U.S. election is over, and Bush is back. Although I don’t really want to mix politics and science on this blog, it’s not really controversial to say that most scientists will be disappointed by the win - funding for scientific research isn’t usually a top priority for Republicans, and Bush has a definite agenda against stem cell research.

Which made California’s decision to vote for $3 billion in stem cell funding all the more amazing. This is state funding, and isn’t subject to Bush’s restrictions for getting federal funding. Even better, academic labs and non-profit organisations will get first pickings (over commercial companies!) And, most amazing, Arnold Schwarzenegger the Republican Governor of California, endorsed and encouraged for the bill, going agains his party. “California has always been a pioneer,” he said on 18 October. “We daringly led the way for the high-tech industry and now voters can help ensure we lead the way for the bio-tech industry.” I have to say, Arnie has done better than I expected.

Speaking of evolving complex behaviours, Tokyo University has designed a robot (well, a computer simulation so far) which can learn to walk using
chaotic functions. These are mathematical functions where tiny changes in the initial parameters soon grow to be really big changes. These are the sort of functions that describe the weather, the stock exchange or even playing billiards on an oval table!

The robot had 12 legs, each controlled by a separate chaotic function. Most importantly, sensory information was fed back into the function allowing the robot to adjust what it was doing. The upshot was that with no programming or anything, the robot was able to learn to walk and navigate around obstacles!

Usually, walking robots are programmed by very complicated algorithms, either ones designed by an engineer or ones evolved through genetic algorithms. This is where you simulate a whole bunch of robots with random “walking programs”, and pick the most successful. You then combine the programs in the same way biology combines genes, to create new “children”, which you then compete against each and repeat the process. This is often successful, but it can take huge amounts of time for even the most simple behaviours to evolve on even the most powerful computers. Using the chaotic functions brought results very quickly, so the question is whether it’s just a neat curiosity, whether it can be used to create better robots, and whether it might apply to real world biology too.

There’s a really interesting question when it comes to evolution: Many animals share similar features (wings, eyes, legs, etc.) - so does that mean they all come from a common ancestor? While this is often true (particularly for very specific features, I would imagine), it doesn’t have to be. Things like wings can evolve independently - they’re a fairly generic but useful attribute to have.

But what what about more complex behaviours? This is what a group of researchers have been investigating, by examining the way spiders spin their webs. They looked at different species of spiders on islands in Hawaii, studying both the way they spun their webs and their genetic history. They found that some spiders spun almost exactly the same design of web (the number of spokes, the length of the spirals, etc) as others. Based on genetics, however, the species almost certainly evolved their designs independently! This is called convergent evolution.

Now comes the part which I perhaps find most interesting - finding out what environmental factors contributed to making that design the best design. Things like the type of bugs that you need to catch, the physical environment where you want to build your web and the weather are all probably going to contribute. And it makes sense that on nearby islands, these conditions will be roughly similar. (Though I’m just speculating here - I can’t back this up! Any thoughts are welcome.)

Hmm! After writing this (and glancing through wikipedia) I’m quite interested in learning more! Perhaps I’ll try and post some interesting links soon.

An article on Nature News talks about the the first insects being cloned. If you read the article, it seems as if the author is a little bemused by the whole thing, which at first I thought was a bit harsh. But once you get over the initial hype, it really isn’t clear why we should be excited. They didn’t clone adult flies, only embryos. And although insect cloning has never previously been successful, they still only achieved 5 successes out of 800. The only benefits which the article mention is that the flies might teach us more about cloning mammals or other animals, by learning from the techniques they developed…which currently only apply to cloning embryos. Still, the group admits this and is planning to work now on adult flies.

Because we really need more flies (Couldn’t resist the cheap shot!)

The Cassini-Huygens probe has been taking the best data we’ve every had on Saturn’s moon Titan. It seems that the moon has been sculpted by strong winds, with pools of methane and ethane and perhaps other carbon-based chemicals. This is pretty exciting stuff - it’s the only known moon to have an atmosphere

“It’s an extremely dynamic and active place,” says planetary scientist Jonathan Lunine of the University of Arizona, Tucson. “It’s a tremendous revelation.”

Even more interesting will be next year when they attempt to send a probe down to the surface of the moon!