New Year New Developments

I start this latest entry with an apology for the break in posts that has come over the last few weeks. Along with many people in the UK, I have been ill with flu. Not the greatest time of the year to be ill what with all the festive gatherings of family and friends, however I was determined to squeeze one more nano-sized blog post out before seeing in the New Year.

In recent posts I have discussed current news that concerns science and concerns science. This time I thought I would update my blog with an entry suitable for the time of year; religion, science and looking forward.

Science and religion have never bumped along well. (Think dark ages to name the best example of conflict.) One could consider them as two opposite sides of the same coin. I am of the opinion though that for both science and mankind to continue to progress and develop then religion (or should that be religious decision makers) have a role to play. The best example of this has been in the legal wrangling in America over the use of stem cells in research. Through the George Bush administration years of progress were arguably lost due to fundamental religious belief. The denial of this research is to deny many of the potential for cure from numerous diseases. This is not something I can condone. It was with the inauguration of Barack Obama that science, in this case stem cell research, can begin once again to progress and look forward.

2011 could herald a huge step forward. 12 people are due to undergo injection of retinal cells derived from human embryonic stem cells to cure a progressive cause of blindness. That’s right curing blindness. And if that wasn’t enough, 10 people are due to have spinal injections of stem cell derived cells in an attempt to cure their paralysis. Making blind people see and those paralysed able to walk – this sounds a fantastic development in science to me – verging on miraculous on a biblical scale for the religious among you.

This blog update could never possibly go into all the arguments between science and religion much as I would never want to. This update merely aims to voice my opinion on how for new technologies to progress for the benefit of the human race, there need to be concessions. Maybe on both sides. Having said that, many in one group will almost certainly find more scientific progress and more evidence harder and harder to swallow.

And finally...

Thank you all for reading my blog over the last couple of months, I’ve been successfully gaining views from over 12 countries. America, South Korea, France, Spain, India, Russia, Serbia, Germany and more. Wherever you are I wish you all the best for the coming year 2011... if of course you follow the Gregorian calendar.

Alien life? Or alien environment?

Last week saw a group of scientists based in California publish research in Science¹ about a bacterium that is able to assimilate arsenic from its arsenic rich environment and incorporate it into its DNA as a substitute for phosphorous. This finding was met with astonishment by many, and throwing the ‘known’ elements required to sustain life, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, sulphur, and phosphorous, into dispute. Truly astonishing findings; alien life on earth. Or is it?

Bacteria are some of the most adaptable life forms on the planet. They will literally live anywhere. From inside the human body, to inside a nuclear reactor. They are able to tolerate extremes of pH and even environments that are toxic to almost all other life forms such as the arsenic rich lakes in California. There is a key word in that last sentence, tolerate. Or as one famous Jurassic Park phrase goes ‘Life adapts. Life finds a way...’

The bacterium, known as GFAJ-1 of the halomonadaceae strain, resides in a highly arsenic rich environment. The findings of the study showed that arsenic had become incorporated into the bacterium and it was able to grow in arsenic conditions providing that phosphorous was present. But what many news sources missed out on was what this meant in real terms. Simply this bacteria has adapted to its environment, tolerating higher levels of arsenic than other bacteria – evolution. What the research also documents is how the bacteria show changes, a bloated vacuole, that suggest exposure to high levels of toxic substances such as arsenic. It seems the media didn’t read or understand the facts. Or maybe they weren’t communicated correctly.

To make matters worse the research team who published the data is now refusing to enter scientific discussion following questions into the research claims by a number of scientists. Almost like burying their heads in the sand. Even if this research has been taken the wrong way in thinking there is alien life present on earth, what it certainly does show is a significant adaptation by an organism, evolving to survive.

I believe this story shows how communication in science is key. A well rounded scientific argument, showing all the data, with all possible conclusions, whilst remaining open to discussion is the foundation to progress of scientific knowledge. Something that this research has failed to do well.

This story has gone from ‘alien life in our environment’ to ‘life in an alien environment.’ It shows the worlds within worlds that surround us and how life can adapt to meet new requirements. Maybe the media got the wrong idea about this story, or perhaps scientific communication needs improvement...

1.       doi:10.1126/science.1197258

Drug advice? Don't ask a scientist!

The British government has announced plans to scrap the current law that says the ‘Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs’ (ACMD) must contain scientists. The current legal requirement is the board contains at least one doctor, dentist, vet, pharmacist, drugs industry expert and chemical scientist. Soon there may not be one scientist on the whole panel. This proposal is just the latest instalment in an going saga between scientists and policy makers in the UK. Scientific findings over substances such as cannabis and mephedrone (MCAT/miaow miaow) have often been ignored by politicians as they are ‘inconvenient,’ this disparity between parties culminated in the sacking of the council chairman which in turn resulted in a number of high profile scientists resigning from the ACMD panel. This latest proposal from the government will be another step in ensuring that media circus and not hard facts govern serious scientific policy decisions.

What this proposal means in real terms is that drugs will be classified according to how much media interest there is in both the drug, and its consequences. Rather than the true costs of the drug, both on health and the economy. Without knowledgeable, learned scientists this panel will comprise merely of puppets. Puppets agreeing with whoever is pulling the strings.

The governments defence on such a proposal is that it will offer ‘flexibility’ to an ever changing drug scene. I would agree being flexible to a changing environment is in principle a good thing, although sacrificing knowledge for speed of decision making can only lead to mistakes. Mistakes that would lead to a drugs classification system incorrectly labelling the serious harm from drugs to individuals and society.

This proposal by the government is a reaction from facts that don’t appease media or government plans. Facts that will be glossed over to allow ‘flexibility’ on the ‘drugs landscape.’ Will there be an outcry over this? I hope so. Central government control dancing to whatever is the latest media hyped tune will have far reaching consequences for us all. Could this backward step of ignorance of science to policy be the thin end of the wedge when it comes to censorship of facts?  

The real question here is who is the puppet master? Government or media? I know the public are the audience. With only a few able to see the strings.

Time to downsize the family saloon?

This latest blog post focuses on an issue I find fascinating. It stirs debate and controversy through all social circles. Crossing scientific, technological, ethical and social boundaries this issue has been brought back into the news recently following comments from Howard Flight MP about encouraging the welfare state to “breed.” This issue is of course eugenics.

Eugenics, devised by Francis Galton in the mid 19^th century, was a mainstream theory supported and encouraged by numerous scientists for around one hundred years. Eugenics, for many, is now synonymous with Nazism. The Nazi regime turned a serious scientific discipline, into a subject many feel has no place in society or indeed science. So could eugenics ever make a comeback? Should those who utter population caps and selective breeding really be castigated? Or is eugenics in place all around us just as it was originally intended?

The Nazi attempt at eradication of an ‘inferior’ human race was not part of what eugenics was about for Galton. It was originally aimed at the progression and improvement of the human race, where those of high intellects were encouraged to have families with those of equal intellects. Nowhere did Galton advocate eradication of those of lower intellects. Eugenics was supposed to have a positive impact on the development of the human race.

This subject has become unmentionable but I believe the impending global population crises, where there are too few resources for sustainable population levels it will become a serious political debate. Either who is allowed children or, following China’s successful example, a ‘one child’ policy. Although this is just a hypothesis I believe it to be a real possibility. But although eugenics is never mentioned when considering who has children with who I am of the opinion that the original aim of Galton in bettering the human race has always been ongoing. As a huge generalisation, individuals normally start families with those who are of the same social class and often intellects. This sustains Galton’s idea – pairing intellects. Whether it has made any difference in human development is another argument, and one that may be unanswerable through the nature vs nurture debate. A debate I am not going to go into here.

What I believe is Galton’s idea on human development has always been ongoing in the background, even if it is unmentionable by the media or in conversation. And those who are currently castigated for mentioning who should be encouraged to start families could soon be heard in mainstream circles. Potentially even to the point where discouragement of certain groups could be entertained in political debate. Of course, these arguments will have to have a strong scientific, moral and ethical basis. Arguments that will not be without consequence. Could eugenics become a scientific discipline again? Maybe in an evolved form, a new generation – just as it was intended.

Myopic decisions - should have studied the fineprint

A third round of protests are scheduled today, with students protesting at the expected rise of tuition fees from their current levels of £3145 pa up to £9000 pa. This rise would give students in the UK an unprecedented level of debt accrued through studying at university, estimated at around £40,000 for a typical three year degree. These changes to student fees are an attempt by the British government to cut costs and raise revenue, however there are fears that the rise in fees may cost Britain a lot more in the long run, with fewer industry leaders being produced from British universities. Are the student protests too late? Not by weeks but by years. Are current students paying the price for poor decisions made by universities, governments and themselves? All this and more...

Student: An individual with sub-standard personal hygiene. Diet comprising mainly of eating baked beans from a can.

This description has barely moved on in decades. And is (mainly) the result of the financial burden of being a student. I am familiar with the financial ramifications of higher education in this country being a postgraduate student myself, and am aware that for many this looks as though it will get worse. However, I will not be protesting. Not at the rise in fees. This is something that I believe is a direct result of the decisions made by some universities to sacrifice the furthering of knowledge and development in scientific disciplines, instead placing an emphasis on courses more profitable for the university. This hasn’t happened overnight. Chemistry schools have closed in many universities with undergraduate students choosing to undertake degrees in less ‘traditional’ subjects such as business, management and hospitality. These degrees are financial gold mines for universities. A typical week may have six hours of lectures, in a lecture theatre with three hundred students. Compare that to a scientific degree which may comprise of up to thirty five hours per week in classes typically of less than fifty. It doesn’t take a maths degree to work out what is financially best for the university.

The decisions made by universities in what courses they offer are predominantly commercial ones.  Profit seems paramount regardless of cost to reputation for some. But the universities are trying to meet the gauntlet set down by a previous government of having 50% of ‘young people’ undertake a degree. 50%!? Did anyone else see the problem with this? We aren’t all equal (fortunately), and a university education for 50% would make a university education normal. A university education should be a privilege, not a right. The other problem with this is the reduction in the number of tax payers – if people are studying rather than working, who will fill the void left in the governments’ pocket? Instead of questions, a proposed 50% university level was met with pats on backs and hearty handshakes. University for all... that should get a few votes... especially from the great unwashed.

So the student population is reaping (or should that be weeping?) what the government and various institutions have sown. I know there are other reasons for protesting, such as certain promises made and broken by a yellow party. But truly this has been on the cards for a long time. The typically inquisitive minds of students have failed to address what the result of a shifting emphasis from science and technology to sociology will be. And of course, what the financial implications of an increase in student numbers means in the longer term.

I think the increase in fees could preserve the traditional subjects. Students will have to consider whether they need a university degree to achieve their career ambitions and also whether it is financially worthwhile. Perversely the fees increase may help create a new generation of scientists and engineers, through young people choosing degrees that may give them more opportunities.

It would be interesting to learn what the protesting students study, they clearly don’t have many lectures if they have time to protest... And if they are missing a lecture, that is costing them about £60 at the new rates... Or 100 cans of baked beans in old money.

Cloned Mac and fries please

Cloned meat has made front page news this morning. Essentially, the story in a well known national newspaper, discusses the imminent decision of the FSA to follow America and class meat and milk from cloned animals as safe following the results from an independent study. ‘Cloned meat is safe’ said by chief scientist Andrew Wadge at the FSA. Well maybe not quite in those words, but it certainly could be interpreted that way. What he actually said regarding the study was “there was no substantial difference found between the milk and meat from cloned cattle compared to conventionally produced meat and milk. Therefore it is unlikely to present a food safety risk.” This paves the way for the FSA to agree its safety and grant a license. So does this expected move by the FSA, giving the green light to cloned produce, reassure the general public? Also, what actually is cloned meat and milk? What are the fears and failures? What are the potential benefits?

Cloning arguably hit main stream media in the mid 1990’s with ‘Dolly’ the sheep. Since then various animals have been cloned; cats, dogs, monkeys, horses, camels and of course cattle. The general process involves nuclear transfer. Basically you remove the DNA from an unfertilised ‘egg cell’ (oocyte) inject into the nucleus with DNA (cloned) and implant into a female uterus. This sounds a lot easier than it actually is. Aside from the technical difficulty, a significant scientific issue is that the cloned offspring would have shortened telomeres. In theory this results in an accelerated aging rate with higher instances of cancers in the cloned animal. This point has not gone un-noticed by groups such as the RSPCA who fear that cloned animals have a greatly reduced quality of life because of their artificial inception.

If cloning of livestock wasn’t enough to upset those seeking natural foods, the next step is the artificial production of meat, and this has already begun. There are three main positives in the synthesis of artificial meat; it seems the ideal way to overcome the CO₂ and methane impact, with the UN estimating 18% of the world’s current greenhouse gases are attributable to livestock. Laboratory meat may also be a potential solution to global hunger, especially in regions where grazing land is unavailable. Finally it also has less of a social and moral impact for some groups, PETA, the animal rights group, stated they have “no ethical objection” to artificially synthesised meat, with there being no animal involved.

The ‘frankenstein’ produce from the livestock has a fear attached to it due to it being un-natural. This is something I can understand. But when one thinks of the farming and food production methods that have been used for years – selective breeding, pesticides, hot-housing, fertilisers, GM crops, stabilisers, flavour enhancers (the list goes on) The amount of ‘natural’ food available in any mainstream supermarket is minimal at best. It is the uncertainty that generates fear... well that and scaremongering by various media sources.

Although this is far from ‘natural’ I would be reassured knowing exactly what I was eating, synthesised in a lab or not.

Plastic fantastic?

Plastic, since its inception in the mid 19^th century has become one of the widest used materials. The properties; typically insulating and flame retardant, are a perfect suit for electronic applications. These properties can even be tailored, meeting the requirements of the application. A truly fantastic material. Or is it?

Plastics, or if you’re a scientist, polymers, have enabled the progress of science and technology in various different fields, most notably in electronics. Originally acting as the casing and insulators of electronic goods, from early Bakelite to modern polystyrene blends, the new trend is to introduce conducting polymers. These enable the field of electronics to continue to grow with technologies such as organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays – giving a brilliant degree of clarity, potentially surpassing the number of pixels the human eye can detect. Wow! Technology is surpassing human thresholds that have taken over a million years of evolution! But it doesn’t stop there!

Plastics are everywhere! From Formula 1 cars to polyurethane car seats, the polyethylene bags at the supermarket to the Kevlar vest you may wear that covers your polyester shirts, even the bisphenol A water bottle your child drinks from.... “hang on..... bisphenol A... didn’t I read something in the news about that a while ago?” Yes. And there is more.

To explain, bisphenol A (BPA) is the polymer that many typically encounter as the material that makes receipts and common plastic bottles and generally has great properties for this purpose. Unfortunately, it’s toxic. So much so that in September of this year (2010) Canada declared it as a toxic product. And recent research by Zalko et. al. based in Toulouse and Braun et. al. based in Boston will provide justification for Canada’s decision and fuel for other nations to follow suit. The research conducted suggests BPA is not just toxic but absorbed through the skin. Regular contact with till receipts could expose an individual to an increased risk of the toxicity associated with BPA, namely mimicking oestrogen in the body. A significant issue for pregnant women.

BPA has been known to be toxic since the 1930’s. This, however, was overlooked when introducing the polymer as a new material for mass production. The quest for scientific and technological advancement may come with consequences as illustrated by BPA, and who knows what other materials in the future, maybe this is the price to pay for progress? I think this quote sums it up best...

“Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal”

                                                                                                                A. Einstein

Let's Get Annihilated!

Antimatter made international news recently. Many would envisage an evil villain pursuing this science fiction style substance whilst stroking a cat, but what is antimatter? And why is it currently big news?

Well very intelligent people over at CERN, have isolated antimatter atoms. 38 of them to be precise, and all for a fraction of a second. This is groundbreaking stuff which could aid in better understanding our universe and the laws that govern it. But what is antimatter?

Antimatter is the opposite of matter. Simples. If one to consider anything tangible to be made of atoms... these atoms can then be broken down into smaller moieties such as protons and electrons and so on. This is matter. Equally, through analysis of Schrödinger’s equation (new post coming soon), there should be the presence of an opposite particle. A bit like Yin and Yang or Ant and Dec. So for a positively charged proton (matter) there should be a negatively charged proton (antimatter) equally, a negatively charged electrons antimatter counterpart is the positron, a positively charged species. “What is the significance of this” I hear you cry in unison? When antimatter and matter are present together they collide and annihilate. This releases high energy gamma rays – the ones sought by evil villains!  “Hang on” I can hear you say, “If antimatter and matter collide releasing loads of radiation, why do I not have one eye and six legs?” (Apologies to any hexapedal-cyclops offended) Well there is a complete imbalance in matter and antimatter originating in the imbalance from the big bang. Antimatter is still present throughout the universe but in tiny quantities. This imbalance is known as baryon asymmetry and a bit of a mystery in physics.

The isolation of 38 antihydrogen particles at CERN could help to provide solutions to many questions in physics. Antimatter has a current application in PET scanning (Positron emission tomography) this is a type of medical imaging. As well as this application, antimatter may provide future technologies in fuel production through harnessing the energy produced from annihilation. Exciting stuff!

So next time you are in a pub quiz and the antimatter round comes up, consider yourself well prepared. Alternatively you could get totally annihilated.

Nano Turk?

Many are aware of the automaton known as the Mechanical Turk. It was a machine designed by Wolfgang von Kempelen which famously toured the world beating many at chess, including one notable Frenchman. Napoleon. The technology was at the time ground breaking and the design magnificent. Kempelen received plaudits from around the world with the functioning of the Turk being kept a mystery to inspire debate, until the secret was revealed in 1820. Fast forward around two centuries on and the creator of another miraculous design and technology has been rewarded with a noble prize in medicine. Prof. Robert G. Edwards pioneered IVF (in-vitro fertilisation.) This technique has been an amazing success despite attracting negative criticism for the ethical issues it brings up. The design and technology required to successfully perform IVF is a little more complex than that required for the Turk, however the fundamentals are the same. Forward thinking, ideas that could be attributed to science fiction, intellectual brilliance and sometimes shade of luck.

Everywhere you look science and technology has been implemented. From flat screen televisions to the fourier transform devices that make incredible calculations almost instantaneously, enabling technologies such as MRI. With the increasing complexities of household technologies, the question raised is what is next? In my opinion the creation and implementation of nanoscale devices will be the biggest advancement in science and technology for an age. The possibilities are endless. Medical implantations that could target the most aggressive cancers, new materials being lightweight whilst extremely strong and of course potential solutions to climate change through clean fuels.

Nanodevices and nanobots have been science fiction for years but are now being researched extensively due to their potential. It seems we have come full circle from the design and creation of a human sized automaton in the Turk to the current research on nanoscale robots and technologies.

What’s next? Get yourself a high powered microscope and watch this nano sized space...

Time travel anyone?

OK, so I thought I would post this as I watched the programme with Stephen Hawking on time travel last week... (as well as Donnie Darko.)

I thought it was a really good basic start for anyone interested in the subject. And as my physics is a little ropey I'll give my view....

The fourth dimension is time, a solid principle if one considers time to normally act in a linear fashion with everything having a time limit. Whether it be a cell or a stone they are made up of very similar atoms, who knows maybe the same fundamental particle (Higgs particle anyone?) so it is logical to think they are subject to the same rules.

Now the question is how do you move in time - the grandfather principle suggests that anyone with Marty McFly ambitions of travelling back in time in a Delorean is out of luck because of the paradox it throws up - if you could alter the path of your ancestors then in theory you may not exist but you are there altering the path of your ancestors so you must exist.... and so on and so forth. However, what about travelling forward in time??

Well two views were suggested. Firstly if one travelled to 99% of the speed of light then time would slow down dramatically, however getting to this speed would require a lot of energy. The other, which I thought was a little more extreme, would be to encircle a super massive black hole... Indulge me if you will....

It has been proven from the 31 GPS satellites circling the globe that an object with a given mass actually distorts time. The GPS satellites have to have their internal clocks adjusted for the 3 billionth of a second they lose every week - apparantly if this wasn't done it would alter your google map results by about 6 miles! Now how does an object with a mass exert a distortion of time....? Simples!

If one is to imagine time as a river and the objects with masses as stones in that river it seems logical that to get past the stones the river is slowed down around it. The same is true for time - as time flows past masses like the Earth, time is actually slowed down. This phenomenon is a relationship that agrees with the river example. So in theory if you put a huge dam to bring the water to a stand still then logically the same is true for time? Sort of yes! So something with a huge mass like a supermassive black hole would slow time significantly! Amazing! Now this is the exciting bit - how to manipulate this into time travel... well the idea is to shoot a vehicle around a supermassive black hole in perfect synchronicity with the gravitational pull and the centrifugal force acting to keep the vehicle in a sort of orbit. This orbit around the supermassive black hole will reportedly slow time down by half to those in the vehicle. In other words for every year they spend orbiting it you would age two on earth... Seems a little extreme given the risk factor weighed up with the benefits but hey there you go.

So time travel is possible.... although dangerous, expensive and time consuming...


....I never wanted a Delorean anyway

The birth of nanoscience

This marks the birth of my nano sized views on science, ranging from health and medicine to future technologies!

So come one, come all and enjoy, comment and question this blog. Become a follower and join the army of nerds I am assembling. After all.... everyone is a nano sized geek at heart.