This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/business/30drug.html?ref=science
If a gene is isolated from a patient’s body and used to make significant advances in medicine, who does it belong to: the doctor who isolated it, or the original patient? So goes the controversy in medicine today surrounding gene patents. In this article, Andrew Pollack discusses the new stance of the federal government: “Reversing a longstanding policy, the federal government said on Friday that human and other genes should not be eligible for patents because they are part of nature.”
This is an excellent first sentence, and the next paragraph, wherein he gives the relatively unimportant details of the case, is rightly kept short. Then Pollack includes two important quotes that affirm how significant this latest development in the gene patent issue is, one of them being from a patent attorney, saying “It’s major when the United States, in a filing, reverses decades of policies on an issue that everyone has been focused on for so long.” Pollack then goes into the controversy—where the proponents and opponents of gene patenting stand and why, and a brief history of gene patents in this country. It is a nice story because it not only updates the reader on this most recent big event in the gene patent debate, but it also introduces the reader to the debate itself in a clear and concise fashion.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Extinction Talks
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/world/30biodiversity.html?_r=1&ref=science
The (apparent) effort to improve the world through global political action cannot be questioned: numerous international climate talks have taken place in the past few years, with varying amounts of success. But this story tells of a slightly different kind of world-saving political agenda—to reduce the extinction rate of plant and animal species worldwide. An agreement, called the Nagoya Protocol, was recently made at a United Nations talk in Japan to set specific goals for reducing the extinction rate, as well as to properly share the profits from region-based pharmaceutical products (developed from local plants or animals) between rich and poor nations.
The writer, Neil MacFarquhar, rightly put all the above information in the lead, quickly followed by the specifics of the approved goals and their significance: “The agreement …sets a goal of cutting the current extinction rate by half or more by 2020. The Earth is losing species at 100 to 1,000 times the historical average, according to scientists who call the current period the worst since the dinosaurs were lost 65 million years ago.” This comparison to the extinction of the dinosaurs puts the current issue into perspective for the reader, and helps emphasize its importance. MacFarquhar also includes a bit on previous agreements similar to the Nagoya: “A previous and vague agreement in 2002 to substantially reverse the loss of species by 2010 failed to achieve that target.” It seems that when it comes to reducing extinction, as in the fight against global warming, global political change is hard to come by.
The (apparent) effort to improve the world through global political action cannot be questioned: numerous international climate talks have taken place in the past few years, with varying amounts of success. But this story tells of a slightly different kind of world-saving political agenda—to reduce the extinction rate of plant and animal species worldwide. An agreement, called the Nagoya Protocol, was recently made at a United Nations talk in Japan to set specific goals for reducing the extinction rate, as well as to properly share the profits from region-based pharmaceutical products (developed from local plants or animals) between rich and poor nations.
The writer, Neil MacFarquhar, rightly put all the above information in the lead, quickly followed by the specifics of the approved goals and their significance: “The agreement …sets a goal of cutting the current extinction rate by half or more by 2020. The Earth is losing species at 100 to 1,000 times the historical average, according to scientists who call the current period the worst since the dinosaurs were lost 65 million years ago.” This comparison to the extinction of the dinosaurs puts the current issue into perspective for the reader, and helps emphasize its importance. MacFarquhar also includes a bit on previous agreements similar to the Nagoya: “A previous and vague agreement in 2002 to substantially reverse the loss of species by 2010 failed to achieve that target.” It seems that when it comes to reducing extinction, as in the fight against global warming, global political change is hard to come by.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Sheep Defy the Forces of Natural Selection
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/02obsheep.html?ref=science
This article covers an interesting find that seems contradictory: sheep with weak immune systems may have more reproductive success. The writer, Sindya Bhanoo, writes a good first paragraph where she conveys the important information, and at the same time draws the reader in by highlighting the absurd possibility that natural selection does not always work: “A weak immune system makes an animal vulnerable to disease and parasites, but strangely natural selection does not always weed out creatures that have what appear to be severe disadvantages.” The second paragraph gives the important specifics about “reduced reproductive success” as a result of strong immune systems, and Bhanoo follows from there with details of the study.
One thing this brief article may have included is a scientific discussion of the connection between these sheep and humans. In other words, what can this study tell us about our immune systems? There is no mention of human immune systems in the article, and that seems like it would be an interesting/important addition. The article also ends quite abruptly, probably because Bhanoo only focuses on the details of the study itself and ignores any further implications or future prospects of the research. But overall, it is an easy read, concise, and informative.
This article covers an interesting find that seems contradictory: sheep with weak immune systems may have more reproductive success. The writer, Sindya Bhanoo, writes a good first paragraph where she conveys the important information, and at the same time draws the reader in by highlighting the absurd possibility that natural selection does not always work: “A weak immune system makes an animal vulnerable to disease and parasites, but strangely natural selection does not always weed out creatures that have what appear to be severe disadvantages.” The second paragraph gives the important specifics about “reduced reproductive success” as a result of strong immune systems, and Bhanoo follows from there with details of the study.
One thing this brief article may have included is a scientific discussion of the connection between these sheep and humans. In other words, what can this study tell us about our immune systems? There is no mention of human immune systems in the article, and that seems like it would be an interesting/important addition. The article also ends quite abruptly, probably because Bhanoo only focuses on the details of the study itself and ignores any further implications or future prospects of the research. But overall, it is an easy read, concise, and informative.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Asian Origins of Man
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/02obanthropoids.html?_r=1&ref=science
This story has a dynamite, yet somewhat misleading, lead. The first sentence goes, “The ancestors of humans and other primates like apes and monkeys may have originated in Asia, not Africa, a new study in the journal Nature reports.” What the sentence implies and what it says appear to be two different things. At first glance, it seems to suggest that human origins took place in Asia, going against the well-known “out-of-Africa hypothesis.” It suggests that the cradle of humanity was actually located in an entirely different continent. However, that’s not exactly what it says: it says the “ancestors” of humans may have originally came from Asia, not humans themselves. This becomes clear when the writer, Sindya Bhanoo, cites a scientist as saying the fossils “indicate that there was migration from Asia.” The ancestors to modern-day primates could have originated in Asia and then migrated to Africa, where they would remain and eventually evolve into human beings.
Aside from that misleading lead (it certainly works though—the reader can’t help but read on to find out if humans themselves actually did originate in Asia rather than Africa), the story is very well written. It is clear, to the point, and concise. Bhanoo relies heavily on the words of the scientists, which adds credibility and dynamism to her piece.
This story has a dynamite, yet somewhat misleading, lead. The first sentence goes, “The ancestors of humans and other primates like apes and monkeys may have originated in Asia, not Africa, a new study in the journal Nature reports.” What the sentence implies and what it says appear to be two different things. At first glance, it seems to suggest that human origins took place in Asia, going against the well-known “out-of-Africa hypothesis.” It suggests that the cradle of humanity was actually located in an entirely different continent. However, that’s not exactly what it says: it says the “ancestors” of humans may have originally came from Asia, not humans themselves. This becomes clear when the writer, Sindya Bhanoo, cites a scientist as saying the fossils “indicate that there was migration from Asia.” The ancestors to modern-day primates could have originated in Asia and then migrated to Africa, where they would remain and eventually evolve into human beings.
Aside from that misleading lead (it certainly works though—the reader can’t help but read on to find out if humans themselves actually did originate in Asia rather than Africa), the story is very well written. It is clear, to the point, and concise. Bhanoo relies heavily on the words of the scientists, which adds credibility and dynamism to her piece.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Toxic Computers Behind Bars
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/science/earth/27waste.html?_r=1&ref=science
A new form of waste has developed in the last few decades. It includes the disposal of our computers, cell phones, printers, televisions, and other electronic devices, and is often referred to as “electronic waste.” This article discusses a four-year investigation by the Justice Department where it was found that prison inmates and employees have been exposed to toxic materials while “processing electronic waste for recycling.” This electronic waste had then been exported to developing nations where the toxic elements “c[ould] harm local populations by leaching into groundwater.”
Leslie Kaufman writes a solid article here. All the information above—the essential information of the story—are in the first two paragraphs. Then Kaufman discusses what the investigators found, what prisons were involved, how the inquiry took place, and who was involved. There could have been more information on how the inmates/employees got sick from the electronic waste, but she does mention that there is little information known in that regard: “While the inquiry did not definitely link any long-term health effects to recycling work, it found evidence of wrongdoing, like exposing prisoners to lead and cadmium.” She also hinted, briefly at the end of the article, where the investigation might be leading (criminal charges against prisons), which was a nice conclusion to the story.
A new form of waste has developed in the last few decades. It includes the disposal of our computers, cell phones, printers, televisions, and other electronic devices, and is often referred to as “electronic waste.” This article discusses a four-year investigation by the Justice Department where it was found that prison inmates and employees have been exposed to toxic materials while “processing electronic waste for recycling.” This electronic waste had then been exported to developing nations where the toxic elements “c[ould] harm local populations by leaching into groundwater.”
Leslie Kaufman writes a solid article here. All the information above—the essential information of the story—are in the first two paragraphs. Then Kaufman discusses what the investigators found, what prisons were involved, how the inquiry took place, and who was involved. There could have been more information on how the inmates/employees got sick from the electronic waste, but she does mention that there is little information known in that regard: “While the inquiry did not definitely link any long-term health effects to recycling work, it found evidence of wrongdoing, like exposing prisoners to lead and cadmium.” She also hinted, briefly at the end of the article, where the investigation might be leading (criminal charges against prisons), which was a nice conclusion to the story.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Venom
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/science/26creatures.html?_r=1&ref=science
The story today is a feature piece about snakes, specifically the king cobra and its venom-filled lifestyle. The writer, Sean B. Carroll, begins with a personal story to introduce the topic (common among features). His story is about the first time he saw a king cobra in a zoo and how astonished he was with its agility and size: “This sleek, agile and very alert snake was a king cobra, the largest venomous snake in the world and an icon to all snake enthusiasts, including this writer.” This personal account is advantageous for Carroll because a personal connection, in and of itself, is engaging, but it also grabs the reader’s attention because it is apparent that Carroll is fascinated by snakes—whenever a writer writes about something they love, more often than not, it will be a good read.
And it is a good read, but only until about halfway. Rather than discussing recent news, the feature instead raises a question and seeks to answer it. The question is: “How does the king cobra maintain such an apparently high-risk lifestyle?” It is presented at the end of the third paragraph, and is an interesting question for a feature piece to focus on. However, about halfway through, Carroll veers away from that central focus question, and goes on to talk about all kinds of different animals who have evolved venom-resistance. The transitioning is not smooth/clear, and the king cobra disappears from the discussion only to return in the very last sentence: “Snakes in general, let alone cobras, will never be much loved by humans, but these animals are so extraordinary, this enthusiast cannot resist one sentimental thought: Long live the kings.” It may be cute, but on the whole, this concluding sentence doesn’t summarize or add much and, more importantly, it ends the piece without the central question ever being explicitly answered or further addressed.
The story today is a feature piece about snakes, specifically the king cobra and its venom-filled lifestyle. The writer, Sean B. Carroll, begins with a personal story to introduce the topic (common among features). His story is about the first time he saw a king cobra in a zoo and how astonished he was with its agility and size: “This sleek, agile and very alert snake was a king cobra, the largest venomous snake in the world and an icon to all snake enthusiasts, including this writer.” This personal account is advantageous for Carroll because a personal connection, in and of itself, is engaging, but it also grabs the reader’s attention because it is apparent that Carroll is fascinated by snakes—whenever a writer writes about something they love, more often than not, it will be a good read.
And it is a good read, but only until about halfway. Rather than discussing recent news, the feature instead raises a question and seeks to answer it. The question is: “How does the king cobra maintain such an apparently high-risk lifestyle?” It is presented at the end of the third paragraph, and is an interesting question for a feature piece to focus on. However, about halfway through, Carroll veers away from that central focus question, and goes on to talk about all kinds of different animals who have evolved venom-resistance. The transitioning is not smooth/clear, and the king cobra disappears from the discussion only to return in the very last sentence: “Snakes in general, let alone cobras, will never be much loved by humans, but these animals are so extraordinary, this enthusiast cannot resist one sentimental thought: Long live the kings.” It may be cute, but on the whole, this concluding sentence doesn’t summarize or add much and, more importantly, it ends the piece without the central question ever being explicitly answered or further addressed.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Dinosaur King Ate Himself
This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/24/MNBT1FTELM.DTL&type=science
Cannibalism is incredibly taboo in modern society, but is relatively common in the animal kingdom. This little pearl of a story reveals the possibly cannibalistic tendencies of one of the most famous animals in history—the Tyrannosaurus rex. The article starts out with a cute first paragraph that introduces the topic, but also illustrates its quite jovial nature: “Tyrannosaurus rex was certainly the king of dinosaurs, but may also have been dinosaur a la king.” The sentence highlights the fact that this is not groundbreaking science being done here—it’s just a fun fact about a popular animal.
The writer does well in pacing the story. No paragraph is longer than two sentences. In fact, all but two are one sentence in length. This allows for quick and easy reading. The writer (Randolph Schmid from the Associated Press) also does well in providing important quotes from the researchers, and clearly explaining the most essential details of the study: “They found 17 fossils with deep V-shaped gouges of a type identified as being made by T. rex. Of those, four were remains of T. rex themselves. It seems likely the marks were made during scavenging from a dead dinosaur, the researchers said.” Schmid even manages to, in this short article, address the broader topic of cannibalism among other animals, and note that it is common among larger carnivores such as Komodo dragons and alligators. It then comes as no surprise that the T. rex may have feasted on itself as well.
Cannibalism is incredibly taboo in modern society, but is relatively common in the animal kingdom. This little pearl of a story reveals the possibly cannibalistic tendencies of one of the most famous animals in history—the Tyrannosaurus rex. The article starts out with a cute first paragraph that introduces the topic, but also illustrates its quite jovial nature: “Tyrannosaurus rex was certainly the king of dinosaurs, but may also have been dinosaur a la king.” The sentence highlights the fact that this is not groundbreaking science being done here—it’s just a fun fact about a popular animal.
The writer does well in pacing the story. No paragraph is longer than two sentences. In fact, all but two are one sentence in length. This allows for quick and easy reading. The writer (Randolph Schmid from the Associated Press) also does well in providing important quotes from the researchers, and clearly explaining the most essential details of the study: “They found 17 fossils with deep V-shaped gouges of a type identified as being made by T. rex. Of those, four were remains of T. rex themselves. It seems likely the marks were made during scavenging from a dead dinosaur, the researchers said.” Schmid even manages to, in this short article, address the broader topic of cannibalism among other animals, and note that it is common among larger carnivores such as Komodo dragons and alligators. It then comes as no surprise that the T. rex may have feasted on itself as well.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Friday Night Lights
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/sports/24birds.html?_r=1&ref=science
In another showdown between environmental concerns and cultural lifestyle, this story chronicles the switch of high school football games in Hawaii from Friday nights to Saturday afternoons, on account of the local species of endangered Newell shearwater birds: “young seabirds mistake the lights of a football stadium for the moon and stars during their migration to the ocean, causing them to become disoriented, fall from the sky and die.”
The story does well in providing the stance of the local residents on the issue, with multiple quotes from parents and players: “I think it’s best—Friday night lights. Not Saturday day football. It’s Friday night lights,” said one of the football players. However, there could be more information from the other side of the debate. It seems like two-thirds of the story focused on the locals and how they strongly believe that the elimination of Friday night games is an attack on their culture and their well-being. Is there more information on the birds? What else can be done to help save them? But the story is engaging, well-written, and concise; and it serves as a brilliant example of the ongoing war between humans and the rest of the world.
In another showdown between environmental concerns and cultural lifestyle, this story chronicles the switch of high school football games in Hawaii from Friday nights to Saturday afternoons, on account of the local species of endangered Newell shearwater birds: “young seabirds mistake the lights of a football stadium for the moon and stars during their migration to the ocean, causing them to become disoriented, fall from the sky and die.”
The story does well in providing the stance of the local residents on the issue, with multiple quotes from parents and players: “I think it’s best—Friday night lights. Not Saturday day football. It’s Friday night lights,” said one of the football players. However, there could be more information from the other side of the debate. It seems like two-thirds of the story focused on the locals and how they strongly believe that the elimination of Friday night games is an attack on their culture and their well-being. Is there more information on the birds? What else can be done to help save them? But the story is engaging, well-written, and concise; and it serves as a brilliant example of the ongoing war between humans and the rest of the world.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Aspirin on the Daily
This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/22/MNNR1G09QS.DTL&type=science
Here’s a tremendously brief story on the positive effects of regular aspirin use. Writer Maria Cheng does well in giving the reader just the essentials of this study. One could read the first paragraph and know the substance of everything to follow: “A low dose of aspirin may reduce colon cancer cases by a quarter and deaths by a third.” That says it all. The rest of the story is just more details on the study, such as the specific data obtained and previous aspirin studies.
Though its brevity is a great quality of the story, it could have included more information on the study. How was it conducted? Were there any side effects at all? What are the long-term effects of consistent aspirin use, even if it’s at a low dosage? Cheng could have also given some more input from the scientists involved. She only cites one scientist, and what he said was about the family history of colon cancer, rather than the actual study. But it is good to know that more and more is being learned in the area of medication use: we are still in the early days of medication, and hopefully we will continue to improve treatments and provide the best care possible through meticulous research and proper ethics.
Here’s a tremendously brief story on the positive effects of regular aspirin use. Writer Maria Cheng does well in giving the reader just the essentials of this study. One could read the first paragraph and know the substance of everything to follow: “A low dose of aspirin may reduce colon cancer cases by a quarter and deaths by a third.” That says it all. The rest of the story is just more details on the study, such as the specific data obtained and previous aspirin studies.
Though its brevity is a great quality of the story, it could have included more information on the study. How was it conducted? Were there any side effects at all? What are the long-term effects of consistent aspirin use, even if it’s at a low dosage? Cheng could have also given some more input from the scientists involved. She only cites one scientist, and what he said was about the family history of colon cancer, rather than the actual study. But it is good to know that more and more is being learned in the area of medication use: we are still in the early days of medication, and hopefully we will continue to improve treatments and provide the best care possible through meticulous research and proper ethics.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Lunar Oasis
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/science/space/22moon.html?_r=1&ref=science
On Earth, we take water for granted, but it is actually quite a rare occurrence in the inner terrestrial planets of our solar system. This wonderfully written story by Kenneth Chang rightly illustrates the preciousness of water and its importance for the progress of mankind. His first two paragraphs draw the reader in with a few clear, important and beautiful images: “The Moon, at least at the bottom of a deep, dark cold crater near its south pole, seems to be wetter than the Sahara…In lunar terms, that is an oasis, surprisingly wet for a place that had long been thought by many planetary scientists to be utterly dry.” The reader understands the significance of this lunar water finding from the very start, and he/she already has a feel for about how much water there is.
Chang provides further details about the water in the lunar crater and its uses with clarity: “eight wheelbarrows of soil [would] melt [into] 10 to 13 gallons of water. The water, if purified, could be used for drinking, or broken apart into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel—to get home or travel to Mars.” That’s in the third paragraph. Then he moves into the words of the scientists, explaining what they know/think about the lunar crater (named Cabeus) and the water in it. The experiments and science are explained concisely and clearly, and the inverse pyramid is conserved. As Chang moves along the article, he begins to talk about the other minerals, other than water, found in the lunar soil. While significant, these minerals are nowhere near as important to humans as water, so they are rightly placed towards the end of the article. And the story ends with a scientist’s quote of hope and new horizons, such as returning to the Moon even though Obama has urged against it: “I think the poles have just opened up a flurry of new questions...I think it is a destiny that we will go there as humans. I hope it’s not just for commercialization.”
On Earth, we take water for granted, but it is actually quite a rare occurrence in the inner terrestrial planets of our solar system. This wonderfully written story by Kenneth Chang rightly illustrates the preciousness of water and its importance for the progress of mankind. His first two paragraphs draw the reader in with a few clear, important and beautiful images: “The Moon, at least at the bottom of a deep, dark cold crater near its south pole, seems to be wetter than the Sahara…In lunar terms, that is an oasis, surprisingly wet for a place that had long been thought by many planetary scientists to be utterly dry.” The reader understands the significance of this lunar water finding from the very start, and he/she already has a feel for about how much water there is.
Chang provides further details about the water in the lunar crater and its uses with clarity: “eight wheelbarrows of soil [would] melt [into] 10 to 13 gallons of water. The water, if purified, could be used for drinking, or broken apart into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel—to get home or travel to Mars.” That’s in the third paragraph. Then he moves into the words of the scientists, explaining what they know/think about the lunar crater (named Cabeus) and the water in it. The experiments and science are explained concisely and clearly, and the inverse pyramid is conserved. As Chang moves along the article, he begins to talk about the other minerals, other than water, found in the lunar soil. While significant, these minerals are nowhere near as important to humans as water, so they are rightly placed towards the end of the article. And the story ends with a scientist’s quote of hope and new horizons, such as returning to the Moon even though Obama has urged against it: “I think the poles have just opened up a flurry of new questions...I think it is a destiny that we will go there as humans. I hope it’s not just for commercialization.”
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Map of the Brain
This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/10/11/on_a_quest_to_map_the_brains_hidden_territory/
It is astounding how much we still do not know about the brain. There are entire sections of the brain that can only be crudely explained and others that remain completely in the dark. As the writer of the story, Carolyn Johnson, so fantastically put it, the images we currently have of the brain are “crude and incomplete, akin to medieval maps of the world in which unexplored regions were filled in with sea monsters or dragons.” This sentence was in the first paragraph of the article, and it certainly grabs the reader’s attention and fascinates him/her right from the start.
The meat of the article does not really come until the third/fourth paragraph. The big idea in this story is that researchers have developed new medical technology to image the brain in more complex ways, and have recently discovered an important structure, called the “connectome," which is an assemblage of "neural highways crucial for brain function, including thoughts, movements, and sensations…[Physicist and radiologist Dr. Van] Weeden said[,] “This is as important a structure as you’re ever going to meet, and this thing had to be designed by evolution.”” Then Johnson jumps to other scientists, discussing their research plans and thoughts on the “connectome,” as well as how important the study of this newly found cerebral region and the new medical technology will be in the future of brain research: Dr. Bruce Rosen says, “There’s excellent evidence we’ll see things we can’t see today.” Johnson really sticks to what the scientists think and say and do. She makes great use of the scientists’ thoughts to frame a story around this new imaging technology, the “connectome,” and why they are so important to our understanding of the brain.
It is astounding how much we still do not know about the brain. There are entire sections of the brain that can only be crudely explained and others that remain completely in the dark. As the writer of the story, Carolyn Johnson, so fantastically put it, the images we currently have of the brain are “crude and incomplete, akin to medieval maps of the world in which unexplored regions were filled in with sea monsters or dragons.” This sentence was in the first paragraph of the article, and it certainly grabs the reader’s attention and fascinates him/her right from the start.
The meat of the article does not really come until the third/fourth paragraph. The big idea in this story is that researchers have developed new medical technology to image the brain in more complex ways, and have recently discovered an important structure, called the “connectome," which is an assemblage of "neural highways crucial for brain function, including thoughts, movements, and sensations…[Physicist and radiologist Dr. Van] Weeden said[,] “This is as important a structure as you’re ever going to meet, and this thing had to be designed by evolution.”” Then Johnson jumps to other scientists, discussing their research plans and thoughts on the “connectome,” as well as how important the study of this newly found cerebral region and the new medical technology will be in the future of brain research: Dr. Bruce Rosen says, “There’s excellent evidence we’ll see things we can’t see today.” Johnson really sticks to what the scientists think and say and do. She makes great use of the scientists’ thoughts to frame a story around this new imaging technology, the “connectome,” and why they are so important to our understanding of the brain.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Oldest Thing in the Universe
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/10/20/science/space/AP-US-SCI-Oldest-Galaxy.html?_r=1&ref=science
About an hour and a half ago, the Associated Press released some pretty big news in the realm of astronomy. In a study published Wednesday in Nature, astronomers from the Paris Observatory say they’ve found the oldest thing in the universe known to mankind. The first paragraph of the story presents this profound discovery with humor and clarity: “It’s a galaxy far, far away from a time long, long ago.” The second paragraph continues the stream of interesting/important information and context: “hidden in a Hubble Space Telescope photo released earlier this year is a small smudge of light that European astronomers now calculate is a galaxy from 13.1 billion years ago. That’s a time when the universe was very young, just shy of 600 million years old.”
The rest of the story is just as good. It is concise with short paragraphs and contains pertinent quotations from leading scientists, such as one CIT astronomy professor clarifying the extremely ancient nature of the galaxy (and in turn, the extremely youthful state we see it in): “We’re looking at the universe when it was a 20th of its current age. In human terms, we’re looking at a 4-year-old boy in the life span of an adult.” Then the story focuses on the details of the study, and ends with a scientist’s quote on how far we really are looking out into space: “We’re looking almost to the edge, almost within 100 million years of seeing the very first objects.”
About an hour and a half ago, the Associated Press released some pretty big news in the realm of astronomy. In a study published Wednesday in Nature, astronomers from the Paris Observatory say they’ve found the oldest thing in the universe known to mankind. The first paragraph of the story presents this profound discovery with humor and clarity: “It’s a galaxy far, far away from a time long, long ago.” The second paragraph continues the stream of interesting/important information and context: “hidden in a Hubble Space Telescope photo released earlier this year is a small smudge of light that European astronomers now calculate is a galaxy from 13.1 billion years ago. That’s a time when the universe was very young, just shy of 600 million years old.”
The rest of the story is just as good. It is concise with short paragraphs and contains pertinent quotations from leading scientists, such as one CIT astronomy professor clarifying the extremely ancient nature of the galaxy (and in turn, the extremely youthful state we see it in): “We’re looking at the universe when it was a 20th of its current age. In human terms, we’re looking at a 4-year-old boy in the life span of an adult.” Then the story focuses on the details of the study, and ends with a scientist’s quote on how far we really are looking out into space: “We’re looking almost to the edge, almost within 100 million years of seeing the very first objects.”
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Fresh Perspective on the Haiti Earthquake
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/19quake.html?_r=1&ref=science
The Haiti earthquake at the beginning of this year decimated thousands of buildings, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and left about a million others homeless. Wouldn’t it be great if we could reduce the destruction incurred from such high-magnitude earthquakes? Well, in this article, Henry Fountain explains new seismology research that could help diminish the damages done by future earthquakes.
While the new research and its great potential are the main subjects of the article, Fountain does not arrive to them until about halfway through. It may have strengthened his story to have included the major points of the research in the first paragraph or two, so the reader knows what’s coming and what’s important. Recently, scientists had a revelation with regards to the Haiti earthquake: they found that it was intensified due to the geometry of local surface features—known as “topographic amplification.” However, in the article, this doesn’t come up until the third paragraph. He could have spent less time in the second paragraph describing the secondary intensifying effects of sedimentary rock and more time introducing the reader to these new findings. The good stuff doesn’t come until the end when he begins to quote the seismologists themselves: Dr. Hough says that with this ongoing research and computer simulations, we can eventually “say, ‘You should build over here, and not there.’” She also says, “you can build safely, even in zones [of severe shaking]. You just have to know what you’re up against…We can design for it.” This is the meat of the story, and Fountain could have included it much sooner and trimmed the fat to produce a more solid piece.
The Haiti earthquake at the beginning of this year decimated thousands of buildings, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and left about a million others homeless. Wouldn’t it be great if we could reduce the destruction incurred from such high-magnitude earthquakes? Well, in this article, Henry Fountain explains new seismology research that could help diminish the damages done by future earthquakes.
While the new research and its great potential are the main subjects of the article, Fountain does not arrive to them until about halfway through. It may have strengthened his story to have included the major points of the research in the first paragraph or two, so the reader knows what’s coming and what’s important. Recently, scientists had a revelation with regards to the Haiti earthquake: they found that it was intensified due to the geometry of local surface features—known as “topographic amplification.” However, in the article, this doesn’t come up until the third paragraph. He could have spent less time in the second paragraph describing the secondary intensifying effects of sedimentary rock and more time introducing the reader to these new findings. The good stuff doesn’t come until the end when he begins to quote the seismologists themselves: Dr. Hough says that with this ongoing research and computer simulations, we can eventually “say, ‘You should build over here, and not there.’” She also says, “you can build safely, even in zones [of severe shaking]. You just have to know what you’re up against…We can design for it.” This is the meat of the story, and Fountain could have included it much sooner and trimmed the fat to produce a more solid piece.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Historic Brothels in North End
This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/10/18/north_end_dig_provides_rare_look_into_boston_brothels/?page=2
This is a strange story to appear in the science section of the Boston Globe. Apparently, as said in the second paragraph, BU archeology professors have found artifacts in Boston’s North End that show a history of heavy prostitution in that area: “From toothbrushes to jewelry to cosmetics, and parts of 19 syringes used for hygiene, the treasure trove plucked from a now-buried site near Haymarket is evidence of a thriving, racy economy that the city’s prim Victorian image never acknowledges.” The rest of the story goes into more detail on the prostitution that was flourishing in these parts about a century and a half ago.
But it doesn’t make much sense that this story would be in the science section. It seems like something that would just be under general news (or even under an ‘odd news’ section). There’s essentially no science. The archeology behind the study is barely mentioned—most of it is just about the brothel life in those days. Furthermore, the end of the story gets into an incredibly boring discussion on where the artifact collection can/should be stored; there’s very little interesting material after the first couple paragraphs. Perhaps the writer, Brian MacQuarrie, could have included more on the actual findings, or at least he could have made it a shorter article.
This is a strange story to appear in the science section of the Boston Globe. Apparently, as said in the second paragraph, BU archeology professors have found artifacts in Boston’s North End that show a history of heavy prostitution in that area: “From toothbrushes to jewelry to cosmetics, and parts of 19 syringes used for hygiene, the treasure trove plucked from a now-buried site near Haymarket is evidence of a thriving, racy economy that the city’s prim Victorian image never acknowledges.” The rest of the story goes into more detail on the prostitution that was flourishing in these parts about a century and a half ago.
But it doesn’t make much sense that this story would be in the science section. It seems like something that would just be under general news (or even under an ‘odd news’ section). There’s essentially no science. The archeology behind the study is barely mentioned—most of it is just about the brothel life in those days. Furthermore, the end of the story gets into an incredibly boring discussion on where the artifact collection can/should be stored; there’s very little interesting material after the first couple paragraphs. Perhaps the writer, Brian MacQuarrie, could have included more on the actual findings, or at least he could have made it a shorter article.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The Mining Dilemna
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/science/earth/16westvirginia.html?_r=1&ref=science
In another battle between the contemporary American’s way of life and the environmental impact of such a culture, the EPA has advised against a mountaintop removal mining project in West Virginia—a venture that would open up jobs for hundreds and stimulate a struggling economy, but would also destroy local ecosystems.
This is a controversial issue, and the writer John M. Broder does a good job making the conflict clear and providing both sides of the story. He starts out with a lead that basically says it all: “A top federal regulator has recommended revoking the permit for one of the nation’s largest planned mountaintop removal mining projects, saying it would be devastating to miles of West Virginia streams and the plant and naimal life they support.” What follows are: a quick background of the mining project and its specifics, quotes from both the EPA and the mining company Arch Coal, and plans for the future. Broder mentions the possibility of a compromise but also suggests that this is only the beginning of a very long process. He ends with a statement from the executive director of the Sierra Club that sums the whole situation up, which is nice because it serves as Broder’s final summarizing statement and leaves the reader with the essence of the story: “This mother of all mountaintop removal coal mines would destroy thousands of acres of land, bury seven miles of streams and end a way of life for too many Appalachian families.”
In another battle between the contemporary American’s way of life and the environmental impact of such a culture, the EPA has advised against a mountaintop removal mining project in West Virginia—a venture that would open up jobs for hundreds and stimulate a struggling economy, but would also destroy local ecosystems.
This is a controversial issue, and the writer John M. Broder does a good job making the conflict clear and providing both sides of the story. He starts out with a lead that basically says it all: “A top federal regulator has recommended revoking the permit for one of the nation’s largest planned mountaintop removal mining projects, saying it would be devastating to miles of West Virginia streams and the plant and naimal life they support.” What follows are: a quick background of the mining project and its specifics, quotes from both the EPA and the mining company Arch Coal, and plans for the future. Broder mentions the possibility of a compromise but also suggests that this is only the beginning of a very long process. He ends with a statement from the executive director of the Sierra Club that sums the whole situation up, which is nice because it serves as Broder’s final summarizing statement and leaves the reader with the essence of the story: “This mother of all mountaintop removal coal mines would destroy thousands of acres of land, bury seven miles of streams and end a way of life for too many Appalachian families.”
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The Death of a Deadly Virus
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/science/16pest.html?_r=1&ref=science
This story on the complete elimination of the deadly virus, rinderpest, is well-written and touches on a couple interesting/important topics. With the first sentence, Donald G. McNeil Jr. draws us in by acknowledging the historic and social context of this elimination: “In only the second elimination of a disease in history, rinderpest—a virus that used to kill cattle by the millions, leading to famine and death among humans—has been declared wiped off the face of the earth.” He goes on to describe the horrible consequences of the virus, the sigh of relief felt by international health and food organizations, how rinderpest was eliminated, and the future decision of whether or not to keep frozen samples of the virus stored for research purposes.
The second half of the article goes through the history of rinderpest, from its beginnings in Asia to its “total destruction of herds” (which led to widespread famine) in Africa. In this way, the writer makes it seem like an obituary for the virus, which makes sense since it has effectively “died” and people would naturally wonder how it “lived” now that it’s gone. The writer also does well in mentioning other viruses with stories similar to rinderpest, including the infamous smallpox: “the only other disease ever eliminated.”
This story on the complete elimination of the deadly virus, rinderpest, is well-written and touches on a couple interesting/important topics. With the first sentence, Donald G. McNeil Jr. draws us in by acknowledging the historic and social context of this elimination: “In only the second elimination of a disease in history, rinderpest—a virus that used to kill cattle by the millions, leading to famine and death among humans—has been declared wiped off the face of the earth.” He goes on to describe the horrible consequences of the virus, the sigh of relief felt by international health and food organizations, how rinderpest was eliminated, and the future decision of whether or not to keep frozen samples of the virus stored for research purposes.
The second half of the article goes through the history of rinderpest, from its beginnings in Asia to its “total destruction of herds” (which led to widespread famine) in Africa. In this way, the writer makes it seem like an obituary for the virus, which makes sense since it has effectively “died” and people would naturally wonder how it “lived” now that it’s gone. The writer also does well in mentioning other viruses with stories similar to rinderpest, including the infamous smallpox: “the only other disease ever eliminated.”
Friday, October 15, 2010
Worms Making Babies
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/19obworm.html?_r=1&ref=science
It’s incredible that much of what we learned about the human body has actually been through experiments done on other animals. One of the most popular experimental subjects in modern science is the worm. And according to a new study, the worm has provided some fresh insight into human fertility. In addition to regular aging, women also exhibit reproductive aging. Through the worm experiments, researchers have found why reproductive ability and egg quality decrease as women age—it appears to be due to the “increased secretion of a protein called transforming growth factor beta, or TFG-beta.”
This is a nice, clear and concise story written by Sindya Bhanoo. The science is explained quite well, the lead is effective with its immediate mention of declining reproductive ability in early 30’s (and it’s humorous with the mention of Botox), and the scientist’s quotes are engaging. Towards the end, Bhanoo begins to discuss an important idea: the ability of medicine to actually extend women’s reproductive lifespans. She could have included this sentence, “this kind of research may eventually provide the knowledge to extend female fertility, Dr. Murphy said,” a little earlier in the story because it is so important; but the story is short enough that it works itself in smoothly as it is. The last sentence summarized the protein experiments with the worms. It’s a solid ending because it gives the reader a feeling that we are getting somewhere with this research but we still have a long way to go: “Although their reproductive ability increased, their life span did not, and reproducing in old age—13 days for the worms—was fatal.”
It’s incredible that much of what we learned about the human body has actually been through experiments done on other animals. One of the most popular experimental subjects in modern science is the worm. And according to a new study, the worm has provided some fresh insight into human fertility. In addition to regular aging, women also exhibit reproductive aging. Through the worm experiments, researchers have found why reproductive ability and egg quality decrease as women age—it appears to be due to the “increased secretion of a protein called transforming growth factor beta, or TFG-beta.”
This is a nice, clear and concise story written by Sindya Bhanoo. The science is explained quite well, the lead is effective with its immediate mention of declining reproductive ability in early 30’s (and it’s humorous with the mention of Botox), and the scientist’s quotes are engaging. Towards the end, Bhanoo begins to discuss an important idea: the ability of medicine to actually extend women’s reproductive lifespans. She could have included this sentence, “this kind of research may eventually provide the knowledge to extend female fertility, Dr. Murphy said,” a little earlier in the story because it is so important; but the story is short enough that it works itself in smoothly as it is. The last sentence summarized the protein experiments with the worms. It’s a solid ending because it gives the reader a feeling that we are getting somewhere with this research but we still have a long way to go: “Although their reproductive ability increased, their life span did not, and reproducing in old age—13 days for the worms—was fatal.”
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Faulty Science
This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/10/14/harvard_scientists_study_retracted_from_journal/
This is the second story so far dealing with academic misconduct. And it is the third story about stem cell research. Perhaps the reason these two have crossed paths is the controversial nature of the latter. And the story is meaningful: academic morality is important to uphold in the realm of science, especially with topics as huge as stem cells. No one wants a groundbreaking discovery to be made, and then later find it to be based in faulty research.
The article, written by Carolyn Y. Johnson, covers the retraction of a stem cell article published in January in Nature. Johnson’s focus is primarily on the retraction, rather than the science. The whole first half provides quotes from scientists about their concerns and opinions regarding the article retraction. The substance of the article retracted and the further explanation of why it was retracted remain unknown to the reader until the last third of the story. And it’s a cursory explanation at that, with no clarification of the greater implications of the research and why it was so important to retract. Maybe it was Johnson’s orders to focus on the retraction, but a more in-depth look at the science would have put the misconduct into context and it would have made it more interesting.
This is the second story so far dealing with academic misconduct. And it is the third story about stem cell research. Perhaps the reason these two have crossed paths is the controversial nature of the latter. And the story is meaningful: academic morality is important to uphold in the realm of science, especially with topics as huge as stem cells. No one wants a groundbreaking discovery to be made, and then later find it to be based in faulty research.
The article, written by Carolyn Y. Johnson, covers the retraction of a stem cell article published in January in Nature. Johnson’s focus is primarily on the retraction, rather than the science. The whole first half provides quotes from scientists about their concerns and opinions regarding the article retraction. The substance of the article retracted and the further explanation of why it was retracted remain unknown to the reader until the last third of the story. And it’s a cursory explanation at that, with no clarification of the greater implications of the research and why it was so important to retract. Maybe it was Johnson’s orders to focus on the retraction, but a more in-depth look at the science would have put the misconduct into context and it would have made it more interesting.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Dying Languages
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/12language.html?ref=science
In America, there are really only two languages: English and not-English. Sure, other languages come into play but everyone in this country has to know how to speak English or they will not survive. And this rings true for most developed countries and their particular primary language. The number of major languages in developed countries can usually be counted on one or two hands. However, there are tons upon tons of languages in the world—a number so high that it is difficult to grasp for many English-only speakers. What other languages could there be besides the main ones? It is this extreme barrier that John Noble Wilford, the writer of the story, takes advantage of as he writes about the little-known language, Koro, in the New York Times—a publication only English-speaking people would read.
The story has a terrific lead that hooks you in the second paragraph with an astounding fact: “On average, every two weeks one of the world’s recorded 7,000 languages becomes extinct.” Wilbur goes on to say that language experts have traveled India and discovered a new but extremely rare language called Koro. Only 800 people are estimated to speak it.
What the story lacked was some context for language science. What do linguists do? What is defined as a “language”? What is a “dialect’? A “tongue”? How do these rare languages develop and what does it mean for two languages to be related? The story did well in following the inverse pyramid: it certainly became less and less interesting, but brief answers to these questions may have put the tiny language of Koro into a more meaningful perspective.
In America, there are really only two languages: English and not-English. Sure, other languages come into play but everyone in this country has to know how to speak English or they will not survive. And this rings true for most developed countries and their particular primary language. The number of major languages in developed countries can usually be counted on one or two hands. However, there are tons upon tons of languages in the world—a number so high that it is difficult to grasp for many English-only speakers. What other languages could there be besides the main ones? It is this extreme barrier that John Noble Wilford, the writer of the story, takes advantage of as he writes about the little-known language, Koro, in the New York Times—a publication only English-speaking people would read.
The story has a terrific lead that hooks you in the second paragraph with an astounding fact: “On average, every two weeks one of the world’s recorded 7,000 languages becomes extinct.” Wilbur goes on to say that language experts have traveled India and discovered a new but extremely rare language called Koro. Only 800 people are estimated to speak it.
What the story lacked was some context for language science. What do linguists do? What is defined as a “language”? What is a “dialect’? A “tongue”? How do these rare languages develop and what does it mean for two languages to be related? The story did well in following the inverse pyramid: it certainly became less and less interesting, but brief answers to these questions may have put the tiny language of Koro into a more meaningful perspective.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Safety of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/10/12/spinal_cord_patient_gets_first_embryonic_stem_cell_treatment/
Another story here on embryonic stem cells. The story here marks a huge stepping stone in stem cell research—this is the first patient to ever undergo stem cell treatment. Right from the lead, the writer Rob Stein establishes the context of this article. It is not about the scientific details of stem cell science, but rather about the controversial nature of the research: the ethical concerns and fears going into testing stem cell treatments. As Stein puts it in the first paragraph, the treatment of this patient marks “the beginning of the first carefully designed attempt to test the promising but controversial therapy.”
And he goes on to give equal attention to both sides. He provides quotations from scientists both in favor of pushing the research further and concerned about the “long-term safety” of stem cell treatment. The second half of the article wisely discusses what has been done already in terms of safety. He also throws in an example from a decade ago about a “death from a gene therapy experiment.” But inevitably, as is always the case in medical research, proposed treatments, even after significant study and animal testing, must be tested on humans. How else can we know whether or not it works? And that’s the dilemma that is at work right now in the field of embryonic stem cell research. Will the benefits outweigh the potential costs?
Another story here on embryonic stem cells. The story here marks a huge stepping stone in stem cell research—this is the first patient to ever undergo stem cell treatment. Right from the lead, the writer Rob Stein establishes the context of this article. It is not about the scientific details of stem cell science, but rather about the controversial nature of the research: the ethical concerns and fears going into testing stem cell treatments. As Stein puts it in the first paragraph, the treatment of this patient marks “the beginning of the first carefully designed attempt to test the promising but controversial therapy.”
And he goes on to give equal attention to both sides. He provides quotations from scientists both in favor of pushing the research further and concerned about the “long-term safety” of stem cell treatment. The second half of the article wisely discusses what has been done already in terms of safety. He also throws in an example from a decade ago about a “death from a gene therapy experiment.” But inevitably, as is always the case in medical research, proposed treatments, even after significant study and animal testing, must be tested on humans. How else can we know whether or not it works? And that’s the dilemma that is at work right now in the field of embryonic stem cell research. Will the benefits outweigh the potential costs?
Monday, October 11, 2010
Internet Consumption At Record Levels
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/business/10novel.html?_r=1&ref=science
The Internet is becoming a second home for much of the developed world. Modern Internet usage is absurdly high and it continues to grow: one scientist says, “The traffic requirements on the Internet double every two years.” Anne Eisenberg, the writer of this story, smartly relates our Internet usage to food consumption in the first paragraph: “Our taste for the Internet is insatiable…scientists are coping, finding ingenious ways to satisfy our deep bandwidth hunger.” This makes the reader understand the importance of improving Internet traffic flow—it is a necessity. Everyone needs to be able to survive on the digital nourishment of the Internet.
The story is impressive in that it takes a fairly arcane subject—the Internet information highways made of optical fibers in the network—and brings it down to Earth, making it understandable to the common reader. Eisenberg not only explains the technological details behind the science, she also tells us of the big picture: why Internet demand is growing and what scientists have to say about it. Readers always appreciate hearing expertise; so when a professor of electrical engineering says, “We are looking at a point soon where we cannot satisfy demand,” the reader knows it’s the real deal. Her inverse pyramid also flows very nicely through the piece.
The Internet is becoming a second home for much of the developed world. Modern Internet usage is absurdly high and it continues to grow: one scientist says, “The traffic requirements on the Internet double every two years.” Anne Eisenberg, the writer of this story, smartly relates our Internet usage to food consumption in the first paragraph: “Our taste for the Internet is insatiable…scientists are coping, finding ingenious ways to satisfy our deep bandwidth hunger.” This makes the reader understand the importance of improving Internet traffic flow—it is a necessity. Everyone needs to be able to survive on the digital nourishment of the Internet.
The story is impressive in that it takes a fairly arcane subject—the Internet information highways made of optical fibers in the network—and brings it down to Earth, making it understandable to the common reader. Eisenberg not only explains the technological details behind the science, she also tells us of the big picture: why Internet demand is growing and what scientists have to say about it. Readers always appreciate hearing expertise; so when a professor of electrical engineering says, “We are looking at a point soon where we cannot satisfy demand,” the reader knows it’s the real deal. Her inverse pyramid also flows very nicely through the piece.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Whales Killed by Ships off the California Coast
This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/10/BALQ1FPRM7.DTL
This story covers the most recent in a trend of whale killings due to busy shipping lanes along the California coast (and across the globe). “At least five dead whales have been sighted or have washed ashore around the [Bay Area] region since late July.” This particular story focuses on the deaths of a mother and her “17-foot-long fetus…released by her body as she decomposed.”
This is a big problem, and the writer, Kelly Zito, proves so by describing a number of different whale strikes that have happened recently along the West Coast. Zito calls attention to the endangered status of blue, humpback and fin whales, and she says that whale protection organizations around the globe are discussing solutions, but she doesn’t spend much time on those. The purpose of this article is just to be a simple news story that doesn’t delve into the larger issues. But she does do well in starting with the specific story and then zooming out, putting the big picture into focus. She uses a lot of very short paragraphs, most of them limited to one sentence, which helps her get the facts across efficiently and quickly. Though she could have said more on the topic, such as why whales don’t seem to be able to get out of the ships’ way, Zoti stays concise and appropriately objective.
This story covers the most recent in a trend of whale killings due to busy shipping lanes along the California coast (and across the globe). “At least five dead whales have been sighted or have washed ashore around the [Bay Area] region since late July.” This particular story focuses on the deaths of a mother and her “17-foot-long fetus…released by her body as she decomposed.”
This is a big problem, and the writer, Kelly Zito, proves so by describing a number of different whale strikes that have happened recently along the West Coast. Zito calls attention to the endangered status of blue, humpback and fin whales, and she says that whale protection organizations around the globe are discussing solutions, but she doesn’t spend much time on those. The purpose of this article is just to be a simple news story that doesn’t delve into the larger issues. But she does do well in starting with the specific story and then zooming out, putting the big picture into focus. She uses a lot of very short paragraphs, most of them limited to one sentence, which helps her get the facts across efficiently and quickly. Though she could have said more on the topic, such as why whales don’t seem to be able to get out of the ships’ way, Zoti stays concise and appropriately objective.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Cars with Automatic Pilot Coming Soon!
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=science
It’s a futuristic vision society has had since the dawn of the automobile: cars that drive themselves. We see it all the time in movies and books and art. Many drivers now wouldn’t even think of leaving home without a GPS system guiding the way. Some cars even beep now when they are approaching something and in danger of hitting it. This push towards autonomous automobiles is a dream we just can’t seem to get out of our heads. Fortunately (or unfortunately?), mechanical/computer engineers are beginning to make huge steps in turning this dream into a reality.
The story, written by John Markoff, talks about the recent advances in autonomous driving made by Google. Apparently, they don’t spend all their time and money on just the internet because they’ve developed an artificial intelligence system for cars that literally drives for you, through highway traffic, stopping for stoplights, even down some of the windiest roads in San Francisco. “But of course, to be truly safer, the cars must be far more reliable than, say, today’s personal computers, which crash on occasion and are frequently infected.” A good note by Markoff—even though this autonomous automobile is already looking good, there’s still a lot of research to be done before it goes into mass production.
Markoff writes a solid article here, keeping it interesting all the way through, and touching on the greater topics of autonomous vehicles and artificial intelligence. A discussion on the ethic of it all is rightly left out—it is a news story, even though it has a freshness and modernity in its writing that would make Google proud.
It’s a futuristic vision society has had since the dawn of the automobile: cars that drive themselves. We see it all the time in movies and books and art. Many drivers now wouldn’t even think of leaving home without a GPS system guiding the way. Some cars even beep now when they are approaching something and in danger of hitting it. This push towards autonomous automobiles is a dream we just can’t seem to get out of our heads. Fortunately (or unfortunately?), mechanical/computer engineers are beginning to make huge steps in turning this dream into a reality.
The story, written by John Markoff, talks about the recent advances in autonomous driving made by Google. Apparently, they don’t spend all their time and money on just the internet because they’ve developed an artificial intelligence system for cars that literally drives for you, through highway traffic, stopping for stoplights, even down some of the windiest roads in San Francisco. “But of course, to be truly safer, the cars must be far more reliable than, say, today’s personal computers, which crash on occasion and are frequently infected.” A good note by Markoff—even though this autonomous automobile is already looking good, there’s still a lot of research to be done before it goes into mass production.
Markoff writes a solid article here, keeping it interesting all the way through, and touching on the greater topics of autonomous vehicles and artificial intelligence. A discussion on the ethic of it all is rightly left out—it is a news story, even though it has a freshness and modernity in its writing that would make Google proud.
Friday, October 8, 2010
A Whole New World, Thanks to Graphene
This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/10/06/two_receive_nobel_physics_prize/
The most recent Nobel Prize in physics has been awarded to two Russian scientists for their study of the light superstrong material, graphene. Their experiments detail a major breakthrough in materials technology as they show graphene to have exceptional applications in the advancement of many industrial technologies, including satellites, aircraft, cars, televisions, and computers.
The article does a nice job laying out the story of graphene. It begins with the big questions: what is it and so what? The one-sentence lead immediately answers both, calling graphene “the strongest and thinnest material known to mankind, a potential building block for faster computers and lighter airplanes and satellites.” Then the writer, Karl Ritter, gets more into the details, saying that graphene is “a form of carbon only one atom thick but more than 100 times stronger than steel.” This is a great description—it’s simple and easy to picture. One thing that could have been left for further down in the article was the background of the two scientists. The science behind the experiments, the scientists’ reactions of excitements, and the further implications of graphene are more important and should surely precede the more cursory information about the scientists themselves.
Ritter also does well in emphasizing the fact that none of these advances in computers or satellites or airplanes or cars or TVs will be coming anytime soon, as he quotes one of the scientists as saying “[it will take awhile] before this sort of technology moves into mainstream application.” Though the capabilities of graphene sound promising, it’s too early to get too excited.
The most recent Nobel Prize in physics has been awarded to two Russian scientists for their study of the light superstrong material, graphene. Their experiments detail a major breakthrough in materials technology as they show graphene to have exceptional applications in the advancement of many industrial technologies, including satellites, aircraft, cars, televisions, and computers.
The article does a nice job laying out the story of graphene. It begins with the big questions: what is it and so what? The one-sentence lead immediately answers both, calling graphene “the strongest and thinnest material known to mankind, a potential building block for faster computers and lighter airplanes and satellites.” Then the writer, Karl Ritter, gets more into the details, saying that graphene is “a form of carbon only one atom thick but more than 100 times stronger than steel.” This is a great description—it’s simple and easy to picture. One thing that could have been left for further down in the article was the background of the two scientists. The science behind the experiments, the scientists’ reactions of excitements, and the further implications of graphene are more important and should surely precede the more cursory information about the scientists themselves.
Ritter also does well in emphasizing the fact that none of these advances in computers or satellites or airplanes or cars or TVs will be coming anytime soon, as he quotes one of the scientists as saying “[it will take awhile] before this sort of technology moves into mainstream application.” Though the capabilities of graphene sound promising, it’s too early to get too excited.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Miniature Dinosaurs
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/science/07dinosaurs.html?_r=1&ref=science
It is generally accepted that the Earth has suffered a series of mass extinctions during its 4.5 billion year existence, ending the lines of millions of species of plants and animals. Yet somehow life keeps trucking, evolving past these catastrophes; and it does so through a small number of survivors, very small species that just narrowly avoided extinction, that would eventually give rise to a greater diversity of life forms, such as dinosaurs. This article tells us about the newest scientific discovery in this area. Scientists claim they have found the earliest known relative of the dinosaurs, dating the beginning of the dinosaur era at around 250 million years ago.
The story is well-written. The writer, Kenneth Chang, has a good lead that immediately provides the reader with an image to carry through the rest of the article: “The earliest known relatives of dinosaurs were the size of a house cat, walked on four legs and left footprints in the quarries in Poland.” And then there is a photograph of the fossilized footprints and an illustration of the “cat-size dinosaur.” Chang does well in keeping the inverse pyramid structure, getting in all the interesting stuff towards the beginning, such as the scientists’ reactions and the implications of the finding—“dinosaurs…originally arose to fill ecological niches opened by an earlier, even greater mass extinction.” It is concise and clear, and it even ventures into the greater topic of global mass extinctions in the history of the Earth.
It is generally accepted that the Earth has suffered a series of mass extinctions during its 4.5 billion year existence, ending the lines of millions of species of plants and animals. Yet somehow life keeps trucking, evolving past these catastrophes; and it does so through a small number of survivors, very small species that just narrowly avoided extinction, that would eventually give rise to a greater diversity of life forms, such as dinosaurs. This article tells us about the newest scientific discovery in this area. Scientists claim they have found the earliest known relative of the dinosaurs, dating the beginning of the dinosaur era at around 250 million years ago.
The story is well-written. The writer, Kenneth Chang, has a good lead that immediately provides the reader with an image to carry through the rest of the article: “The earliest known relatives of dinosaurs were the size of a house cat, walked on four legs and left footprints in the quarries in Poland.” And then there is a photograph of the fossilized footprints and an illustration of the “cat-size dinosaur.” Chang does well in keeping the inverse pyramid structure, getting in all the interesting stuff towards the beginning, such as the scientists’ reactions and the implications of the finding—“dinosaurs…originally arose to fill ecological niches opened by an earlier, even greater mass extinction.” It is concise and clear, and it even ventures into the greater topic of global mass extinctions in the history of the Earth.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Global Climate Action Made Bite-Sized
This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/10/05/find_common_ground_un_climate_chief_says/
So far, the world has been horrendous at organizing a global effort to fight climate change. National goals have constantly been neglected and deadlines pushed back. It is widely acknowledged that the efforts of the UN to take political action against climate change have been a failure, Copenhagen being a perfect example. In fact, the failure of Copenhagen is what has inspired countries to focus on smaller initiatives: “The scaled-down ambitions are largely due to the collapse of climate talks in Copenhagen last year, when political leaders failed to produce a global and legally binding treaty on curbing the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.”
The story seems to be a brief explanation of the global climate change fight as it stands today. The UN climate chief wants countries to “focus on smaller initiatives” rather than create far-reaching, unachievable goals. The writer makes some bold statements on an important issue that stick with the reader: “Expectations still are small because countries remain deadlocked over the same issues…Ultimately, if talks in Cancun fail to produce concrete results, the entire UN process could be in jeopardy.” However, it is unclear what the major story is here. It seems to bounce around between climate negotiations, from Mexico to China to Cancun, and it is hard to tell where things are happening and what players are involved. Perhaps the writer could have added a few more paragraphs to adequately explain the status of the political workings behind climate change.
So far, the world has been horrendous at organizing a global effort to fight climate change. National goals have constantly been neglected and deadlines pushed back. It is widely acknowledged that the efforts of the UN to take political action against climate change have been a failure, Copenhagen being a perfect example. In fact, the failure of Copenhagen is what has inspired countries to focus on smaller initiatives: “The scaled-down ambitions are largely due to the collapse of climate talks in Copenhagen last year, when political leaders failed to produce a global and legally binding treaty on curbing the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.”
The story seems to be a brief explanation of the global climate change fight as it stands today. The UN climate chief wants countries to “focus on smaller initiatives” rather than create far-reaching, unachievable goals. The writer makes some bold statements on an important issue that stick with the reader: “Expectations still are small because countries remain deadlocked over the same issues…Ultimately, if talks in Cancun fail to produce concrete results, the entire UN process could be in jeopardy.” However, it is unclear what the major story is here. It seems to bounce around between climate negotiations, from Mexico to China to Cancun, and it is hard to tell where things are happening and what players are involved. Perhaps the writer could have added a few more paragraphs to adequately explain the status of the political workings behind climate change.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Humans Are Actually Not That Stupid
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/05compute.html?_r=1&ref=science
Like stem cell research, artificial intelligence is a field of study where researchers proceed with caution. There are potential consequences that could overshadow the benefits—would machines that are as intelligent as humans be the best thing to have around? It is both a practical and a moral question. The existence of intelligent robots would basically mean we created a whole new race of man, or perhaps a whole new species of being. Can we do that? Should we do that?
Well scientists are trying to answer the former before they get to the latter. Machines are a long ways away from exhibiting human intelligence, but artificial intelligence research is in full throttle across the globe, as scientists plug away in the effort to bring the future closer. This story is about a huge stepping stone in that direction—the Never-Ending Language Learning system (NELL). This mega computer browses the Web and essentially teaches itself (with some help from scientists of course). A great example of how far computers have to go is the fact that NELL would not be able to understand the sentences, “The girl caught the butterfly with the spots,” and “The girl caught the butterfly with the net.” We immediately understand that the butterfly has the spots, not the girl, and the girl has the net, not the butterfly. This comes from our cumulative knowledge, building and evolving over years and years of experience. NELL has none of this. Scientists hope that through its ability to search the Web and acquire its own cumulative knowledge, it will someday have human-like language understanding.
The story is very well-written. Starting with the current gap between computers and humans, then moving in to the details of NELL, all while expanding on the topics of semantic computing and artificial intelligence, the writer Steve Lohr does a brilliant job drawing the reader in and keeping him/her engaged. The examples he chooses of NELL’s abilities and inabilities, as well as the general abilities/inabilities of today’s computing, work spectacularly.
Like stem cell research, artificial intelligence is a field of study where researchers proceed with caution. There are potential consequences that could overshadow the benefits—would machines that are as intelligent as humans be the best thing to have around? It is both a practical and a moral question. The existence of intelligent robots would basically mean we created a whole new race of man, or perhaps a whole new species of being. Can we do that? Should we do that?
Well scientists are trying to answer the former before they get to the latter. Machines are a long ways away from exhibiting human intelligence, but artificial intelligence research is in full throttle across the globe, as scientists plug away in the effort to bring the future closer. This story is about a huge stepping stone in that direction—the Never-Ending Language Learning system (NELL). This mega computer browses the Web and essentially teaches itself (with some help from scientists of course). A great example of how far computers have to go is the fact that NELL would not be able to understand the sentences, “The girl caught the butterfly with the spots,” and “The girl caught the butterfly with the net.” We immediately understand that the butterfly has the spots, not the girl, and the girl has the net, not the butterfly. This comes from our cumulative knowledge, building and evolving over years and years of experience. NELL has none of this. Scientists hope that through its ability to search the Web and acquire its own cumulative knowledge, it will someday have human-like language understanding.
The story is very well-written. Starting with the current gap between computers and humans, then moving in to the details of NELL, all while expanding on the topics of semantic computing and artificial intelligence, the writer Steve Lohr does a brilliant job drawing the reader in and keeping him/her engaged. The examples he chooses of NELL’s abilities and inabilities, as well as the general abilities/inabilities of today’s computing, work spectacularly.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Stem Cell Breakthrough Not Given Enough Credit
This article can be found at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/01/MN2M1FMBHG.DTL&type=science
For what seems like quite an important breakthrough in stem cell technology, the story is poorly written. The news is that scientists have found a “safe alternative” to create stem cells that are “virtually identical to embryonic stem cells,” a development that is sure to soothe the great stem cell controversy. This is an important step in modern biology. But the story makes it seem trivial.
The story is short, but not concise. It is simple, but not clear. And it is focused, but not engaging. The sentences are long and hard to follow. And more details of the research would probably strengthen the story, but the real thing missing is quotations. There are none of them. Words from the scientists themselves and from stem cell research opponents would have provided a key dynamic. It would have made it a story. Instead of just words.
The last paragraph seems really out of place as well. The writer, Rob Stein, seems to be telling the reader what stem cell research is and why there is controversy, a discussion that would work much better towards the beginning of the article or somehow threaded through the arc of the story at various places.
For what seems like quite an important breakthrough in stem cell technology, the story is poorly written. The news is that scientists have found a “safe alternative” to create stem cells that are “virtually identical to embryonic stem cells,” a development that is sure to soothe the great stem cell controversy. This is an important step in modern biology. But the story makes it seem trivial.
The story is short, but not concise. It is simple, but not clear. And it is focused, but not engaging. The sentences are long and hard to follow. And more details of the research would probably strengthen the story, but the real thing missing is quotations. There are none of them. Words from the scientists themselves and from stem cell research opponents would have provided a key dynamic. It would have made it a story. Instead of just words.
The last paragraph seems really out of place as well. The writer, Rob Stein, seems to be telling the reader what stem cell research is and why there is controversy, a discussion that would work much better towards the beginning of the article or somehow threaded through the arc of the story at various places.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Abominable Medical Research of 1940s Revealed
This article can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/10/02/wellesley_professor_unearths_a_horror_syphilis_experiments_in_guatemala/?page=1
In the headline, the writer rightly uses the one word that truly describes the nature of this story: “horror.” This is horrible news. The bluntness of the first paragraph makes it even more chilling: “US government scientists in the 1940s deliberately infected hundreds of Guatemalans with syphilis and gonorrhea in experiments conducted without the subjects’ permission.” The story takes us back into an age of unethical medical research—“an era when it was not uncommon for doctors to experiment on patients without their consent.” The writer does well in laying out the horror and tragedy of the story, by giving quotes of politicians and scientists today and describing the abominable research done in Guatemala with brutal honesty: “prisoners, soldiers, and inmates in mental asylums were willfully infected, sometimes by using prostitutes provided by the scientists, sometimes by pouring the germs onto skin abrasions the researchers caused.”
The story does suffer from such a mind-blowing subject. There’s not much more you can say after the initial bombshell. But the writer does keep the reader occupied with some discussion (which certainly could have been investigated deeper) of medical research on human subjects, both past and present. Sure, things were different then (a time when “institutionalized children were fed oatmeal laced with radiation as part of nutrition experiments…[and] elderly patients were injected with cancer cells”), but human subject research is still an issue. How do we test new drugs without using human subjects and what are the ethics for that?
In the headline, the writer rightly uses the one word that truly describes the nature of this story: “horror.” This is horrible news. The bluntness of the first paragraph makes it even more chilling: “US government scientists in the 1940s deliberately infected hundreds of Guatemalans with syphilis and gonorrhea in experiments conducted without the subjects’ permission.” The story takes us back into an age of unethical medical research—“an era when it was not uncommon for doctors to experiment on patients without their consent.” The writer does well in laying out the horror and tragedy of the story, by giving quotes of politicians and scientists today and describing the abominable research done in Guatemala with brutal honesty: “prisoners, soldiers, and inmates in mental asylums were willfully infected, sometimes by using prostitutes provided by the scientists, sometimes by pouring the germs onto skin abrasions the researchers caused.”
The story does suffer from such a mind-blowing subject. There’s not much more you can say after the initial bombshell. But the writer does keep the reader occupied with some discussion (which certainly could have been investigated deeper) of medical research on human subjects, both past and present. Sure, things were different then (a time when “institutionalized children were fed oatmeal laced with radiation as part of nutrition experiments…[and] elderly patients were injected with cancer cells”), but human subject research is still an issue. How do we test new drugs without using human subjects and what are the ethics for that?
Friday, October 1, 2010
Giant Brown Penguins
This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/science/01penguin.html?_r=1&ref=science
Imagine a penguin 5 feet tall and with brown feathers and twice the mass of an emperor penguin. These ancient giant penguins swam and wobbled along the western coast of South America around 40 million years ago. Apparently, the “tuxedo” look of penguins today had not yet evolved, and scientists are still trying to understand the past environmental conditions that gave rise to this adaptation and allowed it to take hold in modern penguin populations.
The story is mediocre. It’s not all that interesting beyond the first few paragraphs, where the reader is introduced to the peculiarities of this penguin and scientists’ perspectives on its evolution. However, after that, the writer, John Noble Wilford, dipped into a more scientific discussion that would only interest a very select group of scientists (whether interested in penguins or ancient birds or both, these scientists are probably scarce). The talk of “melanosomes” was a particular instance of this esoteric discussion. Not only was it obscure (they have something to do with how paleontologists determine the color of fossilized bird feathers), but it was unclear and lengthy. Some tighter, clearer writing would make this somewhat interesting article short and sweet—like a sparkling white penguin egg.
Imagine a penguin 5 feet tall and with brown feathers and twice the mass of an emperor penguin. These ancient giant penguins swam and wobbled along the western coast of South America around 40 million years ago. Apparently, the “tuxedo” look of penguins today had not yet evolved, and scientists are still trying to understand the past environmental conditions that gave rise to this adaptation and allowed it to take hold in modern penguin populations.
The story is mediocre. It’s not all that interesting beyond the first few paragraphs, where the reader is introduced to the peculiarities of this penguin and scientists’ perspectives on its evolution. However, after that, the writer, John Noble Wilford, dipped into a more scientific discussion that would only interest a very select group of scientists (whether interested in penguins or ancient birds or both, these scientists are probably scarce). The talk of “melanosomes” was a particular instance of this esoteric discussion. Not only was it obscure (they have something to do with how paleontologists determine the color of fossilized bird feathers), but it was unclear and lengthy. Some tighter, clearer writing would make this somewhat interesting article short and sweet—like a sparkling white penguin egg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)