This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/09/30/planet_found_in_habitable_zone/
This should be front page news on every newspaper. It’s not. Instead, the Boston Globe’s front page headline reads “Victim’s home may hold clues in deadly shootings.” New York Times, “Drilling Plans Off Cuba Stir Fears of Impact on Gulf.” In the Los Angeles Times, it can be found under the section “Odd News.” Is science so far out of this country’s collective interest that the discovery of the closest thing to Earth we’ve ever found is not big news? Not only is it big news, it’s optimistic news – news that makes you feel good rather than the dark stories of violence, corruption and tragedy that take up a majority of our newspaper space.
The star: Gliese 581. The red dwarf, three times smaller than our Sun and much less bright, is right next door to us in our galactic neighborhood, only 20 light-years away. The star has been found to hold six planets—the one announced yesterday (the subject of this story) lies in the habitable zone, the “Goldilocks Zone,” not too hot and not too cold but just right. The planet, Gliese 581 g, is the first exoplanet ever to be found in this zone. It’s conditions are ideal for water and there are even places where it would be “shirt-sleeve weather,” says scientists.
The article sticks to the facts—the right thing to do for an exciting story such as this one. It starts with the big news, “Astronomers say they have for the first time spotted a planet beyond our own in…the Goldilocks zone for life,” and moves quickly through the science with short paragraphs. Borenstein focuses on what the astronomers say, so the reader hears it from the source. He jumps from one major astronomer’s quote of excitement and optimism to another. He, very smartly, stays away from wild speculation, saying “[e]ven a simple single-cell bacteria or the equivalent of shower mold would shake perceptions about the uniqueness of life on Earth,” and “[t]here are still many unanswered questions about this strange planet…[i]t is unknown whether water exists on the planet and what kind of atmosphere it has.” The fact that an Earth-like planet like this has been found with our current level of technology, and before Kepler has even really begun racking in data on Earth-like planets, is very encouraging—hopefully there are many more to come in the next few years.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Small Italian Town Leads the Pack in Renewable Energy
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/science/earth/29fossil.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science
What if Americans produced more energy than they used? Though it may seem like an environmental fantasy, this is already underway in other parts of the world, including the subject of this story, Tocco Da Casauria, Italy. This small Italian city’s remarkable renewable energy program has greatly boosted its economy and improved public life. Surprisingly, the rest of the country has been slacking off: Italy is “not on track to meet either its European Union-mandated emissions-reduction target or its commitment to get 17 percent of its total power from renewable sources by 2020.” The success of this small town underlines the importance of local environmental change, and hopefully it will have a significant impact on policies across the country, and across the world.
“Tocco is now essentially energy independent from a financial standpoint, generating 30 percent more electricity than it uses,” writes the author, Elisabeth Rosenthal. She could have been more concise in this story, but the in-depth explanation of the way this town works is interesting, and certainly jaw-dropping to American readers—here in America, “electricity is cheap and government policy has favored setting minimum standards for the percentage of energy…[b]ut in countries where energy from fossil fuels is naturally expensive…renewable energy quickly starts to flow.” Tocco is just one example of a host of European towns who are well on their way towards total sustainability and environmental harmony. When will America reach these heights of sustainable practices and environmental consciousness present in Europe? Not anytime soon, it seems.
What if Americans produced more energy than they used? Though it may seem like an environmental fantasy, this is already underway in other parts of the world, including the subject of this story, Tocco Da Casauria, Italy. This small Italian city’s remarkable renewable energy program has greatly boosted its economy and improved public life. Surprisingly, the rest of the country has been slacking off: Italy is “not on track to meet either its European Union-mandated emissions-reduction target or its commitment to get 17 percent of its total power from renewable sources by 2020.” The success of this small town underlines the importance of local environmental change, and hopefully it will have a significant impact on policies across the country, and across the world.
“Tocco is now essentially energy independent from a financial standpoint, generating 30 percent more electricity than it uses,” writes the author, Elisabeth Rosenthal. She could have been more concise in this story, but the in-depth explanation of the way this town works is interesting, and certainly jaw-dropping to American readers—here in America, “electricity is cheap and government policy has favored setting minimum standards for the percentage of energy…[b]ut in countries where energy from fossil fuels is naturally expensive…renewable energy quickly starts to flow.” Tocco is just one example of a host of European towns who are well on their way towards total sustainability and environmental harmony. When will America reach these heights of sustainable practices and environmental consciousness present in Europe? Not anytime soon, it seems.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The New, Scientific Stairway to Heaven
This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/09/28/scientists_use_hovering_zeppelin_to_film_whales/
One type of aircraft that often goes unmentioned is the zeppelin. Since picking up a bad reputation in 1937 after a German passenger zeppelin burst into flames at an air station in New Jersey and killed 36 people, the zeppelin model has had some key technical adjustments to assure a safe flight. The primary improvement is the use of helium rather than hydrogen (extremely flammable) as the rising gas. Other improvements include a computerized steering system and a frame of carbon fiber.
The story is about one zeppelin called the ‘Eureka’ (the “only operational zeppelin in the United States”), which is used as a fantastic tool for scientific research: it can “examine biota in salt ponds,” detect “harmful algal blooms,” “seek out pipeline gas leak evidence,” and, as focused on in this article, observe gray, blue and killer whale pods off the California coast from a truly special perspective—whale researcher Erin Heydenreich says, “I get to see whales every day from a boat…[b]ut seeing them from the air is just a completely different picture…watching the way they move together under water is just incredible.”
The writing is well done. Nearly every paragraph included a new bit of interesting information that developed the story even further. There could have been some more talk on the actual science being done through the cameras of the Eureka – but the story certainly works in its currently brief form.
One type of aircraft that often goes unmentioned is the zeppelin. Since picking up a bad reputation in 1937 after a German passenger zeppelin burst into flames at an air station in New Jersey and killed 36 people, the zeppelin model has had some key technical adjustments to assure a safe flight. The primary improvement is the use of helium rather than hydrogen (extremely flammable) as the rising gas. Other improvements include a computerized steering system and a frame of carbon fiber.
The story is about one zeppelin called the ‘Eureka’ (the “only operational zeppelin in the United States”), which is used as a fantastic tool for scientific research: it can “examine biota in salt ponds,” detect “harmful algal blooms,” “seek out pipeline gas leak evidence,” and, as focused on in this article, observe gray, blue and killer whale pods off the California coast from a truly special perspective—whale researcher Erin Heydenreich says, “I get to see whales every day from a boat…[b]ut seeing them from the air is just a completely different picture…watching the way they move together under water is just incredible.”
The writing is well done. Nearly every paragraph included a new bit of interesting information that developed the story even further. There could have been some more talk on the actual science being done through the cameras of the Eureka – but the story certainly works in its currently brief form.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Coyotes In the Streets and On the Mind
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/science/28coyotes.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science
Coyotes are fascinating. Plain and simple. Most people will eat up a story at the head of the Science section in the Times titled “Mysteries That Howl and Hunt” with the lead bit “Despite coyotes’ growing urban presence, we have trouble understanding them, counting them—even defining them.” Add to that a wonderful illustration of a cat, some berries, and a beetle all stuffed between the jaws of a devious-looking coyote—how can anyone resist reading this one?
The story, written by Carol Kaesuk Yoon, strikes a nice balance between scientific information and intrigue. She begins with the fascination behind the animal: its “howls and yips,” the cultural legends the beast inflames, Mark Twain’s description of the coyote as “a living, breathing allegory of Want,” and, of course, the beloved Wile E. Coyote. Then she talks about the mysterious science of the coyote: how they have done so well to populate all kinds of habitats, including urban, yet we rarely see them and know little about them. She especially focuses on the Eastern coyotes, which seem to have reproduced with not just wolves in their territory, but also domestic dogs. This is one of the big finds actually—that these species, members of the same genus Canis, can actually mate with each other and produce perfectly normal offspring. Their indiscriminate diet may also be a factor in their adaptability to new environments.
Yoon finishes off the piece with some astonishing anecdotes that some may not have known: “coyotes strolling in Central Park, trotting into a Quiznos restaurant in downtown Chicago and taking a dash around a federal courthouse in Detroit;” one scientist’s estimate of 2,000 coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area; researchers claim that a person is “much more likely to be injured or even killed by a domestic dog” than a coyote. The last paragraph is quite poetic – “those calls…bounce along canyons of rock or concrete or just down the cul-de-sac. The coyote is saying to everyone…‘We are here’”—a nice finishing touch to a winning piece.
Coyotes are fascinating. Plain and simple. Most people will eat up a story at the head of the Science section in the Times titled “Mysteries That Howl and Hunt” with the lead bit “Despite coyotes’ growing urban presence, we have trouble understanding them, counting them—even defining them.” Add to that a wonderful illustration of a cat, some berries, and a beetle all stuffed between the jaws of a devious-looking coyote—how can anyone resist reading this one?
The story, written by Carol Kaesuk Yoon, strikes a nice balance between scientific information and intrigue. She begins with the fascination behind the animal: its “howls and yips,” the cultural legends the beast inflames, Mark Twain’s description of the coyote as “a living, breathing allegory of Want,” and, of course, the beloved Wile E. Coyote. Then she talks about the mysterious science of the coyote: how they have done so well to populate all kinds of habitats, including urban, yet we rarely see them and know little about them. She especially focuses on the Eastern coyotes, which seem to have reproduced with not just wolves in their territory, but also domestic dogs. This is one of the big finds actually—that these species, members of the same genus Canis, can actually mate with each other and produce perfectly normal offspring. Their indiscriminate diet may also be a factor in their adaptability to new environments.
Yoon finishes off the piece with some astonishing anecdotes that some may not have known: “coyotes strolling in Central Park, trotting into a Quiznos restaurant in downtown Chicago and taking a dash around a federal courthouse in Detroit;” one scientist’s estimate of 2,000 coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area; researchers claim that a person is “much more likely to be injured or even killed by a domestic dog” than a coyote. The last paragraph is quite poetic – “those calls…bounce along canyons of rock or concrete or just down the cul-de-sac. The coyote is saying to everyone…‘We are here’”—a nice finishing touch to a winning piece.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Birds?!
This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/09/26/bird_sightings/
Today the latest Massachusetts bird sightings report was released in the Boston Globe. The report is basically a list—a list of tons of different kinds of birds, some very obscure. There is not much of a lead. The report does not start off with the most staggering number of a certain kind of bird (“2,500 black-bellied plovers”) nor does it begin with the bird with the funniest name (“two dickcissels”); instead, the lead is simply the fact that one bird has apparently gone missing for a week: “An immature gull-billed tern at Sandy Point State Park on Plum Island has not been reported since Monday.” That’s the first sentence—quite the hook! Where ever did that immature tern go??
Who reads these anyway? Are they the same people who call the Massachusetts Audubon Society in the first place with bird sightings? Like it’s some sort of scavenger hunt for birds. Imagine them calling the Audubon Society, ‘Yes, I went to South Beach to find the 18 shearwaters reported last week, and instead I found 21 shearwaters. I also spotted 7 warblers, an ovenbird, and 17,000 dickcissels! So you can tell those reporters in Nahant to suck it!’
Maybe there is this extremely small, specialized community of bird watchers who run around Massachusetts on weekends in search of birds like the birds were a dying species of dinosaur. They would ooh and ahh at the winged creatures like small children getting excited over bubbles. And they would always have their notebook so they could count exactly how many of each kind of bird there was. Because this is clearly information that people should know about.
Today the latest Massachusetts bird sightings report was released in the Boston Globe. The report is basically a list—a list of tons of different kinds of birds, some very obscure. There is not much of a lead. The report does not start off with the most staggering number of a certain kind of bird (“2,500 black-bellied plovers”) nor does it begin with the bird with the funniest name (“two dickcissels”); instead, the lead is simply the fact that one bird has apparently gone missing for a week: “An immature gull-billed tern at Sandy Point State Park on Plum Island has not been reported since Monday.” That’s the first sentence—quite the hook! Where ever did that immature tern go??
Who reads these anyway? Are they the same people who call the Massachusetts Audubon Society in the first place with bird sightings? Like it’s some sort of scavenger hunt for birds. Imagine them calling the Audubon Society, ‘Yes, I went to South Beach to find the 18 shearwaters reported last week, and instead I found 21 shearwaters. I also spotted 7 warblers, an ovenbird, and 17,000 dickcissels! So you can tell those reporters in Nahant to suck it!’
Maybe there is this extremely small, specialized community of bird watchers who run around Massachusetts on weekends in search of birds like the birds were a dying species of dinosaur. They would ooh and ahh at the winged creatures like small children getting excited over bubbles. And they would always have their notebook so they could count exactly how many of each kind of bird there was. Because this is clearly information that people should know about.
Mom vs. Dad
NOTE: This post is for Saturday, September 25
This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/26/MNNP1FDFTC.DTL&type=science
The story, about the genetic procedure called imprinting that fuels the asymmetry in genetic inheritance between the two parents’ genomes, is short yet packed with information. It starts off on an engaging note in that it questions the supposedly established belief that both parents play an exactly equal role in giving us our inherited qualities. Apparently, recent research (just published a month ago) suggests that this is not the case.
The most interesting information in the article comes right after the initial two paragraphs—the mouse experiments where it is found that 1) mouse embryos engineered to hold either two male genomes or two female genomes all died and 2) after solving the first problem, biologists found that mice with two male genomes had “large bodies and small brains” while the double female genome mice exhibited the exact opposite.
After that, the author delves into an explanation of the genetic mechanism of imprinting. To someone with little biological background, it may be a bit confusing. Only three short paragraphs were dedicated to the explanation, and while the brevity of the story is certainly one of its strong suits, perhaps a more fleshed-out clarification of imprinting may have made a more lasting impression on the reader.
This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/26/MNNP1FDFTC.DTL&type=science
The story, about the genetic procedure called imprinting that fuels the asymmetry in genetic inheritance between the two parents’ genomes, is short yet packed with information. It starts off on an engaging note in that it questions the supposedly established belief that both parents play an exactly equal role in giving us our inherited qualities. Apparently, recent research (just published a month ago) suggests that this is not the case.
The most interesting information in the article comes right after the initial two paragraphs—the mouse experiments where it is found that 1) mouse embryos engineered to hold either two male genomes or two female genomes all died and 2) after solving the first problem, biologists found that mice with two male genomes had “large bodies and small brains” while the double female genome mice exhibited the exact opposite.
After that, the author delves into an explanation of the genetic mechanism of imprinting. To someone with little biological background, it may be a bit confusing. Only three short paragraphs were dedicated to the explanation, and while the brevity of the story is certainly one of its strong suits, perhaps a more fleshed-out clarification of imprinting may have made a more lasting impression on the reader.
Camels in LA
NOTE: This post is for Friday, September 24
This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/22/BAO21FH47O.DTL&type=science
An interesting story here on a fruitful fossil find in Southern California is grabbing for two reasons: 1) they were found in an “arid canyon southeast of Los Angeles,” a place that was apparently “lush” a little over a million years ago and conducive to flourishing populations of life; and 2) the fossils found belong to such rare and interesting prehistoric animals as “the ancestor of the saber-tooth tiger, ground sloths the size of a modern-day grizzly bear, [and] two types of camels,” as well as possibly “new species of deer, horse, and llama.”
All the above information is found in the story’s lead, very much encouraging the reader to continue (if he/she is into the nature of prehistoric times). One thing the author does is split the rest of the story following the lead into different sections that highlight each of the main reasons why this is a special story. The first section is titled “Older than La Brea,” comparing this find to another famous fossil find in La Brea Tar Pits in LA—the newfound fossils are about one million years older than La Brea ones and help clear up our view of prehistoric Southern California life. The next section is titled “From lush to arid,” describing how the San Timoteo Canyon is actually part of an “ancient river valley” that used to be quite flourishing. And the final section is called “New species.”
The sections work well, but the author seems to have abandoned the inverted pyramid strategy, placing what seems like the most interesting section, “New species,” at the end of the article. Either way, the information gets across clearly and concisely—with most answerable questions about the subject answered by the end.
This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/22/BAO21FH47O.DTL&type=science
An interesting story here on a fruitful fossil find in Southern California is grabbing for two reasons: 1) they were found in an “arid canyon southeast of Los Angeles,” a place that was apparently “lush” a little over a million years ago and conducive to flourishing populations of life; and 2) the fossils found belong to such rare and interesting prehistoric animals as “the ancestor of the saber-tooth tiger, ground sloths the size of a modern-day grizzly bear, [and] two types of camels,” as well as possibly “new species of deer, horse, and llama.”
All the above information is found in the story’s lead, very much encouraging the reader to continue (if he/she is into the nature of prehistoric times). One thing the author does is split the rest of the story following the lead into different sections that highlight each of the main reasons why this is a special story. The first section is titled “Older than La Brea,” comparing this find to another famous fossil find in La Brea Tar Pits in LA—the newfound fossils are about one million years older than La Brea ones and help clear up our view of prehistoric Southern California life. The next section is titled “From lush to arid,” describing how the San Timoteo Canyon is actually part of an “ancient river valley” that used to be quite flourishing. And the final section is called “New species.”
The sections work well, but the author seems to have abandoned the inverted pyramid strategy, placing what seems like the most interesting section, “New species,” at the end of the article. Either way, the information gets across clearly and concisely—with most answerable questions about the subject answered by the end.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Mayhem of Animal Research
This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/09/20/harvard_misconduct_case_casts_shadow_over_other_research/?page=1
Academic morality rarely comes up in the news, but this is a story about the scientific misconduct of a leading psychology professor at Harvard, Marc Hauser. He is known for his work in defining characteristically human cognitive abilities through animal behavior research. One of his main questions is: “Can nonhuman animals tell what others’ intentions are?”
The realm of animal behavior research is a bit abnormal. Since the experiments done must be rigorously precise and unbiased, the research is based on a non-orthodox system of checks and balances between professors: “if multiple observers do not report seeing the same behaviors, the data can’t be used.” In Hauser’s case, he repeated an experiment done in 1995, and published a paper on it without retracting or correcting the original 1995 paper. Apparently this is an academic no-no, so he got busted.
The writing is mediocre. The writer of the story, Carolyn Johnson, takes her time in fleshing out all the details—a strategy which doesn’t work in her favor. She doesn’t say what the nature of Hauser’s scientific work is until the end of the first page, and she doesn’t say what Hauser actually did wrong until the second page. The beginning paragraphs are unnecessary filler (discussion of the reaction to the misconduct case by other Harvard professors). Her explanations of the misconduct charges towards the end were also a bit unclear.
Academic morality rarely comes up in the news, but this is a story about the scientific misconduct of a leading psychology professor at Harvard, Marc Hauser. He is known for his work in defining characteristically human cognitive abilities through animal behavior research. One of his main questions is: “Can nonhuman animals tell what others’ intentions are?”
The realm of animal behavior research is a bit abnormal. Since the experiments done must be rigorously precise and unbiased, the research is based on a non-orthodox system of checks and balances between professors: “if multiple observers do not report seeing the same behaviors, the data can’t be used.” In Hauser’s case, he repeated an experiment done in 1995, and published a paper on it without retracting or correcting the original 1995 paper. Apparently this is an academic no-no, so he got busted.
The writing is mediocre. The writer of the story, Carolyn Johnson, takes her time in fleshing out all the details—a strategy which doesn’t work in her favor. She doesn’t say what the nature of Hauser’s scientific work is until the end of the first page, and she doesn’t say what Hauser actually did wrong until the second page. The beginning paragraphs are unnecessary filler (discussion of the reaction to the misconduct case by other Harvard professors). Her explanations of the misconduct charges towards the end were also a bit unclear.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
New 15-Horned Dinosaur Species Discovered
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/09/22/science/AP-US-Dinosaur-Discovery.html?_r=1&ref=science
Though far from front page news, this news story about today’s discovery of “two new dinosaur species closely related to the Triceratops, including one with 15 horns on its large head,” is concise and clear. It’s a solid story.
The lead is quite effective. It doesn’t just rely on the common person’s enthusiasm over dinosaurs. It includes a bit of information that grabs the reader’s attention—the 15 horns. Since this is an uncommonly large number of horns for an animal (“the most ornate-headed dinosaur known to man”), the reader may just read on even further to find out why there were so many horns, how large they were, what they were used for, etc. Smart move by the Associated Press.
To keep the story alive, the writer attempts a few things following the lead. The first is to mention their somewhat amusing scientific names: Kosmoceratops richardsoni and Utahcertaops gettyi. The second is to quote a leading scientist in the field who emphasizes how big this story really is: “’It’s not every day that you find two rhino-sized dinosaurs…every year we’re finding new things, especially here in Utah.” After that, there’s not much to keep the reader interested—just basic facts about the dinosaurs including their dimensions and weight, the purpose of their horns (mating), and a bit on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the place the fossils were found. But there’s little text remaining after the first 3-4 paragraphs, so people may even read the whole thing.
Though far from front page news, this news story about today’s discovery of “two new dinosaur species closely related to the Triceratops, including one with 15 horns on its large head,” is concise and clear. It’s a solid story.
The lead is quite effective. It doesn’t just rely on the common person’s enthusiasm over dinosaurs. It includes a bit of information that grabs the reader’s attention—the 15 horns. Since this is an uncommonly large number of horns for an animal (“the most ornate-headed dinosaur known to man”), the reader may just read on even further to find out why there were so many horns, how large they were, what they were used for, etc. Smart move by the Associated Press.
To keep the story alive, the writer attempts a few things following the lead. The first is to mention their somewhat amusing scientific names: Kosmoceratops richardsoni and Utahcertaops gettyi. The second is to quote a leading scientist in the field who emphasizes how big this story really is: “’It’s not every day that you find two rhino-sized dinosaurs…every year we’re finding new things, especially here in Utah.” After that, there’s not much to keep the reader interested—just basic facts about the dinosaurs including their dimensions and weight, the purpose of their horns (mating), and a bit on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the place the fossils were found. But there’s little text remaining after the first 3-4 paragraphs, so people may even read the whole thing.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Hot Heads
The article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/21peppers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=science
I hate spicy food. I just don’t get it. Eating chilies, in my world, is like playing paintball—it hurts and does me little good. Still, tons of people love spicy food. Even worse, many people go out of their way to make their spicy food even spicier. I will never understand.
My loathing for the whole thing, however, is what drew me to this article. I believe it is extremely well-written. I learned about harvesting chilies, the Scoville heat scale, capsaicin and evolution. I enjoyed the personal stories of the author, James Gorman—his confession that he is a chili wimp, the caretaking of his own chili garden, and those kitchen escapades with his son and a respirator. And I laughed. The piece is quite humorous and charming, but also informative. And I have to thank the author for that.
But moving on to the content. Basically, it says chilies are painfully hot and that’s exactly why we like them. There’s been a lot of research in the subject and the conclusion is that human beings are “benign masochists.” We enjoy the pain (well some of us do), and want to test our limits. One scientist compared it to riding a roller coaster, but I don’t think that’s a legitimate comparison—roller coasters are painless. Anyway, the kicker is that we seem to be the only animals in the world that take pleasure in pain, and there’s a good deal of humor to be made out of that: “since it takes such a complicated brain and weird self-awareness to enjoy something that is inherently not enjoyable, only the animal with the biggest brain and the most intricate mind can do it…It’s not dumb to eat the fire, it’s a sign of high intelligence.”
I hate spicy food. I just don’t get it. Eating chilies, in my world, is like playing paintball—it hurts and does me little good. Still, tons of people love spicy food. Even worse, many people go out of their way to make their spicy food even spicier. I will never understand.
My loathing for the whole thing, however, is what drew me to this article. I believe it is extremely well-written. I learned about harvesting chilies, the Scoville heat scale, capsaicin and evolution. I enjoyed the personal stories of the author, James Gorman—his confession that he is a chili wimp, the caretaking of his own chili garden, and those kitchen escapades with his son and a respirator. And I laughed. The piece is quite humorous and charming, but also informative. And I have to thank the author for that.
But moving on to the content. Basically, it says chilies are painfully hot and that’s exactly why we like them. There’s been a lot of research in the subject and the conclusion is that human beings are “benign masochists.” We enjoy the pain (well some of us do), and want to test our limits. One scientist compared it to riding a roller coaster, but I don’t think that’s a legitimate comparison—roller coasters are painless. Anyway, the kicker is that we seem to be the only animals in the world that take pleasure in pain, and there’s a good deal of humor to be made out of that: “since it takes such a complicated brain and weird self-awareness to enjoy something that is inherently not enjoyable, only the animal with the biggest brain and the most intricate mind can do it…It’s not dumb to eat the fire, it’s a sign of high intelligence.”
Monday, September 20, 2010
"Frankenfish"
The article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/09/20/national/w002411D12.DTL&type=science
The photo attached to this story of two fish, one dwarfing the other (seems to be almost three times bigger), is certainly an attention-grabber. As the article states, the government has begun to consider the possibility of genetically modified animals (modified crops are already approved) in the consumer market. Despite many people’s “qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures,” if such products are approved by the FDA, the “potential benefits – and profits – are huge.” One of these products is genetically engineered Atlantic salmon from the company AquaBounty.
There are two primary concerns that critics have with these modified salmon that develop twice as fast as the normal salmon population: safety to us, and the preservation of the salmon’s environment. The fear is that these super salmon could “escape [their breeding grounds] and intermingle with the wild salmon population, which is already endangered.”
The author, Mary Clare Jalonick, pretty much just gives us the facts. She focuses on just this story about the modified salmon from AquaBounty, and doesn’t delve into the bigger issues and context associated with genetic engineering. There’s not much stylistic writing that pleases the reader here, and there’s certainly no explicit opinions of hers. I like that. We can think for ourselves, and see our own big picture.
The photo attached to this story of two fish, one dwarfing the other (seems to be almost three times bigger), is certainly an attention-grabber. As the article states, the government has begun to consider the possibility of genetically modified animals (modified crops are already approved) in the consumer market. Despite many people’s “qualms about manipulating the genetic code of other living creatures,” if such products are approved by the FDA, the “potential benefits – and profits – are huge.” One of these products is genetically engineered Atlantic salmon from the company AquaBounty.
There are two primary concerns that critics have with these modified salmon that develop twice as fast as the normal salmon population: safety to us, and the preservation of the salmon’s environment. The fear is that these super salmon could “escape [their breeding grounds] and intermingle with the wild salmon population, which is already endangered.”
The author, Mary Clare Jalonick, pretty much just gives us the facts. She focuses on just this story about the modified salmon from AquaBounty, and doesn’t delve into the bigger issues and context associated with genetic engineering. There’s not much stylistic writing that pleases the reader here, and there’s certainly no explicit opinions of hers. I like that. We can think for ourselves, and see our own big picture.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
We Are Evolution
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/09/19/mastering_our_own_evolution/?page=1
The human being is a truly awesome creature. We humans always seem to be gaining more and more power over ourselves and the world.
In this article, author Anthony Doerr looks at two books on the subject of human evolution. The first, called Designer Genes by Steven Potter, examines the fast-approaching possibility of genetic manipulation, through which parents will be able to choose the child they want: “a well-to-do couple hoping to have a child could potentially create tens of thousands of embryos. Screen them all, select the strongest, smartest, prettiest, and – bingo – designer children.”
The ability to literally pick and choose the DNA of your child is still science fiction to me. But it appears inevitable, and also incredible: in the book, Potter writes, “For the first time in the history of the planet, we now have a species able to control its own evolution.” In the article, Doerr keeps it short and sweet. The topic is engaging enough on its own. He asks questions to get the reader thinking, envisions the future, and ends paragraphs on very interesting notes. Nicely written, I think.
The second book is called Almost Chimpanzee, written by Jon Cohen. It’s not as interesting as the first, but Doerr takes a cool quote from there to end the article: “Humans will determine the fate of chimpanzees. Chimpanzees of course will have no say in the fate of humans. And that may be the single most conspicuous difference between the two species.” Will/when will the consequences of human potential ever/finally betray us?
The human being is a truly awesome creature. We humans always seem to be gaining more and more power over ourselves and the world.
In this article, author Anthony Doerr looks at two books on the subject of human evolution. The first, called Designer Genes by Steven Potter, examines the fast-approaching possibility of genetic manipulation, through which parents will be able to choose the child they want: “a well-to-do couple hoping to have a child could potentially create tens of thousands of embryos. Screen them all, select the strongest, smartest, prettiest, and – bingo – designer children.”
The ability to literally pick and choose the DNA of your child is still science fiction to me. But it appears inevitable, and also incredible: in the book, Potter writes, “For the first time in the history of the planet, we now have a species able to control its own evolution.” In the article, Doerr keeps it short and sweet. The topic is engaging enough on its own. He asks questions to get the reader thinking, envisions the future, and ends paragraphs on very interesting notes. Nicely written, I think.
The second book is called Almost Chimpanzee, written by Jon Cohen. It’s not as interesting as the first, but Doerr takes a cool quote from there to end the article: “Humans will determine the fate of chimpanzees. Chimpanzees of course will have no say in the fate of humans. And that may be the single most conspicuous difference between the two species.” Will/when will the consequences of human potential ever/finally betray us?
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Clean The Environment or Clean the Dishes
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/science/earth/19clean.html?ref=science
Change is hard. Especially when it doesn’t work out in your favor. This article explores a big issue that everyone in America, and everyone in the world really, is fighting: changing to a more environmentally friendly lifestyle.
The story is primarily about dishwasher detergents becoming less effective ever since the nationwide reform to reduce the amount of phosphates in detergent products. Phosphates turns out to be the critical ingredient in detergent, and so consumers have reported drastic reductions in cleanliness. In an effort to prevent phosphates from ending up in local water supplies, the new environmentally friendly cleaning products actually end up not working as well. So it brings up the question: How much should we sacrifice for the environment?
This is a big one: “From hybrid cars to solar panels, environmentally friendly alternatives can cost more. They can be less convenient, like toting cloth sacks or canteens rather than plastic bags or bottled water. And they can prove less effective.” An interesting notion the author, Mireya Navarro, brings up is how lifestyle changes in the name of the environment “can run up against longtime habits and even cultural concepts.” I think we can all relate to this, and as such, I believe this is an extremely relevant and interesting article. It is also well-written, not too biased, honoring the words of consumers and professionals, as well as providing plenty of pertinent information on phosphorous pollution and the cleaning product industry today.
Change is hard. Especially when it doesn’t work out in your favor. This article explores a big issue that everyone in America, and everyone in the world really, is fighting: changing to a more environmentally friendly lifestyle.
The story is primarily about dishwasher detergents becoming less effective ever since the nationwide reform to reduce the amount of phosphates in detergent products. Phosphates turns out to be the critical ingredient in detergent, and so consumers have reported drastic reductions in cleanliness. In an effort to prevent phosphates from ending up in local water supplies, the new environmentally friendly cleaning products actually end up not working as well. So it brings up the question: How much should we sacrifice for the environment?
This is a big one: “From hybrid cars to solar panels, environmentally friendly alternatives can cost more. They can be less convenient, like toting cloth sacks or canteens rather than plastic bags or bottled water. And they can prove less effective.” An interesting notion the author, Mireya Navarro, brings up is how lifestyle changes in the name of the environment “can run up against longtime habits and even cultural concepts.” I think we can all relate to this, and as such, I believe this is an extremely relevant and interesting article. It is also well-written, not too biased, honoring the words of consumers and professionals, as well as providing plenty of pertinent information on phosphorous pollution and the cleaning product industry today.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Putting the Universe on Our Level
The article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/09/19/the_me_sized_universe/?page=2
I like this article, but I’m still trying to figure out why it exists in the science news section of the Globe. It doesn’t actually present any new information – it doesn’t even refer to a recent event in the world of science that may have inspired the author to write the piece. I feel like it belongs in a magazine or a collection of essays or an introduction to a book, not a newspaper.
Nonetheless, it’s in there. So what is it? Samuel Arbesman, an affiliate of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University (as well as a postdoctoral fellow at HMS), basically throws a bunch of numbers and comparisons at us in order for us to get a feel for some of the more intangible, “astronomical” quantities of the universe. And for the most part, they work: a supernova occurs every 50 years in the Milky Way, the diameter of a neutron star is about the distance between MIT and Wellesley, 10 billion hydrogen atoms lined up in a row are about the length of the average adult arm span.
These work for me. What doesn’t work is the purpose behind the damn article. Where was the inspiration? He hints at some recent discovery that may have happened when he says, “The universe is actually becoming less impersonal. Through science and technology, we are getting better at bringing cosmic quantities to the human scale.” But I would appreciate it if he gave an example of these make-it-all-easy-to-imagine technologies. Maybe I’m picky. But then he ends it with a poor, sorry, mushy conclusion as an attempt to wrap the whole thing up into a cute little gift: “Yes, the universe is big and we are small. But we must treasure the exceptions, and see a little bit of the human in the cosmic, even if only for a moment.”
Come on.
I like this article, but I’m still trying to figure out why it exists in the science news section of the Globe. It doesn’t actually present any new information – it doesn’t even refer to a recent event in the world of science that may have inspired the author to write the piece. I feel like it belongs in a magazine or a collection of essays or an introduction to a book, not a newspaper.
Nonetheless, it’s in there. So what is it? Samuel Arbesman, an affiliate of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University (as well as a postdoctoral fellow at HMS), basically throws a bunch of numbers and comparisons at us in order for us to get a feel for some of the more intangible, “astronomical” quantities of the universe. And for the most part, they work: a supernova occurs every 50 years in the Milky Way, the diameter of a neutron star is about the distance between MIT and Wellesley, 10 billion hydrogen atoms lined up in a row are about the length of the average adult arm span.
These work for me. What doesn’t work is the purpose behind the damn article. Where was the inspiration? He hints at some recent discovery that may have happened when he says, “The universe is actually becoming less impersonal. Through science and technology, we are getting better at bringing cosmic quantities to the human scale.” But I would appreciate it if he gave an example of these make-it-all-easy-to-imagine technologies. Maybe I’m picky. But then he ends it with a poor, sorry, mushy conclusion as an attempt to wrap the whole thing up into a cute little gift: “Yes, the universe is big and we are small. But we must treasure the exceptions, and see a little bit of the human in the cosmic, even if only for a moment.”
Come on.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Magical Jellyfish
The science story I've chosen for today is from the Boston Globe (released on Sep. 10) at this link: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/09/10/mystery_blooms_on_walden_pond/
The article is about jellyfish. I have no particular fascination with jellyfish, nor do I have any previous knowledge of the creatures or of any biology at all for that matter. And I think that may be part of the reason why the story's headline description ("Mystery blooms on Walden Pond - Scientists puzzled over tiny freshwater jellyfish") drew me: I wondered, how would you make this news story interesting? who cares about jellyfish? why would anyone read this?
Beth Daly, the writer of the story, had to answer these questions in order to write a successful piece; and I believe she did succeed. What she seemed to do was weave in the concept of mystery throughout the story, in order to engage her readers. It begins with the headline "Mystery blooms on Walden Pond," then she calls the freshwater jellyfish "a deeply mysterious species," and she even quotes the scientists not knowing much about them: she cites Steve Bailey, the New England Aquarium's fish curator, "'They are a wickedly cool critter that is still a mystery to us when so many other things have been demystified.'" In addition to the mystery, she introduces the idea of beauty, referring to the jellies as "dime-sized translucent pods" and "strange, beautiful seeds that had drifted down to the water surface from some flowering plant."
Though the article seems to slow down towards the end (how much can you really say about jellyfish?), Daly hooks the reader in and keeps him/her interested by underlining the mystery and beauty of the slippery animals.
The article is about jellyfish. I have no particular fascination with jellyfish, nor do I have any previous knowledge of the creatures or of any biology at all for that matter. And I think that may be part of the reason why the story's headline description ("Mystery blooms on Walden Pond - Scientists puzzled over tiny freshwater jellyfish") drew me: I wondered, how would you make this news story interesting? who cares about jellyfish? why would anyone read this?
Beth Daly, the writer of the story, had to answer these questions in order to write a successful piece; and I believe she did succeed. What she seemed to do was weave in the concept of mystery throughout the story, in order to engage her readers. It begins with the headline "Mystery blooms on Walden Pond," then she calls the freshwater jellyfish "a deeply mysterious species," and she even quotes the scientists not knowing much about them: she cites Steve Bailey, the New England Aquarium's fish curator, "'They are a wickedly cool critter that is still a mystery to us when so many other things have been demystified.'" In addition to the mystery, she introduces the idea of beauty, referring to the jellies as "dime-sized translucent pods" and "strange, beautiful seeds that had drifted down to the water surface from some flowering plant."
Though the article seems to slow down towards the end (how much can you really say about jellyfish?), Daly hooks the reader in and keeps him/her interested by underlining the mystery and beauty of the slippery animals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)