Normally, this would be the end for most posts dealing with antimatter as a potential fuel or a catalyst for new generations of spacecraft. However, antimatter does have a couple of things going for it. When we talk about industrial quantities of something, we’re usually talking about tons. With antimatter, we’re talking about grams and maybe even a few kilograms for a relativistic rocket targeting another solar system. That’s not totally out of the question from a technical standpoint since today, we know how to generate more than 100 billion particles of the stuff using a laser and a thin sheet of gold and with an efficient enough capture mechanism, we could make enough antimatter to add a lot more kick to modern rocket designs. On top of that, we can build reliable containment systems which will be able to keep the antimatter stored until it’s needed, so production, capture, and containment are all perfectly plausible and use technology we already have. It’s not unreasonable to think that sometime in the near future, someone will use a few hundred milligrams of anti-hydrogen or a few grams of positrons to send a manned mission to Mars or beyond. But of course, there are a few catches.

Even the most effective methods of making antimatter we know of today would need years to produce enough of if to fuel a single mission and use powerful lasers and containment chambers which you can’t just buy at a local hardware store and require teams of specialists to build and maintain. That’s going to keep the price of antimatter extremely high and unaffordable for any space agency for the foreseeable future. Not only that, but anti-hydrogen and positrons are extremely explosive and produce a shower of gamma rays when they touch even the tiniest trace of normal matter. Should their containment chamber lose power for even a millisecond, there’s going to be a very energetic, unplanned explosion emitting ionizing radiation that could kill astronauts or knock out the craft’s electronics. These effects could be countered by heavy radiation shields, but there’s a limit to how thick you can make your radiation shield before the craft is too heavy to benefit from an antimatter additive. And this is beside all the gamma rays the matter-antimatter reactions are going to put out anyway as part of the ship’s normal operations. The more energetic the blasts, the faster the craft, but the more radiation and risks to crew members which is pretty disappointing for antimatter enthusiasts.

Hopefully, someday in the future we’ll figure out how to manage antimatter and have the required economies of scale to produce a few hundreds grams of it per year but to do that, scientists and engineers need funds to conduct a lot of tests and run hundreds of experiments. The big question is who would be willing to provide a big enough sources of cash to enable this kind of research, knowing full well it would take decades to see an actual antimatter powered spaceflight soar into orbit and motivated primarily by a desire to improve the world for the far future rather than turning a profit in three to five years. Although you never know what spin-offs from such experiments might turn out to be highly lucrative and start delivering a return on investment within just a few years. Science at the cutting edge is unpredictable and filled with all sorts of interesting possibilities.

[ illustration by Rory McLeish ]

Now, there’s the 112th element to name and it’s discoverers are considering a something from the classical world. However, this element is a rather confusing one. It doesn’t occur in nature. The research team needed to fire zinc and lead into each other at relativistic speeds. Neither is this element durable by any stretch of the imagination. It’s half-life is just 240 microseconds. Only four atoms have actually been observed and it took a decade to come up with enough data to assure the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry that the element actually does form under the extraordinary stresses created in particle accelerators. And considering this, a question jumps to mind. What do chemists learn by making rapidly decaying, synthetic atoms?

Well, according to Sigurd Hofmann who lead the group which discovered Element 112 (known for now by the IUPAC provisional name ununbium), the goal was to find the very end of the periodic table. We know that the hydrogen atom is the lightest possible element in the universe. Just one electron orbiting around one proton. Take one of the components away and you no longer have an atom, just rogue particles. But on the other end of the spectrum, how heavy an atom could be is an open question. What’s the maximum amount of electrons, protons and neutrons an element can have and still exist for even an instant? Ununbium is one step towards finding a possible answer and that’s why the IUPAC is giving it a spot on the periodic table.

There are a lot of anti-aging studies done on nematodes, particularly the caenorhabditis elegans species. In those studies, researchers tend to come up with all sorts of solutions for radically extending the lifespans of their experimental population, from anti-oxidants to the latest idea of getting somatic cells to act like tougher and more resilient germ cells. And mysteriously, almost everything we try to throw at those nematodes does make them live a lot longer. Then, when we try to scale things up to more complex organisms like us, we find that what seemed to double the c. elegans lifespan has few, if any, real benefits for us. The only exception so far seems to be calorie restriction and even then, the technique has its limits.

But because we like to read about how we could be immortal any day now, countless blogs and mainstream media sources dutifully hype up findings to make it seem as if science found the fountain of youth. If you were to look at the actual study referenced in the Galaxy, you’d see that it doesn’t say a word about immortality. It’s only claim is to show that germ cells, the cells used for reproduction, are a lot better at dealing with aging and stress than somatic cells, the cells which build tissues and organs in our bodies. The researchers then try to prove it by tricking somatic cell lines in nematodes to behave like germ cells and get a longer living, healthier organism. Immortality? Not even close. It seems that in its hunt for a few thousand extra eyeballs, the Galaxy is giving its readers a lot of false hope with a dollop of science.

See: Curran, S., Wu, X., Riedel, C., & Ruvkun, G. (2009). A soma-to-germline transformation in long-lived C. elegans mutants Nature DOI: 10.1038/nature08106

Looking at patterns in 1,327 insertion and deletion markers in over 3,000 collected DNA samples, scientists found a group of 14 “ancestral population clusters” with similar language, ethnicity and culture. According to Dr. Sarah Tishkoff, the study’s lead scientist, this is a big departure from how genetic ancestry was studied in the past. Researchers would take DNA from a small group of Africans and assume they were a good sample for the continent’s genetic make-up. However, as the study shows, that’s not actually the case and there’s so much genetic variety in African populations you can’t take a random sample of several individuals and use it for genomics research. Ultimately the data will be used to help conduct better studies on gene and disease relationships as well as better track down the ancestral history of human populations.

Societies which preserved their language and traditions for hundreds of years and seem pretty uniform to an outside observer, could have a vibrant genetic history which mixes genes from numerous populations around them, or even groups of ancient nomads who once came their way. Dr. Tishkoff’s team ran into a very similar situation with the Masai people of Kenya who extensively mixed with Ethiopian populations while maintaining the same lifestyles and linguistic traditions since time immemorial. It seems that when we use genes to take a peek into the history of humanity, we find that it’s a lot more dynamic and complex than we think.

See: Tishkoff, S., et al., (2009). The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1172257

The basis of her article is an OSU study of 219 students which found a link between Facebook usage and GPA. Students who used the social networking site tended to have a GPA between 3.0 and 3.5 while those who didn’t, usually had between a 3.5 and a 4.0 on their report cards. Facebook users studied between one to five hours per week on average while non-users logged in between 11 and 15 hours of study time. While there’s definitely a strong correlation, the authors point out that it doesn’t equal causation. Rather, it’s more likely that Facebook users with lower grades would find other ways to avoid studying.

In her write-up, Hamilton glosses over this important point and goes on to say that this study is not the first one to “associate Facebook usage with diminished mental abilities.” Diminished mental abilities? Ouch! That’s actually pretty insulting and grossly erroneous considering that the study she’s using to make this insult has nothing to say about mental ability. If a group of Facebook users consistently scored lower on an IQ test than non-users, she might have some leg to stand on but a GPA is also measure of a student’s discipline and study skills. If a user is distracted with social networking, it doesn’t mean that he or she is feeble minded. He or she is probably just not doing a very good job of balancing academics and social life.

There could also be many other factors involved in why a student’s GPA is the way it is. Maybe the classes are tough. Maybe the professors grade harshly. Maybe there are other distractions unrelated to the web, like drama with a significant other or family troubles. A simple survey of users vs. non-users doesn’t control for these possibilities which is why there are experts who consider most studies on online usage inherently flawed. Hamilton makes a quick note of their opinions and briefly documents Facebook’s response before going on to rehash all the typical complaints about college students spending way too much time on the site and posting quick updates to their profiles instead of paying attention to lectures.

But some of the most controversial evidence used by Hamilton to support her idea of social networking users being distracted slackers are quotes from Susan Greenfield and Gary Small, a duo of neuroscientists known for making rather wild claims about how our brains interact with technology. Greenfield made a statement in the UK’s House of Lords that using social networking sites was “infantilizing the brain,” an assertion that was received with raised brows and criticism. In fact, one of England’s best known scientific skeptics, Dr. Ben Goldacre, called it a case of using one’s position “to give undue weight to opinion and conjecture.” And as for Small’s statement that prolonged online usage would leave “young people unable to understand the context of subtle gestures and the emotions behind them,” he’s trying to sell a book on how to survive in the digital world with your brain intact and this quote is part of his pitch.

Now interestingly enough, Hamilton tries to present these statements as actual studies rather than the opinions and assertions they actually are, once again misusing information to build a framework for what clearly seems to be her personal view of social networking sites and many of the people who use them. If this isn’t a textbook example of technophobia, I wouldn’t know what is. And the most irritating thing about it is the blatant misuse of anything that sounds somewhat scientific to present this technophobic opinion as fact.

Purchasing subscriptions to porn sites is relatively uniform across the country but there are a few noticeable differences on a state level. We’re talking about just a few people per 1,000 per a given state. And we’re also talking about purchasing subscriptions from 2006 to 2008 with no accounting for the vast amount of free porn floating all across the web. Nevertheless, the New Scientist write-up notes that 8 out of the top 10 porn consuming states handed their electoral votes to John McCain and 6 of the bottom 10 voted for Obama. Additionally, people who would agree with statements associated with socially conservative agendas had 3.6 more purchases per 1,000 state residents than those who did not.

So there seems to be a very slight correlation between conservatives and a higher rate of porn purchasing and the study itself also offers other little gems. For example, urban areas are said to buy more subscriptions until they hit a certain population density. Marriage and divorce are factors that tend to lower the amount of subscriptions bought by 0.65% and 0.28% respectively. Also, interestingly enough, younger and college educated residents tend to buy more porn at the same time as graduate degrees reduce porn purchases. But again, this is all purchases. It’s one thing to measure how much people spend on porn if that was the only way to access these entertainment services. We could make the argument that tech savvy porn hunters could skew the results of this study if we account for their use of free adult sites.

To bolster this study’s validity, it would be nice to look at the traffic patterns of a cross section of both subscription and free adult entertainment sites as well. Analytical software that counts all the views, unique visitors and tracks their geographic locations could be used to figure the location of a visitor on a state level. Using IP addresses, one could even dig down to a city level, but the farther down you try to go, the less accuracy you have due to the way IPs are assigned. If you’re sitting in NYC but the proxy you use to access the internet goes through New Jersey, a statistical chart would show you as coming from the state with which that proxy is associated. However, these cases are a small percentage of visitors and you’re usually going to have a very good idea about which state’s residents are accessing a site most often.

When traffic and purchase data are combined, we might get a very different picture or confirm the study’s findings. It could very well be that red states not only buy the most porn, they also surf for the most porn. Another scenario is that red states buy more porn while blue states are surfing for more free porn. Or free sites could be the great equalizer and balance out the porn subscriptions of red states with the free adult content visited by blue states…

See: Benjamin Edelman (2009). Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23 (1), 209-220 DOI: 10.1257/jep.23.1.209

But hold on, the article is just half the fun. What Rodney Ellis and Patrick Rose try to convey has been said many times before. Scientific research creates jobs, the fruits of scientific research create new ideas and generate more jobs when experimental becomes practical. To make it all happen, you need scientists who understand the basics of evolution rather than study watered down biology with a heavy dose of theology. Nothing new here. When you browse through the comments opposing the teaching of evolution however, we find some interesting connections and interesting factoids. First, a scary note from Jimmyk5:

The same people and organizations that have been against the SBOE for years are also strong advocates for teaching kids how to have gay sex, kill babies, anti-free enterprise and so on.

Wow, just wow. Is there anything anything else he wants to attach to that? I mean that’s a rather impressive piece of libel worthy of Ben Stein’s now infamous comparisons of scientists to Nazis and ruminations on how science makes you kill people. We’ve got homophobia, infanticide, red baiting and mentions that there’s more to it than that! I was taught evolution. I’m sure that my biology teachers trying to give us lessons on proper techniques for gay sex would be quite the memorable anecdote to tell my parents. “Hey mom, dad, you’ll never believe what Mr. Smith did with a banana, an apple and a can of lube in class today!”

I also don’t remember anything about the idea that free market capitalism was evil in a science class either or a guide to killing babies in our study guides for the final exam. Again, one would think it’s something I’d recall. Now, at this point, you might be wondering what the “and so on” might be? Well, Jimmyk5 leaves us a clue when he identifies himself to be an editor from a very sordid group known as EducationNews. His fellow editor, Donna Garner, sent a hysterical letter to the SBOE in which she proclaimed that Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist and hence, didn’t have any morals or feel any remorse for his actions. She also goes out of her way to shout from the rooftops that Dahmer “believed in evolution.”

And of course, like with all politicking creationists, Garner’s crack at defining evolution shows her compete and utter lack of understanding of the theory or of the word theory. Her point is simple. Teaching kids about evolution might turn them into atheists and since atheists are evil, they’ll do horrible things without remorse. Makes perfect sense. So what are we to expect from Jimmy Kilpatrick of the very same organization which thinks that such hysterical appeals to raw emotion are valid arguments against teaching kids actual science in school?

Then, there’s the fascinating example of another oft invoked creationist tactic. Random quotes from random, important sounding people to make their point seem legitimate. Right, because as we were all taught in science class, personal opinion and random quotations is where all the real science gets done, peer review be damned. So here’s a ditty from TigerDog:

Dr. Murray Eden of MIT said in “Mathematical challenges to the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution” said it would take billions of times the alleged 4.6 billion year age of the earth for this kind of macro evolution to occur.

Really? And how pray tell were those numbers derived? Is there a paper? A study? An article on some website perhaps? There was a Dr. Murray Eden who tried to publish some mathematical refutation to random origins of life in the MIT Press. His math was sloppy and arbitrary and his paper was dissected and vanished into obscurity, the obscurity from which creationists like to pull papers to gain a momentary illusion of scientific factuality for their beliefs. And the paper itself is now about half a century old so TigerDog has thrown out not only a woefully incorrect assertion, but a woefully outdated one as well. But it makes a good creationist sound byte so it should be good enough to work, right?

This is why I like to pay attention to comments on such topics. You never know what can crawl out of the woodwork when people’s beliefs are challenged. In this case we have irrational fear of science coupled with a heavy dose of random quotes of questionable origin.

Yes, the idea does make sense, but the evidence that’s provided for it is not very convincing. When asking children about abstract matters which try to tease out whether there’s a belief in some higher power, the quoted researchers really don’t acknowledge that by the time they’re asking kids in their study groups about the purpose of birds or trees or water, these children were probably exposed to some sort of religious ideology. Being born to parents who are almost certain to be theists and ascribe to an organized religion, it’s almost a certainty that religious ideas were an answer to some esoteric questions and they’re simply repeating their understanding of it when asked about why something exists. Take this cited survey for example:

When Deborah Kelemen of the University of Arizona in Tucson asked 7 and 8-year-old children questions about inanimate objects and animals, she found that most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy rocks are there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds exist “to make nice music”, while rivers exist so boats have something to float on.

By the time kids are 7 and 8, they’ve already had conversations with their parents about why a bird sings or why there’s so much water on Earth and their parents would’ve likely quoted their personal beliefs which were handed down from their parents, saying that everything exists or happens for a purpose. Armed with this logical tool, the children will then readily attribute any possible reason for the existence of something when prompted. For Kelemen to say that this is an innate ability is to step around a very real consideration of bias in the study’s results. If she would run a control experiment with children of ardent atheists who didn’t interact with many or any children of theists, her results would be much more compelling.

So if kids are such poor models and adults have already been exposed to an organized religion with all its cannons, how can we tell if human brains are really wired for religious belief? We can look at prehistory and consider the evolution of our ancestors’ beliefs from animism to pagan pantheons we know from the classical world. Historical evidence tells us that there’s some sort of component in our minds searching for design and purpose in everything as a byproduct of our logic. This fact is also upheld by the New Scientist article. We can say that faith began as an extension of people trying to figure out the world around them and the elaborate trappings of organized religion came much later, connecting primeval beliefs to the promotion of the class structures and legal considerations of the day while using deities as a bludgeon.

This isn’t the first time in recent memory that New Scientist tried to be provocative with covers and cover articles. While in a previous case, its editors tried to raise a storm in a teacup over a long and very well known revision to the evolutionary theory (tree of live vs. a network of life), their venture into the origins of religion is rather superficial and the arguments behind it aren’t scientifically convincing, raising more questions about how the studies were done and whether the experimenters considered an important catch or not.