Hey there, my name is Bryan Bishop. Here's to trying to keep up with yourself. RSS.
About
Transapient Musings of an S6 Archailect
Metacognitive trivialities over smooth topologies and Julian knots of subgeometric spaces; a.k.a mastermind Singularitarian, node of the Larger Submind and Clone of the Ineffable Original.
Bryan Bishop
http://heybryan.org/
email: kanzure@gmail.com
AIM: kanzure
ICQ: kanzure
YIM: kanzure
Skype: kanzure
Jabber/G-talk: kanzure@gmail.com
MSNM: cm007x2@yahoo.com
IRC: irc.freenode.net (#hplusroadmap)
phone: #1-512-203-0507
Archives
Wed, 11 Jun 2008
A Galactic Internet?
src
What applications and knowledge could such a powerful internet that spreads across the galaxy, or even the universe, bring us?
Moonbrains, jbrains, mbrains, sjbrains, etc. See Orion's Arm and the megascale engineering mailing list.
posted at: 12:01 | path: /astrotech | permanent link to this entry
What's mine is mine: Brain scans reveal what's behind the aversion to loss of possessions
src
Did you ever wonder why it is so difficult to part with your stuff? A new study reveals fascinating insights into the specific neuropsychological mechanisms that are linked with the potential loss of possessions. The research, published by Cell Press in the June 12 issue of the journal Neuron, has important implications for both neuroscience and economics and may even explain why you are reluctant to sell your iPod.
posted at: 12:00 | path: /sci/bio/neuro | permanent link to this entry
Which Cognitive Enhancers Really Work: Brain Training, Drugs, Vitamins, Meditation or Exercise?
src
All kinds of methods for fighting back against this brain-wide slow-down have been suggested. There is training with computer programs, popping pills, taking nutritional supplements, meditating or even getting some more exercise.
Some want to ward off the scourge of a rapidly ageing population: dementia. Others are looking for competitive advantage against younger, faster brains.
So: what to choose? These methods, along with many others, are often presented as though they're all roughly equivalent, but this isn't true. The scientific evidence currently available is much stronger for some of these options than others.
This post examines what the research currently tells us about each method for cognitive enhancement and delivers a verdict on each.
1. Brain training
Computer programs that promise to improve cognitive function have become all the rage in recent years, mostly on the back of the success of Nintendo's 'Brain Age' game. Many other companies have now jumped on the bandwagon and the market for brain fitness software reached $225 million in the US in 2007 according to a report from SharpBrains.But what about the science behind the hype?
Certainly cognitive training has been shown to be effective in a few randomised controlled trials, but the evidence is still quite limited. The first large study in older adults without dementia failed to find an improvement in daily functioning from the training, but it did slow decline. Also, this study's method has been criticised.
Other studies have found benefits for specific groups such as children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia. Whether advantages gained by these groups might be effective for others is a matter for debate.
The real challenge for brain training is showing that practising one type of mental skill transfers over into other real-life benefits. Doing puzzles like Sudoku or completing crosswords probably only improves your performance on those specific tasks.
One new study, though, does suggest that training working memory can increase fluid intelligence - what we use to solve problems which don't rely on things we already know. The study, recently published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that gains in fluid intelligence were proportional to the amount of working memory training completed.
Unfortunately this is still early-stage exploratory research and many are not convinced that the actual products available on the market are beneficial. Sandra Aamodt, the editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience and Sam Wang, a Princeton University molecular biologist explain in the New York Times:
"In the United States, consumers are expected to spend $80 million this year on brain exercise products, up from $2 million in 2005. Advertising for these products often emphasizes the claim that they are designed by scientists or based on scientific research. To be charitable, we might call them inspired by science -- not to be confused with actually proven by science."
It's telling that the best-selling brain training software - Nintendo's 'Brain Age' - has the lowest level of clinical validation according to a market report from Sharp Brains.
Verdict: Evidence for the benefits of cognitive training for everyday functioning is still very limited. Brain training software currently available is mostly 'inspired by science' rather than based on it. Treat marketers' claims with extreme scepticism. Side-effects are probably limited to repetitive strain injury and a depleted wallet.
2. Drugs
Until recently the main chemical cognitive enhancer most people used was caffeine. But there are a whole batch of new drugs that could challenge caffeine's dominance as the safe stimulant of choice. Of these, two well-known for their 'off-label' use are Modafinil (also known as Provigil) and Ritalin.Modafinil was originally developed to treat narcolepsy, but is now used by many people as a cognitive enhancer. Studies reported by the Academy of Medical Sciences have shown that Provigil does indeed improve aspects of memory: mainly verbal working memory, planning performance, working memory and executive inhibitory control (ability to stay on-task).
Other important aspects of cognitive function such as attention, however, were not affected by Modafinil. This study found Modafinil did not enhance spatial memory span, rapid visual information processing or attentional set-shifting. This study also found that Modafinil did not enhance attention.
The reason many use Modafinil is that it doesn't seem to have any short- or long-term side-effects and it is not addictive (although it's lack of side-effects may well have been exaggerated). For example it doesn't increase blood-pressure or heart-rate, as caffeine does. It may give you a headache, though, just like caffeine.
Ritalin was originally developed to treat ADHD yet adults have begun using it as a cognitive enhancer. It seems to work best in young people, enhancing spatial working memory and cognitive flexibility. Effects on other aspects of cognition such as verbal learning and long-term memory are relatively small.
In most people Ritalin tends to improve mood, increase activity and arousal, but it's effects are more varied and can include anxiety, tiredness and lowered mood.
Verdict: Amongst the chemical cognitive enhancers Modafinil is currently fashionable for grown-ups. But is it really that much better than caffeine? This study and this study suggest that in warding off sleep Modafinil is no more effective than caffeine - and caffeine is legal and readily available. Probably better to stick to tea or coffee.
3. Nutritional supplements
There are all kinds of claims for the abilities of nutritional supplements to enhance cognition. For example, vitamin B6 has been found to enhance memory (but far from conclusively) and there are many other claims being made by marketers for vitamins E, B12, folate, neurosteroids and so on.However, in reviewing the research the Academy of Medical Sciences points out that most of the studies are few, far between and small in scope.
Verdict: Unproven, but probably not dangerous as long as you're not exceeding the recommended daily allowances. On the downside supplements can be costly.
4. Meditation
Meditation, like nutritional supplements, is another modern cure-all, but what does the evidence tell us about its effect on cognitive function? A forthcoming review of the research published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences looks at the effects of meditation on cognitive function.There is some limited evidence that meditation can benefit cognitive function overall, and memory in particular. But this research is at a very early stage and needs to be replicated by different researchers.
A major problem in this research is the fact that there are many different types of meditation. It might be that there is some kind of common active ingredient in meditation, but this has yet to be identified.
Verdict: Meditation still has to be considered unproven as a cognitive enhancer but it probably won't do you any harm, plus it's free.
5. Exercise
Whether you're old or young, fit or even suffering from a neurodegenerative disorder, aerobic exercise has been found to be beneficial for cognitive health. Randomised controlled trials, along with reviews of many of these trials (such as this one in Neuromolecular Medicine), have shown that exercise improves cognitive function across the board. It has also been found to be particularly good at enhancing executive control processes (e.g. planning and working memory).Exercise is also thought to encourage the growth of new brain cells. In the past scientists always thought that neurogenesis - growing new brain cells - was impossible in humans. New studies, though, have shown that we can grow new brain cells.
Research reviewed in Neuromolecular Medicine suggests physical exercise can promote neurogenesis in the hippocampus - an area of the brain thought to be important in memory and learning.
Verdict: The evidence for exercise boosting cognitive function is head-and-shoulders above that for brain training, drugs, nutritional supplements and meditation. Scientifically, on the current evidence, exercise is the best way to enhance your cognitive function. And as for its side-effects: yes there is the chance of an injury but exercise can also reduce weight, lower the chance of dementia, improve mood and lead to a longer life-span. Damn those side-effects!
The results are in (for now)
Even though exercise is the current winner for enhancing cognition, this might change in the future. Maybe better drugs for enhancing brain function will be developed - possibly en route to improved treatments for conditions like Alzheimer's. Or maybe studies on nutritional supplements, brain training software or particular forms of meditation may provide firmer evidence.Maybe.
On current evidence exercise is clearly the best method for increasing useful everyday cognitive functioning. And in the future we may even have exercise regimes that are specifically targeted at enhancing cognitive function.
posted at: 11:58 | path: /sci/bio/neuro | permanent link to this entry
E-Mail After Death: Revenge or Rapture?
src
Youvebeenleftbehind.com lets saved Christians send e-mails from heaven.
posted at: 11:58 | path: | permanent link to this entry
Open Source Drug Discovery gets Funding
src
Mat Todd reports on the Synaptic Leap:
We've been successful in securing a large government grant with an open source component. The 3-year project concerns the enantioselective synthesis of PZQ for a low price, with the World Health Organisation as partner. (PDF of the Uni Sydney outcomes is here). The funding comes from the Australian Research Council (the main government funding agency in Australia). We wrote the proposal emphasising the possibilities inherent in the open source approach to doing science, and we're very pleased that this was seen as positive by an official grant-funding agency. The funding will allow us to increase our efforts on using TSL to drive our project forward much faster.
posted at: 11:57 | path: /sci/bio/drugs | permanent link to this entry
Continuing previous thoughts are science education and what people should know, here is an interesting one. Melanie Swan has a new post on her blog about required skills in a hyperconnected, technology-centric world. She writes
the educated person of today must be able to express thoughts in a variety of technology-based media
She goes on to say that this new literacy requires, in addition to writing, a knowledge of “computer software, 3d printing, virtual worlds, synthetic biology and visual storytelling”. While I don’t completely agree with that list, it is clear that our education is not adequate for a world that is changing very fast. Take something like The Bug. Right now, it is something for a select few, but I remember my childhood, playing with mechano sets, DIY gliders, etc. The Bug is today’s mechano set. The other day I talked about peope doing molecular modeling at home, as a hobby. Technology is changing so fast these days that we can essentially never catch up, so what do we do? How do we encourage and deliver this new literacy.
While our education system(s) needs to change to accommodate technology, and not simply pay it lip service, the real impact will come outside of the classroom. Summer camps emphasizing knowledge and technology, an exposure to new ways of communicating, etc. That’s where we, as early adopters can really help. It is also why I am optimistic about the future. For a while there was a big gap in the technological awareness between generations, but that is not likely to be true with the generation that I belong to, or indeed those a little older. Will there be a generation of geeks? Highly unlikely. Human society is not going to change overnight, but if we get more people involved from a young age and make them appreciate, embrace, and respect science and technology, and how they enable us to communicate and explore, then we’ll all be in a better place.
All of this sounds fairly Utopian, and if you catch me in more cynical moments you’re likely to get a much more grumbly response, but even then I don’t see why we can’t get there. Perhaps we will need to just because our video games will force us to :).
On a related note, a lot of us have wondered about the future of libraries. I believe that they should be the gatekeepers of information, providing expertise in tools that help us find and manage information in a virtual world (these libraries will inherently be virtual). I wonder what role they could/should play in helping people with this new literacy.
posted at: 11:56 | path: /edu | permanent link to this entry
The hidden universal distribution of amino acids biosynthetic networks: a genomic perspective on its origins and evolution
src
Background:
Twenty amino acids are the universal building blocks of proteins. However, their biosynthetic routes do not appear to be universal from an Escherichia coli-centric perspective. Nevertheless it is necessary to understand their origin and evolution in a global context - i.e. to include more 'model' species and alternative routes-. We use a comparative genomics approach to assess the origin and evolution of amino acid biosynthetic alternative network branches.
Results:
We predicted a core of widely distributed network branches biosynthesizing at least 16 out of the 20 standard amino acids, suggesting that this core occurred in the last common ancestor by tracking the taxonomic distribution of amino acids biosynthetic enzymes. Additionally, we detail the distribution of two types of alternative branches to this core: i) analogs - enzymes that catalyze the same reaction (using the same metabolites) and belong to different superfamilies; and ii) 'alternologs' - herein defined as branches that, proceeding via different metabolites converge to the same end product-. We suggest that the origin of alternative branches is closely related to different environmental metabolite sources and life-styles among species.
Conclusions:
The multi-organismal seed strategy employed in this work improves the precision of dating and evolutionary relationships among amino acids biosynthetic branches. This strategy could be extended to diverse metabolic routes and even other biological processes. Additionally, we introduce the concept of 'alternolog', which not only plays an important role in the relationships between structure and function in biological networks, but also as shown here, has strong implications on their evolution, almost equal to paralogy and analogy.
posted at: 11:54 | path: /sci/bio | permanent link to this entry
David Recordon has a nice, optimistic post about the Open Web. I have long felt that the web is the ultimate platform, and the past few years have only strengthened this opinion, as we make the web more programmable and start leveraging it as a multi-way communication medium (in conjunction with such technologies as XMPP). Much of the tech community is focused on leveraging this web around social networks. My hope is that we in the scientific community can take this to the next level, literally connecting data and information first and then the people.
We are producers and consumers of data. The data lies in our labs, in our papers, in central repositories, on web sites and services; a mishmash of static and dynamic data of all types. We use these data to derive information and hypotheses. Call me conceited but as a scientific community we are probably the stewards of a decent, important, chunk, of the worlds collective intelligence. Except that now we have the ability to bring a distributed collective intelligence to life. What do we need?
- An open data web: We are getting there. I am convinced that this is inevitable and more optimistic as time goes on. Not only is the open data web a necessary requirement for us to arrive at the next era in scientific discovery, it will be the primary driving engine. In the sciences, especially the life sciences, the Semantic Web is going to play a key role in how we find data and relationships, not only among pieces of data, but bringing people and knowledge together
- Participation: Not just from the early adopters, but the scientific community at large. I am actually less optimistic about this, although I have a feeling that’s just my cynical side. We have an opportunity here folks to really take the next step to solving new problems, leveraging our distributed knowledge
- Bursty Work: This is my mantra, but needs participation. In discussions about The BioGang, the issue of critical mass has come up, but if you look at what’s been happening recently, we are slowly taking steps there. A community of software savvy scientists, eventually tapped into wet lab scientists can truly come together for what I hope will be a new era of science. Is it going to happen in the next five years? I seriously doubt it, but we’re just planting seeds at this time. A decade? Now we’re talking. Will be fun to see what happens
Aside: After meeting Matt Wood, discussions with Pawel over time, and seeing the activity over on FriendFeed, I am even more optimistic that we can have an impact as a community of like minded geeks with a diversity of interests and skills.
Technorati Tags: Open Web, Open Science, Bursty Work
posted at: 11:52 | path: /open | permanent link to this entry
Built for Speed: Printing Buildings
src
Contour Crafting is an effort to scale up rapid prototyping/manufacturing (a billion dollar industry to make 3 dimensional parts) and inkjet printing techniques to the scale of building multi-story buildings and vehicles. The process could accelerate the trillion dollar (US only) construction industry by 200 times. Projections indicate costs will be around one fifth as much as conventional construction. (Land prices are unchanged, so the actual prices of homes would not change as much in say Hawaii, Tokyo, Manhattan or San Francisco). Using this process, a single house or a colony of houses, each with possibly a different design, may be automatically constructed in a single run, embedded in each house all the conduits for electrical, plumbing and air-conditioning. [H/T to a reader Bonesteel] Contour crafting could be one part of a new manufacturing revolution
The machine will cost between $500K to $700K for average size (2000 sq ft -- 200 m2) detached houses. This is not much given that a concrete pump truck is now $300k-$400K. Note that with one machine numerous homes can be built. The first commercial machines to be available this year, 2008. The machine will be collapsible to form into an easy truck load. The unloading and setup will take between 1-2 hours.
Behrokh Khoshnevis is the visionary who has been driving this concept. He is the Director of the Center for Rapid Automated Fabrication Technologies (CRAFT) and Director of Manufacturing Engineering Graduate Program at USC.
Initial plan is to use the technology for emergency shelters and low-income housing in underdeveloped countries (Mexico, with the demand for nearly 500,000 houses per year, seems to be a good starting choice for implementation), almost immediately after its development they will address local building codes for commercial deployment of CC in the US.
Because of the unprecedented speed of CC construction, attendant improvements in the construction inspection process will be required. They plan to develop advanced sensory systems and information technologies for automated real-time inspection and feedback to municipal computers overseeing ongoing CC construction activities at various locations.
Competing Construction Automation
There are two categories of automation considered by the Japanese construction companies. The first uses single task robots that can replace simple labor
activities at the construction sites. Single task robots can be classified by four different types- concrete floor finishing, spray painting, tile inspection, and material handling.
The second category consists of fully automated systems that can construct high
raised steel buildings or steel reinforced concrete buildings using prefabricated
components. An example of this approach is Big-Canopy, which is the world’s first automated construction system for building a precisely defined concrete structure and has four independent masts supporting an overhead crane which delivers components at the control of a simple joystick. All tasks are scheduled and controlled by a centralised information control system. The introduction of robotics at construction sites has contributed to productivity, safety, and quality improvements. Yet, the contribution of robotics at current levels is not revolutionary and current automation approaches are still geared toward conventional processes. Automating conventional processes (such as using a brick laying robot) is invariably expensive, hence the associated cost saving is minimal. Fast changing construction requirements and project complexities create complicated requirements and exceptional challenges for automation technology to meet.
The Big Canopy construction system can be divided into the following subsystems:
· a roof supported by four tower crane posts, which are situated outside the building
· a complex hoist system with three cranes mounted against the roof
· a jib crane on the roof to mount and to dismantle the tower crane posts
· a high-speed construction lift to all floors
· all components bar-coded for easy identification
· a material management system to manage the flow of materials and components
The Big Canopy automated construction system ensures good working and environmental conditions, shorter construction time (about 13% less), less waste and improved overall productivity (0.9% less cost).
There are Prefabricated homes
Modular homes
Panelized homes
Panelized home construction can complete the project in 90 days from the time we begin to dig. Custom plans generally take four-to-six months from start of construction to finish. The weather-tight shell finished in days, as opposed to the many weeks required with "site framing."
So all prior efforts to improve building construction are vastly inferior to contour construction if contour construction delivers on its goals.
Three subsystems are required to build a complete house in one day. The Extrudable Materials and Fabrication (EMF) thrust will research and develop materials, extrusion systems, and structures built by extrusion of materials. The Modular Components and Assembly (MCA) thrust will research and develop the non-extrudable components required by the grand challenge such as reinforcement, electrical, plumbing, and sensor systems and on the robots required both to assemble these components and to deploy the extrusion systems developed by the first thrust. The Integrated Software Systems (ISS) thrust will research and develop the software needed to go from design through construction, including planning and controlling the behavior of the multitude of robots to be developed by the previous thrust, and providing the logistical support required for constructing a house in a day, or beyond this to constructing a full community in a small number of days.
Environmental benefits
Globally more than 40 percent of all raw materials are consumed in the construction process. Each of the 6 million new houses built in the United States have 3-7 tons of waste from construction.
FURTHER READING
This concept is like the inflatable electric car idea. Rethinking the process for how a major segment of our economy works to enable cost breakthroughs.
Inflatable cars and scaling up printer technology for making buildings are the kind of powerful ideas that could enable acceleration of economic growth even without successful development super technologies (like fusion, molecular nanotechnology or super artificial intelligence). It is similar to how Henry Ford's mass production methods accelerated economic growth at the beginning of 1900s. However, there is no reason we cannot re-invent the car and construction and develop super technologies. So even without molecular nanotechnology there
could be a step up in economic growth rate with ideas like this and inflatable electric cars. These ideas are also very compatible with a nanofactory world.
Youtube Contour Crafting videos
Center for Rapid Automated Fabrication Technologies at the University of Southern California
The goal of the Center for Rapid Automated Fabrication Technologies (CRAFT) is to develop the science and engineering needed for rapid automated fabrication of objects of various size up to mega-scale structures such as, boats, industrial objects, public art and whole building structures.
Selective Inhibition sintering (SIS) method is capable of making plastic as well as metallic parts without the use of laser.
Megascale fabrication article
posted at: 11:47 | path: /tech | permanent link to this entry
The perils of power tool amputation
src
Newsweek has a fascinating article on 'body integrity identity disorder', a condition where people feel they need to have a limb amputated to become normal and often go to extreme lengths to have their arm or leg removed.
BIID, otherwise known as apotemnophilia, is often confused with amputee fetishism, where sexual gratification is linked to ideas of amputation. However, they seem quite distinct in most cases.
Although its not widely studied, the desire seems to be much more about the feeling of being comfortable in one's body rather than anything explicitly sexual.
The Newsweek article discusses the condition and looks at some of the latest scientific research on this seemingly strange desire, but suffers from some rather sloppy thinking about the mind and brain. For example:
BIID is attracting the attention of researchers who suspect that the condition may be related to other body image disorders—including anorexia, body dysmorphic disorder, and gender identity disorder—that at first glance may seem entirely psychological, but may be linked to physical differences in the brain.
All psychological changes are related to physical differences in the brain, so this is a completely bogus distinction.
Whenever you read a sentence like this translate it into the language of theories and evidence.
In other words, '[conditions] that might seem better explained by solely psychological theories now need to be updated as evidence on biological brain changes becomes available'.
The piece then goes on to repeat a common but trashy fallacy that you can describe any brain difference as something that is 'hard wired'.
Despite these disastrous misunderstandings of the fundamentals of neuroscience, the piece is actually quite good.
It's interesting that while the medical viewpoint is that BIID is linked to other body image disorders, the people who have these desires do not feel it is a disorder at all.
I was struck by the fact that a couple of people who have acquired amputations anecdotally report that they feel much better afterwards.
This is in marked contrast to people with body dysmorphic disorder who after plastic surgery to 'fix' their self-perceived distorted body part typically do not feel 'cured'. Or those with anorexia who do not feel satisfied even when they are at a near-fatal point of emaciation.
It would be fascinating to follow-up people who have BIID after they've acquired a successful amputation to see how they fare.
If their desires disappear, they do not become newly fixated on amputating another limb, or experience improved mental health and life-satisfaction as a result, how far can we go in saying its a mental illness?
I've had a search and, sadly, found no such studies.
Link to Newsweek article 'Cutting Desire'.
posted at: 11:47 | path: /transhumanism | permanent link to this entry
NASA chief urges Europe to build manned spaceship
"NASA encouraged Europe on Thursday to develop its own manned spaceship, which would give the world -- and particularly the U.S. -- another way of reaching the international space station. Europe became "a full-fledged space power," the agency's administrator said, when flight controllers at a European Space Agency center guided an unmanned cargo ship to the international space station in April, successfully delivering food, water and clothes."
posted at: 11:46 | path: /sci/astro | permanent link to this entry
Body position affects memory for events
src
This article was originally posted on March 27, 2007
When we see a familiar face, or even a photo of a favorite car or pet, we're often flooded with memories from our past. Sometimes just seeing a person or object that's similar to the ones in our memory will trigger recollections we never knew we had. Maybe you've had a memory triggered by a scent or the texture of an object. Sometimes emotions such as happiness or anger will spur vivid memories, too.
A new study adds an unexpected method to the list of ways to spur memories about our past: body position. That's right: just holding your body in the right position means you'll have faster, more accurate access to certain memories. If you stand as if holding a golf club, you're quicker to remember an event that happened while you were golfing than if you position your body in a non-golfing pose.
Even more fascinating than the facts about body position and memory is how they were learned. A team led by Katinka Dijkstra actually had young adult and older adult volunteers assume different body positions while asking them to remember particular events from their lives. Sometimes the body position matched the memory:
posted at: 11:44 | path: /sci/bio/neuro | permanent link to this entry
In which I get funded: The Comparative Biogerontology Initiative
src
I’m on a team that just got awarded a Keck Futures Initiative grant. This is the fruit of the NAKFI conference we attended last year on “The Future of Human Healthspan.” It was an unusual conference: instead of giving individual talks, the participants were split up into “task groups” that were each assigned a different question related to the biology of aging. At the end of the conference, each group gave a presentation. (The proceedings are available in overpriced booklet form here or as free HTML here).
Our group started off with one subject (stochasticity of gene expression) but took a sharp left turn and ended up thinking more broadly. We ended up focusing on what evolutionary biology might teach us about aging.
Within groups of species that share a given body plan (e.g., bats, birds, dogs, or primates), there is significant variation in maximum life expectancy, and we believe this variation is genetically determined. In other words, natural selection has performed dozens of parallel “experiments” in which more or less similarly constructed organisms end up with different lifespans, based on variations in a range of factors (some known or long-suspected, like antioxidant enzymes, and others as yet undetermined). Some of these factors may be unique to specific body plans, whereas others might be universal. The challenge we set ourselves was ambitious: How can we use the “data set” (i.e., variation in lifespan among related organisms) to identify novel determinants of longevity? Thus was born the Comparative Biogerontology Initiative.
We soon realized that we’d need a great deal of expertise, not only from within biogerontology but also from other fields, some with which we often have dealings (biostatistics, computational biology) and others with which we have almost no interaction in our daily professional lives (veterinary medicine, pathology, histology, comparative physiology). Identifying the relevant experts is a profound challenge in itself: How does one identify expertise in a field in which one has none? Hence a lot of what we’re going to be doing at first is figuring out who our collaborators will be — leading to the contorted mission statement:
These researchers will hold two meetings with senior scholars to develop a plan to test hypotheses about biological factors that control lifespan and healthspan, and compare tissues from multiple species of animals. The scholars are pathologists, comparative physiologists, methodologists, statisticians, and experts in the biology of aging.
“Hold…meetings…to develop a plan to test hypotheses”…no doubt, this will inflame the sensibilities of those who advocate a more direct frontal assault on the problem of aging; indeed, if this were all we were planning to do, they would have a point. We know a lot about aging and it makes sense to move forward aggressively where knowledge is already extensive — but those efforts are being undertaken already, and will continue. All of us are keeping our day jobs.
The CBI was conceived not as a replacement for more direct studies of more relevant models (like humans), but as a complement: by carefully examining aging in understudied organisms, and by systematically identifying the factors that contribute to their differential longevities, our hope is to discover entirely new determinants of aging and lifespan. By bringing in expertise from around the scientific world, including disciplines that don’t usually overlap with biogerontology, our hope is to break new ground in the biology of lifespan (and, if you like, to open new fronts in the battle against aging). In the process, we’ll learn more about the evolutionarily conserved bases of aging throughout the animal kingdom, identify new biomarkers of aging, and pose enough new questions to keep the next generation of biogerontologists busy for years to come.
The other members of the team are, dare I say it, eminences grises of biogerontology — some of whose work and thoughts (e.g., Steve Austad and Richard Miller) we’ve discussed here in the past (and one of whom is my current boss, Judy Campisi). I’m personally thrilled for a chance to work with and learn from them.
And who knows? After we hold our meetings to develop a plan to test a hypothesis, we might actually test one, and then I can blog about it here. Watch this space for further developments.
posted at: 11:44 | path: /sci/bio | permanent link to this entry
Why do online opinions evolve differently to offline ones?
src
The way in which opinions form, spread through societies and evolve over time is a hot topic among researchers because of their increasing ability to measure and simulate what’s going on.
The field offers some juicy puzzles that look ripe for picking by somebody with the right kind of insight. For example, why do people bother to vote in elections in which they have little control over the result when a “rational” individual ought to conclude that it is not worth taking part.
A similar conundrum is why people contribute to online opinion sites such as Amazon’s book review system or the Internet Movie Database’s (IMDB) ratings system. When there are already a hundred 5-star reviews, why contribute another?
Today Fang Wu and Bernardo Huberman at the HP Laboratories in Palo Alto present the results of their analysis of this problem. And curiously, it looks as if online opinions form in a subtley different way to offline ones.
The researchers studied the patterns of millions of opinions posted on Amazon and the IMDB and found some interesting trends. They say:
“Contrary to the common phenomenon of group polarization observed offline, we measured a strong tendency towards moderate views in the course of time.”
That might come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the discussion on almost any online forum but Wu and Huberman have an idea how moderation seems to evolve. They suggest that people are most likely to express a view when their opinion is different from the prevailing consensus because such a contribution will have a bigger effect on the group.
They tested the idea by looking at the contributions of people who added detailed reviews against those who simply clicked a button. Sure enough, those who invest more effort are more likely to have an opposing view. It is these opposing views that tend to moderate future views.
By contrast, sites such as Jyte in which users can only click a button to give their opinion tend to show herding behaviour in which people copy their peers, just as they often do offline.
Wu and Huberman’s analysis raises more questions than answers for me. But they point out that the study of online opinions has been neglected until now. That looks set to change.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0805.3537: Public Discourse in the Web Does Not Exhibit Group Polarization
posted at: 11:43 | path: /social | permanent link to this entry
Carnival of Space Week 57
src
The Carnival of Space 57 is up at Out of the Cradle
This site contributed an article about some problems with lorentz propulsion tests but success with the SpaceX Falcon 9
International Space Development day 1
International Space Development day 2
International Space Development day 3
Babe in the Universe also had International space development coverage
There is covereage of the Mars Phoenix lander
Check out the carnival for more.
posted at: 11:42 | path: /astrotech | permanent link to this entry
I am currently reading Daniel Moerman's "Meaning, medicine and the 'placebo effect'". As well as containing many interesting asides, the book discusses what is at the heart of the so-called placebo effect: patients' response to the meaning of their treatment. Moerman calls this the 'meaning response'. This response to meaning explains why two inert pills produce more cures than one inert pill, and why inert injections are even more effective (because "everybody knows" that injections are more powerful than pills). But importantly, it is possible to show that doctors are as important in producing the meaning response as patients. Gracely et al (1985) looked at the effect of placebo on pain in patients having their wisdom teeth extracted. The study was set up as a standard double-blind (neither the doctor nor the patient knows if the patient is getting a real medicine or an inert placebo), with the possibilities being a placebo, fentanyl (which usually reduces pain) and naloxone (which usually blocks reduction in pain, so could be expected to increase the pain of the procedure). The twist was that for the first half of the experiment the doctors, but not the patients, were told that a supply problem meant that no patient would be getting the pain-relieving fentanyl. In the second half the doctors were told that the problem had been resolved, so that now the patients might receive fentanyl. By comparing levels of patient pain in the placebo condition is possible to gauge the effect of doctor expectations on the meaning response of the patients. In this condition patients are all receiving inert substances, and they all 'know' the same thing: they might receive a placebo, pain-relief or 'pain-enhancement'. The doctors don't tell them about the supply problem and, for that matter, they don't know themselves for definite what the patient is given. The only difference is that for the patients in the first half, the doctors think they know that pain-relief is not a possibility, whereas in the second half it is. The graph of the results, copied from Moerman's book is below:
As you can see, patients in the PN group --- those whose doctors thought they might receive pain-relief had a large pain-relieving placebo effect. Those in the PNF group --- those whose doctors thought they couldn't receive pain-relief --- didn't have a pain-relieving placebo effect.
What I think is interesting about this study is, firstly, it confirms the need for rigorous double-blind controls in studies of medicine and, secondly, just how significant an effect this subtle manipulation has. The doctors don't know anything definite, and they certainly aren't telling the patients what they suspect or guess, but somehow --- a look? a slightly brighter smile? a slightly lowered tone? --- they communicate their knowledge of the probabilities to the patients who then experience a real change in their levels of pain because of it.
A striking aspect of the meaning response is that one could suppose that patients have control over their experience of different levels of pain. After all, we know that the pills are inert. Could we just imagine ourselves a 'placebo effect' in all situations where we have unnecessary pain? Sadly, normally we can't do this --- the meaning response doesn't work like that. Doctors are required to give patients permission to feel less pain. Perhaps a fundamental part of the creation of meaning is that it requires other people.
Update: A great recent post by Vaughan 'placebo is not what you think', which deserves to be linked up with this post
Refs
Gracely, R. H., Dubner, R., Deeter, W. R., & Wolskee, P. J. (1985). Clinicians' expectations influence placebo analgesia. Lancet, 1(8419), 43.
Moerman, D. E. (2002). Meaning, medicine, and the "placebo effect". Cambridge University Press: New York.
posted at: 11:42 | path: /sci/bio | permanent link to this entry
Electrically controlled microvalves to integrate microchip polymerase chain reaction and capillary electrophoresis
src
(Paper from Lab Chip)
Govind V. Kaigala, Lab Chip, 2008, DOI: 10.1039/b802853b
To cite this article before page numbers are assigned, use the DOI form of citation above.
The content of this RSS Feed (c) The Royal Society of Chemistry
posted at: 11:41 | path: /sci/bio | permanent link to this entry
Carbon nanotube field effect transistors for the fast and selective detection of human immunoglobulin G
src
(Communication from Analyst)
Cristina C. Cid, Analyst, 2008, DOI: 10.1039/b805301b
To cite this article before page numbers are assigned, use the DOI form of citation above.
The content of this RSS Feed (c) The Royal Society of Chemistry
posted at: 11:40 | path: /sci/bio | permanent link to this entry
URL: http://www.grantgopher.com/
American company that specialized in locating open funding opportunities across all funding categories in all fifty states.
posted at: 11:40 | path: /sci | permanent link to this entry
Artificial organelles: nanotechnology beyond simple drug delivery
src
The same nanotech approaches being explored to deliver drugs exactly to the cells where they are needed also provide a technology base that might lead to permanent enhancements of human metabolism. Excerpts from “Cell ‘organs’ get plastic upgrades“, by Tamsin Osborne at NewScientist.com news service:
Human cells could have their metabolisms upgraded without altering their genes by inserting tiny plastic packages of enzymes, Swiss researchers have shown. They hope the technique could allow advanced cancer therapies, or even upgrade a person’s metabolism.
The cells of multi-cellular organisms and some advanced single-celled organisms have internal compartments called organelles to carry out specialised metabolic functions. Researchers at University of Basel, Switzerland, used artificial polymer organelles to upgrade live human cells in a lab dish.
Meier and colleagues coated their polymer vesicles in a chemical that encouraged human white blood cells called macrophages to engulf them. The small capsules contained enzymes, just like natural organelles. The enzymes chosen produced fluorescent chemicals, signalling they were working without problems inside their new host.
The artificial organelle’s membrane can be chemically tuned to control which chemicals can pass through it and regulate the reactions inside, according to Wolfgang Meier, one of the researchers. “We call it a ‘nanoreactor’,” he says.
At 200 nanometres across, the organelles are 400 times smaller in width than a human hair.
Meier says the artificial organelles would also work in other human cells, opening up the possibility of a new cancer therapy that tricks diseased cells into poisoning themselves from the inside out…
Although the immediate interest is in drug delivery, the researchers involved are mindful that more sophisticated artificial organelles could provide metabolic services beyond the natural human repertoire.
Artificial organelles might also be able to treat conditions caused by a deficit of a particular enzyme. For example, someone with lactose intolerance could have their digestive cells given artificial organelles containing lactose-digesting enzymes.
In the far future, it might be possible to introduce non-human metabolic functions into human cells. “We could, in principle, bring in a nanoreactor that [lets] your skin do something like photosynthesis. So if you are hungry, you just lie in the Sun,” says Meier.
The research was published in Nano Letters (abstract).
—Jim
posted at: 11:39 | path: /sci/bio | permanent link to this entry
All these tools : How do people use them?
src
I am sure most of you know that Michael Cariaso won the first 23andme Win Your Genome. The reason he did is a clear example of the power of the kinds of tools he used; specifically SNPedia and Promethease. I must admit that bbgm has not given Michael’s efforts quite the attention they deserve. Unlike many others, which might be flashier, they’re rather usable and his understanding of how the web works is no secret.
It also points to the importance of access to underlying data, e.g. 23andme etc allowing customers to export their genotypes (and the panels), without which tools like SNPedia and Promethease would not be too useful. But looking at Prometheus, at Foldit, at folding@home, the molecular workbench or even the rather nice tools provided by 23andme got me thinking. May people get interested in computers at a young age, programming, hacking. Some people become makers in their teens. I wonder, that with open data and scientific apps that are easy to use and accessible by many, are there kids actually playing around with them? When they use folding@home as a screensaver, do people wonder about what’s going on under the hood?
I suppose where I am going with this completely haphazard ramble is that there are tools now which allow us to ask some interesting scientific questions. The other day I talking about Brian Greene’s thoughts on science and the wonders of science. In keeping with that train of though, are today’s kids, or even adults for that matter, learning from the tools mentioned above, playing with them? Is anyone telling them what is happening? I am very very curious.
Update: Changed the title. That’s what happens when you’re half asleep and hit publish
Image via Wikipedia
Technorati Tags: Education, Science, Molecular Modeling, Bioinformatics
posted at: 11:39 | path: /sci | permanent link to this entry
Spectroscopic Confirmation Of An Extreme Starburst At Redshift 4.547
- Authors: Peter Capak, C. L. Carilli, N. Lee, T. Aldcroft, H. Aussel, E. Schinnerer, G.W. Wilson, M. S. Yun, A . Blain, M. Giavalisco, O. Ilbert, J. Kartaltepe, K.-S. Lee, H. McCracken, B. Mobasher, M. Salvato, S. Sasaki, K.S. Scott, K. Sheth, Y. Shioya, D. Thompson, M. Elvis, D. B. Sanders, N. Z. Scoville, Y.Tanaguchi
Linked evolution of gas and star formation in galaxies over cosmic history
- Authors: A. M. Hopkins (1), N. M. McClure-Griffiths (2), B. M. Gaensler (1) ((1) Institute of Astronomy,
posted at: 11:37 | path: /sci/physics | permanent link to this entry
This week in the arxiv: superconductivity update
src
Summer writing and travel are eating my blogging time a bit, and I've also agreed to write the occasional nano-related blurb for the ACS. While my posting rate has taken a hit, science has continued to march forward, with a lot of exciting new preprints concerning (relatively) high temperature superconductivity. Here's a sampling....
arxiv:0805.4463 - Matsumoto et al., Superconductivity in undoped T' cuprates with Tc over 30 K
This paper is a perfect example of why materials growers are (unfortunately often unsung) heroes in this field. The authors have come up with a new method for growing cuprate compounds of the form T'Re2CuO4, where T'Re is a rare earth from the series (Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd). Historically these compounds were found to be antiferromagnetic insulators - no superconductivity. In this new work the authors argue that these old results were due to interstitial oxygen leading to pair-breaking. Instead, with the new growth + annealing technique, these compounds are found to exhibit superconductivity with transition temperatures as high as 30 K. These subtleties are why one should always be very careful when looking at suggested compositions in new compounds....
arxiv:0805.4630 - Rotter et al., Superconductivity at 38 K in the iron arsenide (Ba1-xKx)Fe2As2
This is the first paper I've seen (though I may have missed one) that reports superconductivity in a compound related to the new iron arsenide systems but with two iron arsenide layers per unit cell rather than one. Back in the heyday of the cuprates, the same sort of thing happened - people went from compounds with single copper oxide planes to those with multiple planes per unit cell, and transition temperatures went up. Once again we see how rich the materials landscape can be.
arxiv:0806.0063 - Wang et al., Very high critical field and superior Jc-field performance in NdO0.82F0.18FeAs with Tc of 51 K
Other exciting features of the new iron arsenide superconductors are their extremely high critical fields and critical currents. If the transition temperatures could be raised a bit (say past 77 K) and the compounds could be made in wire form (certainly not easy in the cuprates; unlikely to be simple in these either since like the cuprates they are brittle), this could be a huge deal for high field magnets and other applications of superconductivity.
arxiv:0805.4616 - Chen et al., The BCS-like gap in superconductor SmFeAsO0.85F0.15
arxiv:0806.0249 - Matano et al., Spin-singlet superconductivity with multiple gaps in PrO0.89F0.11FeAs
These two papers examine two related compounds with different techniques, trying to figure out how the charge carriers in these iron arsenides pair up to form the Cooper pairs that make up the superconducting condensate state. In the former, measurements of Andreev reflection (a process where an electron in a normal metal approaches a superconductor, two electrons actually cross into the superconductor, and a hole is "retroreflected" back into the normal metal, leading to a pronounced feature in the conductance of the metal/superconductor interface) strongly suggest that the samarium compound acts like an ordinary BCS superconductor. That is, each Cooper pair has zero angular momentum (s-wave pairing); this implies that the superconducting gap is uniform in momentum space, with no nodes. In contrast, the cuprates exhibit d-wave pairing, with a superconducting gap that has a four-lobe structure in momentum space and that goes to zero along four particular crystallographic directions.
The second paper uses NMR measurements of the Pr compound to argue instead that there are multiple gaps, and further that the pairing symmetry is p-wave (which has been seen in superfluid 3He and in strontium ruthenate). At first glance, these two results seem to disagree, though (a) they are talking about different materials, and (b) the Andreev measurements are particularly sensitive to the surface, while the NMR measurements are nontrivial to interpret, at least for nonexperts. Well, this is the fun part - stay tuned, and we'll see how this shakes out.
posted at: 11:37 | path: /sci/physics | permanent link to this entry
Experimenter for one day - a subtlety in the muon lifetime measurement
src
I wish to offer you, my dear reader, the chance to play the part of the experimenter and confront you with a simple measurement setup, wherein a subtlety is hidden -one the experimenter needs to realize if he is to perform his experiment correctly. I will describe the setup and the equipment, and give maybe too much detail, as per my typical style. Then I will formulate a question, giving you one day to ponder on it. I am going to try to make this post so simple that you are not expected to know anything about particle physics in order to participate. All is needed is the knowledge that muons decay, with a lifetime of about two microseconds, producing an energetic electron; but you just acquired that knowledge by reading the last sentence.
The experiment seeks to determine the muon lifetime by stopping muons from cosmic rays inside a thick bar of aluminum, and then measuring the time it takes for an electron to emerge from it. A simplified view of the apparatus is as shown below.
There is a 8-inch shield of lead on top (the blue rectangle), which stops the so-called soft component of cosmic rays (three thin lines ending inside it are shown). This is due to protons, pions, electrons, and photons - all secondaries produced by the high-energy interaction of a cosmic proton in the upper atmosphere or subsequent decays in flight. Those particles are largely absorbed by the lead, while a good fraction of muons -also secondary products of the cosmic ray- pass it rather easily.
Muons are special: they can traverse large amounts of matter with only minor modifications of their momentum. Those that manage to punch through the lead cross a pair of scintillation detectors (read out by photomultipliers labeled A,B at one end), and then enter an aluminum bar (in red). While most muons also exit the aluminum at the bottom, leaving a signal in the other scintillation counter (cyan layer read out by photomultiplier C), a small fraction of them stop in the aluminum, where they stay and then decay with a typical exponential law.
The stopping of muons can be identified by requiring that there is no signal in the lower counter in coincidence with the two on top. This anti-coincidence also determines the start of our clock 
In the experimental setup, you work with a multichannel analyzer (MCA) which converts the time interval 
Now, all this is nice and simple, but the Devil created backgrounds to keep physicists busy. In fact, during those 20 microseconds while our apparatus waits for the muon to spit out an electron, our counters may be crossed by another particle. This will cause a stop, and the MCA will be filled with a random entry. This entry, it is important to stress, has absolutely no correlation with the arrival time of the muon (
Now the question for you is the following. Given that muons produce stops with a falling exponential law - whose decay constant is equal to the muon lifetime (2 microseconds), and thus much smaller than the 20 microseconds during which we keep our system receptive of a stop signal- while background hits produce stops at random times, what is the kind of histogram one expects after a long enough exposure if the overall number of decay and random stops is roughly equal? I give you five options below, and one day to think about it.
- A falling exponential distribution with time constant equal to the muon lifetime
- A falling exponential distribution with time constant equal to the muon lifetime, on top of a flat distribution
- Two falling exponential distributions one on top of each other, one with time constant equal to the muon lifetime, the other with a longer time constant
- Two falling exponential distributions one on top of each other, neither of which with a time constant equal to the muon lifetime
- A flat distribution
Of course, the problem can be solved analytically, but the math needed is not totally trivial, and I bet you have rather use your intuition. Good luck! Please type your answer in the comment box before reading what others may have answered, to make things more interesting!
Post-scriptum: just before going to bed, I realized that some of the more knowledgeable among you might be misled by the fact that positive and negative muons do quite different things when they stop in aluminum or other materials. Please disregard this detail - or rather, keep it in mind, we will discuss it tomorrow; it has no bearing on the answer of the question I posed above.
posted at: 11:36 | path: /sci/physics | permanent link to this entry
The University of Utah have created a web game where you can train as a mad scientist by demonstrating you can label and construct what looks like an alien from a 60s B-movie but is apparently a giant neuron.
For those wanting their mad neuroscientist stereotypes a little stronger, I suggest that the 1985 zombie movie Day of the Dead, where neuroscientists attempt to tame some captured zombies by meddling with their brains in an attempt to work out how to stop the hordes of the undead that are overrunning the earth.
As if you couldn't guess, the neuroscientists turn out to be sadly deluded and become victims of both the zombies and their fellow humans.
There's a moral in there somewhere, but I'm too tired to work it out, so stereotype away.
Link to 'Make a Mad, Mad, Mad Neuron' game.
posted at: 11:35 | path: /sci | permanent link to this entry
AAS: Quark Stars and Galactic Structure
src
The feeling I have when deciding what to discuss next about this year’s American Astronomical Society meeting is like what I get in a good used bookstore. Where to turn next? We’ve already looked at several stories with exoplanetary significance, but the arrival of a new type of star entirely seems to vault past even these in significance. If, of course, the so-called ‘quark star’ is real, a question sure to remain controversial as the study of extremely bright supernovae continues.
When I say bright, I’m talking about three events in particular, each of which produced one hundred times more light energy than normal supernovae. The events, designated SN2006gy, SN2005gj and SN2005ap, have been under intense scrutiny, among the researchers a team from the University of Calgary, who point to the lack of a satisfactory explanation of these events. The hypothesis they defended at AAS is that neutron stars are not the most compact solid objects known to exist. That honor belongs to still denser quark stars.
Take an average neutron star, maybe sixteen miles across but 1.5 times as massive as the Sun. Produced by the catastrophic collapse of a massive star (and thus associated with the accompanying supernova explosion), neutron stars could theoretically be packed tighter still, the same mass being squeezed to an object just twelve miles across. At this point, the neutrons dissolve into quarks and vast amounts of energy are unlocked, causing the aforementioned super-luminous events. The researchers — Denis Leahy and Rachid Ouyed — are quick to point out that competing explanations of these supernovae cannot be ruled out without further observations of these exotic phenomena.
All of which is highly speculative but a stunning possibility just the same. What’s happening to the Milky Way itself is also a bit of a surprise, for at the same AAS meeting, a team led by Robert Benjamin (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater) used new imagery from the Spitzer Space Telescope to re-examine the galaxy’s structure. The result: There appear to be not four but just two major arms to our galaxy, a possibility neatly captured in the image below. Benjamin notes how tricky studying a galaxy from within can be:
“For years, people created maps of the whole galaxy based on studying just one section of it, or using only one method. Unfortunately, when the models from various groups were compared, they didn’t always agree. It’s a bit like studying an elephant blind-folded.”
Image (click to enlarge): Like early explorers mapping the continents of our globe, astronomers are busy charting the spiral structure of our galaxy, the Milky Way. Using infrared images from NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope, scientists have discovered that the Milky Way’s elegant spiral structure is dominated by just two arms wrapping off the ends of a central bar of stars. Previously, our galaxy was thought to possess four major arms. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech.
Earlier radio surveys and the infrared surveys that followed them had revised the initial model of a spiral with four major star-forming arms, but Benjamin’s software has gone to work counting stars and measuring stellar densities, employing a vast Spitzer mosaic that takes in some 110 million stars. The Milky Way now appears to be like other galaxies we have observed with a central bar of stars (the latter a discovery made in the 1990s). The two major arms are now seen to be the Scutum-Centaurus and Perseus arms (although the Perseus arm is not visible in the field of view covered by the new Spitzer images).
The Sagittarius and Norma arms are now considered to be minor, with the Perseus and Scutum-Centaurus arms showing the greatest density of both young, bright stars and older red giants. Bear in mind that our own small star is currently found near the partial arm known as the Orion Spur, located between the Sagittarius and Perseus arms. But as this JPL news release points out, stars tend to move in and out of arms as they orbit the galaxy’s center. In fact, our Sun would have made sixteen circuits of the Milky Way since its formation four billion years ago.
posted at: 11:35 | path: /sci/physics | permanent link to this entry
What's more convincing than talking about brains? Pictures of brains!
src
Not long ago we discussed work led by Deena Skolnick Weisberg showing that most people are more impressed by neuroscience explanations of psychological phenomena than plain-old psychology explanations. Talking about brains, it seems, is more convincing than simply talking about behavior, even when the neuroscience explanation doesn't actually add any substantive details.
Now David McCabe and Alan Castel have taken this work on the acceptance of neuroscience to a new level: now they've got pictures! They asked 156 students at Colorado State University to read three different newspaper articles about brain imaging studies. The articles were completely fake, and they all discussed brain imaging, but one of the articles included only text, one included a bar graph showing brain-scan results, and one showed pictures of brains. The articles were about three different topics, but an equal number of students saw each article with text only, the graph, or the brain image.
For example, in one of the fake studies, the claim was made that TV-watching is related to math ability. As evidence, students read a text explanation, or saw one of these two figures:
The [fake] claim was that since the same area of the brain is activated while doing arithmetic or watching TV, that the two activities are related. The students then rated this article for whether its scientific reading made sense, on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Here are the results:
posted at: 11:34 | path: /sci/bio/neuro | permanent link to this entry
Nano, Geo, Uh-Oh With molecular manufacturing, we'll be hard-pressed to make a clear distinction between the potential power of individuals and the power of nations...
src
In our most recent C-R-Newsletter, the feature essay is by Jamais Cascio, CRN's Director of Impacts Analysis. His title is " Nano, Geo, Uh-Oh ," and here is an excerpt:
The deployment of molecular manufacturing technologies will give individuals and small groups production capacities far beyond what we've ever experienced. That's what the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology has long argued, and it's a crucial point.
Whether we're talking dry nano or wet, diamondoid or biomimetic, the ability to shape materials at a molecular scale with systems able (in principle, at least) to self-replicate will be fundamentally transformative. We simply can't reliably apply our understanding of how people behave with limited capacities to a world where individuals no longer face those same limits.
With molecular manufacturing, we'll be hard-pressed to make a clear distinction between the potential power of individuals and the power of nations...
posted at: 11:32 | path: /nanotech | permanent link to this entry
Engineer Train Engineer - What is the Benefit?
src
In a space of 3 months, I taught and trained 2 new graduated chemical engineers about my physical refining plant. As a person in charge of the plant, I thought I already know everything about my plant. However, having those 2 new engineers really tested my real understanding of my own plant.
The two of them were fresh graduates and they haven't seen or experienced being in a plant before. So, they were very curious about the plant, its process, equipments, vessels, PID drawing and a lot more. I explained to them the process involved in the plant step by step with reference to the plant PID drawing. As I went through the initial stage i.e. from the storage tank, then to a pump, strainer, heat exchanger and so on... both of them (in different occasions) tentatively listen and made notes. Then we went through the Niagara filters, filters bags, filter cartridges.... and so on. Then the heating stage... passing through few plate heat exchangers, shell and tube etc. Then to the pack column, another series of heat exchangers, filters and to a product storage tank (I'm not trying to explain my process here, that's just a brief idea on how I explained the steps and processes to them).
The PID (Piping and Instrumentation Diagram) contains all the piping, valves, actuators, pump, RTD, pressure transmitters, level sensors, flow meters, heat exchangers, vessels, strainers, filters and so on in the plant. I need to really look at it and trace the lines in order to show the flow. Well, my plant is quite big and that is really shown in the complicated PID drawing. That's good... at least it refreshes me when I'm explaining to them.
At several occasions, they asked about this and that.... Some of the questions were easy to answer while some others were surprisingly difficult to answer because I forgot, or I don't know about it. That means, there are still points and stuffs about my plant that I haven't covered yet (that I don't know). They made me realized about it and it made me seek for answers. So, after investigating about it and getting answers, I informed those new engineers and indirectly my comprehension on my own plant became better. Looking the scenario at a different angle, I'm actually revising and learning about my own plant when I teach or explain to others. Isn't that cool? Both parties benefited. They learned new process and engineering knowledge while I established my understanding on my plant.
Conclusion and morale of the story...
Don't keep the technical knowledge to yourself. Share them. The more you share, the more you'll get. The more you share, the better you are. The more you share, the stronger you become.
posted at: 11:31 | path: /sci/chem | permanent link to this entry
What would happen to innovation in chemical technology if we had a more intimate comingling of chemistry and the engineering sciences? What effect would there be on the stream of chemists graduating into the world if more schools had a chemical engineer on the chemistry faculty? Could a single engineer on the faculty actually make a difference in altering the direction of the boat a few degrees?
Why is such a change desirable? One way to change the trend of deindustrialization and economic repositioning of manufacturing out of North America is to stimulate innovation in the industrial sciences. To do this we can rely on business leaders individually to formulate strategic plans to upgrade plants and processes by way of step changes in technology. But for business leaders, the calculation for such a change must also take into account the alternative of moving production to another country. Many times it is easier and faster to move production to China rather than taking a gamble on the invention of better technology. A large amount of pharmaceutical manufacturing has been shifted to China, Mexico, and India for this very reason.
To rely on business leaders (top down) to ramp up innovation really means that one is relying on the market. While letting the marketplace drive the economics and distribution of manufacturing has a certain appeal to purists, the global marketplace is highly distorted by government and taxation. Letting ”pure” market forces govern innovation as the sole driver is to bet all of your money on a horse that limps. Why not find ways to stimulate innovation with an improved stream of chemical innovators and a renewed urgency?
Universities do this all of the time. But it is my sense that other disciplines perhaps do this better. It is all too easy for we chemists to invent a reaction or composition, publish it, and then move on to the next outcropping of opportunity. We do this thinking that surely somebody will pick up the ball and run it to the end zone of commerce.
But for any given paper published in SynLett or JOC or ______, the likelihood of commercialization is low. It is not automatically the role of academic science to drive its work towards commercialization. That has been the role of engineering.
What has been lacking is more significant early overlap of the two disciplines. For a chemist to truly be a part of bringing a transformation to the manufacturing scale, the chemist has to begin thinking about how to prepare the chemistry for the big pots and pans. This is what the art of scale-up is about. And in scale-up, the practice of chemistry has to overlap with the practice of engineering.
Industry already provides for itself in this way by training chemists to do scale-up work. This kind of work has always been beyond the scope of academic training. But what if there were a course of study wherein chemistry faculty and students could more thoroughly address the problems of chemical manufacture? What if engineering concepts would be allowed to creep into the training of chemists?
Chemistry faculty would begin writing grants for process oriented research. Schools without engineering departments might start hiring the odd engineer or two in an effort to “modernize” the chemistry department. Gradually, a department might become known among recruiters and donors for producing a strain of BS, MS, and PhD chemists who are already adapted to process research.
It is important to stress that the goal is not to plop conventional engineering curriculum into the chemical course of study. That will not work. But what is possible is to build a minor in industrial chemistry applications. This pill will be easier to swallow for the P-chemists because in short order it would be apparent that chemical engineering is heavily loaded with physical chemistry.
I have tried to make a case that one way to make a positive influence in chemical innovation in North America is to begin a grass-roots effort to stimulate the culture of chemistry. I believe that providing an avenue of study that includes early exposure to engineering and process economics will stimulate many more students and faculty to make significant contributions to entrepreneurism and industry.
