Perhaps the biggest problem in microbiology today is the rising tide of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. From MRSA and VRSA to gonorrhea, this problem raises the frightening specter that bacterial infections that were once easily controlled by antibiotics may no longer respond to therapy. Thus, determining how pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics is among the top priorities in the biomedical sciences.

Now, a new paper in the journal Science reveals an uncomfortable prospect: Friendly soil bacteria might be transferring their antibiotic-resistance genes to human pathogens.

It is important to understand that antibiotic-resistance existed long before humans ever came around. Antibiotics are biological weapons; they are produced by one bacterial species to kill other bacterial species. For instance, tetracycline (along with several other important antibiotics) is produced by the genus Streptomyces, which lives in the soil. Natural selection pressured other bacteria to evolve resistance to this assault. Therefore, not only does an arsenal of antibiotic-producing genes exist in nature, so does an entire arsenal of antibiotic-resistance genes.

The researchers grew bacteria from various soil samples. They extracted the DNA and sequenced it, and they discovered multiple genes for antibiotic resistance. Then, they compared these DNA sequences to those of pathogens isolated from human patients. Many of the sequences were nearly identical. Because the soil bacteria and the human pathogens are only distantly related, this strongly implies that the soil bacteria directly transferred their antibiotic-resistance genes to the pathogens (or vice versa) via a process called "horizontal gene transfer."

Regardless of the direction of transfer, this is a serious cause for concern. If soil bacteria transplant their resistance genes to pathogens, it makes pathogens stronger. If pathogens are transferring their genes to soil bacteria, it implies that soil bacteria could someday become pathogenic. (This may be how the bacterium Acinetobacter baumanii -- which is infamous for causing infections in wounded American soldiers from Iraq -- became pathogenic.)

Therefore, the "resistome" -- or the collective antibiotic resistance of an environmental bacterial sample -- may be of far greater clinical significance than previously imagined. It may be wise to heed this warning and take action to severely restrict antibiotics in livestock feed before the enormous problem of antibiotic resistance gets even worse.

Source: Kevin J. Forsberg, Alejandro Reyes, Bin Wang, Elizabeth M. Selleck, Morten O. A. Sommer, Gautam Dantas. "The Shared Antibiotic Resistome of Soil Bacteria and Human Pathogens." Science 31: 337 (6098): 1107-1111. (Aug 2012). DOI: 10.1126/science.1220761

(Photo: Acinetobacter baumanii via Wikimedia Commons)

In a way, you're never alone. Your inner consciousness is always there to keep you company. That voice inside your head is reliably available for conversation. These intensely personal and comforting self-to-self dialogues are splayed across the humdrum of a typical day. "I think I'll wear the blue polo to my date tonight." "Enchiladas: that's what I want for lunch." "Oh my gosh, cute kittens!"

But what if there was a foreign voice inside your head? An entity over which you could exact no control. Wouldn't that be the worst invasion of privacy imaginable? Wouldn't that be disturbing?

For the majority of schizophrenics, this dreadful plight is a vexing regularity. Fortunately, schizophrenia is rare, but that's no consolation to the 24 million people afflicted with the condition. Moreover, there is limited understanding of its underlying causes, and treatments -- often in the form of antipsychotics -- are far from perfect, presenting their own loaded plate of perturbing side effects.

This is where Baylor neuroscientist David Eagleman enters into the discussion. Widely regarded for his work on the brain's perception of time, synesthesia, and neurolaw, Eagleman is now foraying into the study of schizophrenia. It wasn't something he originally planned on.

Back in 2006, Eagleman and his team conducted an experiment in which subjects were simply asked to press a button. Doing so would instantly cause a nearby light bulb to blink. The researchers then added a slight tenth of a second delay between the press of the button and the light coming on and asked subjects to continue pressing the button. For the grand finale, the researchers removed the delay and watched as something completely perplexing happened. The subjects, utterly flabbergasted, insisted that the light would come on before they even pressed the button!

For Eagleman, this was an "Ah ha!" moment. Schizophrenics, he says, suffer from something called credit misattribution -- they believe that they're not causing their own actions. What if this is because their brain's perception of time is off, thus causing an action's effect to seem to occur before the cause?

"You're always generating an internal voice and listening to it... But imagine now that you got the timing wrong. So you think you heard the voice before you generated it. You would have to interpret that as somebody else's voice," Eagleman told Science Friday host Ira Flatow. 

Eagleman's theory has some historical support. One study conducted in 1977 compared schizophrenics' perception of time to that of non-schizophrenics. Subjects were required to work on a task until an experimenter stopped them, and then were asked to estimate the amount of time that had transpired. At judging five-second intervals -- the briefest length of time tested -- schizophrenics significantly differed from the other subjects in their estimations.

Additional research is currently underway at Eagleman's Baylor College laboratory. If further substantiated, Eagleman believes that this theory could potentially lead to entirely new rehabilitative strategies for schizophrenia.

"Instead of pumping people full of medications, what if we could just sit them down and have them play video games that recalibrate their timing?" Eagleman proposed on Science Friday.

Such a treatment would certainly be a welcome, calming remedy to a mental disorder that's anything but.

(Image: Brain Hourglass via Shutterstock)

In honor of the late Neil Armstrong, let's review the lives of the three men who comprised the crew of the first moon landing in 1969.

Salt cave therapy, a new form of alternative medicine that was transplanted from Europe, is steadily spreading across the United States.

The basic idea is this: patients enter a room designed to imitate a subterranean, salt-permeated environment, like those naturally found in Ukraine, Russia, and Poland. Once inside, they're instructed to breathe deeply so that they can absorb the salt's natural healing powers. Sessions often last about forty-five minutes.

So mystical, so simple: It sent my incredulity skyrocketing when I first heard about it!

The interior of one of these NaCl bastions is dimly lit, only a faint pink hue emanates from the salt-composed walls. Draped in thin, white blankets, patrons can relaxingly sprawl out on reclined chairs, which are nestled into the cave's bed of sand-like salt crystals. From the corner, a generator issues a muffled hum as it emits dry salt aerosol. Supposedly a healing panacea, the salt-laden air is claimed to resolve medical issues such as depression, asthma, cystic fibrosis, allergies, and ear infections. The entire scene is quiet, serene, and apparently cleansing, if you subscribe to the accompanying mumbo-jumbo, that is:

"It is not only the purity of the air in the salt caves that have such healing effects, but also its resonant vibration, that activates our self-healing and self-regulating powers. When our body is sick and lacking its natural frequency, salt can bring us back into our original, balanced state. Deep in the heart of the Earth, surrounded by millions of tons of salt, patients can encounter the influence of the enormous power of the salt's balancing frequency, thereby replenishing the body with its energy deficit."

Right...

Personally, that paragraph of woo doesn't do much for me. As any decent critical thinker would say, "Show me the studies!" Well, as it turns out, salt cave backers have actually got some. Clinical studies have shown signs of improved lung function and skin condition in subjects exposed to salt cave treatments.

There are many aspects of these studies that set off my skeptic alarm, however. They all were conducted in Russia, were exceedingly vague, and lacked randomization.

Contradictory to the claims of salt cave owners, two noted doctors from the United States and Australia have warned that salt therapy may exacerbate asthma symptoms, seeing as how salt is itself an irritant known to cause airway constriction.

To date, no randomized clinical trials have been conducted on salt caves in the United States, leaving their effectiveness scientifically unsubstantiated, and very much up in the air.

So, take the salt cave claims with a grain of salt. (Pun very much intended.)

When watching Star Wars, most kids are probably enthralled with the space battles, the dizzying special effects, and the blistering lightsaber duels. But as a child, I was more interested in the Jedi's mind control powers. It was a fascination rooted in the devilish desire to coerce my parents into making every night "Pizza Night" and divert the house payments to my "Lego fund."

Alas, as you might have guessed, my mind control attempts were of no avail. The wrist waving, the finger fluttering, all of it had no effect whatsoever. Talk about false advertising.

Instead of Star Wars, today's devious youngsters are likely taking note of Harry Potter. They wave sticks at their parents and utter, "Imperio," under their breath, all for naught. Mind control, as it turns out, is not as easy as it looks.

That hasn't stopped scientists from studying it, of course. The inherent difficulty has likely made the prospect of mind control all the more tantalizing.

One of the earliest and most interesting explorations in mind control was conducted in the 1950's and 60's by Yale physiologist José Delgado. Delgado focused much of his research on the use of electrical signals to evoke responses in the brain. Using a device implanted within the brain that could both monitor brain waves and stimulate them -- called a stimoceiver -- Delgado discovered that he could elicit emotions and even physical actions in test subjects.

In an experiment carried out on voluntary human subjects, Delgado found that he could induce strong feelings of euphoria by stimulating a part of the limbic region of the brain called the septum. Delgado also asked one of the subjects to resist moving while he used the stimoceiver to stimulate the subject's motor cortex. Despite trying to hold still, the subject was unable to resist moving, and promptly said afterwards, "I guess, doctor, that your electricity is stronger than my will."

Fast forward to the present, and we see some fascinating research on using ultrasound technology to exert remote control over brain circuits. In 2008, researchers at Arizona State University found that they could use ultrasound to effectively trigger the release of neurotransmitters from synapses. Since neurotransmitters are key in relaying signals within the brain, the researchers believe that the technology could be used to treat neurological diseases like epilepsy or Parkinson's and psychiatric disorders such as depression or addiction.

Assistant Professor, Dr. William Tyler, the lead investigator, even envisions the technique being used in "the creation of artificial memories along the lines of Arnold Schwarzenegger's character in Total Recall." Though, judging how this played out in the movie (hint: lots of violence, gore, and corruption), it may not be the best idea.

In 2010, Tyler's research caught the eye of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), who provided his team with a sizable grant aimed toward engineering neurotechnology for use by our nation's fighting men and women. The team is currently looking to incorporate ultrasonic brain-machine interfaces into combat helmets, with a potential goal of imbuing soldiers with neurological advantages such as pain intervention, anxiety reduction, long-term wakefulness, and behavioral enhancement.

For those prone to alarmism or believing conspiracy theories, the incredible research -- both past and present -- performed on mind control may be somewhat troubling. To the rest of us, it remains purely fascinating, though perhaps slightly dubious from an ethical standpoint.

Most organisms' characteristics are shaped by the process of natural selection. For instance, slow bunny rabbits get eaten by wolves, so nature has selected for the survival of fast bunny rabbits. But, not all traits are under such intense selective pressure. Indeed, some aren't under any selective pressure at all. Therefore, these traits may be random, and over time, differences between species can develop purely by chance.

In bacteria, one example of such a characteristic is called the "G+C content." Recall that DNA is made up of nucleotides: A, T, G and C. The A and T pair together (A+T) in the DNA double helix, as do the G and C (G+C). After a bacteria's genome is sequenced, the G+C content is calculated simply by adding up all the G's and C's and dividing that number by the total number of nucleotides. The percentage, which can range from 13% to 75%, tends to be characteristic of the bacterial species. Why one species is, say, 47% and another is 58% is thought to be due solely to chance. Luck of the draw.

Or, at least that's what scientists thought until a few years ago when evidence emerged that random mutations were biased: they were more likely to generate A's and T's. But, now, a new paper in PNAS shows that an unknown selective force appears to nudge bacteria in the other direction. Bizarrely, simply possessing genes with a higher G+C content makes the bacteria grow faster.

To determine this, researchers from Yale University used many different versions of a gene called GFP which were identical in amino acid sequence, but differed in DNA sequence. (Because the genetic code is degenerate, different DNA sequences can yield identical proteins.) They found that bacteria given GFP genes with a higher G+C content grew faster -- even though the protein they produced was identical to the proteins the other bacteria produced.

It gets weirder. The GFP gene itself is completely useless to bacteria. GFP stands for "green fluorescent protein" and it was isolated from a jellyfish. It is irrelevant to the health and welfare of bacteria.

What exactly is going on is rather a mystery. If all other things are equal (e.g., if a phenomenon known as codon bias has been accounted for), then it really shouldn't matter what the exact DNA coding sequence is for any given protein -- particularly if the protein sequence isn't altered (and especially if it's useless!).

But, what is perhaps clearer is that what was once thought to be randomly generated DNA sequences, in actuality, was the subtle craftsmanship of the ever-present force of natural selection.

Source: Rahul Raghavan, Yogeshwar D. Kelkar, and Howard Ochman. A selective force favoring increased G+C content in bacterial genes. Published online before print August 20, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205683109 PNAS August 20, 2012.

(Image: DNA via Shutterstock)

Do animals exhibit homosexual behavior? The simple answer to this question is yes, frequently. Scientists have observed a menagerie of animals engaging in a host of same-sex activities such as pair bonding, sexual displays, and copulation. The exhaustive list of over 1,500 separate species includes bison, cats, dolphins, primates, fish, lizards, and fruit flies.

An important distinction to make, however, is between homosexual behavior -- a sex-related action with an individual of the same gender -- and homosexual orientation -- when an animal exclusively seeks same-sex sexual interaction. Vastly fewer species sport individuals that eschew all heterosexual activity in favor of homosexual interactions. Thus, it may be more correct to describe most animals as bisexual.

So why are animals overwhelmingly bisexual? It certainly doesn't gel with the historically assumed "sex is only for reproduction" hypothesis.

Explanations abound for certain species. Male fruit flies may court other males because they lack a gene which allows them to differentiate between sexes. Young bottlenose dolphin males are thought to get frisky with other males in order to forge and strengthen lifelong bonds. Bonobos, perhaps the most sexually open of all species, appear to engage in homosexual acts both to resolve conflicts and pleasure one another.

But despite the bounty of explanations available for individual species, there is no overarching theory to account for homosexuality within the animal kingdom, and most scientists are quite hesitant to postulate.

This is partly because it's a very touchy subject, but it's primarily due to the fact animal species are incredibly distinct. There simply isn't an all-encompassing answer.

Moreover, it's easy for anthropomorphism to seep into conjectures. Zoologists seek to avoid ascribing human thoughts and behaviors to animals, but non-scientists often do not. Those on opposing sides of our societal debate on homosexuality love to hastily and presumptuously interpret any novel research and pass it off as "scientific proof" that homosexuality is either right or wrong or natural or unnatural. The researchers themselves get caught in the crossfire.

When animal behaviorist Lindsay Young wrote a short paper on her observations of female-female pair bonding in albatrosses in 2008, her findings were simultaneously denigrated by the Religious Right as "pure propaganda" and hailed by gay rights activists as a call for equality. As Young told the New York Times, one gay advocate wanted her to fly rainbow flags over each female-female nest to show "solidarity." All Young wanted was to be left alone to perform her research.

Outside groups have consistently misused zoological data to further their stance on gay issues. Scientific evidence was even cited in the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas. But proper scientists have no such political agendas. Like Young, those researching homosexuality in animals simply try to observe, document, and report.

Their observations have shown that homosexuality is prominent within the animal kingdom. With further research, we may know more as to why. In the meantime, we should not misrepresent or misapply data on animal homosexuality to humans, because it does not apply.

The courtship ritual of the lowly male fruit fly is far more elaborate than one might presume. It goes a little something like this:

First, the eager hopeful taps the female's body with his foreleg, partially to say, "Well hello, beautiful," but mostly to make sure that the lady fly he's pursuing is actually a lady. Next, the male rhythmically vibrates his wings, using them as instruments to play a sultry courtship song. If the female likes what she hears, she'll become more receptive to mating. After his sweet serenade, the male engages in a little foreplay, extending his proboscis -- a mouth appendage -- and licking the female's genitalia. Lastly, the male attempts to mount the female and initiate copulation.

If the male's attempt is successful, the lovemaking will last approximately 15 to 20 minutes. If not, the female will abruptly kick him to the curb (so to speak). At this point, according to a recent study, the spurned male fruit fly may turn to drinking. But in all likelihood, alcohol will not be readily available, so he will resiliently bounce back and continue on his quest to mate.

Naive male fruit flies begin their reproductive pursuits courting both virgin and mated females, despite the latter being more unreceptive to mating. This often works out poorly, because males can waste a lot of time, energy, and libido on futile mating efforts with unreceptive females.

Luckily, males appear to have a neurological process for coping with and learning from rejection. It was recently uncovered by scientists at the Research Institute of Molecular Pathology in Vienna and reported in the journal Nature.

The process is fairly simple: Male fruit flies start their pursuit of a mate by being promiscuous, then grow more selective over time, the researchers say.

As mentioned earlier, male fruit flies begin by courting both virgin and already mated females, despite the latter being less inclined to mate. But after numerous rejections, males learn to identify mated females and thus concentrate their reproductive efforts on virgin females. Attempts are more infrequent, but success rates vastly increase.

Researchers gleaned the process by conducting assays that paired male fruit flies with both virgin and mated females. They found that males that had been rejected by mated females less actively pursued mated females compared to virgins. Further testing revealed that this new selectiveness stemmed from males becoming more apt at recognizing cVA, a male-specific pheromone that is transferred to the female's cuticle upon mating.

Seeking to uncover the hormone and signaling pathways involved in male flies' improved ability to recognize cVA, the researchers carried out numerous experiments designed to narrow down the neurons and genetic receptors involved. Using previous research as a guide, they targeted neurons and genes involved in the dopaminergic pathway, which is associated with learning and responsible for transmitting dopamine. They then whittled down the suspects by suppressing and activating them in a controlled fashion and monitoring how the changes affected flies' ability to learn to detect cVA.

After carrying out their experiments, the researchers proposed that a failed mating attempt causes dopamine neurons to convey a learning signal via the DopR1 receptor, which induces the changes in cVa detection.

"Our work... reveals critical behavioral, cellular and molecular components of the learning rule by which Drosophila adjusts its innate mating strategy according to experience," the researchers said.

In other words, a relatively simple learning circuit helps male fruit flies learn from rejection, thus greatly aiding their quest to find that special female.

(Image: Fruit Flies via Shutterstock)

Photosynthesis is a metabolic process in which the energy from sunlight is converted into chemical energy. It is mostly associated with plants, but it commonly occurs in bacteria and algae, too. Though there are rare exceptions (e.g., a salamander which lives in a symbiotic relationship with an algae, a sea slug which possesses some photosynthetic genes, and some weird plant-animal thingy), photosynthesis generally does not occur in animals.

Now, scientists have published evidence in Scientific Reports that aphids -- a type of insect -- may possess a rudimentary light-harvesting system.

The metabolic pathway of photosynthesis is complicated and as diverse as the many organisms that use it. For plants, the basic scheme is this: A complex of proteins and pigments -- such as chlorophyll and carotenoids -- harvest energy from photons (sunlight). This provides enough energy to rip the electrons off of water, producing oxygen as a waste product. (Good thing for us!) The plants shuttle these electrons like "hot potatoes" through a series of molecules and proteins called an electron transport chain, the purpose of which is to create energy and a very important electron-carrying molecule called NADPH. This molecule is vital for the most famous part of photosynthesis: converting carbon dioxide to sugar via the Calvin cycle.

What does this have to with the aphid? Nothing. The aphid doesn't do any of this. It does, however, contain carotenoids -- the light-harvesting pigment that plants also possess. The insect even carries the genes to make them.

The researchers believe that the aphids use the carotenoids to absorb light energy, and because of their unique molecular structure (alternating single and double bonds), the researchers hypothesize that the carotenoids pick up and shuttle a couple extra electrons to the mitochondria -- the powerhouses of the cell. There, the carotenoids produce NADH (similar to the NADPH mentioned above), and this very important electron-carrying molecule then gives up its electrons to the mitochondrial electron transport chain, generating energy in the form of ATP.

Bottom line: The insect appears to possess a very primitive light-harvesting system. It's certainly not what scientists usually think of as "photosynthesis," but it's not too shabby for an insect.

Source: Jean Christophe Valmalette, Aviv Dombrovsky, Pierre Brat, Christian Mertz, Maria Capovilla & Alain Robichon. "Light-induced electron transfer and ATP synthesis in a carotene synthesizing insect." Scientific Reports 2 (579), 16 Aug 2012. doi:10.1038/srep00579

Getting smacked in the head is no picnic, as most football players, hockey players, and boxers would attest. Debilitating side effects such as headaches, memory loss, depression, and fatigue can swiftly follow suit. Moreover, recent research has shown that just a single brain trauma can precipitate the development of Alzheimer's Disease later in life.

But, in rare cases, a mild to severe head injury can cause one to develop extraordinary, almost superhuman abilities. It's a condition called acquired savant syndrome.

Now, before you go running for the nearest baseball bat with the intention of jarring your brain into a state of genius, know that the condition only has been documented a mere thirty times. Chances are, bashing your head will only leave you with a goose egg.

For those afflicted with savant syndrome, however, brain trauma irrevocably changed their lives.

After being mugged and brutally beaten, college-dropout Jason Padgett gained a unique aptitude for envisioning mathematical formulas. He now channels this novel skill into crafting beautiful works of art.

While batting in a baseball game, ten-year-old Orlando Serrell was struck by a pitch in the left side of his head. Despite a ringing headache that lasted for days, the resilient young Serrell thought little of the event and didn't even seek medical attention. But when his pain subsided, Serrell noticed that he had gained a peculiar skill: he could calendar calculate. Give him any date since his accident - which occurred in August 1979 -- and he can instantly tell you the day of the week and what the weather was like.

Slightly more amazing than Padgett's or Serrell's case is that of Derek Amato. A few days after diving headfirst into the bottom of a shallow pool, an act which sent him to the hospital with a concussion, Amato was over at a friend's house and found himself inexplicably drawn to the living room piano. Before his head trauma, Amato had never played an instrument seriously, but on this fateful day he sat down and began striking the keys like a virtuoso. He has since recorded his own album of original compositions and has plans to release another.

Dr. Andrew Reeves, a neurologist who examined Amato, told the Mankato Free Press that head trauma can cause neurological damage to such a degree that it prompts re-wiring of brain circuits. When this happens, a dormant talent can be awoken.

University of Wisconsin psychiatrist Dr. Darold Treffert is the preeminent expert on acquired savant syndrome. He says that some form of injury to the left anterior temporal lobe is the most common driver of the condition. Interestingly, such an injury likely serves only as a "release." In other words, we all may have savant-like abilities locked away inside us, waiting for the right kind of stimuli to unleash them.

"The challenge of course, if that is so, is how to access that hidden knowledge and skill without some sort of Central Nervous System catastrophe," Treffert says. "And work to achieve just that is now underway."

We recently heard about one such method, a creativity thinking cap that applies a weak electrical current to the scalp. The cap, created by neuroscientist Allan Snyder, appeared to help subjects solve a rudimentary thinking problem.

In the longer term, the effort to unlock humanity's inner savant will likely turn to genetics. If a genetic key to genius is found, a heated ethical debate will almost certainly unfold. Such a method would undoubtedly be far more controversial than the current, much less effective strategy of acquiring savant abilities: a high-speed knock to the noggin.

(Image: Head Punch via Shutterstock)

Last week chemist Martin Fleischmann, who (along with another chemist, Stanley Pons) made the world-famous claim of realizing "cold fusion," died.

Social scientists have long sought to be regarded with the same scholarly gravitas as their colleagues in other, harder, branches of science. But for them, reaching a higher echelon of esteem has proved elusive. Why? Because many social scientists have a strong penchant for turning out laughable research, the media has an equal fascination for covering it, and we love absolutely reading about it!

Last week, for example, was pretty par for the social science course. On Monday, we learned about Dr. Anthony Greenwald's Implicit Association Test, which seeks to root out your ingrained thoughts and biases. By taking the test, you can discover if you are inherently sexist or racist, even if you aren't aware of it! Unsurprisingly, the researchers who created the test "make no claim for the validity of [the test's] suggested interpretations."

On Wednesday, we were apprised that stressed men find heavier women more attractive. British researchers recruited 81 male subjects from the University of Westminster campus and subjected 41 of them to a situation designed to effectively boost stress levels. Afterwards, both the stressed and control groups examined pictures of variously sized female bodies and rated their attractiveness. The stressed group rated larger women as being more attractive.

On Friday, we were treated to an over analysis of college student drinking behaviors. A Norwegian social scientist took it upon himself to study the social aspect of hangovers, interviewing college-aged Norwegians about their drinking experiences. He concluded that being hungover the next morning isn't necessarily negative, because it's a time for those afflicted to drink water together, tell stories, and "reinforce their shared experience" of getting totally wasted last night!

These three pieces of research all seem to have one thing in common: they don't have many, if any, redeeming qualities to offer society. They are purely for entertainment, meant only to bolster our arsenal of intellectually stimulating topics to share at dinner parties. They should be taken with a grain of salt, perhaps even an entire pail. 

(Image: Magnifying People via Shutterstock)

Did you know that Aristotle originally categorized the world into five elements: fire, earth, air, water, and tzatziki sauce? No, you say?

Well, have you ever heard of the Venus Puppy Trap? You know, it's the plant that lures in adorable canines and cutely clamps its cellulose jaws down upon their lovable, moist noises. Not that either?

Okay, are you perhaps aware that before using nuclear fusion, stars actually utilized coal to produce energy? That's why the universe is so black! Duh.

You haven't heard any of those facts? It sounds like you need to brush up on your fake science...

Officially arriving on August 15th to (mis)inform you is Phil Edwards' raucously wrong and ticklingly funny textbook, Fake Science 101. True to its name, the book is filled with boatloads of falsehoods and an array of pseudo-scientific recommendations that would undoubtedly prompt a preponderance of lawsuits should they actually be taken seriously. Luckily, the book is clearly labeled as utterly, ridiculously phony.


Fake Science 101 begins by diving headlong into the history of science, apprising us, for example, that Sir Isaac Newton first and foremost discovered the apple, not gravity, and that the Age of Enlightenment was literally about turning on lights. The book also debunks the Mayans' long-recognized standing as one of the greatest civilizations the world has ever seen. Edwards cheekily writes:

According to many experts, the Mayans were the most amazing thing ever, if you don't take into account the fact that they basically disappeared off the face of the earth. Great work, guys. Really amazing civilization you built there, before you failed at existing anymore.

After making ignoble work of science's noble history, the text next turns to the disciplines of astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth science, and physics, where not a stone is left unturned. Edwards brilliantly and absurdly butchers the most basic scientific facts for the reader's pleasure.

In the book's final section, Edwards enlightens the reader on how to become a scientist, taking pointedly comical digs at the education system, science organizations, the media, and government-funded science in the process. In recommending government employment, he jokingly pens:

The government offers work in almost all scientific disciplines, and it will continue to do so until an enterprising politician finds out that your department exists and decides to cut it. Choose your branch wisely, since you'll need to stay employed for three or four years until you start receiving your pension.

What really makes Edwards' book a delightful read is the politically incorrect satire intermixed into the pages. On the concerning child obesity epidemic, Edwards states that it only became a major problem since a form of exercise known as child labor was ended. Edwards also expounds on sugar's amazing health benefits, recommending that one drink three to four liters of soda per day in order to maintain good health.

Another of the textbook's satirical wisecracks was at social science's expense: 

Social scientists claim they are scientists because they act off of empirical data. That is like a six-year-old claiming he's a superhero because he's wearing a cape: it's endearing, but it's also completely incorrect.

Edwards' Fake Science 101 was a quick and amusing read with the always worthwhile aim of infusing science with a self-deprecating sense of humor. This was excellently expressed with a quote that appeared early on in the book: "If you're uncertain about anything, science is the answer. Maybe."

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow recently covered the topic of fracking on her television show. (The video segment is embedded at the bottom of this post.) She framed the issue as a struggle between satisfying our nation's energy demand and maintaining public safety. That might sound reasonable, but what transpired was an unscientific, selective reporting of the facts.

She began her segment with that favorite boogeyman of the progressive anti-nuclear left, Three Mile Island, saying, "People began to feel like whatever its potential upside was, it was maybe too dangerous to be worth it to pursue more nuclear power."

Yes, that's true, but it's because of people like Rachel Maddow.

Three Mile Island was indeed scary, but it was nowhere near the catastrophe the anti-nuclear movement made it out to be. In fact, the natural background radiation posed a bigger threat to the residents than the small amount of radioactive gas that was purposefully vented following the meltdown. Did Maddow remind her viewers of that fact? No.

Clearly fearmongering, she went on to explain that powerful images are what cause people to turn against allegedly dangerous sources of energy. She then proceeded to show the now infamous footage of some guy in Colorado lighting his tap water on fire, and of course, she tied these images to natural gas drilling. Did she mention the University of Texas study which concluded that methane in water wells was probably natural and likely was present in the water prior to shale gas operations? No.

Maddow then got to the main point of the segment: that fracking causes earthquakes. "Over a span of 40 days, between June and July, north Texas was rocked by an astonishing eleven separate earthquakes," she said, while showing a map overlaying earthquake epicenters with gas drilling sites.

But a paper published in PNAS, also from the University of Texas, provided more information. Did fracking cause earthquakes? Yes, probably small ones. Maddow enthusiastically reported this. But, many injection wells (where waste water was injected) did not have any earthquakes at all. The author hypothesizes that earthquakes can only occur if there is a suitable fault nearby. Did Maddow report that? No, of course not.

It's worth noting that geothermal energy -- a green energy source endorsed by many environmentalists -- also causes earthquakes. One such project in Basel, Switzerland was shut down because of them. Did Maddow mention that? No.

She then brings on a reporter and ironically asks, "Did I leave anything important out?"

The reporter amazingly responds, "No, I think you covered it pretty well." He does however, to his credit, correctly assert that not all wells have been associated with earthquakes.

Maddow's fracking analysis was nothing more than a biased, one-sided presentation of a serious science policy issue. That is unfortunate because Maddow likes to present herself as scientifically-minded. But presenting only the facts that support your case, instead of all of the facts, isn't what a scientist does -- it's what a partisan does.

(AP Photo)

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Early last month, NASA unveiled the Orion crew module during a ceremony held at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The announcement attracted engineers, ex-astronauts, and politicians, all keenly excited about Orion's potential to take up the lofty mantle left by the recently retired space shuttle.

"It's the first in a line of vehicles that can take us where we've never gone before," astronaut Rex Walheim said. Walheim, a crew member of the first space shuttle mission, furthered that Orion has the potential to be the principal spacecraft for thirty years of human space exploration.

But what about the thirty years after that?


Right now, dreamers from a variety of scientific disciplines are hard at work trying to shape the next century of manned spaceflight, daring to deny the impossible and think the unthinkable.

The 100 Year Starship (100YSS) Initiative is one such endeavor. Formed by ex-astronaut Mae Jemison, the project is now forging ahead after it was awarded a $500,000 grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) earlier this year. It's goal: "to galvanize public and private leadership and grassroots support, to assure that human travel beyond our solar system and to another star can be a reality within the next century."

100YSS's first aim is to provide a podium for today's greatest visionaries to contribute ideas that could one day lead to interstellar travel. A global call for papers has gone out, requesting insight on thought-provoking topics such as propulsion, time-space manipulation, cybernetics, living and working on world ships, space economies, and most simply, "Why should we go?" We all can look forward to an incredible blitz of futuristic ideas when these papers are presented at 100YSS's first public symposium in September.

One of 100YSS's partners is Icarus Interstellar, a nonprofit organization formed in 2011 with the towering goal of realizing interstellar flight before the turn of the century. Led by physicist Richard Obousy, the group is comprised of an international consortium of scientists, designers, and engineers. In the near term, Icarus Interstellar is conducting research into innovative propulsion designs using laser fusion or microwave beam-driven sails. They're also looking to catalyze public interest and inspire a generation of young people to carry on the dream of deep space exploration.  

Projects like these undoubtedly attract skeptics, scoffers, and realists. But to anybody seeking to instantly dismiss these projects as overly audacious, unfeasible wastes of time, I would remind them that monumental advances and great ideas begin with the courage to shun sneers and shed fears. Thoughts like, "This is stupid," and, "It can't be done," must be cast aside. Thinking of this nature will be an implicit requirement if mankind is ever to venture further into the cosmos.

(Image: Interstellar Ship, Shutterstock)

The number of America's robotic citizens on Mars grew by a resounding one late Sunday night when Curiosity conducted a nearly flawless landing procedure and successfully touched down on the Red Planet.

For the thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans watching NASA's coverage of the landing, the trepidation from mission control at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California was tangible, but the unbridled euphoria upon touchdown was infinitely more contagious. It was a moment that called for an exuberant chant of, "USA, USA, USA!"


"It's absolutely incredible," NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said of the landing. "This is a huge day for our nation and a huge day for the American people. Tomorrow morning, everyone should be sticking their chests out saying, 'That's my rover on Mars.'"

So we all should. Curiosity is a marvel, made almost purely in America. It's built with American technology, funded by $2.5 billion American tax dollars, and fueled by American enterprise and spirit. The United States is the only country to have ever successfully landed and operated a rover on Mars. With Curiosity, we have furthered America's unparalleled legacy of space exploration.


"If anyone has doubts about America's leadership in space, there's now a one ton car-sized piece of American ingenuity on Mars," John Holdren, senior science and technology adviser to President Barack Obama, said.

"This is by far the most capable device we've ever put up there for detecting life on Mars. This moment is a source of inspiration for young people and for the next generation of scientists that will put people on Mars."

Indeed, Curiosity's landing could very well serve as a "green light" moment for American science, innovation, and space exploration, reigniting the passion and imagination that had seemingly fallen off over the past decade. With the landing following on the heels of SpaceX's incredible foray into near-earth orbit to dock with the International Space Station, the first for a private company, it feels like "go time."


By 2014, NASA will test Orion, America's sparkling new deep space crew vehicle that could one day take people, not just robots, to Mars. In 2017, NASA's novel Space Launch System, a heavy-lift rocket, will be ready to launch Orion farther into space than any human has ever traveled before.

Today, with the landing of Curiosity, we celebrate a singular American victory. Tomorrow, we dream, we plan, and we strive to achieve the many more that will follow.

Sexual maturation is a part of life. Admittedly, for humans, it is awkward -- squeaky voices, strange smells and curly hairs growing in unspeakable places. Much of the rest of the biosphere, however, matures more gracefully. Many animals, including insects, birds, reptiles, fish and even some mammals, undergo nuptial color change. This color change indicates to others that, "I'm available and ready for action!"

Red dragonflies are so named because the males turn red at sexual maturity. Prior to that, all red dragonflies -- both male and female -- are yellow. The females, however, remain yellowish after becoming sexually mature. How this process occurs at the chemical level was reported last week in an open-access article in the journal PNAS.

The authors extracted the colorful compounds (called xanthommatins) from the dragonflies. They discovered that a simple oxidation/reduction reaction controlled the color of the compounds. (In an "oxidation," a compound loses electrons; in a "reduction," it gains electrons.) The oxidized form of xanthommatin is yellow, and the reduced form is red. Thus, the males contain a very high proportion of the reduced form of xanthommatin.

The molecule on the left is the "oxidized" version and is yellow in color. Notice in the lower-right corner of the molecule a single oxygen atom attached via a double bond. The molecule on the right is the "reduced" version and is red in color. Notice in the lower-right corner that the double bond has been converted to a single bond, and the oxygen is now accompanied by a hydrogen atom. (This "-OH" is called a hydroxyl group.) The reduced version also has an extra hydrogen tacked on the nitrogen near the center of the molecule. Some of the double bonds in the ring structures must rearrange to accommodate these modifications. These small changes cause the molecule to change color, from yellow to red.

In an interesting twist, the authors injected a reducing agent (which causes the xanthommatins to become reduced) into the yellow females. The result? They turned red. But injecting an oxidizing agent into the males (in the hope they would turn yellow) didn't work so well. They died, instead.

Source: Ryo Futahashi, Ryoji Kurita, Hiroaki Mano, and Takema Fukatsu. Redox alters yellow dragonflies into red. PNAS 109 (31) 12626-12631; published ahead of print July 9, 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1207114109

Why aren't the deserts and prairies of our country plastered with solar panels? Why don't we turn on all of our appliances knowing that we are relying only on the billions of years of constantly replenished light that our sun will provide us? Isn't the price of solar power going down? What is going on?