Is a widely used pesticide to blame for making bees disappear? The debate over a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids was the focus of a spot on NBC's "Nightly News" tonight, and NBC News' Anne Thompson has supplemented her TV report with a couple of Web-only videos presenting the pro and con arguments on neonicotinoids.

There's little question that pesticides play a role in the malady known as colony collapse disorder, in which whole colonies of honeybees leave their hives abruptly and never return. Most experts would say pesticides are among a host of bee-debilitating factors that also include viruses, mites and fungi. However, in recent months a number of studies have highlighted neonicotinoids as a particularly worrisome threat to bees.

So far, the Environmental Protection Agency has not acknowledged a link between colony collapse disorder and the reported problems with neonicotinoids. The chemicals are attractive to farmers, particularly for corn crops, because they are much more toxic to insects than they are to mammals. The stuff is sprayed on corn seeds as well as plants in the field.

One of the bonus videos is an interview with Steve Ellis, owner of the Old Mill Honey Company in Minnesota. "The quantity of neonicotinoid systemic insecticides that are being used in the country is mind-boggling," he says. Ellis is one of the backers of a petition campaign calling on the EPA to suspend further use of a type of neonicotinoid known as clothianidin.

In the other video, David Fischer, chief ecotoxicologist for Bayer CropScience, contends that neonicotinoids don't kill off bee colonies as long as they're used properly. He contends that in the studies linking the chemicals to colony collapse disorder, the bees were exposed to "unrealistically high levels" of the chemicals. Bayer CropScience markets clothianidin in brand-name pesticides that include Poncho and Prosper.

Watch the three videos, then feel free to weigh in with your vote and/or your comments.

More about the bee debate:

• Two studies link neonicotinoids to bee crash
• Fungal threats are a growing concern
• New bee viruses found attacking healthy hives
• Bees feel the sting of huge population plunge

Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Logcommunity by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.

Mariana Ruiz Villareal

Calculations of dinosaur biomass suggest that plant-eating sauropods like the ones pictured here in an artist's conception could have contributed enough methane to warm Earth's climate 150 million years ago.

Some scientific findings are just too good to leave alone, even if you don't know if they can ever be confirmed: Such is the case for a study saying that plant-eating dinosaurs could have emitted enough digestive methane to warm Earth's climate 150 million years ago.

"It is known that the time of these dinosaurs was warmer than now," said David Wilkinson, an environmental scientist at Liverpool John Moores University who's the lead author of a paper on the subject appearing in the journal Current Biology. "This is explained usually by an enhanced greenhouse effect, mainly carbon dioxide. If we are correct, then methane from sauropods may have been a contributor to this greenhouse effect."

Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and modern-day livestock are thought to be responsible for about a quarter of the methane released in the United States. Some say that the belches and flatulence of cattle, pigs and sheep are a significant contributor to the warming effect caused by greenhouse-gas emissions. So why wouldn't it have been the same in the age of giant plant-eating dinosaurs, when global biomass density was at least several times what it is today?

"All vertebrates that feed on leaves, etc., use microbes to help digest these, and usually give off methane," Wilkinson told me in an email. "This includes both mammals and reptiles. ... Although details vary within groups, everything around today does this, so the assumption is [that] larger herbivorous dinosaurs did as well."

He and his colleagues ran the numbers, using what they saw as conservative estimates for the total amount of dinosaur biomass and methane production rates per kilogram of body mass. They came up with a figure of 520 million tons of methane emitted per year, which is more than total modern-day methane emissions from all sources, natural and industrial. The current estimate for total methane emission is around 500 million tons a year, with 50 to 100 milllion tons of that coming from ruminant animals such as cows and goats, Wilkinson said.

"Our work certainly suggests biology and climate were involved in a feedback loop," he said.

Biologists have found that most of the modern-day methane emissions from livestock come from belching rather than flatulence. Was it the same for dinosaurs? "We have no particular view which end of the sauropod the methane came out," Wilkinson told me. "Could be either or both."

Chemical analysis of ancient marine sediments has found that greenhouse-gas levels went through a huge rise 201 million years ago, around the time of a mass extinction that set the stage for the rise of the dinosaurs. Scientists suspect that the atmospheric methane levels at that time were pumped up by a massive release of methane from the seafloor. Such evidence suggests that plant-eating dinosaurs weren't responsible for starting the upswing in Mesozoic methane. But did they help preserve the methane-rich atmosphere and toasty temperatures until they were killed off by an asteroid strike?

Wilkinson noted that his paper was titled "Could Methane Produced by Sauropod Dinosaurs Have Helped Drive Mesozoic Climate Warmth?" — not "Did Methane Produced by Dinosaurs Help Drive Climate Warmth."

"What our simple calculations show is that, yes, it could. It's a real possibility. But we don't show that it did happen," he said. "That would require much more work, and indeed it may be impossible to completely prove this without a time machine."

Extra credit: A dozen years ago, the BBC quoted a Chinese news report that quoted an unnamed French scientist as saying the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago not by an asteroid, but by their own flatulence. This hypothesis proposed that the methane emissions from the giant beasts became so great that the climate changed, the vegetation withered and the dinosaurs all starved. But that's just too silly to consider. Or is it?

More about methane:

• U.S. claims success in fuel source test
• Herb quells cows' methane-laden belches
• Did methane 'burp' clear way for dinosaurs?
• Methane seeping from ice becomes climate concern

In addition to Wilkinson, authors of the Current Biology paper include the University of London's Euan G. Nisbet and the University of Glasgow's Graeme D. Ruxton.

Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.

J. Craig Venter Institute

A genetically transformed strain of bacteria takes on a bluish cast as a signal that synthetic coding was incorporated into the cell's genetic machinery.

Someday, microbiomes just might give us a world where crude oil is grown like a crop, where vaccines for new flu strains can be produced in days instead of months, and where physicians can tweak the bacteria in your gut to cure what ails you. At least that's the promise held out by genomics pioneer Craig Venter and others at a symposium conducted this week at Seattle's Institute for Systems Biology.

A decade ago, Venter was among a cadre of researchers who first decoded the human genome — in Venter's case, his own. Today, as the head of the J. Craig Venter Institute, he's among a cadre of researchers who are not only working out the implications of that genetic code for our daily lives, but also studying how to tweak the genetic codes of the myriad microbes that surround us — and in some cases, live within us. The makeup of those microbial communities is what scientists refer to a "microbiome."

A decade ago, the main challenge facing geneticists was to translate the "analog" information of cellular chemistry into a digital database, Venter told attendees. Today, the main challenge is to reverse course and make the "digital to analog" conversion, so that innovations in genetic code can be applied to the real world.

How's that done? Venter and his colleagues made a start on that task just a few years ago, by pioneering a process to synthesize DNA and insert it into a strain of bacteria. The daughter cells reflected the artificially altered programming instead of their forebears' natural genetic code.

Now Venter and others are putting synthetic biology to work. Here are just a few of the examples cited at the Seattle symposium, titled "Systems Biology and the Microbiome":

• Novartis, a major pharmaceutical company, is working with Venter on techniques to crack the genetic code of an influenza virus strain and pass it along to the vaccine-makers within five days. A quick turnaround is the key to containing the spread of deadly flu strains like the one that killed tens of millions in 1918. "We think we're actually pandemic-ready," Venter said.
• Several commercial ventures, including Sapphire Energy, are tweaking algae to produce oil-like compounds at a price that's cheaper than the cost of crude oil. Sapphire CEO Jason Pyle pointed out that based purely on commodity costs, corn is a cheaper energy source than oil (though not as cheap as natural gas). If genetically modified algae could be grown in mass quantities as cheaply as corn, it could become a renewable energy source that's much closer to carbon-neutral than fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide could come to be seen as "the raw material of the future," Venter said.

• Algae strains could also be reprogrammed to produce foodstuffs, Venter said. Such genetic twists could outpace today's chemical-heavy agricultural methods, which are increasingly being seen as too wasteful for the planet's rising population. "Ultimately, the elimination of agriculture as we know it should be a goal of modern science," Venter said. However, harnessing synthetic algae cells is "not a short-term project," he cautioned.
• Unraveling the human microbiome, particularly in our digestive system,. ranks among the top priorities for microbiologists. Physicians are already experimenting with "fecal transplants" — a gross-sounding procedure that involves injecting material from a donor's intestines into the gut of a patient who needs a healthier bacterial community. Having your digestive bacteria analyzed, and tweaked if necessary, may someday become part of a routine physical. (However, MIT's Eric Alm noted that it wouldn't have to be done annually, because your gut's microbiome doesn't usually change that quickly.)
• The bacteria in our bowels may even play a role in space exploration: If we ever get to the point of sending astronauts to Mars, Venter said one of the first items on the agenda should be to replace the astronauts' Earth-centric gut bacteria with a selection more suited to the Mars trip. Venter has said other bacteria cold be engineered to create fuel and food from raw materials on Mars, including the carbon dioxide in its atmosphere.

This all sounds like a science-fiction utopia, but some believe there's the potential for a sci-fi nightmare instead. Last month, an international environmental consortium called for a moratorium on the commercial use of synthetic organisms, and an outright ban on the application of synthetic biology to the human genome or the human microbiome.

"It is our obligation to safeguard the future, to be wise in our development and use of technologies which could threaten humans and the Earth," said Carolyn Raffensperger, executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network. The results of an online survey on synthetic biology are due to be released next month.

What do you think about the idea using genetically altered microbes to produce fuel, food and medicine? Is it a panacea, a Pandora's Box, or something in between? Feel free to register your opinion in the online poll above, or in the comment space below.

More about the microbiome and synthetic biology:

• Scientists map the world's microbes
• What's living on your smartphone?
• Bacteria prefer prime real estate
• Renewable rubber highlights new economy
• One-third of Americans back ban on synthetic biology

JCVI via Science/AAAS

Scientists took a type of bacteria known as Mycoplasma capricolum and transplanted a custom-written version of the genome from a different type of bacteria, Mycoplasma mycoides. The synthetic genome included coding for the production of a blue compound, which served here as a signal that the bacteria were "synthetic cells."

More than 100 environmental and social-action groups say synthetic organisms shouldn't be sent out into the world until governments create a new framework to regulate them. Their recommendations for such a framework are outlined in a statement of principles issued today.

Synthetic biology aims to create new genetic strains of microbes, such as algae that are tailor-made to produce biofuels, or bacteria that are engineered to fight medical maladies ranging from infections to cancer. Researchers estimate that the global market for synthetic biology was $1.1 billion in 2010, and is on track to increase to $10.8 billion in 2016.

Critics, however, say that the technology could lead to environmental hazards of Frankensteinian proportions, including new strains of unstoppable invasive species and unpredictable hazards to human health. The 111 groups behind today's statement, including Friends of the Earth, the International Center for Technology Assessment and the ETC Group, are on the critical side of the spectrum.

"We are calling for a global moratorium on the release and commercial use of synthetic organisms until we have established a public interest research agenda, examined alternatives, developed the proper regulations and put into place rigorous biosafety measures," Carolyn Raffensperger, executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, said in a news release. "It is our obligation to safeguard the future, to be wise in our development and use of technologies which could threaten humans and the Earth."

The groups call for an outright ban on the use of synthetic biology on the human genome, or on the human microbiome — that is, the wide assortment of microbes that are found inside us or on our skin. They say the current systems in place to regulate genetic engineering are inadequate for the task ahead. 

"Self-regulation of the synthetic biology industry simply won't work. Current laws and regulations around biotechnology are outdated and inadequate to deal with the novel risks posed by synthetic biology technologies and their products," said Andy Kimbrell, executive director of the International Center for Technology Assessment.

The debate over synthetic biology has intensified since geneticist J. Craig Venter and his colleagues announced the development of the "first synthetic cell" in 2010. In the wake of that announcement, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues said there was no need to halt research into synthetic biology or establish an entirely new regulatory framework. Instead, the commission called for a combination of industry self-regulation, closer coordination by existing regulatory agencies and further research into the potential for risk.

When that report was released, the ETC Group's Jim Thomas said it was "disappointingly empty and timid." Thomas' group is one of the principal backers of the proposed principles issued today.

A spokesman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization told ScienceInsider's Elizabeth Pennisi that the principles issued today were not helpful to policymakers or the public, due to "the shrillness of its tone and its lack of objectivity." He said "there are a lot of safeguards in place" today, while acknowledging that the existing regulations may eventually need to be upgraded.

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has established its own project to study the policy implications of synthetic biology. One of the leaders of that project, senior research associate Todd Kuiken, told me that the principles issued today were "not that much different" from the presidential commission's recommendations, although he said the tone was a bit more strident. "The word 'moratorium' is a little strong," he said.

"There are potential risks there, and we need to look at these issues before we start putting these things out there," Kuiken said. "I don't think anything they said is that surprising to folks, nor is the response from industry that surprising."

The center's Synthetic Biology Project has voiced concern about the implications of genetic technology for the past 18 months. In a recent Nature commentary, Kuiken and four colleagues urged scientists and officials to take additional steps to avoid "a synthetic-biology disaster."

"Public agencies must link basic and environmental risk research by co-funding projects and requiring grant recipients to work with environmental agencies from the start," they wrote. "Given the complexity of the research questions, the economic and social value of successful synthetic-biology applications and the potential impact of errors, we think that a minimal investment of $20 million to $30 million over 10 years is appropriate."

Today, the Synthetic Biology Project is kicking off an online survey to gauge public opinion on the ethical, legal and social implications synthetic biology. The center said results from the survey would be compiled into a report to be released in May. To take the survey, click here. But first, register your opinion in our own unscientific poll at right.

More about synthetic biology:

• First synthetic life form holds promise and peril
• One-third of Americans back ban on synthetic biology
• Synthetic life could help humans colonize Mars
• DNA chip is 'printing press' for synthetic biology
• Yeast adds vitamins to bread

This temple in the Kingdom of Tikal is one of the most prominent of the Classic Maya Period.

Scientists have long assumed that the Classic Maya civilization was done in more than a millennium ago by a series of droughts, but now they say natural records suggest those droughts were "modest," with no more than a 40 percent reduction in rainfall. And that, in turn, suggests that similarly modest climate changes over the next century could have a not-so-modest effect.

"What seems like a minor reduction in water availability may lead to important, long-lasting problems ... Today, we have the benefit of awareness, and we should act accordingly," Martin Medina-Elizalde, a researcher at the Yucatan Center for Scientific Research in Mexico, said in a news release.

The study — conducted by Medina-Elizalde and Eelco Rohling, a colleague from the University of Southampton — appears in this week's issue of the journal Science. It addresses one of the big mysteries of Maya history: What caused a civilization that dominated areas of present-day Guatemala and Mexico in the year 800 to collapse by the year 1000? Deforestation and drought have figured prominently as the prime suspects, but just how dire did those droughts get?

To shed additional light on the mystery, the two climate experts analyzed chemicals in lake sediments, marine shells and cave stalagmites to track variations in rainfall. For example, the ratio of oxygen-16 to oxygen-18 in a particular layer of mineral can tell you how much rainfall fell during the season when the mineral was laid down. Such variations can be read year by year, like tree rings.

Science / AAAS

The elements in different layers of stalagmites in Yucatan Peninsula caves, such as this one, were analyzed to determine how rainfall varied through the centuries.

The researchers found that there was indeed a deficit in rainfall in the period between the years 800 and 1000. But that deficit was modest, amounting to a 25 to 40 percent reduction in the drought years. Medina-Elizalde and Rohling assume that the droughts took the form of reductions in the frequency and intensity of tropical storms during the summer.

"Summer was the main season for cultivation and replenishment of Mayan freshwater storage systems, and there are no rivers in the Yucatan lowlands," Rohling said in the news release. "Societal disruptions and abandonment of cities are likely consequences of critical water shortages, especially because there seems to have been a rapid repetition of multiyear droughts."

In an email, Medina-Elizalde told me that "these droughts may not have been strong enough to cause by themselves the collapse of the civilization, but they were likely strong enough and persistent enough ... to cause major sociopolitical disruptions that ultimately led to the final outcome."

"Let's imagine that today, from one year to another, major cities can no longer supply fresh water to a third of their populations. ... With no freshwater pumping systems, how would we keep producing agricultural produce and supplying fresh water to support the entire populations of these cities?" he wrote.

Today, much of the Yucatan Peninsula's rural population still relies on summer rainfall to support their crops. Medina-Elizalde said access to fresh water isn't so much of a problem, thanks to modern pumping systems. But he noted that lower-than-average summer rains still "have fairly dire consequences" for local farmers.

The current models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict that there could be annual rainfall reductions of up to 50 percent in the Yucatan Peninsula by the end of this century, Medina-Elizalde said. He and his colleagues are studying how such reductions might affect freshwater supplies in the region.

"Some climate models suggest that local vegetation does contribute to increase rainfall significantly ... which would suggest that by preserving the forests, we are mitigating the impacts of climate change," he said. "Definitely, local governments need to start making serious efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change in light of the forecast for the next decades."

What do you think? Does this research merely add an interesting twist on a centuries-old story, or does it serve as a warning about our future fate? Please feel free to weigh in with your comments below.

More about climate and ancient civilizations:

• How climate change kills societies
• Ancient city survived as civilizations collapsed
• Mystery behind Khmer civilization's ruin revealed
• Will climate change change us?

Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or following the Cosmic Log Google+ page. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.

Men with Cabot Oil and Gas work on a natural gas valve at a hydraulic fracturing site in South Montrose, Penn. Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, stimulates gas production by injecting wells with high volumes of chemical-laced water in order to free up pockets of natural gas below.

A university study asserts that the problems caused by the gas extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," arise because drilling operations aren't doing it right. The process itself isn't to blame, according to the study, released today by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.

The report is likely to add new fuel to a blazing controversy over fracking. Researchers reviewed the evidence contained in the reports of groundwater contamination from three prominent shale-rock formations where the process is employed: the Barnett Shale in North Texas, the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, New York and other areas of Appalachia; and the Haynesville Shale in western Louisiana and northeast Texas.

The groundwater contamination is graphically portrayed in the documentary "Gasland," which showed residents near shale-gas operations setting their drinking water on fire as it came out of the tap. Worries about such contamination have sparked political resistance to fracking, leading some states and countries to hold up new drilling operations.

At the same time, shale gas is seen as an increasingly important domestic energy source. About a quarter of U.S.-produced natural gas currently comes from shale, and that proportion is projected to rise to nearly half by 2035. Last month, President Barack Obama suggested that the natural gas industry could support 600,000 jobs in America by the end of the decade, in large part due to the rise of hydraulic fracturing. In its latest budget request, the White House proposed new studies by the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that fracking is done safely.

Mike Groll / AP

People take part in a rally against hydraulic fracturing at the Legislative Office Building in Albany, N.Y., on Jan. 23. New York state legislators are considering a number of bills to limit fracking.

"It's a game-changer in terms of the energy balance," study leader Chip Groat, associate director of the Energy Institute, told journalists today. He and other scientists discussed the report in Vancouver, Canada, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Where does fracking go wrong?
Hydraulic fracturing involves drilling deep into shale beds, then injecting water, sand and chemicals under high pressure to shatter layers of rock — liberating trapped pockets of natural gas. The gas is captured for energy use, but the water and other byproducts have to be cleaned up. The procedure has been used since the 1950s, but it's become far more widely applied in recent years due to advances in horizontal-drilling technologies.

The researchers concluded that many of the reports of contamination can be traced to above-ground spills or other mishandling of the wastewater, Groat said. Other causes of the contamination include underground casing failures or poor cement jobs. "These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing," Groat said in a news release.

In the reports reviewed by the researchers, "we found no direct evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself ... was a cause for concern," he told journalists at the AAAS meeting. He acknowledged, however, that shale gas development "can be bungled" due to problems with drilling and extraction techniques used closer to the surface.

Such problems are most likely behind the water-on-fire phenomena documented in "Gasland." But it's difficult to identify precisely what the problem was or what the long-term effect will be without before-and-after data, Groat said.

"We really feel hobbled in a lot of these [cases] by the lack of baseline information," he observed.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

Ray Kemble delivers fresh water on Jan. 18 to family members whose water was contaminated due to a shale-gas drilling operation hydraulic fracturing in Dimock, Pa.

Today's release of the final report follows up on a preliminary version that was issued last fall. In addition to discussing the causes of contamination, the report evaluated the ability of states to enforce existing regulations, and analyzed the public perceptions surrounding fracking.

Among the other findings:

• Natural gas found in water wells within some shale gas areas, such as the Marcellus Shale, can be traced to natural sources. The report said the gas was probably present before the onset of shale gas operations.
• Some states have actively addressed the regulatory issues surrounding shale gas, but most regulations were written before the process became widespread. In those cases, regulations may need to updated to reflect new situations. However, "there isn't the need for new regulatory frameworks," Groat said.
• News coverage of the controversy has been "decidedly negative," and few media reports mention the scientific research related to the process.
• Surface spills of the fluids used in the fracking process were judged to pose a greater risk to groundwater sources than the fracking itself.

The Energy Institute said its report was conducted using general university funds, but received assistance from the Environmental Defense Fund in developing the scope of work and the methodology for the study. The EDF said it reviewed drafts of the report during the course of the project but did not contribute to its conclusions.

Not the final word
Scott Anderson, senior policy adviser for the Environmental Defense Fund's energy program, discussed the report in a blog posting published after the report's release. "If the problem isn't hydraulic fracturing, then what is?" the headline asks. Here's some of what Anderson said:

"As has been the case in other inquiries, the University of Texas study did not find any confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to pathways created by hydraulic fracturing. But this does not mean such contamination is impossible or that hydraulic fracturing chemicals can’t get loose in the environment in other ways (such as through spills of produced water). In fact, the study shines a light on the fact that there are a number of aspects of natural gas development that can pose significant environmental risk. And it highlights the fact that there are a number of ways in which current regulatory oversight is inadequate."

Anderson said the report deserved widespread attention, but was "by no means the final word on these topics."

Groat said the report was based on a review of previously published data rather than fresh field observations. "We did not go out and measure things," he acknowledged.

He said further studies will be conducted into the atmospheric and seismic impact of hydraulic fracturing — two much-debated environmental issues that were not addressed in detail in the newly issued report. The Energy Institute also plans to conduct a detailed case study on groundwater contamination in Texas' Barnett Shale, as well as a field investigation into the effects of shale gas drilling on the water above and below fracturing sites in the Barnett Shale.

"Certainly more work needs to be done," Groat said.

Update for 11:15 p.m. ET Feb. 16: One of my correspondents on Twitter, Pamela Oldham, notes that ConocoPhillips committed itself in 2010 to contribute $1.5 million to the University of Texas at Austin for energy research. The petroleum company said at the time that the Energy Institute would administer the grants, with the money going to UT-Austin's Cockrell School of Engineering and the McCombs School of Business. I'll check on how that squares with the institute's claim that the study was funded from general university accounts.

Oldham also notes that ConocoPhillips was recently named in a civil lawsuit alleging fracking-related water contamination in Texas' Panola County.

Update for 10:20 a.m. ET Feb. 17: Chip Groat, associate director of the Energy Institute and the leader of the study released this week, responded to my inquiry about the ConocoPhillips grant last night with this email:

"Three or four of the large energy companies give money to UT  for student support (a recruitment investment) and for research that is spread among various departments. ConocoPhillips has done this, and part of the funding they provided was to the Energy Institute to support the Barnett Shale Case Study which will be a follow-on to the study we reported on today. None of the ConocoPhillips money went into this study [the one released this week]. For the [follow-up] case study, we will use Energy Institute money plus funds from energy companies and governments in the Barnett Shale development area. This is a matter of financial necessity, but we want to spread the funding among organizations with different interests in Barnett Shale development."

Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.

Andrew Want - Marine Scotland / Courtesy Scottish Government

Amphioxus - a "faceless and brainless" fish-like creature - recorded in a marine study in Scotland.

 A rare species of fish described as “faceless and brainless” was among the unusual finds made by marine scientists off Britain’s coast, according to a Scottish government report published on Thursday.

The prehistoric amphioxus species, which grows to about two inches long and has no fins, was recorded off Orkney, part of the Northern Isles that lie off the far northern coast of mainland Scotland.

With a nerve cord down its back, it has no specific brain or face. According to The Scotsman newspaper, it has a translucent, fish-like body but has no true skeleton.

It is usually found buried in sand in shallow parts of temperate or tropical seas, the newspaper said. In Asia, the species is harvested commercially to use as food for pets.

Other rare finds from the marine surveys, which covered over 2,000 square miles, included giant mussels with shells measuring up to 18 inches and new communities of Northern Feather Star, a brightly colored species with 10 feather-like arms fanning out from a central disc, which were revealed off the Sound of Canna, near Skye.

The Scottish Government said the findings will further the country's knowledge of the biodiversity of its seas.

Scottish Natural Heritage and Edinburgh's Heriot-Watt University were among organizations that carried out the work.

Underwater video was shot and acoustic and 3D images were used in the surveys.

Dr Dan Barlow, head of policy with environmental campaign group WWF Scotland, added: “These surveys highlight that Scotland’s seas and coasts are home to a truly amazing range of weird and wonderful wildlife.

“By providing vital information on what lies beneath the waves, these surveys will help inform decisions on better ways to protect this important resource.”

Related articles on msnbc.com

'Doomsday' minister mum on 2012 forecast

Samoans drop Friday from this year's calendar

Smokin' hot island rises in the Red Sea

How beavers helped build America

Dino-chicken: Wacky but serious science idea of 2011

YouTube

Metallic structures with a low level electric current provoke limestone formations that attract coral growth. The technology is proving effective at restoring reefs around the world, including Bali.

A low-level electric current running through domed-shaped metallic structures in the waters off Bali is giving a jolt to coral reef survival there, according to news reports.

The Biorock technology is seen by some conservationists as a means to repair coral reefs damaged by years of destructive cyanide and dynamite fishing practices, as well as steadily warming oceans.

Warming oceans are a threat to the reefs since they result in more frequent episodes of coral bleaching, a phenomenon when higher temperatures cause photosynthetic algae that provide corals with food and color to leave, turning the corals white.

Without food for a sustained period of time, the corals will die. A coral bleaching event in 1998 killed one sixth of the world's tropical reefs. 

Biorock technology builds from the late German marine architect Wolf Hibertz's discovery in the 1970s that electrified metallic structures cause dissolved minerals in the water to crystallize on them.

This grows "into a white limestone similar to that which naturally makes up coral reefs and tropical white sand beaches," the Global Coral Reef Alliance explains.  

Marine life including corals and oysters colonize this limestone.

"Corals grow two to six times faster. We are able to grow back reefs in a few years," Thomas J. Goreau, a marine biologist who is leading the development of the technology, told AFP.

Goreau is president of the Global Coral Reef Alliance, a U.S.-based non-profit dedicated to the protection, preservation, and sustainable management of coral reefs. 

Bali success
The alliance today works with organizations around the world to implement the Biorock technology, including a 20-year-long project in Pemuteran Bay off the north coast of Bali.

Today there are about 60 of the electrified metallic cages in the bay, creating a coral reef there that is "flourishing better than ever before," AFP reports.

What's more, researchers overseeing the project say that the Biorock technology makes the corals more resistant to global warming.

"Biorock is the only method known that protects corals from dying from high temperatures. We get from 16 to 50 times higher survival of corals from severe bleaching," Goreau told AFP.

These restored reefs in turn attract fish and tourists.

Technology limits?
While the technology is useful for small areas, the scale of coral bleaching is just too large for it to be a cost-effective solution, Rod Salm, a coral reef specialist with The Nature Conservancy, told the Associated Press in a 2007 story about Biorock technology.

A more effective method of saving reefs from mass coral bleaching may be large marine protected areas that offer plenty of shade and cooler waters for the reefs, Salm noted in a 2010 blog post for Nature.

But at the small scale, at least, Goreau argues that Biorock is more cost-effective than other solutions. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently touted the successful recovery of 376 square feet of coral in Florida that was damaged when a boat ran aground in 2002. 

With $56,671 in settlement funds, the government agency attached corals to a special cement that hardens underwater. By 2010, the restored reef was healthier than an adjacent undamaged section.

Goreau issued a press release countering the agency's success story saying that his Biorock technology is more cost effective. Based on the settlement funds used for the restoration, the government project cost $1,622 per square foot. Biorock technology can be used to grow six foot tall reef structures for $13 to $20 per square foot, he claims.

The technology will be featured in One Day on Earth, a television program sponsored by the United Nations, in early 2012. You can check it out in the video below.

More on coral reef damage and restoration:

• Coral reefs built with current, the electric kind
• Damaged Florida Keys coral reefs make amazing recovery
• Great Barrier Reef corals frozen for future conservation
• Hawaii protecting coral reefs with huge fines
• Concrete orbs become Caribbean reefs

John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. To learn more about him, check out his website. For more of our Future of Technology series, watch the featured video below.

California Academy of Sciences / Liu et al.

Chlaenius propeagilis is a new species of beetle from China, described in the journal Zookeys.

Scientists are tallying up scores, or even hundreds, of newfound species — but they're also musing on how many species will be lost before they're found.

This year's count from the California Academy of Sciences demonstrates that the pace of discovery is, if anything, increasing: Researchers associated with the academy added 140 species to the big biological list, and a 42-day expedition to the Philippines could eventually add hundreds more.

Among the highlights are four new species of deep-sea sharks, six completely new genera of African goblin spiders, three new genera of barnacles and 31 new sea-slug species. This year's tally of 140 compares favorably with the count of 110 species that were added during 2010.

Here are some of my favorite pictures from the Academy's gallery of the latest finds:

Terry Gosliner via California Academy of Sciences

Chelidonura mandroroa is a new species of sea slug, also known as a nudibranch, from the Indo-Pacific. Nudibranchs use their vivid colors to warn predators of their toxic or unpalatable nature. This nudibranch and five other new species were described in the journal Zootaxa.

Williams and Alderslade / Calif. Academy of Sciences

Anthoptilum gowletthomesae is a new species of sea pen from Australia. It can attach to rocky surfaces.

Luiz Rocha via Calif. Academy of Sciences

Sparisoma sp. is a new species of parrotfish from Sao Tome.

Fidanza and Almeda / Calif. Academy of Sciences

Cambessedesia uncinata is a new species of subshrub from Brazil, described in Harvard Papers in Botany.

Robert Van Syoc via Calif. Academy of Sciences

Minyaspis amylaneae is a new species of barnacle from Fiji. Minyaspis is also a new genus, one of three described in the journal Zootaxa.

The folks at the California Academy of Sciences aren't the only ones taking stock of new species. Earlier this week, the WWF conservation group noted that 208 newly described species, including a "psychedelic gecko," were recorded in Southeast Asia's Mekong River region during 2010. Australian researchers say they've found more than 1,000 new species in the country's Outback, and they estimate another 3,500 are waiting to be discovered beneath the arid topsoil. They say thousands more species of small animals are probably still undiscovered in Africa and South America.

"If you start multiplying this on a global basis, there's likely to be massive diversity that will be uncovered in coming decades," Andy Austin, a biologist at the Australian Center for Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity at the University of Adelaide, is quoted as saying.

But if all that biodiversity is just waiting to be discovered, why do we hear all this talk about a modern extinction crisis? It's because hundreds or thousands of other species are passing into oblivion every year. That was the point behind the WWF's survey of the Mekong Delta.

"While the 2010 discoveries are new to science, many are already destined for the dinner table, struggling to survive in shrinking habitats and at risk of extinction," Stuart Chapman, conservation director of WWF Greater Mekong, said in a news release. Vietnam's Javan rhino population is among the latest to bite the dust.

Another just-released study puts the issue in terms that a 6-year-old could understand: One out of every six species related to the characters in the movie "Finding Nemo" is facing extinction, according to researchers at Simon Fraser University and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Among the most threatened are the real-life kin of Squirt and Crush the marine turtles, Anchor the hammer head shark and Sheldon the seahorse.

"It's unthinkable that the characters in 'Finding Nemo' could become extinct, but this is the reality unless we pay more attention to the diversity of marine life," SFU's Loren McClenachan, the study's lead author, said in a news release. The report is due to be published in the journal Conservation Biology.

Are all these concerns leading you to lose your appetite for shark-fin soup and rhino-horn concoctions? Feel free to weigh in below with your comments on the campaign to find species and keep them from being lost.

More species lost and found:

• New bee or not new bee? That is the question
• 'Lost' rainbow toad rediscovered
• Froggy finds raise hopes for Haiti
• Three new frogs leap into spotlight
• Amphibians wanted ... alive
• The Amazon's amazing species
• Biological gems found in Philippines
• Madagascar offers hundreds of new species
• Scientists spot biological beauties in Bali
• RAP stars rock the animal world
• Scientists finish first sea census
• Deep-sea creatures of the Coral Sea
• The top 10 new species from 2010
• Beautiful biodiversity in Brazil
• New Guinea's 'Lost World' revisited
• Indonesia's 'Garden of Eden'
• Papua New Guinea's new species
• Marine marvels from Papua New Guinea
• Biological treasures from Borneo
• Celebrities of the Celebes Sea
• 12 froggy finds from India
• Fantastic frogs from Colombia
• Aliens lurk in Antarctic depths
• The strange species of Suriname
• Vulnerable new species in Brazil
• Discoveries from Vietnam's 'Green Corridor'
• Endangered species of the Mekong Delta
• New species from Australia's coral reefs
• Thousands of new species in ocean's depths
• Hundreds of new species amid the Himalayas
• New species found Down Under ... underground
• Eight 'extinct' species found alive and kicking  

Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.

NASA / GSFC / METI / ERSDAC / JAROS / ASTER

A multispectral view from the ASTER imager on NASA's Terra satellite shows salt evaporation ponds in the southern Dead Sea as of 2006.

The Dead Sea is at ground zero for the biblical past — and perhaps for the Middle East's environmental future as well. For today's installment of the Cosmic Log Space Advent Calendar, we present two satellite images that show how the salty inland sea has changed over the past five years.

The orbital snapshot above was taken by the ASTER multispectral imager aboard NASA's Terra satellite in 2006. The picture below is a mosaic from Google Earth, based on orbital imagery provided this spring from DigitalGlobe, GeoEye and the French space agency CNES.   

DigitalGlobe / GeoEye / CNES / Google

A mosaic of Google Earth satellite imagery from this spring shows the salt evaporation ponds in the southern Dead Sea.

For years, environmental experts have voiced concern about shrinkage in the Dead Sea, but the situation is actually more complex: The northern part of the Dead Sea, visible toward the top edge of each image, is indeed drying up — and there's a danger that the body of water could fade away someday, just as the Aral Sea is fading away in Central Asia. The status of the highly managed southern part of the Dead Sea, which is separated from the northern part, is quite different: It's actually flooding. That's creating a salty mess on the tourist beaches that surround the southern sea.

In these pictures, you can see the southern Dead Sea sectioned off into industrial salt evaporation pools. For years, water has been pumped from the northern to the southern sea to feed those pools. If you look closely, you can tell that the water level in the north has been falling, while the level in the south is a bit more stable.

Now Middle East governments are debating what to do about the imbalance, and what to do about the prospect for future water shortages as well. One thing is certain: The rise and fall of the Dead Sea is nothing new. Scientists reported this week that the body of water nearly disappeared 120,000 years ago. The region's changing water levels may even explain the various biblical references to the Middle East as a famine-struck land or a land flowing with milk and honey.

Every day from now until Christmas, the Space Advent Calendar features pictures of Earth as seen from outer space. Check back on Friday for the next entry on the calendar, and check out these previous entries:

• The full Cosmic Log Space Advent Calendar
• Dec. 1: An ornament in outer space
• Dec. 2: The masses in Mecca
• Dec. 3: Santa's shrinking domain
• Dec. 4: The monster of Madagascar
• Dec. 5: Antarctica stripped naked
• Dec. 6: Streaking for home
• Dec. 7: Pearl Harbor from above, 1941-2011
• Hubble calendar, from The Atlantic's In Focus
• 2011 Zooniverse Advent calendar