Science and Society

Drill, Baby, Drill?

 Often, the gap between scientific knowledge and public knowledge is most noticeble in the political arena.  The current "debate" over offshore oil drilling is an example of just that.

The week before last, at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, chants of "drill, baby, drill!" broke out in enthused response to John McCain's recent reversal from opposition of expanding oil drilling along America's coastlines to support of it.  In the convention's aftermath, the calls to drill more domestic oil have continued, and gathered momentum.  The movement's supporters claim that it would lower gas prices and decrease America's reliance on foreign oil.  In Congress, a bill is forthcoming to authorize expansion of offshore oil drilling, along with expanding funding for other, "alternative" energy sources, such as solar and wind power.  

Americans are caught between wanting to protect environmentally sensitive, beautiful coastal areas that are homes for all kinds of wildlife and an important source of biological diversity, and wanting to pay less for gas.  Or are they?

As geologists and oil company workers have known for years, the amount of oil that could potentially be drilled from America's offshore areas is so minimal compared to the amount that we use that it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on lowering our dependance on foreign oil.  Nor would it lower gas prices.  Those will only continue to rise, as worldwide supplies dwindle and demand increases.  As has been pointed out by numerous experts, higher fuel efficency standards would have a much greater effect on both of the above factors than opening more offshore areas to drilling. 

What is most troubling about this situation, beyond simply the short-sightedness of sacrificing natural resources for short-term, is the complete absence of science from the conversation.  To the extent that scientists are able to convey the results of their research to the public information sphere, those results can inform people's knowledge of the world, as well as public policy.  

In cases like this one, if science were brought into the "debate," there would be no debate.

The Science of Iron Man

I recently saw Iron Man for the second time, and I was reminded of why I liked it so much the first time.  The science in the movie, pseudoscience though much of it is, is relevant in the sense that it both reflects current science research and shows a possible window into the future of some scientific endeavors.  As such, it is a much better science fiction film than what I've come to expect from Hollywood Superhero movies.

What makes good science fiction good is not its ability to showcase visually exciting special effects that have nothing to do with what is scientifically possible, but to presciently envision the technological future.  Einstein's famous quip about the value of imagination compared to knowledge reminds us that the limits of technology are based not in what is currently known, but in the scope of our imagination, which is truly limitless.  Great science fiction writers possess the imagination to be able to predict, if not the substance, at least the future direction of science, technology, and society's use of both.

While most if not all superhero films have to do with science in at least a nominal way (Spiderman gets bit by a gentically-modified spider; the X-men possess a "mutant gene," etc.), Iron Man is the first such film that is really about science. 

In its depiction of the ability of military technology to contribute to war-mongering, it addresses the question of ethics in science research.  In Iron Man's epic battles against his nemesis, Obadiah Stane, whose iron man suit is a pale imitation of Tony Stark's design, the triumph of better engineering is the theme (the first Iron Man comic book premiered in 1959, a time when, in the aftermath of Sputnik, Americans were anxious about the possibility of being outcompeted technologically by the Soviet Union).  And, of course, Iron Man's suit itself is designed, initially, as a way of keeping Tony Stark alive by magnetizing shards of shrapnel away from his heart - a paean to the potential of medical technology to advance medicine and save lives.  And, unlike other superheroes, Iron Man defeats his enemies not by physically overpowering them with inexplicable strength and athletic ability (see Batman, Spiderman, etc.), but by being a better scientific thinker and technician.

To address, then, the science of Iron Man.  First, there is the suit itself - a suit of "smart" robotic armor built from a gold-titanium alloy and powered by a miniature "arc reactor" - a device that, with very little to no explanation, possesses the ability to deliver a massive and seemingly limitless supply of power to Iron Man's suit.  The arc reactor is the most improbable piece of "science" in the film.  And the "repulsors" in his hands and shoes, which - in direct violation of Newton's third law - either deliver rocket thrust to propel him through the air or allow him to release powerful outward bursts of energy, do not merit serious discussion here.  But the rest of the Iron Man suit, an interactive robotic matrix that operates responsively in coordination with Tony Stark's nervous system, is fascinating, and presages the future outcomes of work that is very intensively in current development.  As this Scientific American article indicates, the concept of a robotic suit that enhances human strength has already been made into reality. 

Then, there is Tony Stark's voice-responsive robot/computer assistant, capable not only of accomplishing feats of robotic precision, but also of acting instantaneously upon randomly-generated, unprogrammed instructions.  Robot surgeons are already in use, but the idea of artificial intelligence that is responsive to unpredictable commands is further down the road.  Most a.i. that exists today still acts more like a computer program, capable of responding "intelligently," but only to a set of pre-programmed stimuli.  The brain, on the other hand, acts with infinitely greater flexibility.  Recent research in evolutionary developmental biology has shown that genetic characteristics are determined and controlled by far fewer genes than had been assumed.  Since the development of the brain is simply one possible outcome generated by the same relatively small genetic "toolkit" responsible for determining whether an organism has gills or lungs, fins or arms, it makes sense that the flexibility inherent in the brain's multi-level functioning is a logical outcome of our biological evolution.  And insofar as all existing technologies are outgrowths in one way or another of the human brain, it also seems like a reasonable fantasy, at least, that eventually we will discover a way to simulate the remarkable nature of our own brains in the construction of an artificial device, and give birth to a.i. 

Thirdly, but by no means of least interest, there is the 3-D graphic simulator which Stark uses to design Iron Man's suit.  Computer simulations are certainly a major tool of current graphic designers.  However, none yet exist that can model graphics in real 3-D - in 3 physical planes at once, that is, instead of only on a computer screen.  If such capabilties did exist, they would surely revolutionize engineering and design, particularly of complex mechanical devices, like those Tony Stark uses the technology to design and build in Iron Man.  

Iron Man, like the best science fiction, shows us a view of the technological future that, if enjoyably fanciful, corresponds in some important ways to the vision of scientists and engineers today.  While being no less entertaining than any film in its genre - and better than most - it still manages to address important questions about the role, importance, and direction of science.  I, for one, hope to see more films like it. 

Anti-snoring pillow

A new invention falls into the category of technologies that increasingly utilize computers to turn formerly static objects into mechanical ones:

An Iranian - German scientist has invented an anti-snoring pillow that uses a bedside-table computer controller to expand or contract air pockets built into the pillow in response to snoring, altering the sleeper's head position, and thereby stopping the snoring.

If this invention actually works - the inventor claimed that he developed it because of his own snoring problems - it will undoubtedly be useful to many people. If so, it will be an example of the ever more common tendency to re-invent various types of devices as "computer devices."

The cell phone, the digital camera, the personal compter itself - which initially burst on the scene as a glorified replacement for the typewriter - are examples of machines designed for such purposes as communiction and photography, that have been re-engineered as computer devices.

Will the pillow, a piece of technology never conceived of as mechanical at all, now become a computer device as well?

It seems that it could. Whether or not computer devices are always better than their less-technological predecessors is another question.

IVF + biotech = ?

In-vitro fertilization (IVF) is becoming more and more common, as older couples seek to have children bearing at least half of their own DNA. Sperm donors are a fairly easy and inexpensive solution for male infertility, and donor eggs are a virtual necessity for women over the age of 40 who want to give birth.

Using either one of these methods ensures that the baby will possess one of its parents' genes, but not both, giving rise to issues of identity and questions about when and how to inform the child about his or her unusual origins.

But with a continuing tendency for women to want to have children in advanced maternal age (over 35), or for same-sex couples to want children bearing at least one of their genes, one wonders how long this will continue to be abnormal.

Given that an IVF child possesses, by definition, at most 1/2 of his or her parents' genes, how much more compromising of "nature" would it be to make further alterations to an embryo's DNA via gene therapy? Given the option, many future parents, having already entered the realm of "unnatural" birthing, might be tempted to take advantage of whatever improvements to embryonic DNA technology can offer.

At what point is birth no longer "natural?"

Of course, the technology that would allow for such choices is still in the future.

But considering the enormous amount of gene-patenting underway, and the obvious applicability of biotechnology to controlling reproductive success, it seems more than likely that genetically-engineered IVF will be on the table for parents who can afford it, in the near future.

The question, then is: how many people would be appalled at the idea of further tampering with their future child's genetic quotient - and how many would leap at the opportunity?

Usually, once a technology becomers available, some people will use it, regardless of others' ethical questions. Once it becomes less expensive, more people will jump aboard. Eventually, its use acquires an inevitability that sweeps aside all such concerns.

Man-eating fish

A strange example of mutualism has surfaced at a hot springs in Turkey where, for a fee, you can be bitten and attacked by hordes of tiny fish.

The fish, a very rare species that are known as "the doctor fish of Kangal," fill the 34 degree Celsius water (93 F) to the almost complete absence of other plant or animal life, swarming humans as soon as they appear.

The fish's name comes from its legendary curative abilities, due to the fact that it has been documented to relieve the symptoms of psoriasis, a skin disease triggered by stress, by eating away layers of dead skin as the patient relaxes in the hot spring environment, and stimulating new growth.

The mutualism arises from the fact that the fish have little else, besides human skin, to feed off of. Apparently, locals sealed off the spring from surrounding creeks in the 1950s, to preserve the "miracle fish" that were known to have healed injured people. Consequently, the fish have grown dependent on humans for food.

Apparently, Chinese and Japanese companies have already built resorts containing "doctor fish" trained to eat dead skin.

Surely, it is only a matter of time before such "fish pedicures" come to America.

Polymer, heal thyself

A study in Nature Materials describes the development of a self-healing polymer that uses a network of 3-dimensional channels, analogous to blood capilaries in the skin, to deliver "healing agents" to cracks in the surface.

This technology, to my mind, falls into the category of ideas that challenge the boundary between the definition of living and non-living:
A living organism is defined as something that metabolizes, reproduces, and responds.

The self-healing polymer doesn't metabolize or reproduce, but it definitely responds.

The way it works, apparently, is that when a crack occurs in the surface of the polymer, "healing agent" is delivered to the scene of the crack via a "three-dimensional microvascular network" inside the material. Exactly what mechanism causes the healing agent to respond to the presence of a rupture is unclear. What differentiates this from previous successes with self-healing materials is that the embedded network of vessels can deliver more of the healing material whenever necessary, making it possible for the same spot to be healed numerous times. In the study, the same spot was cracked and repaired seven times.

The authors of the study write: "This approach opens new avenues for continuous delivery of healing agents for self-repair as well as other active species for additional functionality."

What sort of "additional functionality" do they have in mind? It doesn't seem a far stretch that, with the implementation of microvascular networks like the one described, a variety of other applications could blossom, beyond merely self-healing materials. Similar ideas for internal, self-regulated delivery of medicine without IVs, for example, are already under development, using nanotechnology.

Interestingly, the use of the word "species" suggests a self-conscious recognition of the proximity of the technology to artificial intelligence. If the networks could be engineered to rebuild and extend themselves, either in response to external stimuli or to an internal "clock," they would move a step closer to fulfilling the criteria for being "alive." Viruses avoid being categorized as organisms by using the machinery of the cells they invade to reproduce, instead of their own. Microvascular networks such as these would similarly be reliant on the host organism - for example, on the surrounding tissue to provide physical support.

But, like viruses, they might carry out the majority of lifelike functions independently - moving a step closer to the creation of a synthetic organism.

Turning garbage into energy

Today, as I replaced my 2-year-old cellphone with a new, presumably better one, and read the admonition on the box to "properly dispose of" - i.e., recycle - the lithium ion battery - I found myself thinking about garbage; in particular, about a garbage-disposal technology that I read about recently.

Garbage, like cellphone batteries, that is technically hazardous waste, poses a persistent question: how to get rid of it? Barring not acquiring it in the first place - an option which most Americans never even consider - getting rid of household hazardous waste items like batteries, paint and old computer parts, is a bit of a nightmare.

But an interesting new technology called plasma gasification, described in this article in a recent issue of Popular Science promises to make this problem history.

By converting air - or any other stable gas - into plasma by passing an electric current through it, the device reduces almost any type of waste (nuclear waste excepted) to its molecular components, producing an obsidian-like glass byproduct, along with a syngas mixture that can be turned into hydrogen, ethanol, natural gas, or other energy-producing gases.

As a result, the converter releases energy, as well as using it up. In addition to the obvious benefits - clean disposal of dangerous waste, conservation of landfills, and the production of excess energy - the technology might even be money-making, since municipalities wouldn't have to pay for the raw materials - the garbage - only for the electricity needed to power the converter.

I think it's a brilliant idea, on the leading edge of many emerging "green" technologies that promise to turn some of the worst environmental problems on their heads. Hopefully, we'll soon have the opportunity to see it work.

Workaholic Monkeys?

Often, technology is developed with one purpose in mind, yet becomes more widely used for something completely different. The classic example, of course, is the conversion of World War II chemical weapons research into the 1950's pesticide industry. But other examples abound. One came to mind this week, as I was revisiting an interesting research study in primate behavior from a few years ago:

The study was based on a new gene therapy technique, in which a synthesized DNA antisense agent was used to inhibit the release of dopamine by "turning off" the D2 genes of 7 rhesus monkeys. The monkeys had to press a lever in response to visual cues on a screen, getting a drop of water as a reward. Monkeys whose D2 gene were "turned off" worked harder at the task, apparently because their ability to aniticipate how long it would take to get a reward had been negated, in the absence of the flood of dopamine to their brains that the gene normally incites. Without dopamine, in other words, the monkeys didn't know how to procrastinate.

Nowadays, corporate employers and schools alike are turning to rewards-based incentive programs to encourage desirable behavior on the part of employees or students. The central idea behind dog training - that any behavior can be taught, so long as it is done with positive reinforcement - seems to be taking hold in the workplace and in the educational system.

But what would happen if a gene therapy was available that could increase workers' efficiency and strengthen their work ethic, while eliminating the tendency to procrastinate - and with no need for costly rewards?

The authors of the study were motivated by the desire to understand and alleviate the symptoms of mental illness. But, their results cannot have been lost on corporate employers. One can only imagine that some companies would be intrigued, to say the least, by a technological tool that could upgrade workers' work ethic while increasing their efficiency.

It's hard to know whether gene therapy techniques like this one will ever attain widespread usage in humans.

In the meantime, though, it is interesting to wonder: is there any evolutionary benefit to procrastination? And if there isn't, why did the tendency evolve in the first place? The ability to calculate how long it was possible to delay doing something might have been very useful in omnivorous species whose food sources were highly varied and potentially included many poisonous plants and animals.

Perhaps procrastination, long frowned on by society, should be re-evaluated on the basis of its evolutionary utility to our species, before we banish it forever with gene-altering technology.

The Intelligence of Ravens

Two recent science stories have to do with the evolution of birds. One, from Science, is about the recovery of soft tissue from 68 million-year-old Tyrannoraurus Rex fossil, and the finding that the proteins it contained were more similar to those found in chickens than any other living species.

Is the chicken the closest living relative of the extinct Tyrannosaur? If so, the dinosaur's DNA must have contained some genes for more than mere ferocity - the chicken's success seems to be connected to its ability to be domesticated.

The second story is about the intelligence of ravens.

As many people have long suspected, it turns out that ravens are really intelligent: a lot smarter than most other animals, in fact.

It was reported in last month's Scientific American that ravens were able to accomplish complicated tasks, involving logic, something that few non-human animals can do. In the study, ravens were challenged to get some food that was attached to a string suspended from the perch. In order to get the treat, the ravens had to pull the string up a bit at a time, holding the part already gathered in place, until the food was pulled up to the top. Mature ravens studied the situation for minutes on end, then completed the operation in a single try.

This seems like an amazing display of logic, akin to watching a chess grandmaster study the board for several minutes, then suddenly declare "Checkmate!" while making a decisive, brilliant move. How many people are capable of analyzing an unfamiliar situation based on visual observations only, and then proceed to solve it, in one try and with no mistakes?

Combined with the other story, linking the Tyranosaurus Rex to a chicken, it makes one wonder about the genetic heritage of birds.

The authors of the raven study hypothesized about what factors in its evolution could have led to ravens developing the ability to use logic, rather than the sort of trial-and-error problem-solving exhibited by many other animals, including other types of birds.

They concluded that ravens, being primarily scavengers who are dependent on the behavior of unpredictable predators for their food, could have been selected for the ability to "think things through" before taking action. Also, ravens have a very poor sense of smell, reiforcing their need to use visual memory to navigate their surroundings and stored food caches.

The tyrannosaur, a top predator, probably faced no selection pressure to be smart. Its closest living relative is the chicken.

The intelligence of ravens reminds us of the evolutionary advantage of being forced to make difficult, potentially life-threatening choices to survive.

Dog Genes

An interesting science story from this week was about a study of dog genetics. Apparently, a single gene codes for a major growth factor in dogs, and all small dogs have a section of DNA that turns it off. In other words, one gene determines whether dogs are big or small.

I've often wondered at the astonishing variation in size among dogs. It seems amazing that animals as different as a chihuaha and a Siberian husky could be the same species. Domestic cats, by contrast, are nearly all close to the same size.

Since all modern dogs are descended from the grey wolf, small dogs are obviously the anomaly, the descendents -according to the authors of the study - of a miniature grey wolf that was born about 15,000 years ago. The absence of any tiny wolves running around today suggests that the gene regulator disappeared from the wolf genome a long time ago, undoubtedly because being a mini-wolf conferred no survival advantages on its possessors.

So why did the mini-dog gene survive and prosper? It seems likely that the anwser has something to do with humans. Maybe humans thought a miniature wolf was "cute" and sought to domesticate it, or protect and keep it. If so, their efforts could well have resulted in the mini-wolf producing healthy offspring, which themselves would have been cherished and looked-after by their human protectors.

The special relationship between dogs and humans has often been cited as one of the reasons for the remarkable success of dogs as a species. That relationship, it now appears, may go back much further than we had thought.