ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Nifty scientific fifty

Posted: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:35 PM by Alan Boyle

Did you hear the one about the politician who turned into an environmental activist? How about the poet who turned into an inventor? Or the patients who turned into research fund-raisers? There's a story behind every one of the individuals and organizations on Scientific American's list of 50 leaders in science and technology. Some of them you've heard of - such as politician-activist Al Gore, or billionaire philanthropists Paul Allen, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Others are less well-known - but no less deserving.

This year's edition of the Scientific American 50 is already circulating here and there around the Internet, and the full list is due to hit the magazine's Web site on Monday.

"The Scientific American 50 is looking not just at what's happening from the technological standpoint, but also at the business and policy trends and how they bear on the technology," John Rennie, the magazine's editor-in-chief, told me today.

Former Vice President Gore is cited as the policy leader of the year for his consciousness-raising efforts on the climate change issue, including his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." The insurance company Swiss Re gets similar climate-conscious kudos as business leader of the year, for its campaign to achieve carbon neutrality.

"Sound business practices in the 21st century are increasingly going to mean that you've got to have strategies that address climate change," Rennie observed. "It's great to have them sending out that sort of message. More and more businesses will be accepting the reality of climate change and doing something about it."

Gates and Buffett, meanwhile, are being recognized for their multibillion-dollar contributions to global health, and Allen is in the spotlight for his support of the Allen Brain Atlas. But billionaires aren't the only ones getting into the act of funding reearch. "There are a number of really interesting entrepreneurial approaches," Rennie said.

For example, take Scott Johnson, a 50-year-old former businessman who is battling against multiple sclerosis. As part of that battle, he established the Myelin Repair Foundation and enlisted researchers "to take a real business approach to how we develop some real treatments for multiple sclerosis," Rennie said.

Similarly, pharmaceutical executive Kathy Giusti created the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation after learning that she had the disease. "She has been terrifically successful and aggressive in raising money to support that research," Rennie said. "She's raised $16 million for it."

Another member of the Scientific American 50 is Nobel laureate Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard, who used her own money as well as a $100,000 grant to set up a foundation aimed at helping women scientists "get the kind of child care and household help they need to free them up so they can spend more time in the laboratory," Rennie said.

Then there's Elizabeth Goldring, a visually challenged artist and poet who developed a "seeing machine" at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The device projects images directly onto the retina using light-emitting diodes - and clinical trials already have produced encouraging results.

Another MIT scientist, Angela Belcher, is recognized as the research leader of the year for her work on what could be called bionanotech - a strategy that uses customized microbes to assemble machines and components on the nanometer scale. Scientific American says "her greatest success" involved programming a genetically engineered virus to assemble a three-dimensional grid of quantum dots.

Other fields highlighted in the SA50 hit parade include hybrid and biofuel automobiles, plasmonics and tissue engineering, Alzheimer's treatments and, of course, stem cell research. Last year's SA50 ran into a buzzsaw of controversy over stem cell claims - but this year, Scientific American highlighted approaches that used stem cell magic to reprogram regular cells.

There's even some recognition for the researchers working on robo-racers and invisibility cloaks.

Rennie said it was too early to predict how this week's elections might affect the scientific landscape, but he did say that climate change studies and stem cell research may well grab more of the spotlight by the time 2007's edition of the SA50 comes out.

"I would imagine that a lot of us would be hopeful about trying to push forward for some changes in the embryonic stem cell restrictions that have been in place," he said.

Meanwhile, on the subject of climate change, "there's been a head-in-the-sand tendency toward the formation of policy that's been coming out of Washington for these past few years," Rennie observed.

Will the scientific and political picture become clearer over the next year? Rennie said he's in a wait-and-see mood: "hopeful ... but not overly optimistic." What about you? Feel free to leave your comments below.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I take issue with the "head in the sand" comment. What I think he means is that the current administration doesn't agree with the current state of thought on the matter. The problem is that the statistical sample we have is so small and subject to error that any claims one way or the other are meaningless. One side says "we gotta do SOMETHING!" and the other asks "why should we?"
Al Gore has my vote, but as I always argue, there are other reasons to be an environmentalist other than things like global warming (which many people still don't believe). If I were to take out my pocketknife and carve my initials into a beautiful hardwood desk at the library, you would think I was an arrogant SOB with no other concerns but for myself. And yet, this is exactly how society is acting in regards to the environment. Aren't wastefulness and carelessness "Morally" wrong? Being green isn't just good for the environment. It saves us money, makes our water and food healthier, and reduces our dependency on oil, which can - at almost any moment - threaten our national security if it spikes. Americans buy cars and homes that are more for show than for functionality or efficiency. I'd rather invest my money in a home with disability-related features, an oversized garage (with a closet to reduce clutter), an alternate power source, and actual shop/office areas, than invest in a 35K car or truck that just isn't needed. If you think about it, why beat your own truck hauling things, when you can simply have things delivered for $30? Such decisions leave us - and our economy - vulnerable to even the slightest hiccup or disaster Ultimately, I've all but given up hope that advancements in science or environmentalism will be made here in the US. I have much more hope for my brothers in Europe to pull us through such a dangerous interum period that "America" seems to be so oblivious too. Chris
"Climate Change" "Global Warming" are not the right terms -its "Global Heating" There are enough scientists who believe it is being caused by human activity that it must be given serious attention - because if they are right and we dont do anything to reverse course,we will have screwed the pooch. The problem with ignoring this and treating it as a debate is that there is no room for error if the nonbelivers get it wrong.

I am a conservationist, but not a radical environmentalist.  I think it is foolish to waste  or damage the natural environment without great need or just cause, and it should be avoided, but not necessarily at any cost, which is the environmentalist mantra as of late.  Help "the environment" at ANY cost in every way possible every time is the current drive for the radical environmental movement.  The question is, what environment are we talking about, how do we "help" it.  The "environment" has become some sort of amorphous concept, almost personified as a being itself in some circles.  I think people tend to think of humankind as somehow seperate from the world we live in, and yet we are still completely a part of it; it spawned us, and in my view it is going to have to tolerate us to an extent as we survive or thrive within it as it natuarally changes itself.  Still, we should also not be willfully self destructive, and not tax it to the point where it can no longer bear the burden we put on it.

Population is the load we place.  There are simply too many people creating too many people, really, but that can only change by our voluntary self control.
Global warming is of little concern.  We are sure it is happening, but despite a lot of research, we still cannot honestly say we understand the mechanisms well, and that we can even come close to quantifying our contribution to it.  It is inevitable that we will face climate change, as it is a natural occurrence.  It is also virtually impossible for us to substantially affect the change, whether it was triggered in part by us or not.

We should be more concerned with dealing with the future effects of the inevitable changes than wasting resources in a futile effort to stall it, because it will occurr nonetheless.  The best we can possibly hope for would be to slow it a few percent with extreme expenditures of resources at a substantial human cost.  Do we know that is the best course of action.  No, we don't because we don't fully understand even the warming, and that much less the potential consequences.

I would rather be driven in a clear direction with a clear purpose by concensus of well established and confirmed research than to leap to conclusions before all the data is in and understood to ease a paranoid fear on a temporary basis and take the risk that the medicine is worse than the disease.

Al Gore??? When did science and hysteria become equal.

Keep your head in the sand,guys!  You don't perform unplanned, open-ended experiments with your (and mine!) one, and only, home.

The current misadministration is driven solely by profit oriented plutarchs.  Nothing against an honest profit, but you don't pee in your own well!

The willingness to recognize a potential pitfall and take avoiding action is far preferable and wiser, to falling in and then worrying about getting out.  The problem with tipping points in ecosystems is that they may be hard to recognize until the are passed and it may not be possible to "Untip" them.

Adam, regarding your quote, "Global warming is of little concern.  We are sure it is happening, but despite a lot of research, we still cannot honestly say we understand the mechanisms well, and that we can even come close to quantifying our contribution to it.  It is inevitable that we will face climate change, as it is a natural occurrence.  It is also virtually impossible for us to substantially affect the change, whether it was triggered in part by us or not."

This statement shows us that EDUCATION is a wonderful thing.

You claim that you are a "conservationist," yet you have clearly made up your mind that the vast majority of scientists are studying something of "little concern". I would like to see any scientific paper that claims, "we still cannot honestly say we understand the mechanisms well".

The understanding of what is happening has been with us for many years. The education of said understanding is under way, yet still so far away.

Breaking the "Programmed Mind" is what we are dealing with. Please at least try to be open-minded, so that when the time comes when the political powers (yes both parties on both sides of the Atlantic) and big industry decide to clean up their "smoke screen" approach to the problem, at least you will be ready for the truth.

I think Mr. Weimer should sit down and watch An Inconvenient Truth. Saying that the data is so small and so subject to error is just plain false. We are on the edge of another mini ice age, and we need to address the situation now. The fact of the matter is is that the current administration is run by oil industry executives. It's not that there isn't enough proof on the table, it's that it means massive losses on their part from having to stop being involved in the oil business. Right now our cars aren't allowed in many countries because we fail to meet their emmissions standards. The Federal Govt is trying to sue California over their stte emmissions policies that would effectively put them where CHina's emmissions standards are today -11 YEARS from now. So. the largest industrializeing nation on the face of the planet, the one that we owe the greatest chunk of our debt to- will not accept our cars and everything that goes along with it because of our current administration's blazing shortsightedness. Last month Ford closed down the plant that made the Taurus, because they couldn't keep it open. Imagine if the government was fully on board the biodiesel bandwagon. That plant and the thousand jobs lost could hev been saved and revamped as a Corporation and Environment saver. Instead, it was scuttled, jobs lost, and a small town lies dying. it is time for us to open our eyes and become the innovators that our forefathers were, otherwie, we will just be statistics.
Does Al Gore drive a plug-in electric car powered by windmills? I will take Democrats seriously when they get serious. Carter gave lipservice to US energy independence, as well as W, the time for lipservice is over. If we are all not part of the solution, we are part of the problem.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=14348

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google