Science Metropolis – Boston

A cross-section image showing debris (or “splash”) of particles entering the detector when the LHC beam was steered into the collimator (tungsten block) at around 9:50am, September 10. (Credit: CMS Collaboration ) 

– by Lauren Rugani and Joseph Caputo

September began a season of change.
Schools reopened, summer waned.
And as the Nation prepares to vote,
there’s still some science worthy of note.

Although some thought the end was near,
the Collider started and we’re still here.
We haven’t discovered the Higgs Boson yet,
due to a meltdown, it was reset.

After months of searching, a Lander found,
snow on Mars, and ice on the ground.
Up above Earth, off the spaceship Shenzhou,
China took its first steps in space, oh what a view.

As baby boomers got hooked on cocaine,
adolescents take pills, but not for the pain.
Other addictions took hold as well,
a game called Spore has geeks under its spell.

Carbon dioxide is filling the air,
and doctors don’t want to do primary care.
But none of these stories are far from over,
check back for updates in the month of October.

The weather broke,
and it reached 50.
This month’s science,
was pretty nifty.

We learned happiness
comes with age,
and beekeeping is
all the rage.

Gene therapy helped
a blind man see.
And we lost the brain
behind chaos theory.

Bush released his
climate change plans,
and scientists found poop
from a prehistoric man.

Archeologists battled over
Egyptian history,
while activists tried to save
the last marsh tacky.

A science festival
made Cambridge a happening place,
and artists used computer models
to visualize space.

There’s toxins in plastics,
and infection in wheat,
and nanotechnology
could have cancer beat.

E. Coli are all unique,
said Carl Zimmer,
and the narwhal is becoming
one endangered swimmer.

So as the spring colors
begins to show,
Science Metropolis
will continue to grow.

- by Lauren “FZX” Rugani and “Blogger Joe” Caputo

– by Lauren Rugani

Asbestos was once heralded as a miracle material, only to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. Genetically modified foods were supposed to cure world hunger, but ended up creating the first artificial cancer. Now, as nanotechnology promises improved consumer products, potential cancer therapies and a cleaner global environment, should we take a hint from the past and abandon all efforts, or should we give this emerging technology the benefit of the doubt as it grows into a trillion dollar industry?

Nanotechnology has grown steadily over the past few decades, but has also faced questions about its unforeseen and unintended health and environmental consequences. Because nanoparticles are so small – on the scale of one billionth of a meter – most of the atoms sit at the surface and are able to interact with other materials better than their bulk counterparts. However, the unique physical and chemical properties that make them so useful are also cause for concern, since relatively little is known about their long-term effects.

“Everything that is positive can be negative if we use it in the wrong way,” says Ron Turco, the project coordinator for the Assessment of Nanomaterials in the Environment at Purdue University. For example, the anti-microbial properties of silver nanoparticles come in handy for healing wounds, but could pose a threat to soil microbes, the feeding grounds for many ecosystems. “But there are all kinds of things on the positive side, and I’d hate to see that stifled,” he says. Carbon nanotubes – long, straw-like structures with a molecular arrangement similar to diamonds – are one example of a nanotechnology that has been developed for a wide variety of applications. They are stronger yet lighter than steel, more flexible than plastic and can be either conductors or insulators, depending on how they are “grown.”

Countless possibilities exist for nanomaterials, but because they behave so differently, both researchers and activists think more risk assessment is necessary before they can reach their true potential. Several activist groups are calling for a “complete moratorium” on laboratory use and commercial development of nanotechnology until scientists know more about its long-term effects. “It’s like walking blind on a tightrope without a net,” says George Kimbrell, a staff attorney for the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA).

Over 500 consumer products contain nanomaterials, from sunscreen and stain-resistant pants to stronger, lighter bicycle frames and golf clubs. But the CTA and other advocacy groups demand a total recall of all consumer nanotech products. They are most concerned about products like sunscreens and cosmetics that are applied directly to the skin, and worry that nanoparticles could slip into the blood stream or harmfully interact with cells. “I’m not sure we know enough about that to paint a clear picture yet,” says Dr. Sheree Cross, a pharmacology researcher at the University of Queensland in Australia. But whether nanoparticles will ever come into contact with living cells is still up for debate. Cross studied the affects of zinc-oxide nanoparticles (a common ingredient in sunscreens) on human skin membranes, and found “negligible penetration” by the nanoparticles.

Concerned activist groups also argue that the nanomaterials only make a product more marketable and don’t really improve them. They frequently use zinc oxide in sunscreen as an example, because these nanoparticles turn a sloppy white mess into a clear mist. However, recent studies have found that nanoparticles like zinc oxide reflect damaging ultraviolet light better than conventional sunscreen ingredients due to their size.

There have been no reported cases of injury or illness from using products made with nanomaterials, but Kimbrell warns consumers that this lack of data cannot be substituted for evidence of a product’s safety. “The jury is still out,” he says, when it comes to the level of toxicity that might result from the unique properties of nanoparticles.

Scientists agree that more work is needed to understand the specific toxic effects of nanomaterials. Most toxicology studies to date have focused on naturally occurring nanoparticles, like volcanic ash, or on incidental nanoparticles that result from manufacturing processes like combustion and mining. But relatively little safety research has been done for the newest type of nanoparticles: engineered nanoparticles. The toxicity of these new nanomaterials and delivery methods are tested in the laboratory “under somewhat unrealistic conditions,” says Pedro Alvarez, a professor of engineering at Rice University. What happens to cell cultures in the laboratory might not be representative of what happens in a live human body or an ecosystem.

Despite this relative uncertainty, scientists are moving toward the development of nanotechnology to benefit personal health and the environment. One of the most rapidly growing areas of nanotechnology research is for the detection and treatment of cancer. Several developing nanotechnologies could help improve imaging resolution and detection accuracy, and could deliver drugs more efficiently. There is even hope of multifunctional nanoparticles that can do all three at once.

Quantum dots have emerged as a leading player for imaging at the cellular and molecular level, and could help catch signs of cancer at the earliest stages. Quantum dots are tiny metal shells that glow under a simple light source – a single ultraviolet lamp, for example – allowing researchers to track them as they travel through a network of blood vessels or tissue. If a quantum dot wanders into a neighborhood of tumor cells, researchers will know the exact location of the growth and can take measures to treat it.

Nanoparticles could also deliver drugs to malignant cells while sparing the healthy, normal cells that they encounter. Most tumor cells have weak membranes, and some research has suggested that nanoparticles can squeeze through the blood vessels into the surrounding tissue. Drugs attached to the surface of the nanoparticle can be designed to activate when they are in a cancerous environment so normal cells are not killed in the process. Such accurate targeting would require a much smaller dose than in conventional treatments that require drugs to travel through the whole body.

“I’m not that optimistic,” says Hua Zhang, a post-doctoral associate at the University of Minnesota Cancer Center. “Quantum dots are a great method to use in vitro, but it would be a long way to go for humans.” Most quantum dots are made from heavy metals, which are known to be toxic inside the body. She also says that because of their size, nanoparticles might accumulate in the liver, spleen or bone marrow, and few groups have studied these long-term effects.

Although some researchers express concern, the public is actually more likely to accept nanotechnology when it comes to treating disease. According to several researchers, this has a lot to do with how the public perceives the benefits in relation to the risks. Kimbrell concedes that some risk is acceptable when it comes to treating cancer, because doing nothing or even using current treatments might not be successful. “Would I take the same risks for manufacturing lightweight tennis rackets? Probably not,” he says.

It also concerns scientists that most nanoparticles will likely end up somewhere in the environment. But no one is certain about what role they will play in an ecosystem over the long term. “This is a whole new class of environmental pollutants,” says Alvarez. Mark Wiesner, a civil and environmental engineering professor at Duke University, says that in order for a nanomaterial to be a risk, it must be exposed to the environment, have the ability to move through the environment, and present a potential hazard, such as toxicity, once it gets there. Alvarez says his group is taking a “proactive approach to risk management,” when it comes to manufacturing and disposing nanomaterials.

Risks aside, nanotechnology also has the potential to resolve environmental problems, promising cost-effective pollutant detection and removal, soil and water treatment, waste reduction in manufacturing, and especially more efficient energy sources to reduce consumption and emissions. “It would be irresponsible to turn our backs on what nanotechnology can do for the planet, but we need to proceed carefully,” says Wiesner.

The benefits and risks of nanotechnology must be balanced from a public perspective, and “it’s a difficult balance to strike,” says Andrew Maynard, the chief science advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. But new products and long-term safety studies “can be developed concurrently,” says Alvarez. “We have to be careful, not afraid.”

There is some debate over the exact role government should play in regulating nanotechnology. Groups like the CTA that call for overarching regulation, want a government agency to define nanotechnology, require manufacturers to label products containing nanomaterials, and address health and environmental impacts. ” I’d rather have my safety and my family’s safety rest on government determination,” says Kimbrell. Others, like Turco, “don’t think regulatory agencies can do anything.”

“First of all, nanotechnology is poorly defined,” says Wiesner. While nanotechnology technically refers to any material less than 100 nanometers, Wiesner questions whether there really is a difference between something that is 99 nanometers long and something that is 101 nanometers long. “Even if you could define a nanomaterial, how would you measure it?” he continues. There is no tool, for example, for measuring the concentration of nanoparticles in drinking water.

Both researchers and activists do agree, however, that testing methods should be more specific. Not only do nanomaterials act much differently than bulk materials, scientists say there are many parameters, including size, shape, composition, mobility, and surface chemistry that could play a part in determining the toxicity of a nanomaterial. “In order to revise or create new regulation, we must first understand the science,” says Maynard. They also agree that more funding is needed for safety and risk studies to recognize problems before they get out of hand. “As Americans, we tend to have a reactive rather than a proactive attitude, and that is reflected in the funding,” says Alvarez.

Nanotechnology is one of the first emerging technologies to have so much dialogue so early in the game, and this could help to avoid the mistakes of previous technologies that were surrounded by hype. “It is frightening, theoretically, what we might be able to do with it,” says Kimbrell. Others, like Alvarez, are more optimistic: “I think it will cure cancer. That is the holy grail.”

It’s finals time at Boston University, and student science journalists here are hard at work calling researchers and reading journal articles. As a way to pay my classmates tribute, here is a special post showcasing some of their work this semester. Below are excerpts from controversy features about nanotechnology, pharmacrops and biometrics. If you’re a student and have a science story that you’re proud of, e-mail me, and we can post it here or on the visitor contributions page.

“The Promise (and Potential Perils) of Nanotechnology” by Lauren Rugani

Asbestos was once heralded as a miracle material, only to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths. Genetically modified foods were supposed to cure world hunger, but ended up creating the first artificial cancer. Now, as nanotechnology promises improved consumer products, potential cancer therapies and a cleaner global environment, should we take a hint from the past and abandon all efforts, or should we give this emerging technology the benefit of the doubt as it grows into a trillion dollar industry?

Nanotechnology has grown steadily over the past few decades, but has also faced questions about its unforeseen and unintended health and environmental consequences. Because nanoparticles are so small – on the scale of one billionth of a meter – most of the atoms sit at the surface and are able to interact with other materials better than their bulk counterparts. However, the unique physical and chemical properties that make them so useful are also cause for concern, since relatively little is known about their long-term effects. continue reading…

“Farming Drugs: Playing with Pharmacrops” by Nuño Dominguez

Paul Christou’s corn may look ordinary, but inside each kernel is an ingredient found in no other corn crop in the world.

Christou, an expert in plant biochemistry working at Lleida University in Spain, has tweaked the genes of his corn so it produces 2G12, an antibody that blocks HIV infection. The research is part of a European project to use genetically modified plants to generate inexpensive drugs that could help developing countries fight infectious diseases on their own. In the United States, other researchers are also using plants to develop easy-to-use vaccines with an eye on poor countries. The philosophy of the transgenic plant researchers is clear: why manufacture a drug, when you can grow it? continue reading….

“The New Lunch Money: The Business of Biometrics in Schools” by Jeff Meredith

It’s becoming much tougher for the class bully to steal your lunch money these days. Thousand of schools in the US now allow students to pay for their meals by simply placing their index finger on a fingerprint scanner: a cashless system. But the growing use of biometrics in cafeterias has many parents and civil libertarians worried about identity theft and violation of children’s privacy. And their voices are being heard as many states are either banning fingerprint scanning in schools or requiring parental consent.

Biometrics, physical or behavioral characteristics of a person that can be measured and used for identification, were once relegated to spy thriller movies and classified government installations. Now they’re being used in schools for a variety of purposes: recording attendance, preventing unauthorized building access, and managing the checkout of library books. But most schools focus upon speeding up lunch lines; the rationale is that students may lose their ID cards or forget PIN numbers and slow down a transaction, but they can’t forget their index finger. continue reading…

Happy Earth Day from Science Metropolis. The holiday has taken on a new significance with growing awareness about global warming. Boston Mayor Menino is talking big about turning Beantown into Greentown, but is the city taking the right steps? Science journalist Lauren Rugani shares her thoughts:

In an effort to reduce carbon emissions, 28 cities around the world turned off their lights between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. on March 29, 2008. Although many Bostonians participated in this event, known as Earth Hour, the city of Boston did not publicly support the event.

Kudos, Boston.

Earth Hour organizers argue that the goal of the campaign is to raise awareness about the connection between energy use and climate change, not to boycott electricity. Unfortunately, many Boston residents interpreted the movement literally and are angry that Boston did not participate. One Boston.com discussion board displays numerous Earth Hour posts: “Boston should have invented it,” says one user; “Why make it one hour? Make it a week, then a month,” says another.

The problem with such organized, grand-scale events is that they receive too much media attention, while doing relatively little to actually help the environment. It’s time to stop “raising awareness” and time to start taking action that will make a difference – which is exactly what Boston is doing.

Popular Science magazine ranks Boston as the third greenest city in America, out of cities with populations over 100,000. The criteria for this ranking includes renewable electricity sources, public transportation, green spaces, and recycling programs. Boston and Cambridge (number six on the list) are the only places on the East Coast to make the top 15.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino and James W. Hunt, the Chief of Environmental and Energy Services, recently released a Climate Action Agenda and Executive Order that outlines goals for a greener Boston. Menino hopes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Since many emissions come from city buildings, all new developments must be certified by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System.

Menino also plans to purchase over 11% of the city’s electricity from renewable sources such as wind or solar power. City diesel vehicles run on low-sulfur fuel, school buses are retrofitted with technology to control pollution, and Boston sponsors the Clean Air CABS program, which offers rebates and tax credits to companies who drive electric, hybrid, or low-emission alternative fuel vehicles. Finally, the mayor aims to plant 100,000 new trees in Boston by 2030.

But the impact from these initiatives will take time. Unlike Earth Hour, the success of these programs cannot happen at the flick of a switch or be measured by a meter reading.

In the age of instant coffee, instant messages, and instant approvals, it’s no wonder that the instant gratification from Earth Hour was evident around the globe. But it’s not about the big things you can do once a year; it’s about the small things you can do every day. Buy more efficient lighting, shut off your computer overnight, and take the T to work. Be patient, Bostonians, and your efforts will be appreciated by generations to come.

Photo from iStockPhoto.

Andrew Bouley wraps his right knee with an ace bandage and gently lays an ice pack on top. He hopes he won’t be in too much pain come Monday morning, when he and over 200 other participants will run the Boston Marathon to raise money for the American Liver Foundation.

The Boston Marathon is considered one of the most prestigious road races in America, and competitors must qualify in order to enter. But for amateur runners and marathon first timers like Bouley, a 23-year old Brighton resident who has been training for less than six months, there is another option: do it for charity.

This year, teams representing 24 Boston charities will take their marks on the starting line in Hopkinton, Mass. Ten of these teams, including the group from the American Liver Foundation, will compete in the name of science. “I knew I wanted to run for a science or research-related charity,” said Bouley. “The American Liver Foundation accepted my application, so I went with them.”

Twenty years ago, five male runners got their participant numbers from the mayor’s office and together raised $5000 for the American Liver Foundation. The team has grown each year, and today boasts 248 runners that have pledged to raise more than $1 million. To date, marathoners have raised more than $11 million for the charity. “The Boston Marathon is by far the largest fundraising program for the American Liver Foundation nationwide,” said Laura Dempsey, a spokesperson for the foundation.

Each runner must raise at least $3000 to compete in the marathon. Bouley quickly figured out that donations from family and friends, while generous, would not be enough. So he got creative. With the help from pastry-savvy friends and coworkers, Bouley stocked a conference room with baked goods and hoped his colleagues liked dessert enough to help him reach his goal. “Whatever I didn’t sell in the conference room, I put on a cart and walked around with for the rest of the afternoon,” Bouley explained. People bought the treats for the suggested prices, but often threw in a few extra dollars. In the end, the bake sale raked in over $600.

Bouley also set up an office pool, where bidders filled out squares based on when they think he will cross the finish line, right down to the minute. “I don’t think it will raise very much money,” said Bouley, but he is glad that everyone has gotten involved. “I update them with time stats and injury reports, and they bet accordingly,” he joked. “Some guy even made his own square that says ‘Does not finish.’”

But Bouley intends to finish, both because it has always been a personal goal of his, and because he has made physical and personal sacrifices to train for the event. He pushes aside other activities, like skiing and going out with friends, to focus on running. The American Liver Foundation offers its runners a free training program, and they get together on Saturday mornings to run together. They recently completed a 21-mile run along the marathon course, stopping just after Heartbreak Hill, the most notorious leg of the race.

The charity also gives its runners the option of meeting patients with liver disease, which Bouley says is a good source of motivation. “My knees might hurt, but some of these people are dying,” he said solemnly. Dempsey adds that it is a “terrific part of the program, because it gives the runners a face to put with the cause.”

The American Liver Foundation holds a reunion party a few weeks after the race, to congratulate the runners and give them a chance to exchange stories and experiences. But Bouley sums up his own post-marathon plans in one word: “Rest.”

To help Bouley reach his $3,500 goal, visit Andrew Bouley’s Fundraising Page.

Story by Lauren Rugani. Photo by Austin Cho.

March was a slow month for news.
There wasn’t a lot to peruse.
Except a robot in space,
And a skeleton’s face,
Science did not have much of a muse.

Unless you count blood going bad,
And dying trees making experts sad.
There was little, you know…
Some bacteria in snow,
And turns out stretching was only a fad.

Science wasn’t altogether removed.
The thermoelectric effect was improved.
Watch out for pacemakers at risk,
Polyps shaped like disks,
And climate skeptics with something to prove.

– by Joseph Caputo and Lauren Rugani

- by Lauren Rugani

Cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope and victim: these are the seven words you shouldn’t use in medical news, according to veteran medical reporter Gary Schwitzer. He believes that these words, like the seven words George Carlin claims you can’t say on television, should be “taboo terms” in the media. Unlike Carlin’s words, none of them rhyme with duck.These are familiar and, with the exception of ‘victim,’ feel-good words that communicators use to report health and medical news. Schwitzer describes the words as ill-defined and unfocused, and warns consumers to be wary of them because “they mean different things to different audiences.”

Communicators and consumers should also exercise caution for the reverse – the use of science to embellish the ordinary. A term that means one thing to a scientist might take on an entirely new meaning for the layperson. Such misuse of scientific language, intentional or not, can lead to a false sense of validation and might dupe consumers into trusting information more readily.

Although my list does not have seven words, here are a few suggestions for science terms that should be used cautiously by communicators and read carefully by consumers:

Organic. The current obsession with (and wallet dumping for) everything organic needs to be put to an end. Food has been organic – that is, carbon-based – long before the rise of farmers’ markets and Whole Foods. Now, according to Merriam-Webster, the term has come to mean food produced without chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides. There is nothing wrong with wanting to ingest more “natural” meats and vegetables, but organic cheese puffs? A line must be drawn somewhere; simply labeling something organic gives consumers a false impression that it is good – or at least slightly better – for them. ‘Organic’ needs to be taken out of the supermarkets and saved for more appropriate uses, like the organic light emitting diode television screens that might someday grace the walls of family rooms everywhere.

Conservation. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another, and that the net energy loss in an isolated system is zero. Yet in a 1997 educational pamphlet, the Environmental Protection Agency describes energy conservation as helping to “endure resources for the future.” First of all, that sentence doesn’t even make sense. Furthermore, if efforts were perhaps switched from energy conservation to energy preservation, we might actually convince policy makers to do something that would help to slow the depletion of natural resources.Quantum leap. The phrase “quantum leap” can be found in news stories covering anything from economics to athletics – everywhere except where it truly belongs. The common meaning of quantum leap has taken, in its new context, a “quantum leap” away from its original definition. In science, the term quantum leap describes the instantaneous and discontinuous jump of an electron to another energy state within an atom, which results in the emission of electromagnetic radiation. But many people use the term to describe a large and abrupt change as the result of some action. A recent article in the New York Sun quoted the CEO of the Partnership for New York City, Kathryn Wylde, saying that Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s control has been a “quantum leap forward” for New York City.

There are several problems with this (and nearly every other) quantum leap analogy. First, for an electron to perform a quantum leap it must receive exactly the right amount of energy – it won’t jump halfway or lean toward a new energy state. Since there is no way to quantify mayoral control in New York City, it is hard to say exactly when the state of the city changed, but clearly it was neither instantaneous nor discontinuous. Second, a quantum leap has an output, usually in some form of radiation like light. What is the output of mayoral control? Finally, a quantum leap need not be very large or even significant – a true quantum leap covers a distance less than one-millionth the width of a human hair. It would be hard to recognize and harder to praise a quantum leap in a city that covers over 300 square miles.

Scientifically proven. This is probably the most dangerous example of false scientific validation, especially when used for something as subjective as a lifestyle choice. A 2006 study looked at the ability of teenage girls to notice deceptive claims in weight loss advertisements. While most girls questioned the before-and-after picture approach, less than one fifth of the 42 participants thought that claiming something was ‘scientifically proven’ was deceptive. This is not surprising, say the researchers, because “most consumers rarely question the advice of their doctors.” The young girls saw the lab coat-clad man as a sign of the product’s credibility.

Another example is eHarmony’s claim to set you up with your soul mate based on a “scientifically proven” matching system. To determine something as personal and individualized as a life-long relationship, this type of computer software program must border on artificial intelligence, something that has puzzled scientists for decades. The glue that holds one couple together might be toxic to another. And what will you tell your children when they ask how you knew your spouse was your soul mate – “Because the computer screen said so?” Cupid’s play is better left to a meddlesome best friend or a nosy great aunt.

Although some of these words raise more ethical issues than others, a general rule should be to avoid using scientific terminology where it is not warranted. Foods might sound less attractive labeled as “antibiotic free” instead of “organic” and simple advancements might not sound as extraordinary as quantum leaps, but it would be of great service to everyone involved if science was not used as a marketing tool.

(2/8/08)

A look at Boston from morning to night by Lauren Rugani, a graduate student at Boston University’s Center for Science Journalism. The song is “As Serious as your Life” by Four Tet.

Articles, commentaries, pictures and videos related to Boston and/or science by you the visitor.To see your work posted here e-mail Joseph Caputo.

Opinions

“Biofuels: An Alternative Source of Pollution” by Aspasia Daskalopoulou (2/20/08)

“The Semantics of Science” by Lauren Rugani (2/8/08)

“Straight from the Tap: Alcohol and Breastfeeding” by Natalia Mackenzie (2/20/08)

Features

“The 100-Mile Diet” by Nuño Dominguez (10/6/08)

“Can Organic Farming Feed the World?” by Aspasia Daskalopoulou (5/9/08)

“Farming Drugs: Playing with Pharmacrops” by Nuño Dominguez (4/26/08)

“Sounds of the City” by Jeff Meredith (6/2/08)

“The New Lunch Money: The Business of Biomentrics in Schools” by Jeff Meredith (4/26/08)

“The Promise (and Potential Perils) of Nanotechnolgy” by Lauren Rugani (4/26/08)

Profiles

“Psychologist Finds Therapeutic Role for Family Dinners” by Aspasia Daskalopoulou (7/7/08)

Videos

“Aging Young Rebel: A Boston Music Video” by Nuño Domínguez and Natalia Mackenzie (3/11/08)

“As Serious As Your Life: A Boston Music Video” by Lauren Rugani (3/11/08)

“Canon: A Boston Music Video” by Aspasia Daskalopoulou and Janet Stalker (3/11/08)