In 2006, tennis fans were awed by a new technology that would help officials judge disputed line calls. The system, called "Hawk-Eye," added an incredible new facet to the sport. Players could now challenge questionable line calls. No more would players be held hostage by the imperfections of human judgement and eyesight. Technology was here to save the day.

Five years later, Hawk-Eye is the most successful example of technology being used to help officiate a sport. Not only is it accurate to within 3.6 millimeters, Hawk-Eye adds a new level of excitement to tennis. Challenges are displayed for all to see on television as well as on the stadium big screen. The crowd claps in unison and anxiously looks on as the ball flies through its trajectory from racket hit to court contact. Will it land in or out? What drama! The result is greeted by a raucous mixture of sighs, groans, cheers, or even colorful metaphors depending upon the outcome.


Hawk-Eye is an incredible piece of technology. Using anywhere from four to ten high-speed video cameras positioned around the tennis court, the system triangulates the exact 3-D position of the ball throughout the rally. It also takes weather and other environmental conditions into account. According to Hawk-Eye Innovations:

[Triangulation] is repeated for each frame so that the 3D positions of the ball can be combined to produce a single trajectory of the flight of the ball. The trajectory is then used to calculate an exact bounce contact area the ball made with the court.

So, technically, the digital mark that you see on the Hawk-Eye replay is only the projected strike of the ball on the tennis court. This has prompted two British scientists, Henry Collins and Robert Evans, both of Cardiff University, to question the system's legitimacy.

"It's absolutely vital to have a health warning stamped on this because what you see with Hawk-Eye doesn't always correspond to what's actually happened," said Harry Collins, a social sciences professor at Cardiff University.  "When [Hawk Eye] says that a ball was 1 millimeter in, what they should say is that 'it was 1 millimeter in, we think.'"

Collins and Evans released an in-depth review of Hawk-Eye in a recent issue of Public Understanding of Science, in which they pointed out the technology's flaws. The authors insisted that the use of Hawk-Eye represents a "false transparency" because it is used without offering "appropriate knowledge of its limitations." Thus, Hawk-Eye gives the impression that justice is being done when, in fact, it may not be.

Collins and Evans suggested that the role of Hawk-Eye in tennis should not be used to grant epistemological privilege. Instead, it should be used merely to avoid big mistakes. To fix this, they recommended creating a "zone of uncertainty." If the tennis ball is shown to land within this zone, then the original call should be enforced.

Despite these scientists' misgivings, Hawk-Eye has been hailed as a tremendous boon for tennis and calls have been made to extend its use to both baseball and soccer.

While Hawk-Eye does have inherent scientific imperfections, in this case, science simply serves as a buzz-kill. As we have seen in tennis, Hawk-Eye has been almost universally accepted as both a fair and exciting addition to the sport. Seeing as how the basic goal of any sport is entertainment, the consensus appeal of Hawk-Eye should determine its success, not science.

Two days before the release of her seventh Harry Potter novel, J.K. Rowling lashed out at the New York Times and other publications for publishing plot details as part of their book reviews.

"I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children, who wanted to reach Harry's final destination by themselves, in their own time," Rowling said.

Rowling's discontent was understandable, however it may have been tempered if she took heed of a common saying: "It is not the 'what' that really matters, it is the 'how.'"

Parents and other purveyors of wisdom have employed this one-liner for years, adapting it to various facets of life. For example:

"It is not winning that counts, it is how you play the game."

"It is not what you make in life that matters, it is how you live it."

Skeptics often dismiss these sayings as codswallop, however science is now giving credibility to some of them.

Don't worry, Ms. Rowling, researchers at the University of California - San Diego recently discovered that providing spoilers to readers does not ruin stories for them, quite the opposite in fact. The scientists supplied subjects with twelve different short stories, some spoiled and some unspoiled, and asked subjects to rate the stories when they were finished reading. Spoiled versions were rated more favorably than unspoiled versions for eleven of the twelve stories.

Writers always place great importance on crafting a satisfying conclusion to a story, but the spoiler study shows that what really matters is how that conclusion is reached. "It could be that once you know how it turns out, you're more comfortable processing the information and can focus on a deeper understanding of the story," surmised Jonathan Leavitt, the study's co-author.

The "It's not the what, it's the how" credo also extends beyond plot spoilers. In 1981, Psychologist Albert Mehrabian showed us that it is often not what you say but how you say it that actually matters. For example, if you say "I love you" with an angry tone while flapping your arms in a threatening manner, the person with who are speaking will be more likely to recoil in confusion than to embrace you with open arms.

The statement, "It is not the what that matters, it is the how" is often be spurned as a simple platitude, but remember, there is scientific data that gives meaning to this common truism.

After all, it is not the end of Harry Potter's journey that matters; it is how much you enjoyed the journey that matters.

James Bond flicks are a blast to watch. The cheeky one-liners, the eccentric villains, and the explosive action sequences make these movies first-class entertainment.

But perhaps one of the coolest aspects of the Bond franchise is the secret agent's regular visits to the ever-quirky character, Q, who decks out 007 with the latest and greatest gadgetry. These trips serve to supply Mr. Bond with the essentials. You know, things like jet packs, cars that can operate under water, cloaking devices, and laser-equipped Rolex watches. After seeing these cool contraptions, one can't help but wonder if real-life operatives are given toys like these - and if they are, who are the real-life Qs bringing these futuristic technologies to life?

Meet DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency.  Widely known for developing ARPANET, the principal forerunner of the Internet, DARPA's primary mission is to maintain the technological superiority of the United States military. Sometimes, however, the agency's endeavors bring about changes beyond the scope of its militaristic intentions. Case-in-point: the Internet. With its experiments, DARPA reaches towards the future by pushing the limits of technology. Some of the agency's projects are simply mind-blowing.

For example, the currently-in-development Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR) is a vehicle that can forage for biomass to fuel itself. The automaton sparked a small measure of controversy in 2009 when a report surfaced stating that the robot could ingest human remains and use it as fuel. To silence the critics, EATR's makers quickly countered that the machine was "strictly vegetarian."


Staying on the subject of robots, from 2003 to 2008 DARPA funded CALO, the most ambitious venture to date in artificial intelligence. The project gathered together over 300 researchers from 25 institutions to construct a cognitive assistant that could reason, learn, take orders, and explain what it's doing. Over five hundred unique scientific articles have been written on CALO since its inception.

Not wanting to be bound by traffic lines and stop signs - or, for that matter, gravity - Americans have nurtured a fixation with flying cars for decades. Looking back in time, it sometimes seems like every other issue of Popular Science depicted such a vehicle on the front page. DARPA is now setting its sights on making this futuristic fantasy a present reality. The agency is currently designing a flying Humvee for the military. The project will undoubtedly have ramifications for the future of transportation.

As you can imagine, DARPA is staffed by risk-takers, and their experiments haven't always been as wildly successful as ARPANET. Take the Sea Shadow, for instance. The ship was developed to examine the application of stealth technology and automation on naval vessels. However, it was never fully commissioned and after five years of trying to give the ship away, the Navy announced in June that the ship was to be dismantled for recycling.

If you're feeling sorry for DARPA over the Sea Shadow, don't. The project won a key consolation prize - it served as the inspiration for the stealth ship in the James Bond film, Tomorrow Never Dies.

Fear is one of the most powerful emotions in existence. It is also one of the most analyzed. A quick Google search reveals a bounty of studies on fear. Here's a sampling of what is out there:

• Scientists have discovered that fear is spread by body language. (See Godzilla for tips on the matter.)
  

• Research has shown that you can teach a monkey to fear a snake, but not to fear a flower. (Humans, however, are quite capable of fearing flowers.)

• Lab studies have revealed that light can diminish fear and anxiety. (Unless, of course, turning on the light reveals the monster that I just knew was crouching in the dark recesses of my closet!)
  

For the most part, fear is classified as an unpleasant, albeit necessary emotion. But if fear is so disagreeable, then why do many of us seek out to experience it through movies, daredevil antics, or other mediums?

Well, some of us are just hormone junkies.


The aforementioned situation is very similar to why some may choose to listen to sad music. In an earlier Newton article, I explained how sad music can create a "sham state" of sadness for the listener, thus causing the release of prolactin, a hormone that produces a comforting effect.

Getting high on hormones is all fine and good, but just remember that scary movies could serve as gateway drugs to slightly stranger pursuits. In 2002, some New Yorkers paid thousands of dollars to be "kidnapped for kicks."

Come on man, give it a try. All the cool New Yorkers are doing it.

Tempting, but no thanks. I think I'll stick with watching The Ring.

It is often with little thought that you might flip on the television and plop yourself down onto the couch. As the time slides by, the welcoming folds of the sofa seem like quicksand as you sink into their comforting caress. Your heart rate slows to a crawl. Your muscles relax. Your brain becomes understimulated. At this point, the thought of rising from the padded cushions seems just as daunting notion of scaling Mount Everest; but rise you must... eventually.

It takes incredible force of will to push yourself into a sitting position. The fact that you then manage to stand up is simply miraculous. It has been three hours since the "laze fest" began. With a shake of the head to enervate the senses, you look at the clock and realize... it's time for bed.

We've all felt the urge to laze at one time or another. Sometimes, there's simply nothing better. But chronic couch-sitting has some proven drawbacks. Among them:

• Bones lose density as mineral salts are withdrawn (a blob needs no bones...)

• Muscles atrophy from lack of stimulation

• Genes regulating the amount of glucose and fat in the body shut down

In 2008, a study from the American Medical Association showed that laziness amongst humans really sets in by age fifteen (presumably because we realize we can experience the outside world through video games, television, and the internet).

While 90% of 9-year-olds get a couple hours of exercise most days, fewer than 3% of 15-year-olds do.

What's more, the study suggests that fewer than a third of teens at that age get even the minimum recommended by the government -- an hour of moderate-to-vigorous exercise, like cycling, brisk walking, swimming or jogging.

Researchers have also discovered that some people may be genetically predisposed to laziness. Two separate studies from the University of California and the University of North Carolina found that certain genes determine physical activity levels in mice. According to Time:

Exercise-prone mice put in a good 5 to 8 miles per day (the equivalent of an average man running 40 to 50 miles a day) vs. 0.3 miles per day for inactive mice. While the exercise wheels of the activity-prone mice would turn all night, some of the sedentary mice devised ingenious ways to avoid activity. One stuffed wood shavings around the wheel and turned it into a bed; one used it as an, ahem, toilet; and one climbed on top of her wheel only to get a better look at the overhead sensors tracking her movements.

As speculated by both studies' principal researchers, it is possible that a drug could be formulated that would make us want to exercise. Can you imagine it? Furniture manufacturers will be up in arms (and down in their sales of armchairs)!

A laundry list of contentious issues litters the annals of science. Topics such as evolution, climate change, the beginning of human life, and heliocentrism have all spurred vehement and occasionally violent disputes.

Now, it is time to add another issue to this list. Debated on television, in newspapers, between friends, on college campuses, and around the dinner table, this issue has potentially sparked more controversy than the combined quarrels from the world's vast assortment of Twitter accounts. I'm talking, of course, about the "Five-second Rule."

The Five-second Rule states that any morsel of food that is dropped on the ground will not be contaminated with bacteria if it is picked up within five seconds of being dropped. Numerous scientific studies have put this rule to the test.

One of the first documented studies on the Five-second Rule occurred in 2003 at the University of Illinois. Researcher Jillian Clarke dropped gummy worms and cookies on floor tiles inoculated with E. coli bacteria and left them there for five seconds. Clarke found that "In all cases, E. coli was transferred from the tile to the food..."

However, four years later, Connecticut College seniors Molly Goettsche and Nicole Moin decided to put the Five-second Rule to the test once again. Stating that the previous U of I study was "not representative of what actually happens," the scientists sought to scrutinize the rule in an everyday environment. Goettsche and Moin dropped apple slices and skittles at various dining locations on their college campus and allowed the food to sit for five, ten, thirty, sixty, and 300 seconds. The researchers then swabbed the foods and placed the scrapes onto agar.

Goettsche and Moin's research turned out a very different result than Clarke's. "The women found no bacteria were present on the foods that had remained on the floor for five, ten, or thirty seconds."


So here we are, with two well-executed studies and the legitimacy of the Five-second Rule still left in the balance. Unfortunately, it may remain that way. The application of the rule vastly depends on such variables as food type, floor type, and the subject's level of germophobia.

While doctors may argue that "The Five-second Rule probably should become the zero-second rule," others, who may be less germophobic, less inclined to waste, or simply hungrier, will probably agree with Goettsche and Moin's assessment that the Five-second Rule should be changed to the Thirty-second Rule. (RealClearScience's editor, Alex Berezow, a PhD in microbiology, has even written on the merits of eating dirt.)

Though science does its best to seek out answers to life's little mysteries, it may not be the best discipline for those seeking comfort in certainty. Controversial debates are a mainstay in this branch of knowledge, and with heated issues such as the Five-second Rule, science is sure to remain a source of contention for mankind.

They make us laugh. They make us cry.
They make us, "Awwwwwwwww." You can't deny.
"Just who are they?"
I heard you say.
Sea otters, of course. It isn't a lie.

This corny limerick aside, sea otters are incredibly fascinating mammals.

Oceanic kelp forests are recognized as one of the most vigorous and productive ecosystems on earth. Sea otters are widely regarded as a keystone species in these habitats because they consume the benthic herbivorous invertebrates that would otherwise overgraze the kelp. Studies have shown that when otters are removed from such ecosystems, a breakdown of the trophic cascade may occur, causing the entire ecosystem to rapidly deteriorate. It is because of their keystone role that the critters are considered a "sentinel" for the health of coastal oceans.

Studies have also indicated that sea otters could help sequester up to 10 million tons of carbon in the ocean by allowing the kelp to grow. This makes the otters worth over $700 million in the European carbon trading market.

In their natural capacity, sea otters obviously have large effects, but their influence also extends over humans. Considered by many to be one of the most adorable animals in the world, the critters have caused millions of people worldwide to smile, giggle, or wave their hands uncontrollably. (The effect is vastly intensified when viewing a baby sea otter.) It's all because of the "cute" effect.

In 1949, famed zoologist and ethologist, Konrad Lorenz, theorized that certain features of infants trigger nurturing responses in adults, making parents more likely to care for their offspring. Sea otters sport almost all of these juvenile features throughout their lifespan. Disproportionately large heads? Check. Large eyes set relatively low on the face? Check. Button noses? Check. Soft, round bodies? Check. When looking at otters, humans can't resist the urge to, "Awwwwwww."

In 2006, South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone exploited this urge for their episode "Go God Go." The episode portended a world where highly evolved sea otters battled for dominance with humans. I would argue that sea otters already have the tools to be dominant over humans. All they have to do is make that cuddly and captivating squeaking noise.

Another doctor's appointment...

Sitting on the examination table, you twiddle your thumbs and wonder if those succulent hospital lollipops might be hidden away in a cupboard. Maybe I'll take a quick glance... Dismissing the thought as childish, you instead check your watch. Boy, the "doc" sure is taking his time. You look up and analyze the white walls, the white cabinet, and the whitish painting undoubtedly chosen for its calming effect. Your eyes wander to the brochure stand. I wonder if there's anything good in those pamphlets? You plant you hands on the table, ready to shove yourself onto your feet when the doctor re-enters. He cuts to the chase and tells you the news. You're going to require an x-ray for your lower back, a CT angiography, and some blood work. Just as a precaution. Gee, I just went in for mild chest pain, I don't know if I want all of that. Uggghhhh. What should I do?

Sharon Begley, science editor for Newsweek, might argue that you should simply tell the doctor, "No."  In her recent article, "One Word Can Save Your Life: No!" Begley calls our attention to the surfeit of unnecessary tests and procedures being performed in hospitals, which are not only bloating our nation's healthcare costs - now $2.7 trillion per year - but may also be doing more harm than good. To call her piece "eye-opening" is an understatement.

As Begley points out, there are a lot of reasons to just say "no" to a wide variety of tests and treatments:

At least five large, randomized controlled studies have analyzed treatments for stable heart patients who have nothing worse than mild chest pain. Every study found that the surgical procedures didn't improve survival rates or quality of life more than noninvasive treatments including drugs, exercise, and a healthy diet.

Many of the 500,000 elective angioplasties (at least $50,000 each) performed every year are done on patients who could benefit more from drugs, exercise, and healthy eating.

Expert groups advise against colonoscopies for anyone over age 75 or who has had a negative exam in the last ten years. Yet a study of Medicare patients found that 46 percent had a screening colonoscopy fewer than seven years after a negative one. Making matters worse, many of them were over 80.

Arthroscopic knee surgery for osteoarthritis is performed about 650,000 times a year; studies show that it, too, is no more effective than placebo treatment, yet taxpayers and private insurers pay for it.

After reading these staggering facts (and the above list is only a sampling), I couldn't help but get the impression that visiting the doctor is really a lot like going to the auto mechanic. I had never thought of a trip to hospital in this manner before, but the comparison makes a lot of sense.

Think back to the very first situation. With a little adjustment, that same scenario transpires in countless numbers of car shops each and every year. You bring in your car because the breaks are squeaking, and suddenly that squeak calls for thousands of dollars worth of tests and repairs. Now, the beginning of the doctor and mechanic scenarios are very similar, but there's a huge difference in what happens next.

At the mechanic, I would wager that the vast majority of Americans would turn down a bulk of those tests and repairs (probably with a hint of incredulity). Instead, most of us would probably go to a different mechanic for a second opinion, call in to National Public Radio's Car Talk, or simply do nothing at all. However, at the doctor's office, I would place an equally large wager that almost all of us would accede to the suggested tests with little hesitation. Why take the chance? After all, if you're on Medicare or have health insurance with a low deductible, you won't be paying for most of the costs Right?

In her article, Sharon Begley answers that question unequivocally.

Experts estimate that the U.S. spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year on medical procedures that provide no benefit or a substantial risk of harm, suggesting that Medicare could save both money and lives if it stopped paying for some common treatments. "There's a reason we spend almost twice as much per capita on health care [as other developed countries] with no gain in health or longevity," argues Dr. Steven Nissen, the noted cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic. "We spend money like a drunken sailor on shore leave."

Six days ago, the Pentagon "lost contact" with its HTV-2 hypersonic plane, nine minutes into its twenty-minute test flight. ("Lost contact" being a euphemistic way of saying that the plane probably exploded into more pieces than are in that jigsaw puzzle you were too lazy to finish.) At a glance, the project seems like an abject failure - another waste of taxpayer dollars. Just check the headlines:

"US looks for answers after hypersonic plane fails."

"US loses contact with hypersonic test glider."

"The Pentagon's Amazing Failure."

"Mach 20 test goes awry, military craft lost."

Yes, the test was technically unsuccessful - it was supposed to last twenty minutes. Yes, the test was also expensive - it cost $120 million. But no, it should not be viewed as a complete failure. In the quest for innovation there are always risks, and in this case the risks were well in line with the potential rewards.


Some might argue that the experiment was an impossible mission, but I would contend that the flight should be viewed in another light. It was a bold undertaking that was nothing less than awe-inspiring. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the government entity that oversaw the flight, was attempting something that had never been done before. DARPA's goal was to test a plane that could travel at over 13,000 miles per hour, could withstand 3,500 degree Fahrenheit temperatures, and could theoretically reach anywhere in the world in under an hour. Wait, let me put that in bold for you: A plane that could travel at 13,000mph, could withstand 3,500 degree temperatures, and could reach anywhere in the world in under an hour.

This was a daring experiment and there was nothing routine about it. Sure, taxpayers are out $120 million, but that cost was a calculated risk - one that was well worth taking. The ramifications of a successful test were massive. Imagine traveling from "New York to Los Angeles in twelve minutes." $120 million is not an exorbitant cost for an experiment when its results could lead to a breakthrough in air travel worth many, many times more to a countless number of people.

In the words of author Michael Belfiore, "Failure, as it turns out, has to be an option to enable the big successes." 

Dr. Michael Osterholm believes there are three pillars of public health: Pasteurization, immunization, and chlorination. To these, he has suggested adding a fourth: irradiation.

Food irradiation uses electromagnetic radiation to kill bacteria in the food. It doesn't cause the food to become radioactive, and it appears to only have a minor effect on nutrition. Think putting your vegetables and meat in an X-ray scanner. It would be something like that.

Critics usually say that proper agricultural practices would preclude the need for this technique. But, they are wrong, and research from Purdue University explains why. Both E. coli and Salmonella, which are responsible for a substantial proportion of foodborne outbreaks, can be found inside plant tissue. That means no amount of washing and scrubbing will eliminate these potentially deadly bacteria.

There is a solution: Zap the veggies, fruits, and meat before they arrive on our dinner tables.

Sometimes, it seems like science and religion can never get along; just check the news.

To some religious people, the teaching of evolution in schools is a travesty and their quest to purge Darwin from the classroom continues.

On the other side, some scientists appear to discriminate against religion. In the past year, we have seen a chief scientist fired for his skeptical views on evolution and we've witnessed an astronomer get denied a job because of his religious beliefs.

Can't we all just get along? For goodness' sake, the people feuding on both sides should at least be able to concede a few points.

Those favoring science have to at least admit that religion can be a force for good. According to a 2005-2009 Gallup world poll:

Religious affiliation appears to boost happiness and well-being in societies that fail to provide adequate food, jobs, health care, security and educational opportunities, the researchers found.

And those favoring religion have to at least admit that creationism can't explain everything. Professor Francisco Ayala, a scientist and former Dominican priest, has this to say on the matter:

Science is compatible with belief [in] an [omnipotent] and benevolent God, creationism is missing out, because if all organisms were designed by God, God will have a lot to account for.

The good news is that the conflict between science and religion is not as widespread as it is purported to be. As Matt Rossano, professor of psychology at Southeastern Louisiana University reported:

Media-hungry atheist, creationist and religious fundamentalist provocateurs have successfully dominated the science and religion narrative for the past decade or so. In doing so, they have created the false impression of an ongoing unavoidable war between the two camps.

To back this assertion, Rossano cited a Penn State survey of over 10,000 students from 200 college campuses. The study showed that 70% of incoming freshman view the relationship between science and religion as either independent or collaborative. In addition, the study showed that after two years of college a large portion of students who originally viewed science and religion as in conflict adopted either an "independent" or "collaborative" stance.

This information certainly doesn't make it seem that religion and science are at odds. As Rossano reasoned, the likely explanation for this misconception is that a handful of scientific and religious zealots are creating a "false impression" of conflict. 

I believe in giving understanding a chance. For the ideologues on both sides who are perpetuating the feud between science and religion, I have some small advice that may ease the tensions. 

To the religious: Having faith is worthy of admiration, but don't let your faith be blind.

To the scientific: Utilizing reason is commendable, but don't allow reason to cloud out possibility.

"I only dance when I'm drunk."

Most of us have heard this one before. Heck, you might have even said it yourself.  Whatever social constraints prevent us from bustin' a move when sober, our inebriation is actually doing us favor by kicking those inhibitions to the curb. While many alcohol inspired behaviors are self-destructive (fighting, hooliganism, etc.), dancing lies in stark contrast. Those that choose to booze and groove are receiving terrific psychological and physical benefits.

First, dancing is a wonderful aerobic exercise. According to the American Council on Exercise, for a 154lb (70kg) person, moderate dancing burns 5.6 calories per minute. For many of us, drunk dancing is anything but "moderate," so the caloric expenditure may be even higher.  Put those beer carbohydrates to good use... on the dance floor!

Second, dancing causes you to metabolize alcohol faster, thus allowing you to sober off more quickly. In a segment examining the merits of various "sober-up" techniques, Mythbusters found vigorous exercise to both improve hand-eye coordination and reduce blood-alcohol levels. To revelers, these attributes translate to decreased sloppiness and extended party time.


Third - and this is for the guys out there - dancing can also help to attract that special someone. A study published in Biology Letters had women view various clips of dancing human avatars and asked them to rate the dance sequences. The researchers were then able to identify eleven movements positively associated with perceived dance quality. Authors of the study stated that "attractive human dance moves, particularly those of males, have been reported to show associations with measures of physical strength, prenatal androgenization and symmetry." In other words, good dancing can make you more attractive. (Disclaimer: The Newton Blog is not responsible for any embarrassment incurred from the use of silly or poor dance maneuvers.) 

So, you think you can drunk dance? Even if the answer is "no," dance anyways. Science says so!

The preteen years were mischievous times for most of us. We all can probably remember when we did something that... well... we probably shouldn't have done. 

I can remember when my friends and I, in violation of school rules, downloaded a certain piece of software on dozens of school computers. Surprisingly enough, we weren't misusing our computer privileges to hack into the systems or to pull a prank. No, we were breaking the rules in the name of science! The software that we downloaded was Folding@Home, and we wanted to set as many computers to folding proteins for our "folding team" as possible.

Stanford's Folding@Home was a pioneering project in citizen science. By downloading the program, which is still growing in popularity, everyday people can set their computer's unused processing power to fold proteins. Folding@Home even allows you to form teams and keeps track of your progress. (It was this competitive aspect that drove my friends and I to exploit our school's computers.)

Protein folding is an incredibly intricate process, much too intricate for a lone computer. But today, with over 350,000 home computers set to the task of folding, the process is significantly expedited. This could bring us closer to understanding diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and Mad Cow.

The point of Folding@Home, and other programs like it, is to harness the vast power of everyday citizens. Science is not a discipline that is reserved for academia; academia actually wants help. Right now, thousands of citizen scientists are in the field observing wildlife, collecting precipitation data, and even analyzing mastodon fossils. Anyone can get involved.

At it's most fundamental levels, science is not about immense research laboratories, PhDs, and white cloaks; science is about asking questions and making observations about our world and everything in it. With some quantifiable data and a little bit of logic and insight, anybody can help to affect positive change and foster understanding.

Humans are undoubtedly the dominant species on planet Earth and have been for an estimated 200,000 years. Not bad. How's that Homo sapiens pride doing? Pretty good. It feels good to be the superior species, doesn't it? You bet it does!

Now hear this: dinosaurs ruled the Earth for up to 166 million years. Sure, 200,000 is a respectable number, but it's no 166 million. Buzz kill.

Comparatively speaking, humans have been the masters of the Earth for less time than it takes to sneeze, so who's to say our reign will be eternal?

A blockbuster film that takes a look at this tantalizing subject is now in theaters. The Rise of the Planet of Apes lays out a clearly fictitious (yet thoroughly entertaining) path for intelligent animals to knock humans off the podium. While this dreaded scenario that the film lays out is very unlikely, it can't possibly hurt for humans to be prepared. Let's take a look at four of the likeliest species who might be smart enough to one-day scheme their way to the top.

1. Parrots. Sure, Alex the Parrot has passed away (may he rest in peace). But who's to say that one of his brothers or sisters won't one day grow tired of identifying objects and answering questions for scientists and instead decide to lead their species on a worldwide rebellion?

This week, NASA scientists revealed the strongest evidence yet of flowing water on Mars. The ramifications of this information are enormous, given that running water is widely considered to be a key requirement for the development of life. If water is indeed flowing freely on Mars' surface, this discovery provides new conviction to the hope of finding life on the planet.

"NASA's Mars Exploration Program keeps bringing us closer to determining whether the Red Planet could harbor life in some form," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said, "and it reaffirms Mars as an important future destination for human exploration."

It is my hope that a finding of this magnitude will spark renewed enthusiasm for devising a manned mission to the "Red Planet." What could be more worthwhile than finally answering the question of whether or not life is only endemic to planet Earth?

Unfortunately, I doubt any such discussion could survive or even begin in the current political climate. A "we can't" atmosphere has taken hold of Washington, D.C. Now, most politicians seem to look at everything through a narrow, short term lens that focuses purely on costs and poll numbers. Lost, in this distorted view, is the long-term picture.

It is hard to believe, but there was a time when things were different.

In May of 1961, John F. Kennedy laid out a bold long-term plan. Forty years later, we have yet to see its equal: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

Kennedy justified a lunar mission by insisting that it would focus the nation's energies upon other scientific and social fields. This grand endeavor did much more. The race to the moon inspired a generation. Steven Dick, NASA's chief historian, said this about the project's significance:

"Putting a man on the moon not only inspired the nation, but also the world. The 1960s were a tumultuous time in the U.S., and the moon landing showed what could be accomplished at a time when much else was going wrong."

 
The polarizing philosopher and scientist, Friedrich Nietzsche, had a saying that may be relevant to America's current situation: "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." The Great Recession has certainly not killed us, but if we want America to emerge even stronger, we have to think about what is possible, instead of what isn't. We have to dream big for the future. And this future should include a manned mission to Mars.

The discovery of flowing water on Mars is a monumental finding. It should encourage us all to replace, "We can't," with, "We can."

Most people would agree that a sunrise is a beautiful thing to behold, with only one minor drawback: It occurs in the morning.

In the morning, most of us are too busy fumbling with alarm clocks or dazedly stumbling around to gaze outside and appreciate the picturesque tinges of red and the streaming hues of amber that define the dawn sky. We have to get ready for the day! There's no time to look at a sunrise.

Needless to say, many of us are not morning people, but thankfully, science has some recommendations on how to start the day off right. Here are a few:

1. Take your time, especially on Mondays. A study from Tokyo Women's Medical University fixed 175 participants with blood pressure monitors and took readings over the course of one week. Researchers found that the highest blood pressure readings occurred on Monday mornings when participants were getting ready for work. Giving yourself plenty of time in the morning may help to relieve this stress.

2. Tame your alarm clock. A loud, shrill alarm may cause your heart rate to skyrocket and may put your brain in an immediate state of alert. If possible, change your alarm to a gentler tone that wont jar you out of bed and send you into the flight response.

3. Eat breakfast. We hear this one all the time. Countless studies have showcased the benefits of eating breakfast. Some of the positive effects include improved academic performance, increased physical activity, boosted memory, and even protection from lead poisoning.

4. Have sex. Research by Dr. Debby Herbenick shows that adults who make love in the morning are happier and have stronger immune systems. (Mounting scientific evidence is demonstrating that sex is extraordinarily healthy.)

With these suggestions in mind, say "goodbye" to your morning woes and "hello" to a morning sunrise!

"Ive been involved with the auto industry my entire life... And for most of those years, I've worried about, how am I going to sell more cars and trucks? But today I worry about, what if all we do is sell more cars and trucks? What happens when the number of vehicles on the road doubles, triples, or even quadruples?"

Bill Ford, great-grandson of Henry Ford, tendered this thought-provoking notion at the beginning of his talk at TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) 2011. After musing about his childhood, college life, and early experiences working at his great-grandfather's company, Ford focused in on a very pressing matter.

"The freedom of mobility that my great-grandfather brought to people is now being threatened."

With the human population expected to rise from 6.8 billion now to 9 billion by mid century, a 32% increase, a planet more crowded with people won't be the only problem humans face. According to Ford, the number of cars on worldwide roadways is projected to rise from 800 million now to 2-4 billion by 2050, potentially a 400% increase.

"This is going to create the kind of global gridlock that the world has never seen before," Ford said.

And we've already witnessed gridlock. Last summer there was a seventy-four mile traffic jam in China that lasted for eleven days.

"It's clear that the mobility model that we have today simply will not work tomorrow," Ford contended.

So how do we prepare for this eventuality?

"The answer to more cars is simply not to have more roads," Ford asserted.

Ford insisted that a blend of additional public transportation, better designed roadways, and a more integrated system (i.e. Hong Kong's Octopus) are all good ways to start, but the real answer is to build a smart, interconnected transportation system where cars talk to each other.

Intelligent Transportation Systems have been in the works for years, and the possibilities are plentiful:

• Cars could warn you about upcoming traffic, construction, or road conditions

• Cars could use real-time data to guide you on the best route to your destination

• Public transportation systems could be better synced

• You could reserve a parking spot in advance instead of searching for one upon arrival

• After an accident, your car could immediately notify emergency services 

Weeks ago, we witnessed intelligent transportation at its most rudimentary level. The closing of Interstate 405 in Los Angeles was expected to bring about "Carmageddon." But because drivers were informed about the situation in advance, the traffic apocalypse never materialized.

Bill Ford's vision of a smart transportation system is a refreshing look forward. It is a project of grand-scale that is worthy of government and private investment. Implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems will create jobs, decrease travel costs, reduce dependence on foreign oil, save lives, and allow us all to spend more time with our friends and family and less time stuck in traffic.

My only concern with this system is that the talking cars will probably not be as funny the ones that Pixar introduced us to...

Afflicted with an ailment? It may be wiser to seek savior in a squat in lieu of popping a pill.

A wide array of studies has shown exercise and nutrition to be better than or on par with prescription drugs for treating or preventing ADHD, depression, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, chronic pain, and diabetes. This list is by no means exhaustive; there may be many more ailments where exercise and nutrition produce better results than drugs. But for now, the information shows exercise and nutrition's advantage over drugs to be limited mostly to neurological or cardiovascular disorders. This is still noteworthy.

Unfortunately, the reason why millions of Americans choose the often pricier and potentially less effective treatment, prescription drugs, is due to convenience. It is much easier to swallow a magic pill than it is to spend 30-60 minutes exercising or fretting over portion sizes and nutritional information. In addition, the action of using prescription drugs absolves the user of accountability because there's no threat of implementing a lifestyle change that might fail to produce results (fear of failure). If the user's condition worsens, it's simply the pill's fault.

It should be made clear that exercise and nutrition are not the answer to every medical condition. For many conditions, especially those tied to bacterial or viral infection, exercise can exacerbate the situation by stressing the body's ability to fight off the sickness. In these cases, prescription drugs are definitely the way to go.

But science is now showing that exercise and nutrition may be better remedies than drugs for many more conditions than previously perceived. With a growing obesity epidemic in this country, I'd love to see more Americans test these findings for themselves. 

(Of course, according to a study from the University of Missouri, trying to change knowledge and attitudes on exercise using cognitive approaches [like blog posts] often does not increase physical activity. Oh well...)


Full Disclosure: The author is certified by the American Council on Exercise as a personal trainer.

In 1965, Gordon E. Moore, the co-founder of Intel, made a bold prediction that would shape the technology industry for years to come:

"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years."

Ignore the nerdy wordiness: Moore basically surmised that the number of components in an integrated circuit would double each year, thus lowering costs and boosting processing speeds at an exponential rate. It was a terrific stab at a predicting the future of a then infant industry, but it didn't prove completely accurate. Moore actually tweaked his prediction in 1975, changing the rate to a "doubling every two years" instead of every year. This updated forecast, now known as "Moore's Law" has stood-up remarkably well against the test of time, but as John Markoff notes in the New York Times, this trend may be coming to an end.

The problem is not that [researchers] cannot squeeze more transistors onto the chips -- they surely can -- but instead, like a city that cannot provide electricity for its entire streetlight system, that all those transistors could require too much power to run economically. They could overheat, too.

I can imagine the talk in the chip-maker meeting rooms. "OK, guys. We can't just add transistors anymore. It's time to think outside the wafer."

If chip-makers want to continue to boost speeds at the rates we're all used to, this is just what they will have to do. They already adapted once when they hit a minor speed-bump about six years ago. Chip-makers used to simply boost processor clock speeds, but they hit that apex around 3-4 gigahertz due to the chips overheating. They overcame this speed-bump by adding additional cores and improving architecture. This number disparity still prompts the technologically-ignorant  to wonder why the heck a 3.6 gigahertz Pentium 4 is slower than a 1.7 gigahertz Core i7. ("Don't worry, Dad, just buy it for me.")

Still, let's say that Moore's Law does come to a halt and the processor speed apocalypse does occur; will it really be that bad? Most of the activities that the average person performs on their computer devices are not processor intensive (email, internet, music, videos, etc.) so the end of Moore's Law will not inhibit those functions. Also, a slower rate of consumer technology upgrades would be certain to assuage those who are easily afflicted with buyer's remorse and would also mean that last year's technology might have a better re-sale value.

Lastly, reduced speed increases do not necessarily equate to a downturn for the economy, as is feared by some. Let us not forget the emerging markets in China and India; they're going to want their iPads and iPhones regardless of how much faster the next generation is over the previous one. And let's be honest, we'll want them, too.