Imagine

Imagine having a dream that, if fulfilled, could truly change the world for the better.  Now imagine that you have the knowledge, understanding and determination to possibly pull it off.  Why shouldn't you?  You've changed the world before.  Wouldn't it be amazing to live that kind of life?  Wouldn't it be amazing to change the world--for the better? 

Sight Restored

I'm heading over to my church to work on some rooms I'm remodelling, but something came in my email that is completely, unbelievably, wonderfully cool, and I had to take a minute to pass it your way. Scientists are discovering more and more ways they can heal you with stem cells from your own body. I can't believe how simple, quick and painless this one is--take a look!

A Technological Ray Of Sunshine

Couldn't we all use some nice, cheerful, sci-fi-quality tech news to remind us that, unlike our profit sharing accounts and 401(k)s, some things are actually moving forward and not backward these days? Some things are, in fact, getting better, stronger, faster and cooler! While financial turmoil shakes the foundations of our economic empires, science is still making amazing progress. Retirement funds and college savings plans may be shrinking, but technology is shrinking, too, both in size and in price, and that is a very good thing. I'll pass you over now to this little piece at Gizmag, which will show you a cutting edge, "affordable" (no amounts given here) almost credit-card-small, flexible electronic touchscreen display. This "electronic paper" uses very little power, is ultra portable, can send or store the information written on it, and can take a serious beating to boot. (Watch the video for evidence of the latter.)

On a side note, this is the kind of thing that gives me hope that the current shaking of our financial foundations doesn't mean the whole building will come crashing down. The things that sparked the general prosperity of the last century--creativity and hard work--haven't crumbled yet (despite the best efforts of our political classes). Humans are an inventive lot, and many of the societal problems we face can be addressed successfully with the right technological advancements. They won't fix the human nature problem--people are still going to do stupid things in the name of blatant self-interest--but they can improve the human condition, feed people, provide clean and affordable energy, extend communication, fight disease, and provide information to the masses. I can't say that I'm at all positive about what the powerful people are doing these days, but the fact that the inventors and scientists keep plugging away is a technological ray of sunshine in a cloudy and difficult time.

Shades Of Gattaca

Remember the movie Gattaca? Ethan Hawke played a non-genetically modified human in the midst of an entire society of genetically enhanced over-achievers. His parents made the dire mistake of letting God decide who their child would be, rather than laboratory eugenics, and Vincent (Hawke's character) payed the price for that indiscretion. His genetically tweaked younger brother was taller, smarter, healthier and much more socially acceptable in a world where a DNA sequencing served as a job interview, and human potential was just a line on a bar graph. Vincent, limited by his poor vision and weak heart, as well as his otherwise unacceptable DNA, became the dregs of society, an "invalid," a man whose only value to the people around him was as a janitor, allowed by their benevolence to earn his keep by picking up their trash, as was fitting a "God-child" in their world of scientific perfection.

The movie's plot centers around Vincent's attempts to buck the system and overcome his genetic limitations, fulfilling his dream of becoming an astronaut and travelling to another world--all the while pretending to be someone with the right genetic profile for the job. The challenge for Vincent is not only overcoming his physical limitations, but fooling all the perfected humanity around him into thinking he is one of their own. Of course, in the end, the movie is about the triumph of the human spirit and Vincent's victory over the cold, hard world around him--an offering of comfort to all of us living here on the edge of our own scientific hurdle into this "brave new world."

This is just a movie, though, right? We aren't really all that close to choosing how smart, or how tall our kids will be, are we? Well, let's see how far off the mark this particular piece of science fiction is, shall we? We all know that genetic tests for Down Syndrome are routine in pregnancies where the mother is over thirty-five, and fetuses are regularly aborted for that genetic abnormality. There are also many people in countries such as India and China who are already pre-selecting for gender, aborting their girl babies in favor of boys, leading to an imbalance in gender ratios, and an increase in social aberrations like wife-sharing (via Futurismic.) So, we can see that we already select, in some cases, for intelligence, health and gender. Alarmingly, James D. Miller writes at TCS Daily that we are just not all that far from moving on to selecting for these and other traits on a much larger scale. Want to raise a baby Einstein? Science may soon give you much better odds than God and nature ever did:

By some predictions, within five years the cost of sequencing DNA will be "affordable enough that personal genomics will be integrated into routine clinical care." Once millions of people have their DNA sequenced researchers may quickly determine which combination of genes gives people the best chance of having a high IQ. Parents using embryo selection could, therefore, screen their embryos and pick the one with the greatest intellectual potential.

A recent advance in gathering eggs from women will make it much easier for choosey moms to give birth to geniuses. Two British fertility clinics have found a way of safely obtaining thousands of eggs from a woman. Fertility clinics, therefore, will soon be able to give a couple thousands of embryos to pick from. So let's say that a certain couple's genes mean that normally they have only a 1% chance of conceiving a child with the genetic potential to reach a genius IQ. With the ability to select among thousands of embryos, however, this couple could now almost guarantee that their offspring has the genetic potential of a genius.

Some people might look at this as a wonderful breakthrough, a boon to the future of humanity. Who wouldn't benefit from having a world full of Smart People? However, I am not nearly so sanguine about the prospects. Setting aside for now the embryos that will be created simply so someone can pick their favorite, putting babies on the level of shoes in a department store (except that the unwanted shoes, unlike the embryos, don't get destroyed when a particular shopper decides they aren't the right style), what happens when an ambitious nation decides that part of their future military and expansionist plans include raising swarms of state-controlled super-smarties, capable of shifting the balance of power in the world, simply by virtue of their superior intellects and numbers? Miller presents a China scenario that doesn't give me much comfort:

Embryo selection gets even more interesting when we consider how a nation such as China might use it. Imagine that in ten years China forces all its college students to get genetic tests. Students with intelligence genes in the top 1% of the top 1% of humankind are then forced to donate sperm or eggs. China then uses the sperm and eggs to create a billion embryos each year. The genetic intellectual potential of all these embryos is checked. Those in the top 10,000 are implanted into women. Each of these embryos has the intellectual potential to be in the top one-billionth of humankind. Now because of environmental factors many of these embryos won't turn into intellectual titans. But let's say that one in ten does. This means that each year 1,000 people with the scientific ability of Einstein will be born. By 2035 they will become adults and start doing scientific research. I imagine these Einsteins will be rather helpful to China's economy and military.

I'd love to cling to the message of Gattaca, the triumph of the human spirit over adversity, physical and mental limitations and all that--Stephen Hawking is a shimmering, glowing star in the mental firmament, after all--but the whole notion of mankind genetically manipulating our potential sends up red flags all over the place for me. I acknowledge that every parent on the planet would want to give birth to healthy babies, and that, even if I would not do the same, many of them would think that genetic profiling was a reasonable way to achieve that end for their child, but in a non-personal, non-specific-individual way, many of our potential problems in the world are held in check by the fact that lots of people who have evil plans simply can't carry them out yet. I do not like the notion of an entire generation of enhanced nuclear scientists growing up in Iran, for example, or a crop of bio-weapons experts-in-the-making springing up in Pakistan. Equally repugnant is the notion of a whole generation of Islamic women bred to be subservient by nature (or in this case design), or a slave-class enhanced for their endurance. Don't tell me that there aren't societies in the world that would pursue these goals. Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea, Nazi Germany, and even today's China, among others, put the lie to such thinking.

These are not desirable outcomes to scientific "advancement" if you ask me, and yet, is there really any way to prevent the undesirable in the quest for the arguably desirable--healthier, smarter children? As seemingly heartless as it is to want to limit parents' abilities to produce the best children possible, this is one area of "progress" I would rather see slowed, hindered, and even halted altogether than continue on to an unavoidably negative end. However, is there anything that will prevent this science from its inexorable march into the future, with both the good and bad it holds in its hands? I can't see a way to separate them, nor can I see the scientific community having the wisdom to refrain from following this particular yellow brick road. The technology will continue to advance, unless God himself chooses to halt the momentum.

I love science. I really do, and I'm thrilled as can be with the giant leaps that science has made in medicine, agriculture, bio-pharming, environmental protection, tech toys, space travel--you name it, but I really don't like to see the world presented in Gattaca coming to pass. Give me a whole world full of God-children. He is a designer who is not out to fulfill some selfish need, or evil scheme of His own, and the beauty of a Stephen Hawking comes not from any form of perfection, but from the understanding we gain from his example that our struggles define us just as much as our giftings. Our character comes, in part, from the effort we have to put into overcoming life's challenges. A person is not made more precious by virtue of more "perfect" DNA. I have no profound thoughts to offer here, and no answers to help mankind pursue its own improvement while avoiding the pitfalls that are inherent to high-tech eugenics, just a warning that, unless a way can be found to separate the good from the bad, this is an area best left alone. Designer people won't make the world a better place. They'll only fill the world with more potential for human abuses.

Hat tip: Instapundit

While We're Talking Economics, Let's Throw Some Climate Science Into The Mix ...

A comment on my last little toss-out post, which listed a couple of articles on economics that I found interesting, pointed the way to this post by John Tierney, pitting economists against ecologists as predictors of climate change. Not a fair fight? Well, the match-up may surprise you. By Tierney's reckoning, economists have the shinier resume when it comes to examining potential global crises. He gives some track record comparisons that certainly lend credence to his point of view. The really good news there is that the economist crowd also seems to be a lot more optimistic:

The classic example is the “population crisis” of the 1960s and 1970s, when biologists like Paul Ehrlich were convinced humanity was about to suffer massive famines and devastating shortages of energy and other resources because the growing population would exceed the planet’s “carrying capacity.” This concept seemed obvious to biologists who study ecosystems, but economists realized there’s a big difference between animals and humans: Humans are remarkably adaptable and creative. When confronted with shortages and environmental problems, they have a long history of coming up with solutions — new methods of farming, new and cheaper sources of energy, cleaner technologies — that leave them better off in an environment that’s less polluted.

Of course, population sustainability and climate are clearly different animals, but the point remains the same. Humans adjust, and even manage to think about the rest of the ecosystem occasionally. Now, if you read the Meow at all, you probably know that while a thermometer (and common sense) can tell you that the climate has changed over time, and will continue to change, I'm a pretty big skeptic of the idea that human beings can be pegged as the source of that change. (Click on the climate science label below to get a Kat-centric view of the topic.) Nonetheless, since there are plenty of folks out there determined to blame humanity, and determined to find a solution to the weather, I'm glad to see some other disciplines chiming in on this debate. They may not have the scientific background of the "experts," but just might have a valuable word or two to contribute as the global powers mull our future. Have a look.

Note: Thanks for the link, Rich.

Update: Thought I'd throw this one out there for fun...

Second Skin

Medical research seems to be the Meow focus of the week. In keeping with that theme (which I may or may not abandon with the next post--I like to keep you guessing), I found this article by Pallab Ghosh, a science correspondent with BBC News, which I thought rather interesting. It's about a new form of artificial skin, from UK-based company Intercytex, made with human cells and proteins, which has the potential to reduce scarring significantly in burn victims and people with chronic wounds. This could be a nice step up from the traditional method of robbing Peter to pay Paul, a.k.a. skin grafts. Wouldn't it be great to see researchers come up with a way to help burn victims that doesn't require cutting the skin from one part of their body in order to graft it into another, damaged location? Wouldn't it be even better if that way meant that the patient would end up less scarred as a result? Limited tests so far are promising:

In tests researchers cut an oval section of skin from the arms of six healthy volunteers and replaced it with their lab-grown skin.

After 28 days the artificial skin had remained stable and the wounds had healed with relatively little scarring.

Dr Paul Kemp, Intercytex's chief scientist, said: "I was very surprised at how quickly the wounds healed.

"If this continues in larger trials then it could revolutionise the way in which wounds and burns are treated in the future."

Dr Kemp has been working with Ken Dunn, a consultant surgeon at the burns unit at Wythenshawe Hospital in Manchester.

Mr Dunn said: "This particular product behaves like the patients' own skin.

"It seems to excite much less reaction than the other materials we are using at the moment.

"If this is borne out in larger clinical trials then we would be very interested in using it with our patient group."

This new form of artificial skin seems to be more promising than previous attempts to create a skin substitute. From what Ghosh says, the key seems to be the human elements from which the artificial skin is composed:

The skin is created from a matrix made up of fibrin, a protein found in healing wounds.

To this is added human fibroblasts - cells used by the body to synthesise new tissue.

In a process that effectively replicates the way the body makes new skin, the cells produce and release another protein, collagen, which makes the matrix more stable.

It is in this form that the "skin" is implanted into a wound.

The researchers say that because the matrix is in a stable form, it is more able to withstand changes that take place during the healing process.

The fact that the collagen is synthesised directly by the cells themselves also more closely mirrors the natural healing process.

This was just a small test, on healthy patients, but the results are good enough to warrant further research. I find myself wondering whether a product like this, if it really was a stable addition to the patient's own skin, and if it was tolerated well by most patients' immune systems, couldn't make a big difference in expanding the number of victims who could be saved after terrible burns. I don't really know anything substantial here, and I certainly couldn't tell you all the reasons that people die after being burned, but I do know that there is a certain point of no return, a percentage of the body's skin burned to a certain degree, that means they simply can't be saved. I wonder if having a ready-made supply of replacement skin on hand, just waiting to be grafted onto the victim's body, could up the survival rate for people who previously would have been considered impossible to save. Would a patient with a higher percentage of surface area damage be able to recover if the damaged skin were removed promptly and the new "skin" allowed to start healing right away? I have no clue, but I'm excited by the notion. Even if that is not the case, the rewards of finding a stable artificial skin are awfully high for the people who would get to go through life with much less scarring than with traditional methods, but I can't help hoping the rewards are even greater still, and that patients who would have been lost might one day be saved through the blessings of scientific advancement. It's all speculation on my part, but it's cheerful speculation, so I'm going to give myself permission to dream big.

The Obesity Gene

You know those annoying people who can eat anything they want without gaining a pound? They never have to think about whether they should have an extra piece of lasagna; for them it's all about whether they want another piece. They don't even have to go out and run a marathon after dinner, either. Skinny is just wired into them. My husband is one of these fortunate souls. People started telling him when he was twenty-five, "Just wait until you're thirty. Then you'll start padding up." Then it was, "Wait until you're thirty-five." "No really, wait until you're forty." We're now hearing the same rhetoric about forty-five, but I suspect that that age will also pass without the weight cascade that others portend. I'm not sure why people feel the need to promise that the pounds are just around the corner, but my guess is that it's just too annoying to watch his slender frame reaching for another cookie, knowing it won't settle anywhere on his body. It's just not fair, and they have to comfort themselves with the notion that someday he'll have the same struggles as everyone else.

Then there are the people at the other end of the spectrum. It seems they could live on a diet of celery and water, and still have to squeeze into their Levis at the end of the day. No amount of dieting really pays off. As soon as they eat anything with the least bit of flavor, they puff right back up, like a human air bag in a head-on collision with the refrigerator. These are the people who find my husband and others like him the most annoying. (Can you blame them?) Something does seem to be really off in this equation. How can some people be so naturally thin, and others so naturally padded? Most of us try to keep our weight in balance by some combination of reasonable caloric intake and exercise, but there are people at both ends of the weight chart who just don't fit the mold, and nothing seems to make them. Why is that?

I found an article at Eureka Alert! that might just explain why, and more to the point, also suggests what can be done about it. Scientists at the Mayo Clinic are learning that maybe the problem of obesity might just be the result of a specific gene--a gene that can, in effect, be turned off. Dr. Eduardo Chini says that genes play a role in obesity about 50 percent of the time. He and a group of researchers at the Clinic have been conducting studies on mice that indicate that a deficiency in CD38, a gene which helps regulate energy metabolism, protected the mice from becoming obese, despite high-calorie, high-fat diets. Let me restate that--not having this gene meant that the mice ate high-calorie, high-fat foods, and didn't gain weight:

Researchers studied two groups of mice: one with the gene CD38 and the other without. Each group was fed a high-calorie diet with 60 percent of calories from fat. In a second test, each group was fed a standard diet in which 4 percent of calories came from fat.

As a result, the body fat of mice that carried CD38 and were on a high-fat diet nearly quadrupled and their body weight almost doubled. After eight weeks on a high-fat diet, mice with CD38 began to show signs of glucose intolerance, one of the first indicators of diabetes onset. In addition, this group of mice lived for only four-to-six months compared to the second group of mice that lived for 12 months.

For the group of mice that did not carry CD38, their body fat and weight did not change even though they were on a high fat diet. These mice burned more energy, were leaner and otherwise healthy.

“These changes contributed to the ability of these mice to fend off weight gain despite a high-fat diet and lack of exercise. Together these results suggest that a CD38 deficiency has a protective effect against high-fat, diet-induced obesity,” Dr. Chini says.

Okay, it looks like those people (or at least mice) who are lucky enough to be deficient in this little obesity gene (I'm betting my husband is a member of that club) have a natural "immunity" to gaining weight, which is why lasagna doesn't last very long here at Chez Meow. Note, too, that the mice without the gene lived longer and were healthier--nice bonus winnings in the gene lottery, wouldn't you say? What about the people who are just bursting with CD38, though, the ones who hear the word lasagna and put on five pounds? What's the hope for them? Here's the part that could get some people excited. Apparently, CD38 can be suppressed, or its effects can, anyway:

Dr. Chini and colleagues also examined the effects of resveratrol in mice. Resveratrol is a naturally occurring substance found in some plants such as mulberries, peanuts and red grapes used to make wine. It has been marketed as a drug that mimics the effects of moderate exercise without the physical act of exercising and also as a longevity drug, despite the lack of evidence that resveratrol is safe and effective in humans.

From the evidence the mice provided, the marketing might not be entirely misleading, because, "Researchers found that mice with CD38 that were treated with resveratrol for two weeks were protected from high-fat, diet-induced obesity." Time to add peanuts and red wine to the grocery list, eh? It will be interesting to see where this goes. I've seen the ads for those "miracle" pills, the ones that promise that you can eat all you want, lay around on the couch, and end up with the body of a supermodel in just three months, and always assumed they were just another scam. Now, I still think they're probably a scam, but who knows, maybe scientists are on the trail of something that might give some hope to those folks who can't seem to win the battle of the bulge, no matter how hard they try. Hey, if suppressing the effects of the gene works in mice, why not see where it could lead for people? As long as they don't discover that CD38 also regulates breathing, or something. Suppressing breathing would be bad, and probably not helpful for that life-extension they were mentioning earlier.

Fun With Fungi

"There's noothin' more I cen do, Cap'n. Ahv tried everthin'. Radiation levels are at critical, and soon our skin will begin meltin' froom ahr boohns. I'm sorey, Cap'n, yer gunta havta fire me." Scotty hung his head in shame as he finally admitted the unthinkable. He really didn't have a magical solution to the radiation that was flooding the ship from the ruptured nuclear-coolant-injector. He had nothing involving a revolutionary new matter/anti-matter mixture, or reversing polarity on the containment fields, or even an alien technology he could graft into the Enterprise's systems on short notice which would somehow just happen to have a compatible operating system and a nuclear-coolant-injector-failure failsafe button. No, this time there was truly no hope.

Scotty wasn't alone in his inability to pull a routine miracle out of his engineer's hat. The rest of the crew was failing just as spectacularly. The red-shirts had already gone the way of all red-shirts. Sulu, Uhura, Chekov and O' Reilly had all gone mad from the radiation exposure, so they were equally useless, having already dismantled the ship's navigational and communication systems in an insane attempt to simulate a fifteenth-century karaoke bar. (The first thing that goes with radiation-induced madness apparently being awareness of the historical time-line.) Despite all his protestations that he was a doctor, not a lounge singer, Bones didn't have a miraculous injection to inoculate the crew from the radiation leak using a quadrotriticale-based tribble-blood extract, and even Spock, after a brief but disastrous attempt at a mind-meld with the nuclear-coolant-injector, had receded into an impotent lump, content to stroke tribbles and listen to Chekov's rendition of "Back in the USSR," while Rand tried to get everyone to look at her legs.

Although Kirk found it difficult to focus on anything but Rand's lower appendages, he knew that with the rest of the crew so incapacitated by inadequacy, it was up to him to save the ship. Again. (He also thought that when he got back to Star Fleet he ought to look into hiring some more competant officers, but that was only a fleeting notion.) Back to the task at hand--saving the ship. Again. (He started to play the mental tape about finding some new officers, but then he realised he had just done that.) Okay, really back to the task at hand now. He spent a few minutes looking conflicted and dramatic, ocassionally putting some very strong emphasis into his ongoing monologue. For some reason, dramatic monologues were the best way to kick-start his thought processes. He wasn't sure why, but he just seemed to be wired that way.

After a particularly lengthy and dramatic monologue, during which Uhura had enough time to give a stirring rendition of "Endless Love", and the trio of Chekov, Sulu and O'Reilly managed to throw together a fair performance of "Born to be Wild," suddenly, it came to him. Of course, why hadn't he thought of this before? He took just a moment for a manly pose, and then called down to his defeated engineer, "Scotty, release the fungi!" "Ehr yeh shoor, Cap'n? Ah dunna know what that'll doo." "Just do it, man," the Captain cried, "We've got no choice. It's the fungi, or death." "Aye Cap'n," Scotty said resignedly, and slowly his hand reached out and pressed the fungi-release-button.

What nonsense, you must be thinking (and if you're not, maybe you should go back and read the part about fifteenth-century karaoke.) Of course it's nonsense. Well, most of it anyway. Can you guess which part of our Star Trek adventure has any basis in the non-nonsensical world? I bet you can. It's the radiation-eating fungi, of course!! Believe it or not, there are actually three known forms of fungi that convert radiation to energy the same way plants convert sunlight to energy. The main difference between them is that plants use chlorophyl for the process of photosynthesis, while the fungi use melanin (you know, the stuff that determines your skin color) to perform what I suppose I must call "radiosynthesis."

David Ewing Duncan, at Technology Review (an MIT publication), explains that this radiation-eating fungi could prove a boon in many ways, including as a nuclear clean-up crew, a food source in space, and a new form of biofuel. Versatile little critters, eh? Who would've thought of fungi as a potential source for alternative energy? It'll be fun to watch where this one goes.

I probably should wrap up our space adventure now. Using the radiation-eating fungi, Kirk managed to stave off the imminent destruction, although not in time to avoid a very bad rendition of "Bitter Dregs," performed by Spock and the tribbles. Uhura is now headlining on Wriggley's Pleasure Planet, whenever the Enterprise heads into that region of space. Stay tuned for our next episode with Kirk and his crew (who do manage to hold onto their jobs, by the way), in which we will probably have to deal with what happens when the fungi, fed by massive amounts of radiation, grow to sentience and try to take over the Enterprise. For now, let's just say there won't be karaoke, but there will probably be lots of monologues, and Kirk will have to save the ship. Again.

Wave Power II

I got a comment last night on an old (and rather silly) post I wrote last October, about new technology being developed to extract some of the massive amount of power that's moving around in Earth's oceans. A company called Biopower Sytems is designing generators that work with the flow of the oceans to harvest that energy, and their technology shows some real promise. Nick Bruse, the commenter in question, left a link to his podcast, called The Cleantech Show, in which he interviews Biopower Systems' Founder and CEO Dr. Tim Finnigan. I found the interview fascinating, and was encouraged on several levels. Dr. Finnigan seems to have a clear vision for where his start-up company is headed, solid engineering to back up his hopes, and a realistic view of where renewable energies will fit into the world's complete energy package. The whole interview is half an hour long, and well worth a listen, so here's the link. I found Bruse's interview style to be relaxed and informative, and I'll be checking out what else he's found that's happening in the wonderful world of clean technology. Thanks for the heads up Nick!

Synthetic Biology II

There is some seriously next-level science going on in the world. Lee Silver at Newsweek has a fascinating article on where scientists are taking the quest to create build-your-own biological organisms, designed to do everything from growing hard-to-produce medicines, to acting as internal cancer-killing machines that live in your bloodstream and seek-and-destroy any and all tumors. Scientists envision synthetic biological critters which create plastic, wool or silk as a by-product, and "biodevices" that detect radiation, anthrax and other dangers. One of the goals with the most world-changing potential is a living organism that secretes fuel, "a self-sustaining, highly efficient biological organism that converts sunlight directly into clean biofuel, with minimal environmental impact and zero net release of greenhouse gases."

The kicker to all these lofty goals is that the biggest of them can be best accomplished if scientists come up with a way to manufacture life from scratch, rather than tinkering with the life that's already hanging around the planet. There's progress happening without that leap, but there's a lot of extra coding that gets in the way. There's also progress that's happening in the putting-the-building-blocks-together department. Scientists have done some amazing things:

They've forged chemicals into synthetic DNA, the DNA into genes, genes into genomes, and built the molecular machinery of completely new organisms in the lab—organisms that are nothing like anything nature has produced.

All of this, however, does not add the spark that makes something alive. They can mess like crazy with what's already there, but they haven't crossed the boundary into "creating life," although, that is certainly their aim. I will be really interested to see whether God allows scientists to put life into something where there was no life before. Sceptical, but interested. (It's still wouldn't be real creation. At a basic level, the matter of the universe was already created, regardless of what we do with it afterward.) According to Silver, scientists are on the brink, and they certainly are performing monumental feats with the newly acquired knowledge of genes and DNA and the like that has transformed science over the last half century. Will God grant them the ability to step beyond tinkering and into the realm of kick-starting life? I have no idea, and so I'm not as sanguine about all their grand schemes coming to fruition as some of the scientists who are working on synthetic biology seem to be, but even without that truly unique element, what they are already doing is astounding, even to the point of being scary.

There is so much good that could be done, but also an enormous amount of room for abuse, not the least of which is the potential for critters that have been tampered with running amuck in the world, doing things they weren't intended to do by the humans who are taking it upon themselves to redesign nature. Whether created by God and reconfigured by man, or entirely lab grown by human design (if God allows that barrier to be crossed), these human designers need to tread carefully. The idea of taking some newfangled critters, adding sunlight, and fueling the world is totally captivating, as is the notion of eliminating cancer, and the Newsweek article really is fascinating, but my alarm bells go off when I start reading about people whose attitude is that of James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA structure, who, as quoted by Silver, said, "If we don't play God, who will?" I'd be more comfortable if the people who are on this quest were a little more afraid of the outcome.

Hat tip: Instapundit

The Trouble With Tires

Hey, here's a pretty neat advance on the recycling front. Here in Portland, we're big on recycling. We have weekly pickup of our paper, cans, jugs and bottles, scrap metal, cardboard, and most other things that can possibly know a second life. Everywhere you look there are recycling bins next to the trash can, reminding us that with a little extra effort (very little in Portland) we can send these items to be reformed and reused, instead of sending them off to populate a landfill. This community decision is reflective of both the "green" attitude here in Oregon, and the pioneer spirit which led many of our ancestors here, using and reusing our resources, refurbishing and remaking, rather than tossing things that might still have some use left in them. My next door neighbors just built a really great chicken coop (yes, you can have up to three chickens here in the city) entirely out of reclaimed materials. It's quite charming and functional, with sliding doors to unobtrusively get at the eggs, and an old french door, with the glass removed, for an entry. I think one of the things that satisfied them the most, besides the fact it's a really cute addition to their yard, is that they didn't buy a thing to finish the job. It' a fine accomplishment in recycling ingenuity.

Even here in Oregon, however, where recycling is a priority, there's a persistent blight on the "reuse it" record. Some things simply can't be used again, or made into something else with any facility. Chief example? Tires. Tire recycling is a big problem the world over, and many landfills are piled high with the troublesome trash because of the difficulty in finding ways to revive the treated rubber. According to Tom Simonite at NewScientist.com, tire rubber, which has been vulcanized--treated with a chemical to make it strong and durable--isn't cooperative in the melting department. Since it won't melt, it can't be merged with new rubber to make new tires, and "retreading" has not been a particularly successful venture. It's just been too difficult to get new rubber to bond to the old tires. So, we're left with piles of tire discards. Haven't we all seen the giant tire graveyards where old tires go when they die? Simonite points out these tires have a tendency to release pollutants and catch fire, and with just the US producing 290 million tires worth of landfill-quality rubber in 2003 alone, it would be in our best interest to come up with some other way to address the problem.

This isn't to say that no one is trying any creative solutions to the tire dilemma. There is some creative tire usage going on. David Isaac, at Swansea University in the UK, says that tires are being ground up for flooring, and I saw a report recently about a fashion designer using bicycle tires for high fashion (seriously ugly, and probably smelly high fashion if you ask me), but, even if wearing tire rubber to the opera were to catch on, these alternatives can barely make a dent in the used tire supply. Wouldn't the best option be to make old tires into new tires, if that were possible? That's something Isaac and his scientist pals have been working on, and they have made some significant progress, using lots of scientific know-how and fancy sciency equipment:

Now, David Isaac and colleagues at Swansea University, UK, have shown that spinning ground-up tyres, called rubber "crumb", inside a chamber filled with ionised oxygen gas plasma could provide a solution.

"It makes the surface of the crumb much better at sticking onto new rubber," Isaac explains. "Without treatment, the interface between the old pieces and new rubber is very weak."

The treated rubber particles can then be added to fresh non-vulcanised rubber to make new tyres. Laboratory tests show that tyre rubber recycled in this way has similar tensile strength and other mechanical properties to completely new material.

Isaac says the plasma treatment appears to create reactive oxygen species - small, highly reactive molecules - on the surface of the rubber by opening up carbon bonds. This reactive surface adheres well to fresh rubber. But it will not stay that way for ever, so the researchers have to add it to new rubber straight away. In the long term, they hope to find a way to make the plasma treatment last longer.

Isn't that nifty? With this technology turning old rubber into new tires that are as strong and durable as the original, there's really no good reason I can see (with my limited understanding of science and economics) that this new approach can't make tire recycling a ubiquitous phenomenon. Now that they've got a workable method, the next step is to sell the technology to the tire manufacturers, and Isaac and crew have formed a company to do just that. Hopefully this method will catch on, making tire fires and tire graveyards a thing of the past. (Oh, and tire "planters" can go bye-bye, too! I know that the people who use old tires that way are being frugal and conservationist and all, but those things are just plain ugly, no matter what color they're painted. I know, I know--I'm being an aesthetics snob again.) Maybe it won't be too long before Bridgestone and Les Schwab are rolling out product lines that actually deplete the supply of used tires in the world. That would make a lot of Oregonians happy, Greens and pioneers alike.

Synthetic Biology

Rudy Rucker has a humorous look at the ludicrous extremes of nanotechnology, at Newsweek. Man, I wish I was that imaginative. Although, now that I think about it, considering some of what he's describing, I really hope his gift is only imagination, and not prophecy. I just can't get enthusiastic about some of the potential places he sees humanity's nano-roads enabling us to go:

But, feckless creatures that we are, we may cast caution to the winds. Why would starlets settle for breast implants when they can grow supplementary mammaries? Hipsters will install living tattoo colonies of algae under their skin. Punk rockers can get a shocking dog-collar effect by grafting on a spiky necklace of extra fingers with colored nails. Or what about giving one of your fingers a treelike architecture? Work 10 two-way branchings into each tapering fingerlet of this special finger, and you’ll have a thousand or so fingertips, and the fine touch of a sea anemone.

Can you imagine your teenager coming home with a spiky collar of living fingers around his neck? Eeeww. And you thought his haircut was bad...

Hat tip: Futurismic

Scanning

A friend and reader, knowing my fondness for that special place where science and science fiction cross paths, sent me the link to this article in the Telegraph (a UK publication), titled, "'Star Trek' scanner may end need for biopsies." Oooh, ya got me already. Star Trek and real life medical gadgets? How fun!! Let's read on, shall we?

Scientists have moved closer to developing a Star Trek-type scanner that can identify the molecular indications of cancer and other diseases without surgery.

X-ray images contain patterns that can help doctors translate the genetic "language" of tumours, researchers have found.

The discovery, which has been compared to finding the "Rosetta Stone" that enabled archaeologists to read hieroglyphics, could bring the science fiction of Star Trek to life.

Dr Howard Chang, from the University of Stanford in California, a joint leader of the research, said: "In almost every episode of Star Trek there is a device called a tricorder, which they used non-invasively to scan living or non-living matter to determine its molecular makeup. Something like that would be very, very useful."

I think Dr. Chang wins the understatement award for the day. A device which could non-invasively scan any and all matter and determine its molecular makeup would be something on the order of revolutionary. Of course, doctors would love to be able to just point a machine at someone and instantly be able to tell if they have cancer, intestinal parasites, space cooties from the planet Mongo, or other various and sundry ailments, but the applications for devices like the ones in Star Trek becoming a reality would extend way beyond the realm of the medical. Need a rare metal that's crucial to your pursuit of a homemade anti-gravity device? Wouldn't it be great to have a gadget that could tell you right where the stuff was hiding? Of course it would. Need to know if there's anything living in that cave, before you go spelunking? Our handy dandy little gizmo could probably help keep you safe from cave critters--or at least aware of their existence. Oh, and it can analyze any rocks you find while you're crawling around in the dark, too, so just in case you find one of those rare loose diamonds lying around on the cave floor, you won't pass it by thinking that it's only broken glass. Not a bad little tool to have with you in the dark, eh? But wait; there's more. If you think that's useful, boy howdy could the folks at Homeland Security use a government-issue, super-sleuth version, too, for keeping us all safe from bad guys. Want to make sure there are no dirty bombs on board that freight liner that just pulled into harbor? Well, let's just offload everything right on past that Jumbo Tricorder and have ourselves a little molecular peak, shall we? No nuclear stowaways gettin' through here, sir! So, don't you worry your pretty little head.

Now, you know that here at the Meow we like to take little flights of fancy, and that what the Telegraph is reporting doesn't even come close to the kind of tricorder technology that would enable the Star Trek version of reality. (It is fun to play with the idea, though, isn't it?) What's really been happening is that scientists have discovered that x-rays contain more information than doctors have known about previously, and some of those scientists are learning how to read that information. Dr. Chang and his colleagues worked with human liver cancer samples, and found 28 image features, not previously recognized, which show up on scans, that correlate to specific molecular gene activity, related to the cancer. In fact, "More than 5,000 genes have altered levels of activity in cancerous tissue," and "...the researchers were able to reconstruct 80 per cent of gene expression in the livers simply by looking at standard CT scans." Dr. Chang and his associates are learning to recognize how what they see in the images from medical scans relates to the molecular activity in the tissue. They hope that in time medical tricorder-like technology could develop from what they are piecing together, and that doctors won't have to cut someone open to give them a cancer diagnosis.

What they've got so far might not be the amazing and magical medical know-it-all gadgetry that Bones and Dr. Crusher use to rid the universe of the ravages of disease, but it's one step closer to the day when cancer diagnosis will be done with a scan and not a scalpel (and hopefully progress will continue apace on a cure, too.) Who knows where it will lead? Once they start understanding all the things these images show them, how, long will it be before they can program a computer to understand them too? From there it could be only a hop, skip and a jump to the tricorders of our dreams, even the ones that protect us from terrorists and find us caches of diamonds just for crawling around in the dark. Why not? We might as well dream big.

Hat tip: Danny

First Aid First

Have you ever wondered what would happen if you were suddenly required to remember the CPR you learned in high school health class? What if the guy in the cubicle next to you suddenly collapsed from a heart attack? After you yell to someone to call 911, would you know how to be his "artificial heart" until the paramedics arrive? I have some vague recollection, and could probably get my hands in the right position, but would be pretty shaky on the details, like how hard to push down, and how often. Now, I could tell you the numbers right now, because I just read an article on the subject at Gizmag (100 beats per minute, and about four to five centimeters of compression), but that article also stated that most people don't retain the correct information for long after they have learned it. Gizmag says, "Only 6 months after learning life-saving CPR techniques, around 60 percent of first aiders - including doctors and nurses - forget how to do it correctly." Only six months. Wow. That makes the chances that I remember the details from sophomore health back in '79 accurately pretty darn remote.

Now, I probably ought to go take a CPR refresher course, but considering that the info might only last another six months before finding the sieve holes in my brain, it would be awfully nice if there were another option--something that might make all the potential heart attack victims in my vicinity a little safer. In fact, wouldn't it be great if people all over the globe (not just near me), in houses, stores, airplanes, office cubicles, and every other place we humans tend to inhabit, could be made just a little safer from what the World Health Organization says is the number one killer of both men and women around the world? I have a friend who recently survived a heart "episode" and it's made me much more aware of how important it is that people know what to do, and that I really don't. I'm sure most of us are getting more aware as we age that we don't have the answers for every emergency, while at the same time we are getting ever more likely to experience them. Some folks in Canada, though, have moved beyond awareness and onto solutions. They've come up with a gadget to add to the standard first aid kit that could save a lot of lives. It's not a magic pill, or portable defibrillator, but a glove:

The Canadian CPR Glove acts as a quick on-the-job refresher course, making sure the first aider administers the correct frequency and depth of chest compression. It's a simple and cheap device that has real potential to save lives if included in a first aid kit.

The black, one-size-fits-all CPR Glove features a series of sensors and chips that measure the frequency and depth of compressions being administered during CPR and outputs the data to a digital display.

How's that for an elegant solution to the memory problem? It's a small item, that's easy to store with the other aid supplies, yet it could make such a difference if it's ever needed. Gizmag says that in a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, fifty-nine percent of the time people didn't do enough compressions per minute to help the patient, and that nearly forty percent of the time the compressions weren't deep enough. Put the CPR Glove on the hand that's pushing on the victim's chest, however, and the glove itself will tell you if you're doing it right. Pretty slick, don't you think?

So who were the Smart People who came up with this life-saving notion? Students:

"We were brainstorming about what we could create for our final-year design project that would provide a real contribution," said inventor Corey Centen, a fourth-year student in electrical and biomedical engineering at McMaster. "We came across this study and recognized the importance of finding a solution."

Centen and classmate Nilesh Patel started working on the concept in September 2006 and developed a number of prototypes, bringing the size of components down each time. They wrote the programs and hand-fabricated the button-size computer chips that operate the glove. They even designed the pattern for the glove but turned to a professional seamstress to recommend fabric and stitch the glove together.

"We see the glove being available as part of any standard first-aid package," explains Patel, also a fourth-year electrical and biomedical engineering student at McMaster. "It is also ideal for CPR training and refresher courses. It would be easy to afford since the components are readily available and relatively inexpensive."

Cool, huh? I want one.

Scientific Proof

I feel oddly vindicated. (Not that I really need any vindication.) My allergy to perfumes is not evidence that there's something wrong with me, but rather, evidence that there's something wrong with the world--science is in my corner!

Hat tip: Dave Barry

Hey, I Was Right!!

It's not often that I feel the need to quote myself, but I predicted something scientific and space-related that might actually turn out to be true, and now I have to revel in my brief moment of rightness. Back in July of 2006, I read a report from NASA that the Cassini spacecraft had found evidence for lakes of liquid methane on Titan, one of Saturn's moons. I took a mental leap--not a huge one for the real sciency types, but a respectable leap for me:

Scientists will continue to observe the areas, looking for evidence like changes in size, or surface roughness stirred by winds, to indicate whether they've guessed correctly. If they're right, Titan is "the only body in the solar system besides Earth known to possess lakes." Not exactly the place you'd want to go for a summer vacation. One usually heads to a lake for fresh air and exercise, but Titan's not really a fresh air environment, is it? All that methane and ethane might make it a little hard to head out for a hike, or row a canoe, wouldn't you say? What a shame; it would be such an adventure to head to a lakeside cabin off-world. Oh well, there's got to be a bright side, right? Hmmm, liquid methane...liquid methane...sounds like a possible built-in fuel depot to me. That's it!! Titan can be the gas station on the way to some other cool vacation spot that we'll discover any day now. It's not quite as fun as finding Shangri-La on some other planet, but it will have to do.

My big prediction, somewhat flippantly expressed, was that someday Titan's lakes could fuel our journeys to other exciting destinations. Guess what? NASA thinks I'm right!! Well, okay, NASA doesn't know anything about me and my little bloggy predictions, but I can at least say that NASA agrees with me. NASA is testing a methane rocket engine, hoping to take advantage of the abundance of methane just waiting to be harvested from our neighboring planets. Patrick Barry, writing at NASA's Science website, says that methane engines "could eventually be key to deep space exploration."

Some of the advantages to the methane engine include the fact that liquid methane can be stored at a higher temperature than liquid hydrogen (the current fuel of choice for the soon-to-be-retired space shuttle.) This would mean less insulation, and thus less weight to haul off of planet Earth. Liquid methane, according to Barry, is also denser than liquid hydrogen, which would make the fuel tanks smaller, lighter and, ultimately, cheaper. Barry quotes project manager Terri Tramel of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as adding safety to the list of methane's perks:

Methane also gets high marks for human safety. While some rocket fuels are potentially toxic, "methane is what we call a green propellant," Tramel says. "You don't have to put on a HAZMAT suit to handle it like fuels used on many space vehicles."

Here's the gravy, though, as far as the NASA-proving-me-right part of this little self-congratulatory post goes. In our solar system, methane is basically ubiquitous, so rockets wouldn't have to carry fuel for the whole journey along with them. They could pick some up along the way:

But the key attraction for methane is that it exists or can be made on many worlds that NASA might want to visit someday, including Mars.

Although Mars is not rich in methane, methane can be manufactured there via the Sabatier process: Mix some carbon dioxide (CO2) with hydrogen (H), then heat the mixture to produce CH4 and H20--methane and water. The Martian atmosphere is an abundant source of carbon dioxide, and the relatively small amount of hydrogen required for the process may be brought along from Earth or gathered in situ from Martian ice.

Traveling further out in the solar system, methane becomes even easier to come by. On Saturn's moon Titan, it is literally raining liquid methane. Titan is dotted with lakes and rivers of methane and other hydrocarbons that could one day serve as fuel depots. Imagine, a methane-powered rocket could allow a robotic probe to land on the surface of Titan, gather geological samples, refill its tanks, and blast off to return those samples to Earth. Such a sample-return mission from the outer solar system has never been attempted.

The atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all contain methane, and Pluto has frozen methane ice on its surface. New kinds of missions to these worlds may become possible with methane rockets.

So, Titan may well turn out to be an interplanetary gas station, as well as a geological destination-of-interest in its own right. Speaking of destinations-of-interest, head over to the NASA article if you want to watch the video of the new rocket in action in the Mojave desert. It's way cool, and downright pretty, with this really impressive blue flame. They're still working on the project, with tweaks to be done before a methane-fueled rocket can blast off the launchpad, heading for fabulous holiday destinations like the Lakes of Titan, but the pretty blue test was a promising start.

The best part of all this scientific and spacey advancement, from my perspective? I got to be right! (Hey, cut me some slack. It doesn't happen that often.)

Beer--It's Not Just For Drinking Anymore

This is funny, in a "good idea" kind of way. You've heard of beer batter? How about a beer battery? (via Popular Mechanics)

Turn Up The Happy Gas

Here's another slightly strange, but cool, medical breakthrough for you. This time around, our breakthrough involves upgrading techniques for abdominal surgery. Most of us are probably aware of how some surgeries have changed in recent years. Procedures that used to involve cutting a patient's abdominal wall clean open, to gain access to those reclusive internal organs, have been improved with the advent of laparoscopic surgery, where abdominal incisions are tiny, scars are miniscule and recovery time is much shorter than with traditional surgical methods. Such surgeries involve a laparoscope, a tiny camera inserted to examine the abdominal cavity so doctors can see what's going on and repair or remove damaged organs, via other tiny little incisions and long, flexible instruments. Such "keyhole" surgery has made necessary operations much easier for many a grateful patient. There's a new kind of surgery coming to operating rooms around the world, however, that eliminates the external incisions completely, leaves no visible scars, has minimal recovery time and doesn't even require general anesthetic.

Duncan Graham-Rowe, at NewScientist.com, says this revolutionary new technique is called transgastric surgery, or natural orifice translumenal endosurgery--NOTES for short. NOTES takes a whole new approach to the problem of getting inside a patient, quite literally. Instead of entering the abdomen through surgical incisions made externally in the skin and muscle walls, the cameras and surgical tools find their way into the abdominal cavity via the patient's mouth. An incision is made in the stomach from the inside; the surgical instruments pass into the abdomen through this opening, and tissue that needs to come out does so via exactly the same route that food goes in--in reverse, of course:

To some it may sound disgusting, to others the prospect of scar-free surgery may sound too good to be true. Either way it's coming. In the past couple of weeks three separate surgical teams say they have carried out NOTES procedures on humans - surgical firsts for both Europe and the US. And doctors in India say they have performed appendectomies through the mouth.

This transgastric procedure offers a lot of advantages to conventional, or even keyhole surgery: less pain (the stomach apparently has fewer nerve endings than the skin), less sedation (which Duncan-Rowe points out is good for the elderly and infirm), less risk of infection (theoretically), due to avoiding the bad bugs that live on the skin, as well as the disinfecting power of stomach acid, and--an important gain for the workaholics of the world--by far less recovery time:

"Even with keyhole surgery, patients stay off work for several days," says Lee Swanstrom, director of the Oregon Clinic in Portland, US, which specialises in gastrointestinal and keyhole surgery. "With NOTES they could go back to work the same day."

Good grief, that's fast. Gives a whole new meaning to "same day service." Now this last "advantage" might be a mixed blessing for some people who, for example, were hoping that their gall bladder surgery would help them avoid the big cubicle shuffle at the office, or going to the boss' daughter's ballet recital. Be that as it may, most of us would see a rapid spring back to full strength as a big plus. A few years ago, a friend and I had the same surgery performed, only mine was laparoscopic and hers was a full stomach incision. Her surgery came first, and I watched her long and painful recovery with a great deal of sympathy, because it was really hard. She suffered a lot. When it came time for my surgery, I was dreading a similarly unpleasant experience, but all that dread was wasted. While I still had a fairly long recovery time, mostly due to the five-and-a-half hours of general anesthesia the surgery entailed, there was very little pain, because of the tiny, tiny, unbelievably small incisions my doctor used to get at my innards. I'd take my surgery over my friend's hands down; if you added the less intense anesthesia, so the recovery could proceed even faster, that would just be all that much better.

Needless to say, the downside is the "ick" factor. Who really wants to have their appendix come out of their mouth? While they're somewhat awake, no less? I might request that the docs turn on the happy gas for that part of the procedure, although, now that I think about it, even that might not be necessary. When I had my surgery they put something in my IV to make me forget everything that happened from the time they wheeled me out of the waiting room till when I woke up in recovery. If you can't remember the icky bits, there's not really a need for the happy gas, is there? It was actually very frustrating to me that they stripped me of memories that I wanted. I find all this medical stuff fascinating, and probably would have watched the whole surgery, if that had been an option. To have a complete blank in my memory, when I had a prime opportunity for first-hand knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes in Surgery World is very frustrating. They didn't even film it for me, so that I could watch it after the fact!! To give the doctor credit, though, she did take some lovely photos of my insides, which I perused with great interest once the drugs wore off. That was of some comfort to me, even if I'd rather have the memories. I have to confess, though, I don't think even I would want to remember having my spleen come out my mouth. Turn up the happy gas, please (but shoot some video in case I change my mind.)

Breaking The Laws Of Physics?

Picture this: You live in a world with unlimited energy resources and next to no pollution. No one freezes in winter, or roasts in summer anymore. No one starves either, because food production, transportation and storage have become almost universally affordable, due to those previously-mentioned unlimited energy resources. Cars not only cost less to make and drive, they run forever without needing the tank filled. In fact, there is no tank, because there is no gas, because the cars don't need it anymore. How's it sounding so far? It gets better. International relations are changed forever. There's no more kowtowing to tinpot dictators because their country happens to sit on top of abundant oil reserves. (There aren't even any more "evil" oil companies, because, as I mentioned earlier, there's no more need for oil and gas.) Space travel becomes commonplace with all that unlimited energy to lift us out of the gravity well. Humans settle colonies from the Moon to 581c, and unite to create a Federation of Planets that bring abundance and prosperity to far-flung alien worlds. Universal peace and brotherhood overcome all the conflicts of mankind, worlds without end. Well, okay, that last bit is just plain ridiculous; people will always find things to fight about, unless the whole sin thing goes bye-bye.

Does all this sound like some ultra-sappy massively idealistic science fiction plot? Of course it does. Everybody knows there's no such thing as unlimited energy. Or is there? What if some people have actually pulled off the impossible, and created a perpetual motion machine, that not only puts out more energy than is put into it, but actually puts out 400% more energy? Wouldn't that transform the world almost as completely as any massively idealistic science fiction plot could envision? (Let's put aside for now all the inevitable sci fi counter-plots that are sure to spring up, in which evil oil empires do everything in their petroleum-enhanced power to destroy the new technology and everyone who ever saw the plans for it. Let's just take it as a given that the oil people either aren't as evil as conspiracy theorists paint them, or that they are too incompetent to pull off the destruction of the future hope of all mankind. Anything else takes us too far down rabbit trails which don't fit into my desired scenario, and it's my blog, so I get to write what I want. You can complain and pose alternate options in the comments if you like.)

Okay, now that we've determined the outcome of the invention of the perpetual motion machine, let's talk about who would be loopy enough to announce to the world that they've accomplished something that flies in the face of physics as currently understood by the people who understand such things. The company making the claim of this breakthrough is an Irish enterprise called Steorn, headed by CEO Sean McCarthy. According to their website, "Steorn is a leading Intellectual Property development company. Our latest development is Orbo, our magnetic energy generation technology." It is this magnetic energy generation technology that Steorn claims, "...is a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy. It can be applied to power products ranging from portable music players to cars." The company says they will make it available, after scientific validation in July, for free, allowing developers to design products built around their promised physics-defying breakthrough. Is this a sci fi kind of scenario, or what? Not only does it seem that these people have developed the answer to many of mankind's problems, but they want to give it away. It's really not possible at this point not to ask, "What's the catch?"

The catch is that Steorn is claiming they have done something that most scientists insist absolutely cannot be done. Gizmag explains it like this:

In science, the term efficiency is used to describe the discrepancy between the energy that goes into a system and the useful energy output of the system. The first law of thermodynamics states that, because energy cannot be created or destroyed, efficiency cannot exceed 100%. The second law states that, since matter and energy are constantly progressing towards a state of equilibrium with the environment, the efficiency of a system will inevitably deteriorate. Steorn, however, asserts that the “meticulous” placement of magnets can allow a magnetic object to progress indefinitely along a path in such a way that when it returns to its starting position, it has gained energy. McCarthy claims that such an arrangement can result in up to 400% efficiency. This system breaks the laws of thermodynamics with such blatant contempt that, in a Newtonian universe, all Steorn members would be thrown in physics prison. Indeed the devil-may-care attitude Steorn’s prototype has towards the universal constants is part of the reason the company had such trouble in their initial attempts to persuade scientists to test it. McCarthy claims that 90% of scientists they approached refused to even acknowledge the possibility. As for the 10% dared to witness it in action, McCarthy states that all were convinced.

The consequences for the world, if McCarthy and the still anonymous 10% are correct, will be nothing short of epic. Not only would it be a falsification of the laws of physics, it would provide infinite, free, clean energy for the entire global population. It would almost eliminate pollution, provide power to the hundreds of millions of people who currently live without it and could feasibly construct a society where the essential needs of the people are automatically taken care of.

Wouldn't that pop the lid right off the popper? Many think this is a hoax or a scam, but Gizmag makes a good case for Steorn having little incentive to fool the public, and an established business to lose if they sacrifice their reputation for fifteen minutes of infamy. This one is worth reading for yourself, folks, so head over to catch the rest of the Gizmag article. Then we wait till July for the "public unveiling." Will July plant the seeds for a massively idealistic science fiction future, or will the laws of physics prevail? Tune in this summer for further developments.

One More For The Space Destination Wish-List

European astronomers, star-gazing from the European Southern Observatory's telescope in La Silla, Chile, have found another space address for us astronaut wannabes to add to our destination wish-list. They've found a planet, a mere 120 trillion miles away, that could potentially be habitable, boasting balmy temperatures in the 32 to 104 degree range, with 1.6 times Earth's gravity (just right for promoting strong muscles and bones), and maybe even liquid water. The planet, dubbed 581c, by astronomers who clearly need to get some creative influences in their lives, circles a red dwarf star once every 13 days, likely without rotating, so the same side faces the star all the time. That lack of spinning is sad news for any inhabitants of the newly-discovered planet who would like to take time out of their busy day to watch a nice sunset, since no turning means there aren't any sunsets. It's a shame, really--they would have been spectacular. The star is much closer to 581c than the Sun is to Earth, on the order of 14 times closer, which, according to Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press, would make the red star "hang in the sky at a size 20 times larger than our moon." (Oooh, pretty.) Don't worry about getting too toasty at that proximity, though. Even at that distance things wouldn't heat up too much, since the red dwarf is much cooler than our Sun. All in all, this planet looks like it's got some potential, the kind of planet that scientists speculate could support life--ours, or some other totally alien species that we could finally confront about those crop circles and invasive medical probes in the mother ship.

Before we start packing for a nice long space voyage, though, we're still going to have to deal with the enormous distances. Even though the planet is circling a star that counts as one of our 100 closest neighbors, it's still 20.5 light years away. That's way too far for us to reach at our present level of technology, unless we wanted to do the generational ship thing, and die in space so that our great-great grandkids can inherit the as yet unexplored planet. The big problem with that (besides dying in space without ever reaching the big other-worldly destination) is that scientists really don't know what we would find once we got there. It could be a rocky planet such as our own, or it could be a big old ball of ice. Right now, it's best guess. You see, these astronomers have determined all of this information about the red dwarf and 581c by examining light wobbles that they can detect from their fancy telescope down in Chile. They are applying their extra-smart physics-savvy brains to exactly what these light wobbles mean, and this possibly-able-to-sustain-life planet is what they've come up with. Do not ask me how, because I don't have a clue. I'm sure it's something to do with gravity's effect on light, and Einstein probably comes in for a bit of the action, but that's as far as my non-physics-savvy brain can get me without going back for another college degree. The one I have in English Lit simply isn't very helpful in extrapolating how they know there's a possibly habitable planet circling this red dwarf, based on the wobbling of a little light. (Actually, that is something that frustrated me about both the articles I read about this planet. They both mentioned the light wobbles, but neither of them told me more of the science in detail. I will probably have to quest more to have that curiosity satisfied.)

In any case, now that they've found a planet just right for adding to the exploration-worthy list (is there any planet not worthy of inclusion on such a list?), there's still a lot for us to learn before we can head out to see it for ourselves and swap recipes with the local alien inhabitants. We still need to learn the basics of long distance space travel and colonization. We have to lick the problem of cosmic radiation and we need propulsion systems that can shorten the journey for us. We also need truly self-sustainable habitats and recycling systems that conserve every bit of air and water, so that a long journey without restocking our provisions with supplies from Earth is even possible. We need efficient energy generation systems, strong, lightweight ship designs, and thousands of other things that will have to be developed and perfected. Sadly, we're not even close. Don't give up hope, though. Our Smart People are working on all these things, and we'll start getting more familiar with how to overcome the problems of space by sending people out into our own solar system. Once we get the whole establishing colonies thing down, by practicing on the Moon and Mars, we're going to gain the expertise to head farther afield, and then we'll get to go exploring, maybe even to 581c. Hopefully by then they'll have come up with a better name.

Note: For a little more reading on the topic, here's a link to NewScientist.com.

Hat tip: Su