Media Consumption 1/13/13-1/20/13

Once again just sharing a few things that I read last week that stuck out to me... as always, let me know if you have a favorite story that you want to share!

Pick 1: Cancer/Medicine Coverage
Study Highlights the Risk of Handing Over Your Genome – Susan Young MIT’s Technology Review
With genome sequencing for biomedical research on my mind, I think this is a really interesting story for all of us to be paying some attention. A new study showed that researchers were able to deanonymize genomic data – essentially take genetic information that had been made anonymous and figure out whose data it was using information that was publicly available on the Internet. It raises a lot of questions about regulations, and questions of security for people who allow their genomes to be sequenced for research.

Pick 2: Scientific Study

Ebola virus: PLoS Pathogens
Thomas W. Geisbert, Boston University School of Medicine

Now Where Did I Put That Ebola? – Helen Shen for Nature
“In the first study of its kind, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) unveiled statistics on problems related to the handling of hazardous biological agents, such as Ebola, SARS, and anthrax, at hundreds of academic and government research centers.” Forget Outbreak or Contagion, this one will make you want to break out the hazmat suit – unless of course the “inadvertent release” of pathogens isn’t as horrifying to you as it is to me.

Pick 3: Writing Pick
Should You Be a Writer or an Editor? Part One: The Writers and Part Two: The Editors – Christie Aschwanden for The Open Notebook
This was a really great two part article, which tackles an issue that I think all writers face at some point in their careers – is what you are best at and what you should be doing to write or is it to edit? The natural career progression goes from writer to editor, but if you just want to write or just want to edit? How do you tell what fits for you? Some great writers and editors weigh in with their experiences. Also, if you’ve never heard of The Open Notebook, take the time to explore the site a little. I can’t stress enough what a great resource for writers it is. 

Bonus Pick:
Sherlock Holmes and the Infamous Brain Attic – Maria Konnikova on BoingBoing
Partly chosen because I have a recent fascination with Sherlock Holmes, but also chosen because Konnikova is an awesome science/psychology writer (you can normally catch her over at Scientific American writing the Literally Psyched blog) and I’ve really been looking forward to her first book “Mastermind: How to think Like Sherlock Holmes” which is out this month.

Book Review: Jurassic Park

I'm about two decades late to the party with this book review, but considering I was two years old when Jurassic Park was first published my interest in dinosaurs, genetics, etc. needed a little more time to develop. I have finally read Michael Crichton's iconic Jurassic Park, and not really surprising anyone I loved it. I have been exposed to the cultural premise of Jurassic Park my whole life, but I'd never read the book or seen the movie, so really it was like my first exposure to the story in its entirety. I found my Dad's old copy from back when it was first released and decided to rescue it from the book donation bin. I'm glad I did.

In case you live under a rock and are thus unaware the premise of Jurassic Park is that scientists develop a way to pull dinosaur blood samples out of mosquitoes fossilized in amber. The blood is used to decode the genetic sequence for a variety of dinosaurs and they are then grown and hatched in a lab. An eccentric billionaire funds the project because he believes he can make billions by using the dinosaurs as the main attraction in a theme park. What could go wrong genetically recreating dinosaurs for a modern day tourist attraction? Everyone involved in the project thinks nothing could go wrong, yet things do go awry on the island where the theme park is built causing much dinosaur related havoc.

I can only speculate what reading the book when it was first published must have been like and how I would have perceived the ideas and lessons in the context of early 90's technology. Still, even in our current age of high speed genome sequencing I think the warnings in Jurassic Park continue to hold true. Things go wrong because the people working on the dinosaur project don't give nature enough credit. They think there can't possibly be a way for their fail-safe measures (creating only female dinosaurs and making them lysine dependent) to be overcome by the dinosaurs. They doubt the intelligence of the life forms they create and their ability to adapt. They also don't appreciate that they have created something new instead of just recreating the past.

The desire to profit off the dinosaurs is the main priority, leading to a lack of understanding about them and the process that created them. Living in an age of even more advanced scientific ability, I think remembering that there can always be unexpected outcomes with any scientific experiment is important.   I am a firm supporter of genomic research, but the key word there is research. Creating a profitable enterprise like the one in Jurassic Park shifts the priority from understanding to economics. Understanding should always be the goal with scientific inquiry and processes, because if we are going to use technology to manipulate, change, or create we need a firm grasp on the what and the how.

Ultimately I think what I took away from Jurassic Park was a sense of respect for science and nature. We can't take ability for granted. Ethics are important. Why we do things matters as much if not more so than just our base ability to do them. While I know (obviously) that Jurassic Park is a work of fiction, I think it gives a reader a lot to think about regarding research and real-world applications, even after so many years. It is also pretty entertaining, the plot is great but the characters are also well developed and it is definitely action packed. I now need to find the time to watch the movie, and read The Lost World. I'm totally hooked. Have you actually read Jurassic Park? Just seen the movie? How old were you? What did you think? I'd love to know what other people thought when they first encountered the story.

On Being A Social Media Ninja: Tips From Mark Schaefer

We live in the future. While I'm still waiting for my hover car, there are many other examples I could give you about the amazing technical advances that make me feel like we have tremendous opportunities at our finger tips, if we just know how to harness their power. One of the ways I think we are already living in the future is with the power of social media, particularly Twitter and blogging. While I'm relatively active on Twitter and try to keep this blog up to date and interesting, my skills in this arena are far from the super stealth ninja moves of many of the people who have seized the opportunities to network and build an audience through social media.

This semester I am taking a life sciences communication class on social media. I recently had an opportunity to learn from one such social media ninja, when my class interviewed Mark Schaefer (@markwshaefer) over Skype. Schaefer, who was recently named by Forbes to a list of the top 50 social media influencers and named by Tweetsmarter as Twitter user of the year for 2011, is a successful marketing consultant, professor and author. For my class we read his book, the Tao of Twitter, and then got to ask him questions about how to make the most of the Internet, and get our foot in the door in social media.

The main thing I took away from talking with Schaefer is the importance of having substantial content that supports the online persona you build for yourself. It is one thing to just be active on Twitter and networking, but if you don't have content to support what you claim to stand for, you aren't going to reach a significant level of interaction. He said people that really have the power on the Internet are the ones that have content that they are creating and moving through the system, which I feel like I've definitely witnessed in the science writing community on Twitter. The core of my Twitter experience thus far has been reading blogs, and sharing links to interesting blog posts written by others.

Another thing Schaefer shared that I found interesting was that there is value in blogging even if you don't have a high number of followers (that you know about at least, because as I've said over and over again I don't know where the hits on this blog come from). I am winding down my time here at UW, and am starting to look for a job. I thought he really made a great point when he said that a good blog can be a great selling point in an interview, and can make an interview last much longer so a potential employer gets a better sense of your skills and ability. He said that even if you don't have many people reading your blog, you can still show a potential employer or colleagues what you can do, what you can write, how you think, and what you are passionate about. I knew that employers would see my blog, but I hadn't really considered what a great opportunity (or shortcoming, depending on how you see it) the blog could be.

A few other tips I took away from Shaefer include:

• You have to figure out what you offer, then you can figure out how best to try to communicate and network online. 
• Show your whole social media footprint in one place, link to Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn so employers can easily see what you do. 
• Twitter is a global experience so you should be culturally sensitive, and remember that even on an individual level customers may consume social media in different ways. 
• Find your own originality and your own voice, don't try to just mimic what you see other people doing online. 
• Show critical interest in things that are important to you, be a part of something you actually care about.
• Commenting on other people's blogs is one of the best ways to get involved in a community online.
• The best Twitter profiles will tell what a person wants to gain. You have to put up what you are after so that people can offer genuine helpfulness (I already made this change!)
• Personal connections turn into business connections, so including some personal tweets can be seriously useful.

I started this post by talking about how we are already living in the future. I can't think of a better example of that then the fact that I got to discuss how to improve my involvement in social media by Skyping with one of the most effective Twitter users out there right now. This is the way of the future, and I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to talk to someone like Schaefer. My goal for this semester (aside from being a ninja) is to comment on other blogs which is something I never do, and really know that I should in an attempt to improve commenting and interaction here on Science Decoded and on Twitter. I need to start talking to people, rather than just talking AT the Internet. It would also be nice to, you know, find a job. Think I can do it?

A Pollution Solution, Brought To You By Lehigh University

The Lehigh Mountain Hawk in 2008
photo credit: Erin Podolak

If you've ever checked the About section of this blog, you'll know that my alma mater is Lehigh University. I loved my time at Lehigh (it's where I first learned about science writing) and thinking about the university evokes a lot of positive memories. But, as much as I love Lehigh, I have to admit it isn't exactly a premier research institution (despite what they might tell you in the pamphlets). Not that research doesn't go on at Lehigh, but it's no University of Wisconsin-Madison as far as a reputation for cutting edge research is concerned.

Imagine my surprise as I was perusing Scientific American a few weeks ago when I stumbled upon Lehigh while reading an article (reprinted from ClimateWire) about a newly developed material that has the ability to pull carbon dioxide and methane pollution from other gases. The material was developed by Kai Landskron, Paritosh Mohanty and Lillian D. Kull of Lehigh's department of chemistry, and could potentially be used to help capture greenhouse gases.

Creating carbon-sucking materials has been a goal for scientists for years as a way to combat the effects of climate change caused by an excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, existing systems tend to be expensive, use a tremendous amount of energy, or don't work well at high temperatures. The new material developed at Lehigh avoids these problems.

The new substance was created using chemicals called diaminobenzidine and hexachlorocyclotriphosphazene. These chemicals are cheaper than others used for carbon absorption, and can operate at heat as high as 400 degrees Celsius. In addition to avoiding the problems that have plagued early carbon capture systems the researchers also had to create something that could take carbon dioxide and methane out of a gas stream, but then release it at a later time for permanent storage underground once compressed.

Coal power plant Somerset NY
Credit: Matthew D. Wilson/Wikimedia Commons.

When they developed their "sponge" the researchers found that the material drew more carbon dioxide and methane from the air than other gases, like nitrogen. This makes the material idea for capturing harmful greenhouse gases out of mixed emissions. The researchers have suggested that the material could be placed inside a tower located adjacent to a coal burning power plant, the flue gas generated from the burning coal could then be transported via pipeline through the material to capture greenhouse gases from the emissions.

According to the researchers, the material has a 90% success rate capturing CO2 from a gas stream. However, some problems with the mass production of this material include the fact that real power plants would emit a more complex mixture of gases than was tested by the Lehigh research team, the material may be too dense for manufacture on a large enough scale, and production would create chemical byproducts that may become difficult to control.

The researchers are confident however, in the product they have created. Landskron told ClimateWire:
"There is no fundamental difference in doing this in the lab versus doing it at an industrial scale." This material hasn't been tested on a commercial scale and it remains unknown if it could actually be implemented practically, so we'll have to wait and see if the material can stand up to the high expectations its creators have set up for it.

Even though the chemicals used in the material are cheaper than others used for carbon capture, the cost of producing and implementing the technology is still a barrier to its use. The researchers hoped to test the material on an existing coal plant in the US earlier this year, but the effort stalled due to a lack of funds, even with a 50% investment by the Department of Energy.

On campus with friends before my graduation from
Lehigh in 2009.

So, while the research is promising and it demonstrates an interesting idea with a lot of potential for carbon capture it needs support and further research to make it something that could actually be used commercially. If you'd like to know more, the research was published in July in Nature Communications.

I was excited to see Lehigh in the news for scientific research. Research wasn't a big part of my life at Lehigh, in fact I rarely encountered it, but Lehigh is where my passion for science evolved into a career. It is where, with the support of the journalism department and the wonderful professors who gave me my first real introduction to writing, I realized that I could have a career dedicated to science without being a scientist, and that has shaped the course of my life. I'm proud of my school, and even prouder to know that Lehigh researchers are working to find solutions to our greenhouse gas problems. Now lets get some funding to make that research a reality!

The Robot That Walks On Water

I don't talk about religion on Science Decoded (with one exception) the way that I don't talk about politics (with one exception). So all Jesus walking on water references will be excluded from this post. Sorry if that disappoints. But, I am going to talk about a robot that walks on water, and that alone is pretty cool.

Credit: The American Chemical Society.

Researchers from the State Key Laboratory of Robotics and System, and the Harbin Institute of Technology in China, writing in the journal ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, have developed a microbot that is able to walk across water's surface. The robot was designed to mimic the capabilities of water-striding insects like mosquitoes that can support themselves on water's delicate surface.

The Chinese microbot is approximately six inches long and has 10 wire legs and 2 moveable oar-like legs. It is propelled by two small motors that help it to maneuver like a water striding insect. What makes the robot so much more impressive than what the insects do is that at 3.88 grams it weighs about as much as 390 water strider bugs. Despite its weight it is still able to walk, stand and turn on water's surface without sinking.

So what is the trick to walking on water? My favorite: Math. (Sarcasm intended). While I still might be a bit intimidated by math, I definitely appreciate the amazing ways that nature is really just math and vice versa. The microbot's legs are able to support it the way a water strider's legs can support it based on the radius and contact angle of the legs with the water's surface.

But the real question here is: aside from the fact that a robot that walks on water is just cool, why does it matter? According to the researchers this type of technology could be useful for developing tools for monitoring water pollution or water quality surveillance. Personally, I'm envisioning little robot spies stealthily sneaking across bodies of water, but that is something the researchers didn't speculate on.

It amazes me everyday the kind of advances we've made in robotics, as we automate the world around us I can't help but borrow the tagline from my friend Cassi's blog: We Live In The Future.

Godspeed, Atlantis

via Geekosystem

I wanted to make sure to post some pictures and the video of the final launch of the space shuttle Atlantis. This past Friday July 8th at 11:29 am the last American space shuttle to travel to space left on its final journey. The 135 shuttle flight, and the 33rd for Atlantis, the flight marks the end of the entire space shuttle program. The YouTube video can't be embedded, but you can watch it here on the NASA YouTube channel and here are also a few pictures to highlight some of the great moments:

Getting ready! via Geekosystem

Firing up the engines! via Geekosystem

Liftoff! via Geekosystem

There she goes! via Geekosystem

Atlantis, flight STS-135, is commanded by Chris Ferguson, and will take fellow crewmates Pilot Doug Hurley, and Mission Specialists Sandy Magnus and Rex Walheim to the International Space Station. The launch took place at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. The 12-day mission will bring the Raffaello multi-purpose logistics module with more than 8,000 pounds of supplies and space parts to the space station to sustain it after the last space shuttle is retired.

On a personal level I find it amazing that the space shuttle program is over. I have never known a time in my life where Americans were not traveling to space. When I was little the first thing I ever wanted to be was an astronaut. It shocks me that astronaut isn't really a job anymore, at least not at NASA. Sure, there are other countries that will still be traveling to and from the International Space Station (Russia and China) but its just not the same as having an American space program. 

I appreciate the need to focus on new frontiers in space and wanting to move in a new direction, but I am pretty disappointed that there isn't a successor to the space shuttle program already lined up. I think its dangerous to give up our hold on space travel and research to focus on programs and initiatives that don't really exist yet. I'm worried that space exploration will become another casualty of a lack of vision, appreciation, and long term planning that seems to plague this country. Especially if the proposed budget for NASA which I wrote about over on Geekosystem ($2 billion in cuts!) is any indication of what the future holds. 

I wish that I had appreciated the space shuttle program more while it was running. How many shuttle launches have you watched? How much do you know about what the shuttle program accomplished? Honestly, I can hang my head in shame and say not many and not much. Its too late to lament what we've already lost, but I think we can see the end of the space shuttle program as a warning to take more interest in some of the amazing research programs the government funds. If we don't show the government that these things matter to us, we're going to lose them all. 

So Godspeed Atlantis, the launch was amazing and as an American I am so proud of the shuttle program  and our astronauts. I've felt for a long time that there are simply no heroes anymore, but for the six-year-old in me that wanted nothing more than to go to outer space I think our astronauts are the real deal.

Nuclear Legacy: Chernobyl Turns 25

The worst nuclear disaster the world has ever known, began with a trial run of an experimental cooling protocol on April 26, 1986. A power surge occurred in reactor #4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, near the town of Pripyat in the Ukraine (then part of the USSR.) An emergency shut down was attempted, but the situation was already out of control. Another power surge - stronger than the first - ruptured the containment vessel through a series of explosions that launched radioactive fuel and core materials into the atmosphere. When the reactor's graphite moderator was exposed to open air, it ignited in a fire that sent a plume of smoke, ripe with radioactive material into the atmosphere.

Map of Chernobyl's radioactive fallout

The plume drifted over parts of the former Soviet Union and Europe releasing into the open more radioactive material than the atomic bomb dropped of Hiroshima during World War II. The most effected regions include Belarus, Ukraine and what is now Russia - though radioactive material was detected at elevated levels throughout Europe.

The disaster killed 31 people who either worked at the reactor or were part of the emergency response crew, but the number of people who have been killed as a result of subsequent radiation exposure vary from the World Health Organization's estimated 4,000 to the Greenpeace estimate of 200,000 or more.

The Soviet Union tried hard to downplay the April 26th fire and explosion back in 1986, but two days later on April 28th workers at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden 680 miles from Chernobyl detected radioactive particles on their clothes. Sweden's search for the source of the radioactivity (after it was determined that there was no problem at their plant) led to the conclusion that a serious incident had occurred in the western part of the Soviet Union. Chernobyl become the center of world wide attention.

On the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, society is still dealing with the legacy of fear, misinformation, and health effects left by the destroyed power plant. Chernobyl was ranked as a level 7 disaster on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES,) which is the highest possible ranking. The world is still reeling from March's Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, the only other INES level 7 disaster in history. But Fuskushima is not Chernobyl. Fukushima has not caused the level of death and destruction as Chernobyl - and the plants were of completely different designs.

The nuclear reactors at Chernobyl were made based on a now defunct Soviet design, which had known cooling problems. The plant's workers were testing a new cooling protocol because it was known that in the event of a power outage the system in place (back up generators, etc.) would not have been able to cool the reactors quickly enough. There has been much speculation about who is to blame for the Chernobyl incident - if it was the reactor design or if it was human error.

Chernobyl as it is today

The first reports out of Chernobyl blamed the workers - reporting that they didn't have adequate training and experience, that they were operating the plant with key safety systems (like the Emergency Core Cooling System) turned off, and that they knowingly ignored regulations. However, over time the role of these accusations has been downplayed, while flaws in the design of the control rods (part of the cooling system) and the reactors ability to deal with the build up of steam has been blamed for the bulk of the incident.

The initial clean up of Chernobyl was done by "liquidators" who moved the majority of debris into the damaged reactor, which was covered in sand, lead and boric acid dropped from helicopters. A concrete enclosure was built around the damaged reactor - a task that exposed the construction workers to significant amounts of radiation.

In February I did a post on What We Don't Know about Chernobyl - namely that the site of the damaged reactor has been without a proper containment vessel all these years. The concrete sarcophagus originally erected around the destroyed reactor is still in place, and there are cracks in it. The money was never raised to build a more permanent enclosure.

The Fukushima disaster has brought Chernobyl back into the headlines, and today on its 25th anniversary we have to stop and ask ourselves how our understanding of nuclear power has been influenced and shaped by that April day back in 1986. In the wake of a nuclear disaster many people question whether the science is really safe, but I think the question we should really be asking is whether the science, in human hands, is really safe. It isn't an issue of nuclear power - it is an issue of what happens when people try to harness nuclear power.

Robots on the Front Line

I'm working on an article about how robots can and more importantly, can not, be designed and programmed to function like humans. In anticipation of this, I've noticed that this week robots have been making headlines for their role in the war in Afghanistan. But while useful, robots are no replacement for the ingenuity, decision making, and critical thinking capabilities of real, human soldiers.
***

If the war in Afghanistan was fought with light sabers, aliens, and Samuel L. Jackson I think the conflict would be over by now. But alas, the light sabers, aliens and Jedi warriors of Star Wars are figments of a time long long ago in a galaxy far far away. But what about the battle droids seen in the video? A robot war sounds like something you could only see on the silver screen, but new technology being implemented in the Afghan war may be the FIRST STEP (note: ONLY a first step) toward a real conflict that is decided by robotic prowess.

According to U.S. Marine Corps. Lt. Col. Dave Thompson, project manager for the joint project office for robotic systems (hows that for an example of a ridiculous round-about government-given title,) there are more than 2,000 ground robots assisting U.S. troops in the war in Afghanistan. But, while it might be fun to evoke the imagery of the battle droid, engaged in an epic fight, REAL robots serve a very different function.

When we talk about the United States' "robot ground troops" we are essentially talking about computers that can identify bombs and other dangers. The robots do this in one of two ways A: with a combination of sensors and imaging equipment that relays to the human troops that there is a bomb present , or B: by going into an area ahead of the human troops, so that if there is an explosion, the robot takes the hit instead of the humans. 

Robots are NOT running around in the desert wielding AK-47's, taking out the Taliban. Let me say that again, robots are NOT actively engaged in battle. They do not fight, at least not in the Star Wars battle droid sense. Instead, America's robot troops are just another tool in the technological arsenal that the U.S. uses to bolster the abilities of its human troops. 

Much of America's security and defense technology is classified, so we don't know EXACTLY what it is used for and how these robots accomplish their tasks. But we do know that they are successful enough for ground troops to be requesting the implementation of more robots. We also have access to some information about the use of robots in war-zones like the iRobot (yes, the makers of the Roomba vacuum) line of products. 

So while the battle droid only exists in a galaxy far far away, that's not to say that the robots in Afghanistan are not supremely cool and impressive. Take a look at this CNN report on the iRobot technology to see for yourself what our robot troops can do: