Tag Archives: science

Science cities: a social experiment

Photo:  www.sciam.com Why is Silicon Valley the way it is today?  Was it inevitable?  Was it something in the water, or the spirit of the people living there that turned it into the technology engine of the world?  More likely, for different reasons a few tech companies set up shop there, and as they grew and broke apart, more and more startups came into being, driving technology, aided by the close proximity to other companies.

That’s the concept Duke University neuroscientist Miguel Nicolelis is hoping to exploit in his native Brazil.  Nicolelis hopes to create ‘science cities’ across the poorest regions of Brazil, that would act as the grain of sand in a pearl, bringing new businesses that would attract professionals, as well as schools that could train the local populace for research jobs.  The idea is that each city would be dedicated to a specific area of research.  Funding has accelerated, from both private donors and the Brazilian government.  A proof-of-concept neuroscience city was started in 2003, which contains research labs and will begin offering science and art classes to local children this year.

While its intriguing and ambitious, I’m rather skeptical that this will work.  We’re a long way off from being able to understand such complex social interactions, let alone being able to manipulate them.  On the other hand, I’d love to be proven wrong and see a string of science pearls spring up across Brazil.

(via SciTechDaily) (image from Scientific American website)

A cornucopia of hard science fiction ideas

Old-school typewriter Here’s one for the writers among our readers. The excellent Jim Van Pelt* has an article at The Fix Online wherein he lists a number of potential sources for the kernel ideas of hard science fiction stories.

“So, do you need a degree in science or math to write hard science fiction? Nope. Numerous hard science fiction authors write their stories without that background. […] Admittedly, though, the non-science or math authors will have to work a little harder to not write laughable hard science fiction. They need to cheat a bit. They may need help coming up with ideas, and they certainly will need help for the science that is not at their fingertips. Fortunately, the help is no farther away than the nearest bookstore.”

Or your local library, I’d add to that statement (use ’em or lose ’em, folks). [Image from Image*After]

And, of course, the internet has its value for the same sort of process, once you know where to look. Jeremy Tolbert thinks it would be good if that process were easier, though:

“Someone with access to the big primary biological sciences literature should post reviews/summaries in laymen’s terms of each issue. Nature, Science, and more. People could volunteer and write in summaries for any primary literature they want. Group blog the literature. Get it out there in the web, in a format that science-interested people can understand.

Because I think there’s a barrier still between that level of academic knowledge and the web population. I’d like to see a gateway giving me a glimpse at what’s going on. I don’t know where the local university’s science library is, and I can’t afford to subscribe to those magazines (who can?).”

Well, we do a sort of low-calorie version of that here at Futurismic, but we’d be happy to run more beefy material. Any volunteers? 🙂

[ *I’ve linked to Jim Van Pelt’s writing advice numerous times, both here and on my own blog, and I feel sure I will do so again. The web is full of writing advice, much of it sincere and well-meant, but I have yet to discover a regular source of clear and honest advice that’s as reliable and fun to read. Being subscribed to Jim’s LJ feed is like having an avuncular writing tutor all of your own. This is not a paid plug, nor is it ass-kissing – I just think the guy deserves recognition and respect. ]

[tags]writing, science fiction, hardware, ideas, science[/tags]

Freakonomics asks – Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?

Freakonomics has an excellent quorum of space experts and economists talking about a very interesting question – Is Space Exploration Worth The Cost? There are some interesting points made although all of the participants are in the field of space science, so naturally they all agree it’s a good thing! It would have been nice to have a few dissenting views but even so there are some good quotes here.

G. Scott Hubbard: “We explore space and create important new technologies to advance our economy. It is true that, for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit. Space exploration can also serve as a stimulus for children to enter the fields of science and engineering.”

Keith Cowing: “Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq. And so on. Are these things more important than human spaceflight because we spend more money on them? Is space exploration less important?”

John M. Logsdon: “In the longer run, I believe that human exploration is needed to answer two questions. One is: “Are there activities in other places in the solar system of such economic value that they justify high costs in performing them?” The other is: “Can humans living away from Earth obtain at least a major portion of what they need to survive from local resources?” If the answer to both questions is “yes,” then I believe that eventually some number of people in the future will establish permanent settlements away from Earth.”

Personally I agree with Charles Stross that living away from Earth has so many things to overcome that it’s unlikely without huge discoveries but the value of space exploration in our lifetimes may be in asteroid mining – with many new technologies like solar cells rapidly using up some of Earth’s more scarce elements.

Regenerating Nerves

Via Technology Review:

In the latest issue of Advanced Materials, researchers Christiane Gumera and Yadong Wang from the Georgia Institute of Technology announced that they have triggered the regrowth of nerve cells using a polymer coated with chemical structures that resemble acetylcholine, a common neurotransmitter. The research, which is the first to combine a neurotransmitter and a polymer, could one day lead to treatments for neurodegenerative diseases and spinal-cord injuries.

“Lots of people have done biopolymer work,” says Christine Schmidt, a biomedical engineer at the University of Texas at Austin. “But this demonstrates that a polymer with a neurotransmitter can be used to guide growth in the nervous system.”

Link

Cutting without cutting – surgery goes zen

Cavitation - it's not just for Red October Straight out of Star Trek comes a potential new breakthrough in medical surgery – being able to operate inside a person without making an incision.  By focusing ultrasound waves – the same used by OB/GYNs in prenatal care – in a way similar to focusing sunlight in magnifying glass, doctors may soon be able to disintegrate tissue several centimeters below the skin.

The new technique, called histotripsy (try saying that three times fast), causes cavitation – an effect that makes Sean Connery playing a Russian believable to American audiences.  It also creates tiny bubbles that grow and collapse, releasing energy that liquefies the tissue at the desired site.  While laser beams can be more powerful, what they cannot do is penetrate the skin without leaving burn marks.

(via SciTechDaily, image from youngdoo)