Google has a lot of things going for it, as we all know. But one thing I think they really got right was that they allow their employees one day a week – that’s 20% of their time – the luxury of working on new, innovative projects for the company. This could be anything their hearts desire, no matter how wacky or overly ambitious. They then have the option to post and test out some those crazy ideas on Google Labs.
And the results are pretty telling. Without this 20% ideas policy we wouldn’t have applications like Google Books, Google Scholar, Google Earth, Gmail… the list goes on.
As a story researcher, I am lucky enough to spend lots of time being creative and coming up with ideas for stories. Of course it would always be great to have more time, but everyday more immediate tasks often keep me too busy – like working on a show that needs to go on the air right away.
But on the rare occasions I have to really think about the embryo of an idea and see what could come of it… I can’t tell you how satisfying that is. These are often pretty hair-brained ideas that may not go anywhere, but just being able to think about such things seems to enhance and foster my creativity.
So wouldn’t it be great if everyone who worked at a company that valued creativity could have some time to just think? Of course it also helps to a have a forum and place to test out these ideas, such as Google Labs. But even if those ideas go no further than the water cooler, think about how great it is to get those creative juices flowing – regardless of where it leads.
-GR
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Love – It’s all in your head
So I know I’m a bit late to be talking about love, but I was traveling on Valentine’s day so I missed out on celebrating with my beloved. But I did catch a neat podcast on the American Physiological Society’s site, Life Lines.
Lucy Brown, a neuroscientist at the Albert Einstein School of Medicine scanned the brains of young people newly in love. Making sure they thought only about love (not sex – which has its roots in another part of the brain), Dr. Brown scanned the subjects’ brains using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while they looked at photos of their beloved. She found that their feelings of love could be traced to a part of the brain called the ventral tegmental area – an area that has to do with reflexes and primitive learning (e.g. hunger, thirst) and reward systems. This suggests that romantic love is more of a primal drive to pursue a preferred mate, rather than just an emotion.
Interestingly, both chocolate and cocaine also activate this ventral tegmental area. So maybe the expression ‘love is like a drug’ isn’t too far off the mark!
Another area that was activated by the love-struck subjects was the anterior singular cortex – an area associated with obsession – no wonder there are so many former boyfriends/girlfriends out there stalking each other...
To see if the brain scan results were replicated across different cultures, the researchers did the same study in China and found that again the ventral tegmental area lit up on the fMRI. This strongly suggests that romantic love is a universal part of our evolutionary survival system.
But one big question is can you stay in love? Many report that their initial feelings of romance fades after a few years with a partner. But there are some that say they still feel that romantic ‘in love’ feeling even after ten years together. These people showed similar activity in their brains as in the newly in love subjects. These subjects may not be the norm – though they all report still feeling and acting the same way toward their partners as they did when they first met. Their secret? Keep up the excitement in the relationship by trying lots of new things together.
-GR
Lucy Brown, a neuroscientist at the Albert Einstein School of Medicine scanned the brains of young people newly in love. Making sure they thought only about love (not sex – which has its roots in another part of the brain), Dr. Brown scanned the subjects’ brains using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while they looked at photos of their beloved. She found that their feelings of love could be traced to a part of the brain called the ventral tegmental area – an area that has to do with reflexes and primitive learning (e.g. hunger, thirst) and reward systems. This suggests that romantic love is more of a primal drive to pursue a preferred mate, rather than just an emotion.
Interestingly, both chocolate and cocaine also activate this ventral tegmental area. So maybe the expression ‘love is like a drug’ isn’t too far off the mark!
Another area that was activated by the love-struck subjects was the anterior singular cortex – an area associated with obsession – no wonder there are so many former boyfriends/girlfriends out there stalking each other...
To see if the brain scan results were replicated across different cultures, the researchers did the same study in China and found that again the ventral tegmental area lit up on the fMRI. This strongly suggests that romantic love is a universal part of our evolutionary survival system.
But one big question is can you stay in love? Many report that their initial feelings of romance fades after a few years with a partner. But there are some that say they still feel that romantic ‘in love’ feeling even after ten years together. These people showed similar activity in their brains as in the newly in love subjects. These subjects may not be the norm – though they all report still feeling and acting the same way toward their partners as they did when they first met. Their secret? Keep up the excitement in the relationship by trying lots of new things together.
-GR
Guns and butter
And now, from the strange bedfellows department:
Scientists at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in Livermore, California, have their 500 trillion watt laser beam locked and loaded. Once it’s in action this spring, the laser could be a first step toward harnessing fusion energy; a window into the ultra-high pressure environments inside gas planets; and a test lab where astrophysicists can experiment on “artificial stars.” And, oh yeah, it will simulate the conditions inside a nuclear bomb. Its priorities, you may have guessed, are not necessarily in that order.
This isn’t the first time basic science has piggybacked on research of a more weaponly persuasion. Captured V-2 rockets were the workhorses of post-WWII atmospheric science; gamma ray bursts were discovered by Air Force satellites designed to spot covert nuclear blasts.
So how do we talk about science at NIF while being upfront about the machine’s real experimental priorities? You tell us.
-KB
Scientists at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in Livermore, California, have their 500 trillion watt laser beam locked and loaded. Once it’s in action this spring, the laser could be a first step toward harnessing fusion energy; a window into the ultra-high pressure environments inside gas planets; and a test lab where astrophysicists can experiment on “artificial stars.” And, oh yeah, it will simulate the conditions inside a nuclear bomb. Its priorities, you may have guessed, are not necessarily in that order.
This isn’t the first time basic science has piggybacked on research of a more weaponly persuasion. Captured V-2 rockets were the workhorses of post-WWII atmospheric science; gamma ray bursts were discovered by Air Force satellites designed to spot covert nuclear blasts.
So how do we talk about science at NIF while being upfront about the machine’s real experimental priorities? You tell us.
-KB
Getting it right
I hate to be wrong. I can still remember the time in fourth grade when we were studying powers of ten, and the teacher asked, “What’s one hundred times one hundred?” and I raised my little hand and said, “One thousand.” Oh no! Wrong! The shame still stings a little.
So maybe it’s a good thing that ours jobs as researchers involve a lot of fact-checking. Typically, our tireless associate producers do their own fact checking (two sources for every fact, plus expert reviews, if you’re wondering). Our job is to check the checking. But sometimes time is tight, or someone forgot to hire an associate producer (oops!), and then your humble researchers jump in to the void.
That’s why this article in the February 9 New Yorker (registration required) made me smile. John McPhee (who, wouldn't you know it, just happens to have a Facebook page) pays tribute to veteran fact-checker Sara Lippincott:
So next time you’re watching XXXX, and that “Voice of God” narrator comes on and intones something like, “Elephants poop 300 pounds a day,” think about the lowly fact-checker, burning the midnight oil in some carpeted cubicle somewhere, reading everything she can get her hands on about elephants' toilet habits--all in the name of getting it right.
-KB
So maybe it’s a good thing that ours jobs as researchers involve a lot of fact-checking. Typically, our tireless associate producers do their own fact checking (two sources for every fact, plus expert reviews, if you’re wondering). Our job is to check the checking. But sometimes time is tight, or someone forgot to hire an associate producer (oops!), and then your humble researchers jump in to the void.
That’s why this article in the February 9 New Yorker (registration required) made me smile. John McPhee (who, wouldn't you know it, just happens to have a Facebook page) pays tribute to veteran fact-checker Sara Lippincott:
Explaining her work to an audience at a journalism school, Sara once said, "Each word in the piece that has even a shred of fact clinging to it is scrutinized, and, if passed, given the checker's imprimatur, which consists of a tiny pencil tick."
So next time you’re watching XXXX, and that “Voice of God” narrator comes on and intones something like, “Elephants poop 300 pounds a day,” think about the lowly fact-checker, burning the midnight oil in some carpeted cubicle somewhere, reading everything she can get her hands on about elephants' toilet habits--all in the name of getting it right.
-KB
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
How Do You Put a Price on Science?
The recent economic stimulus package includes financial aid for university science departments. The bill allocates an extra $10 billion for the NIH (National Institutes of Health) and an extra $2 billion for the NSF (National Science Foundation) to stimulate shorter-term grants for science research. The provisions on the money are that it must be used soon and it must stimulate the nation’s economy.
So the question is: How will this money be spent? Most federal science research funding has remained flat for several years, so these additional funds are much needed. And while some of the money is being earmarked for laboratory and building improvements, where will the rest of it go?
Of course there are some concerns with the provisions. For example, will we cut funding in global health research in favor of more domestic benefits? Will stem cell research remain off limits, preventing us from finally catching up with the rest of the world in this fast expanding field? And what about providing jobs for all those graduating PhD scientists? While it’s great to encourage people to go into careers as scientists, it’s not so great when those people find they can’t get hired due to the lack of available positions. The NIH has urged universities to make new hires a priority as they contemplate how they will spend the stimulus funding. Will the institutions listen?
New scientific advances can undoubtedly boost the nation’s economy (particularly in the fields of clean energy and biomedicine), but we have to choose wisely in how we spend additional federal funds to make sure what science is done continues to provide for advances in all fields around the world.
-GR
So the question is: How will this money be spent? Most federal science research funding has remained flat for several years, so these additional funds are much needed. And while some of the money is being earmarked for laboratory and building improvements, where will the rest of it go?
Of course there are some concerns with the provisions. For example, will we cut funding in global health research in favor of more domestic benefits? Will stem cell research remain off limits, preventing us from finally catching up with the rest of the world in this fast expanding field? And what about providing jobs for all those graduating PhD scientists? While it’s great to encourage people to go into careers as scientists, it’s not so great when those people find they can’t get hired due to the lack of available positions. The NIH has urged universities to make new hires a priority as they contemplate how they will spend the stimulus funding. Will the institutions listen?
New scientific advances can undoubtedly boost the nation’s economy (particularly in the fields of clean energy and biomedicine), but we have to choose wisely in how we spend additional federal funds to make sure what science is done continues to provide for advances in all fields around the world.
-GR
Monday, February 23, 2009
RIP Newspaper Science Sections
It’s official – the Boston Globe has followed the lead of countless other national newspapers and has decided to deep six its ‘Health and Science’ section. I’m not surprised, really, as the section has been shrinking steadily for years. It first went from a full, robust stand-alone pull-out section to a progressively shorter couple of pages in the end of the front section just before the op-eds. This morning, as I flipped to the start of the section, I noticed a short note on the top left-hand corner of the page:
TO OUR READERS
Starting next Monday, the stories and features that now appear in the Health/Science section will move to other sections of the Globe. Personal health stories, including Health Answers and briefs about medical research, will move to “g”, which will have a personal health focus on Mondays. Science articles, including Ask Dr. Knowledge and The Green Blog, will move to the Business section, which will have a science and innovation focus on Mondays. White Coat Notes will be published online only, at www.boston.com/news/health/blog.
Is this just another sign of the times for the print media or could we look at it in a more positive manner – science is so prevalent that it doesn’t need its own section and there is a place for it in all the sections of the paper? I wish I could argue for the latter, but I fear it’s more likely the reality we are facing is that science print media is a dying breed.
I suppose that’s good for someone like myself who is in science television, but I still feel a sense of loss that yet another consistently measured and reliable form of science journalism is facing such tough times. Besides, didn’t our new president just tell us he wants to help restore science to its rightful place? Doesn’t that mean we should be working harder to cover MORE, not less science in ALL forms of media?
-GR
TO OUR READERS
Starting next Monday, the stories and features that now appear in the Health/Science section will move to other sections of the Globe. Personal health stories, including Health Answers and briefs about medical research, will move to “g”, which will have a personal health focus on Mondays. Science articles, including Ask Dr. Knowledge and The Green Blog, will move to the Business section, which will have a science and innovation focus on Mondays. White Coat Notes will be published online only, at www.boston.com/news/health/blog.
Is this just another sign of the times for the print media or could we look at it in a more positive manner – science is so prevalent that it doesn’t need its own section and there is a place for it in all the sections of the paper? I wish I could argue for the latter, but I fear it’s more likely the reality we are facing is that science print media is a dying breed.
I suppose that’s good for someone like myself who is in science television, but I still feel a sense of loss that yet another consistently measured and reliable form of science journalism is facing such tough times. Besides, didn’t our new president just tell us he wants to help restore science to its rightful place? Doesn’t that mean we should be working harder to cover MORE, not less science in ALL forms of media?
-GR
Friday, February 20, 2009
Just the facts
So, just how glamorous is life here in XXXX's research department? Let me tell you: Today, I researched giant sloth poop. (Clarification: That’s the poop of giant sloths, not oversized excrement.) Because, as fact checkers, sometimes we just need to know what ancient sloth poop is made of. How much carbon? How much nitrogen? How much phosphorous? And could it really be true that researchers found a 5 foot high pile of the stuff in a cave?
This is the kind of research that makes you hope your boss isn’t looking over your shoulder as you peruse, say, smellypoop.com, or as you type “What is poop made of?” into Google.
Why does XXXX care what sloth poop is made of, anyway? The more carbon it contains, the easier it is for scientists to determine its age via radiocarbon dating. And that is important for figuring out exactly when these giant sloths roamed the Earth--and when they disappeared, along with a whole zoo of their supersized "megafauna" friends. So what happened to Earth's Big and Tall department 13,000 or so years ago? Did humans use newfangled spears to kill them all off? Did climate change do them in? Or was the culprit something...cosmic? That's the question in XXXX, which is coming up on March 31.
And, by the way, if you happen to know the composition of sloth poop....Let's talk.
This is the kind of research that makes you hope your boss isn’t looking over your shoulder as you peruse, say, smellypoop.com, or as you type “What is poop made of?” into Google.
Why does XXXX care what sloth poop is made of, anyway? The more carbon it contains, the easier it is for scientists to determine its age via radiocarbon dating. And that is important for figuring out exactly when these giant sloths roamed the Earth--and when they disappeared, along with a whole zoo of their supersized "megafauna" friends. So what happened to Earth's Big and Tall department 13,000 or so years ago? Did humans use newfangled spears to kill them all off? Did climate change do them in? Or was the culprit something...cosmic? That's the question in XXXX, which is coming up on March 31.
And, by the way, if you happen to know the composition of sloth poop....Let's talk.
‘Sexy’ Science
I was recently in Chicago for the annual AAAS meeting. The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) is the largest professional science organization in the world. Some 10,000 people participate in the meeting – so it can be a bit overwhelming, to say the least.
This year, though, I had a mission. I focused in large part on the many sessions dealing with evolution. Evolution was a big part of the conference clearly because of the famous naturalist Charles Darwin’s birthday (he turned 200 on Feb. 12, in case you hadn’t heard).
One of the more entertaining sessions I went to featured Dr. Olivia Judson, an evolutionary biologist at Imperial College London, author, television personality and New York Times blogger. Her session dealt with the topic of evolution and sexual behavior.
Even Darwin understood that there was such a thing as ‘sexual selection,’ where animals evolve certain features to attract mates (like the peacock’s flashy tail). But according to Dr. Judson, there are some pretty crazy examples of ways animals have evolved to mate. For instance, the male green spoon worm is 200,000 times smaller than the female so that it can live in its mate’s reproductive system and fertilize her eggs directly.
Or take the case of apes. Female gorillas mate with one male at a time. Because there is no competition among the males for that female, the males don’t need to produce as much sperm. So they have smaller testicles. Chimps, on the other hand, aren’t so monogamous – the females will mate with lots of males. That means the more sperm a male produces, the more likely he will fertilize that female’s eggs. Not surprisingly, male chimps have far larger testicles than gorillas. This is all part of the study of ‘sperm competition.’ (Read more on Dr. Judson’s blog at: http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/a-seedy-rivalry/)
Then there is the black-headed duck. The female duck lays her eggs in another bird’s nest so she can abandon them and they then hatch on their own. What this means is that the baby duck needs to have innate knowledge from the minute it is born of how to find its relatives, how to feed and protect itself, etc. So these behaviors have to be genetically encoded.
This is not so clear-cut in humans. We know that human babies raised without any human contact do not develop properly. So unlike in the black-headed duck, human behavior goes beyond genetics and must require some environmental influence. It’s the old ‘nature versus nurture’ question all over again.
The one point that was clear from all of Dr. Judson’s highly entertaining examples of sexual evolution is that the influence of genetics and the environment on behavior is a very exciting field that could help us understand much more about evolution and sex.
-GR
This year, though, I had a mission. I focused in large part on the many sessions dealing with evolution. Evolution was a big part of the conference clearly because of the famous naturalist Charles Darwin’s birthday (he turned 200 on Feb. 12, in case you hadn’t heard).
One of the more entertaining sessions I went to featured Dr. Olivia Judson, an evolutionary biologist at Imperial College London, author, television personality and New York Times blogger. Her session dealt with the topic of evolution and sexual behavior.
Even Darwin understood that there was such a thing as ‘sexual selection,’ where animals evolve certain features to attract mates (like the peacock’s flashy tail). But according to Dr. Judson, there are some pretty crazy examples of ways animals have evolved to mate. For instance, the male green spoon worm is 200,000 times smaller than the female so that it can live in its mate’s reproductive system and fertilize her eggs directly.
Or take the case of apes. Female gorillas mate with one male at a time. Because there is no competition among the males for that female, the males don’t need to produce as much sperm. So they have smaller testicles. Chimps, on the other hand, aren’t so monogamous – the females will mate with lots of males. That means the more sperm a male produces, the more likely he will fertilize that female’s eggs. Not surprisingly, male chimps have far larger testicles than gorillas. This is all part of the study of ‘sperm competition.’ (Read more on Dr. Judson’s blog at: http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/a-seedy-rivalry/)
Then there is the black-headed duck. The female duck lays her eggs in another bird’s nest so she can abandon them and they then hatch on their own. What this means is that the baby duck needs to have innate knowledge from the minute it is born of how to find its relatives, how to feed and protect itself, etc. So these behaviors have to be genetically encoded.
This is not so clear-cut in humans. We know that human babies raised without any human contact do not develop properly. So unlike in the black-headed duck, human behavior goes beyond genetics and must require some environmental influence. It’s the old ‘nature versus nurture’ question all over again.
The one point that was clear from all of Dr. Judson’s highly entertaining examples of sexual evolution is that the influence of genetics and the environment on behavior is a very exciting field that could help us understand much more about evolution and sex.
-GR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
