Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Oops
I blogged a bit back on Le Grand Saut and Michel Fournier who planned on skydiving from 130,000 feet. There seems to have been a bit of a snag.
A French skydiver's hope to set a new free-fall record has been dealt another setback — his ride to the sky left without him.
The helium balloon Michel Fournier, 64, was going to use to soar to the stratosphere detached from the capsule he was going to use to jump from 130,000 feet (40,000 meters).
It happened as the balloon was being inflated on the ground at the airport in North Battleford, Saskatchewan.
The balloon drifted away into the sky without the capsule.
Monday, May 26, 2008
This Memorial Day
Prayer of a Soldier in France
My shoulders ache beneath my pack
(Lie easier, Cross, upon His back).
I march with feet that burn and smart
(Tread, Holy Feet, upon my heart).
Men shout at me who may not speak
(They scourged Thy back and smote Thy cheek).
I may not lift a hand to clear
My eyes of salty drops that sear.
(Then shall my fickle soul forget
Thy agony of Bloody Sweat?)
My rifle hand is stiff and numb
(From Thy pierced palm red rivers come).
Lord, Thou didst suffer more for me
Than all the hosts of land and sea.
So let me render back again
This millionth of Thy gift. Amen.
About Joyce Kilmer (1886 - 1918).
My shoulders ache beneath my pack
(Lie easier, Cross, upon His back).
I march with feet that burn and smart
(Tread, Holy Feet, upon my heart).
Men shout at me who may not speak
(They scourged Thy back and smote Thy cheek).
I may not lift a hand to clear
My eyes of salty drops that sear.
(Then shall my fickle soul forget
Thy agony of Bloody Sweat?)
My rifle hand is stiff and numb
(From Thy pierced palm red rivers come).
Lord, Thou didst suffer more for me
Than all the hosts of land and sea.
So let me render back again
This millionth of Thy gift. Amen.
About Joyce Kilmer (1886 - 1918).
When the United States entered the war, Kilmer went to an officers' training camp, but he soon enlisted as a private in the 7th Regiment of the New York National Guard and later transferred to the 165th Regiment. (He began writing a historical account of his regiment in France, but it was unfinished when he was killed.) Unwilling to take time to undergo officer training, he was proud of his rise to the rank of sergeant. His letters show him to be an earnest and enthusiastic soldier, welcoming new experiences. There is sadness but also acceptance in the declamatory lines of "Rouge Bouquet":For all those who have sacrificed their bodies, minds and souls for the ideals of this country, I thank you.
There is on earth no worthier grave
To hold the bodies of the brave
Than this place of pain and pride
Where they nobly fought and nobly died.
His Catholicism and painful wartime experiences combined to produce some of his best verse in "Prayer of a Soldier in France," a poem through which the reader may painfully stagger with Kilmer and Christ along the via dolorosa of World War I:
My shoulders ache beneath my pack
(Lie easier, Cross, upon His back).
I march with feet that burn and smart
(Tread, Holy Feet, upon my heart).
Men shout at me who may not speak
(They scourged Thy back and smote Thy cheek).
Volunteering to take the place of a slain officer during an attack on the hills above the Ourcq, Kilmer went out to scout machine-gun nests. On 30 July 1918, he was found dead with an enemy bullet through his head. For his bravery he was buried beside officers, mentioned in dispatches, and posthumously awarded the Croix de Guerre. He was survived by his wife, Aline (who became a minor poet), and four children.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
I thought you'd go to New Mexico ...
... to get away from your allergies. Guess that holds true only if you're not allergic to Wi-Fi.
A group in Santa Fe says the city is discriminating against them because they say that they're allergic to the wireless Internet signal. And now they want Wi-Fi banned from public buildings.I dunno ... maybe they're onto something.
Friday, May 23, 2008
President Bush ...
... is obviously a fan of Ashleigh Brilliant. Why, just look at one of Mr. Brilliants famous epigrams.
Cheer up! The worst effects of what we're doing won't be felt until after we're all dead.
Yes?
Cheer up! The worst effects of what we're doing won't be felt until after we're all dead.
Yes?
Fold It!
It's a video game (seriously). I received the following brief in my email today.
Click on the link to look at and/or play Foldit
Taken from their About Foldit page.
Seattle, WA, May 8—Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) researchers at the University of Washington (UW) working in biochemist David Baker's laboratory launched a free online game called "foldit," in which players compete to design proteins. Scientists can then test the proteins to see if they could make viable candidate compounds for new drugs.
Because protein modeling requires trillions of calculations, over 200,000 volunteers have donated their computers' down-time to performing those calculations in a network, called Rosetta@home, developed by Baker's laboratory. The network uses the Monte Carlo technique to find the best fit for all of the parts of a given protein. The volunteers began to believe that if they could help guide their computers, the solutions could be expedited.
Click on the link to look at and/or play Foldit
Taken from their About Foldit page.
Foldit attempts to predict the structure of a protein by taking advantage of humans' puzzle-solving intuitions and having people play competitively to fold the best proteins.
Seven Minutes of Terror ...
... no, not the seven, uncomfortable minutes you spend sitting with your parents-in-law when your spouse is getting something out of storage from their house. Rather, I'm talking about the landing of the Phoenix project on Mars this Sunday. A little over half (55%) of Mars missions have ended in disaster, so obviously the people at NASA are a bit on edge.
Well, here is to wishing them the best of luck and a successful mission (which includes the landing).
Well, here is to wishing them the best of luck and a successful mission (which includes the landing).
The Phoenix landing site is targeted for the far Northern plains of the Mars, near the northern polar ice cap. Data from the Mars Odyssey spacecraft indicate large quantities of ice in the area, likely in the form of permafrost, either on the surface or just barely underground.
Phoenix is equipped with a robotic arm that can dig down and scoop up some of that ice and dirt, to look for organic chemical evidence that life once existed there, or even still exists now.
"We are not going to be able to answer the final question of 'is there life on Mars,' " said Smith. "We will take the next important step. We'll find out if there's organic material associated with this ice in the polar regions. Ice is a preserver and if there ever were organics on Mars and they got into that ice they will still be there today."
Thursday, May 22, 2008
I blog because ...
... it makes me feel good.
Self-medication may be the reason the blogosphere has taken off. Scientists (and writers) have long known about the therapeutic benefits of writing about personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. But besides serving as a stress-coping mechanism, expressive writing produces many physiological benefits. Research shows that it improves memory and sleep, boosts immune cell activity and reduces viral load in AIDS patients, and even speeds healing after surgery. A study in the February issue of the Oncologist reports that cancer patients who engaged in expressive writing just before treatment felt markedly better, mentally and physically, as compared with patients who did not.
Currently ...
Reading
Grizzly Maze - Nick Jans
Rocks of Ages - Stephen J Gould
Listening To
Narrow Stairs - Death Cab for Cutie
Grizzly Maze - Nick Jans
Rocks of Ages - Stephen J Gould
Listening To
Narrow Stairs - Death Cab for Cutie
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Another Metropolitan ...
... to eventually be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame?
Former Mets catcher, Mike Piazza retired today.
At any rate, thanks for the memories Mike.
Former Mets catcher, Mike Piazza retired today.
But I have to say that my time with the Mets wouldn’t have been the same without the greatest fans in the world. One of the hardest moments of my career, was walking off the field at Shea Stadium and saying goodbye. My relationship with you made my time in New York the happiest of my career and for that, I will always be grateful.Bold emphasis mine, which means hopefully he'll go into the HoF as a Metropolitan, which will double the total number of Metropolitan representatives in the HoF. Especially since the HoF screwed Mets fans when they slapped an Expos cap on Gary Carter's plaque.
At any rate, thanks for the memories Mike.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Primum Non Nocere - Part III
Was reading Laelaps recently and came across the following entry entitled Paleontological Profiles : Robert Bakker. It's a good read, at least from my perspective, and an excellent interview conducted by Mr. Brian Switek. Personally, I know I grew up loving dinosaurs, my favorite exhibit "Of All Time" being the dinosaur exhibit in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Heck, I fell in love with the place the minute I saw their T. rex on display. I still look at their virtual tours from time to time.
At any rate, the interview seemed to be standard-fare except for the very end when Dr. Bakker dropped what could only be described as a bombshell for most of the ScienceBlogger audience. This part of the interview went as follows:
Mr. Switek, in response to the hullabaloo, wrote back to Dr. Bakker and received a reply which he recently posted.
Personally, I commend Dr. Bakker. I think he's done a good job summarizing everything I think is wrong with how the vocal minority go about the defense of science. Once again, there were a few who definitely were not happy (Though, in this blog entry PZ Myers goes after both the original interview, approximately a month after it occurred, and the latest reply). Yet again, his readership froths at the mouth. This gem here by Etha Williams is one of my favorites.
Religion As A Litmus Test?
Etha Williams boneheaded comments are typical of what you see in the commentary section of Pharyngula. She's even been bestowed an award by PZ Myers for her "excellent commentary" on his blog entries (which I think is more of an indictment of his blog than it is a testament). I don't know if I should be relieved that a lot of these comments seem to be made by people who don't have advanced degrees in the sciences (which appears to include the excitable Ms. Williams), or if that should concern me. At least under these circumstances we can attribute them to ignorance and the indiscretions of youth. However I do believe these reactionary diatribes do not bode well for future discussion between scientists and the laity. If this is what is to be expected, I'd say it's an alarming trend. It is also exactly this sort of "militant atheism" which Dr. Bakker was talking about. Nevermind that Dr. Bakker has probably done more for the advancement of science than Etha Williams and her ilk have done, or may ever do. The fact that he dared criticize them, and the fact that he's Christian, was enough to set off a series of shotgun blasts in the direction of religion in general. There were few criticisms of Dr. Bakker, there were more criticisms of religion in general. How the two must be inextricably intertwined is beyond me.
Nevermind the fact that since science never sets out to prove the existence (or non-existence) of a God or gods, one has to wonder exactly who is defending indefensible positions. Religion is a matter of faith. If you don't have that faith you're probably at a minimum an agnostic, or an atheist. If you do have that faith, you're probably at a minimum a deist, or more likely a theist. That faith however, is pretty much inconsequential when it comes to the proper practice of science. I believe Stephen J. Gould's Nonoverlapping Magesteria is in effect. For those wishing to get their heads out of their asses on these matters, I would recommend the National Academy of Sciences 1999 publication entitled Science and Creationism.
But what do we have instead? We have Creationists claiming that evolution is a farce, and instead of science claiming that evolution really doesn't have anything to say about the Bible, we have a few loud and vocal members of the community (who happen to be atheists) saying that people who adhere to religion are stupid. So much for addressing the actual issue head on folks! To make matters even better, some go so far as to say that religion should be eliminated. And then we wonder why Creationists have essentially waged war on evolution specifically, and on science in general? It's because some members of the scientific community developed verbal diarrhea and their vacuous clones ran off at the mouth as well.
Not only is this indicative of the lost opportunities that science has had to discuss matters with non-scientists, it is also a lost opportunity for those who have come under criticism to reassess their approach. Instead of taking Dr. Bakker's comments under consideration, they were summarily dismissed and the man was attacked instead. What a waste, what a shame. If members of the scientific community can't be expected to keep a level head in the face of opposition (whether that be data, ideas or opinions) who can we expect to keep a level head?
At any rate, the interview seemed to be standard-fare except for the very end when Dr. Bakker dropped what could only be described as a bombshell for most of the ScienceBlogger audience. This part of the interview went as follows:
[Switek] Finally, as someone who works with the "bones of contention" and the fossil record, what do you think about the current controversy surrounding evolution in the United States? How can we do a better job of communicating science to the public?Shit storm ensued. While a few agreed with his comments, a whole heck of a lot did not.
[Bakker] We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science. What's the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?
Militant Creationism?
No way. It's the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.
These shrill uber-Darwinists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious traditions. If you're not an atheist, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.
As many commentators have noted, in televised debates, these Darwinists seem devoid of joy or humor, except a haughty delight in looking down their noses. Dawkinsian screeds are sermons to the choir; the message pleases only those already convinced. Dawkins wins no converts from the majority of U.S. parents who still honor a Biblical tradition. Hitchcock is a far better model. He had his battles with skepticism. He did worry that the discovery of Deep Time would upset the good people of his congregation. But Hitchcock could view three thousand years of scriptural tradition and see much of value - and much concordance with Jurassic geology.
Mr. Switek, in response to the hullabaloo, wrote back to Dr. Bakker and received a reply which he recently posted.
Personally, I commend Dr. Bakker. I think he's done a good job summarizing everything I think is wrong with how the vocal minority go about the defense of science. Once again, there were a few who definitely were not happy (Though, in this blog entry PZ Myers goes after both the original interview, approximately a month after it occurred, and the latest reply). Yet again, his readership froths at the mouth. This gem here by Etha Williams is one of my favorites.
Well, what other option is available for a theistic scientist? Either you have to distort reality and logic (creationists) or just compartmentalize and ignore reality and logic when thinking about religion (Bakker, Ken Miller, etc). Or you could just stop wasting mental energy trying to defend indefensible notions....I like the false dichotomy she puts forth. Either you fully accept the truth and become an atheist, with the implication that you can then become a good scientist, or you're faced with two options. You can either ignore logic if you're a creationist, or you can compartmentalize. Either way, I believe the implication is there that theists really don't make good scientists. Her comment wasn't the first along that line in the comment section of that blog entry, and it certainly wasn't the last.
Religion As A Litmus Test?
Etha Williams boneheaded comments are typical of what you see in the commentary section of Pharyngula. She's even been bestowed an award by PZ Myers for her "excellent commentary" on his blog entries (which I think is more of an indictment of his blog than it is a testament). I don't know if I should be relieved that a lot of these comments seem to be made by people who don't have advanced degrees in the sciences (which appears to include the excitable Ms. Williams), or if that should concern me. At least under these circumstances we can attribute them to ignorance and the indiscretions of youth. However I do believe these reactionary diatribes do not bode well for future discussion between scientists and the laity. If this is what is to be expected, I'd say it's an alarming trend. It is also exactly this sort of "militant atheism" which Dr. Bakker was talking about. Nevermind that Dr. Bakker has probably done more for the advancement of science than Etha Williams and her ilk have done, or may ever do. The fact that he dared criticize them, and the fact that he's Christian, was enough to set off a series of shotgun blasts in the direction of religion in general. There were few criticisms of Dr. Bakker, there were more criticisms of religion in general. How the two must be inextricably intertwined is beyond me.
Nevermind the fact that since science never sets out to prove the existence (or non-existence) of a God or gods, one has to wonder exactly who is defending indefensible positions. Religion is a matter of faith. If you don't have that faith you're probably at a minimum an agnostic, or an atheist. If you do have that faith, you're probably at a minimum a deist, or more likely a theist. That faith however, is pretty much inconsequential when it comes to the proper practice of science. I believe Stephen J. Gould's Nonoverlapping Magesteria is in effect. For those wishing to get their heads out of their asses on these matters, I would recommend the National Academy of Sciences 1999 publication entitled Science and Creationism.
But what do we have instead? We have Creationists claiming that evolution is a farce, and instead of science claiming that evolution really doesn't have anything to say about the Bible, we have a few loud and vocal members of the community (who happen to be atheists) saying that people who adhere to religion are stupid. So much for addressing the actual issue head on folks! To make matters even better, some go so far as to say that religion should be eliminated. And then we wonder why Creationists have essentially waged war on evolution specifically, and on science in general? It's because some members of the scientific community developed verbal diarrhea and their vacuous clones ran off at the mouth as well.
Not only is this indicative of the lost opportunities that science has had to discuss matters with non-scientists, it is also a lost opportunity for those who have come under criticism to reassess their approach. Instead of taking Dr. Bakker's comments under consideration, they were summarily dismissed and the man was attacked instead. What a waste, what a shame. If members of the scientific community can't be expected to keep a level head in the face of opposition (whether that be data, ideas or opinions) who can we expect to keep a level head?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Peel-N-Stick ...
... Solar Panels.
On the residential front, Lumeta plans what the company calls Solar S Tiles. These tiles, which will cost on average between $25,000 and $35,000 for a total system, are made to look like tiles found on concrete and clay roofs. Government subsidies will cover about one-third of the cost, according to Lumeta.
Bacterial Farts - Part Deux
In the comments section of previous blog entry of the same name, Blake asked:
That's not even considering methane produced by anaerobic digestion from municipal waste projects.
According to the California Energy Commission, anaerobic digestion from their cows could result in ~1.25 kWh per cow per day. If I'm doing my math right: At average kWh/year usage rates (10,000 kWh/year/family), California's cows (all 1.2 million of them) would be able to provide electricity to ~55,000 families/homes. (For reference: In 2004, there were ~96 million cattle and calves in the United States.) If you take the swine numbers from California (~0.33 kWh per pig per day) and apply them to North Carolina (which is home to over 10 million swine) you'd be able to provide electricity to ~120,000 homes a year (~3% of North Carolina homes). And we haven't even touched on anaerobic digestion from municipal waste ... and with over 300 million individuals, there is a lot of waste which is generated. Whether the non-fecal waste would be best suited to be sent to a landfill, or used as a feedstock for direct anaerobic digestion would need to be determined (it may have already, but I'd need to look).
Couple these with solar and nuclear, as well as (where applicable) geothermal and wind, and I'd say we could drop dramatically our need to use fossil-fuels for heat and power purposes.
The other issue is energy consumption. According to an article by Salon, vampiric energy consumption results in ~5 to 8% of our energy consumption per year. That is obscene. So not only do we need to look for (and apply) alternative energy sources, we need to be mindful of electrical usage, and insist on new appliances/devices being energy friendly. If we do this, I can honestly say that I can envision non-fossil fuel sources making up the major portion of our electrical supply by the time the next generation is faced with this issue.
The questions now are: Are we willing to pony up for the changes in infrastructure? Can we be innovative enough to cut those costs? Can we come up with even better technologies to make these processes more efficient?
Fantastic! The GM article points me in the direction of the next question on my mind, i.e. to what extent can this technique replace current consumption. It looks like a significant source already; could it become a primary source, largely or even completely replacing diminishing mined reserves?Answer: It would depend on what you mean by "primary source". According to the EPA's Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), a total of 445 landfill programs were active in 2007. They generated 11 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year. They also delivered 236 million cubic feet/day of usable gas for direct consumpion (I'm assuming mostly for heating and cooking). According to the DOE, in 2001 the United States consumed 1,140 billion kWh (kilowatt hours) of electricity. One can only assume that energy consumption has increased over the last half a decade. If we take those numbers however at face value, it appears that landfill gas (LFG) currently supplies ~1% of the electricity for US consumption. What is also important to know is that the number of facilities collecting LFG is set to double in the near future. So in the immediate future, ~2% of our electricity will be provided by methane (natural gas) produced by landfills. I'd consider that substantial. I also doubt that that accounts for every major landfill in the country. Also, according to PowerScoreCard, ~40% of LFG is produced by landfills which don't fall under EPA guidelines given their small size. If the proper infrastructure was put in place at all landfills (currently, large landfills must flare (burn) the methane so the wells have already been drilled), I would think that it might be possible to see LFG account for between 5% (reasonably) and ~10% (best case scenario) of our electricity. We might not think of, under those circumstances, calling LFG a "primary source" but it'd definitely be a significant source.
That's not even considering methane produced by anaerobic digestion from municipal waste projects.
According to the California Energy Commission, anaerobic digestion from their cows could result in ~1.25 kWh per cow per day. If I'm doing my math right: At average kWh/year usage rates (10,000 kWh/year/family), California's cows (all 1.2 million of them) would be able to provide electricity to ~55,000 families/homes. (For reference: In 2004, there were ~96 million cattle and calves in the United States.) If you take the swine numbers from California (~0.33 kWh per pig per day) and apply them to North Carolina (which is home to over 10 million swine) you'd be able to provide electricity to ~120,000 homes a year (~3% of North Carolina homes). And we haven't even touched on anaerobic digestion from municipal waste ... and with over 300 million individuals, there is a lot of waste which is generated. Whether the non-fecal waste would be best suited to be sent to a landfill, or used as a feedstock for direct anaerobic digestion would need to be determined (it may have already, but I'd need to look).
Couple these with solar and nuclear, as well as (where applicable) geothermal and wind, and I'd say we could drop dramatically our need to use fossil-fuels for heat and power purposes.
The other issue is energy consumption. According to an article by Salon, vampiric energy consumption results in ~5 to 8% of our energy consumption per year. That is obscene. So not only do we need to look for (and apply) alternative energy sources, we need to be mindful of electrical usage, and insist on new appliances/devices being energy friendly. If we do this, I can honestly say that I can envision non-fossil fuel sources making up the major portion of our electrical supply by the time the next generation is faced with this issue.
The questions now are: Are we willing to pony up for the changes in infrastructure? Can we be innovative enough to cut those costs? Can we come up with even better technologies to make these processes more efficient?
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Planet Earth
Just rented Planet Earth, the BBC Documentary, from Netflix. The version Netflix sent me has David Attenborough as narrator.
Watched the first episode From Pole to Pole with the wife last night, and I've got to say, it looks like it's going to be a great series. I'm impressed with the photography, which was done in part with a heligimbal. With this camera, they were able to take shots from over 1.5 km (almost a mile) away, which is damn impressive ... especially when you see the shots. I might be extremely late to this party, but if you haven't seen this series yet ... I'd highly recommend it.
Watched the first episode From Pole to Pole with the wife last night, and I've got to say, it looks like it's going to be a great series. I'm impressed with the photography, which was done in part with a heligimbal. With this camera, they were able to take shots from over 1.5 km (almost a mile) away, which is damn impressive ... especially when you see the shots. I might be extremely late to this party, but if you haven't seen this series yet ... I'd highly recommend it.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Primum Non Nocere - Part II
Was reading my copy of Microbe, which is put out by The American Society of Microbiology (ASM), yesterday and came across this article by Bernard Dixon. It's entitled "Questionable Experiments" and leads off as follows:
In fact, the exact opposite will most likely be the result.
People can be naive, and if something is presented to them in a coherent and cogent form, they'll take it at face value. It's the first impression, and it takes a lot of effort to persuade someone that that impression was wrong. Which is why it's important that the scientist be there to give that first impression. If a "conspiracy theorist" (e.g., an anti-vaccine type) gets there ... woe be to science. Getting the fear out of that lay individual will be a nearly impossible task. I imagine there are a lot of reasons for that, but by and large it's rather simple, people don't want to consider the fact that they've been duped. If they admit that for one idea, they have to consider it for others. Sometimes it's just too hard to accept. This is why people fall for scams, and when they finally figure it out, rarely go for help. It's bad enough that they've been duped, they don't want to let others know about it too.
So, after they've adopted that first impression, they're probably not going to come to you (the scientist) for clarification. Especially after they've been warned that you're the source for current and/or future potential problems.
What can be done? Well, I think a lot can be done. Scientists need to be active in the community, they need to be active on the internet. Putting a face to a name is essential for proper and effective communication. Touch base with people who might be considered "customers". For example, if you work with swine pathogens, are you talking to the National Pork Producers Council? Are you speaking with local swine producers? It's not enough to be holed up in the lab thinking that your ideas will help advance science and eventually help people. You need to let people know what you're doing, and how it might eventually impact their lives for the better. In my experiences, while most people may not understand the principles behind molecular biology and/or microbiology (or any other science they're not trained in), they can understand the story the research tells. As long as the storyteller (i.e., the scientist) takes the time to explain it. Unfortunately, this is seen as a burden (for reasons which are unknown to me, since 99% of the scientists I know love to talk about themselves, and as an extension ... their research, if you give them an opening).
What is the current face of science? From my vantage point, at least in the biological realm, it's dominated by people who, while brilliant, are not necessarily in-tune with the rest of society. They take antagonistic approaches (ala P.Z. Myers and Dawkins) to beliefs held dear by the majority (e.g., religion for example), which is going to automatically result in that portion of society tuning them out. Where is the connection between these scientists, in their ivory towers, and everyone else? I don't see it.
A lot of work needs to be done to bring good scientific discussion to the dinner table. Unfortunately, I think it's a skill which isn't taught to scientists, and in this, the Age of Instant Information (Some of Which may not be True), it is a skill which is very much in demand. If we don't fill in the blanks for people, someone else will ... and it may not be filled the way we want it to be, or the way it needs to be.
Imagine that you understand little or nothing about microorganisms, genetic modification, toxins in the natural world, or the biological control of plant pests. Now consider the following. A scientist tells you that he has been breeding venomous scorpion spiders in his laboratory. He’s also been cultivating some extremely infectious microbes, and he plans to alter them genetically so that they produce the same potent poison as the scorpion. The poison is called a neurotoxin because it attacks nerve cells, causing paralysis and death. The scientist now plans to produce astronomical numbers of his mutant microbes and release them in the countryside.A lot of lay people would freak out. The reason being, they're not trained in the practices and principles which guide scientific research. They don't know about the safeguards which are put into place, and while they might be told about them, they can't relate to them. Sometimes they can't judge between what is safe practice and what they should be rightly leery of. It also doesn't help that with just about any scientific finding, there are going to be people who object to it. Unfortunately, a vocal few are of the "conspiracy theory" type and they will do their best to convince people that such research endeavors are dangerous, impractical, and will ... if allowed to continue ... tear at the very fabric of society, killing children, ruining crops, allowing millions to starve, etc etc.
In fact, the exact opposite will most likely be the result.
People can be naive, and if something is presented to them in a coherent and cogent form, they'll take it at face value. It's the first impression, and it takes a lot of effort to persuade someone that that impression was wrong. Which is why it's important that the scientist be there to give that first impression. If a "conspiracy theorist" (e.g., an anti-vaccine type) gets there ... woe be to science. Getting the fear out of that lay individual will be a nearly impossible task. I imagine there are a lot of reasons for that, but by and large it's rather simple, people don't want to consider the fact that they've been duped. If they admit that for one idea, they have to consider it for others. Sometimes it's just too hard to accept. This is why people fall for scams, and when they finally figure it out, rarely go for help. It's bad enough that they've been duped, they don't want to let others know about it too.
So, after they've adopted that first impression, they're probably not going to come to you (the scientist) for clarification. Especially after they've been warned that you're the source for current and/or future potential problems.
What can be done? Well, I think a lot can be done. Scientists need to be active in the community, they need to be active on the internet. Putting a face to a name is essential for proper and effective communication. Touch base with people who might be considered "customers". For example, if you work with swine pathogens, are you talking to the National Pork Producers Council? Are you speaking with local swine producers? It's not enough to be holed up in the lab thinking that your ideas will help advance science and eventually help people. You need to let people know what you're doing, and how it might eventually impact their lives for the better. In my experiences, while most people may not understand the principles behind molecular biology and/or microbiology (or any other science they're not trained in), they can understand the story the research tells. As long as the storyteller (i.e., the scientist) takes the time to explain it. Unfortunately, this is seen as a burden (for reasons which are unknown to me, since 99% of the scientists I know love to talk about themselves, and as an extension ... their research, if you give them an opening).
What is the current face of science? From my vantage point, at least in the biological realm, it's dominated by people who, while brilliant, are not necessarily in-tune with the rest of society. They take antagonistic approaches (ala P.Z. Myers and Dawkins) to beliefs held dear by the majority (e.g., religion for example), which is going to automatically result in that portion of society tuning them out. Where is the connection between these scientists, in their ivory towers, and everyone else? I don't see it.
A lot of work needs to be done to bring good scientific discussion to the dinner table. Unfortunately, I think it's a skill which isn't taught to scientists, and in this, the Age of Instant Information (Some of Which may not be True), it is a skill which is very much in demand. If we don't fill in the blanks for people, someone else will ... and it may not be filled the way we want it to be, or the way it needs to be.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Much to my support scientists horror ...
... I'll be spending my day working in the lab. So, no more posts for today. Enjoy the wallpaper instead.
What the floc?
If you ever deal with wastewater, you'll notice that there are small bits of particulate matter floating in it. I'm not going to go into the gory details of what a portion of that matter is because I think your imagination can do a pretty good job of figuring it out on its own.However, a substantial portion of this matter is bacterial in nature. Some bacteria are free-floating, in that they don't adhere to other bacteria and exist in the environment independently. Others aren't so happy doing things that way, and they form films and flocculants to keep their communities together.
One such example is Comamonas badia. He's the little guy with the "tail" (referred to as a flagellum) on the left. The manuscript cited in this post characterizes this organism, specifically the strain IAM 14839, which was isolated from activated sludge in Japan. Activated sludge is the biological material found in wastewater treatment facilities. It's biomass, and is used in the treatment of raw sewage.This paper is fairly straightforward. They isolated the organism from a floc and did some basic biochemical studies. First, they Gram-stained it, and demonstrated it is Gram-negative. It was catalase and oxidase positive.
The authors then did fatty acid analysis, which is one way to "fingerprint" bacteria. They also did 16S analysis, which is another way to "fingerprint" bacteria, and this placed the organism in with the genus Comamonas. However, this is the only known strain of Comamonas which can form floc (we've recently isolated similar strains in our laboratory).
So, what?
There may be practical purposes for wanting to use floc-forming Comamonas strains in wastewater treatment. For example, Nitrosomonas species do not like growing in a free-floating (planktonic) form. They would much rather grow adhered to something, anything. This is why Nitrosomonas cultures are typically grown on fine sand or some other surface. It might be possible to use floc-forming Comamonas strains as a platform for culturing specific Nitrosomonas strains for use in wastewater treatment.
BTW: If you're curious as to what a flocculant culture looks like, here is one to the left. This is a culture which does contain both Nitrosomonas and Comamonas. How the two interact with each other is not currently known, but we're in the process of figuring that out.References
Tago, Y., Yokota, A. (2004). Comamonas badia sp. nov., a floc-forming bacterium isolated from activated sludge. Journal of General and Applied Microbiology, 50(5), 243-248. Click here for PDF of article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
