Several years ago, California dairy farmers released a myriad of cutesy advertisements depicting comical cows backdropped by blue skies and green pastures, all of the ads featuring the slogan, "Happy cows come from California." At the time, I was attending the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and, as you might have imagined, the ads weren't all too popular with my native Wisconsinite classmates, many of whom are enormously proud of Wisconsin's legendary dairy tradition. The TV spots would spark a litany of hisses and boos in the wake of a showing, and anyone who chuckled would receive accusatory glances suggesting treason.

The ads may have not been well received in my neck of the woods, but they were entirely correct about one facet of dairy production: great milk does come from happy cows.

With this verity in mind, animal behaviorists at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom are set to undertake the first study of its kind to examine cow friendships.

Using proximity collars, the scientists will remotely map and record social interactions within large dairy herds. They plan to couple this electronic data with observational studies to determine how the nature of cow relationships may affect the animals' health, welfare, and productivity.

"The importance of group stability for food production animals has long been recognized," Dr. Darren Croft, the study's lead researcher said. "We know that being able to live within stable social groups can significantly impact animals' production and welfare. We hope that our research will provide important insight leading to happier, healthier dairy cows and a better result for farmers."

Past research has shown that cows develop affinities for other members of their herd. A study conducted at the University of Northampton found that when the bovines were paired with their friends, their heart rates -- an indicator of stress level -- were reduced compared to if they were near random animals.

Stressed cows also produce more of the hormone cortisol, which interferes with milk let down. Alleviating this stress could yield an increase in a dairy cow's annual milk production of two hundred of pints or more!

The current University of Exeter study is slated for completion in 2015. Its findings will shed light on cow social networking and help instruct farmers on how to better manage their herds. If farmers can keep cows with their friends, then, perhaps, the bovines won't pine for the picturesque pastures of California.

(Image: Cows via Shutterstock)

There is a vast misconception that video gamers, especially those who play massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGS) like World of Warcraft, are lazy. But this couldn't be farther from the truth.

The reality is that most gamers are incredibly engaged, hard-working individuals, investing countless hours into their game of choice not because they are indolent and unmotivated, but because they want to take on more difficult and satisfying challenges that are often lacking in the material world.

As video games have rapidly evolved from the pixelated, black-and-white "Pong" days of old to become enthralling, colorful, and challenging, our jobs, by and large, are still stuck in the past, existing merely as a monetary means to pursue the activities that we enjoy. Many employees go to work, exert themselves performing set functions over which they have little or no control, and repeat for five days a week. What's more, they may may have no direct charge over when they can advance, merely operating under the assumption that good, honest, hard work will merit a raise or promotion.

Recent statistics reflect this assertion. Only 40% of respondents to a 2011 survey said that they are satisfied with advancement opportunities at their current jobs. What's more, only 52% of employees feel completely engaged at work.

Compare a drab work environment with World of Warcraft (WoW) and you will notice a tremendous difference.  In WoW, the goals are grand and players have exacting control over the manner in which they can achieve them. Moreover, the road to reaching these goals is paved with gratifying achievements and rewards.


Having played World of Warcraft in my youth and through parts of college, I can attest that the game, and others like it, teach a myriad of useful lessons and skills that are fully applicable to nurturing personal success in the real world. Effective time management, problem-solving, leadership, and teamwork are but a few of the skills I garnered. I also learned that to be the best at something, you have to invest significant amounts of time and effort.

I'm not the only one who sees benefits in video games. A 2011 survey of parents conducted by the Entertainment Software Association found that 66 percent believe that game play provides mental stimulation or education and 59 percent believe that game play helps their children connect with their friends. Institute for the Future's Jane McGonigal believes that games motivate us to do things that matter and inspire us to collaborate and cooperate.

"When we're in game worlds, I believe that many of us become the best versions of ourselves," she said at a 2010 TED lecture.

I recently received a mass email from a coworker that reported some scary facts about soft drinks. I instantly realized that one fact on the list was not correct. It said that the acid in Coca-Cola dissolves the rust off a nail, thereby implying that Coke harms your teeth. While it's true that Coke can de-rust a nail, this property of Coke is no indication of what Coke does to your teeth. Plenty of other beverages (like orange juice and energy drinks) are just as acidic as Coke, and would do the same thing to the nail.

Snob that I am, I quickly looked up the article where I'd learned this and sent it to my coworker. Soon after, I realized that I had no idea whether or not soda actually does dissolve teeth. Of course, I'd heard that pop isn't good for teeth (or any part of your body), but I didn't know exactly why.

It seems that soft drinks destroy your teeth by two different methods: decay and erosion. Tooth decay occurs when bacteria feed on the sugar left over on teeth. The bacteria's method of digestion, fermentation, releases lactic acid as a by-product, which then dissolves the calcium in your teeth. Because bacteria hang out in the nooks and crannies of your teeth, the acid is often concentrated to certain spots, causing cavities.

Erosion is tooth damage directly by acid without bacterial involvement. The main acids lurking in beverages are phosphoric acid and citric acid. Fizzy drinks also have carbonic acid that comes from dissociated carbon dioxide, but it is too weak to have any affect on teeth. Phosphoric and citric acid, on the other hand, cause damage by dissolving the calcium that comprises teeth.

Both types of tooth damage occur because teeth have a dynamic relationship with their environment (aka your mouth). The minerals found in teeth, like calcium, are constantly being dissolved and replaced. Usually this exchange is regulated by your saliva, which buffers the environment to make sure the amount taken away is equal to the amount added back. But when your drink soda, your mouth suddenly becomes more acidic. Your saliva can't keep up, and the amount of calcium dissolved is greater than the amount replaced.

The effects of pop on teeth sound pretty believable in theory, but do they translate into real life?

Many studies have been published about soft drinks' affects on teeth. If you ask me, some of these these studies are about as convincing as the rusty nail trick. For instance, one study published in May claimed to show that consumption of energy drinks and sports drinks causes tooth erosion. Basically, the researchers weighed some teeth, plopped them in the drinks for fifteen minutes sessions, and then re-weighed them. The American Beverage Association responded to this study in a strongly-worded press release, and I admit I have to agree with some of their points.

This study was not conducted on humans and in no way mirrors reality.  The authors used slices of tooth enamel samples from extracted molars, and then placed them in petri dishes of liquid for extended periods of time.  People do not keep any kind of liquid in their mouths for 15 minute intervals over five day periods. Thus, the findings of this paper simply cannot be applied to real life situations.

Other, more convincing, in vitro studies look at microscopic damage on the surface of teeth when they are exposed to soft drinks.

However, the prevalence of soft drink consumption on tooth erosion in large populations has not been extensively studied, especially in the United States. In 2001, the American Dental Association published a report which cited a couple studies showing a positive association between soft drink consumption and dental erosion. A more recent 2009 study found that 45.9% of U.S. youth aged 13-19 had at least one tooth with signs of erosion.

Interestingly, many more epidemiological studies about dental erosion have been conducted in Europe than in the U.S. These studies show a clear association between acidic soda and dental erosion in young people. One group of researchers suggest that the abundance of literature about tooth erosion in Europe is simply a reflection of more dental erosion in these countries. What's more, they posit that the drink recipe could play a role after observing that U.K. drinks are typically more acidic than their U.S. counterparts. Orange juice, for instance, is more acidic in the U.K.

In fact, soft drinks are not the only teeth-eroding beverage, and they are also not the worst. In one study, researchers measured the buffer capacity of several beverage types. Buffer capacity indicates how difficult it is for saliva to neutralize acid in the drinks. The study found that fruit juices and fruit-based carbonated beverages have a higher buffer capacity than non-fruit carbonated beverage and are therefore more likely to erode teeth.

More research is required to determine how many Americans are affected by dental erosion from acidic beverages, but it seems that there is a correlation supported by science. The good news is there are several things you can do to prevent tooth erosion. Of course, the most obvious option is to simply not drink these beverages. But, if you're like me and you enjoy a soda now and then, you might want to consider using a straw and refrain from brushing soon after.

(Photo via Wikimedia Commons)   

Let's pretend that you're wandering around in the Andes Mountains, and you come across some dead, well-preserved, 500-year-old bodies. Intrigued, you take a closer look. One of the bodies looks relatively unhealthy, while the other body looks relatively healthy. (I say relatively because, after all, they are both dead.) Pointing at the gross-looking mummy, you ask yourself, "What's wrong with her? Did she have an infectious disease?" How would you find out?

You might take some tissue samples and attempt to amplify the pathogen's DNA using a technique called PCR (polymerase chain reaction). However, false positives can occur. Another problem is that simply detecting the presence of a pathogen does not automatically imply disease. For example, 25% of healthy people carry the common food poisoning bacterium Staphylococcus aureus on their skin or in their nose, and a sizable proportion of healthy people carry the infamous antibiotic-resistant MRSA strain of the bacterium.

Thankfully, you have another weapon in your forensic arsenal: proteomics. When a person has an infection, protein levels in the body are altered, particularly proteins associated with the immune response. Compared to a healthy person, an infected person would have elevated levels of inflammatory proteins.

"Aha!" you exclaim. If you compare the protein levels in the two dead bodies, you can determine if the unhealthy-looking one actually suffered from an infectious disease. And that is exactly what researchers did with two actual mummies found in the Andes Mountains. Their results are published in the open-access journal PLoS ONE.

The scientists swabbed the mouths of the healthy and unhealthy mummies. (They actually had a third mummy, but it appeared to have been struck by lightning. So, they let it rest in peace.) Then, they extracted the proteins and subjected them to mass spectrometry, which separates the proteins based on their mass and charge. As they expected, they found that the unhealthy mummy had elevated levels of proteins associated with inflammation, and the healthy one did not.

Finally, the researchers amplified and sequenced the DNA found in the samples. The unhealthy mummy had traces of Mycobacterium, possibly indicating a tuberculosis infection. The healthy mummy was uninfected. They also discovered that the unhealthy mummy's mouth contained trace amounts of Bifidobacterium -- many species of which live in the gut. This suggested to the researchers that she may have vomited before dying.

So, next time you're out hunting mummies, be sure to bring along your molecular biology toolkit. You'll never know what you'll find.

(As a side note, none of the mummies died from infection. They were children, and they were all sacrificed to the earth goddess, Pachamama.)

Source: Corthals A, Koller A, Martin DW, Rieger R, Chen EI, et al. (2012) Detecting the Immune System Response of a 500 Year-Old Inca Mummy. PLoS ONE 7(7): e41244. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041244

Inflammatory rhetoric has been a mainstay (sadly, on both sides) of the climate change debate for a number of years now. The vitriol continued this past week in a blog post by the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Rand Simberg. Referring to Penn State climatologist Dr. Michael Mann, Simberg wrote:

Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

Ouch. (Note: This passage appears to have been since removed.)

The metaphor was picked up and partially repeated by the National Review's Mark Steyn on July 15th, prompting Mann to lawyer-up and demand that Steyn's blog post be removed.

This anger against climate scientists is nothing new; it's been happening for years. As reported by Popular Science's Tom Clynes:

"Weird" is perhaps the mildest way to describe the growing number of threats and acts of intimidation that climate scientists face. A climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep and a yellow Hummer speeding away. An MIT hurricane researcher found his inbox flooded daily for two weeks last January with hate mail and threats directed at him and his wife.

The reason for this harassment is obvious, of course. When one cannot substantiate one's own case, one often resorts to threats or deceit to discredit the well-established opposing stance. Take, 2009's overblown "Climategate," for example. Eight different committees cleared the researchers involved of any wrongdoing, but that hasn't stopped deniers from invoking the incident as "proof" that climate change is a farce and labeling climatologists as untrustworthy alarmists and conspirators.

Or look at the Heartland Institute's recent billboard campaign, which linked global warming believers to terrorists, namely the Unabomber. Tactics like these don't evoke any sort of higher order thinking. Instead, they appeal to the most primitive of emotions: fear and hate. 

Cruelty toward climate scientists is also likely born from deniers' belief that their livelihoods and modes of living are being threatened. When told that things might have to change, they lash out. But naysayers' hostility is misdirected. Climate change is threatening their way of life, not the climatologists whose job it is to merely report facts and findings. So why attack the scientists? If a firefighter told you that your house was on fire, you wouldn't get mad at the firefighter.

Skepticism should play an important role in the discussion of climate change, as it should with any scientific inquiry. But skepticism that is unresponsive to evidence is not true skepticism. (Instead, it is ideology.) True scientific skepticism utilizes reason and logic, and it certainly never entails hateful or threatening behavior.

Also, it should be noted that there is a big difference between climate change skepticism and climate change denialism. Deniers imbue the debate with callousness. They obfuscate and distract. They try to score cheap points with fallacious arguments that play to fears, not sense. They do not serve truth, only a cause. They dogmatically repeat their own beliefs yet dismiss others without thought. They are doing a tremendous disservice to our public discourse.

It's high time that they stop.  

(Image: Hand Point via Shutterstock)

If you imagined what would be the coolest science lab to work in, what would you think of? A monastery on top of a mountain? How about a secret underground base in the sub-zero Arctic?

Just in case the record heat hasn't clued you in, summer is here. That means long days, short nights, sunburns, and water balloon fights. It also means that watermelon season is upon us!

Across the country, kids and adults at picnics and dinner tables are sinking their teeth into the fruit's sumptuous, sweet, inner flesh. Each bite oozes with nectar and produces a satisfying sound reminiscent of munching on shaved ice. The nutrients contained therein include the phytochemical, lycopene, and the amino acid, citrulline. Lycopene is a natural anti-oxidant thought to potentially mitigate cancer, diabetes, and male infertility. Citrulline can relax blood vessels, which leads to lower blood pressure and can even engender a Viagra-like effect.

In grocery stores, watermelons are piled in mounds so high they might qualify as engineering marvels. Shoppers in search of the perfect fruit appraise stripes, weight, and luster. They're looking for clear lines, a dull color, and a denser-than-average melon. Experienced consumers might even thump potentials with their knuckles, listening for a sound that's hollow, yet full and rich.

The melon mountains slowly fragment and dissolve as shoppers pick away and lop their clunky selections into individual carts. Other consumers approach the misshapen heaps with caution, carefully rearranging the heavy fruits lest they accidentally send three or four tumbling to the ground. But mistakes are inevitably made, and many a melon has surely been smashed on the cold, unforgiving supermarket floor, victims of a large change in momentum spread over a far too fleeting span of time.

Japanese consumers might not have to fret about these potential falls. A dropped square watermelon would likely have a much larger area of contact, meaning that the exerting force of the ground would be more widely distributed and thus less damaging.

Of course, smashing watermelons might be right up your alley. If so, allow me to recommend liquid nitrogen!

Bacterial pathogens are tricky little blighters, incredibly adept at infecting human cells and propagating disease. Certain tools in their arsenal are used to interface with host cell signaling pathways, allowing the invading microbes to fool and evade the immune response. Scientists are hard at work finding ways to deactivate these virulent abilities, but what if instead of disarming those tools, we could harness them? That's exactly what researchers at the University of California, San Francisco attempted to do in a study just published July 22nd in Nature.

The researchers sought to exploit two bacterial effector proteins -- OspF and YopH -- both of which are utilized by virulent bacteria to effectively re-wire cellular pathways, suppressing the immune response. OspF was taken from the bacterium Shigella flexneri, a common cause of diarrhea. YopH was harvested from Yersinia pestis, a pernicious facultative anaerobe (which means it can live in the presence or absence of oxygen) responsible for the plague and the infamous Black Death.

First, researchers introduced OspF into yeast in an attempt to reprogram cellular signaling. According to Dr. Wendell Lim, one of the study's authors, the research team focused on yeast because it is a very simple model organism and it is an important workhorse organism for biotechnological endeavors such as bio-fuel production.

Within yeast cells, the team's specific targets were the mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), which form a pathway that directs cellular responses to varying stimuli such as heat shock and osmotic stress, as well as regulating mitosis and gene expression. Using OspF, the researchers were successful in their attempts to alter the pathway, inducing various cellular changes effectively on demand.

The next phase of the study presented a more ambitious challenge, with fascinating ramifications. Given the already known ability of OspF and YopH to modify cell responses, the researchers sought to use them to build cellular circuits that could control human T cells, which are key actors in the immune response. At first glance, injecting human T cells with pathogen proteins seems counterproductive. It almost sounds like aiding the enemy. But the researchers had a very specific and beneficial focus in mind.

Engineered T cells are currently used in immunotherapy -- treating a disease by enhancing or suppressing an immune response -- to fight infections and even cancer. But the procedure is risky. The T cells can inadvertently attack and wreak havoc on healthy tissue. They can also spread uncontrollably, leading to a potentially fatal reaction called cytokine storm, in which too many immune cells are activated in one single location, interrupting other biological processes. By controlling T cells with bacterial effector proteins, these side effects could be prevented.

Using the bacterial effector proteins, the researchers started off by successfully engineering human T cells whose response amplitude could be systematically controlled by varying expression of OspF and YopH. They then used the effectors in conjunction with a promoter to create T cells that could effectively be paused (cell division halted) and restarted (cell division re-initiated). In other words, they made an "on-off" safety switch for T cells.

Finally, the researchers tested their pause switch in a T cell type commonly used in immunotherapy, finding that their switch could halt cell proliferation quickly, and then cause it to recover within 6 to 18 hours.

As humans, we often regard virulent pathogens as subversive enemies that must be eradicated  at all costs. But as the researchers in this study demonstrate, bacteria may also offer unique, valuable tools with which to improve our health. 

"The vast array of bacterial pathogen effector proteins, beyond those studied here, holds promise as a rich and important source of parts for the cellular engineering toolkit," the researchers conclude.

The British biotech firm Oxitec has applied to the FDA to release a genetically modified mosquito in Florida to prevent the spread of dengue fever. Predictably, this has caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Already, an online petition has gathered 100,000 signatures to prevent this, and the Los Angeles Times published a misinformed opinion piece about mutated "Frankenbugs" injecting people with genetically engineered proteins. At least it refrained from using the term "Franken-Skeeter."

Dengue fever can be a very nasty illness, and it is spread by the Aedes aegypti mosquito. While it is not common in the United States -- a total of 94 cases were reported in Florida since 2009 -- about 2.5 billion people globally are at risk of infection. The CDC estimates that about half of infections are asymptomatic, while the other half can cause a fever. A subset of these can cause a more serious fever (dengue fever), and a few of these progress to the very serious dengue hemorrhagic fever. Therefore, preventing dengue fever by using genetically modified mosquitoes is a worthwhile project, even in Florida.

To accomplish this, scientists at Oxitec used a well-characterized genetic system called tTa (tetracycline-responsive transactivator). This gene encodes a transcription factor protein, which can then turn on other genes. It is not toxic (so predators and humans need not worry), but by interfering with the mosquito's genetic regulatory system, it is extremely harmful to the mosquito. In the absence of an antidote (i.e., tetracycline) which blocks production of the tTa protein, normal cellular processes are disrupted and the mosquito dies. However, the protein does not kill the mosquito right away; instead, it allows enough time for an engineered male mosquito to mate with a female, producing offspring which also contain the genetic ticking time-bomb.

This method of pest control, called "sterile insect technique," was field tested in Brazil, where the mosquito population dropped by a dramatic 85%. This is good news for the war against infectious disease. However, if unforeseen environmental consequences occur, the process is most likely reversible. Because the engineered mosquitoes essentially act like suicide bombers, they drive only themselves (and their offspring) to extinction. If a community wanted to restore the native mosquito population, all it would have to do is quit releasing the engineered mosquito. According to Oxitec, the wild mosquito population would likely rebound to normal levels.

Thus, as Hank Campbell writes in a Los Angeles Times opinion piece, we should "fear the fever, not the Frankenbug."

But, just in case you still do fear the Franken-Skeeter, there is another group in Australia which has shown that the bacterium Wolbachia, which infects mosquitoes, prevents them from transmitting dengue. By releasing Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes into the wild, the researchers showed that the bacterium quickly spreads throughout the population. Of course, if some unforeseen consequence emerged from this deliberate infection, it would be nearly impossible to reverse.

Ironically, for the overly cautious biotechnology skeptics, the Franken-Skeeter may be the better option.

(Photo of mosquito from Shutterstock)

This week, the government of the UK announced that it will require all published research funded by its subjects to be free for those people to read. Researchers will pay publishers up front when they submit articles, and then every accepted article will either be posted online immediately, or in a repository where it may be freely viewed after six months.

"If the taxpayer has paid for this research to happen, that work shouldn't be put behind a paywall before a British citizen can read it"

Looking for a simple solution to remedy depression, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, weight gain, bone loss, influenza, asthma, allergies, migraines, and even low-back pain? Look no further than vitamin D, many experts insist.

Yet all of the evangelizing surrounding this vitamin is accompanied by a swarm of skeptics who argue that vitamin D's seemingly magical effects are far overblown. Being naturally leery of anything purported to solve all of my problems in an easy-to-swallow pill, I count myself as one of them. But is my incredulity really justified?

Over the past two decades, hundreds, if not thousands, of studies have been published touting the wide array of benefits offered by the "sunshine vitamin." At the same time, research has discovered that as many as three-quarters of Americans may be deficient in the vitamin. This information has convinced a lot of doctors and scientists that we all should be supplementing Vitamin D.

"Vitamin D may represent the single most cost-effective medical intervention we have today," Dr. Greg Plotnikoff told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Yet other doctors and scientists aren't so sure. Notably, in November 2010 an Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel conducted an in-depth systematic review of over 1,000 studies and found that reducing bone loss was the only definitive advantage of supplementing vitamin D. Moreover, they concluded that much of the research that had been conducted on the topic was unconvincing, lacking large subject groups, controls, randomization, and a placebo. Despite their findings, the panel still recommended that daily vitamin D intake be increased be increased from 200 to 600 international units per day for the majority of the population. Not enough, say vitamin D proponents.

"We have no problem ordering a $1,500 MRI or a $90,000 course of Avastin for cancer," Plotnikoff told the Star Tribune. "Why wait 10 years for randomized controlled trial ... when you can measure, replenish and see right away if it makes a difference?"

In July 2011, the 15,000 member Endocrine Society released recommendations for vitamin D intake which were two to three times higher than the IOM's.

The vitamin D dilemma continues to this day. But many large studies are currently underway which should shed additional light on the subject within the next couple of years. 

For now, vitamin D supplementation may merit a try, as long as you don't go bonkers and supplement excessive amounts (>30,000 international units), which can be dangerous. Just don't look to it as a panacea for all your problems.

There is an easier, more natural solution, however. Simply spend more time in the sun.

"We are the first society of cave people," Dr. John Cannell, executive director of the Vitamin D Council, lamented to science writer Bob Berman.

For fair-skinned folk like myself, spending a mere ten minutes under the Sun's radiating, caressing rays will provide ample amounts of the "sunshine vitamin."

(Associated Press photo)

Being buried or burned is so passé.

That's not to say that they're altogether bad ways to deal with the deceased. Even though cemeteries take up a large amount of land, there's still something intrinsically natural and sacred about being returned to the Earth. And even though cremation uses an exorbitant amount of energy and accounts for up to 16% of the United Kingdom's mercury pollution (via dental fillings), it does save space.

But I mean, come on, we've been employing these techniques for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Isn't it time to try something new?

BBC News readers have jokingly suggested such methods as tossing remains into an active volcano or shredding the body and compacting it into a tiny cube, very much like what is currently done with clunker cars.

Surely, though, there must be choices which are more practical and -- ahem -- respectful?

One such novel option is called "resomation." Also known as alkaline hydrolysis, the process involves placing the dead body into a capsule-like chamber, throughout which a mixture of heated water and potassium hydroxide is gently circulated over a matter of hours. After all is said and done, only bones remain. Resomation is clean -- there are no directly associated carbon or mercury emissions -- and peaceful. It's very quiet and efficient; decomposition occurs over a matter of hours instead of months or years. The procedure is commercially available in Florida, Minnesota, Maryland, Oregon, Kansas, Colorado and Maine.

Another alternative, "mushroom decompiculture," is still in the experimental stages. TED fellow Jae Rhim Lee is behind this innovative venture. She is currently in the process of cultivating mushroom strains which will both decompose our bodies and clean any environmental toxins they contain. Her plan is to incorporate these mushroom spores into a full body garb, which she has endearingly dubbed the "Mushroom Death Suit." Actual testing of the suits on deceased subjects should start within the next 12 to 18 months.

Of course, there is still one widely available option that's simple, free of cost, respectful, and a boon for the living: donating your body to science. Up to 20,000 cadavers are donated each year. Many of them are used to help train future doctors and surgeons, while others are used for meaningful clinical research on Alzheimer's Disease and other ailments.

We can't necessarily choose the time or manner of our passing, but ironically, we can decide what happens after.

(Dead Man Image via Shutterstock)

Blonde hair is light in color because it lacks a pigment called eumelanin. Somehow, blonde hair has also become associated with the lack of another component--intelligence.

This "dumb blonde" stereotype doesn't just exist in the world of teen movies and humor (How do you get a one-armed blonde out of a tree?). It's quite real.

In one study, researchers showed a picture of a women wearing a platinum blonde, natural blonde, red, or brown wig. Subjects rated the platinum blonde as less intelligent. In another study a model was seen as more approachable when her hair was blonde but more intelligent when her hair was brunette.

The stereotype isn't just limited to social situations; it also carries over into the workplace. A 2006 study analyzed the hair color of 500 UK CEOs and found that blondes were underrepresented compared to the rest of the population. In a 1996 study, subjects read resumes that included head-shots of the supposed applicants. Although all the resumes were identical, the blonde applicants were rated as less competent.

When you look at the "dumb blonde" stereotype a little closer, it's actually quite puzzling. Let me explain.

In popular culture, there seems to be an idea that blonde people are more attractive than people with other hair colors. Men are especially thought to desire flaxen-haired women. This trend is reflected in a study where researchers surveyed photos from several different magazine across four decades. The researchers found that there was a higher percentage of blonde women in the magazines compared to the normal population of white women.

Interestingly, there may be evolutionary reasons why blonde hair is associated with sexual attractiveness. In prehistoric northern Europe, women could not gather their own food because of the frigid climate, so they had to rely on meat hunted by men. However, because of the dangerous hunting conditions, there were not enough men to go around.

This environment created sexual competition between women, of which blonde women had an advantage because they stood out from their dark-haired peers. Now, some men continue to favor blonde women for the same reason.

Also, because children are often born with fair locks that darken as they get older, blondness is associated with youth and vivaciousness. Therefore, adults who retain their light hair into adulthood (or dye it with chemicals) are seen as physically fit. Blonde women also have more estrogen than normal, which can also contribute to sexual fitness.

All of these factors contribute to why people may find (dumb) blondes attractive. But the funny thing is that attractiveness and intelligence usually go hand-in-hand. Not only are good-looking people perceived to be smarter than less-good-looking people, but studies have shown that they actually are smarter. 

One study compared the IQs of attractive children and unattractive children from a large set of data. The researcher found that the cute kids had a 12 point higher IQ than the less-cute kids. This trend may be explained by considering that smart men are usually more successful, so they will attract beautiful women. Because these traits are inheritable, children of such a couple will likely be both brainy and beautiful.

Let's sum up: blonde people are often found to be attractive, and attractive people are more intelligent, but blondes are considered to be dumb. Clearly the "dumb blonde" idea isn't founded in science, but then where did it come from?

The most obvious answer is popular culture. When movies and TV shows began featuring airheaded blonde bombshells, no one looked at blondes the same way again.

Another reason might be because adult women often need to use artificial means to keep their hair blonde. Because most people know it isn't natural, this practice may be seen as vain and naive. This may be why in the study mentioned above platinum blondes were labeled as less intelligent but natural blondes were not.

But no matter its origin, platinum-prejudice is silly and unfounded.


Photo by Peter Schäfermeier via Wikimedia Commons

In the Los Angeles Times, a psychologist expressed his resentment over the fact that most scientists don't consider psychology a real science. Essentially, he thinks that scientists are big, mean, condescending bullies:

Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.

There has long been snobbery in the sciences, with the "hard" ones (physics, chemistry, biology) considering themselves to be more legitimate than the "soft" ones (psychology, sociology). [Emphasis added]

That dismissive attitude that scientists have toward psychologists isn't rooted in snobbery; it's rooted in intellectual frustration. It's rooted in the failure of psychologists to acknowledge that they don't have the same claim on secular truth that the hard sciences do. It's rooted in the tired exasperation that scientists feel when non-scientists try to pretend that they are scientists.

That's right. Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: (1) Clearly defined terminology, (2) Quantifiability, (3) Highly controlled experimental conditions, (4) Reproducibility, and (5) Predictability and testability.

Happiness research is a great example of why psychology isn't science. How exactly should "happiness" be defined? The meaning of the word differs from person to person, and especially between cultures. What makes Americans happy doesn't necessarily make Chinese people happy. How does one measure happiness? Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?

The failure to meet the first two requirements of scientific rigor makes it almost impossible for happiness research to meet the other three. How can an experiment be consistently reproducible or provide any useful predictions if the basic terms are vague and unquantifiable? And when exactly has there ever been a reliable prediction made about human behavior? Making useful predictions is a vital part of the scientific process, but psychology has a dismal record in this regard. Just ask a foreign policy or intelligence analyst.

To be fair, not all psychology research is equally wishy-washy. Some research is far more scientifically rigorous. And the field often yields interesting and important insights.

But to claim it is "science" is inaccurate. Actually, it's worse than that. It's an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth.

That's why scientists dismiss psychologists. They're rightfully defending their intellectual turf.

(Photo of Sigmund Freud: Max Halberstadt/Wikimedia Commons)

Great thinkers and everyday people have long pondered how to reconcile the deep-rooted differences between science and religion. At first glance, it can seem an insurmountable task. The debate pits evolution versus creationism, belief versus proof, certainty versus uncertainty, dogma versus theory; the list goes on.

To their credit, many individuals have reasoned for themselves how to bring faith and science into harmony. Their examples should be aspired to.

But discrete examples are one thing, aligning an entire belief system with science is another. It's a massive undertaking, and a thorny challenge for virtually all widely-practiced religions except one, Tibetan Buddhism.

"My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

In a 2005 speech at the annual meeting for the Society of Neuroscience, the Dalai Lama further explained Buddhism's similitude to science:

"On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism."

Perhaps because of these fundamental similarities, the Dalai Lama has urged fellow Buddhists to become educated in science. He's even helped to speed the enlightenment process by arranging educational opportunities. 

For the past five years, 26 Buddhist monks and two nuns have received summer classes from instructors at Emory University on topics ranging from mathematics and physics to biology and neuroscience. With their classes recently completed, the trainees will now return to their specific monasteries and teach others about science.

Just as Buddhist monks have learned from science, so have scientists learned from Buddhism. Albert Einstein, Alfred North Whitehead, and Bertrand Russell have all remarked on Buddhism's enduring potential for pushing the boundaries of Western and scientific thought. Einstein even went so far as to declare:

"The religion of the future will be cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. . . If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."

From Einstein's statement, some intriguing hypotheticals can be derived: Will science and religion one day be unified? If so, could Buddhism be the unifier?

(Image: Associated Press)

On a particularly hectic day, one might find Richard Davidson stealing a few precious minutes sitting peacefully on a plump square cushion, his body wrapped in a wool blanket and his eyelids delicately sealed. The University of Wisconsin psychologist leads a "ridiculously busy" life, so he always tries to make time for daily meditation, however brief it may be.

For decades, Davidson has held a fascination with meditation. It's this interest that eventually sparked a close relationship with the Dalai Lama and guided him into the science of human emotion.

Davidson recently spoke with Jill Sakai of On Wisconsin, telling her that one thing which stuck him early on in his career was just how varying emotions can be. Different people respond to the same stimuli in highly contrasting ways. A harmless prank might prompt one person to laugh, another to cry, and another to punch the jovial wisecracker square in the jaw.

Davidson was convinced that this variability greatly impacted an individual's vulnerability or resiliency to the everyday hardships of life. Thus, he pioneered the field of affective neuroscience, the study of the neural mechanisms of emotion.

Davidson now heads the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and after three decades of research, he has reasoned that the brain's inherent plasticity -- its ability to alter its biological, chemical, and physical properties -- likely extends to emotions as well.

"...you can engage in systematic mental practices to change aspects of emotional style," Davidson told On Wisconsin. "We normally don't think about happiness as a skill, but to me, there's no reason to think about it any differently than playing the piano or playing chess."

In his new book, The Emotional Life of Your Brain, Davidson outlines six emotional dimensions -- resilience, outlook, social intuition, self-awareness, sensitivity to context, and attention -- and describes techniques to strengthen these dimensions.

Perhaps the best way to enhance each dimension is meditation, Davidson says. His research has shown that meditation can cultivate compassion and actually alter the brain circuitry associated with processing emotion. Other studies have found that meditation can boost focus, attentiveness, and concentration, and potentially even increase gray matter responsible for learning and memory.

In the past few years, this research has grown more reputable, prompting more people to take notice. In fact, the Department of Defense is now employing meditation techniques to train soldiers in emotional resiliency, which will hopefully prevent or mitigate the agonizing effects of post-traumatic stress disorder.

In Davidson's book, which is co-written by science writer Sharon Begley, he shares other exercises to enhance each of the six dimensions of emotion.

For example, to boost resiliency, Davidson recommends finding a quiet place and taking time to visualize someone you know is suffering. On each inhalation imagine that you are taking on that suffering, and on each exhalation imagine that suffering transformed to compassion. Do this for about ten minutes, four to five times a week.

Or, to become more socially intuitive, consciously watch your friends speak and try to take notice of how their facial gestures and body language correspond to their tone of voice.

With any luck, you might just find yourself in a better emotional state of mind.

(Image: Greyhound/Wikimedia Commons)

The longstanding hypothesis about the evolution of sex chromosomes has just been shaken by a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Female mammals possess two X chromosomes (XX) and males possess one X and one Y chromosome (XY). Compared to the X chromosome, the Y chromosome is small and degraded, which (in general) means that males only have one copy of every X-linked gene. Obviously, it follows that females have two copies of every X-linked gene.

But, from a genetic standpoint, this can be problematic. A condition known as "haploinsufficiency" occurs when one gene is not sufficient for an organism to be healthy. Because genes ultimately produce proteins, having only one copy of a gene may result in a cell producing only half the expected amount of protein. Since the X chromosome contains around 2,000 genes, this means that males face a potential shortage of some 2,000 proteins.

To address this, Susumu Ohno hypothesized in 1967 that gene expression from the X chromosome is doubled. This solves the problem for males, but it creates a brand new problem for females: They would have twice as many proteins as normal. According to Ohno, this dilemma drove evolution toward selecting females which inactivated one X chromosome. "X-inactivation," in which one X chromosome is "turned off," is a well-documented phenomenon.

For the past 40 years, Ohno's Hypothesis has been indirectly tested by comparing expression from genes on the X chromosome with genes on all the other non-sex chromosomes (called "autosomes"). Some have verified the hypothesis, while others have rejected it. Using a different methodology, the PNAS paper, which represents the latest addition to the debate, presents an enormous challenge to Ohno's Hypothesis.

The authors compared X-linked gene expression in humans and other mammals with similar genes (called "orthologs") in organisms, such as chickens, which diverged before the origin of mammalian sex chromosomes. Compared to the similar chicken genes, they found that most X-linked mammalian genes are not doubled in expression. Therefore, the authors conclude that the Ohno Hypothesis is wrong.

This also creates an evolutionary dilemma. If X chromosome gene expression never doubled as Ohno suggested, then what selected for X-inactivation in females? The origin of X-inactivation, previously understood through the lens of Ohno's Hypothesis, is now a complete mystery.

For evolutionary biologists, it might mean heading back to the drawing boards.

Source: Fangqin Lina, Ke Xinga, Jianzhi Zhangb, and Xionglei Hea. "Expression reduction in mammalian X chromosome evolution refutes Ohno's hypothesis of dosage compensation." PNAS 2012, published ahead of print July 2, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1201816109

Spaceflight affects earthly life forms in strange ways, from decreasing muscle and bone mass in humans and other vertebrates to altering gene expression in microbes. And there's plenty still unknown. Scientists are just beginning to understand how the effects of microgravity manifest themselves physiologically.

New research published July 5th in Scientific Reports adds a novel wrinkle to space's mystifying array of effects. A team of Japanese aging experts has discovered that spaceflight may actually extend the lifespan of C. elegans worms.

The team, led by Dr. Yoko Honda of the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, discovered that formation of polyglutamine aggregates -- which normally occurs during aging -- was suppressed in worms subjected to spaceflight compared to control counterparts back on Earth. These changes were not simply due to a reduction in growth. Moreover, further analysis revealed that seven genes were down-regulated in space-faring worms whose inactivation extended lifespan in ground controls.

This is not the first time C. elegans has been used to study aging. It's considered quite a powerful model for researching senescence because of its genetics (it was the first multicellular organism to have its genome completely sequenced), its relatively short lifespan, and the ease with which synchronous individuals can be propagated.

Nor is it the first time C. elegans has been taken into space. Worm specimens actually survived the Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster in 2003, and in 2009 they were brought aboard the International Space Station (ISS) to analyze the effects of zero gravity on muscle development.

In the current experiment, researchers used a transgenic line of C. elegans expressing a chimeric fusion protein designed to fluoresce in body wall muscle so that scientists could easily detect and measure differences in aggregation of polyglutamines, proteins associated with aging.

The worms were brought aboard the ISS for nine days under rigid temperature and environmental settings. Upon their return to Earth, the worms were flash frozen in liquid nitrogen and later examined under a microscope. Control worms on the ground were simultaneously subject to precisely the same procedures.

Upon finding that aging bio-markers were suppressed in the worms subject to spaceflight, the researchers hypothesized that the space environment actually induced changes in certain genes associated with aging. This led them to identify seven genes down-regulated in space, which, when inactivated in ground controls, substantially increased lifespan.

"The combined results suggest that environmental factors associated with spaceflight, including microgravity, modulate neuronal or endocrine signaling to induce some of ''longevity-promoting'' processes, including dietary-restriction signaling, stabilization of protein structure, or dauer-related efficient life maintenance during harsh conditions," the researchers say.

If you're getting excited about the possibility of humans taking advantage of a space fountain of youth, think again. One of the key "longevity-promoting" processes Honda described is unique to C. elegans. The dauer-related maintenance refers to a larval stage that the worms can enter, during which they are extremely stress-resistant and do not age. Humans certainly can't take advantage of this.

In addition, no studies to date have shown that space-faring humans enjoy extended lifespans (unless you count the miniscule fraction of life added by time dilation). To the contrary, microgravity almost seems to accelerate the aging-process by substantially increasing bone and muscle deterioration, depressing the immune response, and degrading the cardiovascular system.

So, the research really presents only basic insights for us humans, but for C. elegans the news is life-changing! 

"Although further investigation... is required, the present findings suggest that space-flown worms age more slowly compared with ground control worms and further predict that spaceflight extends worm lifespan," the authors conclude.

Citation: Honda, Y. et al. Genes down-regulated in spaceflight are involved in the control of longevity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Sci. Rep. 2, 487; DOI:10.1038/srep00487 (2012).

Want to take a brief lesson in vocabulary? Simply peruse the published papers of PLoS One, or almost any scientific journal for that matter. Your literacy will be stressed to the very limits.

Here's a selection of paper titles that I found in a matter of minutes. Be warned. Reading the following may cause mental discombobulation, spark sudden feelings of fear and hopelessness, and engender brief aversion towards all things science:

"Lack of Correlation between Outcomes of Membrane Repair Assay and Correction of Dystrophic Changes in Experimental Therapeutic Strategy in Dysferlinopathy"

"Down-Regulation of Neogenin Accelerated Glioma Progression through Promoter Methylation and Its Overexpression in SHG-44 Induced Apoptosis"

"Synchronizing Allelic Effects of Opposing Quantitative Trait Loci Confirmed a Major Epistatic Interaction Affecting Acute Lung Injury Survival in Mice"

"Novel Root-Fungus Symbiosis in Ericaceae: Sheathed Ericoid Mycorrhiza Formed by a Hitherto Undescribed Basidiomycete with Affinities to Trechisporales"

I mean no disrespect to these studies or their authors, but just like eating a Chipotlé burrito is a mouthful, reading those titles is a mindful. After absorbing that baffling text, I feel downright flummoxed. All I want to do is soak my cranium in cold water while watching reruns of Jackass on MTV. With any luck, those mind-numbing experiences will alleviate the confusion-induced throbbing of my brain.

Many of you might feel similarly after reading those mind-boggling paper titles. It's okay to admit it. Even to the most learned minds of our age, science can sometimes seem like a foreign language.

As a science journalist, every day of my job serves as a reminder that there's so much that I don't know. At times, this harsh reality can be both disheartening and debilitating. But though it's taken some time, I've begun to recognize that the aim of my work, the aim of science, and indeed perhaps even the aim of life itself is not to know absolutely everything, for that is impossible.

No, the aim, for science at least, is to embrace that which you do not know and simply be willing to do something about it. This can occasionally seem the absolute hardest thing to do, because as humans, our very instincts compel us to fear the unknown and distrust what we don't comprehend.


More simply, we have the power to click on those unnerving and confounding journal titles described earlier and read the studies. I've often found that once I do that, the murky fear -- which blocked me from reading them only a moment ago -- dissipates. I may not understand everything, but I'm learning. And after giving it an hour of my time, I'm amazed what I know.

As humans, we employ a myriad of methods to keep ourselves entertained and our time occupied. Two of the most popular and demonized of these activities are video game playing and television watching.

I've often wondered, if a battle-royal was waged between these two notorious, idle pastimes, which would win out as the worst way to waste time?

In the left corner, we have the reigning champion! It was originally conceived back in the late 1800s but really didn't take it's present form till the mid-20th Century. Weighing in at up to 500 pounds, often coupled with a comfy sofa from which its viewer can lackadaisically lollygag, and featuring craptastic shows with almost no redeeming qualities like Storage Wars, Days of Our Lives, Jersey Shore, and Cougar Town; it's Television!

And in the right corner; we have the challengers! They're small compared to Television, but what they lose in size they make up for with sheer numbers, variety, and addictiveness. You used to see them chained to TVs but now they're invaded other mediums like computers, cell phones, and mobile devices. Seeking to supplant Television as the worst way to waste time in the world: Video Games!

DING. Round 1.

Oh, and Video Games come roaring out of their corner, unleashing a fiery torrent of strikes against Television! Data from the Kaiser Foundation has shown that kids aged 8-18 play about 73 minutes of video games each day. Numerous studies have found that playing video games, especially highly competitive ones, can reduce the brain's response to violence and increase aggression, even after the game has been turned off.

Round 2. Television appears to be weathering most of Video Games' vicious strikes fairly well, and has fired back with some of its own. Kids watch television for an average of 4.5 hours every day! A study published in 2009 in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine found that young children excessively exposed to TV appear to be at an increased risk of aggressive behavior. Children under five are also more at risk of developing behavior problems if they watch two hours or more of television per day.

Round 3. Looks like Video Games took a fierce knock to the chin in that last round. They're looking dazed, confused, and not nearly as dangerous as they used to. Apparently, Video Games can actually yield some benefits. Researchers at Michigan State University studied 500 kids and found that they more they played video games, the more creative they were at tasks like drawing or story-telling. In addition, other studies have shown that action video games have the potential to improve vision and augment decision-making speed without any reduction in accuracy.

Round 4. Television does not appear to be tiring or relenting, however. It's got Video Games up against the ropes. A systematic review conducted by researchers at Loughborough University discovered that "television viewing was strongly associated with the consumption of energy-dense snacks, drinks and fast food, and a lower consumption of fruit and vegetables." And a 2010 Australian study tracked the lifestyle habits of 8,000 adults, concluding that each hour of sedentary TV watching is correlated with an 11% increased risk of death.

Well, after four rounds, it's time for the judges' decision. Here it comes... Television has held on to its title belt! It looks like what tilted the judges' decision in favor of Television was a 2009 study which examined blood pressure differences in children during various sedentary activities like reading, watching television, and using the computer. Of these activities, television watching was the worst. It was the only sedentary activity associated with higher blood pressure.

The inherent difference between Video Games and Television is clear. Television is an entirely consumptive activity that often requires almost no physical or mental involvement for its viewer, while Video Games require the player to actively shape their experience. Playing Video Games requires attentiveness and occasionally even demands problem solving skills or physical activity.

At this point in time, Television clearly trumps Video Games as the worst way to waste time.

We all love to watch a fantastic pyrotechnical display to celebrate the 4th of July. While many of us prefer to marvel at a distance or stick to tame ground-dwelling fireworks, some of us lust for more BANG.

Sometimes this leads us to do things which may be best described as "stupid." Newton Blog wants you to have a safe Fourth, and so we present you with a few tips to remember so that you don't end up a horror story on the news.

Each subject line links to a video example of what NOT TO DO with fireworks.

Bottle Rockets Have a Rudimentary Stabilization System

Have you noticed that most rockets have tail fins to help stabilize them? Well, our simple friend the bottle rocket flaunts no such luxuries. Its long tail is usually enough to keep the rocket pointed upwards (gravity pulls down on this heaviest part of the rocket and keeps it below the charge) and flying in a vaguely straight manner. It is best not to trust this mechanism with your safety however.

Occasionally Fuses Burn Faster or Slower Than Expected

Cheap fuses are made of string coated in black powder, and more expensive fuses are made of string coating black powder. Either way, environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity and partial enclosure can strongly affect burn times. The effects of premature or late explosions can be much more grizzly than what is shown in these videos.

Roman Candles Fire Irregularly

A Roman candle is a series of firecracker shells, each packed on top of a charge of gunpowder. The familiar tube that these bombs are packed into is smooth inside; it lacks the rifling that makes modern guns more accurate. When you add in the fact that each charge is packed only loosely and may ricochet off of the inside walls of the tube, you have a weapon about as accurate as a 17th century musket. That is to say, not accurate at all.

Throwing a Firework Underwater Does NOT Extinguish It

Water normally quenches flame by robbing it of vital oxygen. The gunpowder used in fireworks contains its own oxidizer. Once enough heat has been provided to begin the oxidization reaction that is flame, the oxidizer gives enough oxygen to continue combustion without the help of the atmospheric supply.

Some Things Should Not Be Blown Up

A few pounds of falling whale (or any other) matter contain enough energy to crush you. Just ask the poor sedan in this clip.

On Sunday, millions of fans across the globe watched with excitement and trepidation as Spain and Italy battled for the Euro 2012 Championship. Spain handily defeated the Italians by a score of four to nil with a blend of selfless teamwork and staunch defending.

Though we soccer-sheltered Americans are often oblivious of the fact, football, a.k.a. soccer, is the most popular sport in the world by a long shot. It also may be the most studied by scientists.

You might not remember, but in the build-up to the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, footballers, sportscasters, and fans alike churned up quite a brouhaha over the new ball being used, Adidas' "Jabulani." Physicists and engineers responded to the commotion by weighing in with their learned advice. Referencing the ball's ridges and aerodynamic grooves, physics Professor Derek Leinweber of the University of Adelaide alarmed goalkeepers by announcing that the ball would be faster, harder, and have a tendency to swerve and dip erratically.

Cal Tech engineers mirrored Leinweber's comments after placing the Jabulani through rigorous wind tunnel testing. Air flow across soccer balls usually follows the surface, but the researchers found that air flow across the Jabulani actually separated about halfway across the ball, escalating its unpredictability.

During the World Cup tournament, itself, the Jabulani lived up to its hype, providing plenty of head-scratching twists, turns, dips, and swoops. Chief among them may have been American striker Clint Dempsey's goal scored against English keeper Rob Green, which still haunts British fans -- and undoubtedly Green, himself -- to this day.

Apart from scrutinizing soccer balls, scientists have also studied other varied aspects of "The Beautiful Game." Last year, researchers examined the effects of two different muscle relaxation techniques on young soccer players, finding that the techniques "may be used to regulate young soccer players' mood states." Other scientists analyzed the effects of Ramadan fasting on soccer players' mood, perceived exertion, and physical performance, while Italian researchers investigated how an elite soccer club could effectively manage individual food intolerances to optimize the performance of its players.

More recently, social scientists polled 3,500 soccer fans in England to find whether or not fans would support openly gay players. The researchers from Staffordshire University thought this topic merited research considering that there has been only one openly homosexual soccer player in the history of British professional soccer.

Their findings were in keeping with Euro 2012's mantra: Respect.

...93% of supporters stated that they opposed homophobia and would support openly gay players as only their performance on the pitch matters.