As important as Darwin
Aug 13th 2009
From The Economist print edition
In praise of astronomy, the most revolutionary of sciences
MEPL
FOUR hundred years ago our understanding of the universe changed for ever. On August 25th 1609 an Italian mathematician called Galileo Galilei demonstrated his newly constructed telescope to the merchants of Venice. Shortly afterwards he turned it on the skies. He saw mountains casting shadows on the moon and realised this body was a world, like the Earth, endowed with complicated terrain. He saw the moons of Jupiter—objects that circled another heavenly body in direct disobedience of the church’s teaching. He saw the moonlike phases of Venus, indicating that this planet circled the sun, not the Earth, in even greater disobedience of the priests. He saw sunspots, demonstrating that the sun itself was not the perfect orb demanded by the Greek cosmology that had been adopted by the church. But he also saw something else, a thing that is often now forgotten. He saw that the Milky Way, that cloudy streak across the sky, is made of stars.
That observation was the first hint that, not only is the Earth not the centre of things, but those things are vastly, almost incomprehensibly, bigger than people up until that date had dreamed. And they have been getting bigger, and also older, ever since. Astronomers’ latest estimates put the age of the universe at about 13.7 billion years. That is three times as long as the Earth has existed and about 100,000 times the lifespan of modern humanity as a species. The true size of the universe is still unknown. Its age, and the finite speed of light, means no astronomer can look beyond a distance of 13.7 billion light-years. But it is probably bigger than that.
Nor does reality necessarily end with this universe. Physics, astronomy’s dutiful daughter, suggests that the object that people call the universe, vast though it is, may be just one of an indefinite number of similar structures, governed by slightly different rules from each other, that inhabit what is referred to, for want of a better term, as the multiverse.
sábado, 15 de agosto de 2009
Whatever happened to the food crisis?
Whatever happened to the food crisis?
Jul 2nd 2009
From The Economist print edition
It crept back
MULUALEM TEGEGN bought a donkey last year. As a hard-working Ethiopian farmer, aged 58, he saw the purchase of the beast as a return to better times after several seasons in which drought and high prices had forced him to sell his livestock and take his grandchildren out of school to work on the farm. This year, he will have enough grain left to buy a goat or two, and the donkey will help the children make the long trek again to school. This is how things are supposed to be.
World food prices soared in 2007-08, pushing hundreds of millions into poverty. But—said people at the time—there was a silver lining: high prices would be good for farmers, especially smallholders in poor countries such as Mr Tegegn. Higher returns would suck money into farming, leading to higher yields, bigger harvests and stable or falling food prices. Eventually, the argument ran, farmers and consumers would all be better off.
This happy state of affairs seemed to be coming to pass in the second half of 2008. Ethiopia reported a record cereals harvest this January, up 10% on the previous year. Across the world, the picture was similar. After the price spike in the first half of 2008, farmers harvested 2.3 billion tonnes of cereals in 2008/09, the biggest crop ever seen. Big exporters began lifting the trade bans they had imposed to keep local prices from rising, so more food became available to world markets. The sharp fall in the price of oil, which occurred at the same time, increased food supplies further because, by making oil cheaper than ethanol, it encouraged farmers to sell for feed the maize they would otherwise have turned into biofuels. As food supplies surged (and demand, hit by the global recession, stagnated), prices plummeted. Between its peak in July and a trough in December 2008, The Economist’s index of food prices fell by 40%.
All that seems fairly rational and hopeful. But this year’s changes have been more puzzling. Between December and mid-June, the food index rebounded by a third, even though this year’s total cereals crop is expected to be another bumper (2.2 billion tonnes, says the Food and Agriculture Organisation, second only to 2008/09, see chart left). Meanwhile, soyabean and sugar prices have risen by nearly half from trough to peak—see chart below—and the index of “non-food agriculturals” (plants such as cotton or rubber) also rose by a quarter between December and mid-June. Prices have been increasing at a time of plenty
Jul 2nd 2009
From The Economist print edition
It crept back
MULUALEM TEGEGN bought a donkey last year. As a hard-working Ethiopian farmer, aged 58, he saw the purchase of the beast as a return to better times after several seasons in which drought and high prices had forced him to sell his livestock and take his grandchildren out of school to work on the farm. This year, he will have enough grain left to buy a goat or two, and the donkey will help the children make the long trek again to school. This is how things are supposed to be.
World food prices soared in 2007-08, pushing hundreds of millions into poverty. But—said people at the time—there was a silver lining: high prices would be good for farmers, especially smallholders in poor countries such as Mr Tegegn. Higher returns would suck money into farming, leading to higher yields, bigger harvests and stable or falling food prices. Eventually, the argument ran, farmers and consumers would all be better off.
This happy state of affairs seemed to be coming to pass in the second half of 2008. Ethiopia reported a record cereals harvest this January, up 10% on the previous year. Across the world, the picture was similar. After the price spike in the first half of 2008, farmers harvested 2.3 billion tonnes of cereals in 2008/09, the biggest crop ever seen. Big exporters began lifting the trade bans they had imposed to keep local prices from rising, so more food became available to world markets. The sharp fall in the price of oil, which occurred at the same time, increased food supplies further because, by making oil cheaper than ethanol, it encouraged farmers to sell for feed the maize they would otherwise have turned into biofuels. As food supplies surged (and demand, hit by the global recession, stagnated), prices plummeted. Between its peak in July and a trough in December 2008, The Economist’s index of food prices fell by 40%.
All that seems fairly rational and hopeful. But this year’s changes have been more puzzling. Between December and mid-June, the food index rebounded by a third, even though this year’s total cereals crop is expected to be another bumper (2.2 billion tonnes, says the Food and Agriculture Organisation, second only to 2008/09, see chart left). Meanwhile, soyabean and sugar prices have risen by nearly half from trough to peak—see chart below—and the index of “non-food agriculturals” (plants such as cotton or rubber) also rose by a quarter between December and mid-June. Prices have been increasing at a time of plenty
domingo, 2 de agosto de 2009
THE SCIENCE OF SMILES
THE SCIENCE OF SMILES
By Larry Greenemeier in 60-Second Science Blog
Jul 30, 2009 04:45 PM Scientific American
How does your smile rate on a scale of zero to 100? If you worked for Japan's Keihin Electric Express Railway Co., you'd know—on a daily basis.
The Tokyo-based train company is using a "Smile Scan" system to evaluate the grins of its 530 station staffers at 15 stations when they report to work each day, Japan's Mainichi Daily News reported earlier this month. The smiles (including eye movements, lip curves and wrinkles) are scored on a scale ranging from zero (scowling=irritado) to 100 (glowing) using a camera and computer provided by Kyoto-based Omron Corp., with low scores earning employees automatically generated advice such as, "You still look too serious," or "Lift up your mouth corners."
The railway network covers 87 kilometers and serves an average of 1.2 million passengers daily. The idea is for workers to print out and carry around an image of their best smile in an attempt to remember and replicate it as they encounter customers throughout their shifts.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/ pidjoe
By Larry Greenemeier in 60-Second Science Blog
Jul 30, 2009 04:45 PM Scientific American
How does your smile rate on a scale of zero to 100? If you worked for Japan's Keihin Electric Express Railway Co., you'd know—on a daily basis.
The Tokyo-based train company is using a "Smile Scan" system to evaluate the grins of its 530 station staffers at 15 stations when they report to work each day, Japan's Mainichi Daily News reported earlier this month. The smiles (including eye movements, lip curves and wrinkles) are scored on a scale ranging from zero (scowling=irritado) to 100 (glowing) using a camera and computer provided by Kyoto-based Omron Corp., with low scores earning employees automatically generated advice such as, "You still look too serious," or "Lift up your mouth corners."
The railway network covers 87 kilometers and serves an average of 1.2 million passengers daily. The idea is for workers to print out and carry around an image of their best smile in an attempt to remember and replicate it as they encounter customers throughout their shifts.
Image ©iStockphoto.com/ pidjoe
A Patchwork Mind: How Your Parents' Genes Shape Your Brain
A Patchwork Mind: How Your Parents' Genes Shape Your Brain
We each have two parents, but their genetic contributions to what makes us us are uneven. New research shows we are an amalgam of influences from mom and dad
By Melinda Wenner From the July 30, 2009 Scientific American Mind
• When passing on DNA to their offspring, mothers silence certain genes, and fathers silence others. These imprinted genes usually result in a balanced, healthy brain, but when the process goes awry(errado), neurological disorders can result.
• Imprinting errors are responsible for rare disorders such as Angelman and Prader-Willi syndromes, and some scientists are beginning to think imprinting might be implicated in more common illnesses such as autism and schizophrenia.
• Even typical brains are the result of asymmetric contributions from Mom and Dad. Higher cognitive function seems to be disproportionately controlled by Mom’s genes, whereas the drive to eat and mate is influenced by Dad’s.
We each have two parents, but their genetic contributions to what makes us us are uneven. New research shows we are an amalgam of influences from mom and dad
By Melinda Wenner From the July 30, 2009 Scientific American Mind
• When passing on DNA to their offspring, mothers silence certain genes, and fathers silence others. These imprinted genes usually result in a balanced, healthy brain, but when the process goes awry(errado), neurological disorders can result.
• Imprinting errors are responsible for rare disorders such as Angelman and Prader-Willi syndromes, and some scientists are beginning to think imprinting might be implicated in more common illnesses such as autism and schizophrenia.
• Even typical brains are the result of asymmetric contributions from Mom and Dad. Higher cognitive function seems to be disproportionately controlled by Mom’s genes, whereas the drive to eat and mate is influenced by Dad’s.
Imaginary Friends
Imaginary Friends
Television programs can fend off loneliness
By Fionnuala Butler and Cynthia Pickett July 28, 2009 |Scientific American
By yourself, but not alone Flickering friends count for something
Stomach growling, but have no time for a meal? A snack will do. Drowsy and unable to concentrate? A short nap can be reviving when a good night’s rest is unavailable. But what should you do when you are alone and feeling lonely?
New psychological research suggests that loneliness can be alleviated by simply turning on your favorite TV show. In the same way that a snack can satiate hunger in lieu of a meal, it seems that watching favorite TV shows can provide the experience of belonging without a true interpersonal interaction.
For decades, psychologists have been interested in understanding how individuals achieve and maintain social relationships in order to ward off social isolation and loneliness. The vast majority of this research has focused on relationships between real individuals interacting face-to-face. Recent research has widened this focus from real relationships to faux, “parasocial” relationships. Parasocial relationships are the kind of one sided pseudo-relationships we develop over time with people or characters we might see on TV or in the movies. So, just as a friendship evolves through spending time together and sharing personal thoughts and opinions, parasocial relationships evolve by watching characters on our favorite TV shows, and becoming involved with their personal lives, idiosyncrasies, and experiences as if they were those of a friend.
In a recent article published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Jaye Derrick and Shira Gabriel of the University of Buffalo and Kurt Hugenberg of Miami University test what they call the “Social Surrogacy Hypothesis.”
Television programs can fend off loneliness
By Fionnuala Butler and Cynthia Pickett July 28, 2009 |Scientific American
By yourself, but not alone Flickering friends count for something
Stomach growling, but have no time for a meal? A snack will do. Drowsy and unable to concentrate? A short nap can be reviving when a good night’s rest is unavailable. But what should you do when you are alone and feeling lonely?
New psychological research suggests that loneliness can be alleviated by simply turning on your favorite TV show. In the same way that a snack can satiate hunger in lieu of a meal, it seems that watching favorite TV shows can provide the experience of belonging without a true interpersonal interaction.
For decades, psychologists have been interested in understanding how individuals achieve and maintain social relationships in order to ward off social isolation and loneliness. The vast majority of this research has focused on relationships between real individuals interacting face-to-face. Recent research has widened this focus from real relationships to faux, “parasocial” relationships. Parasocial relationships are the kind of one sided pseudo-relationships we develop over time with people or characters we might see on TV or in the movies. So, just as a friendship evolves through spending time together and sharing personal thoughts and opinions, parasocial relationships evolve by watching characters on our favorite TV shows, and becoming involved with their personal lives, idiosyncrasies, and experiences as if they were those of a friend.
In a recent article published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Jaye Derrick and Shira Gabriel of the University of Buffalo and Kurt Hugenberg of Miami University test what they call the “Social Surrogacy Hypothesis.”
sexta-feira, 24 de julho de 2009
Is your cat left or right pawed?
Is your cat left or right pawed?
10:28 24 July 2009 by Ewen Callaway New Scientist
For similar stories, visit the The Human Brain
Raise your best paw (Image: Image Source / Rex Features)
It may not be obvious from the scratch marks cats dish out, but domestic felines favour one paw over the other. More often than not, females tend to be righties, while toms are lefties, say Deborah Wells and Sarah Millsopp, psychologists at Queen's University Belfast in Northern Ireland.
However, these preferences only manifest when cats perform particularly dexterous feats. That's for the same reason we can open a door with either arm, yet struggle to write legibly with our non-dominant hand. "The more complex and challenging [the task], the more likely we're going to see true handedness," Wells says.
She and Millsopp tasked 42 domestic cats to ferret out a bit of tuna in a jar too small for their heads. Among 21 females, all but one favoured the right paw across dozens of trials, while 20 out of 21 males preferentially used the left. One male proved ambidextrous.
Not so for two simpler activities: pawing at a toy mouse suspended in the air or dragged on ground from a string. No matter their sex, all of the cats wielded their right and left paws about equally on these less demanding tasks.
Hormone levels could explain sex differences in paw choice, Wells says. Previous research has linked prenatal testosterone exposure to left-handedness. While studies of two other domestic animals, dogs and horses, revealed similar sex biases.
10:28 24 July 2009 by Ewen Callaway New Scientist
For similar stories, visit the The Human Brain
Raise your best paw (Image: Image Source / Rex Features)
It may not be obvious from the scratch marks cats dish out, but domestic felines favour one paw over the other. More often than not, females tend to be righties, while toms are lefties, say Deborah Wells and Sarah Millsopp, psychologists at Queen's University Belfast in Northern Ireland.
However, these preferences only manifest when cats perform particularly dexterous feats. That's for the same reason we can open a door with either arm, yet struggle to write legibly with our non-dominant hand. "The more complex and challenging [the task], the more likely we're going to see true handedness," Wells says.
She and Millsopp tasked 42 domestic cats to ferret out a bit of tuna in a jar too small for their heads. Among 21 females, all but one favoured the right paw across dozens of trials, while 20 out of 21 males preferentially used the left. One male proved ambidextrous.
Not so for two simpler activities: pawing at a toy mouse suspended in the air or dragged on ground from a string. No matter their sex, all of the cats wielded their right and left paws about equally on these less demanding tasks.
Hormone levels could explain sex differences in paw choice, Wells says. Previous research has linked prenatal testosterone exposure to left-handedness. While studies of two other domestic animals, dogs and horses, revealed similar sex biases.
Heart, heal thyself
Heart, heal thyself
A mouse study finds that, surprisingly, heart muscle can be made to proliferate.
Monya Baker 23 July 2009 | Nature
A protein factor may give adult heart muscle cells a new lease of life.R. Bick, B. Poindexter, UT Medical School / Science Photo Library
With a little prompting, adult hearts may be able to heal themselves — at least, they may do if a recent study in mice holds true for humans. The heart has long been considered one of the organs least capable of regenerating after injury, with heart transplants one of the few effective therapies available. But now a team led by Bernhard Kühn at the Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, has shown that protein injections in mice not only prompt heart muscle cells, known as cardiomyocytes, to proliferate, but that this proliferation also reduces damage after a heart attack1.
"This is of major, major consequence if it turns out to be correct," says Deepak Srivastava, director of the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease in San Francisco, California. "There have been no reports of differentiated cardiomyocytes in the adult being able to re-enter the cell cycle and divide again."
Work published earlier this year showed that the heart does indeed make new cardiomyocytes in adulthood. But because the replacement rate is very low and the source of new cells unknown, whether this finding would prove useful for treating heart disease was unclear. Kühn, a practising pediatric cardiologist, says he is already working to turn his finding into a potential therapy2.
To hunt for factors that could cause adult tissue to make new cardiomyocytes, Kühn and his colleagues isolated heart cells from adult rats and exposed them to proteins already known to prompt fetal tissue to build hearts. Their search identified the well-studied protein neuregulin 1. Kühn's team then turned to mice, simulating heart attacks in dozens of them by tying off a major artery feeding the heart before giving half of them abdominal injections of neuregulin 1 for 12 weeks. After waiting two weeks for the direct effects of neuregulin 1 to wear off, the researchers found that scars resulting from the heart attack were 46% smaller in treated than untreated mice. Additionally, hearts in treated mice displayed less of the weakening cell overgrowth that is typically observed after a heart attack, and they could even pump more blood.
A mouse study finds that, surprisingly, heart muscle can be made to proliferate.
Monya Baker 23 July 2009 | Nature
A protein factor may give adult heart muscle cells a new lease of life.R. Bick, B. Poindexter, UT Medical School / Science Photo Library
With a little prompting, adult hearts may be able to heal themselves — at least, they may do if a recent study in mice holds true for humans. The heart has long been considered one of the organs least capable of regenerating after injury, with heart transplants one of the few effective therapies available. But now a team led by Bernhard Kühn at the Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, has shown that protein injections in mice not only prompt heart muscle cells, known as cardiomyocytes, to proliferate, but that this proliferation also reduces damage after a heart attack1.
"This is of major, major consequence if it turns out to be correct," says Deepak Srivastava, director of the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease in San Francisco, California. "There have been no reports of differentiated cardiomyocytes in the adult being able to re-enter the cell cycle and divide again."
Work published earlier this year showed that the heart does indeed make new cardiomyocytes in adulthood. But because the replacement rate is very low and the source of new cells unknown, whether this finding would prove useful for treating heart disease was unclear. Kühn, a practising pediatric cardiologist, says he is already working to turn his finding into a potential therapy2.
To hunt for factors that could cause adult tissue to make new cardiomyocytes, Kühn and his colleagues isolated heart cells from adult rats and exposed them to proteins already known to prompt fetal tissue to build hearts. Their search identified the well-studied protein neuregulin 1. Kühn's team then turned to mice, simulating heart attacks in dozens of them by tying off a major artery feeding the heart before giving half of them abdominal injections of neuregulin 1 for 12 weeks. After waiting two weeks for the direct effects of neuregulin 1 to wear off, the researchers found that scars resulting from the heart attack were 46% smaller in treated than untreated mice. Additionally, hearts in treated mice displayed less of the weakening cell overgrowth that is typically observed after a heart attack, and they could even pump more blood.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)
