Predicting a Pandemic

This article published today in US News and World Report, appears to me to be particularly related to topics discussed in class this past week.

As a topic that has received great attention, both in professional science publications and in mass media coverage, information regarding pandemics is constantly inundating the public. Predictions, cost analysis, and preventative measures for diseases like SARS, bird flu, AIDS, and many others seem to find a particularly eager audience.

The information provided by these scientists has the ability to alter people's ideas regarding pandemics, depending on the method in which it is reported. By singling out certain nations as particular hot zones, such research may even have the potential to alter policies within these areas or those implemented on an international scale.
Such possibilities make evident the role of communication in shaping not only scientific, but social opinions as well.

Mine Water Poses Danger of a Toxic Gusher

This article seems to underscore some of the issues we are discussing in class about risk communication. To me, the problem in this situation wasn't a lack of communication, rather, it was a difference in the perception of risk. The local citizens and workers/managers of the local treatment plant had a much larger risk perception than the supervisors who were in charge of allocating funds to fix the problem of the backed-up water in the mine tunnels. I wonder if this had anything to do with the fact that the supervisors didn't live in the town?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28leadville.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

Best treatment for localized prostate cancer remains unclear

Reuters Health says that current evidence and technology cannot identify the best way to treat localized prostate cancer. Many people spend time looking at past cases to get a sense of which method is right for them. People can also fear certain treatments and risk factors, but what we really should be fearing is the fact that there is no "best way" to treat cancer. Different methods vary for different people, and it is this kind of uncertainty that is the underlying cause for fearing such risks. This is why it is so difficult for cancer patients to decide what kind of treatment they want to undergo if any, and the decision is even harder sincer there is no right way.

Man Dies After Shark Attack Off Florida

I thought it was immediately obvious that swimming in shark-infested waters with bloody fish parts was not a great idea. Yet the scuba company that Mr. Groh hired did this as a normal part of attracting sharks to eat the bloody fish parts, and presumably not their customers. Apparently, the shark did not get the memo.
I chose this article because I am terrified of sharks (unknown, yet a high level of fear). This article is especially pertinent because it brings to mind the mass hysteria that sharks used to impose upon the public. Until relatively recently, sharks were portrayed as bloodthirsty creatures who actively preyed on humans. However, the post-Jaws generation (our generation) is beginning to understand that humans are the real culprit. It is humans, after all, that are polluting the oceans, hunting sharks to near extinction, and in many ways encroaching on the shark’s habitat.

“Geek the Vote ’08: PM’s Science and Technology Election Guide

“Geek the Vote ’08: PM’s Science and Technology Election Guide” is an article about science and technology relating to the election. It is a section of the popular mechanics website; it visually displays the names of candidates and then a link to a section about their proposal relating to specific issues including, auto, digital technology, energy/ climate, environment, firearms, infrastructure, science/education and space.
The text preceding the visual display states, “Popular Mechanics compiled these links to make it easier to compare leading presidential candidates on several issues of interest to our readers, primarily in areas of science and technology. We did not analyze any of the proposals, and we do not necessarily endorse them” In the section where they explain the methods they used in putting this together, they reiterate the non-bias nature of the section and provide details of how the information is collected. People sometimes feel it is hard to obtain non-bias political information, is a tool like this effective in providing information for voters?
Looking at the chart was also interesting to see how some of the issues had many more proposals than others and what the cause of that might be.

Is There Anyone Out There?

I can distinctly remember a trip my family made when I was five years old to the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, the largest single-aperture telescope ever built (which, ironically enough, was operated by my future alma mater - Cornell).  I remember being both fascinated and frightened by the idea that humans might be able to communicate with extraterrestrial life.

Similarly, the potential to "make contact with," or intercept a signal from, extraterrestrials was one of the driving forces behind the National Science Foundation's recent decision to update its "Very Large Array" radio telescope in New Mexico.  I came across this article on the Scientific American web site, and it explains the pending update to the VLA telescope.  Not unlike the trend currently being seen in our personal communication devices, the plan is for the VLA to become completely digital - dramatically increasing the telescope's ability to probe into space.  The article claims that after the expansion, the VLA will be so sensitive that it could pick up a weak radio signal coming from a cell phone on the surface of the planet Jupiter.

This article made me think a great deal about science communication beyond the traditional, human-to-human realm.  Why are we so interested and eager to sweep the cosmos in search of other life forms?  Also, if we were able to make "contact," what would we want to 'communicate' about ourselves to other intelligent beings out there?  Thoughts?

Bend and Not Break-Flubber

I was looking through the NYT and saw this article that caught my eye, called "Flubber." Remembering the green gooey movie critter from my younger years, I decided to read further. Can flubber be real? According to new research scientists have produced a new kind of rubber that can actually repair itself. This is straight out of a sci fi flick. The video link in this article is a couple lab coats extra and a Terminator short of an epic blockbuster.
Ok, the gist is that this new rubber heals itself. While remaining all the same properties of rubber, when cut into two distinct halves, the rubber can actually morph itself back together when placed adjacent to one another. Though the rubber is now being produced by a company, there were some hang ups with the chemical composition in its early stages.
The question is, where could this lead? While companies are trying to further this technology into making new products, could we be seeing the beginning of a new wave of technology/products?