|
|
|
|
|
|
Curious Cat Science and Egineering blog full tag cloud
One of the things I really hope this blog helps accomplish is to show how science progresses (which explains why I use that tag so often, 3rd most, other popular tags: animals (most used), engineers 2nd, fun and webcasts tied for 4th).
Science is a process of continual learning as curiosity leads us to seek better understanding. On a small scale this can mean a person learning more about knowledge already understood by others. But it also means the scientific community facing new questions and coming up with new explanations for the new questions raised by observations (and testing those new explanations…). Mysterious New ‘Dark Flow’ Discovered in Space
“We found a very significant velocity, and furthermore, this velocity does not decrease with distance, as far as we can measure,” Kashlinsky told SPACE.com. “The matter in the observable universe just cannot produce the flow we measure.”
Related: Laws of Physics May Need a Revision - Great Physics Webcast Lectures - Challenging the Science Status Quo - Parasite Rex
Intentionally, I hope, the Rube Goldberg Machine Contest web site illustrates how to use needlessly complex engineering to design a tool that fails to follow sensible engineering guidelines. Rather than aiming for well designed usable products, the desire is to produce a machine that sort-of complies with the requirements but in a extremely foolish, convoluted way. Obviously it would be much more sensible to design that web site with html and it would just work simply, easily and quickly for everyone. But flash is the perfect tool to use if you want to promote Goldbergian thinking.
The web site, for example, does display content to a web browser. If that web browser has a flash plugin installed and it is the proper type. And sure the conventions of the web don’t work in this crippled environment but who cares about that when designing Goldbergian web sites. Of course if you actually want to design a good web site such choices would be - lets see, oh yeah, lame. I could link to the contest information - but in good Flash Goldbergian fashion that is not possible with the non-website website they have.
Related: Rube Goldberg Machine Contest - Rube Goldberg Devices from Japan - NASA You Have a Problem - 340 Years of Royal Society Journals Online - NSF Engineering Division is Reorganization - How to Design for the Web
Those advances came, in large measure, from the United States. The coming decades may be different.
…
A third of the scientists working at the LHC hail from outside the 20 states that control CERN. America has contributed 1,000 or so researchers, the largest single contingent from any non-CERN nation.
…
The U.S. contribution amounts to $500 million—barely 5 percent of the bill. The big bucks have come from the Europeans. Germany is picking up 20 percent of the tab, the British are contributing 17 percent, and the French are giving 14 percent.
…
The most worrying prospect is that scientists from other countries, who used to flock to the United States to be where the action is, are now heading to Europe instead.
This is a point I have made before. The economic benefits of investing in science are real. The economic benefits of having science and engineering centers of excellence in your country are real. That doesn’t mean you automatically gain economic benefit but it is a huge advantage and opportunity if you act intelligently to make it pay off.
Related: Invest in Science for a Strong Economy - Diplomacy and Science Research - Asia: Rising Stars of Science and Engineering - Brain Drain Benefits to the USA Less Than They Could Be - posts on funding science exploration - posts on basic research - At the Heart of All Matter
Nice post from Rich Hoeg - Lake Superior vs. Silicon Valley Hot Spots:
This is one small example of why Silicon Valley is so successful. To be economically successful, countries need to focus on big things (investing in infrastructure, sensible laws relating to innovation, creating and maintaining good capital markets, investing in science and engineering education, encouraging entrepreneurs, transportation systems…) and the small stuff like this. Silicon Valley continue to be a bright light (as do other places, like Boston) but overall the USA seems to be trailing, not leading, far too often lately.
Related: Engineering the Future Economy - USA Science Losing Ground - Diplomacy and Science Research - USA Broadband is Slow. Really Slow.
The dumbing down of science by Karen Heller
“Adults” happens to mean anyone over 11, a rather severe view for an organization geared toward students. Imax? That’s $5.50 extra. Audio tour? Yo ho ho, and an additional $6. For that kind of money, I left my two adults, 12 and 14, at home. New York’s American Museum of Natural History, a superior museum, offers $17 student tickets for ages 13 through 17
…
The rub was that neither group appeared well-served by science. “Sports Challenge” is more Dave and Buster’s than lessons in physiology, a homage to hyperactivity where kids run around without ever stopping to learn.
“Sir Isaac’s Loft” contains one of those George Rhoads kinetic sculptures found in airports. “Sometimes you just can’t avoid science,” the caption reads, almost as an apology. “My intention is not to exemplify scientific principles,” Rhoads states on the plaque. Oh, great.
Frequently, the Franklin seems as scared of learning as it does of science. Lopping off the “Institute” is an indication. What I watched was kids dashing madly, going from one pit stop to the other, without absorbing much. There was so much insistent fun (!) and no, this-isn’t-really-science stuff that the place is transformed into just another consumer palace.
I think she makes very good points. I fear many museums are more focused on growing revenues than growing minds. That is a very sad state of affairs. I have nothing wrong with focusing on making money - just with museums (and even moreso science museums) doing so. Museums should focus on building minds (which does require balancing finances to stay in business, I understand). If you want to be a Dave and Busters like organization, go ahead, just leave our science museums to those that want to build minds.
Related: $40 Million for Engineering Education in Boston - Boston Travel Photos - 8 Year Old Math Prodigy Corrects Science Exhibit - Metropolitan Museum of Art photos - Malachite
A few weeks ago we posted about Tracking Down Tomato Troubles as another example of the challenges of scientific inquiry. Too often, in the rare instances that science is even discussed in the news, the presentation provides the illusion of simple obvious answers. Instead it is often a very confusing path until the answers are finally found (posts on scientific investigations in action). At which time it often seems obvious what was going on. But to get to the solutions we need dedicated and talented scientists to search for answers.
Now the CDC is saying tomatoes might not be the source of the salmonella after all: CDC investigates possible non-tomato salmonella sources.
Three weeks after the Food and Drug Administration warned consumers to avoid certain types of tomatoes linked to the salmonella outbreak, people are still falling ill, says Robert Tauxe with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The latest numbers as of Monday afternoon were 851 cases, some of whom fell ill as recently as June 20, says Tauxe, deputy director of the CDC’s division of foodborne diseases.
The CDC launched a new round of interviews over the weekend. “We’re broadening the investigation to be sure it encompasses food items that are commonly consumed with tomatoes,” Tauxe says. If another food is found to be the culprit after tomatoes were recalled nationwide and the produce industry sustained losses of hundreds of millions of dollars, food safety experts say the public’s trust in the government’s ability to track foodborne illnesses will be shattered.
“It’s going to fundamentally rewrite how we do outbreak investigations in this country,” says Michael Osterholm of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “We can’t let this investigation, however it might turn out, end with just the answer of ‘What caused it?’ We need to take a very in-depth look at foodborne disease investigation as we do it today.”
I am inclined to believe the FDA is not enough focused on food safety. Perhaps we are not funding it enough, but we sure are spending tons of money on something so I can’t believe more money needs to be spent. Maybe just fewer bills passed (that the politicians don’t even bother to read) with favors to special interests instead of funding to support science and food safety. Or perhaps we are funding enough (though I am skeptical of this contention) and we just are not allowing food safety to get in the way of what special interests want (so we fund plenty for FDA to have managed this much better, to have systems in place that would provide better evidence but they are either prevented from doing so or failed to do so). I am inclined to believe special interests have more sway in agencies like (NASA, EPA, FDA…) than the public good and scientific openness - which is very sad. And, it seems to me, politicians have overwhelmingly chosen not to support more science in places like FDA, CDC, NIH… while increasing federal spending in other areas dramatically.
Related: USDA’s failure to protect the food supply - FDA May Make Decision That Will Speed Antibiotic Drug Resistance - Food safety proposal: throw the bums out - The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science
A Revolution That Began With a Kick by Amy Shipley:
Swimmers, coaches and scientists say it is impossible to pinpoint one explanation. They cite many contributing factors, ranging from professional training groups that have sprouted across the United States to greater access to underwater cameras and other advanced technology.
But some say the most significant breakthrough has been a revival of a swimming maneuver developed more than 70 years ago by one of the physicists who worked on the atomic bomb.
Though utilized for decades, the underwater dolphin kick had not been fully exploited by the swimming mainstream until Olympic megastar Michael Phelps and a few other stars began polishing it — and crushing other swimmers with it — in recent years.
Very interesting and another example of how good ideas are often ignored for a long time.
Schrader said Wilson, an alternate on the 1932 Olympic water polo team who studied fish propulsion at a Chicago aquarium, claimed to have shown the kick to Johnny Weissmuller, a training mate at the Illinois Athletic Club. “Weissmuller reproduced it perfectly, but was not impressed by it,” said Schrader in a phone interview, recalling a conversation with Wilson.
…
One of the first swimmers to turn heads with the underwater dolphin kick was David Berkoff, a Harvard graduate who became known for the “Berkoff Blastoff.” In 1988, Berkoff set several world records in the 100 backstroke by dolphin-kicking for 35 meters underwater at the start of the race.
Which goes to show you that you can gain advantages just by using the information that is available - your own innovation is not the only way to get ahead. Just doing a better job of adapting what others learn to your challenges can be very rewarding.
Related: Randomization in Sports - Baseball Pitch Designed in the Lab - Science of the High Jump
I really liked Gmail. Today Google has blocked me from accessing my email. I do nothing that remotely could be considered suspicious behavior. Yet without any preliminary warnings Gmail just blocked my access to email and provides only the following.
While this might not be evil it is extremely bad service. Email users need to trust providers to provide reliable service. To act with integrity, etc.. When instead they take unilateral, immediate action with no significant response one can only draw the conclusion that they are dealing with another Verizon or Comcast or the long litany of companies that cannot be trusted to treat you well or even remotely fairly.
They do provide a form to fill out, which I have done. They responded with the following: “Thanks for your report. We apologize for any confusion or inconvenience. For your security, we may temporarily disable access to your account if our system detects abnormal usage. It will take between one minute and 24 hours for you to regain access, depending on the behavior our system detected.”
Not really clear is it? I still have no access. Google’s “mission”: “Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” How about making clear the information that Google itself says it has detected, this “abnormal usage.” Have they even made that information “accessible and useful.” No they have not. Google choosing to break Gmail access without notice and without explanation and even after questioning still providing no real explanation seems like a very serious threat to users of Gmail. Google seems to believe that breaking access to Gmail is not something they need to even know why they are doing it. I would say a policy that makes Gmail unreliable for users threatens to send users to a provider that does not chose to act in such a way. This seems like a very bad policy on Google’s part.
This is so frustrating, I actually liked gmail. But I guess I will have to look for a reliable provider unless Google can actually provide an explanation of how they will change to actually provide reliable email services.
My account is back now. Maybe it was down for an hour. Which, frankly, if it had been a technical glitch I would have been fine with. That it was a policy decision to break access without notice or explanation I find extremely worrying, however. How am I suppose to trust that they will not do so at any point in the future. If they send me some explanation of this choice to disable my account temporarily, I will update this post.
Related: Good customer service (why is it so rare) - Poor Customer Service from Discover Card - Google Video Customer Service - Google Customer Service - Why is Customer Service So Bad?
Nature Gave Him a Blueprint, but Not Overnight Success
Yet another example that new knowledge is not enough. It takes much longer for good ideas to be put into practice than seems reasonable (until you get your head around the idea it takes a fair amount of time for new ideas to be adopted).
One positive aspect of this reality is that if you can take advantage of new ideas before others you can gain an advantage. It isn’t necessarily true that just because now everyone knows about some new idea that you have no opportunity to use the knowledge before others.
Related: The Future is Engineering - Engineering the Boarding of Airplanes - Reduce Computer Waste - 100 Innovations for 2006 - Innovation at Google - Educational Institutions Economic Impact
Fermilab was once the premiere particle physics research lab. It is still a very important research lab. But, I have said before, other countries are the ones making the larger efforts lately to invest in science and technology centers of excellence that the US was making in the 1960’s and 1970’s: Economic Strength Through Technology Leadership, Investing in Technology Excellence, etc..
I have also said that the past success of the US has left it in a still very strong position. For example, the anonymous donor that saved Fermilab with a $5 million donation likely benefited from the successful investments in science centers of excellence in the past (few countries - maybe 30, can rely on large donations from wealthy individuals, to sustain centers of excellence and I don’t think any approach what the USA has now - Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Standford, MIT…).
Excellent post on the the saving of Fermilab, To the person who saved Fermilab: Thank You.:
To some, the construction of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN may seem to reduce the importance of Fermilab’s capabilities, but this is not at all the case. Although the LHC may take the title for the overall size and energy levels of a particle accelerator, Fermilab remains a uniquely capable particle physics research institution. Though less powerful, the Tevatron is able to operate for longer periods of time than the LHC and will likely require less downtime for maintenance, allowing for greater access and numerous types of research activities.
Related: CERN Pressure Test Failure - posts on funding science research - Matter to Anti-Matter 3 Trillion Times a Second - Google Investing Huge Sums in Renewable Energy - Gates Foundation and Rotary Pledge $200 Million to Fight Polio - Washington Waste - Washington Paying Out Money it Doesn’t Have - Proposal to Triple NSF GFRP Awards and the Size of the Awards by 33%
Merck wrote drug studies for doctors
The article, based on documents unearthed in lawsuits over the pain drug Vioxx, provides a rare, detailed look in the industry practice of ghostwriting medical research studies that are then published in academic journals.
…
“It almost calls into question all legitimate research that’s been conducted by the pharmaceutical industry with the academic physician,” said Ross, whose article, written with colleagues, was published Wednesday in JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and posted Tuesday on the journal’s Web site.
Merck acknowledged Tuesday that it sometimes hired outside medical writers to draft research reports before handing them over to the doctors whose names eventually appear on the publication. But the company disputed the article’s conclusion that the authors do little of the actual research or analysis.
It is sad that the integrity of journals and scientists is so weak that they leave them open to such charges. The significant presence of the corrupting influence of too much money leaves doubt in my mind that the best science is the goal. Which is very sad. In, Funding Medical Research, I discussed my concern that universities are acting more like profit motivated organizations than science motivated organizations. I am in favor of profit motivated organization (those getting the micro-financing in this link, for example) but those organization should not be trusted to provide honest and balanced opinions they should be expected to provide biased opinions.
If universities (and scientists branding themselves as … at X university) want to be seen as honest brokers of science they can’t behave as though raising money, getting patents… are their main objectives. Many want to be able to get the money and retain the sense of an organization focused on the pursuit of science above all else. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. You can, and probably should, try stake out some ground in the middle. And for me right now, partially because they fail to acknowledge the extent to which money seems to drive decisions I don’t believe they are trying to be open and honest, instead I get the impression they are leaning more toward trying to market and sell.
(more…)
I don’t think the suggestion below really solves the drug price crisis. But I do think it is an example of an educational and research institution actually proposing sensible role for themselves. As I have said too many universities now act like they are for-profit drug or research companies: Funding Medical Research. For some background on drug prices read my post on the Curious Cat Management blog from 2005.
The DDC also would serve as a mechanism for prioritizing drugs for development, noted Finkelstein. “It is a two-level program in which scientists and other experts would recommend to decision-makers which kinds of drugs to fund the most. This would insulate development decisions from the political winds,” he said.
Book - Reasonable Rx: Solving the Drug Price Crisis by Stan Finkelstein and Peter Temin
Related: Lifestyle Drugs and Risk - From Ghost Writing to Ghost Management in Medical Journals - USA Spent $2.1 Trillion on Health Care in 2006 - Measuring the Health of Nations - Economic Strength Through Technology Leadership - USA Paying More for Health Care
Cheap, ’safe’ drug kills most cancers
Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and his colleagues tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body and found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Tumours in rats deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were fed DCA-laced water for several weeks.
DCA attacks a unique feature of cancer cells: the fact that they make their energy throughout the main body of the cell, rather than in distinct organelles called mitochondria. This process, called glycolysis, is inefficient and uses up vast amounts of sugar.
Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis’s experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died
The University of Alberta is raising funds to further the research. Some look at this and indite a funding system that does not support research for human health unless there is profit to be made. Much of the blame seems to go to profit focused drug companies. I can see room for some criticism. But really I think the criticism is misplaced.
The organizations for which curing cancer is the partial aim (rather than making money) say government (partial aim or public health…), public universities (partial aim of science research or medical research…), foundations, cancer societies, private universities… should fund such efforts, if they have merit. Universities have huge research budgets. Unfortunately many see profit as their objective and research as the means to the objective (based on their actions not their claims). These entities with supposedly noble purposes are the entities I blame most, not profit focused companies (though yes, if they claim an aim of health care they I would blame them too).
Now I don’t know what category this particular research falls into. Extremely promising or a decent risk that might work just like hundreds or thousands of other possibilities. But lets look at several possibilities. Some others thoughts on where it falls: Dichloroacetate to enter clinical trials in cancer patients, from a previous post here - Not a Cancer Cure Yet, The dichloroacetate (DCA) cancer kerfuffle, CBC’s ‘The Current’ on dichloroacetate (DCA), Dichloroacetate (DCA) Phase II Trial To Begin (”Like hundreds (if not, thousands) of compounds being tested to treat cancer, DCA was shown by Michelakis’ group earlier this year to slow the growth of human lung tumors in a preclinical rodent model.”).
(more…)
My comments on: National Association of High School Principals Takes Exception to Two Million Minutes
Thanks for saying what has to be said. I have talked on similar themes on my blog for awhile now. The USA is definitely losing its relative position as the clear leader for science and engineering excellence.
The debate now whether we are willing to invest more today to slow the decline or whether we are willing to risk the economic future where our centers of science and engineering excellence are eclipsed quickly.
There is a long lag time that has allowed us to coast for the last 30 or so years. The reality is that most Americans suffer under the illusion we are in the same position we were in 1970’s. We are not and it is obvious to me that the economic impacts are starting to have dramatic effects now and it will only increase.
It might be more pleasant to explain why the USA is fine the way it is but that is a mistake. For more on my thoughts see two categories of the Curious Cat Science and Engineering Blog: Economics and primary science education and 2 posts: The Future is Engineering and the Political Impact of Global Technology Excellence.
Evolution is absolutely fundamental to scientific thinking. Any country, or part of a country (or those wishing to lead a country) that teaches evolution as though it is some alternative way of looking at the facts (that can be compared to creationism/intelligent design, as science, for example) is an embarrassment. Unfortunately the United States is home to far too much of this thinking - which explains why scientific literacy is so low. Luckily there are also plenty in the USA that understand science. The National Academy of Science has published, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, in which a
The scientific theory of evolution still has details that can be debated - which is what the scientists should and will do (seeking out evidence to support such details). The idea that people today can question evolution is beyond amazing to me. It is much easier to understand some people thinking you would sail off the edge of the earth 500 years ago than anyone in the USA thinking there is any serious debate about evolution (there are parts of the world where the educational system does not give everyone a chance to see the available evidence, so I can forgive some in the world for being ignorant - not having been exposed to the evidence). And I guess there are parts of the USA educational system that are nearly so poor also where a gullible student could not see the truth. But in the USA the evidence is easily at hand - you have to intentionally remain ignorant to somehow not understand the truth of evolution.
Related: Understanding Evolution (from Berkeley) - Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science - Evolutionary Design - Real-Time Evolution - Evolution at Work with the Blue Moon Butterfly - 200 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate - Evolution In Action - Retroviruses - Evolution in Darwin’s Finches - Two Butterfly Species Evolved Into Third - Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance
The Science Education Myth by Vivek Wadhwa:
The study certainly sounds interesting. I can’t find it (update Vivek Wadhwa provided the link - which will work Monday, also see his comment below), but found an article (which wasn’t easy) by the authors of the report: The Real Technology Challenge. The main point of the article, The Real Technology Challenge, seems to be that the USA should focus on globalization (and focus on educating scientists and engineers to work in a global world).
As I have said before I disagree with those that believe the USA is producing more science and engineering graduates than the market demands. Smart leaders know the huge positive impacts of a large, well educated science and engineering workforce.
Countries that succeed in producing more quality graduates while creating the best economic environment to take advantage of technology innovation (follow this link - it is one of the most important posts about what makes silicon valley so powerful a force at doing just that) are going to benefit greatly. My guess is the USA will be one of those countries; not by reducing the focus on science and engineering education but by increasing it. If not, other countries will, and the USA will suffer economically. The USA also needs to continue to push the economic and entrepreneurship advantages - doing that well is very difficult to achieve and the USA maintains a stronger advantage in that realm - but I will be very surprised if other countries don’t continue to make gains in this area. Even so doing so is much more challenging than just improving education (which is difficult itself just not nearly as difficult) and the USA can continue to benefit from this combination with the right policies.
Related: Economic Strength Through Technology Leadership - House Testimony on Engineering Education - Filling the Engineering Gap - Best Research University Rankings (2007) - Most IT Jobs Ever in USA Today - USA Under-counting Engineering Graduates - Science, Engineering and the Future of the American Economy - S&P 500 CEOs - Again Engineering Graduates Lead - Highest Paid Graduates: Engineers
Curious Cat Science and Engineering Blog © curiouscat.com 2005-2008 powered by WordPress
USA High School Alumni
