|
|
|
|
Sleep Apnea May Not Be Closely Linked To Heart Failure SeverityObstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and central sleep apnea (CSA) are not markedly decreased in heart failure (HF) patients managed with beta-blockers and spironolactone, reports a new study.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 13 May 2009 | 3:00 am Quantum Mechanics: Uncertainty Principle Used To Detect Entanglement Of Photon Shared Among Four LocationsScientists have developed an efficient method to detect entanglement shared among multiple parts of an optical system. They show how entanglement, in the form of beams of light simultaneously propagating along four distinct paths, can be detected with a small number of measurements. Entanglement is an essential resource in quantum information science, which is the study of advanced computation and communication based on the laws of quantum mechanics.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 13 May 2009 | 3:00 am Providing Free Drug Samples To Patients Risks Harm To Public Health, Experts ArgueThe tradition of American physicians handing out free drug samples to their patients "has many serious disadvantages and is as anachronistic as bloodletting and high colonic irrigations," say two experts.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 13 May 2009 | 3:00 am Early Word Recognition Is Key To Lifelong Reading Skills Says New StudyPsychologists help solve 20-year old reading riddle. Children’s early reading experience is critical to the development of their lifelong reading skills a new study.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 13 May 2009 | 3:00 am Fungi Pathogenic To Insects Are New Tool In Fight Against Chagas DiseaseEntomopathogenic fungi may be a safe and efficient means of controlling Triatoma infestans, the bug that helps spread Chagas disease, according to new research conducted in Argentina. The study shows the success of the fungi to kill bugs resistant to current control methods.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 13 May 2009 | 3:00 am More Evidence For The Benefit Of Exercise In Cardiovascular Disease -- And Even In Heart FailureIn new studies, exercise is shown to improve markers of heart disease in patients following coronary artery bypass surgery, to improve event-free survival rate in coronary patients better than stent angioplasty, and to improve markers of disease in heart failure patients, a group usually thought amenable to little more than palliative care.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 13 May 2009 | 3:00 am Taking Folic Acid Supplements Before Conception Linked To Reduced Risk Of Premature BirthTaking folic acid supplements for at least a year before conception is associated with reduction in the risk of premature birth, according to a new study.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 13 May 2009 | 12:00 am New Way Of Reading Light With Help Locate Earth-like Planets Around Other StarsA new way of reading light will sharpen the view of planets around other stars. Researchers have created an "astro-comb" to help astronomers detect lighter planets, more like Earth, around distant stars.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 13 May 2009 | 12:00 am How Fit Are You? Lactate Test Made EasyThe lactate value indicates levels of fitness. At present, athletes have to visit a doctor to have it measured. A new analytical device will make things easier in future: athletes can wear it and check their lactate readings during training.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 13 May 2009 | 12:00 am X-rays Help Predict Permanent Bone Damage From BisphosphonatesBisphosphonates have been found to place people at risk for developing osteonecrosis of the jaws (a rotting of the jaw bones). Dentists, as well as oncologists, are now using X-rays to detect "ghost sockets" in patients that take these drugs and when these sockets are found, it signals that the jawbone is not healing the right way. Early detection of these ghost sockets can help the patient avoid permanent damage to their jawbone.Source: ScienceDaily: Latest Science News | 13 May 2009 | 12:00 am Astronauts inspect Atlantis while chasing Hubble (AP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 12 May 2009 | 2:29 pm Pop Culture CreaturesScientists named a diving beetle Agaporomorphus colbert after Stephen Colbert.Source: Livescience.com | 12 May 2009 | 1:51 pm Federal Soda Tax WeighedLawmakers to ponder federal excise tax on soda and other sugar-laden drinks to pay for health care.Source: Livescience.com | 12 May 2009 | 1:40 pm Brain's Willpower Spot FoundScientists may have discovered the seat of willpower and self-restraint in the brain.Source: Livescience.com | 12 May 2009 | 1:28 pm Oil jumps above $60 on weak US currency (AFP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 12 May 2009 | 1:14 pm World seabed disputes face U.N. deadlineOSLO (Reuters) - The world faces disputes over the seabed from the South China Sea to the North Pole at a May 13 U.N. deadline for claims meant as a milestone toward the final fixing of maritime boundaries.Source: Reuters: Science News | 12 May 2009 | 12:45 pm James Randi prize: Scientists put a psychic's paranormal claims to the testProfessional medium Patricia Putt was last week subjected to a rigorous scientific test of her powers as the first stage of her bid to claim a $1m prize from the James Randi Educational Foundation The young female volunteer in front of me could not suppress an embarrassed giggle as she sat there wearing a ski mask, wraparound sunglasses, an oversized graduation gown and a pair of white socks, a large laminated sheet hung around her neck displaying her participant number. Then things got even weirder. Professor Richard Wiseman knocked on the door to collect our volunteer. He accompanied her into a large room where she was instructed to sit in a chair facing the wall and do nothing for 15 minutes or so. Professional medium Mrs Patricia Putt was then brought into the room and sat down at a small table around 12 feet away. Sometimes Mrs Putt would request that a volunteer read a pre-specified short passage, as she had found from past experience that often "the Spirit enters and makes contact through the sound of the sitter's voice". After that, no talking was allowed whatsoever as our medium wrote down a "reading" describing the volunteer using her alleged paranormal abilities. At the end of the reading, Mrs Putt left the room and the volunteer was allowed to change back into somewhat more conventional garb and given a reminder to return later in the day for the all-important judging phase. What was going on here? By the standards of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, this was not really that weird at all. Mrs Putt is a professional medium who has appeared on TV several times, as well as being the subject of several magazine and newspaper articles. No doubt convinced of her own abilities, she had contacted the James Randi Educational Foundation with a view to proving her abilities and thus claiming the prize of one million dollars on offer to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers under controlled conditions. Not unreasonably, Randi often requires applicants to first pass a preliminary test carried out by associates of the JREF before they are allowed to proceed to the formal test that will determine whether or not they become overnight millionaires. The test we were carrying out on Wednesday last week at Goldsmiths was one such preliminary test. To date, no one had ever passed a preliminary test. Would the outcome of our latest test make history by producing a positive result? The JREF challenge can be traced back to 1964 when arch-sceptic, magician and debunker Randi offered $1,000 of his own money to anyone who could prove a paranormal claim under controlled conditions. Other donors quickly came forward to support Randi's efforts and the total prize available has stood at $1m for many years now. Despite the fact that the world is full of people claiming to possess abilities that defy conventional scientific understanding, only a minuscule proportion of them ever put themselves forward for the challenge. A minuscule proportion of a very large number still amounts to several hundred applicants, of course, but this does raise the question of why the vast majority of psychic claimants shun the challenge altogether. One commonly cited reason is that the challenge is fixed by Randi in such a way that no one would ever be able to claim the prize. True believers in the paranormal often have a deep mistrust of Randi and, indeed, he has been likened by to Satan himself on more than one occasion! Let's examine that claim a little more closely – the one about the challenge being rigged, not the one about Randi being Satan. I have personally been involved in preliminary tests for JREF on several occasions, including a double-blind test of dowsers (featured in Richard Dawkins' TV series Enemies of Reason) and a test of Derek Ogilvie's claim that he could read the minds of babies and toddlers (featured in the Extraordinary People series on Five). In both cases, no evidence of any paranormal abilities was obtained. Results were exactly at chance level. But the thing that struck me very forcibly in setting up the protocols for these tests was the extraordinary time and effort that goes into ensuring that the tests are not only well-controlled from a scientific point of view but also deemed to be fair by the claimants. There is simply no point in carrying out the test if the claimants are not happy with the conditions under which they are being tested. Indeed, all claimants must sign a written statement confirming that they agree that the test is fair before it goes ahead. That does not mean, of course, that claimants will not change their minds after they have taken the test and failed it. It is a rare claimant who does not come up with excuses to explain away their failure. To those who continue to maintain that the JREF challenge is rigged against honest and genuine psychic claimants, I say this: Go for the challenge anyway. You will be fully involved in drawing up and approving the final protocol and can insist that the conditions are to your liking, provided that the agreed protocol is well controlled from a scientific perspective. If you pass the test under those conditions and Randi refuses to acknowledge your success and award you the prize money, expose him to the world as the dishonest charlatan that you would then have proved him to be. I issue that challenge with confidence because I am convinced that the allegation that Randi rigs these tests in any way is without foundation. It is also worth noting that Randi is never present at the preliminary tests unless this is specifically requested by the applicant. It is therefore difficult to see how he could influence the outcome of a test. I remember on one occasion being involved in drawing up a test of a psychic where this kind of paranoia was amply demonstrated. During the protocol development stage, it was suggested that a suitable means to decide randomly between two possible outcomes, as required by the method to be used, would be to toss a coin. Needless to say, the crucial coin toss would be witnessed by all interested parties and filmed to ensure that it was fair. One supporter of the psychic with a particularly intense hatred of Randi immediately objected to this suggestion, pointing out that Randi is a skilled conjuror and as such would know dozens of ways to make the coin fall the way he wanted it to. That may be true, but as Randi would be in Florida when the coin toss was taking place, it did not seem reasonable to be too concerned about that issue. As far as I was concerned, if Randi could make a coin fall the way he wanted it to while on the opposite side of the Atlantic, he deserved to keep the million dollars. The test of Mrs Putt was no exception when it came to the time and effort that went into drawing up the protocol and preparing for the test. The draft protocol went through many revisions, all of which had to be approved by JREF staff and, most importantly, Mrs Putt herself. The final protocol required that Mrs Putt write down a reading for each of 10 volunteers she had never met before, all of whom had to wear the bizarre attire described above and sit facing away from her to ensure that the reading did not include any reference to the physical appearance of the volunteer. Once all 10 volunteers had had a reading done, they were called back and each issued with a set of all the readings, each set in a different, randomised order. At this point, of course, they did not know which reading had been produced specifically for them. Their task was simple. They had to read all ten readings and decide which one was most applicable to them. If Mrs Putt had the ability she believed she had, the majority of the volunteers should easily be able to identify their own reading. If five or more of the volunteers chose the correct reading, Mrs Putt would be deemed to have passed the test and arrangements would be made for her to proceed to the formal Million Dollar Challenge. It sounds simple but the attention to detail that is required to prepare and carry out such tests in a properly controlled way is considerable. I would like to express my thanks here not only to Richard Wiseman but to all the other members of the team (Panka Juhasz, James Munroe, Suzanne Barbieri, and Fabio Tartarini) who ensured that things ran smoothly on the day. Although it sounds like a simple test, there are many subtle factors that could bias the results one way or the other that need to be taken into account. For example, Mrs Putt agreed not to include in her readings anything that might give an indication of the position of the reading in the series (e.g. "Feeling more confident with this one" would indicate that this could not possibly be the reading for the first volunteer). She also agreed not to make any reference to events that she might overhear outside the testing area (e.g. had there been the sound of children playing during one reading and reference was made to "happy children" in the reading itself). She agreed that all of the participants could be selected from the same ethnic group (Caucasian), be of the same gender (female), and within a restricted age range (18-30). This is because a person's voice gives away much information regarding such factors. These are just a few examples of the kinds of factors given careful consideration in drawing up the protocol. Every session was recorded on video, as was the judging phase and the final phase of tallying up the number of hits. There are many sceptics who, quite wrongly in my opinion, believe that all psychic claimants are deliberate frauds. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of people claiming to be psychic genuinely believe that they are. However, it is also true that the history of psychical research is peppered with fraudulent claimants. For this reason, even if one has no reason to doubt the honesty and sincerity of a claimant, conditions must still be such that the possibility of fraud are kept to an absolute minimum. Sceptics would, quite rightly, go over the details of any test that appeared to produce positive results with a fine toothcomb looking for methodological loopholes. It works the other way too. The video record can be used to assure unsuccessful claimants that the protocol was properly followed. Did we make history last week? Is Mrs Putt now preparing to face that final challenge? The chosen readings were compared with the actual readings by Richard Wiseman and Mrs Putt together, with several observers present and the whole procedure recorded. The first volunteer did not choose the reading that had been produced for her. Neither did the second. Or the third. By chance alone, the most likely outcome was for one hit out of ten. Unfortunately for Mrs Putt, every single volunteer chose a reading that had not been written for them. It looks like JREF's million dollars are safe for the time being. Mrs Putt declared herself "gobsmacked" by the result. She did not try to make any excuses for her failure, in sharp contrast to many others who have found themselves in the same situation. She had been a perfect subject from start to finish from our point of view, cooperative and friendly throughout. We salute her for having the courage of her convictions and for accepting the outcome with such grace. Chris French is a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, where he heads the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit. He edits the [UK] Skeptic magazine STOP PRESS The day after this column was submitted for publication, Mrs Putt had reflected upon the test and decided that the protocol had put too many barriers in her way for her to demonstrate her psychic ability. In an email to Alison Smith of JREF, she explained, "With them [the volunteers] being bound from head to foot like black mummies, they themselves felt tied so were not really free to link with Spirit making my work a great deal more difficult." For the record, no volunteers were "bound" and Mrs Putt did not speak to any of the volunteers after the test. One can only assume that she picked up on their feelings of being "tied" via her psychic powers. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 12 May 2009 | 12:00 pm Just for laughs: hyenas' giggles may be sign of frustrationResearchers have begun to uncover the secrets of the laughing sounds hyenas make as they compete for food.Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 12 May 2009 | 11:11 am Disaster looms with rising sea levels: islands (AFP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 12 May 2009 | 11:07 am NASA astronauts speed toward risky Hubble mission (AFP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 12 May 2009 | 11:04 am Rare island species 'undervalued'Rare species on islands risk being lost forever because they are often overlooked by conservation models, a study suggests.Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 12 May 2009 | 10:43 am Richard BlackCould New York be the world's least sustainable city?Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 12 May 2009 | 9:51 am Largest herd of gazelles sightedA mega-herd of a quarter of a million Mongolian gazelles is seen gathering on the country's grassy steppes.Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 12 May 2009 | 8:08 am Emotional intelligence helps women get the most out of sexWomen who are more "emotionally intelligent" benefit in the bedroom, work suggests.Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 12 May 2009 | 6:17 am Project launched to fight frog-killing fungus (AP)
Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 12 May 2009 | 4:13 am Genes Yield Clues to High Blood Pressure (HealthDay)HealthDay - SUNDAY, May 10 (HealthDay News) -- Two major international studies have identified what researchers describe as a treasure trove of genes linked to high blood pressure.Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 12 May 2009 | 3:49 am Mexican genomes show wide diversity (AP)AP - The most detailed look yet at the genetics of Mexicans is showing significant diversity, a finding that could help point the way to customized drugs and identification of people prone to certain diseases.Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 12 May 2009 | 2:51 am Mexican H1N1 flu spreads easily: studyWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The new strain of H1N1 flu that has killed 56 people in Mexico and has been carried around the world by travelers acts more like a pandemic strain than regular seasonal flu, researchers reported on Monday.Source: Reuters: Science News | 11 May 2009 | 11:45 pm City's Residents Growl over BearsWith spring, the bears are coming out of their dens in Anchorage.Source: Livescience.com | 11 May 2009 | 11:23 pm U.S. "harvesting" canceled satellite for future usesWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force on Monday said it was working with Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing Co to "harvest" for future use any government-owned property or ground stations developed for a canceled satellite communications program.Source: Reuters: Science News | 11 May 2009 | 11:10 pm Chemical clue to dementia declineSpinal fluid compounds may give an early warning of how fast patients with mild dementia will decline.Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 11 May 2009 | 11:01 pm My virtual support networkMost people with depression need some kind of therapy, but could a computer replace a counsellor? Tim Lott finds out Although I am not depressed - I am merely someone who has experienced a depressing amount of depression - I have just completed eight weekly sessions of a cognitive behavioural therapy course, which is available on the NHS. Big deal, you might well remark. But this course is unusual because I didn't have to leave my desk or even talk to another human being. The therapy is administered entirely by a computer programme. Beating the Blues is an attempt by the NHS to meet the growing demand for mental health treatment without spending a fortune on face-to-face therapy. My instincts were against it - I was insulted by the idea that my difficulties could be solved online. So I logged on to my first session with some trepidation. I was introduced by a honey-voiced computer to five other "co-sufferers" - Andrew, Elaine, Jean, Bob and Heather - who were going to share my journey. They were played by quite convincing actors, although their characters all seemed a bit feeble. I unkindly branded them as - to use a non-clinical term - "losers". They couldn't get a grip on their lives, they blamed themselves for everything, they couldn't take on goals, and they thought they were failures. For me, depression is like a toxic black cloud that manifests from nowhere and wrecks my rational thought processes. Andrew and his cheerless bunch of pals just seemed browned off rather than properly depressed - unhappy as opposed to "ill". One couldn't control his school class, another had lost her confidence in finding a boyfriend, a third had let the house go to rack and ruin since her husband died. They were all unmotivated and had terribly low self-esteem - which I don't suffer from, even when depressed (my specialities are guilt and fear, specifically fear of madness). But I tried to keep an open mind. The first 50-minute session examined the symptoms of depression and anxiety and gave a rough outline of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which "rather than focusing on what happened in your past focuses on what is happening HERE and NOW ... It helps you to see the link between how you think and how you feel and behave." The session explains how emotions are not simply results of events but of interpretations of events, which can, with proper training, be changed to be more helpful or realistic. It's not, it is emphasised, about "empty positive thinking", but about the distorted thoughts that depressed people tend to generate. During the second session, I was taught to record my thoughts - in the hope that I could learn to change them - and also come up with some goals that were "positive, realistic, specific and measurable". The main thrust of the session, however, was to become conscious of "automatic thoughts", which "can become distorted and lead to anxiety and depression". I tried to record these over the following week but found it difficult, mainly because a lot of my negative emotions don't seem to correlate with thoughts - at least, not thoughts that I am able to put into words. They are just moods, or reactions arising wordlessly out of the unconscious. The third session focused on behaviour, suggesting that when you get upset you distract yourself through doing some physical activity - taking the dog for a walk, etc - or focusing on your breathing. It caught my attention properly for the first time in raising the topic of "Common Thinking Errors". Common Thinking Errors included Black and White Thinking, in which you see everything in only two categories - all or nothing. If you think you haven't done something perfectly then you've failed, or if your clothes are less than immaculate you see yourself as a wreck. I recognised this tendency in myself - in some areas I am intractably perfectionist - and it came as a relief to have a label put on it as "distorted thinking" rather than "just me". It felt like the first step in getting it under control. The other thinking errors - Jumping to Conclusions (negative conclusion when there is little or no evidence), Catastrophising (exaggerating your problems), Overgeneralising (thinking that if an unpleasant thing happened before it would happen again), and Should Statements (being a fierce task master who sets very high standards for themselves and others) - were less familiar in myself, but very familiar in some people I know. The fourth session offered tools to counter these thinking errors. I was asked to find evidence both for and against my negative automatic thoughts (NATs). Empty positive thinking was discouraged - any challenge to NATs has to be based on evidence. In session five, it was suggested that much of what we think is not conscious. It then tries to offer tools for digging out these unconscious beliefs. In psychology this is known as laddering and is a complex and skilled job. But the computer program suggests it can be achieved by anyone simply by asking repeatedly what your problem "means". In the example the computer gives, Bob is asked to examine the thought "I'm going to lose my job" and ask "what does that mean to me?". "I'll have to start looking for another job," says Bob. What does that mean to him? "It will be hard to get a job - I'm not particularly skilled." What does that mean to him? "I'll have to take not very nice work." What does that mean? "I'll feel ashamed." Thus Bob has uncovered his secret belief that, "unless I have a job, I'll be a second-rate person." This is all dubious to my mind. Without proper guidance, laddering can lead to all sorts of inaccurate conclusions, and the idea that the unconscious can be so simply and reliably accessed is questionable. After I completed the ladder, I uncovered the "belief" that I was "possibly damaged in childhood to the extent of being rendered unlovable". It was easy for me to recognise it as a false belief - but I'm not confident that knowing that is any help when this irrational feeling strikes me down. More practically, I was asked to start writing down my successes on a weekly basis. It was pointed out that people who are depressed "give away" their successes, crediting them to luck or outside sources. Being asked to keep a success record seemed like a good way of reclaiming a positive awareness of yourself. It was the final sessions, however, that had the most resonance. I was taught about how to recognise my "attributional style". This is how you go about putting together your world view - to put it simply, whether you are a glass half-full or glass half-empty person. It then asks you to train yourself to tailor your interpretations according to whether what is happening to you is negative or positive. So if you win a game of tennis, for instance (which is the example they use) it is because "my serve is strong, I play well on all types of courts" - whereas a depressed person might just say "I was lucky," or that they just had a "good day". The idea is that you acquire the (to me, slightly disingenuous) trick of laying claim to your successes, and mitigating (or perhaps just rationalising away) the reasons for your failures. I doubt that every situation is so crudely open to re-interpretation, but I can see that when you are depressed you can get into negative habits of thought that reinforce your depression, and a tool like this could be useful in countering it. Obviously, being schooled by a computer has its drawbacks - you can't ask in the course of therapeutic conversation about anything you don't understand, and you often end up dealing with territory that isn't relevant to you. But it is not entirely impersonal - there is telephone backup if you require it. I can't quite say that it "worked" - mainly because I wasn't depressed when I started it - but I have to concede that it is not as useless as I had imagined it would be. It is no substitute for a real face-to-face session with a counsellor, but in the absence of the necessary resources - and with some 10 million people reporting mental health problems - Beating the Blues is not an entirely worthless stab at countering an intractable problem. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 11 May 2009 | 11:01 pm The truth about lyingDo fleeting changes of facial expression show whether someone is telling lies? Psychologist Paul Ekman believes he has the answer, he tells Jon Henley Forty years ago, the research psychologist Dr Paul Ekman was addressing a group of young psychiatrists in training when he was asked a question whose answer has kept him busy pretty much ever since. Suppose, the group wanted to know, you are working in a psychiatric hospital like this one, and a patient who has previously attempted suicide comes to you. "I'm feeling much better now," the patient says. "Can I have a pass out for the weekend?" You also know, of course, that psychiatric patients routinely make such claims, and that some, if they are granted temporary leave, will try to take their lives. But this particular patient swears they are telling the truth. They look, and sound, sincere. So here's the question: is there any way you can be sure they are telling the truth? It set Ekman thinking. As part of his research, he had already recorded a series of 12-minute interviews with patients at the hospital. In a subsequent conversation, one of the patients told him that she had lied to him. So Ekman sat and looked at the film. Nothing. He slowed it down, and looked again. Slowed it further. And suddenly, there, across just two frames, he saw it: a vivid, intense expression of extreme anguish. It lasted less than a 15th of a second. But once he had spotted the first expression, he soon found three more examples in that same interview. "And that," says Ekman, "was the discovery of microexpressions: very fast, intense expressions of concealed emotion." Over the course of the next four decades, at the University of California's department of psychiatry in San Francisco, Ekman has successfully demonstrated a proposition first suggested by Charles Darwin: that the ways in which we express anger, disgust, contempt, fear, surprise, happiness and sadness are both innate and universal. The facial muscles triggered by those seven basic emotions are, he has shown, essentially the same, regardless of language and culture, from the US to Japan, Brazil to Papua New Guinea. What is more, expressions of emotion are involuntary; they are almost impossible to suppress or conceal. We can try, of course. But particularly when we are lying, "microexpressions" of powerfully-felt emotions will invariably flit across our faces before we get a chance to stop them. Fortunately for liars, as many as 99% of people will fail to spot these fleeting signals of inner torment (of the 15,000 whom Ekman has tested, only 50 people have been able to without training. He calls them "naturals"). But given a bit of training, Ekman says, almost anyone can develop the skill. He should know: since the mid-80s and the first publication of his best-known book, Telling Lies, he has been called in by the FBI, CIA, the US Transportation Security Administration, immigration authorities, anti-terrorist investigators and police forces around the world not just to help crack cases, but to teach them how to use the technique themselves. He has held workshops for defence and prosecution lawyers, health professionals, poker players, even jealous spouses, and created an online course - so with the aid of a $20 CD-Rom or a $12 internet lesson, you too could soon be able to tell exactly when someone is telling porkies. Sound like a good scenario for a TV drama? Of course it does. Lie to Me, a new series from Rupert Murdoch's US Fox network which premieres this week on Sky1, stars British actor Tim Roth as (I quote) "Dr Cal Lightman, the world's leading deception expert, a scientist who studies facial expressions and involuntary body language to discover not only if you are lying but why". More accurate than any polygraph test, Sky's publicity blurb says Lightman is "a human lie detector". The series is unusual in several respects. It is the first time, as far as Ekman is aware, that a commercial TV drama has been based on the research of just one scientist. That scientist is also deeply involved in the project, talking through plot ideas, checking five successive drafts of each script for accuracy, even sending the actors videos of himself pulling peculiar faces. Ekman concedes he was sceptical when the film and TV producer Brian Grazer (responsible for 24 and Frost/Nixon) first approached him with the idea of turning his life's work into a TV series. "If I could have stopped him, I would have," he says. "I was wary of a kind of 'CSI effect', of raising false expectations . . . and of the possibility that someone might one day sit on a jury and wrongly convict someone because of something they saw on Lie to Me." He was won over by the manifestly serious intent of Grazer and Samuel Baum, the show's writer, and decided the role they held out to him as scientific advisor should be a hands-on one. As a result the series is, he reckons, "probably 80-90% accurate; in the pilot episode, of the 18 things they use, only two are not correct. But you have to remember this is a drama, not a documentary. Lightman solves cases more quickly and more certainly than in the real world." To ensure his scientific reputation remains unblemished, Ekman has written a blog on the show's website after each episode broadcast so far in the US. Called The Truth About Lie to Me, it provides a detailed postmortem of each programme, probing the nuances and highlighting what was fact, and what had been embroidered for the purposes of dramatic effect. And he is keen to point out that while the show may be based on his work, Lightman is most certainly not Ekman. "He's British, for a start. Also he's younger, and more arrogant. And he does things I would never do. He lies to people himself, for example, to elicit the truth. I entirely disapprove of that, although the US supreme court has ruled it's admissible." Ekman, incidentally, professes to be "a terrible liar", and observes that although some people are plainly more accomplished liars than others, he cannot teach anyone how to lie. "The ability to detect a lie and the ability to lie successfully are completely unrelated," he says. "I have been asked by people running for high office - for very high office - if I could teach them to become 'more credible'. But I don't work that side of the street." The psychologist's techniques, he concedes, can only be a starting point for the crime investigators or security officials applying them. "All they show is that someone's lying," he says. "You have to proceed very cautiously when you recognise concealed emotion. You have to question very carefully, because what you really want to know is why they are lying. No expression of emotion, micro or macro, reveals exactly what is triggering it." Suppose, Ekman posits, "my wife has been found murdered in our hotel. I would be the prime suspect, because most wives are murdered by their husbands. How would I react when the police questioned me? My demeanour might well be consistent with a concealed emotion. That could be because I was guilty. But it could equally be because I was extremely angry at being a suspect, yet frightened of showing anger because I knew it might make the police think I was guilty. A microexpression is just a tiny little breach; you have to widen it, deepen it, explore further." Plus, there are lies and lies. Ekman defines a lie as having two essential characteristics: there must be a deliberate choice and intent to mislead, and there must be no notification that this is what is occurring. "An actor or a poker player isn't a liar," he says. "They're supposed to be deceiving you, it's part of the game. Likewise flattery. I focus on serious lies: where the consequences for the liar are grave if they're found out, and where the target would feel properly aggrieved if they knew." (Although, distractingly, even some serious lies can be good. When Ekman was waiting for a biopsy report on a suspected cancer some years ago, he says by way of example, "I lied to my wife when she asked me why I was acting strangely. That was a 'good' lie. You have to put yourself in the position of the persons involved.") Generally, though, the lies that interest Ekman - and Dr Cal Lightman - are those in which "the threat of loss or punishment to the liar is severe: loss of job, loss of reputation, loss of spouse, loss of freedom". Fortunately, those are also the lies that are detectable, because those are the kind of lies that invariably produce clues in the liar's demeanour. But how reliable are Ekman's methods? Microexpressions, he says, are only part of a whole set of possible deception indicators. "There are also what we call subtle expressions - not brief, but very small, almost imperceptible. A very slight tightening of the lips, for example, is the most reliable sign of anger. You need to study a person's whole demeanour: gesture, voice, posture, gaze, and also, of course, the words themselves." Just read microexpressions and subtle expressions correctly, however, and Ekman reckons your accuracy in detecting an attempt at deception "will increase from chance to 70% or better". In comparison, when it comes to spotting really serious lies - those that could, for example, affect national security - he says simply that he "does not believe we have solid evidence that anything else works better than chance". Is he lying? I couldn't tell. But it makes for pretty engrossing telly. • Lie to Me starts this Thursday at 10pm on Sky1. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 11 May 2009 | 11:01 pm Don't shoot the scientistsAny hyperbole about swine flu was created by the media, not by virologists, says Tom Sheldon Simon Jenkins is right to say that obsessive media coverage of swine flu, ever thirsty for hyperbole and impatient for new developments, can be misleading (Sophie's sniffle mocks the peddlers of swine flu panic, 6 May). And advice issued by government should rightly be debated. But the suggestion that scientists "depend on regular pandemic scares for government grants" is paranoid (we might as well say Jenkins invents contrary opinions in order to be paid by the Guardian). In his dismay at the lack of a pandemic he reminds me of a man playing Russian roulette who, after two squeezes of the trigger, declares: "Ha! This isn't dangerous after all!" The possibility of a pandemic is real but cannot yet be predicted with assurance. Jenkins declares that "no medical authority ... has confined its reporting to the facts". Yet the majority of scientists have been cautious and measured on the subject. At the Science Media Centre we have spoken to dozens of scientists on the subject and I haven't yet found one who is clamouring to make more media appearances; these people are hardly underworked at the moment. I am proud of our virologists, epidemiologists and microbiologists for giving up their time to explain complex and uncertain science. Imagine the alternative: scientists having secret meetings with ministers, and official statements issued from behind closed doors. The bad old days - now that would make me panic. There is no excuse for hyping a story, but the source of that hype is not always plain. Here's an example: a senior virologist I know was asked by a journalist how many deaths might be expected if a full-scale pandemic were to take a global hold. He said the figure was impossible to predict with any accuracy, but between one and 50 million would be a reasonable estimate. "Fifty million could die, say scientists" was the next day's headline. Was the virologist wrong to make his statement? Absolutely not: it was scientifically valid and defensible. But after some editorial lopping it's no wonder Jenkins concludes that swine flu was greeted with "pandemonium". Except that in the UK I don't see this pandemonium. I see people going to work, children going to school, and not a face mask in sight. Why? Because largely conscientious science journalism has ensured we have been well-informed. We get the science. We're not panicking. "At last an expert speaks," Jenkins says of London schoolgirl Sophie de Salis describing her symptoms as mild. But such glee as scientists appear to be wrong is hollow schadenfreude. I don't hear any crowing that the flu pandemics of the past "might not have happened". They did; another one will; and it might start off looking very similar to this one. Let's not forget that these pandemics are in living memory, and that the direction this infection will take remains unknown. And let's be cautious about how we get our news, remembering that media saturation and big headlines don't mean Armageddon. Which is why you might make a case for shooting the odd editor. But please, Simon, don't shoot any virologists; you never know when you might need one. • Tom Sheldon is a biologist and spokesman for the Science Media Centre guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 11 May 2009 | 11:01 pm Space shuttle Atlantis blasts off on Hubble missionPictures and audio from the Kennedy Space Centre as the shuttle lifts off
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 11 May 2009 | 10:36 pm Study: Bad boy doesn't always get the girl (AP)AP - Apparently the bad boy doesn't always get the girl. At least in a South American tribe with the highest known murder rate, it turns out that the most aggressive guys end up with fewer wives and children than milder men, according to a report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 11 May 2009 | 10:05 pm HBO Gets Deadly Serious With Alzheimer'sAlzheimer's disease is getting spotlight treatment from a new HBO series.Source: Livescience.com | 11 May 2009 | 9:45 pm New gene map shows big diversity in MexicoWASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new gene map of Mexicans show they are as diverse as their history suggests and could benefit from having their own, unique analysis when it comes to testing drugs and assessing disease risks, researchers reported on Monday.Source: Reuters: Science News | 11 May 2009 | 9:40 pm These men would have stopped DarwinScience research in Britain is now all about turning knowledge into business, rather than the beauty of exploration Why is the Medical Research Council run by an arms manufacturer? Why is the Natural Environment Research Council run by the head of a construction company? Why is the chairman of a real estate firm in charge of higher education funding for England? Because our universities are being turned into corporate research departments. No longer may they pursue knowledge for its own sake: the highest ambition to which they must aspire is finding better ways to make money. Last month, unremarked by the media, a quiet intellectual revolution took place. The research councils, which provide 90% of the funding for academic research, introduced a requirement for those seeking grants: they must describe the economic impact of the work they want to conduct. The councils define impact as the "demonstrable contribution" research can make to society and the economy. But how do you demonstrate the impact of blue skies research before it has been conducted? The idea, the government says, is to transfer knowledge from the universities to industry, boosting the economy and helping to lift us out of recession. There's nothing wrong, in principle, with commercialising scientific discoveries. But imposing this condition on the pursuit of all knowledge does not enrich us; it impoverishes us, reducing the wonders of the universe to figures in an accountant's ledger. Picture Charles Darwin trying to fill out his application form before embarking on the Beagle. "Explain how the research has the potential to impact on the nation's health, wealth or culture. For example: fostering global economic performance, and specifically the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom … What are the realistic timescales for the benefits to be realised?" If Darwin had been dependent on a grant from a British research council, he would never have set sail. The government insists that nothing fundamental has changed; that the Haldane principle, which states that the government should not interfere in research decisions, still holds. Only the research councils, ministers say, should decide what gets funded. This is the sort of humbug newspaper proprietors use. Some of them insist that they never interfere in the decisions their editors make. But they appoint editors who share their views and know exactly what is expected of them. All the chairs of the five research councils funding science, and of the three higher education funding councils (which provide core funding for universities), are or were senior corporate executives. These men are overseen by the minister for science and innovation, Lord Drayson. Before he became a minister, Paul Drayson was chief executive of the pharmaceutical company PowderJect. He was involved in a controversy that many feel symbolises the absence of effective barriers between government and commerce. On 30 November 2001 the British government decided to buy large quantities of a variant of the smallpox vaccine called the Lister strain. The only company that possessed enough was a firm called Bavarian Nordic. On 6 December 2001, Drayson was among a small group of businessmen who took breakfast with the then prime minister, Tony Blair. At about the same time Drayson gave a donation of £50,000 to Labour. Soon afterwards, government officials sought to buy the vaccine from Bavarian Nordic. They were told that they were too late: PowderJect had just bought the exclusive distribution rights for the UK. So the government had to buy it from Drayson's company. It paid PowderJect £32m: £20m more than PowderJect had paid Bavarian Nordic. The prime minister's office and Drayson both refused to answer questions about whether the Lister strain was discussed at the breakfast in Downing Street. It is not clear if Drayson was aware at that time of the government's decision to choose the Lister strain. Drayson doubtless rubs along well with the chairman of the Medical Research Council, Sir John Chisholm. He founded a military software company before becoming head of the government's Defence Research Agency (DRA). He was in charge of turning it into the commercial company QinetiQ, through a privatisation process that was completed while Drayson was minister for defence procurement. During this process, Chisholm paid £129,000 for a stake in the company. The stake's value rose to £26m when QinetiQ was floated. A former managing director of the DRA described this as "greed of the highest order". Lord Gilbert, a former minister of defence procurement, remarked that "frankly the money made by the leading civil servants was obscene … They did not contribute anything to the turnaround of the company, it was the work of the research staff that made the difference." Chisholm remains chairman of QinetiQ. Is there anyone outside government who believes that these people should be overseeing scientific research in this country? In March Drayson told the Royal Society that "the science budget is safe … there will be no retreat from pure science". A month later this promise was broken, when the budget transferred £106m from the research councils "to support key areas of economic potential": which means exchanges of staff and research with industry. Science policy in the UK is now governed by the Sainsbury review, which the government says it will implement in full. It was written by the Labour donor, former science minister and former supermarket chief executive, Lord Sainsbury. The research councils, the review says, should "be measured against firm knowledge transfer targets" to show that they are turning enough science into business. They have been told to fund £120m of research in collaboration with industry. This has been topped up with £180m from the regional development agencies. The government is also spending £150m "to change the culture in universities: boosting the work they do with a whole range of businesses and increasing commercial activity". All this is another covert bailout, relieving companies of the need to fund their own research. The economic impact summaries they now write ensure that all researchers will be aware that the business of universities is business. As the white paper points out, universities are already "providing incentives (for example promotion assessment)" to persuade researchers to engage with business. If your research doesn't make someone money, you're not likely to get very far. Even judged by its own objectives, this policy makes no sense. The long-term health of the knowledge economy depends on blue skies research that answers only to itself: when scientists are free to pursue their passions they are more likely to make those serendipitous discoveries whose impacts on society and the economy are both vast and impossible to predict. Forced to collaborate with industry, they are more likely to pursue applications of existing knowledge than to seek to extend the frontiers of the known world. Knowledge is not just about impacts. It is about wonder and insight and beauty. Much might never have an application, but it makes the world a richer place, in ways that the likes of Lord Drayson would struggle to perceive. guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 11 May 2009 | 9:30 pm Shuttle lifts off on final repair mission to HubbleCAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) - Space shuttle Atlantis and seven astronauts blasted off on Monday on an ambitious 11-day mission to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope, an icon of modern astronomy that has changed scientists' understanding of the universe.Source: Reuters: Science News | 11 May 2009 | 9:15 pm Scientists offer thalidomide clueAberdeen scientists say they have "solved the 50-year puzzle" of how and why limbs are targeted by thalidomide.Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 11 May 2009 | 9:00 pm 'Enemies of creationism' may be hindering science teachersA US judge's ruling is a warning to those who want to teach real science in schools that they need to change their tactics Adistrict court judge in southern California has ruled that a teacher who described creationism as "superstitious nonsense" was making a religious statement, which is impermissible in US public schools. On the face of it, this is completely absurd, even for southern California. Creationism is superstitious nonsense, and teachers should be able to say so. But when you look at the background, the case becomes in some respects less absurd, but also more threatening – especially for hardline rationalists such as Richard Dawkins, who would like to dismiss creationism as beneath contempt. The first thing to say is that Judge James Selna seems, from his 37-page ruling, to be no friend of fundamentalists. Of the 20 complaints made against the teacher, James Corbett, he dismissed 19; many of them on the face of it much more anti-religious than calling creationism "superstitious nonsense". Second, the lawsuit was clearly a premeditated strike in the culture wars. Orange County, where Capistrano Valley high school is located, is one of the most conservative places in the US. Corbett had been involved in a controversy over John Peloza, a science teacher at the school who in 1994 sued his employers, demanding the right to teach creationism in his science classes. He lost. Some fundamentalist parents were obviously out to get Corbett. His lessons were secretly recorded to compile evidence against him, and the words for which he has been found guilty were part of a discussion, or argument, about the earlier case: "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandise kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense," he said, and those were the words that Judge Selna has found unconstitutional. Clearly, Corbett walked into a trap that had been dug specifically for him. The fundamentalist lawsuit demanded that he be sacked, rather than pay damages, though both the school and the judge rejected this demand. From the material quoted in the judgment it does look as if Corbett was the kind of atheist concerned to eradicate religious belief; but you might argue that he was just trying to get students to think. He claimed to have been selectively quoted in some instances, but in any case we are up against one of the irregular verbs that make teaching difficult: "I make them think; you propagandise; he is trying to indoctrinate them." None of this makes him a bad teacher, but that's not the question the court was answering. It was asked whether he was an unconstitutional teacher, violating the separation of church and state. As the judge said, this is "a legal question to be answered on the basis of judicial interpretation of social facts". This is where we get to the nub of the judgment, and the thing that makes it so worrying for the future of science teaching in the US. After finding constitutional all kinds of anti-religious abuse such as "when you put on your Jesus goggles you can't see the truth", on the grounds that they could be parsed, in context, as not disapproving of religion, Judge Selna picked on the remark about evolution on the grounds that it "primarily sends a message of disapproval of religion or creationism. As discussed above, Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is 'superstitious nonsense'. Corbett could have criticised Peloza for teaching religious views in class without disparaging those views." Judge Selna is saying that creationism may not be taught in schools, because it is a religious doctrine; but – precisely because it's a religious doctrine – teachers may not say it is superstitious nonsense. Explicit hostility to religion on the part of government (including teachers in class in state schools) violates the first amendment just as much as promoting religion by creationism does. Steve Newton at the California-based National Centre for Science Education (NCSE), which campaigns against creationism in schools says: "This is a very bizarre case. I am concerned about the chilling effect it will have on teachers hearing about it. Science teachers now are going to hear about this and think 'whoa, if you criticise creationism you'll get sued and you'll lose'. We haven't yet got a call from a science teacher. [But] this is potentially disastrous." The case looks like a particular defeat for the NCSE, which has been fighting for years to establish in the public mind that evolution and religion are perfectly compatible. For its pains it has been reviled by hardliners – Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and their followers – as "accommodationist", "Neville-Chamberlain-atheist", and so on. Dawkins recently mused on his blog about whether it wouldn't be better to treat the religious with "naked contempt"; Myers, perhaps the world's most influential science blogger, calls religion "one of the most corrupting and untrustworthy causes of all". All these men are biologists and enemies of creationism. For all the hardliners, creationism is real religion (never mind what the Pope says about evolution), and religion exemplifies the superstitious irrationality, from which science is meant to deliver us. That certainly seems to be the line taken by Corbett in his lessons. But it turns out to be tactically disastrous in the struggle for real science teaching. It is unconstitutional, Judge Selna points out in his ruling, to propagandise for atheism in US state schools. The result of this case, as the philosopher Michael Ruse has long warned, is that evolution becomes harder to teach, and creationism harder to mock, because science and atheism have become so entangled in the public mind.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Source: Evolution, genetics, medicine, physics & astronomy news | guardian.co.uk | 11 May 2009 | 9:00 pm New Machine Pumps Disembodied Heart (LiveScience.com)LiveScience.com - After a pig's final oink, a new machine can pump the dead animal's extracted heart so that the muscle beats much like the live one did, scientists say.Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 11 May 2009 | 8:38 pm Older People Pray MoreAnd women are much more likely to pray daily, survey finds.Source: Livescience.com | 11 May 2009 | 8:21 pm Surveillance Tech Watches for AnomaliesIntelligent cameras are replacing human eyes and watching for suspicious behavior.Source: Discovery News Top Stories : Discovery Channel | 11 May 2009 | 8:09 pm U.S. Now World Leader in Swine Flu CasesThe U.S. has now vaulted past Mexico as the nation most affected by the swine flu virus.Source: Livescience.com | 11 May 2009 | 8:07 pm New Machine Pumps Disembodied HeartA machine can beat pig's heart outside of the bodySource: Livescience.com | 11 May 2009 | 8:02 pm Ore. babies switched at birth meet 56 years later (AP)AP - On a spring day in 1953, two babies were born at Pioneer Memorial Hospital in the Eastern Oregon town of Heppner DeeAnn Angell of Fossil and Kay Rene Reed of Condon. The girls would grow up, get married, have kids of their own and become grandparents. Then, last summer, Kay Rene's brother, Bobby Reed, got a call from an 86-year-old woman who had known his mother and had also lived next door to the Angell family in Fossil.Source: Yahoo! News: Science News | 11 May 2009 | 8:02 pm World's Oldest Woman Slips, Falls, DiesShe slipped on the bathroom floor of an apartment that the state had given her because of her great age.Source: Livescience.com | 11 May 2009 | 7:58 pm As Flu Spreads, Generic Drugmakers Wait for Call
Indian generic drug maker Cipla says it could make 1.5 million courses of oseltamavir, as the drug is non-commercially known, before the end of June. They would cost about $12 per course, or a fifth of what’s charged by Roche, the pharmaceutical company who owns the marketing rights to Tamiflu. The Associated Press reports the WHO has about 5 million Tamiflu courses donated by Roche. Last week the organization started distributing 2.4 million courses to poor countries. But that stockpile is dwarfed by the possible spread of the virus, which has officially infected 4,7000 people worldwide, and registered its first case in mainland China. The WHO says a pandemic — the multi-continent, community-level establishment of the swine flu — is imminent. Their assessment is backed by a paper just published in Science by researchers who say swine flu’s transmission rates appear similar to pandemic strains that swept the world in 1918, 1957 and 1968. Even if the virus stays in its apparently mild present form, the toll could be massive. But that mildness can’t be taken for granted. The outbreak is still in its early stages, as the WHO told the United Nations last week, “The only thing that can be said with certainty about influenza viruses is that they are entirely unpredictable.” Given all this, and the WHO’s admission that global drug manufacturing capacity is “still not sufficient to produce enough antiviral medication and pandemic vaccines to protect the entire world population in time,” it would make sense for the WHO to push for immediate generic Tamiflu production. But two weeks after calling the outbreak “a public health emergency of international concern,” and with flu season starting in the southern hemisphere, the WHO continues to rely on Roche. “A big role for WHO is to increase the world’s generics supply of antivirals and make sure all countries have access,” said Tido von Schoen-Angerer, director of Doctors Without Border’s Access to Essential Medicines Campaign, to the AP. “It’s not clear why WHO hasn’t prioritized this.” The delay raises the specter of countries who can afford Tamiflu keeping the drugs for themselves, and leaving poor countries at the mercies of the virus. Columbia University epidemiologist Ian Lipkin warned that the swine flu could ravage South America before vaccines can be made. “We’ve talked about how we’re willing to share with people in the developing world. But already people are talking about hoarding,” he said. “This is morally wrong. We said, ‘We’re going to share with you, when push comes to shove.’ Now’s the time to put up, because these countries are at serious risk. If we hoard these drugs, it’s just wrong.”
Citation: “Pandemic Potential of a Strain of Influenza A (H1N1) : Early Findings.” By Christophe Fraser, Christl A. Donnelly, Simon Cauchemez, William P. Hanage, Maria D. Van Kerkhove, T. Déirdre Hollingsworth, Jamie Griffin, Rebecca F. Baggaley, Helen E. Jenkins, Emily J. Lyons, Thibaut Jombart, Wes R. Hinsley, Nicholas C. Grassly, Francois Balloux, Azra C. Ghani, Neil M. Ferguson, Andrew Rambaut, Oliver G. Pybus, Hugo Lopez-Gatell, Celia M Apluche-Aranda, Ietza Bojorquez Chapela, Ethel Palacios Zavala, Dulce Ma, Espejo Guevara, Francesco Checchi, Erika Garcia, Stephane Hugonnet, Cathy Roth. Science, published online, May 11, 2009. Image: Flickr/kanonn Brandon Keim’s Twitter stream and Del.icio.us feed; Wired Science on Facebook.
Source: Wired: Wired Science | 11 May 2009 | 7:26 pm Powerful Ideas: Fusing Atoms Just Might WorkNuclear fusion facilities are trying to fuse nuclei using lasers and magnets.Source: Livescience.com | 11 May 2009 | 7:01 pm Shuttle blasts off to fix HubbleThe space shuttle Atlantis has launched on an ambitious and risky mission to repair and upgrade the Hubble telescope.Source: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 11 May 2009 | 6:02 pm On-the-Scene Twitpics of Shuttle Launch Twitter: @mabsj2 The Atlantis Space Shuttle successfully launched Monday at 2:01 Eastern time from Cape Canaveral, Florida headed for the Hubble Space Telescope. One of the last shuttle flights NASA will attempt, the mission will service and repair the world’s most famous orbiting eye, so that it can continue taking beautiful pictures of the universe for a few more years, hopefully at least until Hubble’s successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, is hanging in the firmament, sometime during 2013. While shuttle launches are well covered by major media organizations, there’s always been a dedicated group of amateurs who want to be as close as possible whenever man makes for the stars. Now, through social media sites, we can ferret out their efforts — and keep a direct line open to NASA. Below, we’re posting photos and videos uploaded to Twitter, Flickr, Qik, and YouTube of the launch, along with commentary from those who are sitting in the shadow of the launch. What did the launch sound like? “Deep and resonant, a growing rumble and an abrupt silence,” tweeted @DharmaBum35. “Started about 45 seconds after launch here in Titusville.” To hear what he means, fast forward to about 1:20 of this video and just listen to the roar.
The scene was hot and sticky, with @sbovio noting that a Moon Pie would “begin to melt in 2.674 seconds.” Nonetheless, from where she was sitting, the crowd was enthusiastic, even clapping at the communications checks.  @MattSimantov/Orlando Sentinel More pictures of the launch, snapped live and uploaded within minutes of the launch, are posted after the jump.
 Twitter: @flyingjenny
 Twitter: @KSC_MOCOP
 Twitter: @cnnkimsegal
 Twitter: @erinbshort
 Twitter: @loserpotato
 Twitter: @aksival
 Twitter: @erikfranks
 Twitter: @cfnews13
 Twitter: @jesszuber Here we preserve our guide to following the launch on the Interwebs:
See Also:
WiSci 2.0: Alexis Madrigal’s Twitter, Google Reader feed, and book site for The History of Our Future; Wired Science on Facebook.
Source: Wired: Wired Science | 11 May 2009 | 5:30 pm Soybeans Grow Where Nuclear Waste Glows
Soy crops are so tough they can flourish in the contaminated soil around Chernobyl and produce healthy offspring.
If scientists can understand how plants survive in ultra-hostile environments, it will help them engineer super hearty plants to withstand drought conditions or grow on marginal cropland. “The fact that plants were able to adapt to the area of the world’s largest nuclear accident, is very encouraging,” says Martin Hajduch, a plant biotechnology expert at the Slovak Academy of Sciences and coauthor of the study in the Journal of Proteome Research. “So we were interested to know how plants can do such a job.” Hajduch’s team built and harvested seeds from a garden near the village of Chistogalovka, which is roughly five kilometers from the ruined nuclear power plant. They analyzed the seeds with all sorts of modern proteomics tricks, going a step beyond the narrowly-focused studies that other scientists have done. Biologists have been studying the effects of radiation on plants for decades, and they have identified a handful of proteins that seem to protect crops from genetic damage, but this is the first time that anyone has taken a snapshot of everything that’s going on inside of Chernobyl-grown vegetables. The Slovak scientists started by freezing each seed with liquid nitrogen and crushing it to extract a mix of proteins. Then they sorted those molecules in an electrified block of gel, and identified each one with a mass spectrometer. As a reference, they did the same thing to seeds from a garden 100 kilometers from the disaster area. Hajduch learned that the contaminated plants make a lot of changes to defend themselves, adjusting the levels of dozens of proteins that also guard against disease, heavy metals, and salt. All of that makes sense, but the biggest difference between plants from the wasteland and the controls was somewhat surprising. The levels of hundreds of proteins that are known for their ability to shuttle other proteins around — or lock them up in storage — had been lowered. As a result of those adjustments, the levels of Cesium-137 in the beans was remarkably low. The plants are healthy and fertile, but definitely not safe to eat. Hajduch says that he will complete a study of their progeny soon, but he wouldn’t want to make them into tofu. See Also:
Photo: Soybeans growing near the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. Courtesy of Martin Hajduch.
Source: Wired: Wired Science | 11 May 2009 | 4:48 pm Space Shuttle Blasts Off for Hubble MissionShuttle Atlantis takes off for an ambitious mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.Source: Discovery News Top Stories : Discovery Channel | 11 May 2009 | 4:29 pm SLIDE SHOW: Got Joy? Animals DoLike people, animals engage in a variety of behaviors just for the fun of it.Source: Discovery News Top Stories : Discovery Channel | 11 May 2009 | 4:29 pm Animals Just Like to Have Fun, Survey FindsFrom seagulls that play catch to fish that exchange charges, animals seek pleasure.Source: Discovery News Top Stories : Discovery Channel | 11 May 2009 | 3:29 pm End of an eraWhy BP's focus on safety has angered green groupsSource: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 11 May 2009 | 2:51 pm Hubble: From Joke to Cherished Eye in SpaceThe Hubble Space Telescope has captivated the world, but its start was nearly a fiasco.Source: Discovery News Top Stories : Discovery Channel | 11 May 2009 | 2:20 pm Power to peopleA sweeping plan to get off carbon and save the economySource: BBC News | Science & Environment | UK Edition | 11 May 2009 | 1:27 pm Coal Supply May Be Vastly OverestimatedThe world's coal supply may be so low that an energy crisis looms, estimates show.Source: Discovery News Top Stories : Discovery Channel | 11 May 2009 | 1:10 pm Milky Way May Be Teeming With Black HolesRogue black holes may be scattered throughout the Milky Way, say astronomers.Source: Discovery News Top Stories : Discovery Channel | 11 May 2009 | 1:05 pm
|
