While they declined a televised science debate, the candidates did provide written answers to 14 questions from the country’s top scientists. 
Read more: Obama, Romney answer science questions – Mother Nature Network
While they declined a televised science debate, the candidates did provide written answers to 14 questions from the country’s top scientists. 
Read more: Obama, Romney answer science questions – Mother Nature Network
Ronald Bailey | September 4, 2012
What the GOP thinks about sex ed, fracking, abortion, stem cells, nuclear power, climate change and more.
The Republican platform also advocates “a permanent research and development tax credit” for corporate R&D. The current version of the tax credit encourages corporations to invest between $5 and $10 billion in additional R&D each year.
Republicans “support federal investment in basic and applied biomedical research” especially in the area of neuroscience which “that may hold great potential for dealing with diseases and disorders such as Autism, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s.” The platform also oddly claims, “If we are to make significant headway against breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, and other killers, research must consider the special needs of formerly neglected groups.”
See the article here: The Republican Party’s Science and Technology Policy Platform …
The activities confirmed good health and usefulness of Mars Hand Lens Imager, or MAHLI, and used that camera to check arm placement during several positioning activities.
MAHLI took an image with its reclosable dust cover open for the first time on Mars, confirming sharp imaging capability that had been obscured by a thin film of dust on the cover during previous use of the camera. It took images of cameras at the top of Curiosity's mast, of the underbelly of the rover and of MAHLI's own calibration target, among other pointings.
Published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, the study focused on a group of proteins called nuclear receptors, which have been implicated in the regulation of a variety of biological functions, including memory formation. BERKELEY, Calif., Aug. 31, 2012 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Lawrence Hall of Science, in close collaboration with Developmental Studies Center (DSC) and with a grant provided by Oracle, has created a program for out-of-school settings. The program offers children the opportunity to explore and investigate science freely and creatively, allowing everyone to teach science. After-school providers that purchase the kits will receive not only 50% off the kits, but also free professional development.
Experienced and knowledgeable staff from the Lawrence Hall of Science have created tools to provide professional development. “When they said I was going to science training, I was like, ‘Really? Okay, why? Why are you sending me?’ But then when I got there I was, like, ‘Hey, I could do this, this is fun!’ So…I didn’t mind just volunteering!” said Grace Gonzalez, after finishing her training. “The training helped a lot. I think it helped us be a little bit more hands-on, or at least have a better understanding of it, so we’re not telling the kids, ‘Okay, make a rocket,’ and we have no idea how to make this rocket,” she added.
Go here to see the original: New Program Allows Everyone to Teach Science
Using the book, "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" as a supplement to her ideas, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing PhD student Grace Ho is attempting to better define the line separating those two by evaluating Chinese-American mothers and pediatric nurses through a methodology that studies a person's perception.
Ho's study, "Differentiating Physical Discipline from Abuse: A Comparison of Chinese-American Mothers and Mandated Nurse Reporters of Abuse," looks at how PD and CPA differ among cultures, between nurses and mothers of specific cultures, and how acculturation affects parental approaches for immigrants attempting to assimilate into a new society.
Black drink is a caffeinated tea-like beverage brewed from holly leaves and stems that was used during cleansing rituals and religious ceremonies. The ceramic vessels tested date to approximately 1050-1250 A.D. and are associated with the prehistoric Native American civilization of Cahokia, once located near present-day St. Louis.
The team found that EGCG boosts the production of neural progenitor cells, which like stem cells can adapt, or differentiate, into various types of cells. The team then used laboratory mice to discover if this increased cell production gave an advantage to memory or spatial learning.
The Lizard Project: why scientists and teachers should work together for science outreach.
Student Salvador Jahen gets to know a new hatchling.
Although, inquiry based instruction has long been a science education buzz phrase, all too often when kids engage in developing experiments, the answers are in fact already known to science and could be discovered through a quick Google search on the topic. This is not exactly real science. The very nature of science is to ask questions with unknown answers and produce high quality evidence to help us better understand our world. My students took a very specific question with an unknown answer and made a small, but real contribution to what is known about life on our planet.
The results of our work, Maternally chosen nest sites positively affect multiple components of offspring fitness in a lizard appeared in the journal Behavioral Ecology yesterday. This type of science rarely happens at the high school level. It certainly isn’t expected to happen in an urban high school like Thomas Kelly High School on Chicago s southwest side, where more than 90% of the students are designated as low income and gang violence is a harsh reality in the surrounding neighborhoods
See the original post here: The Lizard Project: why scientists and teachers should work together for science outreach
Neil Armstrong died last Saturday at age 82. And now, one week later, Discovery and Science are paying tribute with an extensive look at Armstrong’s life, career and legacy.
Read more: Discovery, Science to pay tribute to Neil Armstrong over weekend
The Harper government is engaged in a broad assault on environmental protection and environmental science, gutting laws, programs, budgets, and research projects. “An Open Letter to the World on the Governmental Destruction of the Environment in Canada,” from a former employee at Environment Canada. Censorship of science communication and the muzzling of Canadian government scientists. And pulling the plug on what has been called Canada’s greatest freshwater defender and scientific achievement. An authoritarian rampage in the north country.
Oh Canada: the government’s broad assault on the environment (Guardian, July 2):
Prime minister Stephen Harper’s government has been weakening Canada’s environmental regulations and slashing funds for oversight and research – while promoting aggressive resource development.
…Canada’s pristine image — and more importantly its environment — is not likely to recover from what critics across the political spectrum say is an unprecedented assault by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper on environmental regulation, oversight, and scientific research. Harper, who came to power in 2006 unapologetic for once describing the Kyoto climate accords as “essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations,” has steadily been weakening environmental enforcement, monitoring, and research, while at the same time boosting controversial tar sands development, backing major pipeline construction, and increasing energy industry subsidies.
Critics say that assault reached a crescendo in recent weeks with the passage in Parliament of an omnibus budget bill known as C-38, which guts or significantly weakens rules relating to fisheries protection, environmental assessment, endangered species, and national parks. Under this bill, the criteria that currently trigger environmental assessments, for example, have been eliminated, leaving such reviews more to the discretion of the Minister of the Environment and other political appointees. The Fisheries Act will no longer be focused on habitat protection; instead, it will restrict itself largely to the commercial aspects of resource harvesting. Ocean dumping rules will also be changed to allow the Minister of the Environment to make decisions on permitting. And Parks Canada will no longer have to conduct environmental audits or review management plans every ten years. In addition, budgets cuts will eliminate the jobs of hundreds of scientists working for various government departments that focus on the environment and wildlife….
In addition to Bill C-38, the Harper government has ended funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, which had doled out more than $100 million in research funding over the past decade. It has withdrawn support for the Experimental Lakes Program in northwestern Ontario, which has used 58 lakes to conduct groundbreaking studies on phosphate, mercury, and bacterial contamination, as well as research on how climate change affects freshwater systems. And it has killed funding for a program that helps keep more than a dozen Arctic science research stations operational.
The elimination or severe reduction of funds for research into climate change and the Arctic has especially serious implications, given that the Canadian Arctic is warming faster than almost any other region on earth. Scientists say that Harper’s sharp cutbacks will mean a drastic shortage of funds to monitor huge environmental changes in the Arctic, including melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, a rapidly changing tundra environment, and widespread impacts on fauna and flora….
An Open Letter to the World on the Governmental Destruction of the Environment in Canada
May 18, 2012
Dear Everyone,
My name is Naomi. I am Canadian. I worked for Environment Canada, our federal environmental department, for several years before our current Conservative leadership (under Stephen Harper) began decimating environmentalism in Canada. I, along with thousands and thousands of federal science employees lost any hope of future work. Their attitude towards the environment is ‘screw research that contradicts the economic growth, particularly of the oil sands’. They have openly and officially denigrated anyone that supports the environment and opposes big-money oil profit as ‘radicals’ (http://tinyurl.com/7wwf8dp).
Every day in Canada, new information about their vendetta on science and the environment becomes quietly public and keeps piling up. I have been privy to much first-hand information still because I retain friendships with my ex-colleagues (though my blood pressure hates me for it).
While I was working there, scientists were effectively muzzled from speaking to the media without prior confirmation with Harper’s media team (http://tinyurl.com/7bnsqp4) – usually denied, and when allowed, totally controlled. Scientists were threatened with job loss if they said anything in an interview that was not exactly what the media team had told them to say. This happened in 2008. The public didn’t find out for years.
During one of my contracts, I was manager of a large, public database set. Contact information for all database managers was available for anyone. I knew what was going on with the information and could answer questions immediately and personally. During this time, I noticed that the media team started asking me “What would I say” to certain questions. I answered unwittingly. After a certain period of time, I noticed that all contact information had been removed from the internet – eliminating the opportunity for a citizen to inquire directly about these public data sets without contacting the media team. The Conservatives effectively removed another board from the bridge between science and the public, and I had inadvertently helped.
Since then, the Conservative government has been laying off thousands and thousands of full-fledged scientific employees that have been performing research for decades at Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Parks Canada (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/8xtkaro , http://tinyurl.com/7gvzc7r, http://tinyurl.com/clgn97u ), shutting down entire divisions and radically decimating environmental protection and stewardship in a matter of a couple years.
I am afraid for my country. Canada is the second largest land mass in the world – though our population is small, you can be sure that when a country that encompasses 7% of the world’s land mass, and has the largest coastline in the world says “screw it” to environmental protection, there will be massive global repercussions.
The Conservative leadership have admitted to shutting down environmental research groups on climate change because “they didn’t like the results” (http://tinyurl.com/7kpqk7d), are decimating the Species at Risk Act (our national equivalent of the IUCN Red list), are decimating habitat protection for fisheries, are getting rid of one of the most important water research facilities in the world (Experimental Lakes Area – has been operational since 1968, and allows for long-term ecosystem studies [http://tinyurl.com/cdygbdk] ), are getting rid of almost all scientists that study contaminants in the environment, have backed out of the Kyoto protocol – and the list goes on and on and on.
Entire divisions of scientific research are being eliminated. Our land, our animals, our plants, our environment are losing all the protection that has been building for decades – a contradictory stance to the rest of the world….
David Schindler, a professor from the University of Alberta (and founder of ELA) quoted. “I think we have a government that considers science an inconvenience.”…
This Conservative minority leadership was voted in on a thin string in the lowest voter election turnout in recent history, but thanks to our ridiculous voting laws, have 100% full power to do whatever they want. And in the name of short-term monetary oil profit, they have realized that progressive science and the environment are threats (obstacles) to their goals, and are doing so many things to eliminate both.
We are depressed, and frustrated, and mad, and need all the help we can get to protect the value of science and our environment. In the age of globalization, intentionally non-progressive leadership is going to affect everyone. We share our waters, air, and cycles with all of you. Science IS a candle in the dark, and we cannot let greed extinguish that flame. What happens in Canada– will happen everywhere.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
A Canadian that cares about science and the environment
**Update (May 22, 2012). There has been a huge overwhelming response to this letter. Over 40,000 people have viewed it, with hundreds of comments. There are a lot of different organizations that want to be part of a larger movement. There are also quite a few scientists who may want to speak out, but still cannot. I encourage anyone who wants to contribute and organize, and may desire to do it more discreetly (ie: anonymous and or/not as a public comment), to email me at deciphering.science@gmail.com. Please let your colleagues know as well. I will never publish your information unless you want me to, and will be organizing interested parties somehow, so that we can effect greater change – for ourselves, our freedom, and our beautiful planet.
**Update (May 25, 2012). An excellent opinion piece by a DFO scientist on the axing of the pollution programs at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/opinion-mass-firing-of-canada2019s-ocean-scientists
Canadian government is ‘muzzling its scientists’ (BBC News,Vancouver, February 17, 2012)
Speakers at a major science meeting being held in Canada said communication of vital research on health and environment issues is being suppressed….
The allegation of “muzzling” came up at a session of the AAAS meeting to discuss the impact of a media protocol introduced by the Conservative government shortly after it was elected in 2008….
Andrew Weaver, an environmental scientist at theUniversity of Victoria in British Columbia, described the protocol as “Orwellian”….
Professor Weaver said that information is so tightly controlled that the public is “left in the dark”.
“The only information they are given is that which the government wants, which will then allow a supporting of a particular agenda,” he said.
The media protocol was obtained and reported three years ago by Margaret Munro, who is a science writer for Postmedia News, based in Vancouver. Speaking at the AAAS meeting, she said its effect was to suppress scientific debate on issues of public interest.
“The more controversial the story, the less likely you are to talk to the scientists. They (government media relations staff) just stonewall. If they don’t like the question you don’t get an answer.”…
Professor Andrew Weaver believes that the media protocol is being used by the Canadian government to “instruct scientists to deliver a certain message, thereby taking the heat out of controversial topics”.
He added: “You can’t have an informed discussion if the science isn’t allowed to be communicated. Public relations message number one is that you have to set the conversation. You don’t want to have a conversation on someone else’s terms. And this is now being applied to science on discussions about oil sands, climate and salmon.”
The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed (Andrew Nikiforuk, May 23, The Tyee, British Columbia)
Over the Victoria Day weekend Canadians lost another vital national institution that quietly stood on guard for the nation’s 4 million lakes.
Just as citizens flocked to their cottages and launched their boats, the government of Stephen Harper pulled the plug on Canada’s greatest freshwater defender and scientific achievement: the Experimental Lakes Area.
And though its muzzled scientists haven’t been able to talk about the program’s impressive research in recent years without Ottawa’s approval, this uniquely Canadian endeavor both changed and educated the world. It also drove global public policy on watershed protection.
In a move that stunned and appalled scientists around the world the Harper government laid off as many as 40 scientists associated with the legendary program working out the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Winnipeg’s office.
According to Ottawa’s tiresome newspeak, the program no longer “aligned with the department’s mandate and is not responding to our research priorities.”
The killing of the program is the latest in a series of coordinated attacks on environmental science and the gutting of most of the nation’s environmental legislation. It not only trashes Canada’s international reputation but confirms the Harper government’s pathological hatred for science of any kind.
In fact the country has now officially entered a Dark Age for science. After spending $2.5 million renovating the Arctic Institute of North America’s Kluane Research Station, the Harper government just eliminated the funding for the global leader in climate change and boreal mammal research. It also provided federal Arctic researchers at a recentMontreal conference with Iraqi-like minders to control their comments. Nature, one of the world’s foremost science magazines, has written editorials about the muzzling of Canadian scientists.
In this new political order of attacks on science and environmentalists, the closure of the ELA program takes on special significance. The irrational decision strikes most scientists as a feat of colossal stupidity, economic folly and ideological backwardness….
The future of proposed studies on nanoparticles and oil sands contaminants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) may now be dead. “There were some troubling signs that toxic nanoparticles of silver could go through biological membranes,” says Schindler.
But the Harper government apparently doesn’t want you to know that truth. Nor does it want Canadians to learn about what role oil sands pollutants such as PAHs might play in fish deformities in Lake Athabasca or cancers in Fort Chip. “Politicians have never understood what the ELA does or why it’s important,” says Schindler from his cottage nearBrisco,British Columbia. “We are losing an opportunity to improve the public’s scientific literacy on water.” He adds that “democracy, to be effective, needs to have an informed electorate.”
In this regard the full scale assault on science funding and scientific freedom in Canada makes the country look increasing like another sorry Arab oil exporter. The sheiks, a group as fundamentalist in their orientation as Harper’s Tories, don’t like science either.
As molecular biologist Rana Dajani explains in a 2011 Nature editorial, the political and religious environment in most Arab states currently “fails to sustain creativity, curiosity and striking out into the unknown — all of which are essential for science to flourish.”
And that’s where Harper is taking Canada: back to an Arab winter.
Earlier posts:
The state of politics and climate change – A Northern update
Canada’s ‘creeping authoritarianism’ in political pre-screening of scientists’ media contact
Leaked document says Canadian federal climate scientists being blocked from media contact
Originally posted here: Canada: Entering a new Dark Age for science and environmental …
_____________________________________________________________________
Northrop’s research greatly advanced the understanding of the chemical nature of enzymes and proteins. Find out what else occurred on this day in science history.
Follow About.com Chemistry on Facebook or Twitter.
The rest is here: This Day in Science History – July 5 – John Northrop
Back at Facebook, Marlow isn’t the one who makes decisions about what the company charges for, even if his work will shape them. Whatever happens, he says, the primary goal of his team is to support the well-being of the …
Go here to read the rest: Profile of the Facebook Data Science Team
At Akademy, about an hour ago, the keynote by Will Schroeder from Kittware was finished. It was a very nice talk – and I’ve collected some notes, see below!
After introducing Kitware and what they do (‘all things scientific computing related’), Will starts to talk about science: where does it come from?
You might remember this Descartes dude. He questioned everything – and that is where it started. Nullius in Verba, “take nobody’s word for it”, that was the thought behind this movement.
And realize that this did not go down easily! People were locked up for this, faced jail time for their convictions. They were the hackers of their time, trying new things, finding new ways. And sharing knowledge.
Because that is what science was (and should be) all about. The way it worked was as follows:
A scientist wrote a paper, a letter. This would go to the Royal Society or another ‘science institution’. There the experiments were replicated and verified. Once verified, the letter, paper or book was replicated and distributed through society.
But commerce took over and now, the process goes from scientist to commercial publisher where volunteers do peer review and then the article gets published in a journal.
This looks like the same process, but it is not. First of all – in reality, replication of experiments does not happen. There is a number of reasons for that, some practical (huge computational requirements, growth time of tissue samples) but often it is also lacking data, details on how the experiment works or closed, unavailable software or procedures.
The thirst for {fame, power|control|money} has tainted science: we’ve lost the search for truth. It is “publish or persih”, career pressure is huge and scientists are afraid to share knowledge because it might loose them a paper or even patents and licensing income.
Meanwhile, according to a case study, licensing revenue on patents is about 2 billion, but if you substract the costs the university breaks even. And the push for patents is corrupting and damaging science and creates resistance to collaboration.
And it shows: Nature published a study showing that more than 90% of papers in science journals describing ‘landmark’ breakthroughs in preclinical cancer research are NOT reproducible and are thus just plain wrong.
Will gives a computational science/medical imaging example. It is quite complicated – but boils down to the fact that we can’t reproduce the result because we lack knowledge of how it was obtained.
So there is a huge pressure on scientists to do bad science and nobody checks up on the results. Meanwhile, journals take easily 2 years and hundreds of euro’s to publish their articles and you also have to pay thousands to read the results – which were peer reviewed by volunteers!
Our data is unavailable or put in proprietary formats, publishers control the flow of information and closed and proprietary software is used to do analysis and controls how scientists work.
What we need is open science: open access to knowledge, open access to data and open access to source.
it is a real tragedy that we have to put the word ‘open’ in front of science!
But we have to. Science, part of this three hundred years old tradition of hacking and sharing knowledge, has been corrupted and locked up.
The good news is that things are changing. Universities realize that the status quo does not benefit society and change their policies. Harvard now asks professors to publish in open access journals and the UK is going to only fund research which ends up in the open.
Of course, we already knew that: both society and business show a clear trend. Open is better and will take over closed!
note that these are personal notes and not reviewed: no guarantees about the correctness!

Get updates delivered to your email daily. Subscribe to Penniless Teacher by Email
#Giveaway #sweepstakes #teachers #education #teaching
See the original post here: Penniless Teacher: Free Science Equipment
Bryan Caplan is tired of being sneered at by “high-status academic economists”:
The Curious Ethos of the Academic/Appointee, by Bryan Caplan: High-status academic economists often look down on economists who engage in blogging and punditry. Their view: If you can’t “definitively prove” your claims, you should remain silent.
At the same time, though, high-status academic economists often receive top political appointments. Part of their job is to stand behind the administration’s party line. They don’t merely make claims they can’t definitively prove; to keep their positions, appointees have to make claims they don’t even believe! Yet high-status academic economists are proud to accept these jobs – and their colleagues admire them for doing so. …
Noah Smith has something to say about “definitive proof”:
“Science” without falsification is no science, by Noah Smith: Simon Wren-Lewis notes that although plenty of new macroeconomics has been added in response to the recent crisis/depression, nothing has been thrown out…
Four years after a huge deflationary shock with no apparent shock to technology, asset-pricing papers and labor search papers and international finance papers and even some business-cycle papers continue to use models in which business cycles are driven by technology shocks. No theory seems to have been thrown out. And these are young economists writing these papers, so it’s not a generational effect. …
If smart people don’t agree, it may because they are waiting for new evidence or because they don’t understand each other’s math. But if enough time passes and people are still having the same arguments they had a hundred years ago – as is exactly the case in macro today – then we have to conclude that very little is being accomplished in the field. The creation of new theories does not represent scientific progress until it is matched by the rejection of failed alternative theories.
The root problem here is that macroeconomics seems to have no commonly agreed-upon criteria for falsification of hypotheses. Time-series data – in other words, watching history go by and trying to pick out recurring patterns – does not seem to be persuasive enough to kill any existing theory. Nobody seems to believe in cross-country regressions. And there are basically no macro experiments. …
So as things stand, macro is mostly a “science” without falsification. In other words, it is barely a science at all. Microeconomists know this. The educated public knows this. And that is why the prestige of the macro field is falling. The solution is for macroeconomists to A) admit their ignorance more often (see this Mankiw article and this Cochrane article for good examples of how to do this), and B) search for better ways to falsify macro theories in a convincing way.
I have a slightly different take on this. From a column last summer:
What Caused the Financial Crisis? Don’t Ask An Economist, by Mark Thoma: What caused the financial crisis that is still reverberating through the global economy? Last week’s 4th Nobel Laureate Meeting in Lindau, Germany – a meeting that brings Nobel laureates in economics together with several hundred young economists from all over the world – illustrates how little agreement there is on the answer to this important question.
Surprisingly, the financial crisis did not receive much attention at the conference. Many of the sessions on macroeconomics and finance didn’t mention it at all, and when it was finally discussed, the reasons cited for the financial meltdown were all over the map.
It was the banks, the Fed, too much regulation, too little regulation, Fannie and Freddie, moral hazard from too-big-to-fail banks, bad and intentionally misleading accounting, irrational exuberance, faulty models, and the ratings agencies. In addition, factors I view as important contributors to the crisis, such as the conditions that allowed troublesome runs on the shadow banking system after regulators let Lehman fail, were hardly mentioned.
Macroeconomic models have not fared well in recent years – the models didn’t predict the financial crisis and gave little guidance to policymakers, and I was anxious to hear the laureates discuss what macroeconomists need to do to fix them. So I found the lack of consensus on what caused the crisis distressing. If the very best economists in the profession cannot come to anything close to agreement about why the crisis happened almost four years after the recession began, how can we possibly address the problems? …
How can some of the best economists in the profession come to such different conclusions? A big part of the problem is that macroeconomists have not settled on a single model of the economy, and the various models often deliver very different, contradictory advice on how to solve economic problems. The basic problem is that economics is not an experimental science. We use historical data rather than experimental data, and it’s possible to construct more than one model that explains the historical data equally well. Time and more data may allow us to settle on a particular model someday – as new data arrives it may favor one model over the other – but as long as this problem is present, macroeconomists will continue to hold opposing views and give conflicting advice.
This problem is not just of concern to macroeconomists; it has contributed to the dysfunction we are seeing in Washington as well. When Republicans need to find support for policies such as deregulation, they can enlist prominent economists – Nobel laureates perhaps – to back them up. Similarly, when Democrats need support for proposals to increase regulation, they can also count noted economists in their camp. If economists were largely unified, it would be harder for differences in Congress to persist, but unfortunately such unanimity is not generally present.
This divide in the profession also increases the possibility that the public will be sold false or misleading ideas intended to promote an ideological or political agenda. If the experts disagree, how is the public supposed to know what to believe? They often don’t have the expertise to analyze policy initiatives on their own, so they rely on experts to help them. But when the experts disagree at such a fundamental level, the public can no longer trust what it hears, and that leaves it vulnerable to people peddling all sorts of crazy ideas.
When the recession began, I had high hopes that it would help us to sort between competing macroeconomic models. As noted above, it’s difficult to choose one model over another because the models do equally well at explaining the past. But this recession is so unlike any event for which there is existing data that it pushes the models into new territory that tests their explanatory power (macroeconomic data does not exist prior to 1947 in most cases, so it does not include the Great Depression). But, disappointingly, even though I believe the data point clearly toward models that emphasize the demand side rather than the supply side as the source of our problems, the crisis has not propelled us toward a particular class of models as would be expected in a data-driven, scientific discipline. Instead, the two sides have dug in their heels and the differences – many of which have been aired in public – have become larger and more contentious than ever.
Finally, on the usefulness of microeconomic models for macroeconomists — what is known as microfoundations — see here: The Macroeconomic Foundations of Microeconomics.
Update: See here too: Why Economists Can’t Agree, another column of mine from the past, and also Simon Wren-Lewis: What microeconomists think about macroeconomics.
Read more here: Economist’s View: ‘Science’ without Falsification
By Liam Scheff
theintelhub.com
June 29, 2012
Excerpted from “Official Stories”
The following is an exclusive excerpt from the new book “Official Stories” by Liam Scheff, from Chapter 5: Vaccination – The Religious Science.
The Official Story: Vaccination, injecting viruses into people, especially small children, prevents future infection and is therefore good for you. It began with Louis Pasteur, who devised germ theory. Then Edward Jenner developed a vaccine against smallpox. Jonas Salk’s vaccine stopped Polio in the 1950s. We use vaccines today to fight latent “slow viruses” like HPV which, officials say, can cause cancer in women, eventually.
The Lone Gunman: Viruses. But this time there’s a counter-attack and it’s equally powerful – the syringe full of specially-prepared viruses.
The Magic Bullet: Whatever is in those syringes; it stopped polio, it’ll stop HPV and the bird, pig and every other flu too.
Scratch 1: Vaccination comes from the word “vacca.” We could call it cow-injection, to be true to history, because, and we’re never really told this, but the vaccine that made it all famous – smallpox – came from the sores on the underbellies and legs of cows and horses. Pus and blood were scraped off, put on the ends of small, sharp pronged forks or lancets and jabbed into people’s arms. Yes, “vacca” means “cow.” Does that surprise you? Do we generally think that animal blood and pus is good thing to put into our bodies? Probably not, but we’ll get into that in a minute.
Vaccines are regarded as a nearly magical process, like a totem or a crucible, a station of the cross in the Western world; it has replaced baptism as a holy right. Those who are opposed are mistrusted and feared, almost as witches; certainly as troubled heretics. But no one ever asks the question:
What Is In A Vaccine?
Scratch 2: Vaccines are not conjured at Hogwarts by honest wizards. Willy Wonka doesn’t brew them in his chocolate factory. They are not magical and there is a reason, or many, why some people oppose them so strongly. Vaccines are toxic, by their very nature.
The liquid in the syringe is filled with very small pieces of…well, a lot of things. These materials come from laboratory dishes where putative viruses are grown. But nothing biological can be grown, except in a “medium” or substrate. That is, it takes living tissue to grow living microscopic entities. So, what tissues are vaccines grown in, or really, culled from?
The first substrates were a variety of animal body parts, including spines and brains; rabbits were often used. Sometimes it was pus and blood from a sick animal. Then it was monkey kidneys and testicles; that’s what the putative polio virus was grown in. Of course, monkey cells contain monkey proteins, viruses, bacteria, mycoplasmas and toxins. It is not possible to filter out one microscopic particle, from a sea of similarly-sized or smaller particles. These particles, proteins, viruses and cellular debris have been and are being injected into millions of people, in the name of stopping polio – and every other disease for which there is a vaccine.
Hamster ovaries, washed sheep blood, dog kidney cells and here’s a favorite with the Christian crowd – aborted human fetal tissue; these are newer substrates. These cells are cultured, fed, stimulated and made to replicate so as to produce…well, that’s what this chapter is about and we’re almost there.
In addition to the living tissue, vaccines have added to them a series of metals and preservatives, as well as chemical agents sent to inflame and agitate your cells. Mercury is one of the longest-used metals in vaccines. Formaldehyde has made it into countless batches. Formaldehyde is used to embalm dead people – to keep them from rotting. Is that good for children? No, it’s a toxic poison. But there it goes, into the blood.
Squalene is one of the most famous adjuvants for its starring role in Gulf War Illness. Its job is to agitate your muscles, blood vessels, cells and tissue into an inflamed state. Vaccine manufacturers actively seek this inflammatory response. They feel it helps their vaccine work. But it can also bring on real illness: Pain, nausea, cramps, fainting, tremors, seizures and a long list of neurological responses. Some-times vaccines cause death; sometimes instantly. Yes, that has happened too.
Vaccine proponents will tell you that the 30,000 adverse events reported annually on the government’s VAERS self-reporting system for vaccine side effects are worth it. It doesn’t seem to bother them that even the government agrees that VAERS captures about 1% of the total number of toxic events due to vaccination. It’s like a religion. There are the vaccine true-believers – and their generally ridiculed opponents.
The Doctor’s Office
If you can believe it, I was agnostic for a long time about vaccines. Understanding vaccination came late in my studies. I didn’t like them, but, I wasn’t sure. Maybe they helped. After all, there had been polio and now there isn’t. Smallpox has gone away. I couldn’t discount vaccination entirely.
I was three or four years old. I was in a doctor’s office. I saw a needle coming for me – it was going to be put into me. INTO. I knew with all my being that this was insane. Wrong. WRONG. Not going to happen. Large hands held my small limbs and forced the needle and fluid into me, sending a hot swelling pressure into my arm.
“That’s not so bad,” they said. “That’s a big boy.”
I had a lot of strep throats as a kid. I had a number of very bad fevers. I felt awful, a lot. The next time I went, I remember being older by a few years. I held still; I looked away; I held my breath. “That’s a brave young man,” they said. I continued to have a lot of flus and strep. But, I had a terrible diet.
I stopped getting stuck with needles in my…I can’t quite recall. Early teens? After childhood, I avoided doctors and all medical procedures. Maybe it’s that I come from a family of doctors. It turns you off to it. On the inside of a group of medical men they’ll tell you, “Oh, it’s just a flu, tough it out.” So you do. Decades on, I don’t get sick the way I used to, but my diet is entirely different. I also haven’t been injected with anything for decades.
So I was agnostic. I did not know. I had to read and study, starting with polio 6 or 7 years ago, then HPV and then reaching back to the beginning, Pasteur and Jenner. What I learned was a hidden history. What I can do for you is to share it.
Vaccination, The Other History
People have always gotten sick and people have always died. That seems to be part of the deal here on Earth, for as long as anyone can remember. In order to deal with this reality, some ancient cultures, including the Chinese and Indian, devised complex medical systems involving categorization of energy types, effects of food and herbs and interaction among the organ systems. They had great success with them for thousands of years.
One method of disease prevention was to take pus from people and animals who had the “pox” or pustule-forming diseases, remove it from the pustules and dry it in the sun. (Sunlight and fresh air – the ultimate disinfectants). That dried material would then be crumbled or ground into a powder and blown (whoosh!) up your nose and sinuses, if you’d never had the disease and especially if you were young. By this method of introducing dried, sterilized powder from a sick creature into the nasal passages, the recipient would receive a benign exposure to an otherwise toxic substance. Some cultures would prick your skin with this dried, sterilized substance.
Let’s make a check here: Breathing something into your nasal passage is very different than opening a wound in your flesh and pouring in the dripping wet pus and blood drawn from the sick animal. And pricking skin with dried, sterile material is different than injecting diseased animal remains deep into your muscle. Without reading another word, you can begin to understand the problem with the Western system of vaccination.
. . .
Buy Official Stories Online, Ships Worldwide
In the UK and Europe on Amazon
On Audiobook and Kindle in late 2012
Read (and write) reviews for “Official Stories”
Follow “Official Stories” on facebook
Read more: Vaccination – The Religious Science :
July 1, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Kylie SturgessYou can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Go here to see the original: Engaging Children In Science – Samantha Stein At The Sixth World …
The scientific process is the most effective method humans have for learning about the natural world, yet there remain numerous misconceptions about its application, even among scientists.
The scientific process is the most effective method humans have for learning about the natural world, yet there remain numerous misconceptions about its application, even among scientists.
Over at Understanding Science, a team of UC Berkeley researchers, teachers, designers and web experts has assembled a fantastic list of some common misconceptions about science and how it works. It’s a great overview of what science is and what science isn’t, and definitely warrants a look (along with the rest of the Understanding Science website — a truly fantastic resource). We’ve included a few misinterpretations, along with their explanations, below. But you’ll want to click through to the full guide.
- MISCONCEPTION:Science is a collection of facts.CORRECTION: Because science classes sometimes revolve around dense textbooks, it’s easy to think that’s all there is to science: facts in a textbook. But that’s only part of the picture. Science is a body of knowledge that one can learn about in textbooks, but it is also a process. Science is an exciting and dynamic process for discovering how the world works and building that knowledge into powerful and coherent frameworks. To learn more about the process of science, visit our section on How science works.
See the original post: “Science proves ideas,” and other misinterpretations of the scientific …
By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News
Currently the results of publicly funded research are restricted and have to be paid forA group of experts has urged funders of UK research to encourage scientists to publish their results in journals that offer free public access to findings.
A report by Dame Janet Finch argues that there is a powerful “moral” case for publicly funded research to be freely available.
Dame Janet also states that there could be considerable economic benefits if industry has free access to research.
Currently, most results have to be paid for by subscription.
But supporters of commercial publishing say that they have contributed greatly to the development of the peer review system and the resulting high standard of scientific research.
According to Dame Janet, “everyone agrees that greater open access would bring huge economic and public benefits. The challenge though is how we move to this model without damaging UK research, peer review or scientific publishers?”
Historically, scientists have sent their research results to scientific journals for consideration for publication.
Specialist editors working for the journals sift through the material submitted to them and select those they feel have made a significant contribution to the field.
Continue reading the main story
The long term future lies with open access”
End Quote Dame Janet Finch Report Author
The editors then send these scientific papers to experts in the field for assessment, a process known as peer review. It is at this stage that one or more of the experts can reject the research because they believe it is flawed or that it has not made a significant contribution to the field.
It is more often the case though that the expert reviewers, known as referees, ask for clarification or more experiments to be carried out.
Once all or most of the referees are satisfied, the journal publishes the research and it is at this stage that the work is formally considered to be new science.
Continue reading the main story View post: Science ‘should be open to all’
____________________________________________________________________
Library & Information Science Ranked Worst Master’s Degree for Jobs.
A recent Forbes article ranked library and information science degree as the worst master’s degree program for finding a job. This news should make every author, publisher and reader very sad—-what do you think?
Check it out: “Library and information science degree-holders bring in $57,600 mid-career, on average. Common jobs for them are school librarian, library director and reference librarian, and there are expected to be just 8.5% more of them by 2020. The low pay rank and estimated growth rank make library and information science the worst master’s degree for jobs right now.”
No matter what you think, librarians need our support right now. Use our best library people on Twitter list to find the librarians working near you and go visit your local librarians. Over at Reddit, a number of librarian readers are debating the topic. We’ve included some of their thoughts below…
One Reddit reader wrote: “Sometimes I feel like the whole world is discouraging me from becoming a librarian. I’m halfway through my grad program and seeing things like this makes my heart ache.”
Continue reading here: Library & Information Science Ranked Worst Master’s Degree for …_____________________________________________________________________________
WASHINGTON, June 19, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is leading the way by measuring how well students apply their understanding of science in real-life contexts. The Nation’s Report Card Science in Action: Hands-On and Interactive Computer Tasks from the 2009 Science Assessment marks the first time that both tasks were included as part of the NAEP science assessment.
Today’s results reveal that America’s fourth, eighth, and 12th graders can conduct science investigations using limited data sets, but many students lack the ability to explain results. The report shows that students were challenged by parts of investigations requiring more variables to manipulate, strategic decision-making in collecting data, and the explanation of why a certain result was the correct conclusion.
The new interactive computer tasks and updated hands-on tasks that involve more open-ended scenarios were administered as part of the 2009 science assessment by the National Center for Education Statistics to a nationally representative sample of more than 2,000 students in each of grades 4, 8 and 12. The findings provide important insights for educators and policymakers who are looking for academic approaches that support careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, and encourage scientific inquiry.
“Science is fundamental to education because it is through scientific inquiry that students understand how to solve problems and ultimately how to learn,” said David Driscoll, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP. “So it’s tragic that our students are only grasping the basics and not doing the higher-level analysis and providing written explanations needed to succeed in higher education and compete in a global economy.”
The purpose of using hands-on and interactive computer tasks in testing is to determine whether students can solve problems as a scientist would and require students to perform actual science experiments. Interactive computer tasks require students to solve scientific problems in a computer-based environment, often by simulating a natural or laboratory setting.
“This innovative format allows for a richer analysis than a paper-and-pencil test,” Driscoll said. “Interactive computer tasks allow us to more deeply examine students’ abilities to solve problems because the tasks generate much more data.”
Only 53 percent of 12th graders reported that they were enrolled in a science course, and only 28 percent reported writing a report on a science project at least once a week. Ninety-two percent of fourth graders and 98 percent of eighth graders had teachers who reported doing hands-on science activities with students at least monthly. Thirty-nine percent of fourth graders and 57 percent of eighth graders had teachers who reported having at least a moderate emphasis on developing scientific writing skills.
The assessment measures science skills in a number of ways. Some questions use a model known as “predict-observe-explain” to examine students’ ability to combine their science knowledge with real-world investigative skills.
To correctly predict, students had to provide an accurate description of what might happen in a situation. For instance, when asked what kind of sunlight conditions were needed for a sun-loving plant and a shade-tolerant plant, 59 percent of fourth graders showed understanding that different plants have different sunlight needs.
Through the observe phase, students watched what happened as they conducted their experiments. Eighty percent of fourth graders made straightforward observations and tested how fertilizer and sunlight affected plant growth, but only 35 percent could perform a higher-level task that required them to make decisions about the best fertilizer levels for a sun-loving plant.
Students were then asked to explain what they had observed by interpreting data or drawing conclusions. Across all grade levels, a majority of students could observe, but far fewer could predict or explain. In fourth grade, fewer than 50 percent of students could explain why they selected a given fertilizer amount to support plant growth and use evidence to support their answer. At grade 8, 88 percent of students could correctly identify which liquid flowed at the same rate as water at a given temperature, while only 54 percent could support this answer with a written explanation of the evidence.
At twelfth grade, 64 percent of students could recommend the site for a new town based on information provided about water quality, while 75 percent of students could perform a straightforward investigation to test the water samples and accurately tabulate data. But only 11 percent were able to provide a valid recommendation and support their conclusions with details from the data. [Click for details on the plants task and water systems task.]
More highlights from Science in Action include:
Overall achievement gaps
Grade 4
Grade 8
Now, please. read the exciting conclusion of this article: The Nation’s Report Card Releases Results from Innovative Science Assessment
____________________________________________________________________________________
A few decades ago, Darwinians and creationists had a de facto nonaggression pact: Creationists would let Darwinians reign in biology class, and otherwise Darwinians would leave creationists alone. The deal worked. I went to a public high school in a pretty religious part of the country–south-central Texas–and I don’t remember anyone complaining about sophomores being taught natural selection. It just wasn’t an issue.
| Trust in science by demographic, 1998 vs. 2008 | |||||
| Demographic | Strong Agree | Agree | Neither | Disagree | Strong Disagree |
| 1998 | 9 | 22 | 28 | 29 | 12 |
| 2008 | 7 | 25 | 25 | 31 | 12 |
| 1998 – Protestant | 12 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 8 |
| 1998 – Catholic | 4 | 21 | 30 | 35 | 10 |
| 1998 – None | 2 | 5 | 29 | 30 | 33 |
| 2008 – Protestant | 10 | 32 | 25 | 26 | 6 |
| 2008 – Catholic | 3 | 24 | 28 | 34 | 11 |
| 2008 – None | 2 | 9 | 18 | 43 | 28 |
| 1998 – Bible is Word of God | 18 | 35 | 25 | 18 | 4 |
| 1998 – Bible is Inspired Word of God | 5 | 22 | 31 | 33 | 10 |
| 1998 – Bible is Book of Fables | 4 | 3 | 21 | 38 | 34 |
| 2008 – Bible is Word of God | 15 | 44 | 23 | 15 | 2 |
| 2008 – Bible is Inspired Word of God | 3 | 19 | 29 | 38 | 10 |
| 2008 – Bible is Book of Fables | 2 | 9 | 17 | 39 | 33 |
| 1998 – Liberal | 5 | 16 | 25 | 33 | 21 |
| 1998 – Moderate | 9 | 20 | 32 | 27 | 11 |
| 1998 – Conservative | 11 | 28 | 24 | 29 | 9 |
| 2008 – Liberal | 4 | 16 | 19 | 41 | 20 |
| 2008 – Moderate | 7 | 26 | 28 | 29 | 12 |
| 2008 – Conservative | 9 | 29 | 25 | 29 | 8 |
| 1998 – Democrat | 7 | 20 | 29 | 30 | 13 |
| 1998 – Independent | 14 | 22 | 34 | 22 | 8 |
| 1998 – Republican | 8 | 24 | 26 | 31 | 12 |
| 2008 – Democrat | 6 | 24 | 25 | 30 | 14 |
| 2008 – Independent | 5 | 21 | 28 | 36 | 11 |
| 2008 – Republican | 8 | 29 | 25 | 29 | 8 |
| 1998 – No College | 10 | 25 | 29 | 28 | 9 |
| 1998 – College | 4 | 15 | 25 | 33 | 24 |
| 2008 – No College | 8 | 28 | 26 | 30 | 8 |
| 2008 – College | 3 | 17 | 22 | 34 | 24 |
Read the original: Trust in science, 1998 vs. 2008 (no difference) | Gene Expression …
Share This Post
Emily Willingham, managing editor, DoubleXScience
A man with a chiseled face dons his horn rims for a better look as three barely adult women in micromini dresses and stilettos catwalk toward him. As he stares in shock, lust, and awe, each woman strikes a pose as a bass beat throbs in the background.

Screen capture from the video “Science: It’s a Girl Thing
The beginning of yet another low-rent porn movie from the ‘80s? No. It’s a video that the European Union’s Research and Innovation section made to–wait for it–attract girls to science. And it doesn’t get any better from that opening scene, as it continues with a Freudian, candy-colored nightmare mishmash of lipstick, makeup brushes, beakers, and nail polish. It ends with each of the three barely adult women removing their sunglasses in exchange for safety glasses. As I tweeted after first watching the video, it’s off message, off-putting, and just plain offal.
The social media world of science and science writers awoke to this video Friday morning, and instantly, Twitter was all aflutter. It offended many. Others found themselves bemused and confused. The website associated with this effort, Science: It’s a Girl Thing!, is better in both content and presentation than the video and even uses the word “keen” on its home page. Unfortunately, whoever is responsible for this whole debacle failed on that end of things, as well. While the page features a handful of profiles of women in science and “six reasons science needs you,” it has nothing to offer under the “Dream Jobs” tab. All it says is, “There are so many interesting jobs in science for you to discover. Come back soon to find out more.” As though girls and women haven’t been put off long enough. It would have taken about 60 seconds to create a simple list of great jobs in science, seconds that would have been far better spent than the many hours that likely went into making this worthless video.
And then there’s the Events link. There, we are promised a “Girl Thing” mobile that will travel across Europe to “offer fun, on-the-spot scientific activities demonstrating the connection between science and music, cosmetics, food, fashion, and more.” This phrase joins the video to form the horns of the dilemma that anyone doing science outreach to girls must take on. How do you target girls and interest them in science without coming off like a sexist jerk who thinks that girls are like My Little Ponies who will turn to science only if offered the carrot of fashion, makeup, and pink things?
Science seems particularly prone to the misconception that the only way to attract girls is to dress up science in heels and nail polish and trot it out in glowing fuchsia. There is nothing wrong with being feminine and being a scientist or wanting to be a scientist. At Double X Science, we feature women who talk about how their femininity and their scientific activities interact. The clothes in the video are fantastic, and the shoes are killer. But the assumption that girls will become interested in science or seek out the Girl Thing Website only if you present them with the nonsensical fluff that is this “teaser,” presumably because it matches what’s inside their heads? That’s offensive.
Girls are smart. They’re savvy. They’re not fools. An explosion of blue eyeshadow and a Bunsen burner that turns into lipstick are the ideas of a flatfooted adult whose outlook is far distant from the girls of today. But even the girls of the yesterday from whence this video seems to have time traveled would have eyed this askance. I know because I was one. As a future woman of science, I was obsessed with clothes and still pause before a display of great footwear. But I also knew what was cool and what was hokey nonsense some adult cooked up in a misguided attempt to lure me toward their product. Any girl watching this would recognize it for what it is: Cotton candy designed to sweeten what they would undoubtedly infer is an adult effort to force boring information on them. The generation that reveres kickass Katniss from the Hunger Games isn’t going to buy into this puffery.
You know what girls into science like? We like what anyone into science likes. We like a good mystery–there’s a reason Nancy Drew has been popular for decades. We like the weird and the fascinating. We’re
Link: How Do We Interest Girls in Science? Not Like This | BlogHer
The 2012 Research as Art competition organized by Swansea University in Wales has just concluded its competition and the winners have been announced. The first place prize goes to this piece of abstract looking, however realism based piece of photography.
It is we are told, the photograph of a grain of salt. Yummy! Makes you want to pop some corn right. This was an entry from Hollie Rosier of Swansea University. She and her colleagues were researching aircraft engines which burn very hot and leave salt residue when they cool. In a statement on her entry Hollie said, ”This tiny grain of salt, with a diameter of only 2 millimeters, has recrystallized from an aqueous solution in different phases to create its unique and unusual appearance, The importance of this research leads to the safer design and operation of aircraft engines.”
Here is another first prize winner from the same competition.
Tavi Murray, a glaciologist at Swansea University submitted this picture of melting glaciers in Greenland. Don’t know what I like better, the sunset or the glacier..

Wales Online
Nosey about Maggots by Yam Ni Nigam won the Academic Prize and deals with research into modern-day maggot therapy. Yes that is correct. Maggot therapy.
The sight of maggots usually makes me sick. Who knew they could be used for therapy.
Meeting the Ancestors Face to Face, won the Collaborative Prize. It The skull photo was submitted by Nick Owen and Jack Dix Davies of the School of Engineering and Eben Owen-Goodchild of The Mary Rose Trust. It is entitled, “Meeting the Ancestors Face to Face” It is the remains of one of King Henry VIII’s archers who was pulling strings 500 years ago.
Read More about this science art competition here http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2012/06/21/unknown-91466-31234079/#ixzz1yXTmD5h6
This as you science culture fans know this is not the first science/art exhibit and or competition. The unique perspectives of the natural world provided by the new eyes of science is capable of transporting even the most clinical processes beyond the realm of reason into the awe-inspiring. It is no wonder then that the thirst for knowledge continues.
Her is a wonderful picture from the recent Bio-Art show. It was presented by Douglas B. Cowan.
Stem cells, (shown in green) are being grown from myoblasts attached to spherical microcarriers. Oh yaeah. And remember. This sort of thing goes on everyday, it is perfectly legal, it is art and sometimes we get to look at it.

Author Barbara Boron
Computer science is the combination of theories, applications and principles which brings about the access to information. This science entails studying the mechanization, expression of algorithms and structure, which are systematic processes for solving problems. Computing however, does not always entail computers. Actually, these kinds of problems were present long before computers did, and come nowadays problems can even be solved by manually instead of with a computer. The information which computer scientists discovered, process, store, and convey is regularly programmed into a computer memory in either bytes or bits. Bits help in the transmitting of files between machines, whereas bytes are the most basic units used to measure information and storage. Technology discovers the transmitting of information.
Engineering science started becoming a fast growing discipline in the 1940s as the technological age develops. Scientists think computers are an essential part of the world and a time will come when everyone will have computers. It’s a more complicated field than just writing programs or building computers. Computer scientists examine problems to find out if they can be calculated, compare algorithms to determine the best solution, design and create computer systems to perform specifications from research, create encoding languages to convey these algorithms, and apply algorithms to application domains, or sets of software systems which share design features.

Early Computers
Men of science can work within any industry or discipline because computer skills are easily transferred into many areas. Scientists, mathematicians and engineers all use computer science, but those that work in the humanities, medicine, education and law often employ the principles of this science also. Computing science is used also to explain scientific concepts such as predicting earthquake patterns, understanding theories like the Big Bang and genetics. Computer science is regarding solving problems at its fundamental level. Scientists need to be great analytical thinkers. He/she needs to also have the dedication to continue with something until a precise solution is found. Technology requires the use of reason to assess solutions and revise plans to get the right solution. As finding solutions requires a lot of time, scientists need to have a lot of patience.

Having a major in computing may lead to careers in software engineering, system administration, laboratory development and research and much more. Men of science ordinary tasks consist of creating new user for computers, designing and implementing software, planning and managing technological infrastructures, and developing solutions to computer problems. A computer scientist ability to adjust to new technologies is crucial.
When thinking about a degree in engineering there are dour things to take into consideration: personal level of commitment, education level, requirements for admission, and specialized programs. A degree in computer science is basically offered through the faculty of science, and may be a part of a college or bigger university, or an independent school. The top engineering science degrees are usually obtainable from schools that have a graduate degree program. Schools like these are capable of attracting high-quality faculty and contain devoted assets to this school. There are two kinds of programs available when seeking a computer science degree: university and investigative college. College programs usually last for 2 – 4 years and are focused on a practical skills. However, there are many theoretical courses, but the huge majority of the program is focused on attaining the practical skills needed to succeed in this profession. The university programs are normally for 4 – 5 years. The main focus is on the theoretical understanding and information required to advance in the computing field. While practical skills are taught, the main focus is to offer a holistic view of computer science as a career, and the skill to move in that field.

Choosing the best school must be based on your personal objectives, skill levels, and achievements. A candid evaluation of your high school marks, level of effort and devotion is a strong indication to help you decide which school is the best for you. Choose a school in which you’ll be challenged and succeed. An excellent computer science degree program must provide every student with a laptop and have available in majority of their classrooms computer workstations. Engineering is an extremely technological skill which is learned best through practice, discovering new and rising technologies, and exposure to different programs. In these programs the workload is very heavy and requires continued access to computer resources and equipment.
Seek a program which provides the opportunity to specialize in something that you are interested in. This can take in biomechanics, robotics, high-speed computing facilities, or system integration. Search for extra courses, job placement programs, internships and other tools to assist you in getting a job after graduation. You need to have high school courses in technology, English, computers and calculus so as to qualify for admission into a computer science degree program.
When it comes to high school class requirements, the rule of thumb is this: You have to do what the state requires… but if you’re interested in the subject, you should do more.
In Illinois (PDF), for example, you have to take at least three years of math (including Algebra I and Geometry). But if you’re planning to major in engineering or business or anything that might require math, you want to take more than just three math classes. Colleges want to see that. In a lot of cases, the state’s requirements don’t matter because individual districts have their own requirements in place that go beyond what the state says.
But what if you hate math and don’t want to go into a “math-related field”? That’s when the requirements are even more important. The state is essentially saying, “You need to have at least this much knowledge in the subject before we let you opt out of it forever.”
That’s why it’s disappointing to see that California’s Governor Jerry Brown wants to drop the high school graduation requirement for Science from two years to one:

A little-noticed proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown to eliminate the second year of science as a high school graduation requirement is sparking concern among educators who fear it could deepen the academic divide among students and further erode the state’s scientific and technological leadership
Read more here: California May Lower Science Requirements
The science of the sun, and the. … June 1st, 2012. Episode #146: A Disintegrating Signal. We’re talking about the science of searching for exoplanets with a couple of scientists from the Kepler mission. May 30th, 2012 …
Go here to see the original: Dr. Kiki’s Science Hour 147 | TWiT.TV
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 11, 2012
WASHINGTON, DC — President Obama today named 97 mathematics and science teachers as recipients of the prestigious Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. The educators will receive their awards in Washington, DC later this month.
The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching is awarded annually to outstanding K-12 science and mathematics teachers from across the country. The winners are selected by a panel of distinguished scientists, mathematicians, and educators following an initial selection process done at the state level. Each year the award alternates between teachers teaching kindergarten through 6th grade and those teaching 7th through 12th grades. The 2011 awardees named today teach 7th through 12th grades.
Winners of this Presidential honor receive a $10,000 award from the National Science Foundation to be used at their discretion. They also are invited Washington, DC, for an awards ceremony and several days of educational and celebratory events, including visits with members of Congress and the Administration.
President Obama has committed to strengthen science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and prepare 100,000 effective science and mathematics teachers over the next decade. These commitments build on the President’s “Educate to Innovate” campaign, which has attracted more than $700 million in donations and in-kind support from corporations, philanthropies, service organizations, and others to help bolster science and technology education in the classroom.
“America’s success in the 21st century depends on our ability to educate our children, give our workers the skills they need, and embrace technological change. That starts with the men and women in front of our classrooms. These teachers are the best of the best, and they stand as excellent examples of the kind of leadership we need in order to train the next generation of innovators and help this country get ahead,” said President Obama.
The recipients of the 2011 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching are:
Alabama
Suzanne Culbreth, Birmingham (Math)
Chanda Davis, Huntsville (Science)
Alaska
Stephanie Cronin, Seward (Math)
Joanna Hubbard, Anchorage (Science)
Arizona
Michael Frank, Tucson (Science)
Arkansas
Stephanie Muckelberg, Bald Knob (Math)
Vickie Logan, Little Rock (Science)
California
Kentaro Iwasaki, San Francsico (Math)
Dean Baird, Sacramento (Science)
Colorado
Andrea Wiseman, Denver (Math)
Amy Hanson, Denver (Science)
Connecticut
Karen Thomas, Westport (Math)
Tyler Hoxley, East Hartford (Science)
Delaware
Mary Pinkston, Wilmington (Math)
Michael Kaufmann, Wilmington (Science)
Department of Defense Education Activity
Spencer Bean, Baumholder, Germany (Math)
District of Columbia
Sarah Bax (Math)
William Wallace (Science)
Florida
Kathleen Jones, Panama City Beach (Math)
Stephen Fannin, Tallahassee (Science)
Georgia
Carol Taylor, Fayetteville (Math)
Kelly Stewart, Atlanta (Science)
Hawaii
Charles Souza, Jr., Honolulu (Math)
Julia Segawa, Honolulu (Science)
Idaho
Katie Pemberton, Coeur d’Alene (Math)
James Jordan, Boise (Science)
Illinois
Peter DeCraene, Evanston (Math)
David Bonner, Darien (Science)
Indiana
Natalie Schneider, Indianapolis (Math)
Stacy McCormack, Mishawaka (Science)
Iowa
Karla Digmann, Dubuque (Math)
Jody Stone, Cedar Falls (Science)
Kansas
Angela Miller, Manhattan (Math)
Dennis Burkett, Jr., Olathe (Science)
Kentucky
Andrea Higdon, Crestwood (Math)
Joshua Underwood, Mt. Olivet (Science)
Louisiana
Alison Drake, New Orleans (Math)
Anna Cole, Raceland (Science)
Maine
Kenneth Vencile, Rockport (Science)
Maryland
Barry Hopkins, Severna Park (Science)
Massachusetts
Kathleen Erickson, Great Barrington (Math)
Naomi Volain, Springfield (Science)
Michigan
Donald Pata, Grosse Pointe Woods (Science)
Minnesota
Donna Forbes, Mahtomedi (Math)
Jamin McKenzie, St. Paul (Science)
Mississippi
Jennifer Wilson, Flowood (Math)
Lucy McKone, Brookhaven (Science)
Missouri
Jennifer Baker, Hazelwood (Math)
Robert Becker, Kirkwood (Science)
Montana
Tammy Johnson, Stevensville (Math)
Carol Pleninger, Havre (Science)
Nebraska
David Hartman, Lincoln (Math)
Joan Christen, Beatrice (Science)
Nevada
Gary Mayers, Las Vegas (Math)
New Hampshire
Gina Bergskaug, Hollis (Science)
New Jersey
John McAllen III, Point Pleasant (Math)
Rebecca McLelland-Crawley, Perth Amboy (Science)
New York
Elisabeth Jaffe, New York (Math)
Francesco Neal-Noschese, Cross River (Science)
North Carolina
Nancy Trollinger, Marion (Math)
Eric Grunden, Raleigh (Science)
North Dakota
Ila LaChapelle, Walhalla (Science)
Ohio
Carole Morbitzer, Columbus (Math)
Tami Fitzgerald, Zanesville (Science)
Oklahoma
Ashley Moody, McLoud (Math)
Rebecca Morales, Broken Arrow (Science)
Oregon
Mary Koike, Newport (Science)
Pennsylvania
Katherine Schwang, Carlisle (Math)
Richard Schmidt, Fort Washington (Science)
Puerto Rico
Jaime Abreu Ramos, San Juan (Math)
Judith Martínez, Caguas (Science)
Rhode Island
Brian Nelson, Wakefield (Math)
David Mather, Warwick (Science)
South Carolina
Matthew Owens, Columbia (Math)
Holly Sullivan, Lugoff (Science)
South Dakota
Deborah Snook, Philip (Math)
Paul Kuhlman, Avon (Science)
Tennessee
Phyllis Hillis, Oak Ridge (Math)
Gail Schulte, Smyrna (Science)
Texas
Dixie Ross, Pflugerville (Math)
Joy Killough, Austin (Science)
US Territories
Beatriz Camacho, Guam (Math)
Katherine Baker, Virgin Islands (Science)
Utah
Vivian Shell, Salt Lake City (Math)
James Larson, Salt Lake City (Science)
Vermont
Cathy Estes, Thetford (Math)
Elizabeth Mirra, Windsor (Science)
Virginia
Kimberly Riddle, Fredericksburg (Math)
Jacqueline Curley, Sterling (Science)
Washington
Nathan Shields, Vancouver (Math)
Robert Ettinger, Seattle (Science)
West Virginia
Neil Reger, Buckhannon (Math)
Angela McDaniel, Moatsville (Science)
Wisconsin
Michael Tamblyn, Whitewater (Math)
Kara Pezzi, Appleton (Science)
Wyoming
Jayne Wingate, Cheyenne (Math)
Chad Sharpe, Casper (Science)
Continued here: President Obama Honors Outstanding Math and Science Teachers …
(File photo of a school bus)
By Dr. Marciene Mattleman
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) - Rashid, a first grader likes school. He also likes chicks, although holding them frightened him. But GeoKids LINKS changed all that.
The program, now celebrating its 20th year, was developed by the Wagner Free Institute of Science and St. Joseph’s University, both in Philadelphia, with units in grades 1-5, offering a ninety minute weekly lesson in four North Philadelphia schools. Each class incubates and hatches chicks in its room observing and learning how to care for them.
In second grade, students learn that weather is a system – that has a yearly cycle. They make pinwheels, use anemometers to measure wind speed and direction. Lessons on mineral testing, raising and observing crayfish, wetland and woodlands are supplemented by field trips to museums and natural sites including a working farm.
GeoKids LINKS is starting kids early, learning through STEM projects — science technology, electronics and math. Watching their participation helps one believe that American kids will catch up to their global peers.
Read the original: Teaching Kids To Understand The World Through Science « CBS …
Written by Guy Webster
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, CA – NASA has narrowed the target for its most advanced Mars rover, Curiosity, which will land on the Red Planet in August. The car-sized rover will arrive closer to its ultimate destination for science operations, but also closer to the foot of a mountain slope that poses a landing hazard.
“We’re trimming the distance we’ll have to drive after landing by almost half,” said Pete Theisinger, Mars Science Laboratory project manager at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA. “That could get us to the mountain months earlier.”
It was possible to adjust landing plans because of increased confidence in precision landing technology aboard the Mars Science Laboratory spacecraft, which is carrying the Curiosity rover. That spacecraft can aim closer without hitting Mount Sharp at the center of Gale crater. Rock layers located in the mountain are the prime location for research with the rover.
Curiosity is scheduled to land at approximately 10:31pm PDT August 5th (1:31am EDT, August 6th). Following checkout operations, Curiosity will begin a two-year study of whether the landing vicinity ever offered an environment favorable for microbial life.
Theisinger and other mission leaders described the target adjustment during an update to reporters on Monday, June 11th, about preparations for landing and for operating Curiosity on Mars.
The landing target ellipse had been approximately 12 miles wide and 16 miles long (20 kilometers by 25 kilometers). Continuing analysis of the new landing system’s capabilities has allowed mission planners to shrink the area to approximately 4 miles wide and 12 miles long (7 kilometers by 20 kilometers), assuming winds and other atmospheric conditions are as predicted.
Even with the smaller ellipse, Curiosity will be able to touch down at a safe distance from steep slopes at the edge of Mount Sharp.
“We have been preparing for years for a successful landing by Curiosity, and all signs are good,” said Dave Lavery, Mars Science Laboratory program executive at NASA. “However, landing on Mars always carries risks, so success is not guaranteed. Once on the ground we’ll proceed carefully. We have plenty of time since Curiosity is not as life-limited as the approximate 90-day missions like NASA’s Mars Exploration Rovers and the Phoenix lander.”
Since the spacecraft was launched in November 2011, engineers have continued testing and improving its landing software. Mars Science Laboratory will use an upgraded version of flight software installed on its computers during the past two weeks. Additional upgrades for Mars surface operations will be sent to the rover about a week after landing.
Other preparations include upgrades to the rover’s software and understanding effects of debris coming from the drill the rover will use to collect samples from rocks on Mars. Experiments at JPL indicate that Teflon from the drill could mix with the powdered samples. Testing will continue past landing with copies of the drill. The rover will deliver the samples to onboard instruments that can identify mineral and chemical ingredients.
“The material from the drill could complicate, but will not prevent analysis of carbon content in rocks by one of the rover’s 10 instruments. There are workarounds,” said John Grotzinger, the mission’s project scientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. “Organic carbon compounds in an environment are one prerequisite for life. We know meteorites deliver non-biological organic carbon to Mars, but not whether it persists near the surface. We will be checking for that and for other chemical and mineral clues about habitability.”
Curiosity will be in good company as it nears landing. Two NASA Mars orbiters, along with a European Space Agency orbiter, will be in position to listen to radio transmissions as Mars Science Laboratory descends through Mars’ atmosphere.
The mission is managed by JPL for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. Curiosity was designed, developed and assembled at JPL. Caltech manages JPL for NASA.
Follow the mission on Facebook and Twitter at:
http://www.facebook.com/marscuriosity
http://www.twitter.com/marscuriosity
For more information on the Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity mission, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/msl
.
Atmosphere, Carbon, Gale Crater, Guy Webster, Mars, Mount Sharp, NASA, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA’s Mars rover Curiosity, NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory Spacecraft, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Pasadena CA, Red Planet
Read more here: NASA moves the Mars Science Laboratory Spacecraft Landing Site …
Here’s today’s round-up of science, nature and environment news from the Bay Area and beyond.
Read more about Dr. Yamanaka’s contributions to stem cell research.
Stay tuned for a future QUEST TV story on black holes that will air in September and learn more from KQED News.
Learn more about tsunamis.
Learn more about the Mars rover.
Learn more about mammoths.
Learn more about Alzheimer’s.
‘}”>
Learn more about AIDS and HIV from QUEST and KQED News.
Tags: Environment, kqed, nature, News, Science
Read more: KQED Science News Round-Up | KQED QUEST
When your soul awakens, your destiny becomes urgent with creativity
John O’Donohue, Anam Cara, p. 111
I was not surprised to discover only one degree of separation between Daniel Siegel and me. Siegel’s view of physical, mental, and relational health is inspired in part by the flowing metaphors of a fellow Irishman, John O’Donohue—a man I recall very well, sitting patiently, ready to sign his book for another customer in my grandmother’s bookshop. Reading Siegel’s thought-provoking book, Mindsight: the new science of personal transformation, brought me back in time to that place where I paused dusting off granny’s books and began reading them instead—upon which, much like Daniel Siegel did, I discovered biological science, psychological science, and the fascinating enigma of systems science. It is into the sphere of systems science that Siegel takes us in the opening sections of his book.
Central to systems science is the idea of integration, an idea that Siegel works to capture in principle and use in practice. Central to Siegel’s thesis is the idea that well-being is a function of the interdependence between mind, brain, and relationships. He draws upon systems science in an effort to explain how an embodied mind is shaped by evolved biological structures, processes, and functions that influence the ongoing ebb and flow of emotion, cognition, and behaviour; and he describes how interpersonal dynamics co-function in this context to shape patterns of physical, mental, and relational health. Siegel highlights how an awareness and understanding of system interdependencies and system dynamics can be used to alter the flow of information and energy in the system and thus refashion the biological, psychological, and relational structures, processes, and functions that influence patterns of physical, mental, and relational health. In broad terms, then, his goal is the goal of applied systems science.
The image borrowed from John O’Donohue is the image of a river with an emergent flow. O’Donohue said that he’d love to live like a river, carried by the surprise of his own unfolding. The metaphor borrowed from systems science (Bertalanffy, 1968) is one of life as a self-organizing process. Siegal notes how a complex system is said to regulate its own emergence. Living systems move toward higher levels of complexity and integration, that is, unless they are moving away from this state toward disequilibrium, instability, disorder, and death. Upon first reading systems science Siegal grappled with how to apply these ideas to further our understanding of health and well-being:
“If these ideas were relevant and true, then perhaps this was an argument for the idea that we too are capable of self-organization. It seemed to me that our triangle of well-being, the system of mind, brain, and relationships, might be more fully understood in these terms, and we might apply the principles of complexity and integration to creating health across each of these three aspects of our lives”. (p. 69).
The healthy system is a system that somehow masters, or at least regulates, its own self-organizing process—it is a system that somehow maintains integration and complexity and avoids the extremes of rigidity and chaos. Elaborating upon the metaphor of the river, Siegel ask us to consider rigidity and chaos as the left and right bank of the river, respectively. The ideal position for the self-organizing person is in the centre of the river—in the flow—where matter and energy move freely and where there is scope to maximize complexity and integration. The central flow of the river is the place where the five FACES of optimal health and well-being can flourish. More specifically, a healthy complex and integrated system is marked by a Flexible, Adaptive, Coherent, Energized, and Stable (FACES) flow.
Of course, Siegel is not the first psychologist to grapple with how best to apply systems science metaphors to our understanding of health and well-being: Csikszentmihalyi grappled to operationally define flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990); Labouvie-Vief grappled to articulate her vision of dynamic integration in personality functioning (Labouvie-Vief & Márquez González, 2004); Lewis wrestled with the system dynamics of emotion (Lewis, 2005); Fischer worked to clarify the skill structures involved in regulatory control of action (Fischer & Bidell, 2006), and so on. But Siegel is somewhat unique: he relies less on operational definitions and measurement of system dynamics and more on mindsight, that is, the ability of an individual to monitor and alter the flow of information and energy in their system in a principled manner that is informed in part by their understanding of biological and psychological science.
Siegel uses clinical case studies to argue that mindsight can be cultivated and used to enhance well-being. While some might argue that Siegel’s mindsight offers little more than existing mindfulness perspectives (Langer, 1991, 2009), and that the science of personal transformation Siegel points to might be somewhat dependent on the dubious mindsight abilities of a clinician who would, at least initially, point out to clients which aspect of their ongoing system flow they need to work on, it is possible that some new scientific insights will might emerge from Siegel’s perspective, the outcome of which may be useful. Judging from the success Siegel reports with his clients, it is possible that his new mindsight therapy methods may withstand the test of randomized controlled trials. Finally, it is possible that some people reading Seigel’s book will assimilate useful knowledge and new therapeutic strategies that help them in some way. All of this implies that possibilities become reality.
Applied Systems Science
Arguably, people can cultivate some mindful awareness of the flow of information in their system, and perhaps this can liberate them in certain respects from medical and psychological constraints and open them instead to the possibilities of mindful control over their own health – ideally, mindful control that is informed both by science and personal observation (Langer, 2009). This case has been well argued by Ellen Langer. Nevertheless, it is a view which assumes that these mindful skills can be cultivated, and the issue as to how best to foster skill development in this context opens up a large set of applied systems science challenges.
Consistent with the available research evidence, Siegel enters this skill development territory with the view that mindfulness meditation is a useful skill to cultivate. Siegel describes how mindfulness meditation can help people to regulate their emotions and cultivate a more flexible and stable mind that fosters higher levels of integration. But Siegel builds upon this mindful base to highlight a variety of different forms of integration, each of which are different dimensions of skill that can be cultivated.
Mindfulness is at the core of the first of eight domains of integration Siegel describes as keys to personal transformation and well-being. He calls this first domain of integration the integration of consciousness. In most of the clinical cases Siegel presents, some skill in the integration of consciousness, acquired in large part via mindfulness meditation, is needed before clients can work on other domains of integration.
Siegel describes seven additional domains of integration: horizontal integration of the left and right side of the brain; vertical integration of the body, brainstem, limbic areas, and cortex; memory integration, including the integration of implicit and explicit memory; narrative integration of “our left hemisphere’s narrator function with the autobiographical memory storage of our right hemisphere” (p. 74); state integration of the “distinct states of being that embody our fundamental drives and needs: closeness and solitude, autonomy and independence, caregiving and mastery, among others.” (p. 74); interpersonal integration of self with others; and temporal integration in the context of existential doubts associated with uncertainty, impermanence, and mortality.
See the original post here: Mindsight: the new science of personal transformation? | Psychology …
By PHIL PLAIT – SLATE
Added: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:50:12 UTC
Many years ago, on a crisp winter’s night, I stood in my family’s Northern Virginia driveway. Though I was 5 years old, I remember the moment with startling clarity. At my father’s urging, I walked up to a telescope, a cheap department store affair with a small lens and wobbly legs. I leaned over, scrinched one eye closed, and looked through the eyepiece.
And it is no exaggeration, no hyperbole, to say that what I saw changed my life forever.
It was Saturn. By the naked eye, it was just another yellowish star hanging over our neighbor’s trees. But that small telescope transformed it into a fantastic jewel, a tiny disk surrounded by a perfect and heartbreakingly beautiful ring, edges so sharp and crisp it was as if it had been carved out of ice.
And literally, from that moment on, I knew I wanted to be a scientist. I’ll admit dinosaurs and astronomy were neck-and-neck for a few years, but the stars finally won. I’ve had a deep and abiding love for studying the universe ever since.
Every astronomer—every scientist—I’ve talked to has had a similar “Saturn moment.” Whether it was looking through a microscope, going on a school field trip to a museum, or understanding some small but pure fact for the first time, they’ve all had that one moment of clarity when they knew science was for them. Former NIH scientist Paul Plotz describes a similar moment in Slate—for him, it was nearly blowing up his parents’ basement with a chemistry experiment.
In the United States right now, science is under attack. In government, in schools, from religions. A large fraction of the American public is rejecting it. But what if we tried to make a Saturn moment happen for everyone? Of course, I don’t mean that all we need to do to create nation of science lovers is to provide such an epiphany. Not everyone will become instantly entranced as I did, and finding that one thing that brings science to life is no simple task.
On the other hand, unfortunately, it is very easy to make sure a child does not love science.
For that, any number of things will do: parents who don’t encourage their children to be curious or teachers who aren’t prepared to teach it. The best way to turn a kid off to science forever is to make her sit through endless lectures, forcing her to memorize fact, dates, numbers, and equations. That would squeeze the love out of anyone, replacing it with ennui at best and an active dislike at worst.
Original post: A Moment of Science – Phil Plait – Slate – RichardDawkins.net
NBC’s Chief Medical Editor is very ‘pro-science’ and believes that detecting potential genetic defects in your unborn child has great potential for the future, but it also gives parents the choice to decide whether they want to abort their child. Despite ethical issues it may bring up, she’s pro-science so screw the social questions!
LIFE NEWS – On Friday’s NBC Today, chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman explained to viewers that it’s just good science to abort an unborn child that may have a genetic disorder, explaining that testing for such conditions, “gives parents a chance to decide whether they’re going to continue that pregnancy or not. This is the science of today.”
Snyderman then predicted: “I think the future will be such that you’ll find out that your child may have a genetic hit. You can fix that genetic problem, and improve your chance, a child’s chance…” When co-host Savannah Guthrie raised ethical questions about aborting children under such circumstances, Snyderman matter-of-factly replied: “Well, I’m pro-science, so I believe that this is a great way to prevent diseases.”
“NANCY SNYDERMAN: Well, you might learn that a child has a severe genetic problem. It gives parents a chance to decide whether they’re going to continue that pregnancy or not. This is the science of today. It is running fast into the future. And I think the future will be such that you’ll find out that your child may have a genetic hit. You can fix that genetic problem
GUTHRIE: Do you think it raises ethical issues? I mean at what point, if you have information that your child is going to have a genetic problem, and then you’re posed with the question of whether to go forward with the pregnancy?
SNYDERMAN: Well, I’m pro-science, so I believe that this is a great way to prevent diseases.
Continue reading here: NBC Chief Medical Editor: It’s ‘pro-science’ to abort children with …
Science Fiction DVD
The planet of Science fiction can be a vast a single. Millions regarding fans take pleasure in their Science fiction collection for most different causes. For illustration, a Science fiction DVD could have tremendous monetary value, sentimental benefit, or just the worth of satisfaction. Whatever the causes science hype fans have got raised the particular popularity regarding owning their particular science hype DVD.
One popular reason regarding watching Science fiction Videos is they can be watched repeatedly. Some of one’s favorite TV series episodes have finally arrived about DVD, therefore you can watch your chosen show as much times as you would like to, commercial totally free. Furthermore, fans regarding science hype take fantastic pride inside owning each science hype DVD for sale in a specific category, motion picture, of a certain actor, or of your television collection. They lead to great bragging rights once you attend your following sci-fi meeting.
What is fantastic about any science hype collection will be that it could be steadily created, with almost no monetary investment generally. Now aren’t getting me completely wrong, some certain science hype DVD may run you a large amount of cash. Nonetheless, for one of the most part, it is possible to build an exceptionally vast assortment without a lot of a dent within your wallet. As an example, if you want to develop your Science fiction assortment or commence one for initially, you can consider seeking online to discover a cheap Science fiction DVD.
There are usually many places it is possible to look, as an example, there are usually complete websites accessible to you on the net that caters simply to science hype fans and also movies. Moreover, you can easily save a lot more money at auction sites for instance eBay or locate a wholesale distributor to save lots of money over a science hype DVD. Some other places you could possibly save a lot of money on the science hype collection is at general items stores for instance Wal-Mart or perhaps K-Mart.
You do have the option of purchasing at concentrate movie retailers; however, you should expect you’ll pay a tad bit more money with these areas. You may possibly also find an affordable science hype DVD in the video local rental store. It could be an earlier viewed motion picture, but it will still be cheaper as compared to buying in other places.
Many fans thinking of buying a Science fiction DVD, may not watch the particular DVD in any way. It might be a special section of their assortment. After almost all, many items are well worth more any time still inside the original the labels, in mint problem, and haven’t been exposed or employed. This provides science hype more investing and marketing power. Trading any science hype DVD can be a popular activity inside the collecting planet. Perhaps one individual has an actual desire undertake a DVD which is in the science hype collection, while they could have one thing of the same value which you have been seeking so tough for. This kind of again, offers you trading strength, especially in the event the science hype DVD is at good to be able to mint problem.
Related posts:
Tags: Cheap Science Fiction, fantastic, Hype, investment, Science Fiction, Science Fiction Collection, Science Fiction DVD
See the original post here: Science Fiction DVD
Christchurch, New Zealand | Posted on June 9th, 2012
The Australian Patent Office has also accepted Izon Science Patent No. 2005315729 for the same core technology.
Izon Science has also been granted a patent for its analysis platform by the UK Intellectual Property Office. UK Patent No. 2477287 (formerly Application No. 1001311.8) for Control of particle flow in an aperture and relates to the use of combined pressure and voltage. This follows on from the prior award of the core patent in 2006 (GB2421303, 12 November 2006).
Read the original: Nanotechnology Now – Press Release: “Izon Science granted core …
The term “forensic” literally means having to do with the law. We often hear newscasts about forensic experts testifying about evidence recovered from crime scenes.
Forensic scientists are those who work in the crime laboratory and not only examine crime scene evidence, they also conduct research into finding better methods, substances and tools to make evidence collection more fruitful in finding and identifying potential perpetrators.
This article deals with just one specific evidence collection topic-latent fingerprint recovery. A latent print is one that is not clearly visible on a surface. The print itself consists of moisture that is transferred from the fingers and palms of a subject onto a surface. This moisture is caused by secretions from the body’s sweat glands, and it contains a mixture of waste products the body needs to get rid of. Most of the moisture in a latent print is water, but also present may be other waste products like amino acids, cholesterol, choline and salt.
In the case of the palms and fingers, the only sweat glands present are the eccrine glands, and eccrine sweat is mostly water. But what about the greasy fingerprints we often see on our computer screens and iPads? While eccrine glands are present all over the body, sebaceous glands-the source of the oily residue are found on the face, arms, trunk and legs. The scalp is an excellent source of sebaceous residue as is the face. This oily residue is transferred to the fingers and palms by repeated touching of these surfaces throughout the day. This moisture coats the friction ridges covering the palms, fingers and even the plantar surfaces of the feet.
Forensic science has developed a number of methods for “developing” or making latent prints visible so that they can be photographed and “lifted.” Listed below are just some of the most-often used latent print development techniques:
Latent Prints on Porous Surfaces
Porous surfaces consist of paper, cardboard and raw wood. Various chemical methods are used to make a latent print visible.
Forensic experts use formulations such as Iodine crystals, Ninhydrin, DFO (1,8-Diazafluorene-9-one) or Physical Developer (a silver-based solution) on porous surfaces. Iodine develops sebaceous (oily) latent prints). Iodine fumes actually bring the prints into view.
Ninhydrin and DFO in liquid form develop print residue containing amino acids from Eccrine sweat.
Physical developer will produce latents containing oily residue.
Latent Prints on Non-Porous Surfaces
Latent fingerprint powders have been used on non-porous surfaces such as metal, painted wood, glass, plastic, etc. for over 100 years. It is still the most often used method, and today a variety of formulations cover virtually all non-porous materials.
Superglue (cyanoacrylate adhesive) fumes deployed in a sealed chamber are a current CSI favorite at the crime scene or in the crime lab. Superglue fumes polymerize on moisture-in this case the water present in a latent print-to form a rock-hard reproduction of the friction ridge pattern.
RUVIS (Reflected Ultraviolet Imaging System) is a device that allows the CSI to actually see latent prints on non-porous surfaces without any prior treatment. A separate article will be posted giving more detail on RUVIS and the link below provides additional information.
The popularity of DNA analysis has revolutionized crime scene investigation, but crimes not involving physical violence (assault, rape or homicide) may not provide investigators with sufficient DNA samples, so latent fingerprint development remains as the most reliable method for putting the suspect at the scene of the crime and ultimately behind prison walls.
Read the original here: How to Collect Forensic Science Fingerprints – Methods Used by Real-Life CSIs
The Peytonville Science Museum was a labor of love by a number of high school teachers who were interested in promoting science to the general public. When they finally opened, they got a decent write up in the local paper, but they were stunned during their first week to find out that their actual attendance rates were only about twenty percent of what they might have expected.
Their biggest concern was simply that they weren’t getting the exposure that they thought that they deserved. There was a well known attraction on the other side of town which thousands of people flocked to. It had roller coasters and all kinds of water rides and the usual attractions which brought in so many people and so much money.
They were convinced that if more people knew about what they had to offer, they would want to see more than just the big amusement park. There were lots of kids in particular who would want to see what a science museum had to offer.
They decided to call on someone they knew who might be in a position to advise them: a salesman at a full service printing company which happened to be located a block from their new location. They called him and they invited him over to see their new location.
He looked at their overall effort and came to the conclusion that the best way for them to move forward would be a rack card program. They didn’t even know what he was talking about but he explained the basic concept: very inexpensive advertising in remote locations where there was a lot of foot traffic. People would come along and browse the racks and if they found something that interested them they would in many cases change their plans in order to go and see.
The keys to making it a success would be to go into restaurants, truck stops and every touristy kind of business located near the big attraction, and to find places where they could place rack cards. There were plenty of such places, and there really wouldn’t be anybody who wouldn’t want to support an educational project.
The salesman took down all of the relevant information and took a couple of days to work something up. When he brought it back, they were impressed. He had taken information about various exhibits in the science museum and used them to arouse curiosity and build interest.
Satisfied with the initial effort, they ordered several thousand, and they made the trip up and down the highway corridor making sure that they were represented well in as many places as possible.
Excerpt from: The Science Museum and Rack Cards
In a previous post, Rejected by Science!, I identified two different concepts of science in archaeology. Archaeological science type 1 is the pursuit of knowledge in a way that conforms to a scientific epistemology. In the words …
See the original post here: Publishing Archaeology: Science type 1 vs. Science type 2
In 2010, NSF gave $50,000 to faculty members at Arizona State University to lead a course on covering science and innovation policy with “creative nonfiction” for 12 writers/communicators and 12 scholars/researchers. This year, the foundation gave the project $250,000 for an expanded program whose goal is to teach participants to use “narrative, scene and storytelling” to engage general readers and audiences.
“Creative nonfiction provides a more experienced, broader, more widely defined presentation of nonfiction prose than traditional journalism programs,” said Lee Gutkind, a doyen of the style and one of the course’s two directors. “We believe narrative is as important as substance. The way in which the substance (reportage) is presented is key to the impact our work will make, communicating an understanding of science and policy, changing lives, etc.”
A freezer malfunction at Harvard’s McLean Hospital has damaged about a third of the world’s biggest collection of autism brain samples, potentially setting back research by as much as a decade.
“This was a priceless collection,” director of the Harvard Brain Tissue Resource Center, Dr. Francis Benes, told Boston.com. “You can’t express its value in dollar amounts.”
The freezer housed brains that belonged to people who had some kind of neurological or psychiatric condition, such as Alzheimer’s or bipolar disorder, as well as Autism. It was usually kept at negative 112 degrees Fahrenheit. It was supposed to be protected by two alarms, and staff checked a thermostat on the outside twice a day. However, neither alarm went off and the temperature was giving a normal reading. The problem wasn’t discovered until someone opened the door and didn’t feel any cold air. Though the thermostat claimed it was the right climate inside, it was actually more like 44 degrees, the same temp as a typical refrigerator. What’s even worse is that the condition of the brains indicate the freezer had been off for about three days. That was enough time for 150 brains to thaw out and turn dark from decay.
More than 50 were owned by advocacy and research organization Autism Speaks. They were a part of the Autism Tissue Program, donated by the families of kids and young adults who had suffered from the disease. This brain library is important because nearly 1 in 88 kids in the U.S. have autism, but the cause is still somewhat of a mystery.
The good news is affected brains aren’t entirely unusable—32 of them have been divided, half returned to freezers, and half placed in a preservative called formalin. While the preserved brains can still be used for research, the information they’ll give is different than if they were still frozen. That said, they might still be effective for genetic study. But sadly enough, it’s going to take a long time to rebuild the collection— Harvard’s brain bank had been gathering samples for about 20 years. [Boston.com]
Image credit: Alex Milt/Shutterstock
Newer Stories… science 11:20 AM 0 Busted Freezer Melts 150 Brains
One of the topics we discuss at our think tank which happens to operate online is how language changes the way people think and reason. In fact, there is an incredible diversity in thinking based on which language you speak and write. Often it is even greater than the thought diversity coming from cultural differences. Now then, I’d like to discuss with you science fiction, as it is a highly creative endeavor. Indeed, it is one I have dabbled in myself. Okay so, let’s talk.
Isaac Asimov was once asked why all the best science fiction writers are American or English and he was asked if that was likely to continue. He noted at the time of that interview that there were Russian science fiction writers who were quite good, many of them, and a Polish science fiction writer considered one of the best in the world, Stanislaw Lem. Asimov also noted that since most of those interested in the topic in the English speaking world including himself and his circle of friends read their science fiction in English, and thus, their favorite authors write in English and are considered the greats.
Now then, this is an interesting topic isn’t it and I suppose in the future with robust translation software that we will be reading the creative fictional science works of people around the globe. I’ve been amazed at reading science fiction which has been translated into English from other parts of the world, and often it is much better, more well thought out, and extremely intriguing. Many of the science fiction movie genres which are produced in English have very common themes. It’s as if everyone is copying everyone else.
However, if a science fiction writer, Sci Fi screenplay writer, or futuristic moviemaker reads and watches other works in their same language, they are apt to produce similar works. But that won’t be the case for those in other cultures speaking different languages, as their minds are working differently and are coming up with new scenarios, ones which may pique our curiosity, and we may wonder how they could possibly think of something like that, as it would be so foreign and new to us. In fact, it would be a treat, and after hearing or viewing these science fiction works, we might be quite frankly blown away.
Let’s just hope that our interactive translation future doesn’t ruin them making them think like us or vice-versa, we need the diversity of thought to keep things great. Still, maybe it’s time we did a little more cross-cultural sharing, translated more works into English, and vice versa, to share ideas, new concepts, and creativity with each other. That would be a good thing for humanity, and I’m sure if Isaac Asimov was still around, that he would agree. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.
Excerpt from: In The Future Will Science Fiction Writing Still Be Dominated By English Writers?
As a society, we privilege science to prove or disprove, say what is real or not real, possible or impossible. By granting this privilege to science, we empower blind obedience to scientific declarations that claim objectivity is good and subjectivity is bad. Unfortunately, orthodox, empirical science may even be blind to its own limitations in pursuit of “pure, rational science.” Such a perspective, while effective in some fields, also qualifies as “pure, narrow limitation.”
Why do we so often defer to science rather than trust personal intuition and experience? Empirical, objective science may be great for certain geological matters, but in the human realm, it may contribute to personal disempowerment. It makes as much sense to defer to scientists to explain the meta-physical world as it does to allow the government to set standards of honesty.
For centuries, scientists and the general population have believed in a set of natural laws, gravity, linear causation and rational thought. Quantum physics comes along in the early 1900s and informs us that a photon can be in two places at the same time. We learn that a photon can be either a wave or a particle, depending on the observer’s expectations and system of measurement. We also learn that space and time are relative perceptions rather than absolute measurements. All protons are linked together throughout the universe. Experiments have proven that probing one proton affects an intertwined proton anywhere in the universe. These innovations in physics have ignited innovations in other realms of human thought. We are no longer earth-bound to our little mechanical bodies. We are something much more than that.
Quantum physics is every bit as revolutionary, and disturbing to our understanding of ourselves and the universe, as the Copernican Revolution 500 years ago that presented a radically different world view shifting away from an Earth-centered cosmology. Similarly, as you progress in your Reiki and meditation practice, you discover amazing perspectives of life. All things in the universe are one. We are all connected, like one being with billions of fingers, all part of one universal mind, one collective consciousness.
So, what does all this science have to do with me? When thoughts of “me” and “I” intrude, we are severed from the unity of life. This egoist experience damages our holistic experience of life and perpetuates our industrialized feelings of alienation. Our modern society is painfully out of time and out of tune with nature, as if we are objectively separate from nature. As environmentalist Joanna Macy describes in World as Lover, World as Self, the human body is more like the surface of a pond constantly interfacing with the natural world, rather than a being isolated within the confines of our skin. Reducing the ego and relaxing the “I” perspective empowers a person to become whole in universal awareness and connectedness. This reduces alienation and leads to awareness described in Buddhism as Anatta, the impersonal non-self.
The mind/universe has a capacity far beyond narrow linear perception. Perceiving and experiencing life holistically opens up vastly different dimensions. We learn to see that our beliefs and patterns of thought severely limit us. Our human brains and consciousness are trapped in old, rational thought. It’s like our minds are using computer software written in the seventeenth century while trying to understand phenomena occurring in the twenty first century.
OK, so don’t worry too much if quantum physics boggles your mind. Just because we understand that atoms are not solid, time and space are relative and everything is entangled with everything else, you still need to get up tomorrow morning, eat breakfast and go to work. So, life goes on. At the same time, we gain awareness that nothing is quite what it seems and we can in fact overcome limits to our thoughts and consciousness. You might want to read further into quantum physics, but I suggest that your time might be used more effectively meditating in non-discursive thought than trying to disentangle the mysteries of the sub-atomic universe.
Rest assured, Reiki works just as well whether you understand quantum physics or not! You do not need to privilege the scientists, physicists or doctors to figure out if Reiki is real or not. It would be much more effective to simply receive a healing and discover it for yourself. If you are favorably impressed by the results from your healing session, it may be time to join a Reiki course.
Be sure to read my other article concerning quantum physics and Reiki called “What is the Source of Reiki?”
Read the rest here: Science and Reiki
Now then, let me make a few comments and then get into a brief dialogue to start this off if I might. If we look at DARPA’s crowd sourcing exploits to design a Humvee replacement prototype or if we think about how Black Projects break things down into components, where those working on any given part don’t have the whole picture, but an idea of at least some of what they are doing, we see similarities as to how the brain processes information along the pathways.
Similarly a large company working on a personal tech device might have 500 suppliers, none of which has any idea what the final product might actually do or look like, although some of the more important component makers might have a pretty good idea.
Next, in this case, I’d like to put forth the “Banyan Tree” model, and if you’ve ever been to perhaps Hilo Bay on the Big Island of Hawaii you can see that this makes a lot of sense. Large roots above ground into a solid trunk, branching out with smaller vertical trunk-like pieces. In many regards this is similar to an autistic brain but, it’s even better due to all the ancillary support systems bringing nutrients up.
Now then, if we’d like to visualize this in a more systematic way, think of an hourglass as the trunk with stingers going from the top and bottom. Consider the hourglass a piece of transparent grid paper somewhat like Einstein’s gravity theory, but as a black hole with an inlet and outlet, then with the stringers. Next, put horizontal rings, also on a grid further apart on the ends close in the center – trunk.
That is the model I’d use for the crowd sourcing mind-map to hold data together, to allow by-passing. Lastly, put the science tree branches pouring out of each of the grid lines on the top, perhaps like Stephen Wolfram’s Mathematica – leaves, branches, ever decreasing size for every possible niche of science. The leaf-masters are those working on all the cutting edge of all the science “pure research” and that is to be carefully monitored, but everyone can access the trunk and put in input. Those with significant abilities but not in the sciences or research can have access to the leaf masters but through the information stringers prior to the offshoots.
All the system needs to do is scour the leaf-masters work, asking questions, perhaps a few crawlers (insects-birds-tree shrews) can connect the dots, only a few who know the entirety of what they are trying to do. Since the science tree or crowd sourcing model contains all the information, highest level of current human knowledge, it wouldn’t matter what you wanted to accomplish, create, or discover, as you’d have a go-to person or leaf-master for any particular need, thus you could run thousands of projects, invest in the pure research and solve any problem or accomplish any pressing need.
If I was Google X, IBM, Intel, DARPA, DuPont, 3M, Northrop, Boeing, Lockheed, GE, or any of the others, that’s how I’d be organizing the information, and encouraging the flow of that knowledge – along the Bayan Tree – plus, it’s so simple, I could explain it to anyone in an elevator pitch!
Any thoughts on the Banyan Tree model, if so, shoot me an email, and in the mean time please consider all this and think on it.
Read the original post: Banyan Tree Model for Science, Crowd Sourcing, Mind-Mapping, R and D
From the editor’s desk comments on the week ending on May 26th 2012.
With dozens of patents and research papers published and approved this week it is clear that the world continues to know more and create more opportunity for itself than ever. Here are some of the stories that caught our eye this week.
DISCOVERY: Of course Space Exploration Technologies historic launch tops the news. It has, so far been a high tech work of art. The capture, docking and berthing of its Dragon spacecraft were truly an encouraging sign that we are able to do more now that the shuttle era is over and not less. We now can begin thinking more realistically about entering the era beyond only engaging in orbital missions and begin to think instead of creating orbital sub-orbital systems. Multi layered orbital systems will not be applicable routinely untill private enterprise begins space flight for humans which should be somewhere in 2015. Until then watch for accelerated development of systems for tourism, research, manufacturing and mining to unfold.
INVENTION: The next story that tops the tech culture charts has to be Facebook;
Mark Zuckerburg the youthfulnvertor/entrepreneur who proved if you build it they will come now has to prove you can make billions doing it. The problem is as old as time. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. The problem is how do you get people to buy something while they are not there to shop but only to chat and socialize. Quantum POP thinks it will not be hard but will require some creative solutions to get er done.
The idea is to include elements into the environment that are more like socializing at the mall which people do all the time and less like hanging out at home. It will require data mining and customer tracking like you can’t believe. The question is will people stay in a product rich environment, in enough numbers to make it work, or move their conversations elsewhere.
INNOVATION: Speaking of youth. Do you think that science phenom Sir Issac Newton, ever imagined that his 300 year old mathematical problem of finding a formula for determining the path of a projectile under gravity, subject to air resistance, would be solved by a 16 year old 1st generation German of Indian decent? For over 300 years it was considered impossible to calculate this with one formula and yet this kid said, what the heck I’ll give it a shot. Congratulations Mr. sixteen year old Shouryya Ray.
And one more item that proves the older a thing is the newer it can become.
University of Missouri researchers have developed computer software that combines the ancient practices and modern medicine by providing an automated system for analyzing images of the tongue. Ancient Chinese medicine is one of those great things that keeps on bringing new advances in our world. The understanding that the body and in fact all life in this world consists of yin and yang elements that constantly mutate and change the phenomenon we observe, gets re-affirmed again. Ancient Chinese medicine affirms that these phenomenon can be observed and through these observations proper action to affect change can be determined. In physiognomy this means that the body is constantly revealing its condition to us through the color and shape of various parts of itself. The tongue has long been considered an indicator of overall health so these researchers have begun to develop a self diagnosis phone app so that you can look at your tongue and find out if you are about to need some medical attention up to a year or more before you actually get the symptoms. East may be east and west may be west but here the twain shall meet. Soon there will be a phone app for everthing.
Some of the science theory and application behind 2001
April marks the 44 anniversary of the motion picture production 2001, A Space Odyssey. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke’s movie is proving the past can be the future.The fact that we are still 33 years from the 2001 future just like they were in 1968 when the movie was released, makes me want to crack some bones
2001 may be the only science fiction movie that put so much effort into giving the audience the feeling of what space is and what it might be like to experience it. The movie can be said to be an attempt to use science and logic to go beyond science and logic while still being true to science and logic. The science of motion picture production embodied was stae of the art and mostly holds up well from the camera to the lighting. and of course Kubrick was one of the formost film producers of his time.
Based on a science fiction book “The Sentinal” once it hit the theaters, it was re-writtien and published as 2001 a Space Odyessy. Herein the science of the storyline was delved into in more detail.
When talking about the science in the storyline of 2001 we should start at the beginning with the Monolith. The Monolith is the end evolutionary product of a race of intelligent beings. It was the last physical body they inhabited as a species before they became pure energy.
Imagine if we started making artificial limbs, organs, veins, brains and everything so well that no one wanted to have an organic body anymore.They stopped using them at all because they wore out and couldn’t travel as fast or as far. These better bodies could travel across the universe in a nano second and other stuff like that and better. I mean if you could have one right now wouldn’t you want one?
Of course you would. And so did they. They got so good at making these wonderful bodies for themselves that they found a way to get born into them. Eventually they began to understand reality so well they decided to bypass the whole body thing and exist as consciousness. Before that though, they went visiting all the places they could only see in telescopes before their machine bodies got so good. When they went visiting, they decided it would be polite to start dropping in on evolving species that were heading evolutionarily their way. Thus the visit to our ape ancestors. When they found one of these species, they would leave one of these machine bodies capable of housing ego identified consciousness, somewhere that a species with the potential to understand the universe would be sure to find it.
For our species that meant leaving it on the moon.
Near earth orbit and moon science in 2001, involves what it will take to get there and what we will do when we get there. It envisions the developing commercialization of space including manufacturing, tourism, government led scientific expeditions, exploration and regulations extending further and further out into the solar system.
In the movie, the first character capable of forming sentences out of words, Dr. Heywood Floyd, needs to go to the moon. He does this in full 60′s and early 70′s science style. In the course of early space exploration NASA realized that the fuel costs, wear and tear on machinery and amount of resources needed to get to the moon from earth were excessive wasteful and unnecessary when applied to everyday use. Much better to do it in 2 stages first go to a comfortable L4 or 5 earth orbit with a spectacular view. Then spend the night in a nice resort hotel. You might like to hang out at the bar or restaurant or perhaps enjoy some weightless fun. Then if you like, proceed on.
First what is L-4 and L-5 orbits. For this I refer you to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society It says
The name comes from the L4 and L5 Lagrangian points in the Earth-Moon system proposed as locations for the huge rotating space habitats that Dr Gerard K. O’Neill envisioned. L4 and L5 are points of stable gravitational equilibrium located along the path of the moon’s orbit, 60 degrees ahead or behind it.
An object placed in orbit around L5 (or L4) will remain there indefinitely without having to expend fuel to keep its position, whereas an object placed at L1, L2 or L3 (all points of unstable equilibrium) may have to expend fuel if it drifts off the point.
To get to this place in space author Arthur C Clarke envisioned a 3rd or 4th generation of space shuttle developed and by operated by Pan Am or maybe now Virgin. In the movie the first thing you notice when you are flying on Stanley Kubrick concept of Pan Am’s space plane is that our computers look a lot better. This is because the movie suffers from the need to use available analog 60′s movie technology to represent digital machinery. They did not evin have a digital camera for the computer screen shots. Conceptually however the computer stuff redeems itself admirably. You also notice that our food is better. In the movie they have to suck paste through straws inserted into special warmed sealed trays. Not too yummy looking. Because of the NASA Shuttle Program you can be sure that our in-flight space meals of the future will be a lot more appealing. No question though, the anti gravity toilet will still take some getting used to no matter what century we start doing this in.
In 2001, the L-5 place in space is a wheel that spins. Why does it spin? It does this to create artificial gravity. Yes. The diameter of the wheel is coupled to a speed of so many revolutions per hour and together you get a gravity you can walk in, eat in and so on. You can also do some new stuff in lighter than earth gravity states all the way to total weightlessness as you move to the center of the wheel. The creative minds that dreamed all this stuff up saw the resort Idea as inexorably connected to the space program. They even featured Hilton Hotels in the signage.
In the next 2001 Quantum POP article we will get into all the cool stuff you can do in an outer space resort and the kinds of stuff you can do with user fees (talk about taxing the rich) to fund space research. Also industrial uses of space that will lower the prices on stuff we buy right now.