Discussing Obama’s Brain-mapping Project

For better or worse, the Brain Activity Map project to which Barack Obama alluded in his recent State of the Union address is now a high profile endeavor that may be attacked for reasons that have as much to do with politics and the economy as they do the real scientific merits. But as one example of a discussion of the science, and as a pointer to more resources about the controversies involved, I present this Storify of an enlightening conversation I had recently on the subject.

Continue reading »

Category: Biology, Neuroscience, Politics | Leave a comment

Exoplanets bore me (and what that means for science news)

Please, before you pillory me for being so jaded that I’ve stopped caring about something so monumental as the discovery of planets around other stars, read on. My participation at a wonderful SpotOn NYC science communications event on Feb. 20, “Telling Stories with Scientists,” led me into some terrific, thoughtful discussions about the value of narrative in science writing and the difficulties of incorporating those into news coverage. Not all the good conversation was confined to the event; it continued to fine effect afterward on Twitter.

What follows is a Storify I compiled of the exchange.


Continue reading »

Category: Science Writing, Space | 2 Comments

Evolved Fists or the Best Weapons at Hand?

Photo: Mike Nelson, via Flickr (CC BY, 2010)

My most memorable punch in the face was a beaut. Back during my first year of studying karate, some classmates and I had met up for a little unsupervised sparring practice—never a good idea for novices. After an hour or so of this, my friend Eric and I were easing out of it with what was supposed to be an easy cool-down round when he, with a surge of enthusiasm, threw a left jab that popped me front and center across the chin, teeth, and tip of the nose. (So nicely placed.)

My eyes rolled up into my skull and a warm red blanket of numbness closed in from every side of my field of vision. My knees slowly folded, all resolve to support my worthless body gone. Fight over! My concerned friends looked on while I, on the floor, gingerly felt out whether there was any actual damage (there wasn’t… that time). The punch hadn’t been so much painful as deeply stunning, and it was probably a good ten minutes before I stopped feeling its disorienting effects.

Experiences like that one, not to mention the far more powerful punches in prize fights or even board-breaking demonstrations by martial artists, can inspire considerable respect for the prowess of the human hand as a weapon. They also inspired a widely publicized recent study by evolutionary biologists Michael H. Morgan and David R. Carrier at the University of Utah, who have suggested that while evolution was reshaping our hands to improve our ability to use tools, it was also shaping them to throw more effective punches.

It’s a clever speculation, and its authors don’t really offer it as much more than that. Perhaps it contains a kernel of truth worth further investigation. Personally, though, I find it unpersuasive on evolutionary grounds—and what the heck, on fighting grounds, too.


Continue reading »

Category: Biology, Evolution, Evolutionary Psychology, Martial Arts | 7 Comments

Why the sky crane isn’t the future for Mars landings

Sky crane delivers Curiosity to Martian surface in artist’s conception. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Given all the attention that it is receiving, the innovative technology that will place the Curiosity rover on Mars — the sky crane — may seem like something that we’ll be seeing much more of during future space missions. Yet it’s not. In fact, there’s good reason to suspect that it will be a long time before the sky crane is used again on Mars, if ever.

Of course, its prospects do depend on the success or failure of the Curiosity landing, but let’s hopefully assume the best. [Update, 1:36 a.m. EDT, Mon.: The best occurs! Success!] Instinctive skepticism has always greeted the plan: it is complicated and unorthodox, and a mishap anywhere along the chain of feats in involves leads to disaster. Even those of us enthusiastic about the sky crane have often conceded that it sounds crazy but might just be crazy enough to work. Even that skepticism, though, isn’t exactly why the sky crane won’t be selected for many other missions.


Continue reading »

Category: Space, Technology | 33 Comments

Satisfying Curiosity: preparing for the Mars landing

Artist's depiction of the Curiosity rover on Mars. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)Unless you are freshly returned from outer space, you have probably already heard about tonight’s eagerly awaited landing of Curiosity, the next Mars rover. By roughly 1:31 a.m. EDT on Monday, the Mars Space Laboratory vehicle will have either delivered the $2.5 billion rover safely to the planet’s surface or dropped it there, broken and maybe dysfunctional. [Update, 1:35 a.m. EDT, Mon.: Success!!!] Either way, Curiosity’s arrival promises to be one of the most dramatic (and media-saturated) science events of the year.

Descent stage of the Mars Science Laboratory vehicle, lowering the folded Curiosity rover in the sky crane maneuver. (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

Are you ready for it, and for what could the trove of discoveries that the rover may make in the months and years ahead? Here’s a brief backgrounder.


Continue reading »

Category: Space, Technology | 14 Comments

Science Fiction Kitchenware

The officially licensed Star Trek Enterprise pizza cutter: Go where no mozzarella has gone before. (Photo: Joe Hall, via Flickr/joebeone)

Somewhere out in space, past Tatooine, Arrakis, Gallifrey, Trantor, and the Delta Quadrant, there is a wedding registry at the end of the universe. Kind of a Bed Bath & Beyond with extra emphasis on the beyond. Please consider what follows to be its catalog.

It began to take shape as a result of my browsing through Space.com to check back on a news story I’d noticed last week. The loading of my page was delayed by a pop-up advertising a product available in the site’s gift shop: an official Star Trek licensed replica of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) starship incarnated as a pizza knife. See how the sharpened rim of the spinning saucer section stands ready to slice through any Tholian web of string cheese?

My tweeted comment about it led to an exchange with science blogger David Shiffman (@WhySharksMatter) of Southern Fried Science.

@tvjrennie: For $30, you could buy this Star Trek Enterprise pizza slicer. goo.gl/Skr8H Eat pizza with your imaginary girlfriend!

@WhySharksMatter: @tvjrennie My girlfriend tolerates my Darth Vader spatula. It’s actually a really nice spatula.

Naturally, I replied with my hallmark restraint and dry wit. Because less is more.

@tvjrennie: @WhySharksMatter <breath> “Turn to the dark side of the pancake, Julia!”

@tvjrennie: @WhySharksMatter <breath> “Together, we shall rule the breakfast buffet!”

@tvjrennie: @WhySharksMatter <breath> “I AM YOUR SPATULA!!!”

Then it only seemed right to open up the discussion more widely.

@tvjrennie: [1/2] Apropos the Star Trek Enterprise pizza cutter, I am alerted by @WhySharksMatter to the existence of a Darth Vader spatula. So…

@tvjrennie: [2/2] Please tell me of other sci-fi themed kitchenware, real or imagined. #scifikitchenware

And we were off to the races with a list of actual science fiction-themed kitchen products, starting with what I think we can all agree was far too much more information about David Shiffman’s spatula. The licensing people for the world’s science fiction franchises have been very busy….

For the rest of this story, see my complete retelling of events on Storify.

Category: Entertainment | Leave a comment

Transits of Earth from Other Planets

Credit: NASA

News media over the past few days have been tiled over with stories prompted by the transit of Venus later today, when the planet crosses in front of the sun’s disk. The event by all means deserves the attention, given its rarity, its historical and ongoing scientific importance, and the colorful adventures that have sometimes followed quests to watch it. I’ve even contributed to the glut myself with my SmartPlanet column from last week about how the transit of Venus relates to the search for worlds around other stars.

But let’s turn away from Venus for a moment and consider a parallel event that has never yet been seen; one that is paradoxically both more remote and closer to home: the transit of Earth as viewed from other planets.

All the planets of our solar system except Mercury and Venus have opportunities to see transits of Earth, at least in principle. (Mercury and Venus, of course, do not because they lie between the sun and Earth’s orbit, which is why we can see their transits.) And if any of the more than 2,300 planet candidates identified by the Kepler space observatory have civilizations that lofted their own versions of the Kepler, they are in a position to see transits of Earth, too: by definition, their orbits must sometimes align with the plane of Earth’s. [Note that Robert in comments says this last point is incorrect.]


Continue reading »

Category: Space | 11 Comments

Recap of “Science Writing in the Age of Denial” (part 2)

My Storify recapping of last week’s Science Writing in the Age of Denial” conference continues….

Previously, I recapped the first two sessions of the meeting organized by the University of Wisconsin-Madison (April 22-24, 2012), which covered “Communicating Science in Politicized Environments” and “The Denial of Evolution, and the Evolution of Denial.” (In the interest of disclosure, I should note that last fall I was a science writer in residence at UW-M, and that I was a paid, invited participant in the meeting.) Now I’ll pick up with what happened in the two later sessions that first day.

Cheerleading, Shibboleths and Uncertainty

There was no better keynote speaker for this session than Gary Schwitzer (@garyschwitzer), the founder of HealthNewsReview.org. The site, funded by the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making, provides independent reviews of the accuracy, balance and completeness of news stories about medical treatments, tests, procedures, and products.

Unfortunately, Schwitzer explained, about 70 percent of all the stories evaluated by HealthNewsReview failed to meet those criteria. Rather, too much of the time, medical news was dominated by an attitude of uncritical cheerleading for any and all new offerings, without an adequate exploration of the relative costs, tradeoffs in risks, credibility of the evidence or conclusions, conflicts of interest, and other important considerations. (A list of the site’s rating criteria can be found here.)

New medical technologies he said, get treated like “shibboleths”—objects of cultish devotion. As a consequence, journalists who should be helping to their audience to set intelligent health agendas are instead just flooding the public with half-baked information and conflicting messages, according to Schwitzer. With a dig at FOX News (which he said was notably awful in this regard), Schwitzer called the present “an age of infoxification.”

For a good example of a dreadful phenomenon, Schwitzer pointed to coverage of cancer screening. Mass screening is expensive and potentially harmful, so it should be balanced against the potential benefits. But anyone recommending that younger people not get mammograms or prostate antigen tests was loudly accused of wanting to “ration health care” or not caring whether people died.

Schwitzer has posted some of the slides from his presentation online. …

Read the rest of my recap on Storify….

Category: Climate, Environment, Evolution, Health, Journalism, Media, Politics, Science Writing, Skepticism | 1 Comment

Recap of “Science Writing in the Age of Denial” (part 1)

Here begins my Storify summation of day one from this week’s timely conference, “Science Writing in the Age of Denialism.”  Go to the conference website for complete details on panels and speakers, which also featured PLoS Bloggers Deborah Blum and Steve Silberman.  (In case you’re not familiar with Storify, what you’re reading between the short passages I wrote is a selected assortment of tweets made by participants at the conference on the hashtags #sciencedenial and #denialconf, and which I later curated.) I’ll have one or more further summaries of this sort on the rest of the conference, which I’ll try to complete soon.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison assembled a roster of science-writing all-stars to consider the roots of the public’s resistance to accepting the science about evolution, climate change, vaccines, and other matters.

The organizers made their goals for the event clear in the description listed on its website at sciencedenial.wisc.edu:

Science writers now work in an age where uncomfortable ideas and truths meet organized resistance. Opposing scientific consensus on such things as anthropogenic climate change, the theory of evolution, and even the astonishingly obvious benefits of vaccination has become politically de rigueur, a litmus test and a genuine threat to science. How does denial affect the craft of the science writer? How can science writers effectively explain disputed science? What’s the big picture? Are denialists ever right?

Welcome and Introduction

Science writer par excellence Deborah Blum of UW-M welcomed the audience at the event’s start and introduced some of those making it possible. University chancellor David Ward considered the tensions between science and irrationality, modernity and anti-modernity, inclusive pluralism vs. ideological pluralization.

David Krakauer, the head of the relatively new Wisconsin Institute for Discovery (the venue for the day’s discussions), then pointed out that all of us engage in our own forms of denial. For example, journalists covering the denial of climate warming et al. fooled themselves into thinking that they could change public opinion. For decades, Krakauer noted, popular films had carried the message that we ignore scientists’ warnings at our peril, yet the public still had this distrust of scientists.’

David Krakauer: “the science communicator’s denial? That the work makes a difference.” #sciencedenial sciencedenial

David Krakauer: “If Steven Spielberg and Ridley Scott have failed, what can science writers do?” #sciencedenial   Mark Riechers

“But journalists aren’t the only ones.”  Scott Dodd

“We’re actually in the age of denial – of the end.” John Krakauer #sciencedenial Adam Hinterthuer

Communicating Science in Politicized Environments

Arthur Lupia, professor of political science at the University of Michigan, kicked off the session with an energetic and engrossing review of what biology and psychology had discovered about the challenges of making complex arguments to diverse audiences. The fleeting, fragmented nature of human attention and the phenomenon of “motivated reasoning” almost guarantee that people will not absorb and accept upsetting information unless it speaks meaningfully to their priorities and values.

Lupia: “Familiar communication plan is that if we give people right info, they will make the right decisions. But often fails.” #sciencedenial John Rennie

Lupia: “The problem is us, not them. We have unrealistic expectations about how they’ll react to info.”  #sciencedenial John Rennie

Read the rest of my report on Storify

Category: Climate, Evolution, Health, Journalism, Media, Science Writing, Skepticism | 5 Comments

Coffee, Bugs, and Death

Credit: Sheri Terris, via Flickr

People, why must you ruin my coffee-drinking life? When I indulge my fondness for the nectar of the burnt bean, I’m looking for a rich java experience, one brightened with a faint hint of bugs and a remote hope for the sweet surcease that only caffeinated death could bring. Must you take even this from me?

Buckling under pressure from the all-powerful vegan lobby, Starbucks has announced that it will soon stop preparing some of its drinks and foods with a red dye made from crushed insects. As the Associated Press reports:

The company says it will swap out cochineal extract, which is made from the juice of a tiny beetle, and instead use lycopene, a tomato-based extract.

Cochineal dye is widely used in foods and cosmetics products such as lipstick, yogurt and shampoo. Starbucks had used the coloring in its strawberry flavored mixed drinks and foods like the raspberry swirl cake and red velvet whoopie pie.

Objection!

Let us first stipulate that I am already on the record as a man not unwilling to eat insects. Indeed, sometimes I can be enthusiastic about the prospect. (Why? Circle of life, my friends, the circle of life: the bugs will get their chance soon enough.)

But lycopene? Does no one see what putting a tomato extract into foods already laden with sugar, corn syrup, salt, and other ingredients will mean? It will mean that they are making ketchup! You can’t add ketchup to whoopee pies! It’s madness!

Furthermore, are people unaware of the noble history of the insect dye in question, as so gloriously explained by Amy Butler Greenfield in her book A Perfect Red (HarperCollins, 2005)? The cochineal insect (Dactylopius coccus), which is native to cacti growing in Mexico and other parts of Central America, produces the dyestuff (also known as carminic acid) in its exoskeleton to repel predators

"Indian Collecting Cochineal with a Deer Tail" by José Antonio de Alzate y Ramírez (1777). (Credit: Newberry Library)

The Aztecs and Mayans discovered the dyestuff (also known as carmine) in crushed preparations of the cochineal insect (Dactylopius coccus) native to cacti growing in Mexico and other parts of Central America and used it to create fabrics more vividly colored than any seen before. (The carminic acid in the insect’s exoskeleton helps it to discourage predators.) In 1519 Spanish conquistadors brought it back to Europe and gave Spain a prized monopoly on the dyestuff for many years: after silver, cochineal became the most valued commodity imported from Mexico. Greenfield describes how the brilliance of what the chemist Robert Boyle hailed as “a perfect Scarlet” ignited a fierce industrial struggle among European powers:

Determined to break Spain’s lucrative monopoly, other nations turned to espionage and piracy. In England, the Netherlands, and France, the search for cochineal soon took on the tone of a national crusade. Kings, haberdashers, scientists, pirates, and spies all became caught up in the chase for the most desirable color on earth.

Meanwhile, as bright red fabrics and pigments became more widespread, European attitudes toward the color red changed. Red garments, which had once been available only to the wealthy, nobility, and high-ranking clergy, was embraced by the poorer classes—and that in turn led the contrary Victorian gentry to start wearing dark clothes and to dismiss red as vulgar, immoral extravagance.

By the 1880s, the invention of inexpensive artificial dyes such as alizarin had busted the market for cochineal, and the laborious raising and collection of cochineal insects on plantations around the world mostly ended. Today, Peru is the leading exporter of cochineal, primarily for food colorings and cosmetics in which all-natural ingredients are prized.

As Greenfield wrote in her book’s prologue:

The history of this mad race for cochineal is a window onto another world — a world in which red was rare and precious, a source of wealth and power for those who knew its secrets. To obtain it, men sacked ships, turned spy, and courted death.

Ladies and gentlemen, I beg of you, let us not spurn cochineal casually. It is a proud, magnificent tradition that we honor when we drink our heroic flagons of strawberry frappuccino.

• • •

Indeed, should we not cherish the death-defying act involved in drinking every cup of coffee? Years ago when I worked in a cell biology lab at Harvard Medical School, the other techs and I would sometimes eye the big plastic bottle of pure caffeine powder stored in one of the reagent freezers. (It was a hand-me-down from some long-forgotten set of experiments unrelated to anything we did.) We would idly speculate about what would happen if we were to take a big heaping teaspoon of the white powder and swallow it all in a gulp. How fast would our hearts explode?

And is there any grad student or journalist on deadline who hasn’t morbidly wondered whether his or her next cup of coffee might not be one too many, freeing us from all care forevermore? What simple joy such thoughts brought us.

But apparently the very witty David Ng cannot leave well enough alone: he has gone and calculated exactly how much coffee we would need to drink for its caffeine to kill us. Read all the details of his back-of-the-envelope calculations, because the problem turns out to be more complicated than one might think. Death by coffee means not only consuming enough to achieve a lethal concentration of caffeine in the tissues but also overcoming the rates of elimination of caffeine from the body.

Long story short, Dave makes a case that drinking enough coffee to kill yourself with caffeine (or with over-hydration, for that matter) borders on the impossible:

I haven’t had a chance to extrapolate this over the full year (365 days), but I’m pretty sure that even a constant coffee drinking regime (1 cup every 24 minutes for the full year) wouldn’t work out to a retention amount above the lethal dose.

All to say that your body pretty much kicks ass in its remarkable metabolism. Now, it’ll be interesting to maybe dig a little deeper with regards to how messed up a person gets with that base 2500mg inside them (as I’m sure the case will be). As well, not sure what the deal would be with 15 litres of expresso shots per day – that may just about be enough!

To which I can only say: Stop ruining away my fantasies, Dave Ng! You’re in no position to dismiss the deadliness of my habit because you have never tasted my coffee.

Category: Entertainment, Health, Science Writing | 4 Comments