Just a quick post to say I’m now one of the guest bloggers for the London hub of Nature Network and my first piece – a review of the event “Eat Leaner, Live Longer?” at the Dana Centre has just gone live!
Look out for more blog posts on there from me soon!
As the Ministry of Defence unveilled it’s latest gadgets to the media at an event on Thursday, the exhibit that seems to have generated the most interest is a lump of orange goo.
Image courtesy of d3o: http://www.d3o.com
A soft orange plastic polymer that turns solid if impacted was displayed by Richard Palmer from d3o with the ‘goo’ an ideal shock absorber for use by soldiers. Already used by sportspersons (particulaerly slalom skiers who use the polymer in their race suits), Palmer is hopeful that his company’s product might be useable by the MOD in the lining of helmets or providing protection to joints such as the knees or elbows. He told the BBC Website: “It won’t stop a bullet, but used in conjunction with body armour, it could help save a soldier’s life.” Unfortunately the video of the goo has now been removed from YouTube, but you can see the original at the BBC Website by clicking here. There is also an official d3o video available here: What is d3o?
Sadly the video, nor the article on the BBC website, provide any explanation on the science behind the polymer. Having searched online and even looking at the data sheets on the company’s products, the most scientific information I can find is the following quote from one of their material scientist’s Dr Green on the Azom website:
Dr Green explains, “The molecules simply flow past each other at low rates of movement when you are moving your body naturally, but when they are subject to an impact that requires the molecules to move very quickly they instantaneously lock together by linking with each other to form a protective barrier. As soon as the impact has passed they immediately unlock to provide flow and normal flexibility. This all happens in less than a 1000th of a second, and the faster they are impacted the more quickly they react: true intelligence!”
The product definitely looks interesting and the video on the BBC website certainly appears convincing of its uses. I must admit to being particularly interested as I have just discovered that D3O also produce specially designed equestrian competition wear containing some of their special shock absorbers.
If anyone has any luck finding out more behind the science involved then please leave a comment as I’d be most interested in reading how it actually works.
Good news for hayfever sufferers – Japanese scientists have started using “Pollen-Robos” to measure the pollen count.
Originally created in 2006, the Pollen-Robos are balloon-like spheres developed to warn Japanese residents of high levels of pollen capable of triggering hayfever attacks. The 30centimetre robots, weighing about a kilo, ‘breathe in’ the same volume of air as a person and monitor pollen amount, temperature, air pressure and humidity to Weathernews for its online pollen alert map.
The Pollen-Robos can be hung outside sufferers’ homes and it’s luminous “eyes” cycle through five different colours depending on the area’s pollen count warning the residents of the area’s pollen count and how badly their symptoms might affect them that particular day allowing them to plan their treatment accordingly. According to Mainichi Daily News (3rd Feb 2009)
“If the airborne pollen count exceeds 300 in a single day, the robot’s eyes will turn purple. The entire face of the robot also appears to be different colors depending on what angle it’s at.”
Obviously, the Pollen-Robos are not going to help accurately warn all sufferers when their symptoms are going to be most severe, since different types of pollen affect different people in various ways. However, this attractive robot is surely going to provide some useful data for the Japanese weather company as well as helping some hayfever sufferers.
Below is an image of the Pollen-Robos courtesy of National Geographic’s website:
The Pollen-Robos decided to help warn hayfever sufferers when their symptoms are likely to be most severe.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time to write a proper blog post tonight, but I’ve just seen a rather outlandish looking article on the BBC Website entitled “Is it selfish to have more than two children?”, which I felt I should share.
The article is all about the environmental impact children and large families have on the Earth, particularly with regard to increasing populations and the strains these put on ecosystems. The purpose of the piece is to suggest (or rather encourage) families to limit themselves to 2 children, since, it is claimed, any more than this will result in an unnecessary large global population which could put unnecessary strain on the Earth’s supplies.
Whilst I’m all for encouraging people to live their lives in green ways (which fit in with their lifestyles), I find it very hard to imagine that parents in the UK, many of whom are probably reluctant to stop using plastic carrier bags for their weekly food shops, will suddenly take heed of the advice given by Mr Porrit (a green campaigner from the Optimum Population Trust).
A new device has been developed by Imperial College, London and its spinout company DNA Electronics that is capable of testing patients to see if they will react badly to certain prescribed medications, such as anti-depressants and cholesterol controlling drugs.
The prototype device, known as SNP Dr (pronounced ’snip doctor’) works by analysing the DNA in saliva or cheek swab samples. The process is so quick that it can be carried out by a GP before they prescribe the patient’s medicine without the cost of laboratory analysis.
The device works by analysing genetic variations called Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) which are the parts of human DNA that control our individual responses to disease, bacteria, viruses, toxins or medication.
The researchers are also focusing on how the snip doctor device might be able to detect genetic sequences which control the speed of our metabolism, something else which can affect the body’s reaction to a medicine. Slow metabolisms can make the drugs last longer in the body and therefore increase the risk of side effects, whilst someone with a fast metabolism is likely to process the medication to quickly for it to have any adverse effects.
Image Courtesy of Wikipedia, User:Sponge & uploaded by User:BesigedB
The NHS spends £460 million a year treating patients suffering adverse reactions to prescribed medications, with their symptoms ranging in severity from dizziness and nausea to even heart palpitations and unconsciousness. Although the device is still a prototype (about to begin clinical trials thanks to a newly formed partnership with the pharmaceutical company Pfizer), there is hope that not only will GPs be able to personalise a patient’s treatment but according to Dr Leila Shepherd, Chief Technology Officer of DNA Electronics, the introduction of the SNP DR might enable new drugs to become readily available:
“At the moment, some cancer fighting drugs are deemed uneconomical because they only work for a certain subset of patients. If doctors had a method of screening patients to see whether these drugs work, then suddenly these therapies would be more cost effective to use.”
Image by Ernesto Azuar Valenzuela (Wikipedia)
…sadly not any time soon, but scientists at Georgia Institute of Technology have managed to create a power-generating jacket which when worn by a hamster can produce very small amounts of renewable (and relatively waste free!) electricity.
Professor Zhong Lin Wang a researcher in the Georgia Tech School of Materials Science and Engineering confirmed that:
“We believe this is the first demonstration of using a live animal to produce current with nanogenerators….This study shows that we really can harness human or animal motion to generate current.”
Their work also involved using the same nanotechnology to harness energy from finger tapping (such as users of hand-held mobile devices like phones and Blackberry) and convert it into electrical currents. It is hoped that in the future the users’ own typing might be able to power some of the device using the conversion of human biomechanical energy into electrical.
Image courtesy of Science Daily and Zhong Lin Wang
Their work, published online in the American Chemical Society journal Nano Letters, involved a nanogenerator powered by the piezoelectric effect. This effect is the ability of some chemicals to generate electrical charges (and thus a current) when they experience a mechanical stress, for example when they are bent or flexed. Wang and his colleagues made the nanogenerators using zinc oxide wires coated in the a flexible polymer and these single-wired generators could then be attached to the joint of an index finger, or in the hamster’s case, 4 could be combined into a jacket which could be worn by the hamster.
Although their research is certainly interesting, it is worth nothing that to power a Bluetooth headset thousands of these single-wire generators would be required. So the future of biomechanically produced electricity and a world where we can power our lives through our own movement is still a long way away.
Researchers from China and Japan have discovered that butterflies have small solar ‘cells’ on their wings.
Their work published in the issue of ACS’ Chemistry of Materials journal discusses their discovery that butterfly wings have tiny scales which are capable of collecting solar energy. They hope their findings might provide new ways to design more efficient solar cells for use on homes and businesses.
Currently the most efficient solar cells are known as Grätzel cells (after their inventor Michael Grätzel) which are a type of dye-sensitized solar cell. These work using semiconductor technology and are thin-film solar cells, which are cheap to produce and can be made to be flexible. These engineered cells are the most efficient at converting light into electrical energy of those currently used – they have an efficiency as high as 10%.
Copyright of Michael Apel
However, the scientists work has discovered that particular scales on the wings of butterflies are ‘nanobiologically-tuned’ such that they can absorb sunlight and allow the butterfly to survive in colder conditions or regions of higher-altitude. The efficiency of these cells is even higher than the Grätzel cells.
Researcher Di Zhang and his colleagues used the butterfly wings as moulds (having to soak them in chemicals and bake them in an oven at 500 degrees Celsius) to produce a suitable photoanode which electricity generated from light could pass. They were then able to study the structure of these photoanodes using scanning and transmission microscopes. The hope is that the scientists will be able to use the structure of the butterfly wings to help develop commercially viable solar cells based on similar principles.
In the meantime, environmentalists and green activists will have to bite their tongues and refrain from outcries of butterfly cruelty if they wish for renewable energy research to continue!
As a keen horse-rider I have a special interest in a recent academic publication which claims that horse riding is more dangerous than taking the drug ecstasy. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to gain access to the journal article, so my knowledge of the academic details behind the study are limited to that which has been covered in the mainstream press, but from what I have seen I can’t help but be concerned by what Professor David Nutt has to say.
In his article entitled “Equasy: An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms” published in the Jorunal of Pschopharmacology, Professor Nutt makes claims in the Daily Telegraph that “There is not much difference between horse riding and ecstasy” since he believes both ecstasy and ‘equasy’ (the term he uses to describe Equine Addiction Syndrome) addiction lead to people taking unnecessary risks and ultimately putting their lives in danger. He goes onto say that:
“Making riding illegal would completely prevent all these harms and would be, in practice, very easy to do.”
According to the Telegraph article, Professor Nutt claims that Equine Addiction Syndrome has caused 10 deaths and more than 100 road traffic accidents a year (The Sunday Sun seems to come up with an even more alarming figure claiming that it leads to over 100 deaths a year!). Furthermore in an opinon piece in the Daily Mail Professor Nutt is claimed to have said that “horseriding can lead to brain damage” – surely he means falls from a horse and not the riding itself, or does the addiction of horses result in severe brain impairment?
Personally, as a follower of all horse-related news I find these claims a little outlandish and the figures rather large, especially when you consider that in 2007 there were 4.3million riders in the UK – 100 deaths suddenly doesn’t seem very many (we’re looking at about 0.002%!). As I said, I can’t access the academic paper surrounding Professor Nutt’s argument, but I must wonder whether his figures take into account those riders who are professionals and make a living from horse-riding (particularly jockeys and eventers who are known to suffer more accidents than those in other equestrian disciplines).
The Telegraph article also fails to discern whether the 100 road traffic accidents are as a result of negligance/error on the part of the rider/horse or instead the fault of the driver of the vehicle - examples in the British Horse Society’s “New Inquiry into Road Safety” highlights one such incidence where an 18year old driver was arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving and The Department of Transport also notes that “Riders are especially vulnerable to inconsiderate drivers”. His comments that hunting leads to “gatherings of users that often are associated with these group engaging in violent conduct” could also lead to questions concerning his political allegiance.
But the purpose of this blog post is not to rant at the lack of understanding Professor Nutt seems to have of equestrianism (I could be accused of having a vested interest which is biasing my opinion). Instead, the main concern I have is the controversial way he possesses a view (irrespective of the scientific backing that may or may not have) that conflicts with his public duty. Professor Nutt is the chairman of the Home Office’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), an independent body which claims to:
“consider[s] any substance which is being or appears to be misused and of which is having or appears to be capable of having harmful effects sufficient to cause a social problem”
Their code of conduct states that members must:
“[observe] the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relation to the advice they provide”
and more specifically that:
“The Chair of the ACMD [ie. Professor Nutt] is appointed as an individual to fulfil the role of the Council, not as a representative of their particular profession, employer or interest group, and has a duty to act in the public interest.” (emphasis added)
How can an academic who is actively researching a topic which could be considered to be against the interest of the public, be allowed to Chair an independent organisation aimed at advising the government on the misuse of drugs? Surely Professor Nutt is not claiming that all previous research on the harmful effects of ecstasy are incorrect? Interestingly the Daily Mail article claims that:
“Professor Andy Parrott, of Swansea University, is the UK’s leading expert on ecstasy, having spent more than 14 years researching it. He says that nearly everything Professor Nutt has said about ecstasy is incorrect.”
“Nutt says there are ten deaths from ecstasy per year. Parrott says the real annual figure is 40-70 deaths.”
“Nutt says it is not addictive….Parrott says it causes compulsive and escalating use”
Not only does Professor Nutt disagree with other scientific research (and actively try to counteract it), but his association with “The Beckley Foundation” an organisation which is supposedly committed to legalise drugs, surely makes one questions his ability to function as the chair of the Home Office’s ACMD in a neutral role.
Professor Nutt has not only been accused of underplaying the effects of ecstasy but could be accused of suggesting to children that taking drugs is no more dangerous than (and therefore as acceptable as) partaking in various ‘dangerous sports’ (such as base-jumping, scubadiving and motorcross). His comments down-playing the severity of drug abuse, must also feel sour for those people who have suffered the loss of a loved one due to ecstasy. Furthermore, all of this comes shortly before the government make a judgement on whether to downgrade ecstasy to a Class B drug. If Professor Nutt feels so strongly that society need to be aware of the risks they suffer on a daily basis, before judging whether taking drugs is bad, I feel he possibly should go one step further and make driving illegal since there are around 3000 road deaths per year in the UK (I’m ignoring percentages of deaths compared to the number of road users since that would appear to be the system Professor Nutt uses).
Interestingly, to finish, I should add that Professor Nutt is an academic at both Bristol University and Imperial College, London yet neither of these institutions have covered his latest publication in their press releases of research news from their institution – obviously they felt it lacked the necessary news values or was not a study they wished to associate themselves with.
At first glance the news that the University of Delaware are teaching babies to drive robots sounds like something from science fiction or from the year 2100! In actual fact it is a project aimed at helping babies with mobility inpairment achieve infant development nearer their able-bodied peers.
Babies brain’s undergo rapid development during their infant years and much of this is achieved through exploring, learning and feeling and seeing the world around them, but much of this is achieved through movement throughout their environments. However, infants with Down syndrome, cerebal palsy, autism and other disorders have mobility limitations that stop them from exploring the world in the same way that other babies can and this can have lasting effects on their brain’s development. At the moment children with mobility difficulties are not given power assisted wheelchairs until they are at least 5 or 6 years old.
In an effort to provide these babies with a more normal life, two scientists at the University of Delaware have created kid-size robots that babies can drive in order to experience the world around them. James Galloway, associate professor of physical therapy, and Sunil Agrawal, professor of mechanical engineering have created a tiny robot called UD1 which has sensors on it to determine where obstacles are in the surrounding environment – it allows babies to either bump into the obstacles or is capable of driving the infant around them. They hope that their next prototype, UD2, will build further on this technology to allow parents or other supervising adults to also control the robot.
Galloway, who initially had been reluctant to try robotics with babies, admits that no-one has tried getting babies to use robots before, but early experiments with 7month year old infancts have shown that they are capable of operating the simple joystick and hopes that even younger children with disabilities will be able to learn too. He confessed that therapists and parents are frequently concerned about their infant’s safety with worries that a young child in a power wheelchair might be dangerous to themselves – they could for example crash into something or end up in the middle of the road in front of a car.
“This is, of course, understandable, and is the same fear that every parent with a newly walking infant faces. It is the solution to the safety problem that is the real barrier. The current clinical practice is to avoid power mobility until the child can follow adult commands,” Galloway said. “Your parents didn’t wait until you followed their every command before they let you walk – they held your hand, they required you to stay near them, and alerted you to obstacles in your way. This is the way infants learn real world navigation, and it is exactly these safety features that are being built into our mobile robot.”
Personally, I think this is a great example of how technology can be used to enhance people’s lives. The story on the University of Delaware’s website goes into much more depth if you’re interested in learning more about how the technology works and the background behind the research.
Yesterday the results of a study into the effect Jamie Oliver’s “Feed Me Better” Campaign were released with some promising results and yet I haven’t seen it covered in any of the national press – surprising given it’s news values (the positive results and the celebrity status of Jamie Oliver) I would have thought it would have had editors jumping all over it! If anyone has seen any prominent non-specialist articles on the subject please correct me! The other good thing about this study was that it would appear to be quite scientifically robust – I managed to read abut 75% of the actual study and it seems like they cover the concerns of placebo effects thoroughly and try not to suggest that their results are more significant than they are.
Before I go into the results in any detail, I’ll just discuss the background of the paper. For those not aware of Oliver’s antics back in 2004, along with Channel 4 he began a campaign to improve school meals available to pupils in Greenwich. His aim was to transform the meals available from cheap food, high in saturated fat, sugar and salt into healthier but also appealling lunches for children. By tackling the local authorities funding and also retraining the kitchen staff he managed to get most (if not all) schools in the London Borough to eventually transform their lunches. His campaign soon became a national one with him frequently on news programs trying to convince more people to listen to what he had to say. Oliver’s theory behind the scheme was that not only would the children be healthier, but that their concentration would improve and thus their academic achievement.
The study which has just been released analysed the key stage 2 results of more than 13,000 primary school children from Greenwich with 7 other London Boroughs and using a difference comparison (ie. looking at the changes from year to year in each Borough and then comparing with surrounding areas). From this they ascertained that Greenwich pupils who sat exams in 2006-20007 (and thus on the new diet for at least 12months) had better results than the other control groups – 8% improvement in science and 6% in English (there was a less noticeable, but still an increase in Maths marks).
The Universirty of Essex carried out the study (rather than some governmental initiative or an organisation afflited with Oliver) and from reading most of the report it would appear it is quite scientific and a story worth covering. The investigation allowed for a placebo effect that schools featured on the television programme might have improved exam results as a result of the publicity and media coverage (in fact the schools featured explicity saw a decrease in exam results!) and they also sensibly only looked at primary school children since these are less likely to be able to buy junk food before/after school. When the results were considered they also allowed for the current upward trend in pass rates in school exams, so that they could eliminate this natural trend when considering the effect of the healthier food. The researchers were also keen to point out the failures of the study – the fact that they couldn’t prove that the campaign specifically helped those children entitled to free school meals since they had no numerical data to suggest if students were takin gup their right to free meals. Also, they expressed their concern that they couldn’t be certain that the children actually ate the food despite being offered it (no unhealthy or non-Jamie Oliver meals were available however) and that the study did not explicity look at the health aspects, only the exam results. All of these are clearly pointed out in the study’s document and they deliver a compelling and mathematically sound argument that Jamie Oliver’s meals do seem to suggest a correlation between healthier school lunches and the (rapid) improvement in exam results.
It will be interesting to see if this is picked up on by any of the press in the next few days and if it is hyped up (without mentioning the slight limitations of the study).