Science 2.0

The bubonic plague, often called 'Black Death' after its most famous outbreak in the 14th century, still exists today and, like then, is caused by bacteria called Yersinia pestis that are found mainly in rodents and the fleas that feed on them. When other animals or humans contract this bacteria it is primarily from those infected rodent or flea bites.
Bubonic plague affects the lymph nodes resulting in swollen lymph glands (called buboes, thus the name bubonic), fever, chills and flu-like symptoms but in addition tiny broken blood vessels called petechiae can result in black spots on the skin and those black spots earned it the nickname that stuck when it reached England in 1348 AD.

Scientists like order and structure and methodology. Repeatability is even better, though that often requires additional grant funding. It's no different when it comes to weekends, bars and picking up science groupies.
But it's not so simple, even for scientists. The perfect world of methodology and repeatability is instead replaced by linguistic voodoo and trial and error regarding alcohol. Science, as always, is here to help.
There are rules, you see, but they are unwritten. By taking a broad cross-section of shared experiences we can establish a baseline and go from there. That is good science.

One consistent feature of human progress throughout history has been that science will come up with creative answers to current problems. When ancient people living in small tribes were running out of game to hunt, some leaders thought rationing and mitigation were the answers. They would have created a culture of despair. Domesticated livestock was the answer instead and then efficient agriculture and even terraforming.
Based on that confidence, a lot of people, me included, assume that global warming can be solved by some 'future technology' as yet undeveloped. Killing our economy by 25% now (yes, imagine it 25% worse) to stave off a .5 degree warming problem in 50 years is positively un-scientific.
But hope is not how things get done. People point to Y2K and say 'it was all hype, nothing happened' but they forget that's because we spent billions prior to that fixing problems. Likewise, acid rain was a huge concern in the 1980s and is not now because problems were addressed squarely.
Capturing and storing carbon dioxide is a solution the anti-global warming contingent (read, political pundits and bloggers using science to attack Democrats) say can keep us in an SUV Promised Land today. Then future technology can deal with it permanently.
To those people (in this case, Republicans) I say, 'Pretend a Democrat is saying Social Security will take care of itself in the future. Would you be skeptical?' Well, that's how I feel when they insist nothing needs to change and it will all be okay.

Biomedical research in developing countries is the kind of ethical condundrum we all think about.
On one hand, infectious diseases may cause up to half of all deaths in undeveloped nations(1), so no one needs advanced treatments more. On the other hand, these are human clinical trials of experimental drugs and socio-economic status does not make you a lab monkey in any sort of culture we want to call civilized.
So what is the solution? Americans are primarily distrustful of government, the bigger the worse, so a global body dictating clinical trials would be treated with a lot of skepticism but the perfect solution can't be moving ethical targets determined by various nations, funding sources or institutions as is done now.

Not that these women sweat anyway. "Horses Sweat, Men Perspire And Ladies Glow," my mother always told me.
But you get the idea. A group of fashion conscious women is making a difference this Earth Day - by looking fabulous!
Okay, as a man in his 40s with more children than I can count, I had a hard time even writing the word 'fabulous' without laughing.
But there is something serious happening. Chantecaille, a cosmetics company, has said it will donate five percent of the proceeds of its new “Protected Paradise” face and eyes compacts to the Pew Institute’s Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation program, which provides a $150,000 award to each of five ocean experts around the world annually to develop solutions to critical ocean challenges.

John Erdman, a University of Illinois professor of food science and human nutrition who also chairs the Mars, Inc. Scientific Advisory Council and has received millions in funding from Mars, Inc., recognizes that taking money from a candy bar company (Mars Inc.) to do a study of their (Mars Inc.) candy bar proving it is healthy will have skeptics.
Not here. Hey, if Philip-Morris wants to highlight a study saying cigarettes cure cancer or Exxon-Mobil needs to promote a study saying automobile carbon monoxide improves asthma, we won't ridicule them just because of the funding. We'll ridicule them because of the methodology.
“Eating two CocoaVia dark chocolate bars a day not only lowered cholesterol, it had the unexpected effect of also lowering systolic blood pressure,” said Erdman on the results of a peer-reviewed study in The Journal of Nutrition.
Except the participants were also put on the American Heart Association’s “Eating Plan for Healthy Americans” (the Step 1 diet) two weeks before the study started.

A few days ago the internet was abuzz with shocking headlines because the gentleman behind 'virtual water', professor John Anthony Allan of King’s College London, got an award from a water conservation group, the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) for his work on advocating water conservation. Reading the news clippings about it, you'd have thought it was a Nobel prize for perpetual motion.
Perpetual motion is a good analogy. Generally, if you see something too ridiculous to be true, it's probably not true. A few weeks ago, for example, a VA Tech grad student got a prize for a 'gravity lamp' that was just the kind of alcohol-and-magic-fueled hocus-pocus that sets the internet on fire. It was green energy and cool tech all rolled into one. Except it didn't exist. Rather than being able to power a household bulb for hours, even an unsuitably-large one could only power a tiny 0.1-watt LED for 45 minutes. It's just physics.
So a few days ago people were aghast and outraged when they saw a number stating that 34 gallons of 'virtual water' went into a cup of coffee. I understand their panic. That means we only have about 9,588,235,294,117,647 cups of coffee left before all the water is gone.(1)

Twice in two days Botulinum toxin (Botox) has graced our front page, and it's not just because it makes Joan Rivers look like The Joker.
Yesterday we reported that Botox has helped infants with CHARGE Syndrome and today we discovered an article in Medical Hypotheses talking about its many beneficial effects.
Not bad press for an often fatal poison produced by a rare type of food poisoning bacteria.

You can tell a lot about the concerns of society regarding science by the kinds of topics that bring people to sites like ours. Not a day goes by that people don't arrive using Google searches looking for answers about organic food. The top query is something like 'what is organic food?' and it seems odd that after hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising and $20 billion in sales, no one is sure what organic food is.
There are two sides to the organic food issue to most people; genetics and chemicals. I don't worry too much about organic food from a genetics standpoint, for example, but I am not a fan of most chemicals. I am not even a fan of other people touching my food.

Numerous studies have shown the the benefits of coffee. Science studies go back and forth on foods so use some judgment but generally today it is considered one of the best sources of the antioxidants that protect us against pesky free radicals that can cause premature aging and certain diseases.

Old media news groups that have put up news websites have had inconsistent success due to factors like the costs of moderation and the inconsistent quality of their user-generated content (UGC). As a result, readers are not all that excited about it.
You know what that means, right? Yes, we eat their lunch.
In a New Media & Society article(1), Neil Thurman of City University London states that despite a full-court press by old media to embrace Web 2.0 concepts, their own restrictions have caused readers to participate less than they would like. So some of them are considering it a failure.

There are lots of journals out there, more than I could name in any one article, but as you get into science communication, the number of peer-reviewed publications drops considerably.
That seems odd, since communicating with the public, and therefore with the voters on policy, is so crucial to keeping science funding in place.
A group of volunteers had that same thought, so they secured some funding from the European Space Agency's Hubble Space Telescope group and set out to fill that gap. CAP Journal was born. CAP Journal stands for Communicating Astronomy with the Public. It's a new magazine, in print and online, and the timing is excellent.