misc.ience

I have moved to Sciblogs

2009-12-15T16:25:00.005+13:00

Hello everyone :)

As you may or may not be aware, I'm also part of the stable of bloggers to be found on Sciblogs. For the moment, I've decided to be lazy and rather than syndicating/double posting (which always requires a little extra work), I'm simply going to blog on Sciblogs for now. I can be found under the same blog name: misc.ience.

Hope to see you there!

Note: we reckon Sciblogs is actually Australasia's largest science blogging network (possible even the Southern Hemisphere's!)

Nano ho-ho

2009-12-15T14:17:00.009+13:00

In the spirit of Christmas, I'd like to share with you all the world's smallest snowman.

(Click on image for link to site)

Credit: NPL site

The snowman was developed by the UK's National Physical Laboratory, and is a marvel of festivity-inspired nano-jollity.

According to the website, it's 10 µm across, which equates to roughly 1/5th the width of a human hair.

It wasn't made out of snowballs, of course, as these on average measure about half an inch, and we have yet to develop the ability to do the whole 'Honey, I shrunk the snowflake' thing.

Instead, it was made out of two tiny little tin balls. hilariously, they're normally used to correct microscope astigmatism, which brings to mind wonderful images of a microscope with glasses, peering at the objects/tissues it needs to focus on.

I'm looking forward to tiny Christmas trees with even tinier tinsel. Of course, a treetop angel on this scale might also bring whole new answers to the classic question involving angels and the heads of a pin...

Introducing Shady, or, how to get a robot to do what a blind can

2009-12-11T13:58:00.010+13:00

The last couple of days have felt particularly roboty.

Why, you ask? Well, I shall be posting one some of the things that came across my tech-strewn desk, and I'll introduce the mini-topic with this one. Shady.

Cast your mind back to a hot, sunny day. For those of you living in Wellington, I might suggest a quick video search on teh intertubes, just to refresh your memory.

Right, now add to that image an image of you, sitting in a chair somewhere indoors (where exactly I shall leave up to you), with the sun blazing in through the window. Does the glare bounce irritatingly off your screen? Can you feel asymmetric bits of yourself burning?

Ok, now, what would your solution be? A blind, or possible a curtain? Moving said chair/screen? Leaving the indoors to go frolick in the outdoors (particularly given that vitamin d is apparently good for mood, and might also fight diabetes and food allergies)? To scream 'aarg, I'm melting'?

Well, some very clever lads at MIT (of course) have come up with an alternate solution. One that probably makes sense if you're robot mad, but otherwise tends to hike the eyebrow somewhat heavenward. Yes, they have built a robot, called Shady.

Basiacally, if someone is feeling a little over-exposed sunwise, they simply tell the little robot where to go, and it potters to that point and then unfurls a very solar wind sail-looking fan. Which shades said controller.

Credit: Shady's website

What makes it interesting, though, is the way that it does this. It really is actually quite clever, all comments aside. Basically, it pulls itself along trusses (reminding me in the process of some strange toy from my childhood, of which I have only the dimmest of memories, except this is obviously much more clever). It's very clever robotics, in fact. Now, why would we car about something that can haul itself around trusses? Well, because they form the skeleton of large proportions of the built environment, is why, and so there are applications for construction sites, inspections of sites, and perhaps even building or forming a truss itself.

Interestingly, I just started having flashbacks of a graphic novel read many years ago (Tom Strong Issue 2, by genius and hairy-guy Alan Moore, in fact) where small, modular machines gained sentience, got their act together (literally), and had to be defeated by superheroes because they were eating the city in their quest to make more of themselves.

For those of you interested in more details, have a look here. And see here for a vid of it being cute and useful and stuff.

To anyone who builds one: I shall be most impressed, and might send you a virtual beer or something :)

PittConnect and online scientists

2009-12-11T13:17:00.005+13:00

Ah, social networking for scientists. Hooray!

PittCon, which describes itself self-effacingly as the "world’s annual premier Conference and Exposition on laboratory science", has gone one step further than simply bringing together some 20,000 people together in the name of laboratory-inspired joy.

After all, a few days simply isn't enough if one really wants to build connections, make other geeky science friends, and indulge (no doubt) in many impenetrable conversations. And so PittCon is proud to announce that it has set up a social networking site as well (well, online scientific community).

And, in one of those joyous occasions when naming new stuff is an evolutionary process, the new site is going to be called...can you guess it?...PitConnect.

Which makes me wonder whether all major (or minor) conferences should spin something like this off, just because it's so perfect. Or perhaps an uber-'Connect' might work.

Anyway, I digress. The press release says the following:
Pittconnect.com was created to provide an online resource for scientists from all over the world to connect with each other to discuss problems, techniques, research, etc. In addition to listing the 1,936 technical sessions that will be presented at Pittcon 2010, Pittconnect provides contact information to enable users to communicate with colleagues, Pittcon 2010 speakers and exhibitors prior to and after the event. Once a participant has completed a short profile, he or she can begin to network by viewing the map displaying the sessions, exhibitors, and other users related to one's specific interests.

Also, the site intends to add functionality to allow profile links to LinkedIn and Twitter, and expanding the number of available groups.

Happy conferencing, everyone!

Absolutely stunning: 100 days in Glacier National Park

2009-12-10T16:32:00.007+13:00

I came across this stunning set of photos while trawling teh intertubes earlier today.
(Click on picture to go to website)

Western Tanager (Day 50)
Credit: Chris Peterson 2009

It's a series of photos taken over 100 consecutive days in Glacier National Park (in the US). The photos were taken by Glacier Park Magazine editor Chris Peterson, and are quite something.

Says the blurb:

"When the project is complete, it will be a traveling show in 2010 to commemorate Glacier's Centennial. I'm using a mix of film and digital cameras, including an 8 by 10 field camera, a Kodak Pocket Vest camera, circa 1909, and a Speed Graphic, among others. The idea is to use the cameras that would have been used over the course of the Park's 100 years. Day-to-day work is done primarily with a Nikon digital camera, since I only process film about once a week due to time constraints (I have a regular job on top of this project)."

I guess I'm posting them up having been inspired by fellow Sciblogger (and ardent wildlife photographer) Brendan Moyle.

P.s. I reckon your photos are just as awesome, Brendan...

World leaders, 20 years on and sorry

2009-12-07T17:20:00.007+13:00

This is really quite interesting.

(Click on link to go to website: once there, click on picture for slideshow)

Greenpeace is running an ad campaign in Copenhagen airport, featuring world leaders who are 20 years older ('though many look much more) and apologising for not having done enough...

Hmmm....

The best of Royal Society publishing - 350 years' worth!

2009-11-30T19:47:00.005+13:00

So, this is seriously, seriously cool. 350 years' worth of the Royal Society of London's best published papers.

(click on the picture to visit the site)

To expand, (teehee), it's actually an interactive, explorable timeline. And it's been launched to commemorate the Society's 350th birthday next year. The RS is definitely wearing the age quite well, all in all :)

The timeline's also got a bunch of fantastic images for those of you interested in imagery/design and is, generally, an awesome website.

The first papers are a bit grim, involving bellows and dogs' lungs. The last (most recent) paper was the RS's fascinating paper on geoengineering, and many of the 60 papers available coincide with major historical events, although they aren't necessarily connected. For example, in 2008, the term 'Cubism' was adopted; the same year, a paper was published entitled 'Reflection of alpha particles from thin foil'.

And, of course, people with an interest in language, or at the very least the English bits thereof, will find the changing expression fascinating. Not only in and of itself, but for what it can tell us about attitudes and beliefs at the time (for a great example, have a look at Fabiana's hilarious post on cockroaches).

And, without further ado, I shall leave you all here, as I want to go frolick in all this sciency goodness. I'm sure you do too.

Wherefore the hammerhead?

2009-11-29T16:17:00.007+13:00

Fantastic stuff, this. Well, for those of us who, when little and naturally curious about everything*, wondered why, exactly, it was that hammerheads had hammerheads. As it were.

Scalloped hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini, Hawaii, USA (Pacific ocean)
UW118-2, (c) Andrew Seale

There are many possible reasons for this. It could be that a (or the, depending on your preference) creator thought it looked kinda cool, and was going through a flat-headed creature phase. Or because it makes said sharks look, you know, really really menacing. Or, alternatively, really, really ridiculous.

And learned people, of course, being learned, have posited their own theory: that it gives hammerhead sharks great stereovision and depth perception. Or not. The thing, up until this paper released last week, no one had actually bothered to test this assumption.

It has been suggested that, in fact, since their eyes are on the sides of their heads (I'm talking about the sharks here), rather than facing forward, that they couldn't have binocular vision. However, other clever people and television shows have claimed eyesight benefits. Who is right?

It turns out, the guys who posited better vision. The paper's authors looked at a range of different shark species, bother hammerhead and pointy-nosed. Included were bonnetheads (narrow) and scalloped hammerheads (wide).

Bonnethead hammerhead (Sphyrna tiburo)

Scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini)
© Doug Perrine

So they got a whole lotta sharks and then tested their eyesight with a version of the whole 'moving the torch in front of your eyes' thing. They weren't testing for concussion, but were instead measuring the electrical activities of the sharks' eyes.

First, they looked at monocular vision, and found that hammerheads kick ass. As it were. The fields were wider than pointy-nosed blacknoseand lemon sharks (for example), with the scalloped hammerhead having a 182 degree range, and the bonnethead a very respectable 176 deg.

They then took these measurements, and plotted them to see whether the monocular fields overlapped. Which they did. Apparently, the scalloped hammerhead had an overlap of some 32 degrees, and the bonnethead had 13 degrees. The most hammerheady of all, the winghead shark, had 48 degrees!

Then, they factored in some other stuff such as head and eye movements, and watched those overlaps grow.

In short, the television series (and clever people) were right. That weird head shape does indeed improve depth perception and binocular vision.

Mostly awesomely, it also gives some hammerheads a 360 degree rear view (or very close) - one of the few occasions where the television people have underrepresented the situation. Gosh.

* Note: I saw a paper recently (for the life of me can't remember where) that said that the whole 'why' phase small kids go through isn't actually an attempt to make mommy/daddy's brain drip out their nose, but is, instead, because kids actually do want the answer to their questions. Go figure.
(Postnote: Calvin's dad's answer to this situation is quite tempting, though. And here's some more inspiration.)

The LHC's first collisions

2009-11-25T09:49:00.008+13:00

Woohoo! I couldn't, personally, be more thrilled.

No doubt, people who actually understand properly the physics and true awesomeness behind the LHC couldn't be more thrilled either. Even more so than I.

Because, * fanfare *, the first collisions in the new, better-than-broken, up-and-running, ghost-in-the-machine lacking LHC have been observed!

A brief history lesson - the LHC, or Large Hadron Collider, is a truly gobsmacking feat of engineering which has taken a decade to build, billions of euros, and, no doubt, the sanity (or at least youth) of a number of engineers who've had to fight various problems, including errant baguette-bearing birds, to finally get it up and running. Properly.

And why has this wonderfully photogenic machine been built? Why, to find new particles! Amongst other things, of course. Of particular interest is the possibility that our scientists may be able to spot the elusive Higgs boson. (I have a fantastic image in my head of scientists in khaki, with binoculars, and a David Attenborough voice-over). The Higgs boson, or 'god particle', has thus far only been theorised, but it's thought that it could be what gives everything in the universe mass.

Basically, it works like this (there's a better explanation here):

The Higgs boson (or particle) carries the Higgs field, which imparts mass to objects as they move through the field, kinda like this...

People evenly distributed in a room, akin to the Higgs field (CERN)

Then Thatcher (yes, yes, I know!) enters the room, people gather, mass increases (CERN)

Of course, the LHC has also lead to howls and terrors from various quarters about its potentially causing the end of the world, or a huge black hole, or something. Amusingly, some physicists even suggested that it (well, the universe) could be sabotaging itself from the future.

But I digress. The news here is that the first collisions have been observed, and they look like this!

The green lines denote changed particles (following the collision), which are, apparently, generally pions (not peons, although those can also be unstable during changing circumstances).

[Pions] are unstable particles consisting of an up quark and an anti-down (or an anti-up and a down). Though they are unstable, they live long enough to nearly always leave tracks in the detector.

Then, the yellow bits denote the silicon strip detectors responsible for recording our particles

After that, it all gets quite technical. A far more knowledgeable account of it, and the source of the quote above, can be found here (which, by the way, is a great blog).

Mostly, I'm just happy she's started up, and I'd like to raise a toast to her: we're happy to have you back with us, dear gal, and we look forward to the show!

There's also a lovely Nat Geog article on it. I love the subheading 'happy physicists' - it's a warm and fluffy thought.

Climate centre hacked

2009-11-22T19:31:00.005+13:00

This subject has already been covered on the web, but I haven't seen it discussed yet on Sciblogs, so thought I would bring it to the fore.

Being quite aware that I don't do the climate change thing (as it were), for no reason other than that there are other people far more qualified than me to do so.

But still, this is quite something...

To fill everyone in: the University of East Anglia, which is apparently one of Britain's leading climate change research centres, has been hacked. The emails, covering 1991-2009, first appeared online on Nov 19th, and have since gained widespread attention.

And yes, this was a crime - the centre was hacked, and personal emails stolen and disseminated publicly. Not allowed. Not even slightly. No matter how one might justify it.

Further, lines from the emails are being used by climate change skeptics (deniers?) as proof of collusion between scientists. You know, as part of this huge conspiracy, involving thousands of scientists all over the world, in which anthropogenic climate change is all a big fib. Yes. That one.

The fact that the emails have been split up and discreet sentences used (for example, taking the phrase' trick' to mean deliberate obfuscation, or even outright lying, instead of a just-as-common phrase, to mean 'clever technique') alone is, basically, the same thing as cherry-picking and quote mining...a 'trick' used fairly often by...certain groups. And while not technically a crime, it is certainly dishonest. Taken out of context, even the most innocuous sentence can sound dastardly.

Not much more to say (there's been plenty already written), and a little more serious than most of my posts, but it's something I think important...

More info:

The Guardian's article on the subject
The University's take on the matter

The teapot effect, end of

2009-11-12T16:36:00.005+13:00

So apparently, there's something called the teapot effect. Or, rather, there was.

No, it's not what you might first imagine it is. At least, it's not what I first imaged it was. Instead, it's apparently the name used for the phenomenon whereby the spouts of teapots dribble, and even English women who've been pouring tea for posh friends for decades are unable to pour that perfect, immaculate cup of tea.

"Previous studies have shown that dribbling is the result of flow separation where the layer of fluid closest to the boundary becomes detached from it. When that happens, the fluid flows smoothly over the lip. But as the flow rate decreases, the boundary layer re-attaches to the surface causing dribbling."

And here's where fluid dynamicists have stepped up, donned their superhero cloaks, and sorted the problem. Huzzah!

The factors involved?

"Previous studies have shown that a number of factors effect this process such as the radius of curvature of the teapot lip, the speed of the flow and the "wettability" of the teapot material. But a full understanding of what's going on has so far eluded scientists.

"Now Cyril Duez at the University of Lyon in France and a few amis, have identified the single factor at the heart of the problem and shown how to tackle it. They say that the culprit is a "hydro-capillary" effect that keeps the liquid in contact with the material as it leaves the lip. The previously identified factors all determine the strength of this hydro-cappillary effect."

The solution is two-fold: make the lip of the teapot as thin as possible, and and coat it with superhydrophobic materials (materials, in other words, that really, really, really, really don't like water).

Even more fun, apparently there are materials in which the superhydrophobicity can be turned on and off electronically. Meaning that to dribble or not to dribble would no longer be hypothetical...

And, because there's no better way to end things than with wry, physics-based sarcasm, there was this comment, as well:

"(Of course, there are one or two other potential applications in shaping the fluid flow in microfluidic machines but these pale into insignificance compared with the teapot revolution in hand.)"

On another teapot-related note, I had not idea, but apparently teapot-blowing (again, not what you think) is something of an artform!

p.s. Yes, I know the original arXiv post isn't that new - sadly, life has perforce distracted me somewhat of recent.

Moving disembodied voice aids attention

2009-10-29T16:24:00.013+13:00

In driving, that is.
(Also, an oops here: I wrote this last week, and forgot to publish it)

Two of the prettiest headsets out the there: the Jawbone and the Ripple (click on pics to be taken to websites)

Eyal Ophir and his colleagues in Stanford University’s CHIMe Lab - the same people who so inflamed interest earlier this year when they revealed that people who mutitask more, are worse at the tasks they do - have been playing with the problem of mobile phone conversations (MPCs) in cars.

I thought their new research was particularly timely, given the fact that NZ has now banned the use of mobile phones in cars unless using a headset/hands-free kit (and some interesting debates can be had on the subject of whether even these should be allowed).

The thing is, even if one is not actually holding a mobile phone, a conversation can be distracting. Very. And Ophir and his colleagues have been trying to find ways to make these conversations less dangerous - after all, we all know that people are not, en masse, suddenly going to pull over for mobile conversations.

They looked, basically, at making the cell phone-originating voice move around the car. Not, as I first thought, in a sort of left-right pan, necessarily, but more having the voice speaking from head level, or from floor level. Reasoning etc below:

"Ophir designed a system that puts the voice up at the driver’s level when road conditions are relatively safe, then drops it down to the driver’s feet when conditions are more hazardous. He says he could have done it the opposite way and it appears that it would have worked equally well, but that research has shown that voices coming from lower than the speaker are less dominant, hence his choice of high and low. He tested the system with drivers in a simulator, and found that drivers quickly learned that a change in position of the voice meant, “Pay attention to the road!” They later rated the cell phone conversation as less distracting when the sound was coming from their feet.
In the real world, Ophir sees this system linked to the driver’s GPS and a database of accidents, to identify potentially treacherous areas of road."

Critically, they were wanting to find a technique that would work for both high and low multitaskers (a small note of glee for us high multitaskers: while we may not be as good at a single task, apparently we might be slightly safer drivers when having a mobile phone conversation).

Apparently, the research is, hopefully, going to be published soon.

The broadband sitrep

2009-10-28T11:11:00.005+13:00

I found this awesome infographic on Gizmodo today (click on the picture to make it larger).

The data's been taken from various sources (which are named on the picture), and shows the costs, and speeds, of broadband internet around the world.

Of course, as we already know, New Zealand is somewhat behind the curve in a few respects: price/month for 1mbps is in the $5-10 range and its average broadband speed (mbps) is below 4 mbps. Its broadband penetration, however, is just under 80% (although, having had a look at the Internet World Stats data, this may actually be internet, not broadband, penetration).

Some discussion:

First, the positive. Penetration is really high here - would anyone like to comment on why that might be so? I imagine that it is, at least, in part due to our small population, and the very small (relatively) number of people who're unable to afford internet at all. Possibly it's also a communication thing - many of us know people elsewhere in the world, and the internet's the best way of communicating with them. Any other ideas?

Secondly, the less positive. The internet here is expensive, particularly if one looks at the speeds we get. Yes, I could fork out a great deal of money each month for the fastest possible line, but I don't want to. I'm probably spoilt, having recently spent time in the UK and having access there to fast, cheap internet.

I understand that there are reasons for the price and speed of the internet here, certainly. We have are a small, isolated country. Absolutely. Market forces and whatnot. Of course. But we also used to be known for being on the forefront of at least some technologies - 'nuff said there, as there are many, far more knowledgeable, people who can speak to that.

And, of course, we have something of monopoly in terms of copper ownership. South Africa (my homeland) has an interestingly analogous situation: there, a giant telecoms company called Telkom (I kid you not) has had something of a stranglehold as well, owing to its ownership of all the copper. Unsurprisingly, telecomms and particularly internet prices there are very high, and speeds rather low.

Hopefully it'll change, and there have been mutterings of late in that direction from various sectors etc: indeed, fellow blogger John Nixon has in fact written a little on the subject. And Abhiskeh Tiwari has pointed out that Finland has just made internet access a legal right...

I'm just jealous of Japan, I guess - look at those speeds! And the ridiculously low cost of them! Yes, that is what happens with a densely populated, tech-obsessed (in many respects) nation, but you won't find me complaining, and my resolve to visit just strengthened that little bit.

Note: check out this great video explaining Australia's National Broadband Network plans. If nothing else, it's a great example of really good design in terms of the graphics etc.

Learning to use your new prehensile tail...

2009-10-27T15:57:00.004+13:00

The obscure title is aimed at a friend who's always sworn that, when it comes time to choose body modifications, he wants that prehensile tail.

And now, according to some new research published in PNAS last week, he can learn to use it before he even has it!

(Note: the article I read about this can be found here - unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to find the paper itself anywhere on the PNAS site...)

Researchers have been looking into the idea of phantoms: no, not pale forms inhabiting dark corners, but instead limbs that we can feel attached to us, even when they aren't. The most common form of this is after an amputation, when many amputees continue to feel the limb after the surgery and not in a good way, either - apparently, it is often quite painful.

Previous research has looked into how best to treat phantom pain, but now, scientists have gone one better: they successfully managed to get people who have lost a limb - in this case, an arm above the elbow - were able to learn to manipulate the lost limb in entirely impossible ways. Apparently, those who were successful described that their wrist had developed a new joint, and the researchers were able to corroborate that, at least as fair as the patients' brains were concerned, the new neural pathways had in fact been produced (rather than being faked).

"Seven people who had an arm that had been amputated above the elbow were encouraged to learn a particular arm movement that defies biomechanics — turning a hand that’s bent 90 degrees at the wrist the last quarter of a full turn that the hand won’t do. The study participants practiced by imagining that they were moving the phantom limb for five minutes per hour every day until they had achieved the impossible movement or had given up (this took one to four weeks depending on the individual). Four of the participants were successful in feeling the sensation of the impossible movement, the researchers report."

"Each of the participants who achieved the impossible move also described developing a new wrist joint that allowed the impossible movement. And three of the four reported that moves that were previously possible for the phantom limb were now difficult with their new wrist."

So yes - it has implications for a number of things, from people learning to use new body parts before they can access them physically, or even to readjust self-image (very useful for people with conditions such as anorexia).

And for learning to use that prehensile tail :)

New Zealand nature documentaries

2009-10-07T14:50:00.005+13:00

Something for all those of you who enjoy nature docos.

NZ On Screen has published, today, a collection of 15 full-length nature documentaries, complemented by a background piece written by Peter Hayden. The docos span some 30 years of film-making, with the intention being to celebrate Aotearoa, its magnificence, and, frankly, its eccentricities as well.

The films are as follows:

So yes, have a look, and enjoy. I haven't watched any of them yet, so I'm afraid I can't comment, although that comments from anyone who has are most welcome.

The Open Laboratory - the best science blogging around

2009-10-01T14:43:00.007+13:00

Now this is a fantastic project. Even better, it's been going since 2006!

Called Open Lab (or The Open Laboratory, in book form), it's a collection of the best science blogging on the net. Each year, some 50-53 posts are selected from the hundreds sent in, and amalgamated into a book.

Not only is this extremely cool, but it actually gets better. The books are available through Lulu - why, you ask? Well, it's simple. Lulu is a print-on-demand service. It's a brilliant idea - no wastage, no huge print runs, customised printing and it means that people who might ordinarily not be able to get a publisher interested, can still get their work out there. Hurrah!

For anyone who's interested, the nominations for Open Lab 2009 can be found here - over 370 so far, and counting.

If you're interesting in purchasing copies of the previous three years' worth of goodness (which we did yesterday in digital format), they can be found simply by clicking on the pictures.

It comes to about US$94/95 for all three, plus normal P&P. Alternatively, buy all three for less than $30 us digitally, and simply print them out.

Enjoy! I'm looking forward to getting stuck into 2008 tonight...

For anyone who's interested in print-on-demand technology, have a look at this: the awe-inspiring Espresso Book Machine®, which is being trialled in a few places in the states. What I would give to have access to one of these in Wellington...

Also, an admission: you can get the 2007 Open Lab book on Fishpond...for$65. And they're available on Amazon but again, you've got to pay postage and packaging, and they're no less expensive.

New ways of farming?

2009-09-30T19:59:00.005+13:00

The discussion of how to increase our agricultural/horticultural output is hardly a new one. In fact, it's been a mainstay of human development - ever-larger populations of people has brought with it the challenge of how to ramp up ways of feeding them, particularly given the vagaries of weather/climate, disease and, frankly, basic resource constraints such as land and water.

Malthus is probably the most well-known person to have written about the problem. He posited, quite some time ago, that any population of animals (including humans) would eventually find its expansion limited by it access to resources, with, at the extremes, significant strife. For a modern example, simply look at the riots that occurred in 2007/2008 (and often during our history).

As the problems have gained in complexity, so too have the means of overcoming them. More efficient forms of agriculture - fertilisers, irrigation, etc - have been accompanied by breeding and also genetic modification. And now, an even more complex solution: sky farming.

In essence, the idea is to build huge skyscrapers which are enormous vertical farming systems. They address a number of issues: because they are grown vertically, they reduce land use, which could be used for forestry and hence carbon sequestration. They would also mean that the outputs would be produced near to where they are needed, cutting down the need for storage and transportation, with a concomittant reduction in fossil fuels. And they provide a brilliant means of dealing with human sewage, which could be used to generate electricity, fertiliser and water. And most of the technology to do this already exists, and the technology is already being considered in countrues such as Abu Dhabi and South Korea.

Quoting from the article:

"Environmental scientist Dickson Despommier of Columbia University and other scientists propose a radical solution: Transplant farms into city skyscrapers. These towers would use soil-free hydroponic farming to slash demand for energy (they’ll be powered by a process that converts sewage into electricity) while producing more food. Farming skyward would also free up farmland for trees, which would help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Even better, vertical farms would grow food near where it would be eaten, thus cutting not only the cost but the emissions of transportation. If you include emissions from the oil burned to cultivate and ship crops and livestock in addition to, yes, methane from farm-animal flatulence, agriculture churns out nearly 14 percent of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions.

"You can’t buy vertically grown groceries just yet. Most urban farming efforts have been small-scale experiments run in neighborhood parks. Despommier’s vision is bigger: a $200-million, 30-story tower covering an entire city block, stuffed with enough fruit, vegetables and chickens to feed 50,000 people. “With waste in and food out, a vertical farm would be like a perpetual-motion machine that feeds a lot of people,” he says. Most of the technology already exists, he adds, and with some refining, the project could be up and running quickly if granted 0.25 percent of the subsidies paid to American farmers in the past decade—a piddling $500 million.

"The vertical farm is more than just a produce factory. It’s also a plan to rewire a city’s infrastructure to mimic natural-resource cycles."

Of course, they lend also themselves to brilliant graphics.

NZ's increasing academic shortage

2009-09-30T15:07:00.003+13:00

I was most interested to read this article in the ODT today.

It talks about the University of Otago's plans to futureproof (what a catchphrase) itself against what, apparently, is a steadily increasing shortage of tertiary academics in New Zealand as we head towards 2020.

The University says it's already seen shortages in areas including medical research/teaching and accountancy.

This to some extent makes sense based on what I've heard anecdotally about academics finding NZ a tough country in which to work. However, speaking with other scientists I've also heard that many other countries are hardly easy, either. The article also says:

"The collaborative planning initiative, which involves all eight New Zealand universities, aimed to prevent a future staffing shortage throughout the country's universities as traditional overseas sources for academic staff dried up at the same time as a large proportion of New Zealand's current academic staff was retiring.

"The universities were all concerned that as New Zealand moved towards 2020, they would face significant difficulties in maintaining an effective and efficient academic workforce."

So I guess my question is: is this something that people are seeing and if so, in which areas have you experienced it?

And what can be done?

And, indeed, is anyone involved in the Academic Workforce Planning - Towards 2020 (8 universities looking into how to combat the problem) project?

Sciblogs

2009-09-28T18:00:00.006+13:00

A quick note...

The reason I've been absent the last little while is because of this marvellous thing, on which we've been working (real) hard the last few weeks. Yes, the SMC presents Sciblogs.

* fanfare *

Note: it launches officially on Wed, which means you're welcome to go have a look, but we're still fixing final bugs and details...

A NZ version, if you will, of Scienceblogs, the aim is to gather people who blog about various aspects of science, put them all in one place, and watch the magic happen.

We're doing it for a number of reasons, not least that we hope that it will encourage informed discussion, and that it will filter through into the mainstream media, providing story ideas, contacts and knowledge for NZ journalists.

And we think it will be cool :)

Of course, the bloggers won't only be focusing on NZ science - they have free rein to talk about anything they choose, although we have asked that it's more about science and less about new baby animals in the house (unless there's an ecological/zoological tilt). Nonetheless, there will still be, we're sure, posts about people's music tastes, etc.

There's a twitter feed, sciblogsnz, as well, which will show all the latest posts going up.

So yes, enjoy!

Links I've enjoyed this last week...

2009-09-20T20:28:00.005+12:00

...but didn't have the time to post. For a number of reasons, including:

madness at work (in a good way) , which is only set to increase due to the upcoming launch (yay!!) of Sciblogs. We've gotten some good coverage for it over the last few weeks, starting with Ken Perrott of Open Parachute breaking the news, and since then Media7 and Mediawatch have been giving us some good airplay too :)
Today, I spent 4 hours rationalising my Gmail contacts because, well, I had synced my iPhone to them, which promptly uploaded 1000+ contacts onto my phone, many of which were ancient (i.e. any email address I've ever used in the last 6+ years), or duplicates, etc. So the only way ever to use my phone's contacts feature, was to sort it.

I am, happily, now done.

So yes, the links (bear in mind that many of them end up making their way into our weekly newsletter as well, and so don't appear here)...

Sneak test shows positive-paper bias
Published in Nature, this confirms what, yes, we already know. But still interesting, and good to see it testably confirmed. And I can understand where the bias comes from although it's hardly something I'm in favour of (particularly as the originator of some genuinely negative results myself).

The Secrets Inside Your Dog's Head
An awesome article by Carl Zimmer about dog behaviour and evolution and research and things. As the owner of a dog myself, I found it particulaly interesting, but I imagine that anyone who's encountered our four-legged friends might find it interesting.

The Briefly Series
Ep. 1: The Big Bang. An awesome science communication idea, the point is to take major concepts in science and explain them not only clearly and briefly, but really well visually as well. Kudos to all the people who given freely (literally) of their time to do this.

Futurity
A completely different type of outreach, Futurity takes the research releases of a number (some 35) top American universities and publishes them in one awesome website. It's great reading, but I have two small concerns: it is, in essence, a collection of press releases (not a bad thing, just something to be aware of when reading the articles) and it does not necessarily give an accurate idea of when the research was published etc. I've notcied a couple of things on the site that seem to be really new/recent, but which I know came out some weeks ago. Nonetheless, good site.

Interphone and the US
Or not, as it turns out. I don't know how I missed this, but it would seem that the US has not taken part in the Interphone survey. * significant pause * I know. Which means they're now considering, I dunno, replicating the work? Or something? It's a big pity, firstly because the data from the US would no doubt have been really good (a very large market who were early adopters of the tech), and it also seems a waste of money to even consider doing it in an American context. Of course, one also has to ask: if Interphone's results are good enough for everyone else, why wouldn't they be good enough for the States?

Shrodinger's tobacco mosaic virus

2009-09-16T17:07:00.005+12:00

I'm sure everyone is familiar with Shrodinger's Cat, the infamous quantum-mechanical thought experiment (apparently, it was first posited as a sort of laughing attempt to put in real terms some of quantum mechanics' more...interesting...theories).

Well, now scientists are attempting to do something...similar. With viruses. Only certain types of virus, including that mentioned in the title of this post, are suitable to the purpose, but they are hopeful it can be managed.

Of course, the interesting thing here is the definition of a virus as a living thing. When I was at university (admittedly, some years ago), I remember being told that the jury was out regarding that. It all depends, apparently, on how many features you feel something needs to display if is to to be considered 'living'.

Viruses are considered to be hovering on the edge, as while they display many of the characteristics associated with life - making more of themselves, having genes, evolving - they also lack some other father fundamental functions, such as metabolism. Or growth. Etc.

On the other hand, whether or not the experiment turns out to be useful, particularly for "the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics", but it will provide the material, no doubt, a number of humorous tshirts and webcomics.

Nature's data-sharing issue

2009-09-11T14:27:00.003+12:00

Nature has published their special data-sharing issue, which can be found here. An extremely timely issue, I might add, give how topical the subject is (see here and here).

There's a lot of interesting stuff in here, including articles about what seems to be a growing (or at least increasingly loud) movement to open up the acecssibility of data, particularly in the Life Sciences. There's even been talk of scientists sharing prepublication data to try speed things along a little...

Of course, there's also analysis of what happened to the ideal of data sharing , and the problems range from difficulties with the technology of it, particularly in areas where good, strong databases (and sharing habits) are not common, to problems with formats, preconceptions, and, frankly, habits.

Peer Review Survey 2009 - the system's worth keeping, but could use some work

2009-09-09T16:54:00.011+12:00

Sense about Science, a UK not-for profit organisation dedicated to improving the understanding of science issues, has released the prelim findings of its Peer Review Survey (full details out in November). The results were released early this morning, NZ time, and are, all things told, quite interesting.
Rather than simply reprinting the results (which can be downloaded by clicking on the hyperlink in this page), I thought I'd also have a look at the results themselves, and see what comment, if any, I could furnish.

Right, then.

(Awesome image found here)

The questionnaire, which was conducted for 2 weeks, was sent out to some 40,000 researchers, all of whom were published authors. Of this 40,000, 4,037 (10%) completed the survey. Of that 10%, 89% classed themselves as 'reviewers'.

Of course, my first question at this point is whether this is representative of researchers as a whole...Do 89% of all (published) researchers review? Or was there some intrinisc bias towards the subject that meant that people who review were more likely to complete the questionnaire (and hence skew the findings...)

Moving on.

---

Satisfaction

In general, respondents (not reviewers) were fairly happy with peer review as a system - 61% were satisfied (although only 8% were very satisfied) with the process, and only 9% were dissatisfied. I would dearly loved to have been able to organise a discussion or two around that latter 9% or so, to figure out why (which is qualitative research is so important).

Reviewers generally felt that, although they enjoyed reviewing and would continue to do it, that there was a lack of guidance on how to review papers, and that some formal training would improve the quality of reviews. There was also the strong feeling that technology had made it easier to review than 5 years ago.

Improvement

Of those who agreed that the review process had improved their last paper (83% of respondents), 91% felt that the biggest area of improvement had been in the discussion, while only half felt that their paper's statistics had benefited. Of course, and as the survey rightly points out, this may because this includes those whose papers contained no such fiddlies...

Why review?

Happily, most reviewers (as opposed to respondents, which includes reviewers and the leftover authors) reviewed because they enjoyed playing theire part in the scientific community (90%) and because they enjoyed being able to improve a paper (85%). Very few (16%) did it as a result of hoping to increase future chances of their paper being accepted.
[On that point - is that last thought/stratagem valid? Does reviewing improve one's chances of paper acceptance in any way?]

Amongst reviewers, just over half (51%) felt that payment in kind by the journal would make them more likely to review for a journal - 41% wanted actual money. (then again, 43% didn't care). 40% also thought that acknowledgment by the journal would be nice, which is odd considering that the majority of reviewers favour the double blind system (see below), or even more strangely, the fact that 58% thought their report being published with the paper would disincentivise them, and 45% felt the same way about their names being published with the paper, as a reviewer. [Note:in the latter point, for example, that 45% does not mean that 55% would be incentivised - a large proportion of the remaining 55% is in fact taken up by ambivalence towards the matter]

Amongst those who wanted payment, the vast majority wanted it either from the funding body (65%) or from the publisher (94%). In a lovely case of either solidarity or self-interest, very few (16%) thought that the author should pay the fee. Looking at that 94% of authors who would want to be paid by the journals to review - where would this leave the open access movement? One of the major, and possibly most valid, criticisms currently being leveled against paid subscription journals is that their reviewing is done free of charge. Indeed, it might even lead to a rise in subscription prices, meaning even more researchers are unable to access paid content. Hmmmm.

To review, or not to review

The most-cited reasons for not reviewing were that the paper was outside their area of expertise (58%) or that they were too busy with their own work (30%). Of course, the first point does suggest that journals could, and should, do a better job of identifying which papers should go to whom...Certainly, this would be a brilliant place for a peer-review agency to start!

The mean number of invitation to review rejections over the last year was 2, but a little a third of respondents would be happy to review 3-5 a year, and a further third 6-10! Which suggests a great deal of underutilisation of the resources, especially considering that the primary reason for not accepting an invitation to review is that the reviewer and subject weren't properly matched.

Purpose

For this, I'd suggest the best thing to do is have a look at the graph below (which is from the report, again to be found here).

(c) Sense about Science, Peer Review Survey 2009: Preliminary Findings, September 2009, UK. Click on image to enlarge and make more legible.

What is interesting is that peer review is underperforming significantly on some of the functions felt to be most important, namely the identification of the best manuscripts for the journal and originality (assuming that by this they mean something along the lines of 'completely novel and ground breaking', then there's a very interesting discussion to be had around that, considering that PLoS specifically doesn't look to that, something I talk about in this post).

It's also performing poorly at the detection of plagiarism and fraud detection, although one wonders whether that is a realistic expectation (and, certainly, something that technology could perhaps be better harnessed to do).

Types of review

Most (76%) of reviewers felt that the double-blind system currently used is the most effective system - usage stats were thought effective by the fewest reviewers (15%).

Length of process

Gosh. This was interesting. So, despite the fact that some 75% or reviewers had spent no more than 10 hours on their last review, and 86% had returned it within a month of acceptance of invitation, 44% got first decision on the last paper they had submitted within the last 1-2 months, and a further 35% waited between 2 and 6+ months.

Of course, the waiting time for final acceptance scales up appropriately, as revision stages took 71% of respondents between 2 weeks and 2 months. So final acceptance for took 3-6 months for a third of respondents, and for a further third, could take anything between that and 6+ months.

Now, I can understand that the process is lengthy, but it does seem like there's a fair amount of slack built into the system, and it must have something of an impact on the pace of science, particularly in fast-moving fields. I don't have an answer, but Nature is just about to release some interesting papers discussing whether scientists should release their data before publication, in order to try prevent blockages...(UPDATE: Nature's special issue can be found here).

It's worth mentioning, despite whatever I may say, that slightly more respondents thought peer review lengths were acceptable (or better) than not. Comment, anyone?

Collaboration

The vast majority of reviewers (89%) had done the review by themselves, without the involvement of junior member of their research group, etc. While I can understand this, to some extent, I wonder whether it doesn't inform the feeling that some sort of training would be useful. Could a lot of that not be provided by involving younger scientists in the process?

Final details

Just over half (55%) of respondents have published more than 21 articles in their career, with 11% having published over 100. Not much comment there from me, other than O_o!!

89% of respondents had reviewed at least one article in the last year (already commented on this, above).

For those interested, most respondents were male,over 36 years old, and worked at universities or colleges.

While half worked in Europe or the US, 26% worked in Asia (to be honest, I was pleasantly surprised that the skew towards the western world wasn't larger), and the most well-represented fields were the biological sciences and medicine/health.

---

So yes! there you have it - a writeup that's a little longer than the exec summary, but a little shorter than the prelim findings themselves.

It does raise a number of interesting questions, particularly around the role of journals in the process, but it also confirms what I think we've all heard - that while science publishing is going through some interesting times, very few would dispute that peer review itself is anything other than very important to the process. Although it might need to do a little bit of changing if it's to remain as important as it is currently...

Reflexology quickie

2009-09-07T20:05:00.004+12:00

I don't have access to the full article, sadly (aaarg), so this tiny tidbit from the Medical Journal of Australia will have to do.

In essence, it says that the evidence for reflexology working is, well, not there. Yes, the foot rub is quite cool (apart from the excruciating pain and the need to spend some time thereafter limping), but really, one could just get a normal foot rub instead.

In fact, thinking about it: perhaps normal foot rubs are actually better, as they don't force one to tense every muscle of the body in agony, something which I battle to see as being conducive to one's health and wellbeing.

Name-dropping makes you obnoxious

2009-09-07T19:57:00.004+12:00

"But", I hear you murmer, "we knew this already!"

And yes, intuitively, I guess many of us do. Despite this, it still doesn't stop many people doing it, on a regular basis. Some might even say that networking somewhat encourages it. Well, networking as seen in a very narrow, and unlikeable, light (happy to write more on that subject, should anyone wish).

So yes, some German researchers have finally looked into the phenomenon, and found the following:

If you meet someone, and find out that they share a birthday with someone likeable, or that they know someone interesting, then you may perhaps feel sunshinier towards them, but only if they didn't tell you directly. And context is also pivotal.

If, on the other hand, you drop into conversation that you are good mates (or whatever) with someone famous, particularly if you volunteer the information fairly directly, then people are less likely to like you. So not a good strategy. Boasting does not make you friends. Hear me on this.

Actually, thinking about it, perhaps that's some of the appeal of things like Linkedin (apart from the obvious) - people can see how very cool and amazing your connections are, without you ever having to vouchsafe the fact. Now, who has some amazing contacts me to link to?

The article about the research can be found on Scientific American's website, here.

The travelling salesman problem and bacterial computers

2009-09-07T19:34:00.006+12:00

This post was generated by the marvellous webcomic, below, from David Malki's Wondermark (a fascinating project in and of itself).

As usual, click on the image to make it legible. Weblink here.

Witticisms aside, the first thing that came to mind was the travelling salesman problem, a lovely little piece of computational maths. To give you the gist: it's all about a travelling salesman, who has to figure out how to optimise his sales route so that he only visits each place once, and completes the route in the shortest possible distance. It's been the focus (well, sort of) of such things as genetic algorithms (which can be used for all sorts of fascinating things, and I'd strongly advise that you explore the area further), and now a new field called bacterial computing.

Bacterial computing fuses mathematics and biology to compute problems - sort of like genetic algorithms on 'roids. And recently, it was used to solve something called the Hamiltonian Path Problem, which is similar to that issue faced by our anonymous, but hopefully ubiquitous, salesman. The Burnt Pancake problem also features, which name I am endlessly amused by. Also, there's an unrelated, but darkly amusing, xkcd strip about pancakes.

The whole field is called, enticingly, 'synthetic biology', and the brains behind it reckon that it has uses not only for solving fun maths puzzles, but also for more concrete uses such as medicine, energy and even the environment.

Anyway, the paper can be found here (it was published in the Journal of Biological Engineering, which, given its name, I expect to be presenting me with a means of having gills as well as lungs sometime very soon).

Magnetic monopoles?

2009-09-07T10:27:00.005+12:00

Oh, this is too, too good.

Only 2 days after a New Scientist article discussing some 13 phenomena that science is still unable to understand - including the fact that magnets don't seem to come in a fashionable, slinkier 'monopole' - it's been announced that, in fact, they do.

A magnetic dipole (yes, you can see it with iron filings, but I thought this was prettier)

Haha.

To paraphrase, for those too busy (or uninterested, in which case stop reading), I shall make the attempt:

Magnetism and electricity are very strongly interwoven, as everyone who's done highschool physics knows. However, while we are able to see component parts of electricity - electric charges themselves, such as electrons - the same doesn't hold for magentism. Magnets always come in 'North and South' flavour.

Now, clever people who theorise about these things are sure they must exist, but we just hadn't seen any of them yet. And we can't make (apparently) them either. But we had hope.

And now, vindication! Wahay! Well, sort of. We have, in fact, observed the next best thing to them, says a paper to be published in Science (which means it's probably not a hoax). In essence, two different groups of researchers have dug up differing evidence of these analogues.

Also, the scientists got excited about things like fractioning in 3D and so forth, but this went somewhat over my head...Actually, most of it did, but nonetheless, still very cool.

Cows and...seaweed?

2009-09-06T16:36:00.005+12:00

The discussion of how to deal with ruminant emissions is now as pervasive as the emissions themselves, it seems.

Here in NZ, we have the PGgRC, which has been set up to deal specifically with the issue. After all, something like a half of NZ's emissions are due to these gases! Gosh! And stories dealing with how to offset the emissions are all over the place.

In no particular order, some of the more recent ones:
The NZ Herald: Hungry bugs could slash animal-gas danger
The register: Bubbly-belly-bugging boffins battle bovine belch peril (possibly the best headline I've yet seen, and it sort of fits with the country responsible for more video tracking of its citizens than any other)
Sciencealert: Diet may cut cow fart emissions (perhaps the most direct headline)

The interesting thing is that this last strategy, if it works, could be perfect for New Zealand. We have access to lots and lots of seaweed, and lots and lots of cows. And while I'm fine with GM, I think Occam's Razor is a great guideline, and something like this is less likely to come with the usual hysterical press-release battles, and potentially unseen side-effects, possible with messing the bugs themselves (for example).

If anyone's really interested in the issue, I can happily supply more resources (and even a podcast)...

The geoengineering debate

2009-09-06T16:12:00.004+12:00

Geoengineering. Yes. Likely to spark heated (haha) debate, because if people are uncomfortable with the idea of tweaking living organisms (GM), then people are definitely going to be uncomfortable with slinging giant mirrors into space, and injecting dust into the atmosphere to deflect sunlight (which reminds me a little bit of the 'we burned the sky' line in The Matrix).

The Royal Society of London has released the results of a year-long study into various geoengineering options, and have looked at them in terms of cost, risk, and so forth. More on the report can be found here (also, the 2020Science blog has some good posts on it as well).

Click on image to enlarge. Preliminary overall evaluation of geoengineering techniques (Royal Society of London, Geoengineering the Climate, Sept 1 2009)

The reason it's sparked comment is that people are concerned that the techniques, even the safest of them, might cause downstream problems we can't predict. The report was, however, pretty clear on the fact that emissions reduction should absolutely be seen as the primary goal, and that geoengineering efforts should be a 'last ditch' strategy.

Some comment on the matter can be found here and here.

I must say, I agree with the need to further consider these options. Yes, we need to look at mitigating emissions, of course, but if Kyoto is any indication, we stand the real possibility of failing to reach the various global and country-specific targets to be set in the upcoming year or so. And it is highly likely that new technologies are yet to be invented which will help in these efforts. But a plan B is generally a good idea - even if we never implement such measures, better to plan for them now than, in 10+ years' time, to realise that such measures are necessary, but cannot be implemented in a timely fashion.

Also, there's the pure geek joy of simply contemplating huge mirrors on the sky (having said that, Futurama has already warned us of the potential pitfalls of such a technology).

Jellyfish, continued

2009-09-06T15:10:00.006+12:00

The BBC's posted this beautiful set of photographs of deep-sea jellyfish (honestly, I'm beginning to think I have a thing about these creatures).

(I couldn't use one of the beeb's pictures, so have put in another cool jellyfish photo.)

I think I like the small blue jelly best, just because it really does look like a graphic generated for a show such as Fringe (yes, this last link really does point to Fringepedia's page on the graphics used in the show). Of course, the rest of them look like something cooked up in the fevered imagination of a sci-fi/fantasy artist at the point just before the absinthe abuse of the night causes them to pass out...

Pretty produce

2009-09-06T12:13:00.008+12:00

So, our urge to mess with our food continues unabated, it seems, and as usual, aesthetics are a fundamental part of this (as with many of our endeavours, I think).

So yes, a few new instances of pleasantly pretty produce. In first place (because I live in NZ, if nothing else), are some very special red apples.

A local scientist, Dr Richard Espley, has been working on understanding the genetic mechanisms behind the red colour in apples, with the idea being that apples can be grown which have novel colour characteristics, as well as oodles of anti-oxidants. And when I say red apples and novel colour characteristics, I mean it: not only will the skins be red, but the flesh of the apples as well. Apparently, apples with red flesh do exist, but while they have ligher levels of good things (liek antioxidants), they don't taste nearly as good as their white-fleshed counterparts.

Richard won awards at the recent MacDiarmid Young Scientist of the Year awards, and works at Plant and Food, one of New Zealand's Crown Research Institutes.

Next on the list, and perhaps slightly more flippantly, are heart-shaped cucumbers.

Yes, you heard me correctly: from the people invented bento box art (links abound), comes the next element in making the everyday necessity of nutrient ingestion a more pleasant affair. Other shapes include stars, and who-knows-what next.

And, hilariously, baby-shaped pears.

The Chinese farmer involved has been perfecting his technique for some 6 years by now (well, that's what I read), and they're selling for £5 a pop. I think they're very reminiscent of the Buddha, don't you?

Of course, if these had been made in the shape of other deities, I can imagine there may have been more of a fuss (although, if you've ever thought of making truly iconic toast, have a look here, and I've also seen various kits and DIY vids on google as well).

But yes - hooray for those tirelessly endeavouring to beautify our meals.

PhD Comics gets it right, again

2009-09-03T11:00:00.006+12:00

Couldn't resist. PhD comics have been around for quite some time (and I would encourage you to read them whenever you get a chance), but this one (also shown below) was just far too perfect to pass up.

Clicking thereon will show it in a slightly more readable form, for those of you not blessed with supervision.

And, of course, this one as well.

Google Transit

2009-09-01T16:17:00.009+12:00

I was most exceedingly happy to hear about this yesterday. I am, after all, something of a Google fan.

My happiness, however, turned to ecstatic delight when I realised that Google Transit is far, far better than the Metlink website. A thorn in my side, I find the journey planner on Metlink's website silly - it requires that one have the correct street number if it's to find a bus stop, for crying out loud, rather than simply pick up up stops in the area of the one requested. in a move of quite stunningly bad programming, it's more likely to try match street numbers than street names, leading to a great deal of gritted-teeth frustration...

Honestly, one would think the search and databasing advances of the last x years have never happened, with the required follow-up of 'y'?

Transit, however, has Google cleverness built in. How absolutely tech-tasty, and a godsend for those of us stuck with crappy transport information systems. Now, of course, all we need is to be able to check bus times - my bus, for example, is 5-15 minutes late almost every day, but, well, I can't exactly take it for granted, can I? Sod's law always applies, and I'd rather wait for 10 minutes before hand than half an hour afterwards...

Aah, I miss TFL sometimes. OK, so it didn't always get the shortest route right, but it did keep track of what was running late. Then again, I've heard that Wellington buses are beginning to have GPS trackers installed which should help the problem, although then again, possibly not - after all, it's not just the data itself, but what's done with it, that makes or breaks a system (see above paragraphs).

So yes - I'll be waiting (inevitably, given the buses here) to see what happens, but in the meantime I'm glad that I can at least find bus routes without having to try magically figure out which street number will give me a result...

The value of knowledge economies

2009-09-01T09:16:00.006+12:00

Rod Oram, of the Sunday Star Times, recently wrote this piece.

In it, he basically lays out why a knowledge-based (or at least heavily contributed to-) economy is something New Zealand should be striving for.

And I have to say I agree: this idea that one must make things in order to be a wealthy economy is, well, extremely outdated - certainly, it seems to have landed NZ in a bit of a pickle economically. I remember being told years ago, while studying business, that manufacturing and farming-based economies would contribute an ever-decreasing amount of wealth to the economy due to, well, a number of reasons really, including the ever downward pressure on commodity prices, manual labour, and, frankly, China.

Or, think of it using the internet vs print as a paradigm: the people who generate content (goods) are increasingly squeezed, while the people who can add value to the content, like coders and tech companies (services) find themselves doing increasingly well.

So yes, a knowledge economy it is! And it's something other countries, including India and Singapore, cottoned on to some time ago.

The only thing is: how to get one (properly) going here? Of course, we need skilled people - not that they necessarily have to have degrees, mind you. But highly skilled, yes. And, and this is simply a perhaps (and one written from a non-kiwi point of view), perhaps we need more people? I know that the kiwi government makes it pretty difficult for people to come live here and while I can understand that attitude for minimally skilled people, I tihnk that they may want to consider loosening things up for young/older highly skilled people who can both contribute to the market, but also help increase the market size itself (a significant issue here).

And the industries themselves? Well, they're likely to be in tech, design and science, predominantly (and, of course, in the intersections between the aforementioned) - these industries really do foster knowledge economies, and government investment in them is very important. Let's hope the government realises that.

Personal space issues: now we know the 'where'

2009-08-31T20:41:00.010+12:00

Caltech continues to live up to its reputation for producing some fine work.

In a recent coup (haha), they appear to have figured out the whole 'personal bubble' issue. Well, to be more precise, they've figured out which brain structure is responsible.

Fascinatingly, it's the amygdala. This is the region in our brain responsible for feelings of fear, anger, and other strong negative emotions (I'm sure it was mentioned in the last episode of Fringe, actually).

It seems that lesions or other 'damage' or dysfunctions in the amygdala mean that the person in question is comfortable at closer proximities to others than is usually the case. In fact, it appears that, for some people at least, they have no sense of personal space at all - they can feel completely comfortable standing nose to nose! Which makes me wonder: do all the people in those chewing gum ads people have dysfunctional amygdalas?

Happily, the researchers also considered the role that culture may play in perceptions of personal space: I know from personal experience that these can vary widely, and consequently cause a fair amount of unease in the person used to a larger bubble. Apparently, they think that culture and experience may, over time, affect the brain and how it responds to situations (yes, the brain is plastic and learns...). Makes sense.

xkcd: Newton and Leibniz

2009-08-31T20:28:00.012+12:00

I couldn't resist. For the uninitiated, xkcd is a marvellous webcomic revolving around maths, physics, and, well, the human experience. In fact, its author, Randall Munroe, is even publishing a (real) book!

(subtitle: A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math and language)

So yes: the strip itself:

Gadgets, Games and Geeks 09: The Future of Innovation, Shatter, Weta and pizza

2009-08-26T11:36:00.008+12:00

A couple of days ago (Monday evening, to be exact), I attended GGG09 - Gadgets, Games and Geeks 09 (note: a logo would be a good thing, guys).

And yes, it was pretty interesting.

The highlight for me was Bill Reichert's talk, 'The Future of Innovation: Entrepreneurship, Venture Capital and Emerging Technologies' (if you're interested, you can find the talk and accompanying slides on the SMC's website, here). He's a very engaging speaker, and had some great pieces of knowledge to impart.

Certainly it got me all inspired again about entrepreneurship - a subject close to my heart as it forms one of my qualifications. And, while much of it absolutely seemed like common sense, there were a couple of surprises, particularly the 'change takes time' point he makes (point 9 in his talk). Essentially, he says that we've talked ourselves into believing that the pace of change is accelerating, but that it simply is not the case. We simply need to look, he says, at how long it has actually taken us to get, for example, to high bandwidths and oodles of storage or, for that matter, electric cars which aren't completely useless (or incredibly expensive). Other examples abound (really, have a look at his slides).

I also found his point about Twitter very interesting (towards the end of the session, in response to a question from the audience). He said that his issue with Twitter was simply that it gave entrepreneurs the wrong idea: that they could come up with a clever idea, get a few million 'eyeballs', and as a result make (lots of) money off it. After all, the jury is still out as to whether Twitter itself can make money, and how.

Having said that, it was definitely encouraging to hear that it's not all doom and gloom - actually, a personal belief I've heard mirrored many times is that tough times actually enhance creativity by shocking everyone out of their bubbles. So we should have lots to look forward to.

(note: as usual, clicking on the logos will take you to the appropriate sites)

I also found Sidhe's talk very interesting (I have recorded it, and can put it up if requested - the slides can be found here). James Everett did a great job of explaining who Sidhe are, why they want more game developers in Wellington (amusingly, 'because it's difficult to poach from yourself'), and where they're hoping to go in the future.

And I am definitely intrigued by there idea: shorten development times, shorten game lengths and bring down prices. Sounds like just my type of gaming. And Shatter really is very, very cool. Yes, it's pong, but it's new pong, and gosh is it pretty. If only it was available for PC...

Sadly, I found the talk by Tim Lauder of Weta Cave a little less thrilling than the previous two, although, as a lifelong fan of steampunk, I did enjoy the whole Dr Grodbert's thang (I almost bought a lapel pin!)

I think my only real complaint was that I think there could have more exhibitors. I have some theories on why there weren't (nothing I'll air, of course), but it really would have been a wonderful way to showcase some more work. For example, I know a guy up in Palmerston North whose company, Unlimited Realities, has been developing Dell's new touchscreen software...

On the other hand, the enormous slices of pizza which rounded (haha) the evening off were brilliant.

So yes, here's to GGG09, and hoping that GGG10 is even better!

Addendum to previous post

2009-08-25T13:53:00.003+12:00

I found this delightful website (click on logo below)

JOVE, or the Journal of Visualised Experiments, is a fantastic idea. Anyone working in the biological sciences will, I'm sure, appreciate how tricky it can be to learn or duplicate a new methodology, and its this problem which JOVE aims to solve.

In essence, it's a peer-reviewed, (although no longer OA, sadly) journal where the content is all video, rather than words.

The threat challenge to science publishing

2009-08-24T15:57:00.020+12:00

An article I recently wrote for the Science Media Centre (note, there's a really cool sound recording from the WCSJ on the SMC website, here). The debate's a complicated one - this article just manages to lightly touch upon some of the issues...

The Open Access (OA) movement has been around since the 1990s – not surprising, as one of its principal tenets is that information should be freely available online. More specifically, it generally refers to scientific information, and in particular the information generally found in scientific journals. As we all know, this information is generally not freely accessible: rather, it is usually kept for access by journal subscribers, whether they be individuals or institutions.

The debate over whether scientific research should be freely accessible or not is a heated one, with very little signs of a resolution either way anytime soon. Its proponents say that freely available scientific research advances the cause and progression of science. Its detractors says that without journals (most of which are subscription-based), there would be no peer-review process, and hence no quality control. It’s not that simple, however.

Perhaps a good place to start is with the inevitable. Michael Nielsen has written a very clear article on the matter, entitled ‘Is scientific publishing about to be disrupted?’. In it, he argues very convincingly that scientific publishing (including journals) is about to experience the same upheaval that the newspaper/print industries have been experiencing. At the hands of the same phenomenon: the internet. And, just like newspapers, there is relatively little that can be done about the situation.

One of the most important, and perhaps noticeable, agents of this change is scientific blogging: blogs written by scientists about their own and others’ work.

As Nielsen writes:

“Let’s look up close at one element of this flourishing ecosystem: the gradual rise of science blogs as a serious medium for research. It’s easy to miss the impact of blogs on research, because most science blogs focus on outreach. But more and more blogs contain high quality research content.”

They differ greatly from published articles in that they allow scientists to engage in an ongoing conversation about their work and its developments, and are also a valuable means of engaging other scientists in a conversation about their work.

The movement is catching on to such a degree that numerous highly respected scientists are blogging, including Terry Tao, Tim Gowers, and Richard Lipton (list supplied by Michael Nielsen). On home ground, the New Zealand science blogging movement is also picking up pace: there are a number of blogs already in existence, and there are plans afoot to aggregate these bloggers’ work in a project called Sciblogs (based on ScienceBlogs).

“Scientific publishers should be terrified that some of the world’s best scientists, people at or near their research peak, people whose time is at a premium, are spending hundreds of hours each year creating original research content for their blogs, content that in many cases would be difficult or impossible to publish in a conventional journal. What we’re seeing here is a spectacular expansion in the range of the blog medium. By comparison, the journals are standing still.” (Nielsen)

A main feature of the Open Access movement, however, is not necessarily to dissuade scientists from publishing journals (more on that later), or to encourage them to write blogs. Instead, it aims to encourage them to deposit copies of their published papers (pre or post-prints) in repositories which do give free access. Of these, ArXiv is particularly prominent, and has a fantastic physics blog.

A recent issue of the Australian (OA) journal SCRIPTed looks at the issue in a paper entitled “Open Access to Journal Content as a Case Study in Unlocking IP’. The paper examines the accessibility of reviewed, published papers from examples of the different types of science publishers, including PNAS, Elsevier and a major division of the US NRC.

Interestingly, the paper finds that the lack of access to published papers is not, as one might assume, solely the fault of publishers. Instead, it found that the publishers’ copyright restrictions were (relatively) liberal, in many cases allowing researchers to place their work in repositories of one form or another. The primary reason for the lack of forward momentum was due to the researchers themselves. In the paper’s conclusion:

“The exploitation of the opportunity has lagged, because of impediments to adoption, especially the lack of any positive incentive to self-deposit, and downright apathy. The outcomes to date are disappointing for proponents of OA and Unlocking IP…OA and Unlocking IP in the area of journal articles are at serious risk of being stillborn’.

No doubt, this last sentence is one which would thrill many journal publishers. However, the OA movement and blogging are not the only movements which threaten journals. These previous examples have opposed journals in a relatively passive way – they are (generally) quite happy to co-exist.

There is a far stronger movement which is lining up against journals. This movement, written about in Times Higher Education’s recent article ‘A threat to scientific communication’ talks of growing unhappiness with publishing papers as the measure of a scientist’s success. An increasing number of (well respected) scientists, including the former editor of the British Medical Journal, says the influence of being published in the ‘major’ journals is far too powerful, and that journal metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor are actually an impediment to scientific progress.

“"(Journal metrics) are the disease of our times," says Sir John Sulston, chairman of the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester, and Nobel prizewinner in the physiology or medicine category in 2002.

“Sulston argues that the use of journal metrics is not only a flimsy guarantee of the best work (his prize-winning discovery was never published in a top journal), but he also believes that the system puts pressure on scientists to act in ways that adversely affect science - from claiming work is more novel than it actually is to over-hyping, over-interpreting and prematurely publishing it, splitting publications to get more credits and, in extreme situations, even committing fraud.”

A further comment:

“Noting that the medical journal articles that get the most citations are studies of randomised trials from rich countries, [Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet] speculates that if The Lancet published more work from Africa, its impact factor would go down.

“"The incentive for me is to cut off completely parts of the world that have the biggest health challenges ... citations create a racist culture in journals' decision-making and embody a system that is only about us (in the developed world)."”

(Another problem cited is that the JIF, because it focuses only a few years, actually gives no indication of the long-term importance of scientific work.)

Embargoes are also coming under attack (see the recording at the bottom of this page), as it makes science seem more like an event than a linear series of incremental advances. This reminds me quite a lot of Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s recent comments on the NZ media: what he said very closely matches this criticism, in that he feels that the New Zealand media fails to show science as a gradual process, instead showing it as a series of leaps forward. Which gave me cause to think: is it, then, actually the media’s fault? Particularly here in New Zealand, where many journalists are not able to specialise in science issues, and thus gain an understanding of scientific research’s continuity?

But I digress. In answer to the journals’ primary defense of their existence, the peer review process itself, there is also increased questioning of its use. Journal publishers maintain that the peer review process is the only real means of quality assurance for scientific research. The reactions to this include the following:

That peer review itself is generally undertaken for free, meaning that journals are taking free work and, essentially, selling it back to scientists.
The peer review process itself needs to have some of the following questions asked about: who actually does the reviewing? How appropriate are they? How strenuous is the process? And, of course, timing is also an issue (the process can take months, greatly slowing the speed at which research becomes known about).
- In fact, this latter point brings to mind the recent debate over a paper published recently by well-known climate change skeptics, which attributes over 70% of climate change to the El Nino/Southern Oscillation weather patterns. While the paper was peer-reviewed, there have since been rebuttals (including this, yet-to-be-published paper) saying that the maths used was incorrect, and bringing into doubt the quality of the peer review undertaken on the original paper (I’m not commenting on either, please note).
- [for more on peer review, have a look at this post, about the recent results of a survey into the matter)

Deep thought also has to be given to the tremendous amounts of research lost because it doesn’t come up with a result. There are two types of experiments which have no end results (and I speak from personal experience here): they were poorly set up, performed or analysed, or there simply are no results to be had.

While the first group should absolutely be ignored, the second can be very important to scientists. We used to say (in the market research consultancy at which I worked for a time) if our analysis turned up nothing that “it’s a learning in itself’. And it often can be, either to prevent other scientists duplicating the same research (a huge waste of time and resources), or because there really is nothing there to see, which suggests that effort be focused in another direction.

The remedy for science publishing's woes is unclear. While everyone agrees that there is a problem, or at the very least a challenge, nobody is sure what shape the future of science publishing will take.

Michael Nielsen says that scientific publishers need to become technology-driven if they are to survive (he mentions Nature as one of the few publishers trying this), and that they must do so even if it means fundamentally changing the way they currently work.

“In ten to twenty years, scientific publishers will be technology companies. By this, I don’t just mean that they’ll be heavy users of technology, or employ a large IT staff. I mean they’ll be technology-driven companies in a similar way to, say, Google or Apple. That is, their foundation will be technological innovation, and most key decision-makers will be people with deep technological expertise. Those publishers that don’t become technology driven will die off.”

And while it seems that the peer review process is likely to stay, it will no doubt change in form. It might well imitate what PLoS's policy is, which is to check that the results can be substantiated by the methods and data, but not to worry about whether it is original or even important – this should be up to the world at large to decide.

Of course, something else to consider is this: if a paper is published in a repository or on a scientist’s own website/blog, and is then commented on by his peers…Is this not exactly what the peer review process is anyway? In that case, why be concerned with publishing?

However one looks at it, the industry is in for a massive upheaval: while it is uncertain just how, we can be sure that those trying to innovate to stay ahead of it may survive, but those that stand still will, like their newspaper counterparts, face extinction.

Note: The Royal Society of New Zealand conducted some research in journal use/publication in 2004. The results are here.

Further note: the original title has been changed to include 'challenge' after some commentary about whether 'threat' was, in fact, the correct word (I admit, it probably wasn't the best)

Global warming warning

2009-08-21T14:35:00.006+12:00

I've just come across this and, frankly, my first reaction was to burst out laughing.

Not, I hasten to add, because I think it's funny in and of itself. And the article itself is very calm and cogent about things. It's simply that the headline reads somewhat like an old, retro doomsday prediction.

And no, I'm not a denier. I'm not even a skeptic (although I would definitely say I'm a pragmatist). To be honest, it's not something I feel that I am nearly well-informed about to comment on.

Happily, a number of other people are doing very fine jobs of commenting on the issue: Hot Topic is a great example, and the Science Media Centre tracks what's happening in the coverage.

Gamma-ray bursts get even more sci-fi

2009-08-18T19:32:00.007+12:00

Gamma-ray bursts really are the stuff of science fiction. And something of a mystery.

They're the most impressive explosions the universe has been able to offer after the tremendous effort of the Big Bang. If one happened anywhere near Earth (and by near I mean within a thousand light years or so, so 'near' only a cosmic scale) and and was pointed at us, the radiation would kill all life here. Even the cockroaches (probably).

Up until now, prevailing thought had it that they were formed by the collapse into a black hole of a supermassive star. Now, however, a new theory is being considered (again): that they occur as the result of a black hole burrowing into the middle of a star and then consuming it. A sort of cosmic Alien, if you will.

Happily for us they're directional, and it seems that they're more likely to happen on the outer edges of the universe. Scientists have posited that this is because that's where the older stars are, and the differences in chemistry between older stars and newer stars means newer ones are more likely to be prosaic about the matter and avoid the huge effort involved in producing a gamma-ray burst. Maybe. Another theory says they occur in regions with low metallicity (not a feature of the Milky Way, happily).

Either way, they're fascinating beasts and something to keep an eye on (possibly one wearing sunglasses). For those of you interested, we apparently pick up about one a day...

More evidence that cockroaches may be the pinnacle of evolution

2009-08-18T19:12:00.009+12:00

..Sorry, those of you who thought it was humans. (As a side note, Terry Pratchett is particularly hilarious on the subject in The Last Continent)

Alright, for those of you who prefer accuracy in your statement: no, they're not really the pinnacle of evolution, for after all the theory somewhat precludes such a notion. But they are remarkably resilient. I had a few doozies in the kitchen of an ancient house I inhabited at one point in Cape Town, and I can confidently say that they're well-nigh unstoppable, particularly if they're big and old.

Back to the point of the post, though: it's come to light (unlike the creatures themselves) that not only are they capable of withstanding nuclear fallout, but that they could also survive climate change. Apparently, they are able to hold their breath in order to conserve water loss - a particularly useful trait in Australia, where the research was conducted.

I'll happily admit I quite admire them. They're a brilliant example of how 250 million years of evolution can give one, if not backbone, then at least a pretty remarkable exoskeleton.

Sunbed silliness

2009-08-18T18:41:00.009+12:00

I will admit to being slightly biased on this one, having heard many, many years ago about the entirely legitimate concerns about the cancer risks through UV exposure associated with their use.

And it's become a rather heated (haha) issue here in New Zealand, particularly as it's now been confirmed that sunbeds are, well, synonymous with cancer causation. The IARC is behind the research and they tend to know what they're talking about (in fact, they're the WHO's agency committed to looking into human cancer).

Some countries have legislated around this, either by banning their use altogether, or by requiring that it is confined to adult use. In other cases, they allow teenagers to use them, but only if there has been adult consent.

But in New Zealand, none of this is the case. The sunbed industry here operates under a voluntary code (generally code for 'pays lip service to'), which precludes people under 18 using the service. In addition, a spokesperson has said that people are aware of the risks, but choose to use the treatments anyway.

Now, however, an article on Stuff has shown that this isn't the case at all. The investigation carried out as part of the article showed that most of the sunbed operators looked into showed no signs of abiding by the voluntary code: they allowed underage clients to use them, and in many cases did not tell people about the associated health risks or even warn them to use the goggles provided.

Not OK, guys, not OK at all. After all, having your clients die is generally accepted, even in our gung-ho world, as bad (or at least unsustainable) business practice.

Biomimicry and AskNature

2009-08-14T13:37:00.007+12:00

Biomimicry is big right now. Or small. Or waterproof. Or able to run at full tilt (haha, considering the angle of activation is 10 degrees) across walls and even ceilings.

It's a fascinating subject, and one of those which, like many great brainwaves, has that 'well, duh' component to it. Study nature's designs to see how its been doing things before trying to reinvent the [insert item here]. Well, of course!

Still, apparently it's something that has not been part of design dogma for some time. Silly us.

The gecko is definitely getting a fair amount of attention (see here and here, for starters) at the moment over its climbing ability, but nature abounds with brilliant things, and we're learning more and more from then, as this talk shows.

But now, there's this: AskNature, the site Benyus is working on. Because, of course, it's one thing to say 'well, study Nature before you design something', but it's an entirely different matter to attempt to first figure out what to study, and then how to access the data on it. Particularly if it's academic data and you are not, frankly, an academic. The site is another fine example of how freeing information up, not shutting it away, benefits everybody.

PopSci's Future Of...

2009-08-14T13:25:00.005+12:00

I really do hope that they show it here. I'm not hopeful, as it were, but I hope...Hell, I'd be curling all the available digits if I didn't think I'd be hobbling, and unable to work, for, well, quite some time.

Failing actual broadcast, streaming it would also be acceptable.

What is it, you ask? Why, this! PopSci's Future Of... And it's even getting good write-ups.

Of course, Popular Science is, itself, pretty cool, so we should have high hope for the programme anyway...

Intermission: engineering photo contest

2009-08-14T13:07:00.008+12:00

These are gorgeous.

Of course, as our imaging techniques grow in ability, so do the number and quality of photo competitions devoted to using them. (I remember submitting a couple of photos when I was doing my Honours degree).

They include

Visions of Science and Photography (UK)
click on logo for link

And, of course, National Geographic Nikon's 'Best Science Images'

Then there's Nikon's Small World competition (and brilliant website), dedicated to everything one can see with the use of a microscope.

Compact disc case detail (5x), by David Walker (2008)

And I have no doubt that there are legions of others. In fact, if anyone knows of any more, please post a comment about it - I might just start keeping a library of them...

Emissions target 2020

2009-08-10T20:22:00.007+12:00

At 4-ish pm today, Climate Change ministers Nick Smith and Tim Groser announced government's emissions reduction target for 2020. 10% - 20%. This neatly encapsulates the 15% which was widely expected (although the ministers did say that no such thing had been implied), but is nonetheless a pretty broad range. Here's a more detailed graphic of it, as well.

It's also somewhat below what Greenpeace had been vying for with it's 'Sign On' campaign (although we won't even get into that particular debate between Greenpeace and government...).

The reduction target is going to be tabled at tonight's talks in Bonn, Germany - for those not clamped in fascination to the workings of the UNFCCC, these are one of a number of meetings being held in the run-up to Copenhagen at the end of this year. Copenhagen should be very interesting, although I've heard mutterings saying that we shouldn't be too hopeful about the talks...after all, climate change and emissions reduction is a thorny issue for, well, everyone.

And it's a very tricky issue, not only internationally, but intranationally (my fancy way of saying 'here'). New Zealand certainly has a clean, green image, but this hasn't been borne out by fact recently, so there's a great deal of work to be done. Costly work. We're also an agricultural nation, and methane is not exactly the least important of the greenhouse gases.

So there's a great deal of push and pull between economic and environmental concerns. Then again, one could always argue that, as with most things, there is a middle way. With appropriate R&D funding, means of being green could become sources of income. Forestry. Windmills. GM cows and their gut bacteria...

For some (far more) expert commentry on today's announcement, mooch on over to here.

South Africa in space...?

2009-08-10T19:50:00.009+12:00

This just in (well, sort of). South Africa has plans to become a regional centre for space technology! A quiver of, well, I'm not sure, but possible pride, runs through the ol' veins. Hooray for my country-folk!

It seems that investment in space is all the rage these days. Well, apart from America - perhaps a case of 'been there, done that, have the rusting Saturn Vs'. (I am being flippant, I realise, and I know that far more complex excuses than this have been used).

Australia is also investing heavily (some $88 million) in space research, although they admit they have somewhat missed the boat in terms of world leadership, having done, well, not very much since they were instrumental in the broadcasting of Apollo 11's famous landing. Anyway, a large part of the decision is because they want the contract for the SKA, which they have already started building...

Even New Zealand also has its own burgeoning space industry. Small, yes, but pert (to copy shamelessly a local, but amusing, ad). In fact, our first space mission is imminent. And very exciting. Oh, to see it...

To get back to the SA situation, though: while it's laudable, and definitely heart-rate-increasing for those of us who still get dewy-eyed at the thought of the whole space thing (blame too much Star Trek, if you will), it doesn't seem, well, appropriate.

South Africa has many problems. Many of them centred around health and education. And I just don't know that spending money on a space programme is entirely the right course of action or, for that matter, terribly useful, for a country with as many other problems as South Africa. I think back to my own experience working in Africa's only neural regeneration lab - a lovely idea, but really, it simply wasn't a priority there. As a result, of course, we battled.

Add to that the fact that the SA government is not terribly good at managing projects. Ideas, yes. Practicalities, not really. We will simply have to see whether they can, and will, follow through on their sweeping statements of intent.

And finally: it's competing against Australia for the SKA...

Clever doggie!

2009-08-08T18:59:00.004+12:00

This fresh out: dogs are quite a bit more intelligent than we thought. Not a surprise for those of us with border collies, but still...

A leading expert in dogs has determined, apparently, that dogs are, in many ways, similar to 2-2.5yr old human children. This means a vocabulary of up to 150 words, the ability to be deceptive, and basic arithmetic skills.
(This actually describes quite a few more adult people I've come across, too)

But I digress... These skills are, of course, on a sliding scale - border collies at the top (as seeing dogs), and labs somewhere down the bottom (with obeying dogs). All of which makes a lot of sense: after all, 'herd those sheep this way' requires a bit more of the proverbial than 'sit, Ubu, sit'. As it were.

His report was presented at the APA's 117th Annual Convention - marvellous.

And, perhaps, a strong message to those who think that abusing animals because they're 'just animals' is ok...

Universal snacks

2009-08-05T16:23:00.010+12:00

Well, the title might be a misleading. This is mostly an excuse to post this, which I thought was funny. After all, what better way to enjoy your next handful of peanuts (particularly when sitting on a plane, of course) - than by expanding for your fellow passenger the central tenets of physics and how they apply to universe shape.

Or not.

And then, just as we had narrowed the possibilities down (they also include, theories that it might be dodecahedral, although I have yet to find a snack shaped like that - possible new product angle, anyone?), someone went back and relooked at our assumptions.

Which is wonderful. Super. Very scientific. And, often, a stunningly good way to upset not only the apple cart, but the entire market with repercussions all the way back to the farm.

You see, it's been realised that dark energy (the black sheep of physics, hngh hngh) might have far more of an effect on the shape of the universe than we thought. Which makes sense. But it really does confuse the matter even more.

And, in a wonderful chicken and egg scenario, this lack of knowledge about the size and shape of the universe, in turn, makes it very difficult to further explore (i.e. find/work out anything, at all, about) dark energy.

Fun, non?

Lunar billboards

2009-08-05T15:45:00.007+12:00

Ah yes, science and marketing have come together yet again, in pursuit of selling things to us.

According to this, Moon Publicity has a patent pending for a new robot which will, wait for it, get sent to the moon, and have fun with its friends building mini sand ridges. Of course, said ridges cast shadows, and will therefore form (if properly planned) giant line drawings.

This revolutionary technology is up for sale, and the starting bid for one of the 44 lunar regions is, well, really low at some US$46,000, although I have no doubt that this will skyrocket. Literally.

But still: is this cool? Inevitable? A mockery of all that makes us human? A travesty, even?

I don't know. I do have a strong 'geek' element which, having read too much Transmetropolitan, thinks this is great.

On the other hand - we have been defined, for countless centuries, by our ability to look up at the moon and stars and use them as a launchpad for our imagination and desire for exploration. How might this change when, upon gazing skywards, we are greeted with a giant 'I'm loving it'? Will we really?

On a more pragmatic note: how is anyone actually going to achieve this? Firstly, you have to get the robots, intact, to the moon's surface. This is not, to date, something which we've had oodles of success. Certainly not regularly.

Also, and as a friend pointed out while I was leaping around exclaiming at the hilarity of it, are the logos meant to be seen with the naked eye? That's going to require an amalgamation of some of those 44 lunar regions, and if that's the case, then a lot of ground has to be transformed. It sounds like one of those school maths problems:
A giant logo measuring ([insert silly number]km2 has to be constructed. Assuming each robot can cover [y]km2 per day, calculate how many robots, and how much money will be burned on, potentially, creating logos only people with telescopes can see.

Finally, they claim that this would spur space travel, but I battle to see how. Robots trundling around in the sand aren't sufficiently interesting for a thriving tourist industry.

Little houses...(on the hillside?)

2009-08-03T20:12:00.004+12:00

As promised, some architecture (I am simply trying to catch up, here). In fact, I wrote this almost a year ago (aeons in blog terms), before travelling across half the world and being distracted thereby.

Enough: now the post (reproduced below). I promise more up-to-date content in future. Faithfully.

architecture pr0n article #1.
Ooooh, there will be many of these...gird your loins. make steadfast your shoelaces. tame your wayward and feckless bonnets with the power that is hairpins.

I love small houses. little. mini. diminutive (although preferably never dinky, and certainly never incommodious or mean).

Small, however, does not have to mean cramped. That's something I've found in the UK (or at least London and surrounds). While houses vary in size, they invariably feel cramped. It's something about small rooms, low ceilings, and inappropriate furniture. The fact that adults (single or not) have to houseshare well into their adult years doesn't help either. Barbaric. Icky. Certainly not heightening general levels of happiness, contentment, or even just mimbling alongness.

No, by small, I simply mean, well, "fitting". I come from Africa, where space is never at a premium, and houses, flats and gardens reflect this. We're used to oodles of space, both personal and public.

And yet, somehow, I've always preferred the idea of a space that fits me perfectly. Not for me hallowed halls and echoing rooms between which I can bounce endlessly. No. Instead, well-designed spaces which cater to my needs, but (and this is important, folks) never feel cramped. I can't abide cramped or cluttered surrounds. They depress me, and fetter my mind.

And, don't even mention the whole "green" thing.
"What green thing?", you say. To which I reply "I said, don't mention it". (Aaah, Spike Milligan, and thank you, Robert Rankin)

So I continue to watch closely the increasingly innovative ways in which people are making small spaces...fitting spaces. Hooray for the scandinavians (again).

For those interested, the images (and general architecture pr0n, can be found here:
http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/tiny_houses.html
http://www.smallhousestyle.com/2007/07/23/the-mill-house-by-wingardhs/

Alliterative intermission: giant japanese jellyfish

2009-08-03T19:12:00.006+12:00

Madness. Utter madness. Giant jellyfish are turning up ever more often off Japan's shores and, while intriguing in a very 'sphere' kind of way, they do pose a substantial problem for fishers and vessels.

Photo from National Geographic, who got it courtesy of Kyodo via AP

Then again, the jellyfish edibles market has been floating along very happily...

Seriously, though - the alarming rate of increase of these giants has scientists a-twitter trying to figure out what has caused the sudden upsurgence in incidence - any takers for climate change as a factor?

TED science talks

2009-08-03T18:55:00.003+12:00

TED is, by far, one of my favourite websites. As it should be yours. For those of you not familiar with it (gasp), TED stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design. Each year, it brings together some of the most interesting people in the world, puts them on a stage, and challenges them to talk about why they're so interesting.

As usual, click on the image to go the site...

Their talks are fascinating, and far-reaching in their content, from Ray Kurzweil and his Singularity University to The Raspyni Brothers' juggling act, and everything in between.

Since this blog is devoted to all things sci-tech (and I'm going to be including architecture in this, I must warn you), I would point you, dear reader in this direction: 5 TED talks devoted to science which are, well, brilliant.

Marvellous stuff.

A dream, certainly, would be to attend this illustrious event in person. To fall at the feet of the other delegates only to whisper 'you're quite, you know, cool'. Who knows, even to give a talk (topic TBA).

As a sidenote, and for those of you fond of filling out long, long forms, a TEDx event is being held in Auckland in October. TEDx is a sort of franchised TED event aimed at spreading the word, and events are being held all over the world. Yes, I would love to go...

Memories aren't priceless, after all

2009-08-02T20:07:00.001+12:00

According to this marvellous post, a British (yes, the Brits feature again) brain has actually worked out a formula able to place a precise, sterling value on one's memories.

It factors in elements such as how vividly you recall it, its perceived importance, and a host of other interesting factoids. It's also available here, if you'd like to try it out...

It's all part of his research into how, essentially, to use neuroscience to enable companies to tailor their marketing even more. And this is where it gets sticky, I think.

I will, quite freely, admit to not being a mathematician, and so will refrain from any pithy comments related to the formula.

As a former market researcher, I am generally not overly concerned by companies' efforts to tailor their efforts to us. I would probably rather have my time wasted by ads I might be slightly interested in, than not. Probably. Certainly, I can understand the companies' point of view.

Then again, people have varied levels of resistance to marketing messages, which is where some of my friends' misgivings come in. They worry that such tailoring makes it more and more difficult for people to say 'no' to marketing messages. Particularly, well, the so-called 'mass market' (an ever more inaccurate phrase, frankly). No, this does not, sadly, paint a picture of humanity as reasonably able to make decisions for themselves. Nonetheless.

Personally, I find myself sitting uncomfortably on the proverbial fence with mixed feelings about this development and what it heralds. I'm amused, yes. It's funny, after all.

I'm also slightly worried by it - it does seem that companies' are increasingly looking for the edge in their messages, and are quite happy to manipulate us at levels where, frankly, the ability to filter messages is not longer an option.

Mostly, though, my overriding emotion is this: fantastic, we've managed to attach a monetary value to yet another integral part of the human experience...

Sixty Symbols

2009-08-02T19:53:00.001+12:00

Wow, so, I've been promising to start this up for ages.

Ah well, here goes. Our first link will be to Sixty Symbols (click on the logo below), kindly brought to us by the University of Nottingham (nice one, chaps)

60 symbols is brilliant: it's perfect for those of us with an interest in physics, but not, perhaps, the ability to read and comprehend the often dense physics textbooks (or the accompanying lectures, for that matter).

The fact that the concepts are presented by people clearly expert in them's even better, and I've found I've learnt some brilliant new things, including concepts with which I already thought myself familiar.