Science Made Cool

Life, the Universe, and Everything

We're back from a long Christmas road trip which included a number of stops at places of scientific and historical interest. In Durham, NC, our Crack Team visited the North Carolina Museum of Life and Science, and had a grand time.

The Museum isn't huge -- the main building is about the size of an auto dealership -- but the exhibit designers have done an excellent job of leveraging the region's very strong science and technology resources to create a museum full of genuinely instructive interactive exhibits.

There's a small zoo featuring local species, an impressive gallery of space hardware and space exploration exhibits (including photos of North Carolina astronauts). Both the 6-year-old and the 12-year-old members of our Crack Team tried to master the rather difficult Mars mission launch window exhibit. The two of them also had a ball with the whispering gallery and a Mars rover simulator. The younger team member played for a time in the children's museum area.

Because it was a drizzly day we passed up the chance to walk on the Museum's extensive outdoor trails or ride the train. We also skipped the new "Magic Wings" butterfly conservatory because our Science Made Cool World Headquarters is located near another "Magic Wings" operation.

Overall, the Museum of Life and Science kept two kids and one adult genuinely interested and entertained for four hours on a rainy Saturday. You can't beat that for a recommendation. Check it out if you're in the Triangle area.

Day of the Siphonophore

From the mighty Pink Tentacle Web log, here's some Japanese video of siphonophores.

Friday Parasite: Mistletoe

That plant you may be hanging up in kissing balls this holiday season is a parasite. Or a hemi-parasite, to be more specific, because the American mistletoe (Phoradendron flavescens) does make some of its own food by photosynthesis. And it certainly has lots of opportunity to soak up the sunlight, because it doesn't bother with the risky buisness of growing in soil --the plant sinks its roots directly into its host's bark and starts to grow, way up high and out of the shade. (How does it get there? On a bird, of course. Mistletoe berries may be poisonous to us, but they're plenty tasty to birds. So the sticky seeds stay on a bird's bill or feet long enough to get flown to the next tree over.)

A Holiday Tradition

It's Christmas Eve, and that means it's time once again for the NORAD Santa Tracker! Merry Christmas to everyone.

Regulations Stop Robot Menace!

A British robotics expert at the University of Sheffield, Dr. Noel Sharkey, has announced that there must be international guidelines to protect vulnerable individuals from robots.

Dr. Sharkey (whose name brings to mind images of a very toothy Father Christmas), is particularly concerned about the prospective use of robots in caring for children and the elderly -- as has already been suggested for the aging population of robot-loving Japan. He's afraid that without proper -- international! -- regulation, old folks will wind up seeing nobody but robots in their declining days.

I don't know if it's a matter of phrasing, but something about Dr. Sharkey's plea for international guidelines seems odd. Why international? Will the soft-bodied folk of Sheffield be less safe from the robot menace if the laws governing robotics are drafted by Parliament in Whitehall rather than some United Nations sub-sub-subcommittee in New York? If filial respect or simple decency don't prevent people from locking Grandma into some kind of automated old-people gulag, then I don't see how even the most strict international guidelines are going to do much good.

Fortunately, at least one American insurance company has already introduced policies which protect the elderly from robots.

If we are going to regulate robots, I suggest starting with these three laws, courtesy of Dr. Isaac Asimov.

Quick Parasite Fix

Our Science Guru is busy with her real job(s), so here's the mighty Carl Zimmer with a lovely post about one of our favorite topics, brain-controlling parasites!

What's interesting is that the parasites are bad for their host fish only because they make them feel good. The hosts don't feel stress in situations where they probably should be a little worried -- which makes them easy prey for fish-hunting birds. Carl even specifically draws a parallel to Prozac. That raises an interesting question: in our drive to alleviate depression and anxiety in people (because of the real, measurable bad effects of those conditions) are we missing some potential hazard? Are unhappy people perhaps more attuned to danger?

Creepy Sexy Robots

Okay, this is creepy. Not for the standard "Oh my God the robots are TAKING OVER!" reasons, either.

No, what's creepy about Project Aiko is the sexual subtext. Indeed, it's scarcely a subtext. Let's see:  here's a robot built from a life-size "silicone doll" from Japan. Hmm. The home page (and this article at Physorg) carefully specifies, to the hundredth of an inch, the robot's bust and hip measurements. The creator, on his Web site, specifies among his long-term goals for the project, "If I lie my head down on Aiko lap, have her clean my ears with a Q-tip" and "Ability to massage my shoulders and neck."

Creeped out yet? Check out the photo of Aiko in a kind of magical girl/sexy nurse costume (scroll down on the Aiko home page).

This isn't the only sexualized robot out there. Here's one that "walks and moves just like a woman." Mercifully it lacks the "silicone doll" exterior. This one (described as "slutty") has an exterior which is almost too realistic.

What's creepy about all of this robot sexualization is what it implies. Are there really that many people who are so cut off from human contact? And so content with that state that they're willing to invest a heck of a lot of time and effort to build a sexualized robot?

Break Out the Foil Hats

Depending on how much you love technology, this is either the coolest news in ages, or a terrifying sign of a new dark age of oppression. Machines can read your mind. Seriously. A group at ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories in Japan have actually figured out how to tell what a person is seeing by examining blood flow in the brain with an MRI.

Now, at present the system only works by comparing the brain state to MRI images taken when looking at a "library" of sample pictures. The method wouldn't be able to extract unknown information from a subject's brain -- although with a big enough library it would be possible to make very good guesses. The article doesn't mention if the MRI data is unique to each test subject's brain, or if all brains show the same response to a given visual image. That makes a big difference -- unique responses would mean you'd have to train the mind-reading machine for each subject, while universal applicability would make it possible to build up a huge library of brain images from thousands of people.

What's it good for? Well, for starters it's a way to communicate with people who are paralyzed or otherwise severely disabled. If it can be refined, one can imagine ultimately being able to control computers directly with your brain.

On the downside, if this is a step toward true mechanical telepathy, well, say goodbye to privacy. Even your thoughts can be read.

It Was a VERY Long Year

I don't know about the rest of you, but 2008 seemed like a very LONG year. The Presidential campaign, which used to run from the summer conventions to Election Day, was well underway even as the year got started. And since 2008 is divisible by 4 (but not by 100), it was a leap year.

Now those busybodies at the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service have decided to make 2008 even longer by adding a leap second at the end of the year. There will be a "blank" second between 23:59:59 on December 31 and 00:00:00 on January 1. New Scientist has the details.

This won't have much practical effect, but it will give sticklers for accuracy an excuse to yell "WAIT!" just as the countdown to the New Year reaches zero. In your face, Dick Clark!

Science At the Movies

Like most science fiction fans and writers, I've spent a lot of time and oxygen ragging on the horrible science in motion pictures. Our own Dr. Diane Kelly has even taught a course on sci-fi movie science. Now the mighty Carl Zimmer has called the whole issue into question. In a very shrewd column he asks the simple question "Why do we care?" After all, science fiction movies are fiction, not documentaries, and so are concerned more with storytelling than with accuracy. Why does it matter if they are riddled with errors?

My own answer to this is that there is (or should be) a difference between science fiction and fantasy. In a fantasy, the author can manipulate reality at will for the sake of the story -- a Ring can hold ultimate power, a Lion can redeem the world, and a little girl can save a kingdom by melting a witch. There's nothing wrong with that.

But if you call it science fiction, I think there's an implicit contract with the reader -- or the movie viewer -- that this stuff is possible. It may not be true, but then no work of fiction ever is factually true. There is no MI-6 operative named James Bond, but there could be, and a British intelligence agent could foil the plans of various crazed criminal masterminds. In the films James Bond does not, however, help hobbits escape the Nazgul, or free the Talking Beasts of Narnia from their oppressors. He's fictional but not fantasy.

So a science fiction movie should honor that same implicit contract. There are plenty of wonders and adventures which don't require magic disguised in technobabble. I agree with Mr. Zimmer that the focus of any film should be a good story and interesting characters, but I see no reason why they can't operate in a world of plausible science and technology.