Is there no end to the hubristic machinations of these genetic scientists? Surely it’s some sort of sin, even in the ethical system of an atheist, to create coffee plants that don’t have any caffeine in them? Pest-resistant cotton, fine. Vitamin-enriched rice, fair enough. But get your filthy hands off my java, man!

I’m not entirely sure what to make of the results of a recent survey that concludes the American public thinks nanotech is less useful and more risky than bicycles (but more beneficial than handguns). Is this an insight into public perceptions of risks associated with new technologies, a carefree ‘um, whatever’ to nanotech from Joe Average, or an example of how surveys often churn out results that don’t actually tell us anything useful whatsoever?

The whole world is duly talking about NASA’s public announcement of their intent to return to the moon – that’s good copy, right there. However, not everyone is being quite so optimistic, even though they really want to be – if they can scrape up the cash to actually go through with this plan, will it be at the expense of the big science that the Agency does so well? It’d suck to miss out on seeing black holes eat stars.

I recently stumbled across Karl Schroeder’s novel Lady of Mazes, and was absolutely blown away by it – read my review if you don’t believe me. He writes tightly plotted adventure stories set in some of the most amazing imagined worlds science fiction has to offer. He’s just been interviewed by John Scalzi, where you can read his thoughts on writing, world-building and the state of the genre at large. Go look.

The holiday season is upon us – which means an up-tick in the rabid fervour of advertisements to try to part us from our hard-earned cash. To distract yourself from their banal importuning, you could ruminate on recent research that indicates the rational and factual content of an ad is far less important than its creative and emotional content – at least as far as getting you to remember the product is concerned.