martes, 28 de diciembre de 2010

Exploring Our Relationship With the Lonely Moon

BOOKS ON SCIENCE

Exploring Our Relationship With the Lonely Moon

The Moon is Earth’s only satellite, a quarter of its size, moving around our home planet in cold and lifeless isolation, in an orbit that increases an inch and a half a year.
From the book, "Moon: A Brief History"
MYSTICAL An image from the book’s collection. In some societies, the Moon is thought to make people crazy; in others it is a symbol of rebirth. More Photos »
“Moon: A Brief History” is filled with lunar factoids like these: how the Moon formed four and a half billion years ago, probably when a Mars-size body collided with Earth and threw off a disk of material that eventually coalesced into an orbital partner; how what we call the dark side is not actually dark; and how over the centuries people invented telescopes and other instruments to view the Moon, and what they saw.
But the book, and its wide variety of illustrations from classical texts, science fiction and other sources, describes not just the history of the celestial body but the ways it inspired the human imagination to take flight, fueled, as Proust put it, by “the ancient unalterable splendor of a Moon cruelly and mysteriously serene.”
The author, Bernd Brunner, is a Berlin-based writer, one of whose previous books, “Bears,” is a history of human-ursine relations. As with the bear, what fascinates him here is the relationship between people and his subject. So we learn, for example, that old clocks show the phases of the Moon as well as the time because before electricity people relied on moonlight to travel in the evening. And that people who don’t keep track of the Moon’s influence on tides can get into trouble, as Julius Caesar did when Roman ignorance of English tides left boats high and dry in the Roman invasion of Britain.
We also learn that Chukchi shamans in Siberia sought to achieve magical powers by exposing themselves naked to moonlight, and among the Aztecs, the dark of the Moon was thought to bring death.
In other cultures the Moon, that most obviously changeable of celestial objects, became a symbol of transience and rebirth. In some societies, the Moon is thought to have the power to make people crazy — lunatic, loony or moonstruck — or induce sleepwalking, once known as “lunatism.”
Every faith and culture, it seems, kept an eye on the Moon, settingPassover, Easter, Ramadan, Tet and other observances according to the lunar calendar. The Buddha was supposed to have achieved enlightenment by the light of the full Moon, and as belief in a Moon goddess faded with the advent of Christianity, Mr. Brunner tells us, Mary became associated with the Moon.
By the 17th century, people were imagining trips to the Moon and encounters with lunar inhabitants who, Mr. Brunner tells us, “are hardly ever imagined as inferior, ill-natured or threatening.” Perhaps the most famous work in the genre is Jules Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon,” which was published in Paris in 1865, and which accurately predicted not only that people from the United States would be the first to set foot on the Moon but also, among other details, that the craft carrying them would be launched from Florida, splash down in the Pacific and be rescued by the United States NavyNASA’s Apollo program “helped make Verne popular again,” Mr. Brunner writes.
Today lunar exploration is on the back burner, although India sent a spacecraft, Chandrayaan-1, to the Moon in 2008. The craft carried a verse from the Rig Veda, a collection of sacred texts:
O Moon!
We should be able to know you through our intellect,
You enlighten us through the right path.

Managing Scientific Inquiry in a Laboratory the Size of the Web

Managing Scientific Inquiry in a Laboratory the Size of the Web

Hanny van Arkel had been using the Galaxy Zoo Web site less than a week when she noticed something odd about the photograph of IC 2497, a minor galaxy in the Leo Minor constellation. “It was this strange thing,” she recalled: an enormous gas cloud, floating like a ghost in front of the spiral galaxy.
Adrie Mouthaan
THE NAMESAKE Hanny van Arkel , a Dutch schoolteacher, discovered the body known as Hanny’s Voorwerp by studying deep-space images.
Galaxy Zoo
Hanny’s Voorwerp.

Readers' Comments

A Dutch schoolteacher with no formal training in astronomy, Ms. van Arkel had joined tens of thousands of other Web volunteers to help classify photographs taken by deep-space telescopes. Stumped by the unusual image on her computer screen, she e-mailed the project staff for guidance. Staff members were stumped, too. And thus was christened the celestial body now known to astronomers worldwide as Hanny’s Voorwerp (Dutch for “object”).
Stories like Ms. van Arkel’s are becoming more common, as the Internet opens up new opportunities for so-called citizen scientists. And as millions of people get involved in these participatory projects, scientists are grappling with how best to harness the amateurs’ enthusiasm.
Some critics argue that citizen science projects are often little more than ploys to stimulate public interest rather than advance scientific knowledge. Others fret over the quality of data generated by nonspecialists. But scientists must weigh such risks against the benefits of a powerful new research tool: a vast computer network that can parcel out complex projects into small tasks that can be completed by individuals with relatively limited training.
Many got their first taste of citizen science withSETI@Home, which enlisted more than five million users in the search for signs of extraterrestrial life. Volunteers downloaded a program that used their computers’ idle processing cycles to sift through data from radio telescopes.
The success of SETI@Home has inspired a number of other grid-computing initiatives, like Grid Republic, a consortium of more than 50 projects relying on the same screensaver-based software, and IBM’s World Community Grid, which is being used by Chinese researchers to investigate efficient water-filtering techniques using nanotubes.
Now researchers are starting to look for ways to engage contributors in more substantive ways, taking advantage of what the Internet pundit Clay Shirky calls the “cognitive surplus” of online brainpower.
Like Galaxy Zoo, the Herbaria@home project turns users into volunteer taxonomists, classifying images from collections of herbarium specimens across Britain. To date, the site’s 284 registered users have cataloged more than 75,000 specimens.
Other citizen science projects enlist users as data gatherers, inviting them to contribute field observations about meteorological data, wildlife behavior and other phenomena.
Cornell University’s Nestwatch provides a platform for amateur ornithologists to share observations about the nesting habits of bird species across North America. Recently, organizers have focused on tracking the effects of the BP oil spill on local birds’ nesting patterns. And Australia’s ClimateWatch project invites users to track seasonal variations in plant and animal life cycles across the Southern Hemisphere.
Given the open-door participation policies, project administrators face major challenges in ensuring the integrity of their data. Staff members at Herbaria@home perform manual quality checks on about 5 percent of the incoming data, while ClimateWatch uses an algorithm to look for unusual data points, which can then be manually checked for accuracy.
Quality control aside, a larger question remains: Does the act of data gathering really constitute science?
“These people are not doing the work of scientists,” said David Weinberger, a senior researcher at the Berkman Center for the Internet and Society at Harvard, who is writing a book about the changing shape of human knowledge in the online era. “They are doing the work of scientific instruments.”
Stephen Emmott, head of computational research at Microsoft Research, agrees that most citizen science projects tend to treat participants as high-functioning cogs in a distributed machine. “Certainly this is participatory,” he said, “but is it science?”
Dr. Emmott believes that before Web users can claim the mantle of citizen scientists, they will have to be given more meaningful roles. “Participants should be able to make a genuine contribution,” he said, “and get something back.”
Dr. Emmott’s team is exploring new models that would involve users in the research process without compromising academic rigor.
Other researchers are looking to tap the higher brain functions of Web users. Foldit turns protein research into a game, offering Web users a puzzle in the form of a multicolored knot of spirals and clumps. Each puzzle represents an amino acid, which the user tries to fold into the most efficient shape possible. By combining computational algorithms with the visual problem-solving skills of more than 100,000 Web users, the researchers hope to pioneer a new approach to solving computational problems using supplemental human brain power.

Readers' Comments

While some researchers are focused on expanding the contributions of average Web users, others want to cultivate people who already have some level of scientific training.
InnoCentive offers an online marketplace where organizations can pose problems to a network of more than 200,000 “solvers” who compete for cash rewards for the best solution. Recent InnoCentive contests include a $1 million prize for a biomarker to measure the progression of Lou Gehrig’s disease, as well as a $7,500 prize for better-smelling cat litter.
Other citizen science projects are taking shape at the grassroots level.DIYBio is a two-year-old organization with more than 1,500 members interested in conducting their own collaborative science projects. The organization has now spawned three physical lab spaces in Boston, Brooklyn and San Francisco , where members can participate in projects with polymerase chain reaction tests, centrifuges and DNA sequencing equipment.
“We’re trying to get people more involved in hands-on science,” said Jason Bobe, a founder of DIYBio. Members are exploring opportunities to turn genome sequencing into a game in which participants pull in data from crosswalk buttons and the like to model the spread of micro-organisms in urban environments. In a recent experiment, members collected dollar bills from 50 volunteers, then extracted the DNA for sequencing to identify all the micro-organisms.
As new self-organizing research communities emerge online, the long-term impact of citizen science projects may have less to do with the citizens than with the scientists.
When Web users can review research in progress and engage scientists in open discussions, the traditional process of peer review based on the model of academic publishing will face some new challenges. “It opens up another layer of participation,” Dr. Weinberger said, “and that’s where the deep impact is felt.”
Meanwhile, out on the open Web, hundreds of thousands of nonscientists continue to look for opportunities to take part in scientific research, inspired by the example of people like Ms. van Arkel, who has been enjoying the perks of Internet microstardom. She now blogs, maintains a Twitter feed and speaks at conferences and recently took a star turn in her own community-generated comic book. In January, her place in the annals of science will finally be cemented when her name appears as co-author of a scientific paper documenting her discovery.
Still, Ms. van Arkel is under no illusions about her place in the scientific establishment. “I like to tell people that you can do science without being a scientist,” she said. “It’s a life-changing thing.”

Economic Optimism? Yes, I’ll Take That Bet

FINDINGS

Economic Optimism? Yes, I’ll Take That Bet

Five years ago, Matthew R. Simmons and I bet $5,000. It was a wager about the future of energy supplies — a Malthusian pessimist versus a Cornucopian optimist — and now the day of reckoning is nigh: Jan. 1, 2011.

Readers' Comments

The bet was occasioned by a cover article in August 2005 in The New York Times Magazine titled “The Breaking Point.” It featured predictions of soaring oil prices from Mr. Simmons, who was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the head of a Houston investment bank specializing in the energy industry, and the author of “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy.”
I called Mr. Simmons to discuss a bet. To his credit — and unlike some other Malthusians — he was eager to back his predictions with cash. He expected the price of oil, then about $65 a barrel, to more than triple in the next five years, even after adjusting for inflation. He offered to bet $5,000 that the average price of oil over the course of 2010 would be at least $200 a barrel in 2005 dollars.
I took him up on it, not because I knew much about Saudi oil production or the other “peak oil” arguments that global production was headed downward. I was just following a rule learned from a mentor and a friend, the economist Julian L. Simon.
As the leader of the Cornucopians, the optimists who believed there would always be abundant supplies of energy and other resources, Julian figured that betting was the best way to make his argument. Optimism, he found, didn’t make for cover stories and front-page headlines.
No matter how many cheery long-term statistics he produced, he couldn’t get as much attention as the gloomy Malthusians like Paul Ehrlich, the best-selling ecologist. Their forecasts of energy crises and resource shortages seemed not only newsier but also more intuitively correct. In a finite world with a growing population, wasn’t it logical to expect resources to become scarcer and more expensive?
As an alternative to arguing, Julian offered to bet that the price of any natural resource chosen by a Malthusian wouldn’t rise in the future. Dr. Ehrlich accepted and formed a consortium with two colleagues at Berkeley, John P. Holdren and John Harte, who were supposed to be experts in natural resources. In 1980, they picked five metals and bet that the prices would rise during the next 10 years.
By 1990, the prices were lower, and the Malthusians paid up, although they didn’t seem to suffer any professional consequences. Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Holdren both won MacArthur “genius awards” (Julian never did). Dr. Holdren went on to lead the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and today he serves as President Obama’s science adviser.
Julian, who died in 1998, never managed to persuade Dr. Ehrlich or Dr. Holdren or other prominent doomsayers to take his bets again.
When I found a new bettor in 2005, the first person I told was Julian’s widow, Rita Simon, a public affairs professor at American University. She was so happy to see Julian’s tradition continue that she wanted to share the bet with me, so we each ended up each putting $2,500 against Mr. Simmons’s $5,000.
Just as Mr. Simmons predicted, oil prices did soar well beyond $65. With the global economy booming in the summer of 2008, the price of a barrel of oil reached $145. American foreign-policy experts called for policies to secure access to this increasingly scarce resource; environmentalists advocated crash programs to reduce dependence on fossil fuels; companies producing power from wind and other alternative energies rushed to expand capacity.
When the global recession hit in the fall of 2008, the price plummeted below $50, but at the end of that year Mr. Simmons was quoted in The Baltimore Sun sounding confident. When Jay Hancock, a Sun financial columnist, asked if he was having any second thoughts about the wager, Mr. Simmons replied: “God, no. We bet on the average price in 2010. That’s an eternity from now.”
The past year the price has rebounded, but the average for 2010 has been just under $80, which is the equivalent of about $71 in 2005 dollars — a little higher than the $65 at the time of our bet, but far below the $200 threshold set by Mr. Simmons.
What lesson do we draw from this? I’d hoped to let Mr. Simmons give his view, but I’m very sorry to report that he died in August, at the age of 67. The colleagues handling his affairs reviewed the numbers last week and declared that Mr. Simmons’s $5,000 should be awarded to me and to Rita Simon on Jan. 1, but Mr. Simmons still had his defenders.
One of his friends and fellow peak-oil theorists, Steve Andrews, said that while Mr. Simmons had made “a bet too far,” he was still correct in foreseeing more expensive oil. “The era of cheap oil has ended,” Mr. Andrews said, and predicted problems ahead as production levels off.
It’s true that the real price of oil is slightly higher now than it was in 2005, and it’s always possible that oil prices will spike again in the future. But the overall energy situation today looks a lot like a Cornucopian feast, as my colleagues Matt Wald and Cliff Krauss have recently reported. Giant new oil fields have been discovered off the coasts of Africa and Brazil. The new oil sands projects in Canada now supply more oil to the United States than Saudi Arabia does. Oil production in the United States increased last year, and the Department of Energy projects further increases over the next two decades.
The really good news is the discovery of vast quantities of natural gas. It’s now selling for less than half of what it was five years ago. There’s so much available that the Energy Department is predicting low prices for gas and electricity for the next quarter-century. Lobbyists for wind farms, once again, have been telling Washington that the “sustainable energy” industry can’t sustain itself without further subsidies.
As gas replaces dirtier fossil fuels, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions will be tempered, according to the Department of Energy. It projects that no new coal power plants will be built, and that the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States will remain below the rate of 2005 for the next 15 years even if no new restrictions are imposed.
Maybe something unexpected will change these happy trends, but for now I’d say that Julian Simon’s advice remains as good as ever. You can always make news with doomsday predictions, but you can usually make money betting against them.