An Indian Scientist Contributes

The July 2010 Issue of the Scientific American (India) has its first Indian contributor - at least to my knowledge.
The author of the article Following the Arrow of Time (an article on how String Theory might explain the assymetry of time) is Gautam Mandal. He is a theoretical scientist at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR). And though his post doctorate is from Princeton, he did his Phd from TIFR. In other words, a proper home grown Indian scientist.
Pity his article does not appear in the international edition of the Scientific American. Nevertheless, an occassion to celebrate.
Now I am sure, publishing an article in the Scientific American is not the pinnacle of scietific achievement. Nevertheless, it is important to communicate to the lay reader cutting edge science. The last Indian to do so effectively - to my knowledge - is Jayant Narlikar.

Amusing Science

The most amusing read in the Scientific American is their regular feature called 50, 100 & 150 Years Ago. It is a compilation of what appeared in this very magazine so many years ago. Some of them make a very interesting read, such as this one ... It is called Electric Theory and appeared in the magazine in April 1860.

The results of the experiments instituted by Sir William Grove are exceedingly curious, and must be regarded as all but proving the truth of the modern theory, which assumes that electricity is not, in any sense, a material substance but only an affection (state) or motion of the particles of ordinary matter. If electricity is unable to pass over or through a vacuum, it is probable that all other so-called imponderable forces - light, heat, magnetism, and possibly attraction - obey the same law, and as these agencies freely travel the interplanetary spaces, the supposition of Newton that such spaces may be filled with an ethereal form of matter receives an indirect but powerful support.

Note the flow of 'logic' here: an experiment on the nature of electricity is extrapolated by using "probable" and finally an assertion - "powerful support". Now, it is not clear if this logic was proposed by Sir William Grove or the reported who put together the article, though I have a very good idea about it.

We may laugh about it now. But the fact remains that science progresses by propounding and then challenging hypothesis. One wonders 150 years from today, what will seem so comical. Dark matter, Dark Energy, Environmental debate? Any guesses?

Greenhouse Gases - Not The Only Force At Work

More Greenhouse gases in atmosphere, more the global warming.
Reduce the production of Greenhouse gases, reduce global warming.
Gives us a sense of control - however little - over climate, doesn't it?
Well if things were that easy.
The April 2010 issue of The Scientific American has news for you.
But first the conclusion in words of geoscientist Jeffery Dorale, "Greenhouse gases are clearly important to climate, but just as clearly they are not the only major forces at work."
Here's the piece of news ...

... [A] team of geologists conclude that, compared to today, sea levels were roughly one meter higher 81,000 years ago, when the world was thought to be experiencing an ice age that should have locked up water in glacial ice, which should have lowered sea level as much as 30 meters. ... What might have caused the sea-level climb remains unclear ... One thing is certain, however: the finding points to how complex the earth's climate is.

Hmmm.... Looks like the Climate Debate is not all shut and sealed up.
Just wondering .. Let's assume we drastically reduce production of the Greenhouse gases, suck out the Greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, stabilize or reverse the apparent global warming. And then discover that we have actually started something else. What if all our actions actually goes to destabilize the climate in ways we have no clue about?

After all the whole rigamarole is about making the climate suitable for human existence. Do you think the Earth give a s**t about whether humans survive or not?

Worst Case Scenarios

"If the worst-case scenario played itself out - not the potential or likely, but the worst - would that be acceptable?"
This is the advise that James M. Wilson offers clinical scientists. This comes from experience of the saddest kind. In 1999, James M. Wilson was the head of the institute that ran a gene therapy experiment that resulted in death of a 18 year old boy. (See! That's the thing. You get to hear a lot about the miracles of stem cell therapy. How many times have you heard voices of sanity that says, "Slow down! Reflect!") - you can read all about it; just click on the link above.
If you think about it, the above warning is applicable to all those who are in the position to influence. Whether it is IPCC, or World Leaders, or CEO of a company, or a Project Manager or a Parent. The question remains the same: Would the worst-case scenario be acceptable to you?
One might argue that this could lead to paralytic inaction. On the other hand, this could well turn out to be the basis of meaningful, positive action.

Of Antibiotics and Myths

You go to a doctor with fever. He recommends a blood test and then scribbles out a almost-undecipherable prescription of an antibiotic course.
But wait, have you ever thought what these antibodies are?
I certainly didn't.
Not until I came across this in the September 2009 issue (Yeah! I know. I am running late) of Scientific American India: "Most medically important antibiotics come from soil bacteria. Conventional wisdom holds that dirt microbes evolved these compounds as lethal weapons in the fierce battle waged beneath out feet for food and territory."
This Special Issue of the Scientific American is one of the best in recent years. It covers the origins of as diverse a topic as The Mind to Ball Bearings to Scotch Tape to Computing. In other words, a treasure trove for those who like their information in small packages.
I think it is possible to order back issues. Try your luck here and see if they still have a copy for you.
Before I leave you another snippet: "A popular factoid claims that water running down a drain turns in one direction in the Southern Hemisphere and the opposite in the Northern Hemisphere. The idea is a myth: although the Coriolis force is strong enough to direct the winds of hurricanes when acting over hundreds of miles for days, it is far too weak to stir a small bowl of water in the scant seconds the water takes to run down the drain." And I have been teaching my sons all the wrong things.